The End of the Branson era of Training and Treating

–Sir Richard Branson c.2014 

 

It is a famous leadership quote. For a long time, it made sense. 

But it is increasingly a product of a different era. 

An era where careers were longer and more linear, roles were more stable, and organisations could reasonably assume continuity in markets, skills and employment. 

That context is breaking down. 

 

The world the Branson quote was built for, is disappearing 

 

For much of the last century, “training” meant increasing the skills in people so they could perform better at relatively stable, repeatable activities. 

Sales or manufacturing techniques. Reporting systems. Operational processes. Functional expertise. And so on. 

 

At the same time, companies could offer something in return for their staff being well trained: progression, security, and often a long-term relationship between employer and employee. 

 

That world is no longer the default. 

 

Today, three structural shifts have changed the equation: 

 

First, the acceleration of automation and AI is reducing the shelf life of many technical and procedural skills. What is valuable today in terms of trained skills, may be totally redundant, or at least partially automated, tomorrow. 

 

Second, organisational change has become constant rather than exceptional. Restructuring, pivoting, merging, downsizing, and re-prioritising are now routine features of successful modern businesses, not just the unsuccessful ones. Inevitably people leave as a result of these changes, often involuntarily, no matter how well “treated” they might normally have been. 

 

Third, labour markets themselves are more fluid. People move more frequently, not only by choice, but also because roles disappear or transform. To change jobs is a normal part of a career, not born from an exceptional lack of loyalty. 

 

The combined effect is simple, but profound: the assumption of job stability on the back of trained skills, no longer holds. Sorry Sir Richard. 

 

 

Branson’s quote rests on two ideas. 

The first is that you can “train” people in a way that meaningfully anchors them to a specific organisation (despite everything going on around) 

The second is that you can “treat” people well enough to create lasting retention (again, despite everything going on around). 

 

In a more stable economy, and without the speed-march of technology, both ideas had weight. 

But in a fluid, technology-driven economy, both ideas are weakened to breaking point. 

 

People often leave employers not because training was insufficient, or because culture was lacking, but because the role itself has changed or disappeared. 

Even in well-run organisations with enviable leadership quality at the head, capable people are regularly displaced by structural decisions unrelated to individual performance. 

 

This creates an important shift in perspective. 

Retention is no longer a reliable measure of leadership quality. 

And training alone is no longer a sufficient lens for human development inside organisations. 

 

 

If stability is no longer the defining feature of work, then leadership needs to be defined differently. 

 

The key question is no longer: 

How do we treat our well trained people so they remain with us? 

A more relevant question is: 

What can people ‘become’ while they are here? 

 

This reframes the purpose of leadership away from mere retention and toward human development in the broadest sense. 

Not just capability in a role, but adaptability, judgment, confidence, and the ability to operate in changing contexts. 

In other words, we are not preparing people for a fixed job, but strengthening how they think and perform in environments where the job itself may evolve or disappear. 

 

 

The concept of “training” is increasingly narrow. To me, training implies optimisation of a defined set of tasks. 

But many of the most valuable skills in modern organisations are not task-based anymore. They are cognitive and behavioural: decision-making, communication, leadership under pressure, influence, and adaptability in ambiguity. 

 

Skills to cope in these situations are not developed through one-off training interventions. They are developed through experience, reflection, and environment. 

This is where the distinction matters. 

 

Training improves performance in a known system. 

Development improves capability in unknown systems. 

 

The first assumes stability. 

The second assumes change. 

 

 

In this context, leadership is not best measured by turnover rates or tenure length. 

It is better measured by a different question entirely: 

What did this leader create in the people who worked with them? 

 

Did their people leave more capable, more rounded, than when they arrived under that leader? 

Are they now more confident in uncertainty? 

Are they more able to lead themselves in changing environments? 

 

This shifts the focus from staff retention as the target outcome, to staff growth as the primary responsibility of leadership. 

Because in a world where people will inevitably move, whether voluntarily or not, the lasting impact of leadership can not be whether they stayed or not. 

It has to be what they take with them, when they go. 

 

 

This leads to a simpler framing of Branson's original goals: 

“Continually develop people so they always know they are growing.” 

This should be the new mantra on leadership. 

 

This quote should not be used just as a motivational slogan (as Branson’s probably is these days), but as a functional leadership principle. 

Because when people experience real growth, several things follow naturally. 

 

They become more engaged with what they are doing in the present. 

They become more capable in whatever they do next. 

They become more resilient in the face of organisational and economic change. 

And they recognise that those who provided the growth, deserve the best of them in return. 

 

Growth becomes the anchor, not tenure. 

Growth delivers the value, not training. 

 

 

This shift has a practical consequence. 

Organisations that continue to think in terms of static roles, fixed skills, and retention-based success metrics will increasingly struggle to develop talent that is fit for a changing environment. 

 

Whereas organisations that prioritise ongoing growth and professional development will build something more durable: people who can adapt, evolve, and continue to contribute value across changing contexts. 

 

This is not about replacing training. 

It is about expanding the definition of what training means - and ‘development’ is a much better word to use in context. 

 

 

The era where leadership was primarily about keeping people and optimising known skills is fading. 

The next era of leadership is about creating conditions for continuous growth in an environment that changes quicker than traditional training can keep up with. 

 

That may be a harder standard, but it is also a more honest one. 

And ultimately, a more useful one for both organisations and the people within them. 

 

So the new mantra becomes “Continually develop people so they always know they are growing.” but what does that look like ? 

 

Well that’s where we come in. 

Search “Elephant Leadership Camps”, and we'll take it from there...