Most learning requests are made in response to a perceived capability gap, with statements like “we need a leadership programme for our new managers” or “our middle managers aren’t holding people accountable.” However, these statements are often conclusions rather than briefs, and the person who reached them may not be the one who will be blamed if the conclusion turns out to be wrong.
The problem with accepting the diagnosis is that it can lead to a programme being implemented without fully understanding the underlying issue. This can result in good smile-sheet scores, but no actual change. The conversation about why this happens is often more difficult than the one that was avoided at the start.
Diagnosing the Real Problem
To get to the root of the issue, a six-stage diagnostic conversation can be used. This conversation includes questions that help to identify where the stated problem may be diverging from the real one. Stage 1: Establish what changed. The question is “When did this start being a problem? What was different before?”
Capability gaps rarely appear spontaneously, and something must have changed, such as a reorganisation or a new system. If nobody can name what changed, it may indicate that the problem has always existed, but has only recently become visible. This changes the design brief, as it is no longer just a matter of addressing a new issue, but also of understanding why it has become visible now.
What is different about them?” This question can help to identify whether the issue is a genuine capability gap or something else. If nobody in the population can do the thing, it may indicate a capability gap, but if some people can do it well, then the question becomes why it isn’t spreading.
Read Also: L&D firms rethink AI adoption metrics beyond prompts
The third stage applies the technical/adaptive test, with the question “If everyone in this group did exactly what you’re asking, whose job gets harder?” This test, developed by Ronald Heifetz, can help to distinguish between technical problems, which have known solutions, and adaptive challenges, which require experiments and new discoveries.
A technical problem can be trained, but an adaptive challenge cannot be trained because the difficulty is not the absence of skill, but rather that applying the skill costs somebody something they are not yet willing to give up. This could be autonomy, status, or a comfortable relationship.
Understanding the Underlying Issues
The fourth stage looks for the competing commitment, with the question “What would this person lose if they changed?” This question is based on the work of Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey, who argue that people who appear to be resisting change are often working towards a different commitment that they hold at the same time.
The fifth stage finds the evidence that would change their mind, with the question “Six months from now, what would you see or hear that would tell you this worked?” This question can help to identify whether the outcome is observable and whether anyone has agreed on what success means.
The sixth and final stage names what training cannot fix, with the question “If we build this and the behaviour still doesn’t change, what would the reason be?” This question can help to identify any structural barriers that may be preventing the behaviour from changing, and whether a programme can actually address the issue.
Read Also: Workforce AI Readiness Lags Adoption, eLearning Offers Solutions
Running these six stages can produce a defensible line between what the intervention is responsible for and what it is not, making measurement honest and allowing for a more accurate assessment of the programme’s effectiveness. The conversation takes about forty minutes and can routinely change the shape of the engagement, occasionally resulting in a recommendation not to build a programme at all.
This is a key consideration when designing a programme, as it can help to identify whether the issue is a technical problem or an adaptive challenge.
Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey’s work on immunity to change also highlights the importance of understanding the underlying commitments and motivations that may be driving the behaviour. By asking the right questions and considering these factors, it is possible to design a programme that addresses the real issue, rather than just the symptoms.
Implementing the Diagnostic Conversation
The diagnostic conversation is a valuable tool for programme designers, as it helps to identify the real issues and create an effective solution.
Leave a Reply