Great piece. This captures something many small teams experience.
Not every small company is “at the early stage of something big.” Some are a different species entirely - with different constraints and realities.
I’ve seen the same thing happen with processes like Agile. Teams try to force-fit frameworks because “that’s what good companies do,” even when the structure behind those frameworks simply doesn’t exist.
Corporate logic doesn’t always translate to small teams.
My mission (sorry for the big words 🙂) here on Substack is to explore ways of adapting “big” frameworks, approaches, and models - originally developed within and for large organizations - so they can work for small teams
Andrew, thank you for the comment! Sorry for the late reply. I somehow missed it :(
I agree with all four points. The challenge is that expertise is always contextual. And it actually is contextual in most courses and books — it’s just that the context usually isn’t small teams :)
So accurate. You can't copy and paste things meant for massive orgs into a small team. And small teams are more emotionally bonded, so that also needs to be a consideration. Great post.
I love a good paradigm-breaking idea. Corporate Learning and Development tends to be one-size fits all. I found you through @Diana’s recommendation. You might enjoy @Todd W DeVoe’s Substack. I’m so happy my L&D connections are growing!
Your article does a great job of describing a reality a lot of small-team leaders feel but rarely see reflected: most leadership education is optimized for scale, not scarcity. I personally struggled to coach a company of 3 last year and felt like my impact just wasn't there.
I do like the shift toward sensemaking, peer context, and just-in-time learning, it treats leadership as an evolving practice, not a credential.
Curious: if you were to design the first learning artifact for say a five-person team (one habit, ritual, or tool), what would you start with? Thanks!
Thanks Danil! I’m assuming you mean my article on Diagnosing learning needs v. wants. Context is so important when it comes to tailoring learning experiences that actually make an impact.
I enjoyed reading your article! Your emphasis on relying moreso on informal and self-directed learning activities, vs formal learning is spot on for success of small teams, as well as solo practitioners.
Such a great question, Ryan, thank you. And sorry for the slow reply, it really made me think.
To be honest, I can’t fully answer it after all in a simple way, because any meaningful starting point depends so much on the team’s context, situation, and pain. If we really rely on a contextual approach, then the “first learning artifact” should not be a learning artifact at all 🙂
The first step is not to teach or train, but to help the team define and articulate what (and how, and even when) it actually needs to learn right now.
So I would start with, let's say, diagnostic artifacts.
And if you don’t mind me asking, I’m genuinely curious, what was the hardest part in the case you mentioned, coaching a team of three?
Thank you for the response! I think my struggle was due to the general lack of complexity that came with a small business like that. I’m generally used to working with more complex organizations with multiple layers and levels of talent and leaders. So in those orgs there is a never ending rotation of development that can happen, whereas with the small business after the first 4-5 months it became harder to make an impact. Just the nature of the business I suppose.
That’s very well put — a lack of complexity! And I think small teams (by their nature) are much more inclined toward iterative learning than toward long, structured programs. Iteration, strong ties to context, and knowledge/skills/expertise on demand.
One more great question! And I’d probably challenge it a bit, Diana :)
In small teams, people are often already motivated to learn, and what we call “motivation problems” are actually problems with courses and training that come from the top, miss the team’s struggles and pain and distract already overloaded people.
Motivation to learn comes from relevance and a clear sense of need.
I’d start by identifying what is currently painful, confusing, or blocking the team’s and individuals’ progress, so that any future learning reflects that reality.
Great piece. This captures something many small teams experience.
Not every small company is “at the early stage of something big.” Some are a different species entirely - with different constraints and realities.
I’ve seen the same thing happen with processes like Agile. Teams try to force-fit frameworks because “that’s what good companies do,” even when the structure behind those frameworks simply doesn’t exist.
Corporate logic doesn’t always translate to small teams.
Alex, thank you! I really appreciate this!
My mission (sorry for the big words 🙂) here on Substack is to explore ways of adapting “big” frameworks, approaches, and models - originally developed within and for large organizations - so they can work for small teams
Great, I think we’ll have interesting crossovers. Looking forward to following your work!
Great post. This captures a lot of what I’ve run into in practice.
These are the four things I discovered adopting change programs in small teams:
1) Books, courses, and frameworks don’t survive small-team reality.
2) They start useful, then become less relevant as the detail increases.
3) Paid programs sell coherence, but mostly deliver repackaged basics.
4) The real skill is knowing what to cut, not what to add.
Your piece does an excellent job of describing this.
Andrew, thank you for the comment! Sorry for the late reply. I somehow missed it :(
I agree with all four points. The challenge is that expertise is always contextual. And it actually is contextual in most courses and books — it’s just that the context usually isn’t small teams :)
So accurate. You can't copy and paste things meant for massive orgs into a small team. And small teams are more emotionally bonded, so that also needs to be a consideration. Great post.
🙏🤘
I love a good paradigm-breaking idea. Corporate Learning and Development tends to be one-size fits all. I found you through @Diana’s recommendation. You might enjoy @Todd W DeVoe’s Substack. I’m so happy my L&D connections are growing!
Thank you for the recommendation!
Your article does a great job of describing a reality a lot of small-team leaders feel but rarely see reflected: most leadership education is optimized for scale, not scarcity. I personally struggled to coach a company of 3 last year and felt like my impact just wasn't there.
I do like the shift toward sensemaking, peer context, and just-in-time learning, it treats leadership as an evolving practice, not a credential.
Curious: if you were to design the first learning artifact for say a five-person team (one habit, ritual, or tool), what would you start with? Thanks!
Substack is amazing 🙂 I’ve just read a great piece by @Dr. Jody Peleo-Lazar. It really continues and expands both our conversation and my post.
Thanks Danil! I’m assuming you mean my article on Diagnosing learning needs v. wants. Context is so important when it comes to tailoring learning experiences that actually make an impact.
I enjoyed reading your article! Your emphasis on relying moreso on informal and self-directed learning activities, vs formal learning is spot on for success of small teams, as well as solo practitioners.
Such a great question, Ryan, thank you. And sorry for the slow reply, it really made me think.
To be honest, I can’t fully answer it after all in a simple way, because any meaningful starting point depends so much on the team’s context, situation, and pain. If we really rely on a contextual approach, then the “first learning artifact” should not be a learning artifact at all 🙂
The first step is not to teach or train, but to help the team define and articulate what (and how, and even when) it actually needs to learn right now.
So I would start with, let's say, diagnostic artifacts.
And if you don’t mind me asking, I’m genuinely curious, what was the hardest part in the case you mentioned, coaching a team of three?
Thank you for the response! I think my struggle was due to the general lack of complexity that came with a small business like that. I’m generally used to working with more complex organizations with multiple layers and levels of talent and leaders. So in those orgs there is a never ending rotation of development that can happen, whereas with the small business after the first 4-5 months it became harder to make an impact. Just the nature of the business I suppose.
That’s very well put — a lack of complexity! And I think small teams (by their nature) are much more inclined toward iterative learning than toward long, structured programs. Iteration, strong ties to context, and knowledge/skills/expertise on demand.
How do you motivate all team members to be interested in learning and training and growth in general?
One more great question! And I’d probably challenge it a bit, Diana :)
In small teams, people are often already motivated to learn, and what we call “motivation problems” are actually problems with courses and training that come from the top, miss the team’s struggles and pain and distract already overloaded people.
Motivation to learn comes from relevance and a clear sense of need.
I’d start by identifying what is currently painful, confusing, or blocking the team’s and individuals’ progress, so that any future learning reflects that reality.
Starting from what people actually need as opposed to what the company training plan provides is a great choice :) Thank you :)