"A lack of transformative change cannot be compensated by working harder (or funding harder) at incremental change." Dr Elizabeth Sawin I'd argue there are only two types of 'transformative' ambition in 'corporate learning': 1. Actively working to change the environment. This means L&D leaders deliberately working and lobbying to change a current organisational system which limits continual learning and performance potential.  This is hard, (inevitably) politically dangerous, and brave work. It requires a systemic perspective and a willingness to move as far and as fast as needed with leaders who will typically resist.  (What limits continual learning in most organisations - where 'learning' is re-defined beyond education - are choices of policies, processes, incentives, rewards, and measurement).  Where changing the environment is too much, too soon - or clearly futile: 2. Actively working to re-set design standards to maximise performance i

"You can change the way people get what they want. Or you can change what they want." Seth Godin As we head into another 'strategic planing' season for corporate L&D teams, it's worth reflecting that their previous efforts have never changed what most organisational leaders want from them: Familiarity Control Certainty 'Delivered' through: Project plans Content and comms. Events A separation between 'learning' and working To ensure: No direct impact on leaders' own chosen priorities...

"The biggest obstacles are internal." Shane Parrish Here are some new questions for annual 'L&D' planning season: Are the challenges for our organisation technical or adaptive (or both)? What are the specific features of 'readiness' for our organisation? How much of the value we create for customers is from known, stable, work and processes? Is this changing? How fast? How much time and resource is invested in asking new questions and identifying new possibilities? Is this deliberate? Do people always fulfil their potential here? Why? Do we trust our employees? How willing are we to change what we do now - to get to where we say we want to be instead?

"All change must start in the heads and thinking of managers. Unfortunately, this is unusual. Systems thinking is necessary. Unfortunately, silo thinking and suboptimisation are still the norm." Jan Jensrud Most leaders view their organisation in the 'technical' paradigm. Put simply, their business is a set of processes and structures (however poorly defined) which can be improved by 'fixing' or 'changing' in some way.  In this model, leaders are (inevitably) assumed to be the 'experts' and so the focus of the work beneath them is on executing their plans. Organisational development initiatives are (inevitably) approached in the same way. This breeds the default diet of centralised programmes, a focus on individuals, compliance, 'topics' (AKA 'skills'), content creation, and 'success' measured through activity (course completions) and reaction ('smile sheets'). First fact: The choice of management model determine