I was looking at a post from Donald Clark the other day where he posited the question:

Should L&D be renamed the ‘PERFORMANCE Department’?

Donald Clark

Part of his argument is that “Strategic alignment with organisational goals should be our new goal” and I disagree with Donald here. As I posted in the comments, strategic alignment with organisational goals shouldn’t be our new goal – strategic integration should be the goal, embedded within the performance of the organisation demonstrating outcomes and impact in organisational performance terms. Alignment suggests a parallel with and not part of. If you’re not integrated into the organisation, you are always a partner. For external suppliers, consultants and providers, that’s fine since you will have different goals. However, if you’re an internal L&D function, being separated from the organisation is at best unhelpful, and at worst makes you an outrider.

Assume your organisation is a bicycle. It has dozens of components which help it work and some are essential – the handlebars, the wheels, the pedals, etc. My fear is that L&D are too often stabilisers (training wheels for the US audience). The stabiliser has an important job and role – it is to keep the rider safe and develop their confidence. Their aim and goal is aligned with the bike, but getting to the final destination is secondary to their primary purpose.

After a period of time, the bike can be balanced without the stabiliser and becomes superfluous and removable. After getting in the way, it’s discarded and set aside. Much better is for the L&D function to be a component. It doesn’t have to be a big part – a brake shoe, or a cable end – but it needs to be part of the bike, not simply an accessory.

If you’re in an organisation as part of a learning function, are you a component or an accessory? If you’re a vendor, are you selling parts or accessories? If you’re a consultant, are you helping people ride their bike, or pick better accessories?

I’d love to hear your comments on this.