L&D: Chasing Right Outcomes With Wrong Outputs

One never knows how having a good conversation with a friend and respected colleague like Mark Britz can uncork a brilliant idea for a blog post that I had not planned to write. We were discussing the painfully slow adoption by L&D organizations of the illusive performance paradigm. We both blog and always search for the right words, and that’s when Mark dropped a statement that flung a craving on me to write this blog:

“L&D is chasing the right outcomes with the wrong outputs!”


In truth this statement may not turn anybody else’s crank, but right after he said it, I never heard another word he said…sorry Mark!

Despite me being the author of this post, I have to give props to Mark for pushing me over the edge by dropping the right words into my head.

Seriously, check this out…first, consider “outcomes” as representing measurable performance results…a.k.a. business outcomes.  Then…consider “outputs” as the product L&D renders in order to train competency into  the workforce…a.k.a. training solutions…the outputs produced by L&D.

Why are training solutions the wrong output? Honestly, they are NOT wrong – but the expectations of what those outputs produce may be…especially when training alone is not enough…and only contributes to potential. Last I checked, potential cannot be measured or considered as a tangible outcome.

Maybe we should examine those expectations a little closer by asking, “What were you expecting from training?” Quite possibly if our stakeholders embedded expectations…as well as our own [L&D’s)…were to drive performance, it may be easier to see why training solutions by themselves may well be the wrong outputs.

Digging deeper, it’s probably safe to say those expectations are all over the map and rightly so as each learning and performance ecosystem is unique… each need to improve performance is unique as well.  And yet, within that all that diversity of need there really does exist uniqueness that is a common thread…common end game…regardless of industry – sustained business outcomes. Maybe it’s just me but don’t business outcomes sound like a lowest common denominator regardless of unavoidable diversity in their environments?

If that resonates with you as it does for me, it seems like L&D’s target outputs should be driven by the expectations of business outcomes produced by the workforce…at the Point-of-Work and not producing solutions that are limited only to transfer of knowledge that may not be retained long enough to apply.

The logic in my brain points to the beginning point for addressing any business challenge should be a complete understanding of the business outcomes NOT being delivered at the Point-of-Work.

Also in my brain, as skewed as it might be with a rampant performance consulting bias, training outputs have not even been suggested as part of a solution; however, long-held traditional approaches promote that as a default. True, training may be necessary – my position is simple…don’t go there first.

We cannot begin the effort by looking through a “training solution lens”. I can always build training IF NECESSARY. BUT…if emphasis is not first laser-focused on what solution output closes the performance gap(s) at Point-of-Work,  the traditional default training solution may well be the wrong output.

That said, at least for me, where and what we start investigating matters – business outcomes @ Point-of-Work. The focus of our discovery – deficient business outcomes and the root cause(s) behind them clearly shine a light on whatever the best solution blend should be.

Discovery really needs to infiltrate Point-of-Work and include:

  • People – who does the work…supports, mentors & reinforces the work…impacted by the work
  • Process – clear definition of what is the work at task-level and root cause(s) to breakdown
  • Content – assets used to accomplish the work…apply in the process of accomplishing the work
  • Technology – tools, applications, end-user devices used to accomplish the work
  • Measures – KPIs that track the work…KPIs that SHOULD track the work…current KPI benchmarks

…and there is still more in each category, but in the final analysis if discovery of this type – PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT – is not accomplished on the front end by someone on the L&D team having performance consulting skills, the chances are better than good that the wrong outputs needed to drive the desired outcomes are going to come up short.

So…am I busting L&D for being wrong?

Nope, not even, but I am saying that well-intended training solutions will not likely carry forward to the Point-of-Work to deliver the expected mail.

What then is the solution?

Blow up L&D and start over?

Bag the core concepts of ADDIE and all of its sexy new derivatives?

Hardly, but what needs to happen requires close examination of your chosen methodology and what you do first. I could not give a rip if you adopt 70:20:10, PDNA, Five Moments of Need, or anything else. None of those will work either if you do not follow what’s at their respective core methodologies – assessing performance. They all require assessment and that assessment must happen at Point-of-Work and examine the five areas I called out above.


  • Point-of-Work is common to all methodologies
  • Point-of-Work is where deficient performance creates business value…AND loss
  • Point-of-Work is where business outcomes manifest…not during training
  • Point-of-Work is downstream and out of scope for most training outputs
  • Point-of-Work is where levels three, four and five are measured as evidence of impact

Regardless of models, methodologies or frameworks you end up pursuing, I cannot emphasize enough the critical need to A.) Bring performance consulting skills in-house or, B.) Build/Grow them to support effective performance assessment at Point-of-Work.

This whole Point-of-Work obsession of mine is truly NOT rocket science. Trust me, Homey don’t do rocket science. But Homey does know how to defend himself because he and his teams have been BUSTED too many times by producing excellent training outputs that did not deliver and sustain the desired business outcomes. Homey never got out front of the training paradigm to crush the myth that training was going to drive the performance everybody wanted.

Don’t be a Homey…chase the right outcomes with the right outputs!

Oh…one more thing…thanks to Mark Britz for lighting the fuse.

Gary G. Wise
Workforce Performance Advocate, Coach, Speaker
(317) 437-2555
Web: Living In Learning