Hold the Line!

Training professionals occasionally find themselves in the position of having to defend their work, and, sooner or later, must “hold the line.”

Challenges sometimes comes from managers who are unaware of the purpose of a particular training program and believe it should include additional topics or skills.

For example, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume a program on business communication for non-native speakers would include how to make effective presentations, perhaps for sales.

However, presentation skills may not be needed for a program meant to improve skills in writing emails and letters for clerical or secretarial staff.

Such disconnects can happen when managers and others have had a memorable and favorable experience with a similar program, and they want this program to be like that program.

If you don’t know why the program doesn’t include the suggested topic of sales presentations, you may be inclined to agree and, if it’s within your power, you’ll make the change in what appears to be a win-win for you and the manager.

However, this is the opposite of “holding the line,” and your win may quickly turn into the organization’s loss, possibly blowing back on you as the culprit.

On the other hand, if you're familiar with the work done during the front-end analysis and program design, you’ll likely understand the relationship between the program’s purpose(s) and goals(s) and its topics and objectives.

If you haven’t guessed already, “hold the line” refers to a line of logic or, if you will, a chain of interconnected, evidence-based decisions that form or, better yet, inform, a sound training program.

In essence, there should be a direct connection between the intended outcomes of a training program and a business problem it is meant to address.

In our example, the program focusing on business communication presumably addresses an identified business problem related to writing skills, perhaps a high number of written errors identified as causing frequent miscommunication and resulting in inaccurate orders and losses in revenue.

Here, the line between the business problem and the training solution is clear.

When we dig deeper into the problem, we should be able to identify exactly which types of errors committed by which employees in which types of communication related to which types of sales are causing which impact.

And when we dig deeper into the program, we should be able to identify which objectives are related to which skills addressing everything above and which activities are meant to build those skills and which assessments are meant to confirm that those skills have been acquired, and so on.

We continue the pursuit of this Constructive Alignment to every lesson and exercise in the training delivery all the way through the program’s levels of evaluation, presumably linking us back to the employees’ improved work performance (i.e., a decrease in errors) and improved business results (i.e., a decrease in inaccurate orders and an increase in customer retention).

Armed with the knowledge above, you have two choices: 1) Establish and “hold the line” when you start every L&D project, whether you’re developing a training program or an e-learning course, or 2) begin trying to “hold the line” when your decisions and actions are challenged, such as in the preceding example.

The best defense is a good offense, so the first choice is better than the second.

Here are five tips to “Hold the Line”:

1. Understand, commit to, and execute your process (ADDIE, SAM, LLAMA, etc.) to the greatest extent possible, ensuring “the line” is clear to all stakeholders, managers, and team members.
2. As you establish each node in “the line,” from business problem to business goals to root causes to program design and all the way to program evaluation, document the decisions that were made.
3. Continue to educate managers and others by sharing your documentation as you go or in PowerPoint slides to build awareness of the program’s purpose and illustrate how it will be constructed to bring desired business results
4. Consider using some common methods for project management, such as a project charter, a RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) table, risk mitigation, and change governance.
5. Develop program governance that contains all the above along with administrative guidelines, roles and responsibilities, processes, procedures, policies, and an oversight committee who monitors the program and through whom changes must be requested.

The documentation above will establish decisions that were made and outline the process for change.

As a bonus, getting signatures on as much documentation as possible adds further requirements before suggested changes can be made.

Good instructional systems design, project management, and program management will enable you to “hold the line” to bring more efficient and effective solutions to your organization or client.