What is a learning organisation?
I’ve been in the L&D game now since 2003. A lot has changed in our profession in that time, and we’re still developing capability in many ways. One of the things that I’ve been considering is how to support L&D in identifying what level they are at, and what does next look like? To help with this, I’ve created what I think are the Five Levels of a Learning Organisation. Different to a learning organisation as suggested by Peter Senge, mine is more of a look at where you are, and what that is likely to mean.
These levels take into account the varying capability of L&D teams, how they might differ depending on size, and what level of influence they are likely to have on the organisation overall. It looks at factors like technology adoption, level of design, programme availability and accessibility, and responsibilities of L&D teams. Below, I break down each level so it’s more understandable.
This is also meant to be progressive. Each Level is likely to be fully achieved before the next level can be accessed. Additionally, not everything in a Level needs to be achieved. The Level is about offering aspiration as much as it is about recognising achievement. Importantly, I think what these Five Levels provide is validation for your learning approach. Whichever Level you identify as being closest to yours, is the right level for you and your organisation. It may be impossible to achieve Level Three if you’re at Level Two because the organisation is not structured to deliver anything more than that level.
Also, these Five Levels do not denote or confer impact. You may think you’re at Level Five, but if you’re burning through cash, there are issues with turnover, and your talent programmes aren’t improving diversity and inclusion at the most senior levels then being at Level Five doesn’t mean anything in reality.
Finally, there isn’t a better or worst Level. Each Level is a recognition of what is likely to be taking place, and offers aspiration for what could be achieved. Being Level Four isn’t better than Level Two as the context of both is vastly different. Being at Level Two is likely to be highly significant for that organisation, and is delivering significant impact. The Levels are simply an acknowledgement that the larger and more complex an organisation requires more sophistication of the L&D hierarchy and associated budgets and technology requirements.
There is mention of the apprenticeship levy as this is something highly relevant to UK organisations.
Level One
At this level, I think it’s what most small organisations / companies are likely to have. There may be someone looking after L&D, but it’s most likely going to be focused on compliance needs, and if training is carried out it’s likely to be practical in nature. This level of organisation is likely to need e-learning, but only for meeting those mandatory and compliance needs. There isn’t likely to be a learning strategy, as there isn’t anyone to pay attention to what this could be, and unlikely to be any budget to provide that development.
Level Two
At Level Two, I would see most SME organisations / companies operating at this level. The key difference here is that there’s an actual person dedicated to L&D, either as a facilitator or a learning manager of some sort. But, they’re most likely a one-person team with perhaps some support from either the People Team or Ops. There is likely to be some budget, and it’s used from brining in external trainers and facilitators, to paying for professional qualifications. There’s likely only one kind of management development programme, and a handful of personal development programmes. The programmes are all likely to be either ILT, and if VILT happens it’s only because of Covid restrictions since 2020. There might be a learning strategy, but it won’t be formally written down, and the learning tech is mostly e-learning provision and LMS tracking. At both this level and at Level One, if there is an apprenticeship levy being paid, it’s likely to be unused.
Level Three
At this level is where I would see People Teams really wanting to advance the capability of the organisation. The L&D role is likely to be senior, and there’s likely to be at least one other dedicated L&D role - maybe an instructional designer, or a facilitator / L&D partner. The differences we see here are the use of digital technology overall for learning. There’s likely to be improved use of the LMS for performance management. Other digital tools like an intranet or collaborative tools like Miro are likely to be used for. From a programme perspective, there are likely to be at least two levels of management development programme, maybe something for executives, and personal development is taking place a lot. There is also likely to be focused technical training happening a lot - project management / sales training / technology training. The apprenticeship levy might be being used, but not nearly at its potential. The learning strategy is probably linked closely to the People strategy. Performance consultancy may happen on occasion for discreet projects or demands, but largely the demands of the organisation are taken from a learning needs analysis approach.
Level Four
I would see many medium-large organisations at Level Four. Here I would expect to see a senior L&D role, with several people leading different L&D teams - digital learning manager, management development lead, and team development manager as examples. The use of digital learning is more widely accepted, especially with the adoption of an LXP and e-learning is created especially for different functions in the organisation for improved knowledge sharing. There is likely to be an aligned learning strategy to organisational strategy and there’s a focus on skills development as well as personal and professional development. Management and leadership programmes are more likely linked to career progression and the projects from the L&D have organisational development and impact in mind. Topics such as D&I are given more attention than standalone workshops or e-learning, and department heads are focused on team development needs.
Level Five
At Level Five, I would see most large and multinational / international organisations. There are likely to be very senior roles, with a VP of Talent / CLO type role at the head, with Directors leading teams of L&D people. Projects undertaken at this level are likely to have organisational and commercial impact and improving on organisational capability. Skills development and D&I are intricate parts of the learning strategy with clear identifiable goals and teams responsible for these. Talent programmes such as advancing women to senior roles are likely to deal with systemic and organisational issues not just about having a strategy in place. There is likely to be closely aligned work with other People functions like Talent Acquisition and Compensation and Benefits for improved employee experience. Management and leadership programmes develop personal capability as well as business capability e.g. product and service development, cross-organisational projects and programmes and high quality coaching and feedback for professional development into senior and cross-organisational roles. The apprenticeship levy is likely to be used more strategically, and the budget is used for community development activity such as investing in local community projects or to national education or awareness schemes.
