Things We Can't Out-Train Part 4: Unclear Expectations
If expectations aren’t clear no amount of training will fix the problem.
This article is part 4 of a series focused on problems that cannot be solved by training alone. Follow along to gather a toolkit that will help you determine where to say no to training requests that won't solve the problem and maximize your impact by saying yes to those that will.
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 can and 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.
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 could do to help as their talent partners. I assumed there might be more to the story and got curious.
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.
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.
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?
