By Christopher Adams, PhD
Note: The analogy used in this article includes medial terms and commonly-used phrases related to injuries and treatment. If you prefer to avoid imagery or language like this, please stop reading here.
A workshop participant recently gave me a wonderful analogy for describing the difference between tactical and strategic work in learning and performance teams or L&D.
She described a difficult situation in her manufacturing organization where products would frequently be returned because they had been installed improperly. Her leadership was consistently asking for more training, when other solutions like a product redesign or process improvement were clearly needed to really solve the problem.
To sum up the situation, she lamented, “It’s like we’re bleeding to death, and they just want to slap on a Band-Aid and move on!”
This is, unfortunately, a familiar predicament for many L&D practitioners who are called on to implement a tactical, temporary approach, which is unlikely to address the real performance or business issue.
Instead, the participants in our workshop used the model we were discussing, the “Should-Is-Cause” logic, to think about this situation differently. We agreed that, if a patient really does have a serious wound, we need to act quickly to stop or slow the bleeding to save their life!
First a few quick definitions:
- Should: This is goal or desired future state that an organization needs to achieve in order to become and remain successful.
- Is: This is the current actual state. Together with the Should it describes a Gap.
- Gap: The difference between the Should and the Is. This is the problem or opportunity the organization needs to address.
- Cause: Causes are reasons why the Gap exists. There are usually multiple causes for business and performance gaps, which require multiple solutions to address.
Our key insight was that we can either think of our work as a single solution, a Band-Aid that’s likely to fail, or we can think of our work as a compression bandage that slows the bleeding so that surgery or other interventions can combine to save the patient’s life. This is a useful way to contrast tactical vs. strategic work in the learning function.
When we work tactically, we focus on implementing a single solution, often training, to address the needs of a specific group of people. That single solution is costly, in that it requires time and resources to implement. And, it may or not be aligned with some strategic objective. In contrast, strategic work begins with a business goal, addresses root causes that impact that goal, and typically involves a set of related solutions needed to achieve the goal. Because of these attributes, the value of strategic work to the organization is significant and long-term.
So, when we implement learning interventions, are we slapping on Band-Aids (tactical work) or are we applying compression bandages or surgical dressings as part of a larger treatment plan (strategic)?
Let’s return to the example shared earlier and consider how a strategic approach might look. Remember, the problem is product returns due to failed installations. Let’s apply the Should-Is-Cause logic to this situation. We want to consider both business and performance gaps, so we could ask the following:
Should-Is Questions
Note: The responses below serve as representative examples.
CategoryQuestionResponseBusiness ShouldWhat goals does the business have around product returns?Our goal is to have fewer than 5% of products returned.Business IsWhat is the current return rate?Last month, 23% of products sold were returned and replaced.Performance ShouldWhat do installers need to do more, better, or differently in order to avoid or prevent returns?Select the appropriate product for the install site.
Follow detailed install instructions precisely.
Use the correct installation tools and equipment.
Ask for help immediately when installation problems arise.Performance IsWhat do you see installers doing currently that is of concern?Ordering incorrect products.
Skipping installation steps in an attempt to save time.
Using heavy tools to force components during installation.
Seeking help only after the product has been damaged during installation.
Having asked these Should and Is questions, we now better understand the gap this organization is facing. A 23% return rate when only 5% is acceptable could certainly feel like “bleeding to death” from a business leader’s perspective.
Continuing with the logic, we can ask some Cause questions. These questions simply ask, “Why does this gap exist?”
Cause Questions
CategoryQuestionResponseBusiness CauseWhat factors are making it difficult to keep our return rate below 5%?Upon examination, about 2% of returned products have manufacturing defects.
Our latest products have advanced features that make the installation process more complex.Performance CauseWhat factors are challenging installers as they attempt to correctly install our products?The installation process documentation is paper-based and includes over 30 detailed steps.
Our product mix includes over two dozen similar products.
Most installation steps are common across multiple products, but there are specific differences for each product, some of which are points of possible failure.
From this Cause data, we can see that simply training on current installation steps is unlikely to produce the desired business and performance results. Changes to the product design, installation process, and even the manufacturing process are all probably needed to reach our business Shoulds.
But while a tactical Band-Aid approach is probably not a good idea, what can learning and development do to help support these other interventions?
Start with communication to the installers in the field that leadership is aware of the issue and that a cross-functional team is working on it. This gives the patient hope. Help is on the way!
That’s like a compression bandage that helps slow the bleeding (in this case, bleeding might include attrition and turnover in the installer position).
As updated product and process designs come online, the learning team can create more comprehensive training to prepare installers for the coming changes. This training effort will be far more efficient, as other root causes have already been addressed, which will make for faster and more effective learning.
That’s like a surgical dressing that supports the patient while they recover from the intensive treatment.
So, where do the learning solutions you’re working on today fit in this analogy? Are you tactically sticking on Band-Aids or are you strategically applying bandages that help to heal the patient? Gaining a clear understanding of the Should, Is, and Cause for a given challenge can help move from a tactical to a strategic approach.
Discover How You Can Show the Full Impact of L&D at Your Organization
Learning leaders and their teams are constantly asked to show the impact of training, job aids, and other learning products. If this sounds familiar, join our upcoming online conference, Communicating L&D’s Impact, to learn how to choose and use tools and dashboards to track, analyze, and share the impact of your work. Learn how to communicate the value of your work clearly, even when projects are still in their early stages of development and deployment. Register today!
Image credit: Liliia Bila
