I ran a contentjam session last week for a group of local government LD people. There was some brilliant output, but as I was talking through what we do I still found some ‘old fashioned’ thinking. My favourite is to ask who has management induction training for new to the organisation managers; these people have been recruited as a manager and we stick them in a classroom for anything up to 5 days to train them to manage ‘our’ way.
Because we’re LD and we can provide lots of stuff?
There’s been two articles recently that have brought this issue to the front of my thinking again. First up was this neat piece by Jane Hart about the connected LD department. I mentioned it at the #contentjam session and the LD people there all ‘got’ the notion of provision and packaging as a default position for LD.
Although I like the categorisation into 3 forms of support, I’m not convinced by using the term scaffolding. My fear is that the scaffolding can be used to shape the outcome and there needs to be clear distinction as to how far the LD team are responsible for this shaping. This is where LD need to talk in terms of business and work as a partner to, not a driver of, the desired outcome
We’ve got a long way to go though – have a read through this article on the Business Insider website. It was tweeted @gerdriesen and I noticed a glaring error straight away. The piece is referencing a report in the Harvard Business Review about:
the most common area of weakness among poorly-rated senior managers was a failure to develop others
It’s an interesting piece of research that looks at 16 core attributes of leaders. Surprisingly (or some might say unsurprisingly) the worst rated attribute across a sample of 500+ was ‘developing others’. The error on the Business Insider article? Why is it called:
The Least Effective Bosses Don’t Bother To Train People
I don’t recall seeing ‘training’ in the HBR piece yet it’s turned into training by the BI journalist. Is that the perception that is created by the phrase ‘leaders don’t develop others’?
How do we market LD? Are we marketing as provision? Are we marketing as adding to the workflow (as very well put by Charles Jennings here)?
- If we continue to pronounce how we have ‘new’ and ‘brilliant’ content we will disappear
- If someone markets solutions from within workflow we will disappear
- If we can’t talk in terms of business we will disappear
- If we can’t focus on outcomes rather than outputs, we will disappear.
Agree? Tell me why (or why not) via the comments.