Jim Hill is the training officer for the 1 st Marine Division, a doctoral

student at the University of Southern California, and the 1999 Conference

Chair. He may be reached by telephone: (670) 385-0747; or e-mail:

jjhill4j3@aol.com.

Dale Brethower is a professor of psychology at Western Michigan

University and an ISPI Director. He may be reached by telephone:

(61 6) 676-3485; or e-mail: dale- brethower@compuserve.com.

Ridding Ourselves of CCNon=lnstructionyy byJim Hill and Dale Brethower

A s human performance technol- ogists, what is it that we say we .do? Improve performance! We

believe poor performance results from selecting the wrong people to do the job; lack of employee motivation, skills, or knowledge; or insufficient environmental support.

We begin our performance improve- ment missions by asking ourselves a number of questions: In what setting are we looking for performance break- downs? Is a breakdown present? If yes, why? Do we want to fix it? How? The answers to these questions not only help us solve the problem, they also help us describe the unique fea- tures of our approach that add value. Are we really better at improving per- formance than others? If so, we should be able to say clearly what we accom- plish, how we accomplish it, and how we prove our claims.

Parallels and Problems How do we improve performance? We say that we improve classroom perfor- mance by creating effective and sup- portive learning environments. We say that we improve workplace perfor- mance by providing quality training and improving feedback systems, work processes, incentive systems, or supervisory practices. Therein lies the problem with how we say things.

Research and practical experience indicate that there are six types of sup- port for adult learners. The first three of the six-guidance, tools, and rea- sons for learning-can be classified as

environmental supports. For adult performers, the list is quite similar. Figure 1 lists learner and performer supports.

These support factors complement learners and performers who arrive with not only motives, but an enor- mous array of information and misin- formation, skills and klutziness, and supportive and defeatist attitudes. The learners’ capabilities are the physical and intellectual abilities necessary for performing competently, given knowl- edge and motivation. Figure 2 lists learner and performer constraints.

What the learner brings is a given, a constraint. It is what we must work with and support with guidance, tools, and reasons for learning. We enjoy working with learners who possess as much of the right stuff as possible; it makes our jobs easier. Improving our ability to recruit people with the right stuff would make our jobs easier still. Our task as designers, however, is to create learning and performance envi- ronments that work with the people who are there, willingly or unwilling- ly, to be educated or trained.

There is a parallel between the six learning support categories and the six performance support categories. Both learning performance and work per- formance are pevformance, and instructional environments must have the same types of support as work environments. Learning is a special- ized type of performance.

6 performance improvement / September 1997

Learner Supports

Reasons for learning

Performer Supports

Tools

Exam p I es

Guidance

Examples

It‘ll help me do my job better. It might help me keep my job. I might get more pay or

I love learning this stuff! a promotion.

Performance tools the learner will be using later:

aforklift a software package a packaging machine a telephone assorted job aids team members coworkers actual or pretend customers

coaching from associates, supervisors and peers plans feedback a flexible and challenging timeframe lesson objectives

Reasons for high levels of performance

It’ll help me do my job better. It might help me keep my job. I might get more pay or a promotion. I take pride in my performance!

Tools Those things a performer needs to do the work:

a forklift a software package a packaging machine a telephone assorted job aids team members coworkers customers

Guidance supervisors and peers plans feedback a flexible and challenging timeframe short-term objectives

Figure 1.

Learning and Doing

Recent research by cognitive scientists has confirmed something John Dewey told us years ago: We learn by doing. Apprenticeship programs, internships, and job rotations are ways of formal- izing and supporting learning by doing. Children learn behavior through play, musicians learn to play music by playing, and managers learn to man- age by managing. This idea isn’t new, but it is important. Why else would so many employers seek people with experience ?

If training is intended to produce the knowledge, skills, and attitudes need- ed for higher levels of performance, then learners must learn, during train- ing, to perform work tasks. Some of the instructional tasks parallel, simu- late, or actually are workplace tasks. To be sure, learners require more

detailed guidance and they benefit from more careful coaching and more immediate feedback than they are like- ly to receive on the job. Support is more for learning than for working, partly because well-trained people get feedback from their work and often can coach themselves and others. It is important to remember that the differ- ence between learner support and worker support is in the amount, not t Y Pe.

How We Do What We Do It has been said that when you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there. We can apply this to another parallel: strong perfor- mance systems, like strong instruc- tional systems, come about through an orderly process of analysis, design, implementation, and evaluation. Although strong learning environments and

strong work environments sometimes fall together by accident, careful design gets more reliable results. Is our map reliable? Do we know the route we are supposed to take and when we are supposed to arrive? We must ask these questions before we begin mov- ing toward performance improve- ment, not once we’ve already begun. So it is when we ask people to do something in the classroom or the workplace. Do they understand the goal? Are the standards clear?

Our process does not have to be linear. Analyzing key support factors will identify improvements that can be implemented and evaluated quickly. If an analysis uncovers learner confusion and conflict about a goal, we can alle- viate the confusion and resolve the conflicts then and there, yielding per- formance improvements long before completing other parts of the analysis.

performance improvement / voI36, #8 7

Learner Constraints

Motives

Capabilities

Knowledge, skills, and attitudes

Figure 2.

Examples

The myriad internal reasons people choose to do things.

physical and intellectual capabilities necessary for performing competency

information misinformation skills and klutziness supporting and defeating attitudes

Strong design is based on strong analysis and is often useless without good implementation. Reliable design of both instructional systems and per- formance systems begins with two analytical steps. First, we identify desired performance and the gap between what we want and what exists. Second, we determine which of the necessary performance supports are weak or missing.

There are two main types of perfor- mance gaps: gaps between current per- formance and desired performance and gaps arising from new perfor- mance requirements. New perfor- mance gaps are those associated with innovation or change, such as techno- logical advances.

Combining the Strengths of All Six Categories Establishing new performance requires designing and implementing all six categories of supports. It begins with selecting people who have the capabil- ity and motivation to perform and as much of the necessary knowledge as possible. Designing to improve current performance will often require improving only two or three of the six key parts of an existing performance system. Reasons for performing might be weak, goals might conflict, or there

Performer Constraints 1 Examples

Motives The myriad internal reasons people choose to do things.

Capabilities physical and intellectual capabilities necessary for performing competency

Knowledge, skills, and attitudes

information misinformation skills and klutziness supporting and defeating attitudes

I

might be a breakdown between the reasons provided and the motives available. Tools are not always reliable. Tools such as manuals are used incon- sistently, if at all. Guidance, especially feedback, can be weak because of con- flicting and shifting priorities and inad- equacies induced by neglect. Know- ledge, skill, and attitude deficiencies that require some form of instruction to correct are possible, although first guesses about who lacks what knowl- edge might be off-target.

The analysis reveals what kind perfor- mance is necessary, what parts of the performance system need improve- ment, and what knowledge, skills, and attitudes need development. Perfor- mance deficiencies rarely stem from a weakness in only one of the six areas. Consequently, analyses typically show that improvement will occur only through a combination of improve- ments that require sound design of both the instructional system and the performance system. Ideally, the analysis will clarify exactly which parts of the improvement the perfor- mance system is to supply and which the instructional system is to supply.

Another significant parallel between performance system design and instruc- tional system design is that both are part of virtually all well-conceived

performance improvement projects. To improve performance, we must improve the systems that support it, not correct isolated instances of poor performance. We can add value by taking a systems approach wherein we identify the desired workplace perfor- mance and identify the necessary workplace performance supports.

Saying What We Do The six factors above are a complex recipe. Each job and each worker are unique, so the recipe must be calculat- ed a bit differently each time. Some learners and workers will perform eagerly in almost any environment; others require better designs. For all, however, the reasons for performance must relate to motives, tools, capabili- ties, guidance, and knowledge.

We have been progressive. In some cases, though, our vocabulary may not have caught up with our performance. Look at our conference vocabulary and, in particular, some of our track labels: “instructional,” which is self- explanatory, and “non-instructional,” which is everything else. It’s time our words match our deeds.

First, let’s tell ourselves and others that we improve performance. We say what we do, we do it, and we prove it.

8 performance improvement / September 1997

Second, let’s tell others that we use a systems approach to do what we do. We use an analysis and design process guided by our knowledge of the vari- ous supports necessary for learning and performance.

Third, let’s explain that we don’t work in a vacuum. Instead, we work closely with others in the workplace to design and implement instructional systems and workplace systems that improve performance.

Fourth, let’s prove the value of our work by using validated approaches and collecting evaluation data to guide our efforts and determine how well we are performing in each setting.

Finally, let’s tell ourselves and the rest of the world that we improve perfor- mance with two types of interven- tions: instructional systems interven- tions and performance systems inter- ventions. Instructional interventions and non-instructional don’t do us jus- tice. “Non-instructional” describes our territory just as ineptly as “outside of Massachusetts” describes the other 49 states. When we build or improve instructional and performance sys- tems, each product becomes stronger when used with the other. Let’s change our talk to match our walk.

In this issue of Performance Improvement QuaHerly=.. PIQiVolume 10, Number 3

Articles

Editorial - Social Systems Science and the Practice of Performance Improvement by Peter J. Dean

Cost-Consequence Analysis: A Case Study by Roger Kaufman, Ryan Watkins, Leon Sims, Neil S. Crispo, John C. Hall, and Daniel E. Sprague

Research Design Decisions: An Integrated Quantitative and Qualitative Model for Decision-Making Researchers (You Too Can Be Lord of the Rings) by Gary D. GeroM Jacky Jankovich, and Phillip C. Wright

Effects of an Inductive Versus a Deductive Instructional Approach on the Constructive Feedback and Problem-Solving Skills of Supervisors by Margaret C. Lohman

The Relationship Among Leadership Behaviors in Training Organizations, Training Methods, and Organizational Profitability by Joseph D. Keith and Donn W Gresso

Development of a Consultation Profile Perceived as Successful by Human Performance Technology Consultants by Mariela Toval; France Gagnon, and Richard Schmid

Framing: A Method to Improve Performance Analyses by Timothy G. Hatcher and Sara Ward

Departments

ERIC Research Abstracts by Susann L. Wurster

The Performance Technologist’s Library PIQ’s Book Review Column by Leslie Moller

Annual subscriptions: lSPl Member $40; Nonmember $50 Single issues: $1 2.50

For ordering information, please contact lSPl at 1300 L Street, N.W., Suite 1250, Washington, D.C. 20005; telephone; 202.408.7969, fax: 202.408.7972; e-mail: info@ispi.org; web site: www,ispi.org.

performance improvement / vol36, #8 9