'Lamentably, business remains grounded in a slow-to-change mid-twentieth century 'scientific management' zeitgeist. What we have learned from the sciences since then - emergence and complexity, network science, and behavioural economics readily come to mind - has only made the slightest dent in how businesses are run. The fact is, despite what we have learned in the last 100 years about the world and human nature, businesses are organised around the premises and principles that are, at best, arbitrary vestiges of bronze-age hierarchies, and, at the worst, mechanisms intended to coerce and control the majority for the benefit of the few. As Clay Shirky once wrote, institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.' Stowe Boyd I think this quote is such a beautiful summary of my own thinking and indirectly, the overall theme of this blog over the past six years.  A recent family bereavement and some time away have found me reflecting more deeply...

"For training to work it has to match the work." Nick Lawrence Most corporate training includes everything that leaders and 'stakeholders' need to feel 'off the hook'. So, 'learning' 'products' or 'modules' will include: - Content (text) lifted from a Policy document - Content (information) already published on an internal intranet site - Process flows and procedures; (found in the Policy document or internal intranet site) - Questions with answers; (that can be found in the Policy document or internal intranet site) - Elements favoured by the 'gut feel' of leaders; (which help to get the 'product' or 'module' approved...). When choosing to invest in a formal training 'solution' - rather than exploiting more effective ways to enable people to learn - the fundamental characteristics should only be: Designed with performance improvement as the goal; (not 'completion' or, 'enjoyment') Form...

"It is not an intelligent strategy to train people to overcome system deficiencies. Instead, we should design the system properly to make sure that performers can leverage all their capabilities." Klaus Wittkhun One of the key features of the (deliberately) disconnected status quo model for corporate learning is the resulting 'blind hand offs'. To recap: The approach to 'learning' remains separated from 'work' - with a myopic focus on formal courses and 'resources' (education) This separation is facilitated and incentivised by people who reply on the status quo (leaders, vendors, and L&D teams and their annual budgets) This approach is fundamentally anti-systemic. ( If we acknowledge, investigate, and commit to adjust all the connected factors that contribute to individual and team performance we might conclude that most of the formal learning agenda and investment contributes very little. ..) So the output of the formal learning agenda dev...

"Long term thinking eliminates a lot of poor behaviour." Shane Parish  Typical status quo questions that corporate L&D team still (only) have to satisfy: 1. Is 'a solution' available to people? 2. Have people completed 'the solution'? 3. Was 'the solution' provided as expected? (= familiar) 4. Was 'the solution' well perceived?

"Busy-ness and mock management is a cover for our inability to address the real issues." Sarah Hall One for senior execs. to check with their L&D leaders and their budgeting and impact plans: Valid reasons to create more / new 'learning resources': 1. To provide a realistic opportunity for the worker to practice agreed performance standards (application) or 2. Provide a helpful reference that can be used by the worker at the point of need (when memorisation isn't required). Everything else is (probably) performative busy work.  

"We have to stop conservative views being presented as a valid alternative to progressive views. The opposite of progressive is regressive." Rob England The status quo of corporate learning has two defining features: 1. A single minded focus on formal learning 'solutions' 2. Formal learning 'solutions' that aren't focused on performance improvement. The (inevitable) result is more battery farmed, narrow and unimaginative ideas. Reinforcing to what is expected and 'normal'. (I worked with a multinational organisation once with senior leaders who asked ' Why on earth would we provide employees with books to read? - that's not 'L&D's' job .').

" The purpose of an organisation is to enable its members to achieve better together than they can apart. " Rob England What many (most) organisations need to achieve 'better together': A recognition of interconnectedness  A focus on enabling environments conducive to ideas and contribution from all  More openness to uncertainty and ambiguity Clarity of deliberate strategic choices - and their associated trade offs Leadership as accountability for indentifying and facilitating people to fulfil their potential  Diversity as creating value from people's experience and ideas  What many (most) organisations do instead : Incentivise and reward individual contribution Trade in busyness and solutionism Linear thinking (the path of least resistance) Leadership as status and directing Reward transacting and compliance. 

"The problem of people not working together won't be solved by interventions such as team-working, participation, empowerment programmes and the like, for one simple reason: it is the system that governs behaviour." John Seddon  The corporate education model enabled by 'L&D' teams is structurally 'product' led: Training courses Development programmes 'Interventions' 'Learning' 'content' / content libraries. This mindset, and its supporting infrastructure and operating model of: received 'learning objectives' course design 'engagement and marketing' efforts measurement of activity and reaction (noise). All inevitably reinforce the separation between 'Learning' and enabling the specific standards required for work and its outputs (performance). But here's the rub - once we acknowledge that the answers for performance change are always systemic and emergent - then the whole corporate education super ...

"In other words, if already processing information in biased ways, the new information is just more fuel for the fire. Further, if the new information dis-confirms current beliefs, this will often trigger defense mechanisms. When conflicting evidence generates cognitive dissonance, people will often argue against it just to make themselves feel better. They may the even rehearse better defenses against future such challenges to their views." Charles Lambdin If a leader's world views have been shaped by a transactional focus on process 'delivery', dutifully reacting, and standardisation - then only training programs will continue to appeal. And, if a leader's world views have been shaped by the belief that they should 'drive results' and 'hold people to account', then the idea that others (the 'L&D' team, or the 'People Capability' team) are responsible for enabling performance will not appeal.  (And so reinforce corporate L...

"Changing people and putting them back in the same environment is not transformative" John Atkinson Three examples of policy and process (systemic) changes needed to enable a transition to a ' Skills led ' organisation: 1. Resetting the expectations - and enabling processes, incentives and rewards for every line manager towards enabling the application of new skills in context: - Providing opportunities to practice (and fail) - Providing space for ongoing reflection on the application of the new skills - Providing space for ongoing, two-way feedback on the application of the new skills - Defining and evolving new performance expectations for their team members - ' what outcomes do we want as new skills are applied in practice in the work? ' 2. Deriving 'skills' definitions from the performance requirements of a role (i.e. applying the skills to perform actions  ('performance standards') in the right context to produce outputs to achieve agreed...

"The biggest obstacles are internal." Shane Parrish Examples of operational principles for a 'Capability' / 'Learning' team might include: We exist to enable performance change We actively contribute to systems change (because we believe developing individuals and returning them to the same environment is pointless) We identify, acknowledge, and remove the current barriers to organisational learning Our work is focused on defining, enabling and measuring application of required performance standards We enable transition and growth by exploiting all the ways in which people learn and develop themselves We balance focus (time, effort, budget) between productive learning (what we know and do now) and generative learning (conditions / thinking we'll need to enable to move forward sustainably) We believe learning comes from working and connecting and so formal interventions are always the exception.

"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 competenc...