The conventional wisdom within many organizations dictates that when performance falters, the immediate prescription is often training. Whether an individual underperforms, a team struggles to meet its objectives, or a new capability is deemed essential for future growth, the knee-jerk organizational response typically involves identifying a relevant program, enrolling employees, and optimistically anticipating an uplift in performance. However, a growing chorus of HR leaders and industry experts is challenging this deeply ingrained assumption, positing a fundamental question: What if the problem was never a lack of training in the first place? This provocative inquiry forms the crux of a critical discussion featured in the second episode of "The CHRO Playbook," HRKatha’s insightful video podcast series dedicated to exploring how organizations genuinely cultivate capabilities that translate into measurable, tangible performance improvements.
In a compelling dialogue with Prajjal Saha, Founder & Editor of HRKatha, and John Cherian, Founder & CEO of enParadigm, Amit Sharma, the distinguished CHRO of Gokaldas Exports, articulates a powerful argument. He contends that effective capability building must commence long before any learning intervention is even contemplated. Its true starting point, Sharma emphasizes, lies in accurately diagnosing the underlying issues preventing individuals and teams from achieving optimal performance. This perspective marks a significant departure from traditional L&D approaches, advocating for a more strategic, analytical, and ultimately, more impactful method of fostering organizational excellence.
The Pervasive Pitfall: Why Training is the Default Response
The tendency to default to training as a universal panacea for performance woes is deeply rooted in several organizational factors. For one, training programs offer a visible, actionable response to a problem, providing a sense of progress even if the underlying issues remain unaddressed. It is often easier to commission a course than to conduct a thorough, potentially uncomfortable, investigation into systemic failures. Furthermore, training can be quantifiable through metrics like attendance and completion rates, offering a superficial sense of return on investment, even if behavioral change or actual performance improvement is elusive. Historically, L&D departments have been structured as service providers, responding to requests for training rather than proactively diagnosing organizational needs. This model, while efficient in its own right, often bypasses the critical diagnostic phase, leading to well-intentioned but ultimately misdirected efforts.
However, the cost of this misdiagnosis can be substantial. Wasted financial resources on ineffective programs are merely the tip of the iceberg. More critically, continued poor performance can erode morale, foster cynicism towards learning initiatives, and delay the implementation of genuine solutions. Employees subjected to irrelevant training can become disengaged, perceiving the exercise as a tick-box activity rather than a valuable investment in their development. Industry reports consistently highlight that a significant portion of corporate training budgets yields little to no measurable impact on business outcomes. For instance, a 2022 study by the Association for Talent Development (ATD) indicated that while U.S. organizations spend billions annually on training, a substantial percentage of this investment fails to translate into sustained behavioral change or improved productivity, often due to a lack of proper needs assessment.
The Imperative of Diagnosis: Amit Sharma’s Core Thesis
Sharma’s foundational principle, "diagnose before you prescribe," is a direct challenge to this status quo. He vividly illustrates this with an experience from an earlier stage in his career, where a project team was evidently struggling, and performance was lagging. The initial, almost automatic, assumption was that the team members required additional training or counseling to bridge a perceived skill gap. This immediate jump to a training solution, Sharma notes, mirrors a physician prescribing the same medicine for every fever without first understanding its root cause—be it a viral infection, bacterial ailment, or something more complex.
A closer, more meticulous examination of the struggling project team, however, unveiled a far more intricate web of issues. The problem was not a simple deficit in individual skills or knowledge. Instead, it encompassed problematic leadership behaviors, an imbalance in the team’s composition, and unrealistic expectations coupled with excessively tight timelines. What initially presented itself as a straightforward "capability gap" was, in reality, a confluence of deep-seated organizational and managerial shortcomings. Leadership, for instance, might have exhibited a lack of clear direction, inconsistent feedback, or even micro-management, stifling initiative. Team composition issues could range from a lack of diverse skill sets to interpersonal conflicts that hindered collaboration. Unrealistic timelines and ambiguous expectations further compounded the stress, making successful delivery almost impossible, irrespective of individual competency.
This particular lesson holds immense significance for HR and Learning & Development (L&D) teams. Training, while indispensable for addressing genuine capability deficits, possesses inherent limitations. It cannot, and should not, be expected to compensate for every problem that manifests as poor performance. A training program designed to enhance project management skills, for example, would be utterly futile if the real impediment was a toxic leadership style or a fundamentally flawed project structure. The distinction, Sharma argues, fundamentally redefines the role of L&D. Instead of passively responding to requests with the question, "What program should we run?", organizations must adopt a proactive, analytical stance, beginning with the more critical question: "What exactly is preventing the performance we need to achieve?" This shifts L&D from a reactive service function to a strategic performance consultancy, deeply embedded in business operations.
Democratizing Capability Building: The Managerial Imperative
Sharma further challenges another pervasive organizational assumption: that capability building is primarily, if not exclusively, an HR agenda. He contends that if an organization genuinely aspires for learning to translate into sustained performance, managers cannot simply delegate the responsibility to the learning function after nominating employees for programs. This hands-off approach undermines the very essence of effective development. Instead, managers must themselves evolve into active "capability builders."
This transformation requires a fundamental shift in managerial mindset and practice. It entails managers actively identifying precisely what new behaviors, skills, or approaches their teams need to adopt. Beyond identification, it demands the creation of consistent opportunities for employees to practice these new behaviors in real-world scenarios, within their daily work. Crucially, managers must also take ownership of reinforcing these behaviors through regular feedback, coaching, and recognition. Ultimately, they must assume direct responsibility for whether performance actually improves as a result of these efforts. This means moving beyond merely ensuring attendance at a workshop to actively tracking, guiding, and evaluating the application of new skills on the job.
This seemingly subtle shift has profound implications for the economics and effectiveness of capability building. Learning ceases to be a siloed HR activity delivered alongside the core business; it becomes an integral component of how the business executes its strategy. By embedding development within daily operations, organizations reduce their reliance on expensive, external training interventions and foster a more organic, continuous learning environment. This approach is not simply about increasing what employees "know" conceptually. For Sharma, the ultimate objective is to significantly reduce the variability between what the organization expects from its workforce and what people consistently deliver. This focus on tangible outcomes, rather than inputs, is critical for achieving true organizational agility and competitive advantage in a rapidly changing business landscape. Industry analysts increasingly concur, suggesting that organizations where frontline managers actively champion development report higher employee engagement, lower turnover, and demonstrably better business results.
Bridging the Gap: Contextual Learning and Technological Leverage (John Cherian)
John Cherian takes this argument a significant step further, delving into one of the core reasons why many capability programs fail to instigate lasting behavioral change. He observes that learning interventions are frequently detached from the actual situations in which employees are expected to apply their new knowledge and skills. This disconnect often renders training abstract and difficult to transfer into real-world performance. A salesperson might attend a workshop on negotiation tactics but struggle to apply them in a high-stakes client meeting if the training lacked practical, scenario-based relevance.
Cherian posits that the more closely a learning intervention mirrors the real-life situations and challenges employees face, the greater the likelihood that they will successfully transfer what they have learned into their day-to-day work. This concept of "contextualization" is paramount for effective skill acquisition and application. Traditional classroom settings, while valuable for foundational knowledge, often fall short in replicating the dynamic, complex, and often ambiguous environments of the modern workplace.
Fortunately, technology, particularly advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI), is rapidly transforming the possibilities for contextualized learning at an unprecedented scale. Instead of offering large cohorts of employees an identical, generic learning experience, organizations can now leverage AI-powered platforms to create highly personalized and relevant experiences. This can involve simulations that mimic specific job roles, interactive modules that present realistic decision-making scenarios, or adaptive learning paths that respond to an individual’s unique learning pace and prior knowledge. For instance, AI can analyze performance data to identify specific skill gaps and then recommend targeted micro-learning modules or virtual coaching sessions that address those precise needs within the context of an employee’s daily tasks. This level of personalization drastically improves engagement and the applicability of learned material.
However, Cherian emphatically stresses that while technology is a powerful enabler, it does not, in any way, negate the fundamental need for thorough diagnosis. In fact, the very ability to personalize learning makes accurate diagnosis even more critical. Without a precise understanding of the specific behaviors that need to change and the underlying reasons for current performance gaps, even the most sophisticated AI-driven learning platforms risk delivering irrelevant or misdirected content. The adage "garbage in, garbage out" applies more than ever; technology amplifies the impact of good diagnosis, but it cannot compensate for its absence.
Beyond Activity: Measuring True Capability and Organizational Resilience
Perhaps the most illuminating distinction Sharma draws during the conversation is between merely managing a capability gap and genuinely closing it. Many organizations fall into the trap of perpetual activity: continually running programs, identifying new gaps, and developing employees indefinitely. While this activity might generate impressive statistics on course completion, participation rates, or satisfaction scores, these metrics, by themselves, do not inherently demonstrate that organizational capability has actually improved. They measure effort and engagement, not impact.
A more revealing and rigorous test, Sharma suggests, lies in observing the organizational landscape after these interventions. Does the organization still depend disproportionately on a select few high-performing individuals? Does the business consistently struggle or experience instability whenever a key employee transitions to a new role or departs? Are there readily available, competent individuals prepared to step into critical positions, forming a robust "bench strength"? Can teams maintain their performance levels and adapt effectively when responsibilities shift or new challenges emerge?
For Sharma, true, genuine capability building should cultivate sufficient bench strength and organizational resilience such that the movement or absence of individual employees does not destabilize overall performance. This signifies a systemic enhancement of skills, knowledge, and collective effectiveness. This measure—organizational resilience, talent depth, and consistent performance irrespective of individual changes—is considerably more challenging to quantify than simple course completions or satisfaction surveys. Yet, it is infinitely closer to what the business ultimately requires and values from its investment in capability building. It reflects a strategic approach to human capital development that directly supports long-term business continuity and growth.
The Broader Landscape: Capability Building in the Modern Enterprise
The insights shared by Sharma and Cherian resonate deeply with the evolving demands of the modern enterprise. The traditional L&D model, often reactive and program-centric, is increasingly ill-suited for a business environment characterized by rapid technological change, global competition, and the imperative for continuous innovation. The historical trajectory of L&D has seen it evolve from purely administrative functions (e.g., mandatory compliance training) to a more strategic role, recognizing human capital as a competitive differentiator. This current paradigm shift, however, elevates L&D further, transforming it into a performance consultancy integral to business strategy.
Implementing this shift is not without its challenges. It requires a significant cultural transformation within organizations, fostering a mindset where learning is embedded in daily work, and managers are held accountable for their teams’ development. HR and L&D professionals themselves must acquire new skills in data analytics, organizational diagnosis, and performance consulting. Time constraints for managers, potential resistance to change from those accustomed to the old ways, and the sheer effort required to conduct thorough diagnoses are all hurdles that must be overcome.
Despite these challenges, the opportunities presented by this new approach are immense. By focusing on precise diagnosis and contextualized, manager-led development, organizations can achieve a far greater return on their talent investments. This strategic approach to capability building is not merely about upskilling; it is about building an agile, resilient, and adaptive workforce capable of navigating future disruptions and seizing new opportunities. It positions human capital as a truly strategic asset, directly contributing to competitive advantage and sustainable growth in a dynamic world.
The fundamental question for organizations, therefore, is not merely how much learning they delivered or how many programs were completed. The truly critical inquiry is whether, as a direct consequence of their efforts, the organization itself became demonstrably more capable, more resilient, and better equipped to achieve its strategic objectives. This is the profound implication of moving beyond the superficiality of training programs to the strategic imperative of holistic capability building.
This article draws insights from the full episode of The CHRO Playbook featuring Amit Sharma, CHRO, Gokaldas Exports, and John Cherian, Founder & CEO, enParadigm, hosted by Prajjal Saha, Founder & Editor, HRKatha.
