3
Pillar #1: Be a Business-Goal Bulldog

First, a few words about bulldogs. According to the American Kennel Club, the ancestors of the lovable and droopy-jowled bulldog were selectively bred for baiting bulls centuries ago on the British Isles. In this cruel and deplorable form of entertainment, the original bulldog had to be very ferocious and so courageous as to be almost insensitive to pain. Fortunately this nasty form of “sport” was outlawed in 1835 in Britain. Since that time the bulldog has been known for being “equable and kind, resolute and courageous (not vicious or aggressive) with a general appearance and attitude that suggest great stability, vigor, strength and dignity” (American Kennel Club 2007).

We chose the bulldog metaphor for Pillar #1 because we admire the bulldog’s qualities of tenacity, strength, and courage. We also admire that they are not afraid to go after big things. We admire the Courageous Training leaders we have known for their similar traits. Though hardly any of them have droopy jowls, all of these leaders clamp their thinking jaws onto the business needs and goals that underlie the requests they receive; they refuse to let their conceptual grip be shaken loose despite the frantic organizational flurry in which they may become engaged. They refuse to limit their vision to narrowly defined training issues and needs but, instead, always see the larger picture of the business: its goals and its needs.

In this chapter we look closely at these valuable bulldog-like capabilities. We present a conceptual framework for analyzing and articulating the linkage between training and business outcomes—a framework that we call the Logic of Training. We explain how training leaders can use this framework as a lens through which to view all training requests and how it will help them clarify the business goals and communicate the business case for training. We also provide examples of other concepts, methods, and tools that Courageous Training leaders have used to identify business goals, clarify them, and make sure the training implementation is tightly focused. Finally, we close this chapter with a list of actions that training leaders can take to apply the concepts and methods of Pillar #1.

SEEING THROUGH THE LENS THAT CREATES FOCUS—FROM THE TRAINING ROOM DOOR TO THE BOARDROOM FLOOR

The Courageous Training leaders we have known are dead clear about what they do, and especially why they do it. We have captured their clear way of thinking in a structure that we call the Logic of Training. It is meant to answer, both in general and in regard to specific training: Why is training needed? Why is it important? What are the business results it can (and will) deliver? These Courageous Training leaders seem to have the Logic of Training wired into their thinking. Everything that they do— explaining training needs, handling training requests, formulating training strategies—is processed through the Logic of Training lens so that questions of why (ends) will always be clarified before talking about how (means).

The Fundamental Logic of Training

The fundamental Logic of Training is deceptively simple: some employees need certain capabilities to perform their jobs more effectively, so training is conducted to give them those skills. Trainees are then supposed to return to their jobs and correctly use the newly acquired skills to perform better in their work. Eventually, so goes this logic, the company will benefit from the application of these skills in, for example, higher revenues, better-quality products, increased output, more loyal customers, decreased scrap rates, and so forth.

Figure 3.1 portrays this general Logic of Training. People (1) who lack a certain useful capability participate in a learning intervention (2) intended to provide them with that capability. If the learning intervention (a workshop, an on-line module, a job rotation, etc.) is efficacious, then trainees who complete it exit with that new capability (3) in their behavioral repertoire. They use that new capability in some aspect of their job performance (4). That skill application in turn enables them to produce new or enhanced results (5), which in turn contribute to some worthy organizational goal (6).

So, for example, imagine a training program that teaches service technicians to use a new time-saving troubleshooting procedure. Value to the company will occur when service technicians correctly use the new procedure, which will in turn translate into more repairs completed, more repairs completed correctly, and more problems fixed the first time. This outcome helps the company earn more profits through greater productivity; it also helps satisfy and retain customers. So, if someone asks why the company is doing this training, the answer—as viewed through the lens of the logic—is to increase profits and customer retention.

It should be noted in this example that the benefit to the organization is derived not from what was learned but from what actually gets used. This is a fundamental point in the Courageous Training paradigm: that is, value does not come merely from exposure to the training or the acquisition of new capability, but value comes from the performance changes that the training eventually leads to. This is a key aspect of the Logic of Training: the channel through which value from training is created is on-the-job performance.

It may be interesting to note that there are sometimes other reasons why training is conducted, such as to prepare employees to act effectively in an emergency, to avoid legal exposure, to bolster career development, or to meet regulatory requirements. These kinds of training have a “logic,” but it is not a logic that depends on performance change to produce value. For example, to help recruit and retain employees in a tight labor market, a company might simply offer some kinds of training that are perceived as a staff benefit. Assuming that the employees did indeed value this offer of training, the business goal of retaining employees would be served, even though these employees might never use the training in their jobs, or elsewhere for that matter.

However, for our purpose in this chapter we will focus primarily on the logic required for performance improvement (e.g., management development, technical skills training, and customer service training), where the goal is to get people to effectively use the new capabilities on the job in ways that are important to the organization. Why do we focus on this performance Logic of Training? Simple. Because performance— effectively using learning outcomes on the job—is the principal point at which training most commonly fails. Thus, if there is anything we as training leaders need to do better, it is to get more trainees using their training more effectively in important on-the-job situations, and this is where we face the greatest need for bold and courageous actions. We focus more in depth on this reality in Chapter Four (Pillar #2: Build Whole-Organization Responsibility for Training Impact). Being sure that the business outcomes to which training must contribute are absolutely clear and accurate is the first step in driving greater application of training and results.

Training leaders typically are inundated with requests for training. Many of the presumed needs for training may turn out to need a different solution altogether, such as redesigning a work process so that it is more effective. Courageous Training leaders know that while they have to listen to and understand all of these requests, they should not always treat them as orders that automatically need to be filled. They know that requests for training are expressions of a desire for certain “ends,” which are sometimes disguised as requests for certain “means.”

Training Needs and Nontraining Needs

At this point, we suspect that many savvy readers are asking themselves, “When are these guys going to talk about needs analysis?” Or, “Isn’t being a business-goal bulldog just another way of saying that we in this profession should be good human performance analysts?” So let’s set the record straight on this right now. We are firm believers in the value and validity of human performance technology concepts and methods. They are indispensable to the training process. All training leaders should be fluent in these concepts and methods because many requests for training are not really training needs at all—as we described in the Mr. Goodwrench Syndrome. Instead the performance gaps are due to some underlying performance system issue, such as misaligned incentives, a lack of managerial direction, unclear objectives, and so forth.

In reality, the solutions are almost never all training or all nontraining. Virtually every solution aimed at improving performance will have a legitimate need for improving employees’ skills and knowledge (i.e., training) tied to it, just as every training solution will need to be augmented with performance support tools, such as revised incentives, job aids, or more explicit supervisory direction. (For readers who are interested in learning more about the Human Performance Technology concepts, we suggest you visit the International Society for Performance Improvement [ISPI] web site at www.ispi.org or review Geary Rummler’s work.)

Our Courageous Training approach operates from the assumption that the training needs have already been legitimately identified and verified. Our approach also assumes that even when training needs are correctly identified, training leaders still face the daunting challenge of making the training work, which entails all of the principles, concepts, methods, and tools of Courageous Training.

Digging Out the Logic

There are various reasons for conducting training, all of which may be legitimate in terms of the underlying business needs. However, the final arbiter of whether a training program is worthwhile or not is always the business ends that can be identified and served by the training. It is always wrong to move ahead with training that has an unclear, unarticulated, or indefensible business rationale. And this is where courageous leaders act like business-needs bulldogs. They relentlessly ask questions and dig into assumptions attempting to surface and clarify these business needs and issues, building the business case for the learning intervention. In other words, they clarify and test the logic of the apparent training need.

Digging out the logic means asking questions. Importantly, these questions should not be “training” questions, such as: Who do you want to train? When is the best time to train them? What competencies do you want them to master? While answers to these questions about means will eventually be necessary, they are not the questions to begin with.

Instead, the sequence of questions should focus on the business goals and issues that lie behind the request; the questions should help clarify what performance improvements are needed, from which job roles, to help improve the business outcomes. This first phase of questions should clarify the logical connections between job role performance and the business issues or goals that are the focus of the training—making sure that the connections are clear and valid. Next, the logical analysis is completed by identifying the capabilities (including skills, knowledge, and attitudes) those employees in the relevant job roles need in order to improve their performance.

Getting at Deep Business Linkage vs. a Superficial Connection

Notice that a Logic of Training analysis requires the training leader to dig deeper than simply a superficial or nominal connection, such as: “We need to do customer service training, so we can improve customer loyalty and retention.” Superficial linkage that merely connects the training nominally with the nature of the business goal is not good enough. Such linkage does not specify the particular behavior and performance changes that will have to be achieved in order to truly impact the business goal. Savvy training leaders know this training pitfall and establish, therefore, a clear “Line of Sight” (i.e., a step-by-step linkage that connects the training, the job behaviors, and the specific results) through a logic analysis.

Line of Sight describes in specific terms the connection between each of the following elements:

• The key organization goals/strategy that the training is intended to support
• The team or individual results that need to be achieved to contribute to those goals
• The most critical on-the-job situations (“moments of truth”) where better performance will lead to better team or individual results
• The learning outcomes from the training that will equip trainees to be effective in those on-the-job situations

Figure 3.2 shows a single Line of Sight for a Customer Service Rep. The example connects customer service training to a business goal of improving customer loyalty.

One of the most important roles played by the Courageous Training leader is to articulate the Line of Sight to all levels of employees in the organization. If we—as designers, facilitators, consultants, and leaders of training—cannot clearly and specifically articulate the Line of Sight, how can we expect trainees or line managers to make the connection between the training, the application back on the job, and the results? And if they cannot make the connection, how can we expect them to do the things we need them to do, like using the skills in specific, critical situations or holding their direct reports accountable for using the new behaviors?

Getting the business stakes out on the table and getting all levels of management aligned on the Line of Sight is critical for starting off in the right direction and gaining senior management’s active commitment. Courageous trainers are skilled and relentless at clearly creating and communicating this business case.

GETTING THE BUSINESS STAKES OUT ON THE TABLE

An elegantly simple tool for getting the business stakes out on the table for any training or change initiative is a tool we created and named the “Impact Map.” The Impact Map is a simple, graphically lean and clear tool for capturing the Line of Sight that is discovered during the logic analysis. We first employed Impact Maps in our consulting practice as an internal analysis and communication device. We were hired by many different clients to evaluate the results achieved by dozens of different training programs. It was often the case that the clients themselves were not very clear about the specific performance and organizational goals they were hoping the training would help them achieve. For example, one large manufacturing company implemented an extensive leadership development initiative that cost several hundred thousand dollars in training materials and fees, not to mention manager time and travel costs. But beyond nebulous goals—such as improve employee productivity, increase organizational competitiveness, increase employee satisfaction, and build bench strength—they could not identify the specific outcomes they expected the training to accomplish. (Scary if you stop and think about it—but we know this training department is not alone in this predicament!) Therefore, in order to evaluate these programs, we and the client had to define and agree on the right business metrics that would accurately reflect the training’s success, or lack thereof. And so we invented the Impact Map: a tabular analysis of the logic of the training on which we were focusing.

The best way to understand an Impact Map is just to look at one, as in Table 3.1. This Impact Map is one of several such maps that were created for a hotel chain that was providing training to several categories of employees. All of the training was driven by the same business purpose: to increase guest satisfaction and thus to increase return business, which is a key component of profitability and competitive advantage.

The Impact Map is laid out in columns that show, from left to right, the key capabilities the training is meant to provide to employees; the actions that employees are expected to take to apply their learning; the immediate job results that application of the learning would help produce; and the business unit and overall goals to which the training, through application on the job, is meant to produce. Note that the entries are not lined up neatly in rows. Sometimes a single entry in one column is connected to two or more entries in another column. The connections from column to column are not preset by the training department. Instead they are discussed and determined by each user of the map based on the individual’s situation and needs.

Using the Impact Map to Drive Vital Dialogues with Stakeholders

The Impact Map captures the essential logic of the training. It shows whom the training is for, how trainees are meant to use it, and why using it is important for the business. As such, it is an excellent communications tool to support a dialogue among stakeholders to help them understand, revise if necessary, and agree on the business logic for the training. Combined with the Impact Map, the dialogue can be used to explore all of the following vital questions and issues:

About the business goals

• Are these goals important?
• Are other goals more important right now; should other goals be pursued instead of these?
• What is the financial value of improvement on these goals?
• Given the likely costs for the training, how much improvement on the business goals is needed to cover expenses for the training?
• Is this much improvement likely to be achieved?

About the job results

• Are these job results important to achieving the business goals?
• Would other job results be more important to focus on?
• How are we currently performing on these results?
• How much improvement on these results would it take to make a worthwhile contribution to the business goals we are aiming for?
• Are there other more efficient and effective ways to achieve these job results (e.g., coaching; incentives; redesigning the job, tools, or technology)?
• Do the employees and their managers understand, pay attention to, and buy into these results?

About the critical on-the-job actions

• Are these the right actions to help drive the results we are aiming for?
• Do the employees know that they are supposed to do these things?
• How well are people currently performing these actions?
• Are there other more effective and efficient ways to get people to perform better on these actions (e.g., better direction, coaching, incentives; redesigning the job, tools, or technology)?
• Would learning the capabilities that the training targets help employees perform these actions?

About the learning outcomes

• Do employees already know how to do the things listed as learning outcomes?
• Are these the right things to know and do better to perform the actions needed?
• Are our employees capable of mastering these learning outcomes at the level of proficiency needed?
• Are there alternative, more effective, and more efficient ways to provide employees with these capabilities (e.g., job aids, coaching)?

Warning

Asking these questions may cause stomach upset, psychological discomfort, and possible embarrassment. Courageous Training leaders know that raising these questions and getting good answers to them is absolutely vital to the success of training … if success is viewed through the lens of the business, and if success is defined as making a worthy contribution to business goals. Savvy training leaders also know that raising these questions with busy business leaders and managers is time-consuming and that the people they question may have a difficult time answering. They know, moreover, that it would be a whole lot easier to skip the whole “business results” focus and just ask questions like: When would you like the training to begin?

But if training is to be effective, these questions must be raised and addressed. The questions also help redistribute more broadly the responsibility for making training work onto the other, nontraining role players, whose actions (or lack of actions) can make or break the success of the training.

Courageous Training leaders regularly raise and address these questions. When the training leaders uncover factors and circumstances that will hinder the impact of training, they address them directly with their stakeholders, helping them see and understand negative consequences that are risked. Courageous Training leaders can then suggest solutions and offer help.

Many companies provide good training, but Courageous Training leaders understand that it’s not about the training. It’s about the business goals and the results that training can deliver!

USING IMPACT MAPS STRATEGICALLY

The Courageous Training leaders with whom we work have pioneered a number of helpful applications of Impact Maps, and more applications continue to emerge. We list here the principal uses that have been adopted to date, and we explain briefly how each application bolsters the bold actions that are often needed to drive business impact from investments in learning and training. You will find references to many of these uses in Chapters Nine through Twelve, which provide case examples of Courageous Training.

Clarifying Initial Business Goals, Stakes, and Risks

Training leaders conduct interviews and gather information from various sources, such as web sites, quarterly analysts calls, and annual reports, to build a high-level Impact Map to show how a new or otherwise important training initiative links to business goals. Table 3.2 provides an example of such a map.

The Impact Map in Table 3.2 shows the business goal linkage for a program on leadership skills that a national beverage company requested. The map shows what participants from three different job roles—distributor general managers, operations leaders, and sales managers—would learn in the program, how they would be expected to use their learning on the job, and the resulting job and business goals at which the training would be aimed.

Winning Support from Trainees’ Managers

Training leaders we work with typically construct Impact Maps that are tailored to and reflect the intended business rationale and impact for a single organizational unit or manager. They often use the Impact Map as part of an interactive session with managers that have come to be called “Impact Boosters.” (We explain more about Impact Boosters in Chapter Five; they are also highlighted in several instances in the case examples in Chapters Nine through Twelve.) Impact Boosters are brief sessions designed to help managers translate the overall business goals for an organizationwide training initiative into the more targeted outcomes for their own particular business unit. By cascading the business rationale and intended outcomes down to this level, which is more near and dear to a manager’s heart, the training leader is much more likely to win buy-in from line management; these managers can proactively take actions to support the training and make sure that their employees not only learn it but also actually use it on the job.

Many of the Courageous Training leaders with whom we have worked have been able to take the bold action of saying to managers (in essence if not in these exact words): “OK—so now you see what the training can do for you, and we’re happy to make it available to you and do whatever will help you leverage it. But frankly, whether you send your people to it or not, or help them use it or not, is your problem, not ours. You’ve seen the business case for it, and you know what’s at stake. You’re paid to make business decisions, so it’s up to you.”

Helping Individual Trainees Set, and Commit to, a Personalized Course of Action to Master and Apply Learning

An Impact Map can be tailored all the way down to the level of the individual trainee. It details the few most important learning outcomes that the individual plans to master in the training, then shows how that person aims to use the training on the job, and concludes with the results—both for the job and the business—to which this job performance can contribute.

Among our user colleagues, most often these individual Impact Maps are created in one-on-one dialogues between trainees

and their managers (more about this in Chapter Five). Because of this, the maps become a sort of contract between trainees and their managers, subtly yet boldly off-loading the responsibility for putting the training to work from the back of the training leader and onto the shoulders of the individual trainee and his or her manager—exactly where it belongs. Many of the Courageous Training leaders with whom we work, and all of those who have contributed a chapter to this book, have taken the bold step to make individual Impact Maps a regular and distinctive part of their training implementations.

In summary, Courageous Training leaders are bulldogs when it comes to understanding and communicating the business goals of the training. They conceive of and view all of their work through a business-goal lens. They act faithfully on a pledge to do only training that will help the business, to make a clear business case for all training they do, and to not ask anything of their constituents that will not help produce business results. To them, the business rationale for training is like the marketing slogan for a well-known credit card: they “won’t leave home without it.”

The principal actions that operationalize the Courageous Training Pillar #1 are as follows:

• Filter all requests for and inquiries about training through the Logic of Training framework.
• Use Impact Maps to frame and test your own understanding of the Line of Sight that is created by connecting the intended learning outcomes, job role performance improvements, and the business results at which training is aimed.
• Engage training stakeholders in Impact Map dialogues to create understanding and build commitment for the initiative.
• Use Impact Maps to educate managers and explicate performance expectations for trainees that will drive outcomes that managers care about.

In the next chapter, we dig deeper into how Courageous Training leaders translate their commitment to business results into action. We also explore how they help build a shared accountability for learning and training across the entire organization.