Why Can't L&D Get a "Seat at The Table"?
Complaining about not having a seat indicates that we don't understand what it means to actually have one.
The seat at the table complaint. I'll be honest, it's difficult for me to even write this phrase. Whenever I hear the words, "seat at the table," it's like nails on a chalkboard inside my brain. Because by complaining about it means we don't understand how it works. We are essentially admitting our own ignorance.
First off, let's level set on what is implied with the phrase and the complaint.
What is "the Table"?
When L&D talks about "the table" we are generally referring to the meetings and conversations with influencers. Often, we are referring to the top, most influential leadership in a division or company. Whilst these conversations once regularly took place around a physical table and chairs, it's now just as likely that they take place in virtual meeting rooms.
L&D longs for a seat at this "table," because we see it as crucial to influencing talent development strategy and adding our voice to important decisions before they are made. Many believe that a seat at this table is the secret to moving beyond our transactional order taking box into strategic territory.
In response to that belief, I say, "Sure." It is logical to assume that if we participated in strategic conversations and decisions before they were made, we would be able to work in partnership with the business at a more strategic level. But we have the wrong reason as to why we are left out and complaining about it won't change anyone's mind.
In many cases, the real reason L&D isn't included is that we haven't done anything to show that we deserve to be at this "table".
We act like once we get invited in then we can start being more strategic. But this approach is completely backwards.
We aren't invited in because we don't act strategically now. We don't demonstrate an understanding of business initiatives now. Based on how we act when we aren't at the table, why would a senior leader believe that we would act differently when we are?
It's like hiring someone who hasn't demonstrated any experience for the role or in the industry. That's not a good, strategic decision. That's a gamble. Most senior leaders avoid using complete gambling to make decisions.
L&D = Masters in the Art of Unintentional Self Sabotage
It's true that there can be some organizational barriers in play, but, in most cases, we are the ones stopping ourselves from getting this "seat at the table" and we don't even realize we are doing it. The very actions that we think are helpful are the same actions that hold us back. Consider the following "helpful" work patterns exhibited by the typical L&D team. Do you see yourselves in any of them?
#1: We take and deliver orders as requested.
It's great to fulfill neatly outlined requests from stakeholders for training, but it's also our downfall. Every time we say yes to a request without diving deeper or ensuring it ties to a strategic initiative; we reinforce our message to stakeholders about how they best work with L&D.
#2: We strive to be helpful and easy to work with.
We go into this profession because we genuinely want to help. Pushing back on requests doesn’t feel helpful. It seems like it will cause conflict and discomfort and make others not want to work with us. Our desire to help keeps us from asking the tough questions, proposing alternatives, or simply saying "no."
#3: We believe someone else vetted training as the needed solution.
When a stakeholder comes to us requesting a learning or training solution for their pain point, we assume that they have already vetted other options. This stakeholder can be quite convincing, even using our language, telling us that people don’t know how to do “x” so that means training must be needed. We believe them. Why wouldn’t we? Don’t they know their team better than we do?
The truth is this same stakeholder is likely to be overwhelmed, buried in other problems, and therefore, hasn't done the legwork to determine training is the best answer. Without diving deeper, we often waste time, energy, and resources creating fantastic training that doesn't actually solve the problem.
#4. We create great content based on the latest request.
We push out content continuously, based on the latest request. Our course libraries are packed with expertly created content. But each offering is somewhat one and done. There isn’t a strategy for continued development of that skill or, if there is, it is continuously changing. For those outside of L&D, this reinforces the order-taking narrative and makes our work appear haphazard.
#5. We love our own solutions.
When our L&D programs are great, well-designed, and enjoyed by participants, it's easy to get wrapped up in the glow of our own solutions. In truth, the rest of the organization probably doesn't care that much. They're worried about responding to the demanding customers, how to meet their metrics, how to respond to daily challenges, and how to succeed in their role. The pretty L&D program isn't their first priority. Whenever we let our own egos take over, we sabotage our success.
#6. We lean into our learning expertise first and foremost.
We show up as learning experts who work in a business. Not business pros with an expertise in learning. But yet, everyone who sits at "the table" thoroughly understands the business, how it operates, and its major challenges and goals. Sure, they bring their individual areas of expertise along for the ride and tap into them when needed but they don't start there. Without understanding the business first, we aren't seen as credible partners worthy of a seat, but as nice-to-have extras waiting in the wings.
#7. We capture and share positive activity and engagement metrics.
We can easily report how many people attended training, completed eLearning modules, or clicked on videos. We can also report that people enjoy our courses. So, when asked for metrics, this is what we tend to report. But these metrics only show that we are busy and that people like us.
Now put yourself in the shoes of the people "at the table" who are making critical decisions and setting the strategy and direction for the company to succeed. Would you conduct that work based only on participation numbers and smile sheets? We need to share metrics that help to make business decisions and show how our work is moving business forward.
Two different perspectives
From our L&D lens, we might see all these actions as positive. We aren't trying to sabotage our success. But we are living smack in the middle of a pretty big blind spot in terms of what's needed to think and work differently.
From the standpoint of the senior business leader sitting "at the table," each of these approaches reinforces the narrative that L&D is great at taking and delivering on orders. They don't show any inkling of L&D's ability to work as a strategic partner to the business.
If we want to work as strategic business partners, we need to drop our complaint about not having a seat at the table and focus on doing the strategic work that shows we understand what it means to sit there. We need to practice and gain some experience doing the job we want before we're invited to join the team.
This is the second in a newsletter series focused on how L&D can get out of the complainers playground and step into the champions camp. This article focuses on a commonly heard L&D complaint. For a general overview of how to use frustrations as fuel see the last article: My L&D Rallying Cry - It's Time to Stop Complaining and Step Into the Champions Camp. Stay tuned for more articles on rethinking common complaints!
