The Right Intervention
A decision aid for determining whether a performance problem requires training, performance support, process change, management action — or a coordinated combination.
Ravinder Tulsiani, DBA · Enterprise Capability Executive
What this tool helps you decide or do
Decide what is actually preventing the required performance, and choose the smallest intervention that directly removes that barrier. It exists to stop solution-first thinking: a request for training is a proposed solution, not evidence that training is required.
Use this when
- A stakeholder arrives with a requested solution — a course, a module, a workshop — before the cause is known.
- Completion or satisfaction numbers look strong but workplace performance has not moved.
- Several causes could plausibly explain the gap: skill, process, tools, capacity, management or incentives.
- You are about to commit budget to development and need to know it will address a verified cause.
How it works
Frame the problem as observable performance against a defined standard, then move through ten decision gates. Answer each gate with evidence and stop where a barrier is found. Match the intervention to the verified cause, and combine interventions only when several barriers materially contribute to the same gap.
Core decision rule
Do not prescribe an intervention until the performance gap and its causes are clear. A request for training is a proposed solution, not evidence of a training need.
Steps
Is the performance gap verified and worth solving?
Confirm the required performance is defined, current performance is observable, and the gap is recurring, high-risk or strategically important enough to justify the effort. A complaint, survey result or leader opinion may justify investigation; it does not by itself prove a gap.
Is the required behaviour clear?
Separate unclear expectations from genuine capability gaps. Training cannot compensate for a standard leadership has not defined — align managers on result, quality, timing and decision rights first.
Do people know how to perform?
Test whether people can explain, demonstrate and make sound decisions in realistic situations. Training is justified only when a verified gap in knowledge, skill or judgment materially contributes to the problem.
Must people remember the information to perform?
Not every information problem requires training. Ask what must be internalized, what can be retrieved accurately at the moment of work, how quickly the information changes, and the risk of remembering an outdated answer. Keep enough knowledge in the person to recognize risk, judge the guidance, and act when support is unavailable.
Does the process support correct performance?
Check steps, approvals, handoffs and workarounds. Do not train employees to become more efficient at navigating a defective process — fix the process first.
Do tools and systems enable performance?
Confirm access, functionality, reliability and usability. Add training only when the tool works but people do not know how to use it.
Do people have enough capacity and authority?
Test workload, staffing, resources and decision rights. Training cannot create time, staffing, equipment, authority or organizational capacity.
Is the required performance actively managed?
Determine whether managers lack capability or lack follow-through before prescribing manager development — the interventions differ.
Do incentives and consequences support the behaviour?
When the environment rewards the wrong behaviour, additional training may increase frustration without improving performance.
Can people perform under realistic conditions?
Verify performance under complexity, exceptions and pressure. Knowledge demonstrated in a course is not proof that performance will transfer to the job.
Intervention options
Gap is unverified
Primary intervention: further investigation. Typical actions: clarify the standard, collect evidence, observe the work.
Expectations are unclear
Primary intervention: expectation clarification. Typical actions: standards, examples, priorities, decision rights.
Knowledge is missing
Primary intervention: instruction. Typical actions: explanation, demonstration, worked examples.
Skill is missing
Primary intervention: practice and coaching. Typical actions: guided application, feedback, observation.
Judgment is weak
Primary intervention: scenario-based learning. Typical actions: cases, simulations, consequence-based feedback.
Information is hard to access or recall
Primary intervention: performance support. Typical actions: checklist, job aid, template, decision tree.
Workflow prevents performance
Primary intervention: process change. Typical actions: simplify steps, approvals, handoffs, ownership.
Tools prevent performance
Primary intervention: tool or technology change. Typical actions: access, configuration, usability, automation.
Time, staffing, or authority is insufficient
Primary intervention: resource or governance change. Typical actions: capacity, priorities, decision rights.
Managers lack capability
Primary intervention: manager development. Typical actions: practice, coaching, manager tools.
Managers lack follow-through
Primary intervention: management action. Typical actions: accountability, review routines, consequences.
Incentives reward the wrong behaviour
Primary intervention: incentive alignment. Typical actions: measures, targets, recognition, consequences.
Performance fails under real conditions
Primary intervention: applied practice and reinforcement. Typical actions: workplace practice, spacing, verification.
Several barriers are verified
Primary intervention: coordinated combination. Typical actions: sequence interventions by dependency.
What it produces
- A documented decision record: the performance gap, the evidence, the verified barriers, the assumptions still to check, the selected intervention, the rejected options, the implementation sequence and the success evidence.
- A defensible answer to why this intervention — one that can be challenged, improved and evaluated.
Questions to work through
- Who is doing or not doing what, compared with what standard, and with what consequence?
- What confirms the gap — and does the evidence separate operational data, observed behaviour and stakeholder perception?
- Which gates identified material causes, and are only evidence-supported causes recorded?
- What remains uncertain, and how will it be checked?
- What was considered but not selected, and why?
- What must happen first so the intervention can work, and what workplace behaviour or operational result will show improvement?
Application notes
- Every intervention must address a verified cause — do not add a course, tool, communication or process change because it is familiar or politically convenient.
- Every material cause must have an intervention — leaving one major barrier untouched can undermine the entire solution.
- When information is placed in workflow support, assign an authoritative source and accountable owner so changing guidance does not become a new operational risk.
- Fix enabling conditions before expecting learning to transfer: finalize the process, correct the system, clarify authority and align managers first.
- The selected intervention should be the least complex response that addresses every material cause and produces observable improvement in workplace performance.
Use with care when
- Do not train people to memorize information they can use more accurately through well-designed support.
- Do not train employees to become more efficient at navigating a defective process.
- Do not prescribe manager training until you know whether managers lack capability or lack accountability.
- A complaint, survey result or leader opinion may justify investigation; it does not, by itself, prove a performance gap.
The complete decision aid is available as a PDF — the full exhibit set, worksheets and source notes included.