by In last week’s article we discussed Training and Why is it so difficult to get quality training done? In this article I promised to drill down on how to identify if training is really needed and if so, what there is to train, in the training industry we call this Analysing Performance.
When we analyse performance for training purposes, it is important to mention that as the name suggests, we are not necessarily looking at a particular individual, in fact I use this model to determine what’s working really well and can be replicated throughout the whole team or across the overall business services standards and obviously, what’s not working as well as we intended it to and why.
When I ask senior leaders, what training programs do you currently have in place? Or, Why do you not provide ongoing training to your employees?
I am often told, we don’t do any other training after onboarding our people, because too often people leave, so it seems like a waste of time and money.
My response to this is, maybe they leave too often, because there’s no skill development or continuous improvement.
And then I ask them, if you didn’t have this limiting thought what are the skills you want your employees to have?
More times than not, they have a vague idea about what skills they would like their team to have but are not sure how to implement a training program or even what skills they would train.
How to identify if training is really needed and if so, what there is to train
When analysing performance, to help determine if a training need actually exists, the following questions should be answered:
Why do I think there is a training need?
What is the difference between what is being done and what is supposed to be done?
What is it that causes me to say that things aren’t right?
Why am I dissatisfied?
Depending on your answers then yes, training could be the right thing to do because there’s skill deficiency, right? Unlike the experience of employees not doing what they should be doing?
Then the question becomes, Why aren’t people doing what they should be doing?
Interesting question this one, it can lead down two completely different pathways. Let’s call them pathway one (not a training problem) and pathway two (training required)
Pathway One (Not A Training Problem)
One of the things that I look at is – if their life depended on it could they do it or not?
That’s one of the first questions you want to ask. Because if the answer is yes, there’s not normally a training problem.
For example, I was once asked to consult to a manufacturing company in Auckland, New Zealand. They had a massive problem with the maintenance of the conveyor belt within the factory. When the conveyor belt stopped, it costs this company 1000s of dollars per hour and they were having more stoppages, more maintenance issues and they couldn’t understand why.
I was asked to train them on how to fill in the maintenance logs on the computer. My first question was, do we really have a training problem?
So, we did the performance analysis and what we ended up finding is that they used to have a manual system, every area had a little book where employees would note any maintenance concerns they had noticed during their shifts. The books would be collected at the end of each day and time would be spent reviewing and actioning any notes that were highlighted as needing follow up by the maintenance crew.
However, a new digital system had been implemented, the little book had been taken away and the new procedure required employees to fill in the maintenance logs on the computer.
But here’s the thing, they did not provide a computer on the manufacturing floor. To access the computer located in the office, they had to take off all their protective clothing, shoes, and all.
So of course, what would they do, like any human they would put off doing so because it felt too hard in a way and then forget to do it as they finished their shift.
This company implemented a whole new system yet, didn’t provide their employees what they needed to fulfil on the new procedure.
My point in sharing this example, is that the solution was not to spend 1000’s of dollars in training, all the staff knew how to fill in the digital maintenance log, they just needed to put a computer on the manufacturing floor.
And I found this all out by asking relevant questions.
Pathway Two (Training required)
One of the things that I look at is – if their life depended on it could they do it or not?
That’s one of the first questions you want to ask. Because if the answer is no, there’s a training problem and therefore more questions to ask yourself.
Is it important?
Why is the discrepancy important? (What is its cost?)
What would happen if I did nothing?
Could doing something to resolve the discrepancy have any worthwhile result?
Is it a skill deficiency?
Could employees do it if really required to do it?
Are the employees present skills adequate for the desired performance?
Is it a knowledge deficiency?
Is this information already available?
Is this information readily accessible?
Could they do it in the past?
Did employees once know how to perform as desired?
Have employees forgotten how to do what I want done?
Is the skill used often?
How often is the skill or performance used?
Is there regular feedback on performance?
Exactly how do employees find out how well they are doing?
Is there a simpler solution?
Can I change the job by providing some kind of job aid?
Can I store the needed information some way (in written instructions, checklists) other than someone’s head?
Can I show rather than train?
Would informal (such as on-the-job) training be sufficient?
Is it a managerial deficiency?
Are there motivation problems?
Are there organisational culture issues preventing desired performance?
Are there equipment problems?
Are there policy problems?
Is it a managerial deficiency? Leads me to another example, of a massively successful training program I created and implemented over 36 countries, and which produced millions and millions and millions of dollars of measurable outcomes; in one country alone within the first year gross sales were up by 52 million pounds.
How does this example relate to how to identify if training is really needed and if so, what there is to train?
That training program was a system – we knew the problem, we knew what needed to be trained, we knew whether the employees once trained could transfer the training back on the job and we trained leaders for six weeks, before they were deemed as competent trainers and we signed them off.
It didn’t finish there, follow up training was ongoing, we continued to work with those trainers ongoingly to keep their skills up. There was a real commitment within this organization and that was what ensured the training transferred back on the job.
What was interesting about this program was that it also showed us that if the regional manager wasn’t behind the training or the training program, those regions did not get the same positive results as regions where it was directly driven by the senior leader, who drove it into their area managers and kept them focused. They would drive it down their line of accountability, right to the frontline.
In summary, a training program (system) must have a measurable result. It must make a difference and to do so, it must include follow up training. When there is no follow up, people just end up back in their old behaviors.
Which brings us to coaching, it is the same with coaching – teaching leaders how to coach (leaders as coaches) is a highly effective way to replicate training on the job. You can do a lot on the job, if you have a good coaching philosophy.
Sounds like my next article ‘Leaders As Coaches’ stay tuned.
If you would like to have a chat with me about ‘How to identify if training is really needed and if so, what there is to train’ contact me I look forward to hearing from you.