When a manager asks a Talent Development (TD) professional to provide training, we’re taught to follow a structured process of needs analysis. First, we ask the manager what Key Performance Indicator (KPI) needs improvement, and then we establish the current performance and the desired performance against this metric. The difference between the current and desired states is the performance gap. We then identify why this gap exists and propose a solution (which may or may not be training) to close the gap. We are often reminded that a lack of knowledge or skill may not be the cause of the gap, in which case, training will not close the gap.

Mind the Gap

In my ten-year career in talent development, I have received only a handful of training requests related to a performance gap. Most of the requests I have received have been related to organizational changes or new employees. I doubt my experience is unique, but I fully acknowledge that the nature of the requests a TD professional receives depends on the professional’s role and the nature of the organization.

When we implement new software or expand into new markets with different laws, regulations, and requirements than our current markets, or when regulations change, the performance need is not directly related to any performance gap. The organization is changing the way it operates, and employees obviously must learn the new way of doing things. No root cause analysis is necessary, and the need cannot be met by a change in incentives, tools, or feedback alone.

Similarly, when we are asked to train new employees to perform a job within the organization—or to train existing employees to perform a new job—there is no current performance to measure, because the target audience is not yet performing the job. Again, no root cause analysis is necessary. I wish I had known that when I was starting out in Talent Development; I could have saved myself a lot of time.

On the other hand, keep in mind that if new employees are already being trained, and we are asked to improve a KPI related to the retention or performance of these new employees, that is a performance gap and requires a root cause analysis, and training may or may not be the solution.

That is not to say that metrics cannot exist for requests related to organizational changes or new employees. For training related to organizational changes, we can measure adoption rates for new computer software (when its use is optional). Any significant change to processes, systems, or tools always creates a performance dip, so we could also establish metrics relating to the length and depth of that dip (i.e., how little productivity is lost, and how quickly we return to or exceed pre-change levels). When training new employees, we can measure how long it takes them to gain proficiency. Nevertheless, we know that some type of learning intervention—training, job aids, etc.—will be needed.

The Root of the Problem

When a training request is tied to a performance gap, it is certainly possible that something other than a lack of knowledge or skill is causing the gap. If you read TD industry publications, you might be convinced that the majority of training requests we receive stem from other root causes like a lack of motivation, insufficient resources, or inefficient processes, rather than a lack of knowledge or skill. My experience is that most managers have a good sense of whether a lack of knowledge or skill is at play; I have received only one or two training requests unrelated to a lack of knowledge or skill. In fact, even if managers think training would solve a performance gap, they are often reluctant to allow employees to take time away from the job for training. Nevertheless, it is important to conduct the root cause analysis to be certain.

Several techniques, such as the Five Whys and Ishikawa Diagrams, exist to identify root causes of performance gaps. When using any of these techniques, keep in mind that a performance gap may very well be the result of more than one root cause. Of course, it is important to keep in mind that not all root causes are equally important. A few root causes may lead to a disproportionate number or magnitude of outcomes. Likewise, some root causes may be addressed relatively easily and inexpensively, while others may require a more extensive remedy. I certainly do not mean to imply that in order to be effective, a solution must address every single root cause. Once root causes have been identified, techniques such as Pareto analysis can help us identify the most important root causes.

For example, we may be asked to reduce the time to proficiency for new employees who need to perform a complicated task. We may identify several root causes for this performance gap: (1) external forces such as regulations create a high level of complexity, (2) employees lack the knowledge and skill to perform the task correctly, and (3) existing software does not apply business rules, so employees have to apply the rules themselves. If any one of these factors were to be removed, the task could be performed successfully, so we can choose how we address the gap based on factors such as feasibility and cost.

Leverage

The idea behind root cause analysis is to discover the true reasons for a performance gap, so that we can pull the right lever to close the gap. As TD professionals, however, we rarely have the ability to dictate which levers the management team pulls. And while one particular lever might be the most effective to address the gap, another lever or combination of levers might be less expensive or have an effect more quickly.

To return to our example, the organization cannot control external forces, such as regulations, so any solution will have to address the other root causes. One option might be to divide the task among employees or groups, so that each individual is responsible for only a portion of the task, and therefore, does not need to know the entire task (i.e., job or process redesign). Depending on the size of the organization and the nature of the task, this may or may not be possible. Another option would be to implement more robust software that is capable of managing the complexity through business rules, simplifying the task for the employees. Such software may or may not exist, and if it does, it may or may not be affordable. A third option would be to train the employees to perform the task in all its complexity.

Given these options, implementing more robust software might be the most effective solution, but if we cannot persuade management to make that investment, we will have to pull some other lever to close the gap. In this situation, as in most situations I’ve encountered in my career, training may not be the solution, but it will probably be at least part of the solution.

So the next time a manager asks you to provide training, remember that one needs analysis does not fit all. Determine whether you’re dealing with a performance gap, an organizational change, or a new employee. If it turns out you are dealing with a performance gap, keep in mind that the gap may have multiple root causes—and that you might be able to close the gap by pulling several different levers or a combination of levers.