I’ve read a few pieces this week that are reaffirming my thoughts that L&D has to change.
Firstly, this article by Barry Sampson at Onlignment is great as it stresses the need for L&D to partner up with business. I saw Barry present at an event last year and our thoughts are in parallel – I’ve been saying it for ages and wrote recently about how collaboration is something we need to do more of.
Secondly, there was a discussion going on in a Linkedin group. The subject is
What groundrules do you seek from participants before the course starts?
The conversation seems to have moved from participant owned, through Transactional Analysis and Parent/Adult/Child states to the use of clean language. At time of writing 54 comments are playing tennis with the subject along the lines of
‘You need ground rules’
‘No you don’t’
You need ground rules’
‘No you don’t’
Lastly, I also saw this great piece by the ever interesting Charles Jennings who stresses the need for L&D to be fluid and nimble.
I think the comparisons between the failure of Blockbuster and the threat to L&D are striking. Let’s think about one of those groups:
- They let people use their product on the group’s terms.
- The consumer doesn’t own the product.
- The product is tangible in form but experiential is its use.
- It relies on the consumer to go somewhere to get it.
- You have to satisfy criteria to gain access to the product.
- New channels to help you experience the product are being created all the time.
L&D? Blockbuster? Both?
What about a group which:
- Lets people use their product on whatever terms help the user?
- Access to the product is unrestricted?
- Has a product virtual in form and can be experienced in may forms?
- Allows access from anywhere?
- Is open to anyone?
- Drives new channels?
If we don’t become agile, if we remain entrenched in ‘the way we do things’, if we want to be considered as partners we need to start partnering, stop providing and use the opportunity of the channels we now have.
Comments, as always, very welcome.