"Command-and-control managers like to buy change by training and projects, unaware that change really requires changing the system and unaware that that means first being prepared to change the way they think about the design and management of work."  John Seddon (I’m reflecting if many corporate L&D teams feel they are ‘stuck’ and if not, what might prompt them to reconsider?). I see three common characteristics of L&D teams that have limited impact on changing the organisation: 1. ‘Order taker’ positioning  The basis of the work of most L&D teams is ‘content’. Developing content, managing access to content, curating content, marketing content, tracking consumption of content. Inevitably, the work involves project and program management, reporting, governance and administration. A 'content as the strategy' philosophy and the mindset and infrastructure that grows up around this inevitably reinforces an ‘order taker’ positioning.  2. ‘Tactics first’ default

"Addiction is finding a quick and dirty solution to the symptom of the problem, which prevents or distracts one from the harder and long-term task of solving the real problem." Donellea H. Meadows The positioning of the 'L&D' function' as a 'provider of branded products and services' limits its value. As business models and their resulting work cultures shift away from bureaucracy, the role of 'L&D' as 'training order taker' and curriculum manager / marketer is increasingly disconnected from how valuable change is enabled. L&D leaders can choose to challenge the entrenched approach and process through which their priorities are defined - and play a more strategic, and impactful role with the organisation. Six alternative framings to replace 'training order taking' might include: 1. Reshape the ratio of focus and investment on (only) developing the potential of individuals vs. developing connected teams vs. the organisat