In organisational development (OD), we’re used to looking beneath the surface so it is always interesting when we’re invited in to help with a problem and the solution has already been decided. ‘We need some training’ can often feel like the go-to response when managers are not holding people to account, teams aren’t collaborating, or performance is inconsistent.
Yes, sometimes training is exactly what’s needed. But part of the OD craft is resisting the urge to jump straight to the solution before we’ve really understood the problem.
Quite often when we’re asked to deliver training, the actual issue is structural, relational or systemic. So before commissioning more training, here are six things worth exploring.
1. Is the job actually manageable?
It’s easy to assume performance gaps mean skills are missing. But research by Gartner suggests that job manageability can have five times more impact on manager effectiveness than skill proficiency.
If a manager has too many priorities and spends most of their time firefighting, then a training programme on its own is unlikely to relieve that pressure. Before designing anything, try spending time with a small group of managers and really understand their reality:
- What does their workload actually look like?
- Where do decisions get held up?
- What feels within their control and what doesn’t?
You may find that the problem is context rather than competence. In this case, clarifying expectations, simplifying priorities or streamlining processes could all do more than development input.
2. What would help in the flow of work?
When we spoke with Nick Shackleton-Jones on the OrgDev podcast, he talked about L&D making a shift from ‘courses to resources’. For example, if someone is struggling with performance conversations, it’s worth asking whether they need two days in a training room or something more practical in the moment.
Try designing a simple resource – a checklist or a short guide – with three prompts ready for the manager to use in their next performance conversation. Test it out with a small group and, if behaviour improves, you may have met the need with far less disruption.
3. Is this really a capability issue or a relational one?
‘We need communication skills training’ is something we hear regularly – and sometimes that is exactly right. But just as often, when we spend time with a team, what emerges isn’t a lack of skill but frustration, incorrect assumptions or issues that haven’t been voiced.
In moments like this, the issue isn’t that people don’t know how to communicate; it’s that something in their environment is making honest conversations difficult. Amy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety highlights how much openness depends on people feeling safe, not simply trained.
Rather than immediately plugging a skills gap, consider facilitating a structured conversation with just enough scaffolding to help people talk about what’s really going on. Use questions like:
- What’s getting in our way?
- What assumptions might we be making about each other?
- What agreements would help?
These conversations can feel uncomfortable, but when teams are supported to talk about tensions and improve clarity then better communication often follows.
4. What if it’s not a skills gap but a clarity gap?
Leaders often tell us they want their people to be more accountable, and the instinct can be to roll out performance management training. But when we pause and ask what accountability actually means here, the answers tend to be a bit fuzzy. One person may focus on delivering on time, another on initiative or owning mistakes.
When this happens, it becomes clear that people may not be under-skilled; they may just be working within different interpretations of what good looks like. And ambiguity like that can’t be solved through training alone.
In this situation, ask your leaders to individually define what good looks like in a particular situation and then compare their answers with those of their direct reports or peers. The discussion that follows is often more valuable than a capability framework. Once expectations are made explicit, behaviour can often shift without the need for a training session.
5. What is the system rewarding?
We’re sometimes invited in to build collaboration skills through a training programme. Yet when we step back and examine how the organisation really operates, the signals point to the opposite of collaboration. Who gets promoted, which behaviours are celebrated and what is focused on in performance conversations can all influence behaviour far more powerfully than any workshop.
When the spotlight shines on the hero who steps in at the eleventh hour, and individual results dominate bonus conversations, collaboration quickly becomes optional rather than expected.
Before building new capability, have an honest conversation with senior leaders about whether they are reinforcing the behaviours the organisation values, or if they are rewarding something else entirely.
6. Where is the friction?
Another pattern we see regularly is organisational drag. Over time, the number of meetings increases, processes get more complex and roles get less clear. The build-up can be so gradual that it goes unnoticed.
As Robert Chia and Andreas Rasche say, “’Much of what goes on in the actual process of evolving a strategy consists of small, unspectacular coping actions through an organisation”.
People adapt and absorb inefficiencies – and this way of working becomes the way things get done. Then, almost inevitably, the conversation turns to capability, and we start to hear the complaint that managers need to ‘be more strategic’ or operate at a higher level.
Rather than starting with programme design there is real value in reviewing ways of working. Teams can spend time together looking at where decisions get stuck, which meetings really add value and which processes no longer make sense.
Even small changes can release capacity and headspace that a training session can’t. In some cases, the most impactful intervention isn’t adding something new but removing what’s already there.
So, what if it’s not a skills gap?
Perhaps the most important contribution we can make is curiosity. It is understandable to want to move quickly from symptom to solution, especially when stakeholders are keen to act. Training is visible and reassuring, and it signals movement.
Systemic work is quieter. It involves listening, sense-making and usually surfacing uncomfortable truths. Taking the time to explore what is really driving the issue often changes the nature of the intervention. And it sometimes reveals that the challenge was never primarily about skill at all.
Pausing to understand the wider context may feel slower, even slightly countercultural. Yet more often than not, that pause is where the real leverage lies. And sometimes, that’s the most valuable intervention of all.
Your next read: From cracks to collapse: How to prevent team erosion
