6

Heeding the Call

Jerry Kaminski With MJ Hall

Ike, an internal performance coach for a large organization, has just received an email from Clara, one of the company’s senior technical managers. In the email, Clara states that one of her project teams is having huge performance problems. The team’s members are not meeting the milestone schedule for Project XYZ and they need training. She wants Ike to conduct a two-and-a-half-day team problem-solving training within the next month.

This request puts Ike in a bit of a bind. Not only is his current schedule very full; he already has a new project on hold and he’s been waiting all year for his family beach vacation—which he leaves for in two weeks. However, Clara has higher rank in the organization and has influence with the C-suite. Her project is critical to several organizational strategic goals and is also visible to the external clients.

As an experienced performance coach and trainer, Ike has taught many courses on team problem solving. After quickly reviewing the shelves behind his desk, he realizes he has six different workshops of varying lengths on team development skills, like problem solving, from previous sessions.

Ike pulls the notebooks from his shelf and starts reviewing the training modules. He puts a few sticky notes along the edge of several pages. Then, Ike goes back to the computer, hits reply to Clara’s email, and starts to write.

What Does Ike Say?

As we know, this is an age-old problem facing the talent profession. Organization development specialists, consultants, and anyone else who helps with organizational challenges refer to this as the “1-800-TRAIN effect.” A manager calls the training department or consultant and requests a training program to fix some hot performance challenge. The manager wants the fix now, and they want it to be quick because they cannot afford for employees to be offline due to their heavy workload.

The manager also wants it cheap because budgets are being cut, and an internally developed program will save costs. Thus, the scenario unfolds with the manager telling the trainer what solution they want, when they want it, and the amount of time the employees can be available for the training.

Fast. Cheap. On-demand. Oh, and high quality. It’s an all-too-familiar story.

This scenario typically plays out like this: Ike will respond to the request quickly and immediately start offering ideas for implementing the manager’s proposed solution. But here’s the catch: He still doesn’t know the real problem. This means that the manager, who is generally not trained in learning theory or instructional design, is ordering a training solution for an undefined problem.

This scenario propagates the terms dipping or spray and pray as derogatory phrases for training. Ironically trainers may find themselves being OK with this dipping approach because they also have busy schedules, may not be confident in the solution, and generally have a large portfolio of canned training products or modules at their disposal.

On the flipside, custom design work that creates an environment where work and learning can thrive simultaneously is very effective. But it also takes time to assess, plan, design, and develop materials, including research, to gather data on the unique situation.

This scenario and the 1-800-TRAIN effect can be compounded when the manager making the request uses a “seagull management” approach—a joke Ken Blanchard makes in Leadership and the One Minute Manager (1985): “Seagull managers fly in, make a lot of noise, dump on everyone, and fly out.”

Ike sits up in his chair, takes a deep breath, and proofreads his email, which says:

He hits send and gets to work.

An Invitation to the Dance

With this approach, the requesting managers never have a clue that their management style is the issue. This manager type, and others who do not interact collaboratively with the workers, frequently expect the trainer to come in and “fix” their team.

The following story, shared by MJ Hall (2014), is a recollection from a colleague about his exchange with his professor during graduate school:

The “invitation to the dance” concept includes being open to conversations and discussions. This openness requires deep listening, not surface listening. It requires open-mindedness and a willingness to collaborate with the requester on a system of solutions that they will implement. It also requires using your skill in learning theory and design, as well as your influence as a leader. You’ll need to help others by providing support as they transition from one state to another.

This leadership component is critical, and it’s where Ike can provide greater direction and clarity to Clara. Ike is best served to take the lead in this scenario, ask the initial questions, and then dig deeper by asking probing questions that assess Clara’s needs. Given the other feedback received from members of the organization, he’s now equipped to offer an objective assessment of the best solution for his customer within the time constraints given.

Saying yes is the secret! By saying yes, you accept the invitation to the dance, which then allows you to engage in a conversation. Once the conversation develops, you can go to the dance floor and take a look around. Who knows? The manager may have asked you to teach the waltz, but you end up discovering that the team is actually dancing to tango music. Given enough time and data from your observations—and new understanding of the situation—you may end up being able to change the music.

Turning the Conversation

Most organizations have a broad definition of training and, therefore, many initiatives will fit under the training umbrella. Where individual performance is suspect or there is great variability in the performance of individuals, training can be used to provide a level playing field for all. Training also provides a forum for consistent communication, which makes it easier to respond yes to the invitation, because training is a safe way for a manager to ask for help. Joe Harless used to say something like this: Whatever you provide, don’t be afraid to call it training—they asked for training and you provide training. While not clinically accurate all the time, if you are providing what they ask for, you’ll get much further and they will begin to trust you.

Other ideas exist for “turning the conversation,” but before they can act on them the person providing the services (the learning business partner) needs to have clarity on these basic assumptions:

• The overarching focus should be helping employees achieve the organization’s business goals.

• The totality of the work/learning ecosystem needs to be considered. This includes the work itself, the performance needs of the employees, and the influence, constraints, and limitations of the workplace (for example, environment, infrastructure, culture, and support mechanisms). Only when working within the system will the real problems come to light.

• Approach this from a “partnership” with the requester. While you are there as a learning professional, your role is to help the business partner. Another thing Joe Harless used to say was do the work, give the credit of success to the business, and step away. In the end, success lies with the business, not the learning function.

Some other questions for turning the conversation from a specific training request to analyzing system issues include:

• If we were to be successful at helping you here, what changes would you see?

• What do you see as the greatest barriers to success?

• What pressures are you under? What are the sources of these pressures?

• What immediate change would you like to see for your team based on our work?

• Currently, what are the successes for the team?

• What are the employees saying about their problems with meeting the schedule?

• What are competitors doing about this issue? Do other or similar solutions already exist for similar issues or problems?

• How does this proposed training support the organization’s strategic goals or initiatives?

• What other changes aside from training do you think would be helpful?

• When was the last time this team had training? Did it make a difference?

• How can we work together to increase the stickiness of the training?

Once you’ve turned the conversation, it’s time to get your hands dirty and dig into the analysis. You need to determine the root of the problem that will best solve your customer’s needs. The best place to start is with front-end analysis.

Assessing Requests Using Front-End Analysis

Front-end analysis (FEA) is the starting point in the process where you begin to figure out what the problem is and what you as a learning and talent professional need to do. This is where the magic begins—especially for Ike as he gets going on his training request! Credited to Joe Harless and Robert Mager, this concept focuses on moving from a current state to a future state of excellent performance. FEA is a component of the human performance technology (HPT) model, which is a systematic approach to improving productivity and competence (Figure 6-1). It is a series of multiple analyses to investigate various components:

• the current stated problem

• the job or work to be completed

• the tasks to be completed

• the needs for the business

• training the audience and even the environment.

The goal of FEA is to find out all details of the current state, as well as the details of the desired performance of the future state. The FEA becomes the blueprint for analyzing the current situation to determine requirements needed for performance. When done properly and early enough, it will help identify the root cause for the problem, save time and money, and possibly pinpoint what Allison Rossett (1999) calls solution systems—integrated and cross-functional approaches to solving problems and realizing opportunities.

It also identifies alternatives to delivering training. Completion of the FEA is normally done by the instructional designer, subject matter experts, instructional design manager, or in some organizations a client relationship manager (CRM). The CRM’s role is to help complete the intake process (requests) for training.

Figure 6-1. Instructional Design Front-End Analysis Flow

When you think of training, you are looking predominantly at the lack of skills or knowledge for a defined performance. However, by taking a training request on face value, you may end up developing training to solve a problem that really doesn’t exist. Using front-end analysis requires a consistent and standardized process that focuses on the real cause of the problem you have been asked to solve. From there, you can provide solutions across the entire spectrum of performance-related issues.

Harless and Mager’s FEA model allows you to check the three major reasons for a performance issue: skills and knowledge (the only issue training can resolve), tools and environment, and motivation and incentive. This process is flexible in nature but helps pinpoint solutions that may be necessary for feedback, policy and procedures, resources, incentives, capacity, motivation, and skills and knowledge.

When completing the front-end analysis, there are generally six goals that should be achieved:

1. Isolate performance problems that have potentially high “worth.”

2. Isolate the precise performance deficiencies within the problem area that account for the greatest loss.

3. Increase the probability that the solution to a given problem is effective by matching the cause of the problem to the appropriate type of remedy.

4. Increase the probability that the selected solution subclass is the most cost effective.

5. Isolate the root cause of the performance problem rather than any symptoms of the effects of the problem.

6. Increase the probability of a match between the precise performance deficiency and the individuals who have the deficiency.

Using a front-end analysis flow chart or decision tree, group questions into six categories to help further identify possible solutions:

• What’s the current problem?

• Is it worth solving?

• Can we apply fast fixes?

• Are consequences appropriate?

• Do they already know how?

• Are there more causes?

Use of the flowchart is not overly complicated or hard, but it does require discipline and consistent use to make sure it works. The project manager should be familiar with the flowchart and use it as the guide for the intake meeting or front-end analysis kickoff. The intent is not to share the flowchart with the client to use as a list, but to walk through it verbally during the intake meeting. While it is simple enough that it seems like the client could complete the flowchart, there may be halo effects because they are already focused on training as the solution and may not see the other factors. Asking these questions and using your own experience will help you narrow the root cause of the performance deficiency and any appropriate solutions. This is invaluable and well worth your time.

Assessing Requests Using Gilbert’s Grid

Many years ago, Stephen Covey coined this truism: “Start with the end in mind.” While it’s frequently used for project planning, it is also appropriate for learning strategists working with business partners to design solutions for performance enhancements. The starting point is always focused on what the participants in the learning experience need to do.

As learning professionals, we’re always willing to entertain new ideas that help us support the organization’s performance. Conrad Goffredson and Bob Mosher’s Five Moments of Need is a powerful method that helps determine what content to develop, how and when it can be taught, and how to get started. Forward-thinking learning professionals are now assuming the role of business partners, which means thinking in terms of collaborative partnerships to co-create a solution based on the assessed needs, and within the context of the work environment. The first conversation with the customer can set the tone for the direction of the solution—and, ultimately, the ability for that solution to make an impact and deliver the required results.

So, what is the end state? Very simply, the end state is performance-related behaviors by employees. Given this, what do participants need to do differently to ensure success for desired results? Do they need training, resources, coaching, or structure? While the learning department might have a large repertoire of training modules available in a variety of formats, training, per se, may not be the need.

Let’s look back to Clara and Ike. Clara stated that her team had performance issues and wasn’t meeting its project milestones. The request was for problem-solving training. Should Ike continue on the path of providing this training given a successful FEA?

How do you, the learning professional, work with your customers as partners for figuring out the best solution, regardless of the need? One method is starting the conversation using questions based on Thomas Gilbert’s behavior engineering model, which is generally called Gilbert’s Grid. This method looks at the total environment—what the organization provides, and what it brings to the table. This is always the best option when you’re looking to hit your mark at the end of a project, particularly when you have time and resources at your disposal. In Ike’s case, he will need to determine whether he has the time, given the constraints he’s working with.

The success of using the performance engineering model lies in classifying the behavioral change of the request into six categories:

• expectations and feedback

• tools and resources

• incentives (consequences and rewards)

• skills and knowledge

• individual capacity

• motivation.

You may need to provide multiple solutions across all areas to make sure performance improves. Mager’s and Gilbert’s models have many similarities in that they both look at the entire system of factors and aim to provide solutions across each. While the instructional designer focuses primarily on the skills and knowledge category (learning only), it is imperative during the intake assessment for the designer to explore all six categories and identify possible solutions for each. By only focusing on one category, you may miss the bigger issues surrounding the deficit performance. In most instances, you have to address all six categories to ensure a successful outcome (Figure 6-2).

There are no shortcuts; by skipping steps, you set yourself up for failure. Even if a situation seems to demand training, it is important to go through the whole analysis. As a result, the biggest challenge you’ll face is gaining buy-in to do the work. Unfortunately, this is where most organizations lose out—they’re not willing to put in the time to do it right.

Although you may jump-start the training, you want to optimize the performance issue to review each training need. The key is to be thorough. If you’re not, you may end up developing training that doesn’t satisfy the organization’s performance needs.

Figure 6-2. Gilbert’s Behavioral Engineering Model

Gilbert’s Grid can be used as a framework to gather information about performance problems and analyze them for solutions. The questions can either be given to the customer or they can be asked as part of the first conversation. Like all collaborative discussions, it should provide information to both parties. Gilbert-related questions can also be used to guide the thinking around the solution. But more important, the framework encourages managers to be more engaged and involved with the solution process.

Annual Assessments

In addition to an invitation from organizational managers and incorporating the FEA and Gilbert’s Grid, many organizations use an annual needs assessment to see what new training programs are required for the coming year. This can be accomplished through a survey of users, a survey of managers, a review of performance management data (such as individual development plans), and observations or assessments of new programs, processes, or systems. Conducting an annual needs assessment is a good method of taking the pulse of the organization, while also allowing the business to have a say in the work of the training function. This is also a critical component of involving your business partners in decision making and the process.

The downside is that you may get a wish list approach to development. When using a survey, participants could list their wants rather than their needs for training. While the data collected is valuable, I’ve learned from experience that it’s imperative to run things through your needs assessment process to ensure that you are hitting the mark.

Learning Request Forms

For mature organizations, a formal learning request form or system is recommended. This intake process allows you to track all requests and collect considerable data at the onset of the project. While a learning request form is similar to a direct request, it formalizes the process and puts responsibility on the requester to provide additional information the learning function can use to assess the request. It also allows you to better track your workload, increase your project management capability, and better leverage your resources with prioritization.

The more complete your request form, the more assessment data you have to start the process. Questions you might ask include:

• What is the project type (for example, a new project, revision, or project assistance)?

• Provide the requester name and department.

• Give a short description of the request.

• What problem are you trying to solve?

• Is there already a course, or do you know of any existing solutions?

• How many people are affected by this request (target audience numbers)?

• What is the primary work group affected by this request?

• When is the project needed by?

• What are the risks of not delivering the training by the targeted date?

• Will regular revisions be required?

• Does this affect qualifications (skills imparted)?

• Are subject matter experts available to work on this project? Names?

• Is there budget for this request?

Once the learning function receives the request, it can provide data to add to the form to make it more complete. This might include:

• Was initial contact made with the requester? When?

• Are there any unique needs or considerations for this request?

• What is the desired delivery method?

• Is this a new delivery or new development? Both?

• What are the roles or job titles affected by this request?

• What is the subject area for this request?

• Is there executive approval for this request?

• Is there a vendor solution for this request?

• What is the customer impact for this request? Internal? External? Both?

• Does the project require new technology or technology known in the industry but new to the company?

• Does the project have a visible influence on a large number of customers, business partners, or the community (for example, will there be a large number of learners)?

• Will the project lead to a large amount of change in the company?

• Who is assigned to the project?

• What is the estimated project start date?

While you can take on projects without one, the learning request form helps formalize the request, capture information at the onset of the project, and tracks the history of your work. It also serves as the starting point for a detailed analysis report or design document. Often, the learning request form helps jump-start the FEA process before the intake meeting.

Each organization should review these questions, select the ones that best match its needs, and then develop its own form. The more complete the form, the more you have to start the project with and the more detailed information you have for the intake assessment.

Using ADDIE and SAM

Instructional designers who follow a standardized process such as ADDIE (analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate) or SAM (successful approximation model) conduct their intake analysis using either the performance engineering model or front-end analysis model in both their decision-making and needs analysis processes. These models are standard tools in the instructional design process that frame the outcome of the needs analysis and give clear direction on a set of solutions that will best meet the needs of the requester. Design thinking is used as part of the thought process and helps guide decision making.

ADDIE is best used for more detailed, thorough approaches where time is not as much of a factor. It is akin in project management parlance to using the Waterfall approach. SAM is a more iterative, Agile approach that is better suited for situations where time is at a premium. That said, ADDIE is generally used in some capacity.

A word of caution—your requester will likely believe they have already given you the solution in their request and even the timing of the delivery. It is contingent on the designer to show the value of the assessment to the requester, and also explain the process of the assessment. While cost is not the defining component, it comes into play when selecting a solution and determining whether to proceed.

Summary

Like people, organizations have challenges and want them solved—fast. For years, training has been the go-to solution for many (and any) problems. It’s not uncommon to develop great training, only to realize too late that it was the wrong solution. With limited time and resources—and more advanced capability to integrate learning assets—it is imperative that we know the true root cause of the challenges employees face and address them accordingly. Determining the type of dance will only happen after you accept the invitation and ask many questions.

Front-end analysis and Gilbert’s Grid are excellent tools for digging deeper—in a manner that is collaborative and leads to a logical conclusion. Focusing on the real performance need and determining how to arrive at the best solution while balancing limited time, resources, and people adds value to the learning experiences developed and the organization.

The FEA decision tree is a thorough and specific tool that allows even those new to the field the ability to discern the real issues. Gilbert’s Grid can be used after the decision tree to classify the output. These tools can be combined and customized to enable the learning and talent staff to make the best choices for their unique situation.

Be willing to understand your client’s needs and ask tough questions. This will earn you respect and give you the answers you need to help solve the problem. No matter the time, resource, or cost constraints, you must try to see things as objectively as you can and be prepared for addressing customer needs.

As training and learning professionals, we should always heed the call. Rising up to meet the challenge is the mark of a great leader. As Ike showed us, once the invitation to the dance is extended, we should always be willing to say, “Yes!”

So, what did Ike do?

He completed the FEA and found many possible solutions, including training on problem solving. He also found that there was a lack of solid procedures, missing tools, and a need for project management training. He helped Clara define the procedures and secure new tools, and then he delivered a day of problem-solving training and a day of project management training. Clara’s team successfully completed the project ahead of schedule and budget. She now routinely comes to Ike—well in advance—to have him conduct an FEA at the start of each new project. It was a major win for all involved.

Key Takeaways

Your value to the organization as a learning and talent development professional is having the expertise, tools, and techniques to create environments that enable employees to continually get better in their evolving work roles. If a manager comes to you and says, “Our performance is down—we need a training solution!” Your response should always be, “Please let us know how we can help and support you in doing your work more effectively and efficiently.”

The 1-800-TRAIN call is simply an invitation to the dance. Saying yes means you are opening the door to deeper conversations and opportunities. It allows entry into the requester’s part of the organization—and possibly, the opportunity to change the dance or even the music.

Actually observing and talking to employees is time consuming but makes the next conversation with the requesting manager much richer and more authentic. And more accurate information from employees should result in better, more targeted solutions.

The front-end analysis (FEA) decision tree is a formal tool using detailed questions that flow from one to another. Once the analysis has been completed, the output can be put into Gilbert’s six-box grid to confirm whether the need is training—or another issue. It provides clarity on your suggested solution and offers the requesting manager a bigger perspective to consider.

Provide both internal and external training on the models; as a manager, get actively involved in training your teams to do the work. Start with some team-building activities to ensure they have a solid understanding and are able to confidently deliver the solution for the client. Understanding the processes and working together helps build stronger teams and prepares employees to deliver the desired performance.

Questions for Reflection and Further Action

1. What squares with your thinking about “heeding the call” and the “invitation to the dance” concepts?

2. What is your current practice when you receive a 1-800-TRAIN call?

3. What tools or techniques do your learning team use to ensure that the issue is a performance issue that can be fixed through training?

4. Once a performance issue is determined to be a knowledge or skills gap, what processes are in place in your organization to drill down on the specific competency or capability to focus on for designing training?