From Intent to Implementation: Making Human Performance Development Stick

An organisation can have a clear vision, a well-written set of values and a credible leadership programme, yet still see little change in everyday behaviour. Explaining what good looks like is only part of the work. People also need to understand what it requires of them, practise it and operate in conditions that support it.

This is the gap I want human performance development to address: the distance between what an organisation intends and what its people routinely do.

Where the disconnect develops

Intent can lose meaning as it moves through an organisation. Senior leaders describe the outcome. Managers interpret it. Instructors turn it into development activity. The workforce decides what it means when time is short and priorities compete.

Each step can introduce a different interpretation. A value such as accountability may mean taking ownership to one person and avoiding mistakes to another. If leaders do not define the expected behaviour, people can use the same language while acting differently.

The working environment can also undermine the message. An organisation might encourage early escalation while managers react badly to unwelcome news. It might ask for collaboration while rewarding only individual output. Training then asks people to do something the daily system makes difficult.

Calling this a motivation problem too early misses the point. People may understand the requirement and want to meet it, but lack the authority, time, resources or support to act.

Diagnose the barrier before choosing the response

Michie, van Stralen and West (2011) describe behaviour through capability, opportunity and motivation in the COM-B model. It offers a useful way to question an implementation problem.

Capability asks whether people have the necessary knowledge, skills and capacity. Opportunity asks whether the environment makes the behaviour possible and supports it. Motivation includes intentions, habits and emotional responses.

My application of this model is straightforward. If someone cannot conduct a useful feedback conversation, practice and coaching may help. If the manager has no time or authority to act on the issue, another course will not remove that barrier. If poor behaviour is consistently rewarded, leaders need to examine the system.

COM-B is a diagnostic framework here. It does not establish the cause in a particular organisation without investigating the people, task and context.

Build a route from vision to behaviour

I recommend mapping the chain from the people who create the intent, through those expected to champion and deliver it, to those required to apply it. Ask each group what the requirement means, what behaviour it calls for and what prevents that behaviour. Compare the answers rather than assume shared understanding.

Then translate the broad aim into a small number of observable actions. “Improve communication” might become a briefing that states the task, assigns responsibility and checks understanding. “Show accountability” might become naming an owner, recording the next action and reviewing it at an agreed time.

Use purposeful practice to expose the gap between the expected and actual behaviour. Follow it with a structured discussion of what happened, why it happened and what needs to change. Agree a workplace action, a named lead and a review date.

This is the sequence I use to frame development: understand, practise, reflect, apply and review. It links the learning activity to the working environment where the behaviour is needed.

Baldwin and Ford's (1988) training-transfer review is relevant because application and maintenance at work are distinct from learning during training. My recommendation is to design for that later application from the outset.

Review application, not just attendance

Consider a hypothetical team with repeated handover errors. The team practises a briefing routine, identifies where information is lost and agrees a short handover check. A manager protects the time to use it and samples subsequent handovers. The review examines completeness, repeat errors and the team's experience of using the routine.

That gives a more useful basis for a decision than asking only whether participants enjoyed the workshop. It still requires caution: workload, staffing and other changes may also affect results.

Human performance development should help organisations make their intent usable. The responsibility is shared. Individuals practise and apply the behaviour. Leaders create the conditions, demonstrate the standard and follow through. The organisation checks whether its processes support the vision it promotes.

Discuss the gap between your organisation's intent and everyday practice.

Further reading

Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M. and West, R. (2011). The Behaviour Change Wheel: A New Method for Characterising and Designing Behaviour Change Interventions. Implementation Science, 6, 42.

Baldwin, T. T. and Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of Training: A Review and Directions for Future Research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63–105.