A New Leaf – Performance Vs. Training!

Is performance related to training? If it is then how deep is this relationship? This question worries training managers – especially if their job description includes HR consultancy to the other departments in the organization.

I remember an incident that would help bring out the importance of differentiating between performance and training.

I once had the opportunity to work with an excellent graphic designer. He wasn’t a great illustrator, but he was, without doubt, the best visualizer I’ve ever met. He didn’t just visualize well, he also had the nerve to display his creations. His interfaces, his abstracts, his animations were loved by the client, if and when they could escape the reviewer’s censorious scissors! He thought of navigational setups that were organized as circles, when others were replicating the linear arrangement for the millionth time; he organized his colors in ways that catapulted the viewer into a different dimension of attention…he also earned a B for all his efforts!

In the year that followed, his spirits ebbed. The work that he earlier completed in a day, he now took a week to complete. Yet, because his work was magnificent, the managers accepted the apparent “sloth”. I, as a colleague, viewed everything from a different angle. I knew that he still took the same amount of time to complete the job, but he wasn’t delivering it. That year, he ended his career with the organization with another B in his pocket.

His Bs meant that he wasn’t up to the mark, and that he should’ve been trained. He should’ve been trained on what? He was great at handling the different graphic software applications! He was excellent at the graphic design principles – in fact, they surged in his veins; he was a born artist! He was full of hope and he was ready to give his best! So he did what was natural…he skipped the trainings! (I guess the trainers go lucky…he would’ve been one of worst hecklers otherwise!) He was also quite piqued by the fact that the managers thought of him as a possible candidate for training.

I don’t know what happened to that excellent graphic designer. I wish I knew…I wish I could find him for Wavelength…for I know what went wrong, and why it went wrong. I couldn’t do anything then…I wasn’t in a position to do anything. Few random emails to the senior people in the organization don’t solve any purpose…do they?

The debate about the ascendancy of performance over training has been raging for a long-long time. Performance is the measure, which is used to determine the need for training. Nevertheless, performance measurement is never as objective as it ought to be, nor does it provide direct answers with respect to training needs. When performance results are misinterpreted, they end up killing what they were expected to nurture.

Let us first try to identify the roots of the performance issues? Why isn’t performance a true indicator (and a complete indicator) of a training need?

Why People Don’t Perform?

• They Don’t Know How To Perform
  The first reason is the most obvious reason – they don’t know how to perform. This reason doesn’t require more thought as it leads to the most obvious conclusion – there is a training need! If there is a clearly identifiable training need, the obvious and the correct thing to do is to conduct training.
  
  
• Lack/Absence of Technology
  Another reason for lack of performance is the lack/absence of the technology required for the performance to take place. For example, I may not be able to create the required number of frames in a storyboard, because the Operating System crashes every hour. No amount of training will help me achieve the desired productivity in this case – the only thing that would work, is probably a new, more robust operating system.
  
  
• Lack/Absence of Infrastructure
  Lack of adequate infrastructure is another reason for bad performance. I may not be able to think fast if two people are discussing their indecently high raises in the vicinity, when I have ended up with a raise that couldn’t be seen with naked eye! Well! Thinking is a necessary feat to accomplish, if one wishes to write – managers often ignore this!
  
  (I know that employees are forbidden to discuss their salaries and raises within the organization, but a surprisingly high number of people don’t follow this dictum.)
  
  
• Invisibility/Partial Visibility of the Rewards
  Invisibility or partial visibility of the rewards is yet another cause of performance issues. Many employees, especially those who are passionately involved in their work, don’t know anything about the rewards that may follow if they perform well. They assume that if they create masterpieces, they would be rewarded; they don’t recognize the time-factor.
  
  They are worried about making their work perfect (qualitative performance) and not about the delivery deadlines (quantitative performance.) Unfortunately these are the people who make an organization great…and they are ones who are high on emotional charge. They are the easiest to lose, and the most difficult to keep.
  
  
• Incorrect Interpretation of Rewards
  Some people may construe a reward as a punishment. Not everyone is looking for higher responsibility. Organizations that shun specialization may lead such employees into deliberate underperformance so that they may avoid the responsibility that would come with growth. Artists and writers (both professionals are essential to our industry) often like to continue being artists and writers. They derive satisfaction from the act of creation. Some of them may find the idea of managing teams, budgets, and client-relationships, very distressing.
  

  Another reason for incorrect interpretation of rewards could be past-experiences. We all know the importance of prior schema on the way we interpret our new experiences. If a person was not rewarded as promised (according to his/her interpretation) the motivation of performing is lost.
  

• Clique-Culture Mismatch
  Performance issues may sometimes result due to attitudinal mismatch between the employee’s belief system and the belief systems of those who form his or her environment. Please note that I am not speaking of the mismatch between organizational goals and individual goals. I am talking of the small cliques that exist within organizations. Each of these cliques has a specific culture. For the sake of our discussion, we can call this the clique-culture.
  
  The clique-culture is dynamic and the single most important factor that contributes to the dynamic nature of this culture is the boss’s expectations. When an employee’s belief clashes with the clique-beliefs – the performance drops. Most of the “incomprehensible” employee appraisal forms result from such a mismatch.
  
  
• Other Reasons
  Additionally, the reason behind a performance issue could be simply embedded in a participant’s attitude towards work, his or her long-term aims, and so on.

The question that we should be asking ourselves is – how do we identify the signs of “other-than-the-training-need” issues.

Here are some signs that may guide the training managers on determining the absence of a skill training need:

High on quality (Good client feedback, low number of errors) but low on productivity and efficiency parameters

Possible Reason(s):

• Lack/Absence of Technology
• Lack/Absence of Infrastructure
• Invisibility/Partial Visibility of the Rewards
• Incorrect Interpretation of Rewards

High on objective parameters (quality, productivity, efficiency,) but low on subjective parameters (teamwork, responsibility)

Possible Reason(s):

• Invisibility/Partial Visibility of the Rewards
• Incorrect Interpretation of Rewards
• Clique Culture Mismatch

A break in trend for skills (Scored well on skill factors in the earlier appraisals, but scores dipped in the current appraisal.)

Possible Reason(s):

• Clique-Culture Mismatch

It is clear that skill training will aggravate the situation instead of alleviating it. It is important for the training manager to determine the right reason behind a performance issue. The above analysis could help the training department determine:

• Whether there is a need for training or not?
• If there is a training need, what kind of training should be imparted?
  

A person who lacks the required technology or the right environment doesn’t require training – he or she requires corrective action on the technology/environment front. Similarly, if a person’s understanding or interpretation of the rewards is incorrect or inadequate, he or she requires training (if it may be called so) about the performance rewards and the corresponding appraisal system.

If there is clique-culture mismatch, the training and development team should try to determine the extent of this issue. If it is happening very often and is reflected in the appraisals of a significant number of employees, the issue is probably an organizational issue and it should be resolved through affective domain trainings for the managers who allow such clique-cultures to take root and flourish.

To sum this up, I would once again like to pick up the thread that I started this article with. The excellent visualizer who I talked about, left his job because he couldn’t understand the reward system.

He was a creator, whose creations were loved by the client, and admired by others; and who was “punished” for his guts to defy the Senior Designer he reported to. The Senior Designer wanted his team to stay within the safety limits marked by tradition – when this graphic designer defied the Senior Designer and requested the Project Manager to send his designs to the client; the Senior Designer expected the designs to be rejected. They weren’t…instead they were praised! Suddenly the graphic designer was the hero! This burned a hole in Senior Designer’s pride – he appraised the technical skills of this fantastic graphic designer at a B!

The graphic designer was shocked! He had expected an A+! His conclusion was clear…the appraisal system was rigged! His belief was shattered. Yet, he couldn’t bring himself to deteriorate the quality of his work – what artist could? Instead, he brought down his productivity. The next year, he deserved his B…his spirit was broken…he had become what the system desired – Average!

Author: Shafali R. Anand