Ok, now take some time to play around with BREM and after about 6 minutes, 42 seconds we’ll come back together.  

That’s all it took for her to fall in love.  And it left me wondering… why didn’t I start here to begin with?  Lesson learned.  

On the call were a few important decision makers, including the Chief Human Resource Officer.  Our goal was to determine how were things going with the pilot for their use of our recently released beta app.  There was just one problem—they hadn’t actually used the product themselves.  So it was proving difficult to invest some of their pilot participants in using it.  

In addition, it appears they’d also chosen a few of their most challenging managers to test it with.  I guess the thinking was, if it works for them, then it’ll definitely work for everyone else.  As I listened to them describe who they chose and their rationale for selecting these participants, I messaged my counterpart.  I think they chose less than ideal users.  Not one to mince words, our product developer wrote back, they definitely chose the wrong users.  

But the real question nagging at me was this: what do you do when organizations force development on people who are already passively resistant? Do you just tell them not to do that?  

For too long, across multiple industries, professional development has been weaponized.  Instead of actual support, it’s viewed as a punitive measure.  Notice the language we use.  I’ve been put on a professional improvement plan (PIP).  It’s passive, corrective, and deficit based.  What if development wasn’t framed as fixing what’s broken, but as investing in what’s possible?

One thing we consistently see when clients begin using the product is how critical agency is to the learning process.  Most learning experts agree: real learning happens when curiosity meets opportunity.  But the way organizations often roll out development—top-down, mandatory, one-size-fits-all—makes it almost impossible for people to feel personally invested.  The primary complaint from frontline workers, including middle managers, is that they feel like they’re constantly on the receiving end of top down initiatives.  

You can’t force a manager to grow, they have to want it themselves.  But you can create the conditions where it’s possible.  And that’s where BREM comes in.  

The first thing the senior leader mentioned after testing out BREM for herself was, I got caught up in having a real conversation that went deeper than I expected, and it actually challenged me to reexamine some of my own conclusions.  The reflection really feels like the secret sauce here.  She’s right.  At the core of any self-directed learning is the space for reflection that helps the learner makes sense of what they’re learning.  Managers who come to the learning opportunity with agency, whether it’s the games, scenarios, or individual coaching with BREM, will get more out of it.  

And that’s the tension organizations have to navigate.  How do you position the learning as a systemic support, rather than a punitive measure?  We believe it’s through modeling.   When senior leaders engage first and model how they’re application of learning, it reframes development for everyone else. That insight is what led to a reset meeting with this client, one that ultimately helped turn their pilot around.

It was also a powerful reminder: change efforts that involve managers can’t be purely top-down. They have to be met with bottom-up investment, reinforced by leaders who model the kind of learning they expect across the organization.  People don’t just follow instructions. They follow examples, so what are you modeling?  

Now is the best time to try the ManagerEQ app for yourself.  Step into the learner’s seat, experience the reflection, and model the kind of growth you want your managers to embrace. Because the strongest signal you can send isn’t another initiative, it’s your own willingness to learn.