In this article the author describes a discussion he had with a group of colleagues on designing alternative forms of academic development. In this discussion their creativity was curtailed and the range of alternatives restricted, because they thought academic development was restricted to offering opportunities for development to academics. As a result, they limited the methods they could employ, just as teachers limit the teaching methods they employ if they think teaching is restricted to "standing in front of students and imparting knowledge." Just as a broader conception of teaching can also include designing assessments and selecting readings, a broader conception of academic development could also include changing promotion policies or developing leaders in teaching and learning, not to mention a range of other possibilities. The author concludes that the problem arose because they "defined" themselves by what they did. He suggests that all academic developers, regardless of the title, should be wary of defining themselves in a similar, limiting way. Herein, the author argues that (1) the conception of academic development that is adopted can restrict (2) one's ability to improve teaching and learning. The challenge for the academic development community is to devise broad conceptions of academic development that enable academic developers to improve teaching and learning in creative ways.