When Training Is Not the Answer: Diagnosing Performance Problems using Mager & Pipe

Don’t jump straight to training

When something is not working at work, the first response is often: “They need training.”

Sometimes that is true. People may genuinely lack the knowledge, skill or confidence to do what is required. But in many organisations, training becomes the default answer to problems that are not really training problems at all.

A team misses deadlines, so we book time management training.
Managers avoid difficult conversations, so we run a communication skills workshop.
Employees do not follow a process, so we create another e-learning module.

The intention is usually good. The problem is that training only solves a performance issue when the root cause is a lack of knowledge or skill. If the real issue is unclear expectations, poor systems, competing priorities, lack of feedback, weak motivation, or organisational barriers, training may create activity without solving the problem.

This is where Robert Mager and Peter Pipe’s approach from Analyzing Performance Problems is still extremely useful. Their Performance Analysis Flowchart is a practical diagnostic tool that helps managers, HR teams and L&D professionals pause before prescribing a solution. It encourages us to ask: what is really causing the performance gap? The Mager Consortium describes the flowchart as a step-by-step tool for identifying feasible solutions to performance problems.

Start with the performance gap

The first step is to define the problem clearly.

Not:
“People need to be more proactive.”

Better:
“Project updates are being submitted late or without the information needed for decision-making.”

Not:
“Managers need leadership training.”

Better:
“Managers are not holding regular one-to-one conversations, and performance concerns are being left until formal review points.”

This matters because vague performance problems lead to vague development solutions. A clear performance gap allows you to compare what is currently happening with what should be happening.

Ask:

• What exactly are people doing, or not doing?
• What should they be doing instead?
• How often is the problem occurring?
• Who is affected?
• What is the business impact?
• What would good performance look like in observable terms?

Before designing any learning intervention, it is worth slowing down enough to describe the issue properly.

Is the problem important enough to solve?

One of the most useful features of Mager and Pipe’s process is that it asks whether the problem matters.

This might sound obvious, but organisations often spend time and money solving minor irritations while avoiding bigger systemic issues. Not every performance gap needs a full intervention. Some issues are low-risk, temporary, or isolated. Others have a direct effect on customers, safety, quality, retention, productivity or culture.

Ask:

• What is the cost of leaving this alone?
• Is the issue affecting performance, morale, compliance, customer experience or revenue?
• Is this a one-off problem or a pattern?
• What would improve if this were solved?
• Is the effort required proportionate to the value of fixing it?

Sometimes the right answer is to monitor the situation rather than intervene immediately. Good performance consulting is not about creating more training; it is about using time and resources wisely.

Is there a skill or knowledge gap?

If the issue is important, the next question is whether people actually know how to do what is expected.

This is where training may be the right answer.

A skill gap exists when people cannot perform the task even if they want to. A knowledge gap exists when they do not know what to do, when to do it, why it matters, or what standard is expected.

For example:

• A new manager has never learned how to structure a coaching conversation.
• A team member does not know how to use a new reporting system.
• Employees are unclear about a revised compliance process.
• Internal facilitators have subject expertise but lack confidence in designing and delivering engaging learning.

In these cases, training, coaching, practice, feedback, job aids or clear guidance may all help. The flowchart adapted from Analyzing Performance Problems includes decision points around skill deficiency, knowledge deficiency, whether people used to know or do the task, how often they use it, and whether they need formal training, practice, review, information or feedback.

Ask:

• Have people ever been shown how to do this properly?
• Could they do it if their job depended on it?
• Do they understand what good looks like?
• Is this a new task, a changed task, or something they used to do well?
• Do they have enough practice to build confidence and fluency?
• Are they receiving useful feedback?

If the answer is no, training may be part of the solution. But even then, training should be designed around the real task, the working context, and the outcomes required.

Could they do it well in the past?

This is a powerful diagnostic question.

If people used to perform well but no longer do, the issue may not be a lack of skill. Something has changed.

Perhaps the process changed. Perhaps workload increased. Perhaps a new system made the task more cumbersome. Perhaps standards drifted because feedback disappeared. Perhaps motivation dropped because good performance was not recognised.

Ask:

• When did performance start to change?
• What changed around that time?
• Did the person or team previously demonstrate the required behaviour?
• Are they out of practice?
• Have priorities shifted?
• Has feedback reduced?
• Have expectations become unclear?

If people used to do something well, the answer may be refresher input, better feedback, clearer expectations, more regular practice, or removal of barriers rather than a full training programme.

Are people being rewarded for the wrong behaviour?

This is where performance diagnosis becomes especially relevant to business.

People often do what the organisation rewards, not what the organisation says it values.

A company may say quality matters, but reward speed.
A leadership team may say collaboration matters, but promote individual heroics.
A manager may say they want initiative, but criticise every decision people make without permission.
A sales team may be told to build long-term relationships, but measured only on short-term numbers.

In these cases, the problem is not usually training. The problem is consequence.

Ask:

• What happens when people do the right thing?
• What happens when they do the wrong thing?
• Are targets, incentives or informal recognition encouraging the behaviour we say we do not want?
• Are people avoiding good practice because it creates more work, criticism or conflict?
• Are managers unintentionally rewarding poor performance by tolerating it?

If poor performance is easier, safer or more rewarding than good performance, training alone will not fix the issue.

Is good performance being punished?

This is closely linked to reward, but it deserves attention in its own right.

Sometimes people stop doing the right thing because doing it well has negative consequences.

For example:

• The person who solves problems gets given everyone else’s problems.
• The manager who raises risks is labelled negative.
• The employee who follows the process is seen as slow.
• The team that gives honest feedback is treated as difficult.
• The high performer receives more work but little recognition.

Over time, people learn what is really safe and valued.

Ask:

• Are we making it harder for people to do the right thing?
• Do high performers receive support or just extra workload?
• Are people criticised for raising issues early?
• Does the culture encourage openness, or does it punish honesty?
• Are there hidden consequences attached to good performance?

If good performance is punished, the solution may involve leadership behaviour, workload management, recognition, psychological safety, or changes to process and culture.

Do people know whether their performance matters?

Another common cause of poor performance is that people cannot see the importance of the task.

This is not about manipulation or motivational slogans. It is about line of sight.

People are more likely to perform well when they understand why the work matters, who depends on it, and what happens when standards slip.

Ask:

• Do people understand the purpose behind the task?
• Can they see the link between their work and the customer, colleague or business outcome?
• Have expectations been explained in practical terms?
• Is feedback timely enough for people to adjust?
• Do managers reinforce the importance of the behaviour?

Sometimes performance improves not because people receive more training, but because the work becomes meaningful, visible and connected to outcomes.

Are there obstacles in the system?

This is one of the biggest reasons training fails to improve performance.

People may know exactly what to do and want to do it well, but the system gets in the way.

Obstacles might include:

• Poorly designed processes
• Conflicting priorities
• Lack of time
• Inadequate tools or technology
• Unclear decision rights
• Too many approvals
• Poor handovers
• Unmanageable workload
• Lack of manager support
• Team tensions or low trust

In these cases, sending people on a course can be frustrating. They return with ideas and motivation, only to meet the same barriers.

Ask:

• What makes the desired performance difficult?
• What slows people down?
• What do people complain about repeatedly?
• Where are the bottlenecks?
• Are roles and responsibilities clear?
• Do people have the tools, time and authority they need?
• What would we need to remove, simplify or redesign?

This is where L&D, OD and organisational design overlap. The issue may require process improvement, clearer governance, better team agreements, role clarity, leadership alignment or facilitated conversations.

Training is valuable — when it is the right solution

None of this means training is unimportant. Quite the opposite.

Good training can build confidence, capability, shared language, better habits and stronger relationships. It can help managers lead better conversations, teams collaborate more effectively, and internal experts become more engaging facilitators.

But training works best when it is aimed at the right problem.

Before commissioning a programme, ask:

• What performance outcome are we trying to improve?
• Is the issue caused by lack of skill, lack of knowledge, lack of motivation, weak feedback, poor systems or unclear expectations?
• What needs to change in the working environment for learning to transfer?
• How will managers support the new behaviour?
• What will we measure afterwards?
• What might need to happen before, during and after the training?

A well-designed learning programme is rarely just an event. It should connect to the real work, the culture, the systems and the conversations that shape day-to-day behaviour.

A practical diagnostic checklist for managers and HR teams

The next time someone says, “We need training,” try asking these questions first:

1. What is the actual performance gap?
   What are people doing now, and what should they be doing instead?
2. Does the problem matter?
   What is the impact on performance, people, customers or risk?
3. Can people do it?
   Is there a genuine skill or knowledge gap?
4. Did they used to do it?
   If performance has changed, what else changed?
5. Do they get feedback?
   Do people know how they are doing quickly enough to improve?
6. Is poor performance rewarded?
   Are incentives, habits or management responses encouraging the wrong behaviour?
7. Is good performance punished?
   Are people penalised, overloaded or criticised when they do the right thing?
8. Does performance matter to them?
   Do people understand the importance of the task and its wider impact?
9. Are there obstacles?
   What gets in the way of doing the job well?
10. What mix of solutions is needed?
    Is this a training issue, a management issue, a process issue, a culture issue, or a combination?

The business benefit of better diagnosis

The value of Mager and Pipe’s approach is not just that it prevents unnecessary training. It helps organisations solve the right problem.

That means:

• Better use of L&D budgets
• More credible HR and learning teams
• Less frustration for managers and employees
• Stronger transfer of learning into the workplace
• More practical, targeted interventions
• Improved performance outcomes
• Greater trust in development activity

For business leaders, this matters because performance problems are rarely isolated. They are often symptoms of wider organisational patterns: unclear priorities, poor communication, weak accountability, underdeveloped managers, ineffective meetings, or systems that make good work harder than it needs to be.

How Developing Potential can help

At Developing Potential, we believe performance is shaped by more than individual knowledge or skill.  We help organisations look beneath the surface of performance challenges and design practical, useful solutions. Sometimes that means training. Sometimes it means facilitation, team development, leadership development, coaching conversations, improved processes, or helping managers have clearer and more constructive conversations.

Our work is interactive, practical and grounded in real organisational life. We help people build capability, but we also help organisations create the conditions where that capability can be used.

So, before you commission another training course, it may be worth asking: is this really a training need, or is the organisation telling us something else?

If you would like help diagnosing a performance issue, developing your managers, strengthening team performance or designing learning that genuinely transfers into the workplace, Developing Potential can help you turn good intentions into practical, lasting improvement.