Why the identity crisis? Put simply, these terms all stem from the shifting expectations of the value, responsibility, and ownership of the department. Are they accountable just for training? Are they responsible for learning? Or do they take ownership of the desired business outcome? Training, learning, and outcome aren't always set terms, so to understand what we're working with, here are the definitions from Dictionary.com:
Training – the education, instruction, or discipline of a person or thing that is being trained
Learning – the act or process of acquiring knowledge or skill
Outcome – a final product or end result; consequence; issue
Executives want quantifiable changes in business outcomes. It's only when L&D accepts the additional responsibility for its impact on the final product that they earn the right to claim the Performance & Development moniker. This is challenging space for some because it involves new models, technology and ability to influence.
“Influence you say?” Yes! Bringing the right questions and analysis up to influence executives.
“Yeah, but PD can’t control whether a manager coaches their people.” Not directly, but they can influence it with the right combination of learning business model, technology, and analysis.
“How?” Use the Learning Model Canvas to set the value proposition and a Learning Record Store to measure behavior change and business outcomes.
“Is is easy?” No, or else everyone would be doing it. It does requires willingness to change the status quo and tough conversations with executives.
It can, and is, being done by adventurous learning and development leaders. Take a look at some industry case studies here.
So what’s your value proposition? What are your thoughts on the transformation from L&D to P&D? Leave your comments below or drop me a line at Saltbox.