Are L&D teams set up to operate as 'franchisees'?

"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 organisation as a whole

2. Reshape the ratio of enabling productive learning (to support current business process) vs. enabling generative learning (creating space expectation and space for people and teams to develop new things) across the organisation

3. Reshape the ratio of support to enable and improve 'standardised' work vs. 'complex' work vs. 'innovation work' across the organisation

4. Reshape the ratio of support focused on improving organisational efficiency vs. improving organisational adaptability

5. Reshape the ratio of focus and effort on (a) aligning (to realise the benefits of consistency), (b) enabling (individuals and / or teams to go somewhere new), (c) disrupting (to challenge the status quo)

6. Reshape the ratio of enabling new learning through experiences vs. exposure to new people vs. education (training).