Hackathon Report: Defining and Evolving Enablement
TL;DR: The September 9th Enablement Hackathon revealed both the urgency and difficulty of defining enablement. Despite a decade of recognition, the field still lacks a unifying North Star, leaving companies to mis-hire and mismeasure. Across four working sessions, participants surfaced three emerging identities—diagnostic, translator/orchestrator, and strategic partner—but no single definition. Adoption was highlighted as the critical lever for both programs and the profession itself. The path forward is clear: pulse the community, clarify why enablement exists, and co-create a definition that secures alignment, stability, and long-term impact.
Context & Purpose
On September 9th, 2025, a group of enablement professionals gathered in NYC for a half-day workshop. The intent was clear: to confront the persistent ambiguity around enablement, challenge assumptions, and experiment with building a shared vision for the future of the role.
Enablement has been a recognized function for nearly a decade, yet companies continue to mis-hire, mismeasure, and misunderstand the role. Enablers themselves often describe their work differently depending on context. That lack of clarity has fueled instability, layoffs, and ongoing confusion about enablement’s true purpose.
The day was structured into four working sessions:
DefiningEnablement
TheAdoptionEffectWorkshop
EvolutionofEnablement(Debates)
MakingItStick/The Future of Enablement
While the sessions each had their own goals, a deeper thread emerged throughout: not just “what is enablement today?” but “what is (or, do we want to be) enablement’s true purpose?”
Prior to the start of the hackathon, participants were asked to define enablement in less than two sentences as they walked in. The answers underscored the fragmentation we were there to address:
Identify gaps and fix them.
Act as the hub of communication across teams.
Create efficiency and effectiveness for sales to drive revenue.
Design programs that change behaviors and improve results.
Lead go-to-market strategy.
The definitions were earnest, but all over the map. Some framed enablement as tactical; others as strategic. Some focused narrowly on sales; others on broader business outcomes. Though the initial purpose of the session was to define enablement, one of the questions that continued to be posed to the audience was: What is enablement’s purpose?
Session 1: Defining Enablement
Hack: Write down three lists:
What you are asked to do.
What you are told you are responsible for.
What you believe you are responsible for.
Then: Circle the priorities, cross out what doesn’t belong. What emerged:
Some groups refused to focus on “what we’re asked to do,” choosing only to emphasize what they believe is core to the role.
A few comparisons surfaced: defining enablement is like defining “doctor” or “coach” — the answer depends on type, context, and size. There was also a comparison of enablers to mechanics or diagnosticians, in that who we serve isn’t coming to us to say, “the carburetor is broken”, but rather, “My car isn’t working, can you help uncover why?”
At smaller companies, enablement may stretch into alignment and cross-functional roles.
o At larger ones, those functions may be handled by PMO or product marketing, leaving enablement narrower.
Tension: should enablement flex to company needs or stand firm in a consistent identity?
Another tension: reacting to what companies think they need vs proactively defining what we offer.
Roles split between tactical (execution, L&D, training) and strategic (diagnostics, partner to leadership).
Key Reflection: We struggled to name the one reason on “why” we exist.
Session 2: Adoption Workshop
Purpose: Give participants a framework they could take back to their current jobs, even while we debated bigger questions.
Framework: The Adoption Effect — trust → input → ownership → belief → adoption.
Discussion:
How do you secure adoption of programs you launch when you may not even stay long enough to see them through?
How do you measure whether you’ve earned trust or ownership?
Participants acknowledged that adoption is the lever: without it, even the best programs stall.
Takeaway: Adoption is as critical to the future of enablement itself as it is to the initiatives we deliver.
Session 3: Evolution of Enablement
Format: Debate questions. Small groups each explored one, then shared provocations back.
Questions:
1. Should enablement own alignment across functions?
Pro: We are uniquely positioned to translate and orchestrate.
Con: Alignment belongs to everyone; why should enablement alone carry it?
2. Where should enablement sit?
CRO? CEO? Standalone? Partner to RevOps?
Some argued CROs rarely live their definition (driving alignment + growth), so enablement often fills that gap.
3. People vs systems: Where should the focus be?
Most agreed it’s both: skills + change and tools + process. But that blurred line with RevOps kept surfacing.
4. Governance and prioritization: Are we advisory or do we lead?
Should enablement set GTM cadence (what rolls out, when, how)?
Pro: We have a pulse on the field, customers, and readiness.
Con: Why would enablement own feature release timing?
5. Should enablement be a dedicated function or mostly fractional?
Permanent strategic function, or a fractional leader with specialists hired in as needed?
Some advocated for a hybrid: in-house strategic leader, tactical execution flexed via consultants.
Key Takeaways:
Enablement overlaps with CRO, PMM, RevOps — but is not identical to any.
Strategic North Star is still elusive.
Deep divide on alignment: Ownership vs distributed responsibility.
Session 4: Future of Enablement / Making It Stick
Planned format: Debate a drafted definition.
What happened: The drafted definition (produced by ChatGPT in real time) was rejected by all. Instead, the group used the moment to push further on identity.
Words that surfaced:
Diagnostician
Strategist
Translator
Orchestrator
Synthesizer
Points of contention:
“Behavior change” — is that too narrow, or even the wrong framing? Some preferred “shaping culture” over mandating uniform behavior.
Are we CROs in disguise? If CROs are supposed to drive alignment but often don’t, are enablers the ones doing it instead?
Are we really about outcomes? If so, which ones? Sales, customer, organizational?
Tentative formulation:
“Enablement is a strategic partner to improve outcomes. It maintains a pulse on the business and activates the levers that matter — skills, knowledge, alignment, systems, compensation — depending on context.” But... even this wording was left as provisional, with no full consensus.
Key Takeaways:
Lack of consensus is the finding. The struggle to define enablement is itself proof of the problem.
Three emerging identities:
Diagnostic (finding obstacles, gaps).
Translator/Orchestrator (connecting strategy across teams).
Strategic Partner (working with leadership to drive outcomes).
North Star gap remains. Until we can articulate why enablement exists in one or two sentences, we will remain vulnerable to mis-hiring and layoffs.
Alignment is contested. Some see it as our natural home; others see it as a distraction.
Future form is undecided. Permanent, fractional, or hybrid — all models have trade-offs.
Potential Next Steps
Pulse the community. Share back thewords and concepts that surfaced (diagnostician, translator, orchestrator, strategist, synthesizer).
Ask: Which resonate most? Which describe what we should become? What is the North Star?
Synthesize findings. Finalize the North Star definition and answer: Why does enablement exist? (as clearly as CROs or CSMs can).
Broaden validation. Test the new definition with external stakeholders (analysts, execs, hiring managers).
Adopt and institutionalize across the marketplace. Embed enablement’s true identity across the workplace so it’s understood and adopted as clearly as other established functions.
Closing Reflection
The hackathon did not end with a singular definition of enablement. Instead, it surfaced the very reason enablement remains unstable: the profession itself hasn’t decided what it stands for.
And yet, that’s the power of the session. By surfacing the fractures and pushing participants toward a North Star, we created the conditions for progress. The work is unfinished, but it is moving.
The task ahead is clear: capture the voice of the community, refine toward clarity, and then ensure the new definition doesn’t just exist on paper, but gets adopted in practice.
