An oft heard aphorism is that if something looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Applied in the context of learning and development, if an intervention is provided by the L&D function, involves instruction and learners, then it is “training.” This is an unfortunate truth, because to external appearances, most training does indeed look the same.
Though all training may look like “training,” the value propositions that underlie different training initiatives differ dramatically in their relevance to current business needs and goals. Until these value propositions are clarified, explicated and agreed to by L&D leaders and their clients and stakeholders, it is impossible to make the right decisions about L&D program priorities, resource investment scope and intensity, needs for manager engagement, demands for evidence of impact and so forth.
A crowded and growing marketplace for training offers a vast and potentially baffling multitude of training programs and tools. Amid this clutter, we posit that there are only six fundamental L&D value propositions that a viable organization needs to fulfill to survive and thrive.
The importance and worth of any L&D initiative are determined by the relationship of the value proposition to the organization’s business strategy and goals, not by the nature or type of the training program itself. Consider, for example, training programs in fire safety, suppression and extinguishment. Like ducks, such programs look a lot alike. But they differ dramatically when viewed through the lens of the value proposition. In a fire department, that training is vital to effective business success. In an accounting firm in a ground floor office, not a very high priority, if at all.
Despite this fact that worth derives from value proposition, L&D selling and purchasing transactions are commonly discussed and negotiated with little if any dialogue about value propositions. L&D department leaders can attest to the numerous times they are told something like, “We need some project management training.”
How much they need, how effective it must be, how much they should spend on it, how intensive it must be, the extent to which it requires manager engagement and so forth, are dependent on the value proposition that must be fulfilled. Consider, for example, some differing reasons a project management program might be needed:
Value proposition No. 1: A company is transitioning from a product sales business to a services business. Managers will no longer lead sales reps that just sell its technical products, they will now be required to lead cross-functional project teams to sell expansive service contracts that include its products as component parts.
Value proposition No. 3: A business is consistently but slowly growing, creating a need to promote staff into project management roles.
Value proposition No. 5: All projects are currently effectively managed, but new sales opportunities are arising in government agencies where an up-to-date project management completion certificate is required.
Value proposition No. 6: The need to hire new team members is growing fast, but the labor market is very tight. Research has shown that prospective new hires demand opportunities to grow their marketable skills.
It is obvious in the instances noted above that all the training needed is nominally the same (project management), but that each presents a need rooted in a different value proposition. What is not so obvious is that the demand for training transfer — the turning of learning into job performance — varies from very heavy, to little or none. In VP example No. 6, for instance, the simple availability of such training meets the business need, and if the training is not designed to have any impact on job performance, it is no big deal. Yet in VP example No. 1, the training experience must be carefully crafted to produce broad and rapid transfer rates, since the company’s very existence is at risk.
As the learning transfer burden grows toward the top of the VP list, so does the design challenge. Strategic execution training, for example, aims at driving new skills that do not exist yet broadly throughout the organization. Thus, role models and mentors will be scant, behaviors will be hard to define precisely and exhaustively, and entrenched culture, current practices, longstanding habits, implicit and explicit policies, as well as existing standard practices, will present formidable obstacles to success.
Current job training, on the other hand, includes known and documented skills that are aligned with current performance systems and organizational culture. Likewise, on-boarding in some organizations is more simplistic and tactical, aimed only at minimal understanding of HR systems and company policies. In other instances, it is more strategic and extensive, with job skilling, speed to competence and retention goals in mind.
Some types of training programs are notoriously liable to confusion and even controversy about the value propositions in which they are rooted. Diversity, equity and inclusion, or sexual harassment training, for example, may have a vital strategic intent to change behavior and culture; in other organizations, their purpose may be only to minimize legal exposure.
If L&D programs are intended to drive new and extinguish harmful behaviors — a far more aggressive value proposition — they must be rigorously designed and supported systematically. The casual off-the-shelf program designed to meet minimal legal requirements will be woefully inadequate to the charge.
L&D leaders must interact with all clients to surface, discuss, clarify and establish agreement to the value proposition for any prospective L&D initiative. To return to the example of DEI training, if the organization’s intent is strategic and to change behaviors, but other stakeholders and participants see it as simply ticking the legal requirement box, lack of support will undermine even a thoroughly designed behavior-change effort.
Figure 1 re-arranges the six value propositions into a hierarchy where the topmost value propositions depend increasingly heavily on training transfer and behavior change, and those toward the bottom represent diminishing requirements for training transfer. This should provide L&D leaders with a simple guide to the likely degrees of complexity, resourcing and design requirements needed to achieve initiative goals.
At the bottom of the pyramid are those L&D offerings that serve principally to enrich the organization’s appeal to prospective and current employees. As in the case for other staff benefits, such as a company cafeteria or insurance coverage, they derive a lot of their value from the very fact that they are available. Just above these reside those often numerous initiatives that ensure that an organization adheres to the rules and regulations of running a business. These lower-level L&D initiatives are must-haves for an organization, but there are often typically low needs and expectations for return on investment and actual behavioral change. Importantly, no one program at these lower levels is make or break for the organization.
The third level from the bottom includes “just in case” initiatives that address potentially catastrophic or life-threatening events, such as a fire, an explosion, a shooting or a chemical leak. These are necessary to have as part of a training portfolio and can be prioritized based on balancing the likelihood of occurrence with the severity of consequences that may ensue if they do occur.
The third level from the top includes initiatives such as succession planning and career advancement training, which are also “just in case,” but these instances are predictable and necessary to strengthen the organization. But as in the emergency training scenario, there is no need or expectation for immediate and consistent behavior change. They build capacity for future use.
The second level from the top deals with job proficiency and includes a broad range of common L&D programs, including managerial skills, soft skills and technical skills — whatever job incumbents across the organization require to perform to expectations. Because these initiatives are aligned with existing performance expectations, responsibilities and policies, they face fewer obstructive performance “headwinds.” But here there is still a need for robust design and implementation because immediate and sustained performance changes are expected.
The topmost level relates to L&D interventions meant to help the organization execute new strategic and change initiatives. These aim at new priorities, new performance requirements and outputs, and new capabilities and competencies. At this level, the training is “make or break” — a training failure here poses a significant risk to the success of the entire organization.
L&D initiatives closer to the top of the hierarchy require them to be designed as performance-oriented learning journeys. Top hierarchy initiatives are successful only to the extent that they drive rapid and sustained behavioral change. They require maximum performance and transfer support, such as manager engagement, use of job-aids, mentors, coaching and frequent practice with feedback. Lower hierarchy initiatives can employ less robust instructional designs.
The importance vs. risk paradox
It is a formidable truth that as the importance of an L&D initiative increases, it is increasingly likely to fail. Why? Consider that a major strategic and culture shift often implies a large magnitude of change; what got the organization to where it is today, will not get it to where it needs to be tomorrow. In these cases, the gap between what is needed by way of leadership actions and what has been the long-standing previous way of working is often a gaping chasm.
Given entrenched attitudes and styles of leadership, deeply embedded implicit and explicit policies and practices, L&D has a steep mountain to climb. The likelihood of failure is high. Only an extraordinarily intensive and robust initiative designed to overcome the resistance and embedded practices will succeed.
Application of the hierarchy within a contemporary L&D ecosystem
Creating a strategically balanced L&D investment portfolio. The categorization and differentiation of value propositions enables L&D leaders to create a prioritized hierarchy of L&D initiatives, e.g., an annual plan, based on their specific value propositions. Their place in the hierarchy changes depending on the strategic context of the organization. In a company that is aiming to rapidly grow its existing products and services through staff expansion, for example, current job training should rise to the top of the prioritization. In another company facing obsolescence of its current operations and aiming to transform itself strategically, current job training takes a backseat to adoption and execution of strategy. For yet another company operating within a highly regulated industry that has suffered many sanctions for failure to meet requirements, regulatory training which may be humdrum to its more compliant competitors now percolates to the top of the priority list.
Clarifying and negotiating value-proposition agreement with clients. In our view, too many L&D or client interactions are too tactically focused on the types and titles of programs being bought and sold, versus focused first and foremost on the value proposition needed to meet a business requirement.
Budget and resource allocation. Utilizing the value proposition to support the business case for each L&D initiative based on where it’s placed in the hierarchy. This enables L&D to resource their different offerings based on the intended value they bring to the business and according to the different level of performance-oriented design that is required to achieve this.
Updating and converting existing offerings. The adoption of new L&D methodologies and approaches, such as Blended Learning and Learning Journeys, has become increasingly popular as it becomes clear that they can deliver improved performance and value. To do so entails an overhauling of existing L&D portfolios. Applying the Value Proposition Hierarchy enables a decision to be made on what needs to be converted first and where existing programs are good enough.
Enlisting senior stakeholders to support L&D Initiatives. Strategically important L&D initiatives will most likely require the involvement of senior stakeholders to be successful. An understanding of the value proposition and the ability to draw the links between behavior, performance, and results is key to getting both the attention and support required.
Return on investment and evaluation. L&D initiatives have to prove their value to the business, those that require greater investments and potentially additional funding, should be evaluated according to the value they need to deliver. The level at which they are positioned in the hierarchy provides a guide as to the level of evaluation that is required for each initiative. For some, a more stringent level of evaluation is needed, whilst for others it may be enough to evaluate them simply according to how popular they are, as shown by the number of participants who attend them.
