Geometry in L&D

Nov 2, 2020

Transversal#nbsp;(tr?nz?v??s?l)

n

(Mathematics) geometry a line intersecting two or more other lines

When I was going through my EMBA at ESADE (2017-2019), I obviously studied many business-related topics. And while some of them seemingly had nothing in common, such as, for instance, Legal, Geopolitics, and Marketing, it was always possible to draw ideas and concepts from one and apply them in another. And when you look at the big picture... or several big pictures—the organization, the industry, the country, the region, the world, the galaxy (ok, probably no need to go that far)—you see how it is all connected. So much, that at some point it becomes one, indistinguishable, one of many planets out there. And so, a marketing strategy that does not take into account the legal limitations or windows of opportunity, as well as the current global political scene will probably be incomplete, or even flawed.

At my EMBA, we had almost no subjects on HR management, let alone corporate training. Was it because the institution believed all training should go through it? I guess I'll never know. But I got into the L&D field, and I realized that the knowledge I acquired at the EMBA could be extremely useful here.

Across all subjects, professors at ESADE insisted on a particular practice. They suggested that all company operations should be cross-functional. Meaning that if we portray an organization as a multiple-entry matrix, there would be people working crosswise, diagonally, transversely, in different areas. That there should be cross-functional teams with members from different departments that may have never even spoken to each other before, but that knew their stuff. Because their collaboration and cooperation would lead to better, richer results for the entire company. This is a sort of business geometry.

In L&D, the concept of a person who knows their stuff is typically referred to as SME (subject matter expert). We work with them to source content, draw from their experience, and translate it into an educational element. But how many of us have the luxury of mixing it up by adding more perspectives? Can you cook with just one ingredient? I am not only talking about adding people from other departments (that may not always be necessary or beneficial) - but even from within one team. What is the perspective of a newcomer on the subject they will have to learn? What does the team lead think about the topic to be covered?

I have the feeling that the training department, as any other department in an organization, can sometimes get so locked in itself, that they stop asking questions. Failing to preserve (or create) business geometry leaves the organization with a rather narrow possibility to grow, compared to transversal organizations. And failing to work with transversal stakeholders, the L&D departments (whether they are internal or outsourced) might be missing relevant insights. Maybe that course that the manager of Department X asked for is not really necessary. Maybe, a team of Department Y needs job aids more than they do an eLearning module. And maybe Department Z never thought about eLearning but they would benefit from new content.

I hope we get more chances to incorporate business geometry in L&D, acting as a bridge between functions, silos, areas... and people.