Part 1: Inefficient Processes

Most of us in L&D excel at creating engaging, interactive learning experiences. Given the time, access to the right information, and our own creative chops we design and deliver top notch experiences.

But when training won't solve the problem, even the best, most awesomest, most engaging, and most creative learning experiences are a waste of time and resources.

Training can only solve for problems that specifically relate to a lack of skills or knowledge. It's estimated this only accounts for 10-15% of organizational challenges (per Joe Willmore in his book, Performance Basics). The rest of the time, a different solution is needed.

However, by the time stakeholders come to L&D with a request, they have convinced themselves that training is the solution they need. Without a respected relationship with that stakeholder, our response can be a bit tricky. Especially if the stakeholder is stressed, overwhelmed, or under pressure. They don't have the time or energy to look for another solution and may not be willing to give you the time either.

Things L&D cannot out-train part 1: INEFFICIENT PROCESSES.

If a process, or the system that informs that process is inefficient, training people to follow that process won't make things any better. You will just end up with more people who are intimately familiar with the details of the inefficient process.

Can training created by L&D provide even better knowledge of the inefficient process? A definite YES!

Can training created by L&D restructure the process to be more efficient? Not a chance.

Such was the case in my experience several years ago, when I was approached by the new client onboarding team in our organization. The team's busiest season was fast approaching and per their forecasts, they were not staffed adequately to handle the volume of work coming their way. The knew that the team wouldn't be able to hold the one-one calls needed to educate and walk clients through system set-up. But no fear, they had a solution and just needed the help of L&D!

Stakeholder solution: Client webinars to educate at scale.

There wasn't time (or budget) to add and train new staff members before the workload hit, but leadership figured if the L&D team could design and deliver a series of webinars, it would reduce the need for one-one calls. They could educate multiple clients at once and because the webinars would be live, it would still allow for clients to ask questions and the client onboarding team could get more done in a day. Perfect!

Key stakeholders in senior leadership and sales were already on board. L&D leadership was skeptical. We knew that webinars could possibly be a solution, but were they THE solution? Any attempts on our part to ask additional questions were immediately squelched. The workload was coming, there was no time to delay! The directive had been given and we needed to comply.

A hardworking L&D team keen on high quality design.

So we complied. The L&D team gathered information, wrote scripts, created visual aids, and worked overtime to get it all done. They carefully designed each webinar so that the client could follow along on their own screen, completing the onboarding steps in real time. It was education through hands-on guidance. As their leader, I was pretty stinkin' proud of their efforts.

Result: A complete failure to solve the problem.

Despite everyone's hard work, the webinar strategy failed miserably. Very few clients attended. For those who did make the time and tried to follow-along there always seemed to be a tech issue that needed addressing. The facilitator ended up spending half the time troubleshooting or calling in IT. Those without the tech issue had to sit and wait for the webinar to get rolling (time wasted).

We quickly pivoted to have IT support available on every call and did our best to track trends in issues to address later. Now we had two staff available on webinars that averaged 0-5 clients in attendance. Even worse, the number of one-one calls held by the client onboarding team didn't decrease at all. Problem not even close to solved.

Analysis in the aftermath.

When volume of new clients subsided and we had time to breathe, we looked at our abysmal numbers. We spent more time and resources than ever before and it hadn't helped the onboarding team through their busy season, at all.

But, in an effort to be strategic after the fact, I had asked for two things at the beginning of the projectthat set us up to more proactively help the onboarding team in the future.

L&D Leader Ask #1: I asked to record each webinar in short, 1-5 minute segments, as a video that could be accessed on demand and put them on a landing page that each new client saw as they were going through their onboarding process. The team was busy creating the webinars, so I went in on the weekends and created the recordings myself. We tracked views of the videos. Guess what? More people watched the shortened videos than attended the webinars. Win #1: Data told us that people preferred short, on demand videos instead of longer live webinars.

L&D Leader Ask #2: I promised the onboarding team all our best team resources if, at the conclusion of their busy season, they would allow us to help them with a full analysis of the new client education process.That way, regardless of the webinar result, we would be able to better help them prepare for the next time, without this season's time crunch. Now it was their turn to comply with my request, and they did.

As I dove into a performance improvement style analysis, I found something no one expected, but they weren't surprised either. It provided them with a complete reframe.

We were solving the wrong problem.

The problem, it seemed, wasn't the one-one client onboarding phone calls. Instead, it was that all the processes surrounding those calls were extremely inefficient and clunky.

Inefficient process #1: Manual reporting. Team members had to run multiple reports each day to determine if they had any new clients assigned and which clients weren't keeping up with their onboarding tasks, indicating they may need assistance. Each report needed to be sorted and combed through manually. Every. Single. Day. This process took each team member a minimum of one hour to complete.

Inefficient process #2: Manual password reset. Passwords for the system were provided to clients one time in an initial email. They weren't able to change it and resetting it was a manual process that needed to be performed by an admin (a.k.a. client onboarding team member) for security purposes. This was the challenge we ran into in the webinars. But password resets were taking up a significant amount of time even without the webinar solution.

Inefficient process #3: Manual email communication. There were a few other manual processes around emails and getting the client needed information at each stage of their onboarding. Each of these emails needed to be sent manually, and although there were templates available, most team members were tweaking them to be more personalized to the individual client.

The inefficient processes added up to each team member spending multiple hours each day doing manual, administrative work.

The result? Limited time to engage with the client one-one, helping them with specific questions. The root of the problem was the inefficient, manual processes. The symptom was the inability to complete needed phone calls to provide client education. We were trying to solve for a symptom.

The problem and the solution didn't match. Our well-designed, well-facilitated webinars would never have solved the problem of time spent on one-one calls because the need for clients to learn wasn't the main issue. Even with the webinars, the inefficient, manual processes that were eating up the bulk of the team's time still existed.

Once we were able to show leadership the real problem, they immediately connected with IT and developers to begin automating and streamlining the administrative processes in preparation for the next busy season. Of course, we offered to help provide educational resources that were easy for clients to access, but it was understood that alone wouldn't ease the stress of the team.

Inefficient processes can't be tamed with training alone.The solution is in creating better, more efficient processes.

Part 2: Misaligned Rewards

There are issues in organizations where even the most awesome, perfectly designed training solution simply won't solve the problem. That doesn't stop stakeholders from asking, however. They generally haven't taken the time to do a full analysis of the reason behind the issue, they are stressed, they need a quick solution, and they believe training will help.

But if we provide a training solution that doesn't solve the problem, we essentially waste everyone's time and resources. For example, as described in part 1 of this article series, training alone cannot fix inefficient processes.

What gets rewarded gets repeated.

Training also can't fix misaligned reward systems. In a simple description of classic human behavior, what gets rewarded gets repeated.If we know what to do to achieve a reward, we do the work to get it.

Reward systems can be used to motivate team members to perform or prioritize certain tasks. However, rewards that are misaligned can quickly do the opposite if a reward is administered for the wrong behavior/task or for performing a task in an undesirable way. Training cannot fix a misaligned reward system.

A tale of two tasks.

I once worked with an operational team that performed two types of primary tasks. To boil it down, there were simple tasks and there were complex tasks.

The leaders of this team came to me to request training because the complex tasks weren't getting completed. They were just sitting in the queue and causing the team to miss turnaround time expectations and service level agreements. The leaders assumed the team members didn't know how to complete the complex tasks, so they came to the learning team to ask for help in creating training.

As we dug in to ask more questions and do a bit of analysis, it didn't take long to discover that the team definitely knew how to do the complex tasks. The problem wasn't a lack of knowledge or skill.

The problem was the reward system.These hourly employees received bonuses based on the number of tasks they accurately completed in a day. The complex tasks took longer to complete and there was a greater chance of error.

Team members didn't take on the complex tasks because they couldn't complete as many in a day, andthey had a higher chance of making a mistake than when working on the simple tasks.

By taking on the complex tasks, the team members literally made less money.

The leaders worked with the compensation specialists to revamp the bonus structure. Once the rewards were aligned, the problem of complex tasks sitting in queue disappeared. No training needed!

Even if we had created the most awesome, engaging, interactive, hands-on training for the complex tasks, it wouldn't have solved the problem. The most fantastic and fabulous training solution couldn't change the bonus structure.

Part 3: Lack of Manager Feedback

Sometimes, it doesn't matter how fantastically designed our learning solutions are because training alone won't address the root cause of the problem. Yet, we still get requests. Our stakeholders are stressed. They either don't have time to figure out the real problem, they are too close to see it, or they don't believe they have time to address it.

But whenever we provide a training solution that doesn't solve the problem, we essentially waste everyone's time and resources. A learning or training solution can address a gap in skills or knowledge but it cannot fix inefficient processes (part 1)or misaligned rewards systems (part 2). It also cannot make up for a manager who fails to provide feedback.

Yes, we can help managers learn how to provide effective feedback and coaching for their team members. But, no amount of even the most awesome training for their team members can make-up for a manager who does not do this work. Training isn't a substitution for manager feedback.

Example #1: A request from the CFO.

One day, the learning manager on my team received a request from the CFO to retrain his team on how to lock their computers when they stepped away from their desks. Per a company security policy, whenever an employee stepped away from their desk, they were to lock their computer, an action that then required a new login to view their screen or access information. The CFO had walked past a team member's office and noted the computer wasn't locked. Anyone could have easily accessed company finance information with only a few clicks and keystrokes. Instead of talking with this team member individually, the CFO called the learning manager and requested that she deliver additional training on the policy for his entire team.

Spoiler alert: The learning manager didn't provide the training, but she did talk with the CFO, asking him to start by providing feedback to this employee individually. She explained the cost to create and deliver training for his entire team would be much more than a quick conversation. When put in financial terms, the CFO understood what he had asked wasn't reasonable. She was able to circumvent the request and provide an alternative quickly. But that isn't always the case...

Example #2: Training as feedback for Todd.

Todd was an employee who had trouble crafting professional emails to customers and colleagues. Instead of working individually with Todd to improve his email communication skills or even reaching out to ask for assistance from HR or the learning team, Todd's manager simply enrolled him in the next day's email communication class for new employees. The enrollment was his feedback and Todd got the message loud and clear...

Todd had been with the company for many years and was not a new employee. Yet the LMS now required him to attend the new employee class. He showed up to the class mad (and maybe embarrassed). For him, it was like he graduated from high school and then was told, “you missed a few things so we’re sending you back to first grade,” via a notification from the office. Throughout the class Todd muttered sarcastic comments under his breath, making it clear to everyone else that he thought the class was stupid and didn’t want to be there. He refused to participate in any of the activities unless it was to make them into a joke. Todd didn't learn anything new, and he poisoned the entire class of new employees with his crummy attitude.

The learning manager or facilitator would have loved to talk with Todd's manager ahead of time, but the late enrollment didn't allow for that to happen. After the class, the learning manager did reach out to Todd's manager to let them know what had transpired. They also graciously offered to help Todd's manager provide better feedback and coaching up front.

We can't out-train a lack of manager feedback. We can equip managers to coach their employees and we can have conversations about the efficiency and effectiveness of feedback and coaching vs. a programmed training solution. It's another element to consider when searching for the root cause of the problem that led to the training request in the first place.

Part 4: Unclear Expectations

Let's face it L&D, when we design training and learning solutions, we do great work. We care about the product we produce. We pull together our expertise in learning and engagement and do our best to release something that aligns with our profession's best practices. But it isn't always enough.

A learning and training solution won't solve every problem in the organization. It can address gaps in skills or knowledge, but it cannot fix inefficient processes (part 1) or misaligned rewards systems (part 2) and it cannot make up for a manager who fails to provide feedback to their team members (part 3). It also cannot fix unclear expectations from leadership.

Of course, we canand should help to communicate any expectations about desired behavior and job role as part of the training product we produce. But if those expectations aren't clear in the first place, no amount of training will fix the problem.

A request for boot camp.

I sat down with Stefanie and Helene, managers of a large account management team at a SaaS company. Each member of their team was expected to regularly reach out to their assigned customers to share information as well as respond to customer questions and requests as they were received.

Stefanie and Helene called me in because they wanted to create a communication "boot camp" for their team members. As they described it, account managers were having a hard time responding to questions, concerns, and requests from customers. Many weren't meeting the desired turnaround time for a response. In addition, some provided too much detail and others not enough. As a final blow, their team was hemorrhaging people. Their retention numbers were abysmal, and they were losing team members left and right. They thought a long training or series of trainings would help the team feel more secure and confident in their roles and hopefully start to dig them out of this hole. They had already outlined 15+ training topics that they needed my team to create and deliver.

As Stefanie and Helene confidently handed over their list of topics, I was both suspicious and extremely curious all at once. I've never come across a team where training alone solved the retention problem, but I knew these managers were in pain and I was now committed to helping them figure out the best direction forward. I started by asking my usual questions to learn more, beginning with the "simpler" of the challenges they brought forth about turnaround time and details (as opposed to the more complex retention problem).

I started with, "How do you know the team isn't meeting turnaround time?" They easily answered this question as they had reporting and measurement to show the lack of consistent compliance to turnaround time.

But, my next two questions, about the details had them stumped. I asked, "How do you know team members aren't providing the right amount of detail?", followed by, "What is the right amount of detail?"

Stefanie explained seasoned team members were diving in to analyze complex questions themselves because they had the knowledge to do so, instead of passing them along to the customer analyst team to do the in-depth legwork. As the words came out of her mouth, Helene jumped in to contradict that thought. She thought it was fine if the account manager knew how to find the answer and spent time doing the analysis themself instead of passing it along.

It's very difficult for someone to be successful in their role when they don't know what success looks like.In this instance, the messages from leadership about how team members successfully did their work directly in conflict. One leader was telling them to stop their work and do the research and the other was telling them to pass the questions along to the analyst team. No wonder the team was confused and frustrated! Should they stop or keep moving? Utilize other experts or take the time to answer questions themselves?

After their conflicting expectations of success were expressed, I closed out the conversation with Helene and Stefanie by gently pointing out the discrepancy, letting them know that we wouldn't be able to provide training until there was a clear and consistent definition of the expectations for success. Interestingly enough, once the two managers worked with their leadership to determine the best way of working and began to share the same message, the performance of the team started to improve immediately and there was no longer a need to create a lengthy boot camp training. The training alone would have never solved the lack of clear expectations from the managers.

What does this mean for you?

There were a few things that helped me to determine that training wouldn't solve the problem in this case. Things that you can also use next time you find yourself in conversation with a stakeholder.

1. Say "yes" first and then get curious. In this instance, I took the meeting with Helene and Stefanie letting them know I wanted to help. I knew my team didn't have the bandwidth to create a full-on training boot camp anytime soon, but I didn't tell them "no" solely based on the request. I wanted to know what we coulddo to help as their talent partners. I assumed there might be more to the story and got curious.
2. Start by diving into the identified problem. Instead of asking questions about learning outcomes, design, or even a lengthy analysis, I simply dove into the problems that Helene and Stefanie had already identified - missing turnaround times and the wrong amount of detail - and asked them to expand. To them, it seemed like I was trying to ask more questions about what was needed in the training but really, I was trying to determine if there was more at play. Note: Of course, sometimes the answer isn't as obvious as it became in this story and a greater analysis is needed after initial questioning.
3. Ask questions that help search for evidence, not solutions. The questions I asked were focused on evidence of the problem, not what solutions were needed. Stefanie and Helene had already determined that a boot camp was needed, but they had started with a solution instead of an analysis of why that problem existed in the first place. This is often the case with well-meaning stakeholders.
4. If the reason is obvious, point it out in gentle fashion. In this instance, I never had to directly tell Helene and Stefanie, "No, training won't solve your problem." or "No, we aren't able to help you right now." They were smart leaders, like most of our stakeholders. They only needed me to point out that we couldn't create training around unclear expectations, suggesting that once those were clarified we could revisit the conversation. When their own words were illuminated, the problem was immediately obvious, they understood clarity was needed first, and they went to work to fix it.

Training won't solve every problem in the workplace, or it won't be sufficient on its own. Like Helene and Stefanie, our stakeholders are busy, overwhelmed, moving fast to get through the day, and often don't see what seems obvious. Our unique perspective as L&D professionals who are neither buried in or emotionally tied to their work often allows us to ask different questions and illuminate alternatives, even if those alternatives don't result in training. If we can help our stakeholders determine effective solutions to their pain points and challenges even if they aren't solved by training, we help them to improve their team and the organization overall. Isn't that why we do this work?

...
This article was originally published as a series on LinkedIn

Author