"Sometimes the prospect of operating with levity is and transparency is scarier than operating with clutter, commotion and chaos." John Cutler The work of corporate 'L&D' inevitably reflects the system  within which they operate. What is currently important to L&D teams is a measure of what is important to the leaders who own the system.  If leaders are committed to change the system  - to deliberately enable a new way of working and thinking to emerge, then the role and expectations of an L&D team would change to reflect this. Their new goal statements might then include: “To enable and accelerate organisational growth” “To enable competitive advantage”   “To accelerate the culture and the capacity to solve new challenges”   “To shift focus from learning events to continual learning”   “To build capacity and conditions for innovation and performance improvement”   “To create the conditions for personalised learning”   “To provide context, curate opportun

"That is why the discipline of managing mental models - surfacing, testing, and improving our internal pictures of how the world works - promises to me a major breakthrough for building learning organisations." Peter M. Senge In most organisations the approach to enabling performance is implicit, vague, and generic. In many cases, there is a comfortable separation between work, performance, and learning.  In order to challenge assumptions and priorities on all sides, capability professionals have to put their mental models out where others can see them. Based on typical organisational capability strategies and tactics, these current mental models seem to include: 'We believe providing access to 'resources' materially changes how well people perform. This is how we measure and demonstrate this:' 'We believe attendance to training courses is the primary source improving an individuals' performance in their role. This is how we measure that impact:'

“Important difference: Training and skills growth in organisations where the main point is to maintain the leader/led dichotomy versus in organisations seeking to collapse it.” Charles Lambdin 10 new ways to assess your current organisational learning strategy: Proportion of investment in learning with the goal of process deployment and standardisation? Proportion of investment in learning with the goal of increasing individual and team autonomy? Proportion of investment in “just to stand still” capabilities? Proportion investment in genuinely new capabilities for the organisation? Proportion of investment in unique capabilities that will differentiate the organisation? Proportion of investment in mandatory / compliance / regulatory responsibilities? Correlation between level of learning technology investment and development as a learning organisation? Strength of alignment between brand and business goals and learning goals? Extent to which ‘more access to content’ and ‘more consumpti

"Systems are based on worldviews. That's why they cannot be changed with the worldview with which they were created." Rebecca Vehling Language is important if we are seeking to enable change in complex organisations. Sharpening our language confirms the level of our ambition and helps with accountability. If we aren't all clear on what we really mean then expectations can be miss-set and people can hide.  There are a number of common terms in the organisational learning / change space that are increasingly vague and interchangeable. This vagueness reinforces the status quo by routing people back to the simplest, most comfortable approach. In order to be a) helpful and, b) provoke challenge and reflection, I've set out my own definitions below: "Organisational Development": Common meaning: A short hand for providing a curriculum of 'courses and resources'; (digital or otherwise). What it could mean: Deliberately enabling the (new?) connected sy