Some of you already carry the title. Here is the gap nobody names for you.
In my last post, I talked about the meeting where months of design work gets called “just slides.” I heard back from a few of you, and one theme kept showing up. Some version of, “I am not even waiting on a manager to pass this message on to me, I am the L&D lead. I am the one who is supposed to be steering this, and I still feel exactly what you described.”
So, let’s talk about that, because it matters, and because I do not want anything I write this month to land like I am overlooking the leaders in this community. You are not the problem I am describing. You might be living the clearest version of it.
Having the title is not the same as having the room
Here is the distinction that matters. Leading L&D inside your organization and having a seat at the table where strategy gets decided are two different things, and plenty of people hold the first without ever getting the second. You might be the most senior L&D person your company has, and still find out about a reorg, a new market push, or a shift in headcount priorities the same way everyone else does, after the decision is already made and training is expected to catch up.
That is not a failure of your leadership. It is a structural gap. Often, mid-size organizations have never had anyone in the room specifically representing what learning needs to look like for the business to succeed, so when that room forms, L&D is not in it by default. Sometimes it is because the room formed before your function even existed, and it is just an oversight to have you added. You have never been invited, and more often than not, nobody thinks to ask, including you.
I am doing the job of a learning strategist but being treated like an order taker, and I do not know how to change that dynamic without risking my job.
Why this is harder to fix from the inside
Here is the thing…The very thing that would prove you belong in that strategic room, being able to step back from the daily fires and make the case for where learning should be headed, is exactly the thing your current role rarely gives you time to do. You are too close to the work to also be the one arguing for a wider view of it. That is not a personal shortcoming. It is what happens when one person is asked to build the plane and fly it at the same time.
This is also where an outside perspective earns its keep, not because you need someone to tell you what is wrong, you already know, but because someone coming in from outside the org chart can say the same things you have been saying and get heard differently. Not because they are smarter. Because they are not tangled up in the day-to-day politics of who asked for what and why saying no felt risky last time.
What this can look like in practice
I have seen this play out well in a few different ways. Sometimes it looks like an internal L&D lead getting temporary strategic backup, someone to help build the case, structure the roadmap, and walk into the leadership conversation alongside them instead of in place of them. Sometimes it looks like bringing in outside strategic support specifically so the internal lead can stay focused on execution while someone else holds the wider view. Either way, the goal is the same. Getting L&D an actual seat at the table, not replacing the person already doing the work.
If you are the leader and you are nodding along right now, you are not who this month’s content is trying to convince of anything. You already see it. What I am hoping is that as we get further into this series, some of what I share gives you language you can use internally, and maybe even a case for bringing in outside support to help you get the standing you have already earned.
I am a credible learning strategist, not just a course builder.
One more thing worth mentioning
If you are reading this and you are not the L&D lead, if you are part of a team, or the only non-leadership voice in the function, this still applies to you. The gap I am describing is not really about titles. It is about whether learning has a voice in the room where the business makes decisions. Sometimes the fix is elevating the person already doing that work. Sometimes it is bringing in someone from outside to build that voice from scratch. Both are worth understanding, and we will get into what that looks like later this month.
Pick Your Spark
Here’s my challenge for you this week. Pick at least ONE that feels right, but still a little out of your comfort zone. The kind that makes you a little squeamish, but not the kind that makes you want to hide under your desk.
Option 1: Ask to be in the room
This week, think of one meeting or decision happening in your organization that will affect learning or people development, and you are not currently invited to. Ask to sit in, even just to listen. Send the request today, not eventually.
Option 2: Ask one strategic question before you say yes
The next time a training request comes in, before you agree to build anything, ask the person one question: “what does this look like if it goes well in six months?” Write down their answer, and notice what it reveals about whether they’ve thought this through.
Option 3: Document one invisible decision
This week, notice one moment where a decision gets made that affects your work, and you find out after it’s already settled. Just write it down. Not to complain about it, but to start building a real record of how often this happens. That record becomes useful the next time you need to make the case for being looped in earlier.
What’s next?
Next week, I am walking through what a real training roadmap reveals when someone finally maps the whole picture, redundancies, gaps, and the problems training was never going to solve in the first place.
About Dani Watkins
Dani is the founder of #IgniteLearning and the owner of Zenith Performance Solutions. She is an instructional designer, trainer, and eLearning developer who creates practical resources for in-house L&D professionals. She presents regularly for Training Magazine and believes deeply that good learning design changes outcomes, and that the right strategy makes that possible inside real organizational constraints.