Lack of L&D impact is designed in

"Manufactured urgency is one way entrenched power defends against systemic change. If everyone is rushing around, they lack the capacity to reflect, analyse, and organise."

Erika Hall

The are two perennial features of the status quo in corporate learning and development:

'Needing to prove our impact.

and

'Needing to show we align to the business.

I'd argue that these two challenges are in fact features of the way the overall L&D system is still designed - they're not 'bugs'.

These two symptoms are inevitable, because the L&D business model is designed to prevent alternative outcomes. 

Here's the proof:

'Learning' is still defined as something that happens away from work.

Which informs team structures and leadership appointments (group think).

So L&D and leaders are unable  / unwilling to frame their thinking around:

- performance gaps

- performance standards in context of the work required

- task competence

- outputs. 

(Which is why the 'Skills first' mania takes hold - whereas skills should be derived from specific performance expectations).

Which means the path of least resistance currency for 'learning' is 'products':

- courses

- programmes

- 'content'. 

(Generic, individual education based, not applicable in context).

Which inevitably require 'marketing' and 'engagement driving' activities - to convince people these 'products' are worthwhile investments of time away from their work.

Which reinforces the need to measure only:

- activity (how many people came / completed) 

and

- reaction ('was it enjoyable?').

Repeat.

Repeat.

Repeat.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

Why organisations resist thinking of themselves as connected 'systems'

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