8. Right tool, wrong shed
In the last email (Subject: Square pegs), I started sharing a story in which a situation made me question my transition from learning professional to performance partner.
If you haven't read that email, I'd suggest you go back and do so, otherwise this one won't make sense.
So, where were we?
Ah yes, I'd just shared with the Head of HR (my manager) that I’d found an opportunity to improve onboarding for the sales team at a company in which I was the sole L&D professional.
Call me naive, but it seemed impossible they would be anything other than ecstatic at the opportunity to measurably improve performance. After all, these types of opportunities are few and far between, and so this felt like a gift from above.
But whilst he could see the value, he wasn't impressed.
And this all came down to one thing - ‘optics’.
He just couldn't justify having his primary L&D resource focused on a project that would only benefit one team. He had already committed to a slew of other initiatives, including a leadership development program and an enterprise-wide rollout of LinkedIn Learning.
It was at that moment the problem dawned on me: HR aren't incentivised to improve employee performance - they're incentivised to improve employee experience.
HRs value is not based on whether people are performing - their value is based on engagement scores, retention and turnover rates, internal mobility and career progression, and training participation.
And this is a problem. Because when experience is more important than performance, rolling out a one-size-fits-all leadership program or a library of training videos, instead of targeting specific performance problems, makes total sense.
If that was how we were measured, we’d do exactly the same!
And so, until we acknowledge this misalignment - and until L&D are mandated to challenge systems, and not just support people - there will always be a quiet emphasis on those fluffy solutions that feel good, but may not actually help.
Now, this might throw up an objection - don’t we need engaged employees in order to drive high performance?
Well, it’s a logical assumption - but I think it’s backwards. Because when people are given everything they need to perform - and when that performance is measured, recognised and rewarded - their experience improves. They’re proud of their work. They’re motivated. They’re engaged!
In other words, improved performance doesn’t come from engaged employees. Engaged employees come from improved performance!
So, what’s the fix?
Firstly, in an ideal world, L&D would sit within a function whose primary responsibility is performance, rather than people. This would allow us to diagnose issues objectively and recommend the right interventions - be that automation, workflow redesign, tech consolidation, or training - without being constrained by HR's ‘people-first’ lens.
Just as importantly, L&D should no longer be called ‘Learning’ or ‘Development’. The name creates two problems:
It implies solutions should always involve learning or development, when often the root cause is operational or structural.
It sets unhelpful expectations with stakeholders who assume the team only exists to deliver training.
Rebranding the function as ‘Performance’ would help shift mindsets across the business and give consultants the permission and authority to address the real barriers to results.
But what about learning?
Well, we still need to help people learn! However, learning experiences should be used as a tactic to achieve an outcome, rather than a hammer to swing at any problem. Tactical learning requirements e.g., learning experience design, facilitation and content creation - could successfully stay under HR.
And so, there might be two roles or two teams, depending on business size:
Performance, and
Learning
And within smaller companies, these might be fulfilled by the same person.
BUT, unless you happen to work for a visionary CEO who's open to a conversation about restructuring the business, we're stuck with what we’ve got.
So, what can we do, within the constraints we find ourselves?
Well, two things spring to mind.
First, keep plugging away. Great practitioners can still create impact inside imperfect systems. And whilst things won’t change overnight, we can keep pushing.
Second, when the opportunity presents itself, and when it's safe to do so, help those around you see this paradox. I suspect as AI continues to highlight the importance of work design, organisations will gradually wake up to these structural issues.
And when they do, the conversation about what we need to improve performance will become much easier.
More soon,
- Ant
