Professional Development and Training -- What is Changing?

Just this past week, Matteo Zaralli published a new book entitled The Evolution of Professional Training: How Artificial Intelligence Technologies Can Accelerate the Learning, which is a prime resource for navigating the evolution of education and professional training in the age of artificial intelligence (AI) and virtual reality. It thoroughly explores how AI can enhance human capabilities, facilitate more efficient and personalized learning or training, and promote unprecedented professional development. This book is not just an analysis of the impact of emerging technologies on learning and professional development -- it is an invitation to reflect on the future of work, the nature of intelligence, and the evolution of human society in the digital age.

When I spoke with Matteo recently, I asked him, “What is now having the biggest impact on professional development and training?" Here is his complete answer:

The biggest force currently reshaping professional development and training is the match of artificial intelligence (AI) and virtual reality (VR). These technologies are redefining not only how we learn, but also how we interact with knowledge, work, and each other.

As outlined in my book, we are experiencing a new digital revolution. AI plays a central role in transforming training into a personalized and adaptive experience. By leveraging data, AI systems can identify learning needs and adjust content in real time, offering highly efficient, user-specific development paths.

Meanwhile, virtual reality introduces a new dimension to learning: experience. In VR, users can simulate real-world scenarios, such as public speaking, decision-making, or technical tasks, in safe and immersive environments. This not only accelerates skill acquisition but also increases confidence and retention.

Together, AI and VR support the rise of the augmented worker: professionals empowered, not replaced, by technology. They allow faster learning, deeper engagement, and more relevant training across sectors.

However, this transformation goes beyond tools. It requires reflection on the nature of intelligence and the future of work. As discussed in the book’s philosophical section, we must consider how AI reshapes our perception of truth and identity, and how digital environments challenge our ethical frameworks.

In this context, the impact of AI and VR is both technical and cultural. They demand a shift from static, one-size-fits-all education models to dynamic, human-machine collaboration. Professional training is becoming more immersive, flexible, and continuous, an ongoing process rather than a fixed phase.

Those who embrace this shift will stay competitive and be prepared to navigate the complexities of a fast-changing world.

What do you think of Matteo's perspective? Have new technologies affected or transformed professional training in your organization? If so, what are the results so far?

Healthcare Executives and the Mistakes They Make Regarding Decision-Making and Leadership

In April, Linda Henman and Deborah Perkins published a book entitled Healthy Decisions: Critical Thinking Skills for Healthcare Executives, which challenges the status quo, arguing that the success of healthcare organizations hinges not on abstract concepts like "culture" but on the concrete decisions executives make. Drawing from real-world experience with large systems like Mercy and Banner Health, specialty hospitals like Ranken Jordan Pediatric Bridge Hospital, insurance companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield, and nonprofit elder care systems, the authors provide a practical guide to help healthcare executives make the tough decisions they can’t afford to get wrong.

When I spoke with Linda this month, I asked her: "What are the biggest mistakes healthcare executives make regarding decision-making and leadership?" Here is her complete answer:

The single most catastrophic—and astonishingly common—mistake healthcare executives make is undervaluing their workforce. Not on paper, of course. On paper, they wax poetic about people being their greatest asset. In practice, they slash staffing, ignore burnout, and treat frontline engagement as optional.

Let’s look at the wreckage.

Hahnemann University Hospital collapsed under its own weight in 2019. Leaders gutted staffing and fiddled with spreadsheets while credibility—and then patients—walked out the door. This resulted in a full shutdown in a city that needed that hospital.

Ascension Health, one of the largest systems in the country, thought it could cut its way to profitability. That meant layoffs and razor-thin staffing, even in clinical settings. They didn’t get the results they intended. Instead, the decision caused lawsuits, strikes, and a shattered reputation.

Providence faced strikes and the massive exit of nurses because executives didn’t listen. Executives suspected burnout, but they ignored the warnings for too long. Travel nurse overreliance, plummeting morale, and public embarrassment resulted.

Even public systems like NYC Health + Hospitals remain hamstrung by hiring delays and morale freefall. If you can’t staff behavioral health in New York City, you don’t have a workforce problem; you have a leadership problem.

And then there’s MetroHealth, where the headlines address lawsuits, not life-saving care. When the executive team implodes, culture does too.

Some of these organizations have changed leadership and slowly started the recovery process, but others never will. In turbulent times, no one will recover from hiring mistakes, inaccurate strategic focus, or underdeveloped succession planning.

Executives don’t create culture at a board retreat. Culture forms when executives use advanced critical thinking skills to solve problems they’ve never faced before. They must first start by seeing their workforce not as overhead but as a leverage point. Underinvest there, and you’re not saving money—you’re setting a match to your margins.

Start with the best people delivering the best care. Ignore that, and you’ll join the list above—not as a cautionary tale, but as a case study in how to lose an empire by winning a spreadsheet.

What do you think of Linda's perspective? Do you agree with her regarding the mistakes made by these health providers? Have you worked in organizations that have made these mistakes?

The Toyota Production System (TPS) -- What Are the Misconceptions?

Earlier this month, Sarah K. Womack published a very interesting new book entitled Toyota's Improvement Thinking from the Inside: From Personal Transformation to Organizational Transformation, which describes how Toyota, through its coaches and leaders, develops its members’ capabilities through a series of continuous improvement (kaizen and problem-solving) activities. For many members of Toyota, this process results in a personal transformation that ultimately leads to organizational transformation.

When I spoke with Sarah this past week, I asked her: "What are the biggest misconceptions about Toyota’s continuous improvement methods and management system?” Here is her complete response:

The biggest misconception I personally had about Toyota’s continuous improvement methods and management system was a degree of personal development and deliberate challenge required to learn how to improve.  It was a journey of mastery of improvement tools, business needs, and how to work with members of your team to accomplish daily objectives.  For most members, that mastery was deeply personal and demanded humility and continuous reflection to transform our mindsets.  And, while there was some talk about Toyota’s philosophy of respect for people, respect is a social construct and difficult to understand from outside of the group.  Once I was inside, I saw how much emphasis there was on reducing team member burden towards the end of reducing waste and creating value for customers. 

More generally speaking of the field, I find many misconceptions about how the entire system works together.  Organizations tend to over-emphasize or de-emphasize the Toyota Production System (TPS) tools for improvement when a successful approach lands at a healthy balance.  The TPS tools are good entry points for people development and continuous improvement.  Value stream mapping, for example, is a tool to chart how material and information flows within a system, show waste, and tell a kaizen story (of waste reduction).  Even if a system is not very complex, learning it through deep study then articulating that learning visually is a special skill set developed over time.  You can feel confident in your skill set when you are able to use such a tool to tell the story of your improvement work.

Finally, I would highlight the misconception around standardization.  Many organizations, within and outside of manufacturing, think it is too rigid to work successfully.  However, Toyota and others have shown that by deeply studying processes and standardizing them, continuous improvements in safety, quality, and other performance outcomes are achievable.

What do you think about Sarah's experience? Has your company implemented a Lean initiative based on the Toyota Production System? Was is transformative?

Leadership Development -- What Is Lacking?

Back in January, Geoff Ribbens, Mark Abraham, and Alistair Cumming published a new book entitled Team Leadership: How to Define, Apply, and Measure It, which presents a unique, people-centric, and scientifically researched theory of leadership linked to an accurate data-based assessment and diagnostic product. For individual leaders looking to maximize personal development and results or for organizations wanting to analyze leadership and its effects across an entire structure or business, this book redefines understanding and development.

When I spoke with the authors this month, I asked them a series of questions starting with "What is currently lacking in leadership development?" Here are their responses:

In our book, we start by identifying four major errors that have held back leadership development and understanding for many years. No doubt all of us have made some, or all, of these errors in the past.

The first error is looking at the leader to understand leadership. Eminent social psychologists have stated that this "leader-centric" approach is “deeply flawed” and not at all useful. We expand on why it is so flawed in the book. We conclude that it is much more useful to concentrate on the perception of those being led.

The second error is to assume that the term "leadership" means the same in a multitude of different contexts such as political leadership, moral leadership, organizational leadership, and team leadership. Different contexts obviously require different definitions and approaches. This is why the book concentrates on the "leadership" of teams.

The third error is to assume that "business success" equates with leadership. This approach only states what the writer hopes leadership will deliver, not what it is. It also assumes that the only people who have leadership are senior managers and CEOs.

The fourth error is simple. Nowhere in our research do we find a definition of the term ‘leadership’ that was objective and measurable.

MS: “So what is the solution to all these myths, assumptions, and lack of definition?”

All the assumptions and errors above have been solved by our innovative approach called Emergent Team Leadership (ETL). We focus on the leadership of teams, whether it is the executive team or the team on the factory floor. We show that all team leaders at every level, have the potential to have "leadership" and it is now measurable.

ETL measures the degree to which team members "willingly and enthusiastically accept their team leader." By examining how team members perceive their leader we created a 12-point profile. The profile is created by the team members, it might not be how the leader perceives themselves or is perceived by the organization. The profile is a simple radar graph and is easy to understand.

MS: “So why focus on teams and team leaders?”

The relationship between the team and the team leader is fundamental to team and organizational performance. If team members "willingly and enthusiastically accept their leader’" then the team leader is more able to deliver positive results because the team supports them. Also, team and team leader well-being is achieved, and there is less disagreement and conflict.

MS: "I can see the improved well-being of the team and team leader but are there any other benefits?

The simple 12-point profile indicates to the team leader what they need to do to move from merely managing their team to the true leadership of that team. The profile is not based on the leader’s personality but on the team’s perception. What is important is that the leader can change that perception. The leader is not a ‘servant’ of the team but can increase their influence by understanding how their team perceives them.

There are many benefits for the team, the team leader, and the whole organization. One obvious benefit is that for the first time leadership training, coaching, or appraising can be tested and retested, and progress can be measured. Our research also found that team leaders themselves found the 12-point profile powerful and relevant, more relevant than other leadership assessment processes they had experienced. If an organization uses ETL this can have a profound positive effect on the organization’s whole team leadership culture.

What do you think of the authors' (Geoff Ribbens, Mark Abraham, and Alistair Cumming) view on the current state of leadership development? Do you agree with what the authors perceive as errors and their proposed solutions?

Mentorship Programs Within Organizations -- What Are the Benefits?

In December, Matthew Aslett published a book entitled Fundamentals of Effective Mentorship: How to Develop Intellectual Capacity and Healthy Workplace Culture, which discusses the facilitation of mentorship programs and the development of mentorship relationships based on experiences from a practitioner lens. The ability to encourage two-way learning relationships through mentorship can help organizations to improve effectiveness. A mentorship program can empower mentors, mentees, and program leaders to share best practices. The mentorship process is integral for promoting the professional and personal growth of stakeholders within an organization. 

When I spoke with Matthew this month, I asked him, “What are the prime benefits of mentorship and how can managers start mentorship programs within their companies?”  Here is his detailed answer:

The prime benefits of mentorship can be considered from three perspectives. First, mentees can establish new relationships with diverse individuals who may provide opportunities to accumulate knowledge, skills, and experiences. Mentees can increase self-belief with encouragement and personalized guidance from counterparts. Mentees can enhance goal-setting abilities with the exploration of priorities, specification of action plans, and co-construction of success strategies.

Second, mentors can develop communication skills in verbal and written domains to convey critical perspectives in understandable terms based on counterpart needs. Mentors can delve deeper into introspection with an awareness of novel viewpoints and personalized philosophies for decision-making. Mentors can engage in talent identification of candidates for prospective positions and opportunities through knowledge of unique abilities. Mentors can achieve self-actualization or personal fulfillment through participation in the vocation and bidirectional exchange of diverse best practices.

Third, communities can proceed with lifelong learning as individuals, teams, and organizations may explore perspectives in collaborative inquiry activities. Communities can improve equity and inclusivity, which represent fairness and belongingness, through active listening, examination of taken-for-granted assumptions, and recognition of improvements. Communities can cultivate intellectual abilities for engagement, productivity, and creativity when members participate in dialogue and pinpoint actionable recommendations.

A manager can start a mentorship program within the company using seven steps. First, initiative goals based on the values, vision, and assembled data can guide the focus. Second, selection criteria about mandatory or voluntary participation and manual or automated matching can influence planning. Third, resource strategy considers financial, human, intellectual, physical, and technological elements for implementation. Fourth, data collection mechanisms can capture quantitative and qualitative insights for decision-making. Fifth, an opening message can specify formal expectations and announce an orientation meeting. Sixth, an ideation session can explore aspirations and success factors. Seventh, interaction norms about frequency, relationship length, and modality can clarify learning preferences.

What do you think of Matthew's views on organizational mentorship programs? Does your company have one? Has it been effective in improving employee engagement and workplace culture?