The comments that L&D professionals either knowingly ignore what they know the core needs are, or that they are ignorent and should therefore ‘ask more questions’ in order to align better may be valid in many organisations.  However this may not always be the case and I would like to offer an alternative point of view.  

In my experience, the talent within L&D teams can be overlooked by those at the top of an organisation. There are some L&D teams who are highly capable and enthused to deliver training linked with core business needs. After all, to justify continued spend on an internal training function (or external for that matter) requires the L&D team to demonstrate a return on investment. This is even more important in times of economic difficulty where the training budget can be first to go.  Furthermore, many people, incuding myself, find it far more motivating to work on a project that will actually make a difference to the performance to the organisation. Research from the Corporate Leadership Council backs this up, with aspects such as ‘knowing how your work contributes to the success of the organisation’ being a key driver of employee engagement. 

So I believe that there are L&D teams who contain highly skilled individuals who are motivated to (and are capable of) massively contributing to a successful change programme or initiative, yet their talents are wasted. The question is why?

One of the major barriers in large organisations can be the number of other functions involved with change initiatives, from the strategy teams themselves, to project managers, HR departments, internal comms etc. I think sometimes, with so many other ‘fingers in the pie’ L&D teams are overlooked in their ability to contribute to programmes (especially at the early stages) and, even though they ask strategy leaders to be involved, they are not.  For example L&D teams are promised information as and when it is available, and then it is not given to them.  

Perhaps one of the reasons that L&D is overlooked is because of the ‘reputation’ that training is often not linked to core objectives, therefore devaluing the contribution that L&D is percieved to be able to give.   

I do agree fully that all L&D professionals should be more proactive. However I think in some cases their proactivity should centre upon promoting the skills, motivation and capability within their teams so that strategy makers believe in the value that L&D can bring. Therefore opening up the communication lines between the two functions.