“Dear L&D” is a reflective letter-style series where learning leaders address the profession directly, giving voice to the lessons, challenges and opportunities shaping the future of learning and development (L&D).

Dear L&D,

I’ve heard the same conversation come up again and again in our field: “How do we get a seat at the table?”

It’s a fair question. Many of us spend ample time thinking about how best to demonstrate the value of training: how to measure it, how to showcase what we’ve delivered and how to prove that learning matters to the business. And yet, despite years of discussion, many learning and development (L&D) leaders and teams still feel adjacent to the business rather than fully integrated into it.

But I wonder if part of the challenge is how we position ourselves in the first place. What if the reason we struggle to get a “seat at the table” is that we unintentionally keep presenting ourselves as a separate function?

Think about how organizations talk about functions like sales, marketing or information technology (IT). They aren’t usually framed as auxiliary departments trying to justify their presence — they’re understood as integral parts of how the business operates. Meanwhile, L&D often introduces itself first and foremost as the “training department.” It’s a subtle distinction, but one that may keep us at arm’s length from the very business conversations we strive to be part of.

Maybe the issue isn’t that businesses don’t value learning. Maybe it’s that we sometimes frame ourselves in ways that make us feel disconnected from the business itself. One way this happens is through the lens we use to describe our work.

When Training Becomes the Center of the Story

When our primary language revolves around curriculum, programs, completions and learning metrics, we unintentionally reinforce the idea that training is a separate activity, merely a service or deliverable, rather than part of how the business performs. This doesn’t mean curriculum design, learning objectives and instructional rigor aren’t important — because they absolutely are — but when those elements become the primary way we describe our work to business leaders, we risk framing L&D as a content delivery function rather than a business capability function.

For example, many of us have seen executive presentations that start with substantial business metrics (e.g. quarterly sales performance), only to be immediately followed by learning metrics (e.g., course completions or program participation). While both measurements matter, they don’t always land in a way that resonates with business leaders. In fact, the immediate comparison in this example actually weakens the perceived value of training teams.

Completion rates, learning management system (LMS) engagement and program launches can help tell the story of what L&D delivered. But when those numbers stand on their own, they often sound like internal learning metrics rather than indicators of business performance and capability. Over time, this framing creates an unintended perception: Training is just a service provider rather than a business partner.

This leads to the ironic outcome — the harder we work to showcase valuable training activity, the easier it becomes for others to see L&D as separate from the work that actually drives the business forward.

What the Work Actually Looks Like

If we zoom out, the reality of L&D work often looks very different from how we describe it.

In my own experience, I typically start conversations, proposals and presentations from an outer-business lens. After all, most L&D roles exist because organizations recognize that people need knowledge, skills and support to perform effectively. Spoiler alert: The challenge isn’t convincing the business that learning matters; it’s maintaining the perception that our work is part of how the business operates.

Yes, we facilitate classes, design curriculum and manage learning platforms. But the impact rarely stops there. We also:

• Manage knowledge ecosystems that help teams find and use information quickly.
• Consult with leaders about capability gaps and opportunities.
• Support rapid market changes and product launches.
• Partner with operational teams to help employees adopt new processes and tools.

When we describe our work in these terms, it starts to look less like “training delivery” and more like internal consulting and operational business support.

In many ways, I like to think about L&D functioning as the behind-the-scenes operating system that helps organizations adapt, scale knowledge, and improve performance. In reality, many businesses and internal functions might assume employees already have the competencies required to execute strategy. Sales targets, product launches and operational changes are often planned as if those capabilities simply exist. L&D makes it clear that those competencies don’t come for free — they have to be developed, reinforced and supported over time.

Is “Training Department” the Problem?

This leads us to a deeper question: Is our identity as the “training department” shaping the perception we’re trying to change?

We know that language carries weight and labels influence expectations. When we frame ourselves primarily as training providers, the business around us will naturally expect training. Leaders look to us for courses, programs and completion reports. Success becomes measured by how effectively we deliver instruction.

But the real value of L&D isn’t only the delivery of training. It’s the enablement of performance.

If our identity centers on delivering training, we may unintentionally limit how the business imagines working with us. In many roles — including my own — the reality looks less like a standalone training function and more like integrated business support that helps teams execute and adapt.

Shifting the Center of Gravity

So, what if we reframed the conversation?

Instead of asking, “How do we prove the value of training?” we might ask a different question: “What problem is the business trying to solve?” Starting here changes everything. It shifts our perspective from inside-out to outside-in. We stop positioning training as the solution and instead focus on the business outcome we’re trying to enable. It also changes how we think about measurement. Instead of trying to prove the value of training after the fact, we start the conversation by asking how success will be visible in the business. What will change if this capability improves? How will we know it worked? Measurement, visibility and evidence of effectiveness become part of the design process — not something we attempt to retrofit after the training launches.

When this happens, training becomes one tool among many within the business. Our work becomes framed in terms of performance improvement, capability building and organizational change. We’re brought into strategic and operational conversations earlier, not just after a need for training has already been defined. Our credibility grows and our influence on business outcomes expands.

In other words, we change the perception from just delivering learning programs to directly supporting how the business performs.

Maybe We’re Already at the Table

Many L&D professionals are already doing incredible work that directly impacts the business. After all, every business depends on employee skill and capability development. The shift may not require changing what we do; it might only require us to change how we frame it. If our work helps teams perform better, adapt faster and execute strategy, then we’re already contributing to the outcomes that matter most.

Perhaps the better question isn’t, “How to get a seat at the table?” but rather, “What might change if we stopped introducing ourselves as the ‘training department’ — and started showing up as direct partners in how the business operates?”

Yours Truly,

Benji Wittman, MBA, CPTM