Clearer language helps confirm our level of ambition

"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 system* required for people and the organisation to fulfil their potential.

"Organisational Capability":

Common meaning: A short hand for providing a curriculum of 'courses and resources'; (digital or otherwise).

What it could mean: The (new?) mindset, operating model, and aligned success metrics needed to transition to a sustainable, growth oriented organisation.

"Learning Strategy":

Common meaning: A short hand for providing a curriculum of 'courses and resources'; (digital or otherwise).

What it could mean: The deliberate choices and trade offs we are making to achieve our specific goals. Features of a learning (enablement) strategy could include diagnosis (of our current context and unmet opportunities), guiding principles and coherent actions.

"Learning Organisation":

Common meaning: A short hand for providing a curriculum of 'courses and resources'; (digital or otherwise).

What it could mean:  Facilitating the transition ('transformation') of the organisation by deliberately designing a system* that enables ongoing development and adaptation.

"Learning Culture":

Common meaning: A short hand for providing a curriculum of 'courses and resources'; (digital or otherwise).

What it could mean: The outcome of deliberately enabling, accelerating and rewarding a system* where higher performance through continual learning is the shared goal.

* 'system' = the environments, processes, structures and resulting cultures within which individuals operate. 


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

The human stuff is the basis of 'digital learning transformations'...

The human stuff is the basis of 'digital learning transformations'. The technology platforms are secondary. They work best when: They help to simplify or speed up what people have always done while working; (research / answer questions / share / store) They enable people to work in new ways that they have learned are more efficient and effective; (cooperatively / 'out loud' / across different teams) A 'digital mindset' for businesses could include these ideas: Constant change is inescapable - so it's curiosity and adaptability that create value in work teams New possibilities and solutions come from connecting many sources of information People can take responsibility for solving work problems Failing fast is helpful Creating wide and diverse networks of expertise and experience is crucial Customer ('end user') centricity keeps everyone better aligned Silos don't help Flatter, less hierarchical teams move ideas and solutions
Read more

Why organisations resist thinking of themselves as connected 'systems'

“In a world of separation and domination, systems thinking is subversive.” Dr Elizabeth Sawin The key to improving the work of organisations - and the contributions of the people in them - is to look at them as connected 'systems'. (Put another way, because improving the performance of individual silos won’t make the overall performance of the organisation any better). However nobody seems to want to do this. So, who’s resisting systems thinking? Executives don’t want it because means questioning the current mindset and behaviours that have brought them status and ‘results’ Individual managers don’t want it because they assume it threatens their control over their local silos L&D / HR don’t want it because their remit does not extent to the organisation, as its still rooted in the ‘performance’ of individuals (and occasionally, specific teams). And employees don't want it because they often don’t care / need to care about the overall organisation.
Read more

"The future of corporate Learning and Development" debate is five different things

"Pushing fancy new stuff onto your organisation will not change the outcomes if that is not emerging from your system itself, through the ripening of a different worldview." Stelio Verzera The perennial topic  of "The future of corporate Learning and Development" is always everywhere. This ' Shirky Principle ' fuels and sustains the status quo and the players that continue to benefit from it. I'd argue that the discussion is in fact five very   different conversations happening in parallel, but unequally distributed. They are - in current descending order of noise, ambition and opportunity: 1. 'MAKE THE TRAINING BETTER'. The status quo. The economic model. Dependent on maintaining the belief that educating individual workers changes the system through which complex, interconnected organisations perform. This narrative is carefully preserved by (mostly) commercial vendors who have filled the strategy vacuum. New technologies, new (and old) instruc
Read more