Gone are the days when L&D was viewed as a nice-to-have function — or are they?
We'd love to think that the profession has done everything that it possibly could to prove its value and justify its existence, connecting training costs to performance outcomes that impact revenue (thank you, Donald Kirkpatrick).
The organizational structure plays a critical role in determining the size, visibility, and influence of the L&D function at the table. In this post, I will share the structures that I've been part of over the past two decades of my L&D practice in the BPO industry.
The University
In this structure, Learning and Development (L&D) operates as an independent function that partners with other areas of the organization to address learning needs and strategies. As a new trainer, this setup opened my eyes to the wide range of skills expansion opportunities across various functions. A few years later, as a training leader, it was helpful to align standards and best practices across all teams. The L&D voice was strong and it resonated across all training teams. Because we were growing as operations teams experienced hypergrowth, growth opportunities were endless. If I may use myself as a case study, I became a training manager within a couple of years of functioning as a process trainer. It was the same career story for most of us budding leaders.
On the business side, things were a bit different. The product and process teams, at least those supporting clients with billable trainings baked into their SOWs (Statement of Work), generated revenue for everyone else who did not. We were primarily a cost center. The inside joke was that we were NRG (Non-Revenue-Generating) groups, which is why we sat right next to the photocopying room. It must be the toner fumes but we were definitely a happy tribe.
Bye, University.
When our beloved head of training was retrenched, we organized a farewell ceremony. During the graduation rites, he left us with a tall order. He told us that we were graduating from the "university" and should now be ready to face the real world, where we would need to do whatever it takes to support the business while staying true to the discipline. I added the second part based on our frequent coaching conversations.
There is no "University" in the real world. Reporting lines were realigned based on our core functions. The process and training teams were moved under Operations, while HR absorbed the corporate development programs.
Truth be told, before the retrenchment of seasoned leaders, I drafted Project Phoenix. In this project, I proposed that the New Hire Orientation team be transitioned to HR. We had started to feel that the training function had become an administrative vortex due to the sheer volume of mandatory items we were tracking. My boss asked if I had developed the concept on my own and whether I was a Harry Potter fan. Yes to both. We were supposed to discuss the transition plan, but then the unthinkable happened. It turned out that I was on the same page as the masterminds behind the organizational changes.
Where does the L&D voice fit into this structure? It's hard to say. Each function needed to align with the needs of the businesses they now reported to. In every delegated task, we had to find a balance between meeting business needs and advocating for learning and development principles.
The Content Design and Development function (now commonly referred to as Curriculum/Program Development, Instructional Design, Learning Experience Design, etc.) is highlighted in this structure because, at some point, it will stand on its own.
.png)
