However, I’ll also beg to differ with the comments about ‘hard and disruptive.’ I believe the sentiment reflects the renegade nature in some of us enterprise outliers, and not a realistic perspective on establishing organizational capability — which is what governance is really about. The emphasis has to be on stakeholder engagement, role and process clarification, and building consensus. Once done, strategies are clear, projects are more successful, and, importantly, budgets and staffing resources get larger and/or more leveraged, e.g., ‘scale’.

If we are ever to achieve Peter Senge’s vision of the ‘learning organization’ of the future (first articulated over 18 years ago) then the learning function has to scale up to help transform companies from the inside out. Disruptive technology ‘pot shots’ will sometimes land, but more often miss. ‘Incubation’ and integration is what will build organizational capability as the true sum of its people parts. And lead to larger ‘Learning R&D’ budgets as well.

Learning teams have remained fragmented and insular for too long. It begs the question for Senge’s proposition, ‘Are we there yet?’ Painfully, the answer is ‘no.’

Perhaps it’s habitual. Most learning teams don’t see themselves as organization change agents (my research with another institution suggests that 80+% have weak governance models and less than 20% are ‘ahead’ on this curve). If there’s any ‘disruptive change’ needed, it has more to do with how learning teams see themselves in this organizational context and start to change the way they work with other organization stakeholders. This will be more effective and productive for all involved. But it takes more outward focus, in terms of crossing organizational boundaries, not just dabbling in new technologies. Thanks for your post.

However, I’ll also beg to differ with the comments about ‘hard and disruptive.’ I believe the sentiment reflects the renegade nature in some of us enterprise outliers, and not a realistic perspective on establishing organizational capability — which is what governance is really about. The emphasis has to be on stakeholder engagement, role and process clarification, and building consensus. Once done, strategies are clear, projects are more successful, and, importantly, budgets and staffing resources get larger and/or more leveraged, e.g., ‘scale’.

If we are ever to achieve Peter Senge’s vision of the ‘learning organization’ of the future (first articulated over 18 years ago) then the learning function has to scale up to help transform companies from the inside out. Disruptive technology ‘pot shots’ will sometimes land, but more often miss. ‘Incubation’ and integration is what will build organizational capability as the true sum of its people parts. And lead to larger ‘Learning R&D’ budgets as well.

Learning teams have remained fragmented and insular for too long. It begs the question for Senge’s proposition, ‘Are we there yet?’ Painfully, the answer is ‘no.’

Perhaps it’s habitual. Most learning teams don’t see themselves as organization change agents (my research with another institution suggests that 80+% have weak governance models and less than 20% are ‘ahead’ on this curve). If there’s any ‘disruptive change’ needed, it has more to do with how learning teams see themselves in this organizational context and start to change the way they work with other organization stakeholders. This will be more effective and productive for all involved. But it takes more outward focus, in terms of crossing organizational boundaries, not just dabbling in new technologies. Thanks for your post.

The difficulty is multi-tiered: what are the organizational priorities? Do they make sense with one another? (See, for example, Fannie Mae, where they didn’t — more than half the benefit of the lower interest went to shareholders, which didn’t do much for the home buyer Fannie theoretically was helping.) Can the groups and individuals in the organization relate their own priorities to the larger ones?

It’s like maintaining fitness — it’s easy to read about, it’s easy to buy equipment for, it’s easy to take out memberships for. It’s a hell of a lot harder to assess the different aspects of your life and carry out the damned strategy.

The difficulty is multi-tiered: what are the organizational priorities? Do they make sense with one another? (See, for example, Fannie Mae, where they didn’t — more than half the benefit of the lower interest went to shareholders, which didn’t do much for the home buyer Fannie theoretically was helping.) Can the groups and individuals in the organization relate their own priorities to the larger ones?

It’s like maintaining fitness — it’s easy to read about, it’s easy to buy equipment for, it’s easy to take out memberships for. It’s a hell of a lot harder to assess the different aspects of your life and carry out the damned strategy.