Not our job

Despite the prevailing rhetoric for the Learning & Development function to be “data driven”, data for the purposes of evaluating what we do is notoriously hard to come by.

Typically we collect feedback from happy sheets (which I prefer to call unhappy sheets) and confirm learning outcomes via some form of assessment.

In my experience, however, behavioural change is reported much less often, while anything to do with business metrics even less so. While I recognise multiple reasons for the latter in particular, one of them is simply the difficulty we mere mortals have in accessing the numbers.

Which has been a long-standing mystery to me. We’re all on the same team, so why am I denied the visibility of the information I need to do my job?

I’ve always suspected the root cause is a combination of human foibles (pride, fear, territoriality), substandard technology (exacerbated by policy) and a lack of skill or will to use the technology even when it is available.

Notwithstanding these ever-present problems, it’s been dawning on me that the biggest blocker to our ability to work with the numbers is the fact that, actually, it’s not our job.

Consider a bank that discovers a major pain point among its customers is the long turnaround time on their home loan applications. To accelerate throughput and thus improve the customer experience, the C-suite makes a strategic decision to invest in an AI-assisted processing platform.

I contend the following:

• It’s the job of the implementation team to ensure the platform is implemented properly.
• It’s the job of the L&D team to build the employees’ capability to use it.
• It’s the job of the service manager to report the turnaround times.
• It’s the job of the CX researchers to measure the customer experience.
• It’s the job of the C-suite to justify their strategy.

In this light, it’s clear why we L&D folks have so much trouble trying to do the other things on the list that don’t mention us. Not only are we not expected to do them, but those who are don’t want us to do them.

In short, we shouldn’t be doing them.

Caveat

At this juncture I wish to caution against conflating learning & development with performance consulting.

Yes, learning & development is a driver of performance, and an L&D specialist may be an integral member of a performance centre, but I urge anyone who’s endeavouring to rebrand their role as such to heed my caveat.

My point here is that if you are responsible for learning & development, be responsible for it; and let those who are responsible for performance be responsible for it.

Value

Having said that, there is plenty we should be doing within the bounds of our role to maximise the performance of the business. Ensuring our learning objectives are action oriented and their assessment authentic are two that spring to mind.

And I don’t wish to breathe air into the juvenile petulance that the phrase “not my job” can entail. On the contrary, we should be collaborating with our colleagues on activities related to our remit – for example training needs analysis, engineering the right environmental conditions for transfer, and even Level 4 evaluation – to achieve win-win outcomes.

But do it with them, not for them, and don’t let them offload their accountability for it being done. If they don’t wish to collaborate, so be it.

Essentially it boils down to Return on Expectation (ROE). In our quest to justify the Return on Investment (ROI) of our own service offering, we need to be mindful of what it is our financiers consider that service to be.

Anything beyond that is an inefficient use of our time and expertise.

The caveat of the performance centre

One of the more exciting ideas to emerge from the corporate learning space, which I hasten to add is yet to be realised, is to transform the Learning & Development department into a performance centre.

Rather than charging L&D Consultants with marketing the team’s lovingly crafted interventions, or reacting to random solution-first requests from the business – We need a team building workshop! – the Performance Consultant analyses the real needs of the business and identifies the relevant solutions.

This is not a novel idea. For example, I am aware of an Australian bank that established a performance centre over a decade ago, while Helen Blunden recently shared the following via an OzLearn chat:

https://twitter.com/ActivateLearn/status/424108811654529024

 
On the face of it, this makes sense to me. I subscribe to the notion that the point of learning in the workplace is to improve performance, and the raison d’être of the performance centre is to shift our focus to its namesake.

However, I do have a caveat: If the performance centre is populated with L&D types, then the solutions they devise are probably going to be L&D oriented.

This won’t appear to pose a problem unless you appreciate that not all performance ailments are due to an L&D deficiency. On the contrary, poor performance may be caused by myriad factors such as:

• A flawed process
• Obsolete technology
• Inadequate resourcing
• Noise or other disturbances
• Office politics
• Interpersonal conflict

…or any number of human conditions:

• Stress
• Sickness
• Demotivation
• Exhaustion
• Laziness

…not to mention one of my favourites offered by Joyce Seitzinger in the aforementioned Ozlearn chat:

@ryantracey @ActivateLearn agree. performance starts at hiring process. and often disconnected. (Ahem, uni's) #Ozlearn

— 👩🏻‍💻Joyce Seitzinger (@catspyjamas@aus.social) (@catspyjamasnz) January 17, 2014

 
Of course! Recruiting the right person for the role in the first place!

My point is, while poor performance may well be due to a lack of capability, it might not be either. An effective Performance Consultant must determine the root causes of the problems – whatever they may be – and respond accordingly. Do former L&D Consultants have that skillset?

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.