Skip to the content The Learning & Development space is in the middle of an identity shift.
Everywhere you look, people are talking about performance. Performance enablement. Performance culture. Performance consulting.
But pause for a moment.
What does “owning performance” actually mean in practice?
Because in many organisations, performance is still structurally disconnected from the very function designed to enable growth.
And that disconnect quietly shapes everything.
In most organisations, L&D sits within HR.
But performance? That’s fragmented.
Performance management focuses on:
Development focuses on:
And the systems reflect the split.
Employees log performance conversations in one tool.
They access learning in another.
Skills data sits somewhere else.
Feedback lives in Slack, inboxes, or nowhere at all.
Then we act surprised when behaviour doesn’t change. When the impact is unclear. When progress stalls.
This isn’t a motivation problem. It’s structural.
And L&D has been living with the consequences of that structure for years.
Because when you don’t own performance, you end up reacting to it.
You become the function that:
Not because you lack capability.
But because you lack ownership of the outcome that matters.
Here’s the uncomfortable truth:
Development doesn’t happen in learning platforms.
It happens in conversations.
It happens when:
That moment — where strategy meets reality through a manager and an individual — is where development becomes performance.
And yet, most organisations leave that moment under-supported.
Managers are promoted for technical excellence, not coaching capability.
Performance conversations are compliance-driven, not growth-driven.
Learning sits adjacent to work, not embedded in it.
Then L&D is asked to “prove impact.”
Impact of what, exactly — if the behavioural moment where change actually happens isn’t connected to the learning effort?
Let’s be clear.
Owning performance does not mean:
Owning performance means aligning:
To outcomes that matter.
Individual outcomes.
Team outcomes.
Business outcomes.
It means that when a performance gap appears, the path to closing it is visible, connected, and measurable.
It means L&D is accountable not for course completion, but for behaviour change.
That’s a very different level of responsibility.
And a very different level of influence.
Let’s be honest.
This shift is uncomfortable.
Owning performance requires L&D leaders to:
This is not about launching more programmes.
It’s about redesigning how performance and development intersect.
It means stepping into operational conversations, not just capability conversations.
It means being prepared to say:
“If we can’t link this to performance, we shouldn’t be doing it.”
That’s a different posture.
And not everyone wants it.
Because with ownership comes exposure.
There’s a line L&D has to cross.
On one side:
On the other:
Crossing that line means stepping into the messiness of real work.
It means influencing how managers lead, how feedback flows, and how effort connects to outcomes.
The question isn’t whether L&D can own performance, because it absolutely can.
The question is whether it’s willing to be measured by it. Because once you own performance, you no longer get to hide behind activity. You are accountable for impact.
And that changes everything.
Watch the full episode of Mind the Gap with Karen Hill and Harry Chapman-Walker here.
Book a demo with us
| Blog | 
