Skill Is Not Performance and Performance Diagnostics Is Not Easy
Print 
PDFA Tribute to Dana Gaines Robinson and James C. Robinson
By Gary DePaul, CPT, PhD
Introduction
This concept is simple to understand but difficult to practice (what some might label as “common sense” but “not commonly practiced”). During the past few years, I have observed clients, performance-consulting managers, and practitioners oversimplify performance needs and inappropriately conclude identified problems to be only gaps in performer skills. Sadly, I have done this as well in my career and can understand how professionals can make these diagnostic mistakes.
Bob, the Performance Consultant: What Not to Do
Here is a fictitious example of how this happens. Sue, a sales VP, is concerned that her sales force has trouble securing acceptable margins when contracting with customers. Bob, an internal performance consultant, believes the problem is obviously with the sale force’s weak negotiation skills. Bob prescribes the following solutions:
- Negotiating training
- Negotiation best practice job aids
- Revised contract templates that make it more difficult for sales force to decrease margins
- Support from Sue to require the sales team to attend training and use the new templates and job aids
Bob identified a perceived capability need rather than a performance need. Too bad he did not conduct a basic analysis. If he had, Bob would have discovered that the actual problem was procedural and had to do with the timing of contractual discussions and methods used by the sales force to engage customers about pricing. Bob would have further discovered that the sales representatives who have high margins realized this selling process problem and corrected the problem in their own practice.
To summarize this example, here are two diagnostic approaches:
1. Bob’s Approach
|
Simplistic analysis |
|
|
Common diagnosis type |
|
2. An Alternative Approach
For a better illustration, see the GAPS! Map and Gap Zapper in Performance Consulting (referenced below).
|
Basic analysis |
Go for the SHOULD
Analyze the IS
Calculate the GAPs
|
|
Precise diagnosis |
Pin down the CAUSES
|
How did I learn this alternative approach?
I first learned about this approach when I worked at Johnson Controls in the Learning & Development Department. Dana Robinson facilitated an all-day workshop that focused on performance consulting. I enjoyed the workshop, but I did not appreciate the Robinsons’ contribution to HPT until I became a manager. Earlier this year, I read their chapter in the Handbook of Human Performance Technology, 3rd Edition. This renewed my interest in their writing. Since then, I have used their books as references to further my professional development.
References
Below are titles of some of the Robinson’s publications that I frequently reference. Each links to publication websites where you can learn more about them.
- “Making the Transition from a Learning to a Performance Function” in the Handbook of Human Performance Technology, 3rd Edition
- Training for Impact: How to Link Training to Business Needs and Measure the Results
- Performance Consulting: A Practical Guide for HR and Learning Professionals, Second Edition
- Strategic Business Partner: Aligning People Strategies with Business Goals
About the Author
Gary DePaul is a manager at Lowe’s where he practices performance consulting. He frequently presents at ISPI conferences and contributes to and edits the Chapter Corner in PerformanceXpress. Gary volunteers for the Charlotte Chapter. He is a past president of the Tampa Bay Chapter and served as the Chapter Partnership Committee Chair in 2010. He also is a member of the Armed Forces Chapter. You can reach Gary at gary@garydepaul.com.
I am a firm believer in focusing on the cause(s) of performance gaps. I was first introduced to this concept in Allison Rossett’s “Training Needs Assessment” book many years ago in which she discusses optimals, actuals, causes, feelings and solutions. It’s been fascinating to conduct causal analyses and uncover the real (vs. perceived) cause of particular gaps. My favorite was a unique analysis to understand why some pharmaceutical sales’ reps were more successful closing deals with doctors than others. Instead of the sales division automatically assuming it was due to poor negotiations or some other skill deficiency, they brought in our team to understand what was influencing the doctors to buy from some reps and not others. We uncovered that “how friendly the reps are to the patients in the waiting rooms as they pass through” was an important factor for some doctors in deciding which rep they would purchase from. Certainly not an anticipated finding!
What a great article, Gary. In many cases, a thorough analysis will uncover the true cause of performance shortcomings.
Several years ago, I worked with a client who wanted my company to build a software training program to address a sharp increase in data-entry errors by their staff. After a thorough analysis, I uncovered the real cause of this situation. The problem was not performance related but was the result of a software upgrade that was not compatible with some of the operator’s older computer terminals.
The operator’s knew how to use the system – but their older computer keyboards did not contain the key that the new software prompted them to use. They were resorting to an alternate key — which completed the transaction but not “correctly” by software definition.
No training program would have corrected this situation and the company had to make a software patch until the older computer equipment was replaced.
Thanks for writing this tribute the Robinsons. Their “Performance Consulting: Moving Beyond Training” literally changed my career. I have been motivated to be a Performance Consultant for any organization and to pass on the concept and profession to others. Yes, it seems to be a “common sense” but “not commonly practiced.” Indeed, it is both challenging and rewarding when we witness our customers starting to “think performance, not training.”
Thanks Gary. With most of my background being outside the USA, I have not met the Robinsons. However, their work looks great, and looks similar to competency-based performance consulting, which might be why you included me in the email (City & Guilds etc).
This article homes in on the need for good front-end analysis, and engaging with the client organization at multiple levels. At CPS we generally like to change “If feasible, observe performers applying the selling process” and just go out in the field for up to three days a year with our regular clients, as well as conducting interviews, assessments etc.
One of the best tools the trainer/coach brings to any challenge is an attitude of not-knowing and not-assuming. That way we can take the tabula rasa out with the sales force, management team etc and let them, customers, suppliers etc write on it. You get some resistance – but it’s the job to overcome it.
There are two other obvious corollaries here.
- Performance consulting is really another term for customized training and coaching. There isn’t a canned way to do this.
- Behind the process you describe lies a journey. “Determine the causes for these gaps” is all very well, but what if you don’t recognize the causes, or unconscious bias blinds you to them?
Great article. So often, even up until a couple of years ago, it was easy for me to be learning-centric in prescibing performance interventions. Once I learned how to take a systems approach by looking at all internal and external factors it became obvious that non-learning solutions in some instances accounted for 95% of the desired performance.
Thank you Gary for this thought provoking article. As the TBISPI chapter begins to think about programs for the 2013, this would be a valuable topic to kick off the year by focusing on HPT analysis from problem recognition and anaylsis through to solution evaluation.
Bob, like all of us, should have mitigated his own shortcomings by asking his colleagues for a consult on his analysis. Too often, we get tied up in the “uniqueness” of our own projects and fail to realize the value in socializing our results and asking for input. We often blame our customers for working in a vacuum – we should not fall into the same trap/gap.
I’ve drawn on the work of Dana and Jim for most of my professional career. I’ve cited their 1990 book, Training for Impact, in articles I’ve authored and grant proposals I’ve won. Their comparison of “training for activity” to “training for impact” is simple, powerful, and elegant. Their prescriptions for moving from order takers for training to valued strategic partners in improving performance in ways that meet business goals remain useful and informative.
Their work reminds us that it’s all to easy to jump to default training solutions for all problems and opportunities involving human performance. Only with careful performance analysis (a.k.a. “problem identification”) and root cause analysis (a.k.a. “diagnosis”) are we able to provide performance improvement solutions that clients value. We draw on their work answering the most challenging questions our clients often ask us: “What have you done recently for me that matters?”
I still refer to Dana and James Robinson’s book Strategic Business Partner. We must align people with business goals.
Gary,
My relationship with the Robinson’s goes back to their early days at Partners in Change, their firm, in Pittsburgh. I was invited to participate in one of the first pilot training programs for performance consultants. Jim was the facilitator and I sat next to the head of quality control for GM during the program. I found the work to be a revelation as to the approach to performance problems. I will always respect the time I spent in that program as the opnenig to the next, and higher phase of my work.
I’ve appreciated the “Go for the Should” piece in working with clients in both corporate and military environments. Forcing them and myself to be more clear about exactly what that ideal state (or even an acceptable state) is and how it would be measured helps get past what is often simply a sense that they’re not getting what they want. We find they often haven’t ascertained to any real detail just what that “should” is.