Systemically incompatible

"This allows executives to claim a focus on systems while still penalising individual contributors, thereby circumventing any meaningful systemic interrogation. This also conveniently negates leader responsibility for the very system they are in fact responsible for, simply by virtue of happening to be the ones in charge."

Charles Lambdin

Commercial vendors in corporate learning (inevitably) trade in improving individual parts on the system:

'Improve your 'Learning needs analysis''

'Stop taking orders'

'Provide more performance support'

'Stop creating e-learning modules'

'Improve your measurement - no more 'happy sheets''

'Upgrade your Learning Management System to a Learning Experience Platform'

'Use the right data'

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

The reality is these individual interventions are usually incompatible with the existing system and so fail to take hold and scale. If we can step back from allowing vendors to fill the strategy vacuum, we might see that:

A focus on performance is an outcome of a deliberate shift in the system

The system is wholly owned by leaders

Leader's are often driven by maintaining their status and so self preservation

Leaders' world views shape their choice of policies, procedures, incentives, rewards, measurement, investment choices and priorities

Policies, procedures, incentives, rewards, measurement, investment choices and priorities are interconnected and shape systems

Cultures reflect systems. 


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

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 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

'Talent' is now a catch all term

"Bureaucracy is a construction designed to maximise the distance between a decision-maker and the risk of the decision." Nicholas Taleb In most organisations 'Talent' and its 'Management' are now bureaucratic terms. They typically cover one or more of the following: 'Talent': A more socially acceptable word for 'employees'. An employee defined by leaders as of more value to the organisation than other employees, based on the definitions of 'valuable' that leaders have decided to use. 'Talent Management': Acknowledgement of an employees' potential (although not currently being fully realised). Encouraging people to join the organisation (recruitment) - new people that leaders think will do the things that need to be done in the way leaders want them done. Reassigning existing employees to new roles (internal job moves) - to do the things that leaders need to be done in the way leaders want them done. Grouping employees agains...
Read more