A plethora of Learning & Development (L&D) models exist outlining strategically and philosophically how organizations should undertake implementing and scaling training; however, in practice, L&D professionals face routine patterns, especially when introducing (or reintroducing) L&D into an organization. Experience teaches us that each pattern is reasonable and necessary but the outcomes are vastly different.
Since L&D professionals take talent development seriously and value our livelihoods, this means we have to face a series of hard truths. As organizations make key choices for learning with our influence, we also must choose our own adventure.
Purpose of L&D
Organizations implement training programs or departments for a few key reasons. These reasons tell L&D professionals how strategic and mature an organization’s talent strategy is. The objective informs us what the organization values and willing to place its focus and funds.
Compliance: Each passing year sees the creation of additional regulations and laws requiring training. After the number of required courses reaches a level that HR operations teams or Legal and Quality teams cannot manage directly, a trainer is brought in to execute. For instance, in 2023, a suite of up to 16 separate courses are needed to meet sexual harassment training requirements in the US. Sadly, the most common purpose of compliance training is to reduce legal liability, scratch the surface of awareness, pass an audit or check the box. Well-designed programs can yield true learning, but that is not the consistent and predominant objective.
Perform the Job: Technical and on-the-job training that directly translate to widgets ready for sale are crucial and ripe for creativity. A “view-try-apply” methodology on the heels of company orientation is often supplemented by classroom courses, SOP reading, lengthy checklists and reinforcement eLearning and iLearning (computer vs phone). Often, this type of training reports into the business without interfacing with HR. Logical, close to the experts and work at hand…yet distinctly separated from the overarching talent strategy if strong business partnerships are not in place.
Retain Talent: Expansive learning catalogs are often promoted to employees for self-guided development. While well intentioned, without curation, guidance, coaching and application opportunities, this learning approach amounts to good PR and an expensive fringe benefit. Calculating its return on investment is challenging. Employees expect the opportunity to learn as part of the modern workplace psychological contract; however, this seemingly altruistic offering functions in a similar way as a strong 401k match or fitness reimbursement. Falling under the Total Rewards umbrella as an underutilized fringe benefit, this type of learning shows employees the organization cares about them, but not in a way that they expect anything more from their talent than them continuing to punch the clock. Retention is important, yet with a little more attention to detail, organizations can capitalize on the value they are already investing to reach the “retention” level of learning. Without a strategic lens, this type of learning is the most prone to budget and headcount reduction during economic downturns.
Develop Talent as a Competitive Advantage: Finally, organizations who view talent development as more than a fringe benefit or cost of doing business reach a maturity level where they understand that their motivation to grow the business can be married with employees’ desire for development. A cynic could say organizations are seeking to capitalize on learning; however, when their needs and goals align with employees’ motivation, a win-win is realized. When leaders view talent growth as a competitive advantage rather than strictly part of their employer value proposition, then the training wheels come off (pun intended) and the true value of L&D can be realized. For organizations to genuinely say, “our talent is their secret sauce” or “we succeed because of our people and our culture,” this level of learning is required. Competitive companies know that growth and innovation are necessary to remain best in class. This extends beyond one’s product/service line and supply chain; it begins and ends with one’s people – the hands, hearts and heads that make the magic happen. Investing in people as genuine business assets is equally if not more important than investing in technology, equipment and partnerships. This type of L&D lends itself naturally to robust talent management and organizational development.
Models of L&D
Once the purpose of learning is determined, L&D functions must answer two key questions:
How to Generate Content
How to Structure the Team
The question of “what to focus on” will be answered by the business need.
How to Generate Content
The options are simple – buy, build or blend; however, the answer is anything but.
Buy: Outsourced content is plentiful and often of low or mid-quality. While much online content is free, it requires extensive or crowdsourced curation. The alternative is expensive catalogs from the likes of LinkedIn Learning, OpenSesame, Go1, Udemy, etc. Then, consider premium content from getAbstract or Harvard Business Review. Are you seeing dollar signs yet? The quality of these extensive catalog varies widely and is only as valuable as the curation applied. Instead of purchasing asynchronous online content, some organizations outsource live facilitation in order to tap into the expertise outside of the organization. This is valuable when used wisely, yet risky if overused because it leads to a distrust of in-house learning professionals who lack apparent expertise and trust.
Build: Building content is time consuming and reliant upon strong copywriting and graphic design skills. Often, it requires technology investment into authoring or video editing tools. Building content is crucial for confidential IP training and necessitates strong partnerships with Subject Matter Experts (SME). Custom content also ensures the message is on brand, relevant and timely because “off the shelf” content always feels a few layers removed.
Blend: Blending the right combination of bought and built content allows scale without losing the infused flavor of the organization’s perspective, culture and values.
How to Structure the Team
Centralized vs. Decentralized: One of the greatest questions in the organizational design of L&D is the choice between a centralized vs decentralized model. Should all learning (e.g. compliance, safety, technical skills, soft/human skills, leadership development, product, sales, etc.) be managed through one team? Should it be distributed to sit closest to its SMEs and learners? Realistically, some combination often prevails. Otherwise, each department may invest in its own LMS or content partner and all economies of scale are lost. For this reason, organizations often empower different distributed learning professionals with defined areas of influence. The risk that is often realized is that without central governance, the number and timing of assignments balloon to the point that they inhibit productivity and annoys learners, which hurts the reputation of all learning. In such a model, the learning culture is shared, nuanced and fragile. Wise organizations connect decentralized L&D professionals through a dotted line network or community for peer coaching, cross-collaboration, best practice sharing and organization.
COE: Some organizations also use the “Center of Excellence (COE)” nomenclature for learning within their HR department. COE can have three distinct meanings. Traditionally, COEs build trainings through needs assessments done with senior leaders and HRBPs. The HRBPs, then, facilitate the training. This structure allows experts to focus on design and for programs to run at scale; however, it is prone to limited needs assessments and feedback because the experts rarely set foot in the field to speak with the end user. It also requires the HRBP organization to be optimized for strategic partnering rather than daily operations. Shared service models are often needed for HRBPs to balance the workload. The first alternate to this traditional model is a COE that leads all L&D efforts because the HRBP team is focused on operational functions and does not have the time, skill or interest in conducting trainings. This either reduces the number of trainings done by the COE or requires a larger headcount for that team. Finally, a COE, alternatively referred to as a Center of Expertise, can be valuable when learning is decentralized and the business unit or content-specific trainers (e.g. Sales and EHS respectively) are practitioners with a flair for knowledge sharing but a lack of understanding of adult learning theory. A central team that provides guidance and governance to trainers reporting into different parts of the business can improve the quality of all training. This coaching and consulting-focused COE is staffed by the same team as the former COE descriptions.
Separate Department: Some organizations place such emphasis on learning that it sets them apart as their own department reporting directly into executives. This explains the increasingly popular “Chief Learning Officer” title. If the L&D team is distinguished as such, this department must partner closely with HR in order to align learning with the larger talent strategy (e.g. leadership development, succession planning, etc.). This model is more common in organizations that require a high volume of training, such a proprietary technology or niche products and services that new hires must learn and existing employees refresh as enhancements are taken to market.
Headcount & Specialization: The composition of L&D teams varies according to their purpose, structure, content methodology and delivery expectations. Some L&D professionals are jacks of all trades, while others are highly specialized in instructional design, eLearning development, copy writers, videographers, facilitators, curators, program managers, LMS admins, etc. Some are HR professionals, while others are academic educators or SMEs who love to share what they have learned coming up the technical ranks. The diversity of L&D talent brings a richness as well as a complexity to the field. The size of L&D teams varies widely. For a “jack of all trades” team that operates in a decentralized model, one trainer per 300 employees is favorable, particularly in a geographically dispersed environment. For teams that design the majority of their content in-house may keep specialists on staff or rely on a contingent of contract designers. Without the responsibility for live facilitation thanks to HRBP partnerships or for those that rely heavily on purchased eLearning content, COEs may be very small – even one person for a global, multilingual company. The commonality across L&D teams is that they are staffed rather lean.
To the Point
L&D is not a “soft” HR or business function. When done well, it can be a competitive advantage. When done poorly, it is a legal and talent liability for which it is hard to compensate. If you stay in the middle, you will fall behind in both the sales and talent marketplaces. Use the L&D: Choose Your Own Adventure worksheet to plot your course of action.
Design with the end in mind. Each L&D purpose necessitates a distinct set of skills, tools, approaches, structure and team composition. Pair the right passion and expertise with the desired purpose, and your L&D programs will come to life.
Comments