Rothwell W.J. - Beyond Training and Development[c] The Groundbreaking Classic on Human Performance Enhancement (2004)(2-e)(en)

This page intentionally left blank

organization suffers from disadvantages when compared to its competitors, ‘‘best-practice organizations,’’ or other reference points. A present negative gap suggests that the organization is not performing as well as others. Further analysis and corrective action are warranted.

When first identified, present negative gaps may tempt decision makers to take hasty (and sometimes ill-advised) action. That is to be avoided. Further analysis may be needed to clarify the exact cause(s) of the problems, to distinguish symptoms from cause(s), and to target corrective action at cause(s) rather than at symptoms.

Present Neutral Gap

A present neutral gap is neither a strategic or tactical strength nor a weakness. It is neither a performance problem nor a performance improvement opportunity. It means that the organization currently matches—but neither surpasses nor falls behind—competitors, ‘‘best-practices organizations,’’ or other reference points. A present neutral gap suggests that the organization is performing about the same as others.

Present neutral gaps are usually neglected because decision makers are inclined to believe that such gaps are neither candidates for corrective action nor avenues for dramatic improvements. However, that view can be mistaken. Organizations that experience breakthrough improvements in productivity are sometimes able to distinguish themselves by applying innovation to a neutral gap.

Suppose that the average response time to fill a customer order in a fast food restaurant is three minutes. All fast food restaurants may fall near that time. It is thus a neutral gap. But if it were possible to find ways to respond (with quality) in one minute or less, an organization could distinguish itself in the industry— and take full marketing advantage of that.

Future Positive Gap

Any future gap incorporates information about expected changes over time. A future positive gap represents a strategic or tactical opportunity for achieving competitive superiority in any performance quadrant. A future positive gap suggests that the organization has potential over time to exceed its reference points and achieve breakthrough results in human performance. It can leverage strength.

Achieving future positive gaps is one goal of most planning efforts. What is important, however, is to find ways to convert desired organizational results into

future realities. That requires leadership from the top, employee commitment from the bottom, and innovative HPE strategies.

Future Negative Gap

A future negative gap represents a strategic or tactical threat. The organization is in peril, falling behind competitors or other reference points in any performance quadrant. A future negative gap should stimulate strategies for corrective action over time. Averting future negative gaps is a secondary goal of most planning efforts.

Future Neutral Gap

A future neutral gap represents neither a strategic nor a tactical threat or opportunity. It means that, if trends unfold as expected, the organization will merely keep pace with competitors, ‘‘best-practice organizations,’’ or other reference points in the four performance quadrants. A future neutral gap suggests that the organization will probably end up performing about the same as others.

Like present neutral gaps, future neutral gaps may be overlooked because decision makers are likely to believe that they are not worth much attention. However, that view may be in error. Indeed, future neutral gaps may be the most promising of all areas to examine for breakthrough improvement opportunities because competitors may tend to overlook them.

Identifying Performance Gaps

Identifying performance gaps resembles training needs assessment. Key differences do exist, of course. One difference is that the focus of identifying performance gaps is not restricted to uncovering only knowledge, skill, or attitude deficiencies; human performance enhancement needs assessment (HPENA) identifies any deficiency or proficiency affecting human performance. Another difference is that the focus of the gap need not be restricted to the past or present, as is often the case with training needs assessment. A third difference is that identifying performance gaps may be a solitary pursuit by HPE specialists or a process that involves, empowers, and energizes stakeholders in a way that is not typical of traditional training needs assessment.

The Team, Task Force, or Committee Approach

In team-based corporate cultures, something can be said for conducting comparisons of what is and what should be by using one or more teams, task forces, or committees. Members of a team, task force, or committee form a core of change champions who can build an impetus for an HPE strategy based on their findings. Members have broad ownership resulting from their participation. Serving on the team, task force, or committee effort is also a development opportunity in its own right.

Different categories of teams may be used in making comparisons between what is and what should be. Standing teams consist of work group members who work together to achieve common goals. Cross-functional teams represent several standing teams, groups, or departments sharing common concerns. When selecting teams to make comparisons between what is and what should be, target the teams that are well suited to examine the issues. For instance, the board of directors or the top management team may be especially well suited to examine the organizational environment. Top and middle managers may be especially competent to examine the work environment. Other teams may be well suited to examine the work and the worker environments.

Task forces are ad hoc groups assembled to focus on an issue of common concern. Their charters are restricted to a few issues only. Most task forces have limited life spans and disband once they have completed their assigned tasks. A vertical-slice task force uses members from many hierarchical levels and thus differs from a horizontal-slice task force composed of people from the same level. A verti- cal-slice task force, chaired by an HPE specialist, may be particularly useful in making broad comparisons between what is happening and what should be happening among such performance quadrants as present positive, present negative, future positive, and future negative gaps. Members should be chosen for their abilities (what they can contribute) as well as their organizational placement (where they come from), their interest level (how willing they are to participate), and their development needs (what competencies they can build through task force participation).

A committee, unlike a task force, endures beyond one project. In other respects, committees and task forces have common features. A steering committee guides efforts; an advisory committee offers only recommendations and suggestions for action. A human performance enhancement committee may be a committee that sets policy and priorities on HPE or one that merely advises others.

Exhibit 6-3. A possible agenda for a management retreat focused on clarifying present and future performance gaps.

I.Introduction

Describe the purpose of the retreat and the results to be achieved (objectives). II. Identifying present challenges

A.Form small groups and ask participants to create a list of the top five challenges confronting the organization. Allow twenty to thirty minutes for the activity. Ask each group to appoint a spokesperson and to list the challenges it identified. The facilitator should write the challenges on a flipchart or overhead transparency.

B.Describe key issues affecting human performance with the participants.

C.Present the new model to guide HPE to the participants (see Exhibit 2-5 in this book).

D.Ask participants to form new small groups and identify the current ‘‘status’’ of human performance that stems directly from the challenges confronting the organization. Allow twenty to thirty minutes for the activity. Ask each group to appoint a spokesperson and list the ‘‘status’’ they identified. The facilitator should write the problems on a flipchart or overhead transparency.

E.Ask participants to remain in the same small groups and, for each description of ‘‘what is happening’’ identified in the previous activity, write ‘‘what should be happening.’’ Allow twenty to thirty minutes for the activity. Ask each group to appoint a spokesperson and to list its visions of what should be happening. The facilitator should write the visions on a flipchart.

F.Ask participants to categorize the gaps as present positive, present negative, or present neutral. Carry out this activity with the large group.

G.Summarize present challenges. III. Identifying future challenges

Repeat the same procedure as summarized in Step II, focusing attention on future challenges.

which participants work together collaboratively to build a preferred future for the organization.3

Such gargantuan meetings are advantageous because they build a critical mass for change among many key decision makers at one time. These meetings do have disadvantages, of course: They are difficult to organize effectively; they pose a succession-planning risk to the organization when so many decision makers are gathered in a central location; and they can make it a challenge for the organization to conduct business when so many key decision makers are out for an extended time. (Some organizations meet the last challenge by simply shutting down the business for one or more days, which implies immense top management support and commitment. Such an approach is sometimes called immersion assessment.)

A large-group change effort approach requires careful planning. Meeting facilitators:

Contract with the organization’s leadership team to secure commitment for the change effort.