PRH Consulting Inc. Blog

One of the biggest complaints we often hear when we design a modular curriculum is that it is too complex.

First of all, every job I have analyzed is pretty complex so why wouldn’t a comprehensive curriculum to capture and distribute that know-how be complex also?

But PLEASE!! Listen to conversations between people who perform the jobs, especially the best performers. If you are uninitiated, you will hear an incomprehensible barrage of jargon, minutae, exceptions, esoteric rules, and assumed understanding of advanced technical concepts. Nothing wrong with that…in fact, you would hope that, after doing a job for a long time in “the big leagues” (i.e., large corporation) you would be an advanced professional. The question is, why ask people doing the training job to keep everything in layman’s terms? Even worse, in terms everyone can relate to from grade school?

The bottom line is that, when you analyze a job, you find that practitioners have a great deal of know-how. When you pile it up in one place, it looks overwhelming. But, they didn’t learn it like that any more than a company learns how to make transmissions or medicines or control systems in one month. That know-how is accumulated over time. But, if you were to try to start a competitive organization in a mature industry today, you need to identify and collect as much of that know-how right away. It would be an immense task so you wouldn’t try to do it in one or two months.

An effective strategy for building capability (e.g., curriculum, knowledge management system, competency system, etc.) has to deal with the complexity that is there in the “real world.” Technology always changes. People have widely varying natural capabilities and interests and backgrounds. Capability can be conveyed to an individual through formal training, on-the-job coaching, unguided experience (i.e., trial and error), by reading, and through tools (like references). That ends up being a large number of decisions so it does get complex. Unless you have a process for working through those decisions, it is easy to get lost and frustrated and, then, to decide that ”it should be easier.” Maybe it would be nice if it was, but it isn’t. 

It is much easier to do something well when nobody is bugging you…isn’t it? Look at Rex Grossman, Bears (sometime) quarterback. Every mistake he makes is analyzed in the media until I would have to imagine he can’t do anything without second-guessing himself. If you watch other teams play, it turns out their quarterbacks throw interceptions and fumble occasionally as well.

On the other hand, if there is no oversight and no competition, it often creates an environment that performs horribly. The stereotype is the government office or monopoly business where you wait in interminable lines only to be told when you get to the window that you need a different form and to go wait in a different line.

Somewhere in the middle is probably the “sweet spot” for being both productive and supportive. This is really the challenge of line management. Too much competition and pressure leads to backstabbing, stealing credit for ideas, hoarding ideas, playing politics, and a host of things that make work a stressful nightmare for many.

But if every mistake is excused and management takes the blame for every problem (we didn’t provide good enough instructions, we didn’t plan well enough, they didn’t have access to the right information, responsibilities are unclear, etc.) performance degrades to the lowest common denominator.

Performance technology has a lot to say about pressure and performance.

For one thing, to perform effectively (which is the main point, true?) employees need to know what is expected, how it will be measured, and what will happen to them if they don’t meet or exceed expectations.

Another, the performers need access to the right environmental supports. The right tools. The information they need. Work processes that make sense.

And, the performers need to be capable of performing. They need to have the skills and knowledge they need to perform the tasks they are asked to execute.

If management can see that the above has been met, it seems fair for them to demand results. But they need to be within some subjective range of what is acceptable in the culture. In some workplaces, management can get in employees’ faces and in others that would be harassment. (I’m not advocating getting in people’s faces by the way.) But the culture is where fuzzy lines are drawn about how much pressure is enough and how much is too much. Some raises the bar. Too much frustrates and antagonizes employees.

At a call center we once worked with, there were hourly sales promotions where agents would push specific products and services and management would keep score. The highest-selling agents received points and prizes–very immediate feedback. But also an hourly re-set…if you did poorly in the morning, you still had a chance to win in the afternoon.

In a financial services business, security traders and trade processors have daily deadlines for completing trades and sending payment, etc. Failure to meet the deadline could result in fines to the business. Also, a high-pressure work setting. They normally get it done. Pressure, in this setting, results in performance.

Ultimately, it seems that pressure is a necessary evil. Creative and knowledge workers often lament deadlines and insufficient cycle time that “keep us from doing really do good work.” But, some of the best solutions we’ve come up with have been because we needed to…we had a deadline and, as a result, we were focussed, we eliminated distracting ideas quickly, and we found the shortest path. If you are a manager, ask yourself, are you applying the right amount of pressure in your organization to ensure performance?