"The major source of performance is human agency"

 

"The major source of performance is human agency: the capacity, ability and willingness for individuals to act."

Celine Schillinger

In my work I see a pattern of four ingrained systemic barriers to human agency:

An entrenched definition of "performance" linked to compliance and 'fit'

An over focus on individual performance 

"Productivity" only = "deliver and execute"

Operational silos limiting exposure to new ideas and connections


 

I work as a thinking partner and advisor with mid sized, value oriented companies going through significant change. I help you to build new capability and mindsets through shifting your approach to organisational development.

Comments

Post a Comment

Please let me know your thoughts on this...

Popular posts from this blog

Corporate 'Learning and Development' is over-indexed

"Beware of programs. By definition, they end. Continuous improvement, on the other hand, never ends." Geary Rummler 'Over-indexed' can be defined as ' over-emphasising or over-weighting a specific factor, at the expense of others, potentially leading to illogical conclusions .' The corporate 'L&D' industry and its potential for positive, sustainable, performance impact is massively over-indexed.   Put another way, focusing on the performance of individuals (through training for example) has limited potential to improve outcomes and so should be employed sparingly; (only in specific circumstances to which it is suited, e.g. for a new role or when performance expectations change). Performance problems are almost always a result from failures within the overall work system: Unclear expectations Inconsistent feedback loops that confirm expectations are being met Poorly designed processes Poorly managed processes Insufficient / ineffective tools Insuff...
Read more

Breaking the familiar cycle of the way that Learning and Development teams operate in corporate organisations

There is a familiar cycle for the way that many L&D teams operate in corporate organisations. The common recipe includes: 1. The organisation hasn't defined the role and priority of 'learning'; (i.e. to accelerate change, move the work culture, improve individual and team performance, enable the business strategy) 2. The L&D team (who are unable to influence the'Why?') get stuck as reactive training order takers 3. Ideas get watered down through rounds of 'pleasing the teacher' meetings resulting in 'Learning programs' and 'Learning solutions'; (interchangeable words for ease of political passage) 4. 'Learning programs' are a drain on time / costs / interest for everyone; (especially for 'busy people' on the 'front line' doing the 'real work') 5. Measurement of benefits from 'Learning programs' is difficult / negligible / hard to keep people's attention on 6. As the work performance i...
Read more

Corporate Learning and Development is trapped by its own adopted language

"Where we all think alike, no-one thinks much at all" Walt Whitman It's interesting to reflect on the the industrial structures and bureaucratic language now adopted by many corporate 'L&D' teams: "Learning solution" "Learning program" "Learning delivery plan" "Learning implementation" "Capability framework" "Learning requirements" "Skills matrices" "Learning deployment activities" "Learning objectives tracking" "Learning measurement framework" This narrative reinforces a view of "learning" which is functionally structured and centrally controlled. I believe L&D's ongoing quest to be accepted as bona fide function has driven this shift in language. The choice to align with what is familiar and expected by senior leaders, in particular Management's apparent interest in only what can be "measured". Here are som...
Read more