I recently stepped into a leadership role and I still remember my boss’s three words when I asked what she wanted me to do first:
“Rock the boat.”
I didn’t take those words literally. Instead, I kept them close, took time to understand my team’s functions and challenges, and thought deeply about how to make things more effective.
My earliest observation was how the biannual learning calendar was being shared. It was functional, a simple Excel sheet uploaded to the shared portal, but not exactly inspiring. The information was there, yet the experience was missing. The content structure wasn’t standardised: some programmes listed learning objectives, others didn’t; some included topics, while others listed outcomes as topics; programme levels were unclear, target audiences weren’t specified, and even the fonts varied. It was obvious that the document had been compiled by multiple people, and it didn’t speak with a unified voice.
A month later, I met my boss again and shared my idea to reimagine the calendar. Instead of a flat spreadsheet, I proposed transforming it into a visually structured PDF, built in PowerPoint. The goal was to create a learning publication that was informative, consistent, and reflective of the organisation’s culture.
But the idea wasn’t welcomed. My boss explained that change was not what the team needed at that time. What they needed was more hands on the ground.
I respected her perspective and decided to focus first on strengthening the basics.
Few months later, the department had a new Director (my boss’s boss). Visionary and metrics driven, he noticed the same gap: the learning calendar wasn’t inspiring engagement.
He put it simply, “Enrolment isn’t low because people don’t want to learn. It’s low because our invitation doesn’t invite them!”
He called for us to re-design the learning calendar and my team was assigned to champion the project.
My boss wasn’t wrong. The change required tremendous effort – a cross-functional collaboration. It may sound like a simple design update, but it carried major operational implications. We needed buy-in from everyone: programme designers, learning specialists, communications, LMS administrators, and even the CHRO’s office.
Previously, the learning calendar process was fragmented. Each team worked in isolation — learning specialists filled in their sections whenever they could, sometimes even after a programme had already started. The LMS setup only began once a manual request form was submitted, often accompanied by the enrolment list — last minute and entirely ad hoc. There was no clear timeline, no central coordination, and little sense of shared ownership. The calendar came together eventually, but it felt more like a compilation of disjointed efforts than a cohesive plan.
Under the new structure, everything changed. The calendar could no longer be updated on the go — it had to be finalised by a fixed deadline before any LMS classes were created. This meant that planning, vendor engagement, quotations, proposals, and agreements all had to be completed at least one month in advance for review and approval.
The shift demanded operational discipline and real teamwork. Suddenly, teams that once worked independently had no choice but to align — programme designers and learning specialists had to plan together, the LMS team required finalised programme codes earlier, and communications needed confirmed dates and themes for design consistency.
Even on the design front, collaboration deepened. The visual layout now went through the communications team to ensure corporate identity alignment, while the CHRO’s office reviewed key messages to reflect organisational priorities. Timelines tightened, but so did coordination.
The change turned what was once a loose sequence of handovers into a connected workflow. Instead of waiting for others to finish their part, everyone now moved in sync. It was no longer about completing individual tasks in silos — it was about delivering learning as one integrated team.
With a lean team, many of whom were nearing retirement and resistant to change, I often found myself doing most of the work alone. It reminded me of my boss’s earlier words that change was not what the team needed at that time. She was right in one sense: change was demanding. I nearly burned out managing everything—storyboarding, curating programme outlines, coordinating with designers, handling LMS creation, and producing the final calendar layout myself.
But we did it.
By mid-that year we successfully launched the revamped Learning Calendar in a completely new format: a visually designed PDF built from PowerPoint. It included a clear table of contents, key messages from the CHRO, and thematic sections highlighting the year’s core learning focus areas such as leadership, digital transformation, and professional excellence. The design guided employees to identify which programmes aligned with their personal and professional goals.
That journey called me to remind everyone on the importance of operational discipline. Some may say operations are disruptive, but in truth, disruption only happens when structure is missing.
I put my structured mindset to work by creating step-by-step procedural guides, defining responsibilities, and embedding accountability into KPIs. With a lean team, I encouraged cross-functional learning and mutual support. My principle was simple: if I could do the work of seven people, then each of us could support one another.
Progress was slow but meaningful. I developed procedural documents and made them easily accessible. There was no more, “I don’t know how to do it; I need to wait for someone to teach me.” SOPs were ready, clear, and live.
The result?
By the following year, the Learning Calendar was entirely the team’s work. It wasn’t perfect, but I only stepped in at the final review stage, not throughout every process.
That, to me, was a win. It was progress.
And the calendar? With its new look and feel, the response was overwhelmingly positive. Managers referred to it in meetings. Employees explored it more actively. There was a renewed sense of structure and pride in how learning was communicated.
For me, this wasn’t just a design project. It was a reflection of how visual communication and operational discipline come together to enhance engagement. It proved that learning doesn’t begin in the classroom; it begins with how we present opportunities—clearly, creatively, and with intent.
Change doesn’t happen when we demand it — it happens when we design for it. Structure, empathy, and clarity turned a simple calendar redesign into a lesson on how visual communication can unite people around a shared purpose.
Structure is power.
Leave a Reply