It’s easy for a performance problem to become a learning request. An organization might notice that expectations are not being met or that a performance metric is trending downward. Oftentimes, the response is that they need to implement training.
The solution progresses from there. There is a storyboard to develop, a learning experience to design, and a course to build. The organization might even finish with an engaging, polished solution that learners thoroughly enjoy. But a critical question can easily be lost in this process… What performance problem was the organization trying to solve?
The Rethink
This question represents an important shift in perspective for Learning Experience Designers (LXDs). While a learning request can provide a starting point, it shouldn’t automatically determine the destination. Before deciding what learning should look like, LXDs have an opportunity to understand what is happening in the work itself. This should mean that the starting point is actually the performance gap.
Performance gaps represent the space between what is currently taking place and what the ideal scenario looks like. Assessing this gap in detail can end up revealing that the reason for underperformance might actually have little to do with learning.
Imagine an organization where employees aren’t consistently following a new procedure. It’s a context in which a training request seems pretty reasonable. The organization could create a course explaining the procedure, add a post-assessment to test knowledge, and track completion. Employees get back to work, but nothing changes. Why? Well, a closer look at the work might reveal that employees actually already understood the procedure. The real challenge could be that the information is difficult to apply in the stress of day-to-day work, or maybe different departments are interpreting its application differently, or perhaps there’s even some issue with the procedure itself. In this situation, better training produces better-trained employees without producing better performance. This is where it’s critical to stress that knowledge is only one part of the environment in which performance happens.
After completing a course, employees return to a workplace shaped by expectations, external pressure, and competing priorities. All of these factors play a role in whether or not a desired behavior change ever takes place. And they’re often neglected when LXDs begin addressing a problem with a predetermined learning solution.
LXDs as Problem Finders
In today’s age, with AI and other powerful authoring tools, dynamic learning content has never been easier to produce. Contrary to basic intuition, this makes the role of the LXD even more important. LXDs aren’t just developers that turn ideas into content. Someone else shouldn’t be providing an answer to a problem, handing it to the LXD, then telling them to build a course. While those development steps are critical components of an LXD toolkit, the professional must be able to influence the discussions around the problem before any solution is decided.
LXDs have a unique view of the relationship between people, performance, and the environments in which work occurs. They can ask questions that challenge the assumption that every performance problem requires a learning solution. These typically look like:
- What does successful performance look like?
- What is happening today?
- Where does the gap appear?
- What might be contributing to the gap?
- What do employees need in the moment they perform the task?
These questions don’t have a specific end-goal in mind besides honestly seeking to solve a problem. This means that they don’t necessarily lead away from a learning solution. Oftentimes, they can lead directly towards it. It’s still very possible that employees genuinely lack the necessary knowledge or skills to perform to the required level.
Other times, however, these questions lead elsewhere. The answer might be performance support, rather than a full learning solution; it could be a change to a process or clarification of expectations; it might involve managers or require a combination of interventions. In such cases, the most valuable contribution an LXD can make is helping the organization recognize that training isn’t the solution they need. That conclusion is one area of expertise that an LXD brings to the table. Despite what some may think, it is, in fact, an LXD outcome.
Correcting how Learning Relates to Performance
Starting with the performance gap helps to change how learning is positioned within an organization. It creates the expectation that learning exists to bring about a specific change. This could be a new behavior, streamlined processes, or a host of other actions. No matter the desired outcome, the performance-centered mindset gives the learning a reason to exist beyond mere completion.
Similarly, this also sets a stronger foundation for sound measurement to occur. A clear performance gap lets the organization know what improvement looks like. This makes intuitive sense. With the performance gap already established, measurement can now be planned from the outset. It starts with the problem, instead of being factored in after the learning has already been designed. In situations where Learning and Development (L&D) teams are struggling to demonstrate their worth to leadership, this can help immensely.
The Price of Starting with the Solution
Learning takes time and resources to create for everyone involved. LXDs create it, learners complete it, organizations spend money on it, and managers reinforce it. All those investments are likely to be directed toward a failing intervention if the underlying problem is misunderstood.
As you can imagine, this will probably frustrate learners, who’ve been asked to complete training for problems they don’t believe the material will help them solve. Such a scenario is likely to reduce confidence in L&D and can make future learning requests harder to influence.
However, starting with the performance gap positions learning as a strategic partner with both the larger organizational vision and the workers vying to make it happen. LXDs should be asking what needs to change and how they can make it possible, rather than just asking what course they’re meant to build.
Takeaway
Great learning experiences change what people know. They help build skills and give learners more confidence in their work. Still, learning only reaches its highest impact value when there is a clear connection between what happens during that experience and what’s meant to happen next.
Starting with a performance gap provides the method for LXDs to understand and address the change that an organization actually needs. It forces them to consider the conditions surrounding performance and to determine where learning can make a meaningful impact. The result might still be a full course. But it could also be a performance support tool, a new workflow, or maybe a larger organizational change that goes beyond the LXD team. That initial uncertainty is something LXDs need to be comfortable with. Learning solutions shouldn’t be built until the decision-makers know what performance needs to improve and which behaviors need to change.