Diagnose First, Train Second: What Is the Performance Problem?
/
Most performance initiatives fail—not because people resist change, but because organizations solve the wrong problem. Every year, leaders invest time, money, and political capital in programs that feel productive but deliver only slight, measurable improvement. The root cause is rarely a lack of effort or intent. It is a failure to clearly define the performance problem before choosing a solution.
The Five Essential Questions framework was designed as a diagnostic system to prevent this exact mistake. Rather than defaulting to training, it forces leaders to slow down and ask the right questions in the right order. Each question functions as a decision gate—protecting time, budget, and credibility by eliminating unnecessary or misaligned interventions. The starting point for the system—and for this series—is the most fundamental question of all: What is the actual performance problem?
Before organizations invest time, money, and energy into training, this question must be answered with clarity and evidence. Without it, even well-designed solutions are built on assumptions rather than facts.
What Is the Actual Performance Problem?
This question sounds obvious. In practice, it is where most initiatives quietly fail.
Too often, leaders move directly from discomfort (“Something isn’t working”) to solutions (“We need training”). This solution-first thinking skips diagnosis and treats symptoms rather than causes. The result is a stream of well-intentioned programs that consume resources without changing outcomes.
The first step in diagnosing performance is slowing down long enough to define the problem with precision.
Start With the Performance Gap
A performance problem exists only when there is a measurable gap between expected performance and actual performance.
Not frustration. Not anecdotal complaints. Not vague impressions.
A real performance problem answers two diagnostic questions:
What should people be doing?
What are they actually doing?
If you cannot describe both in observable, measurable terms, you do not yet have a performance problem; you have a hypothesis. For example:
“Supervisors aren’t holding people accountable” is an opinion.
“Only 40% of supervisors complete documented coaching conversations each month, against an expectation of 90%” is a measurable performance gap.
This distinction matters because improvement is only possible when a clear target exists. Measurement turns frustration into something that can be analyzed, prioritized, and addressed.
The Measurability Test
Before moving forward, apply a simple diagnostic check:
Can the expected behavior be clearly described?
Can the current behavior be observed or measured?
Can two people look at the data and agree that a gap exists?
If the answer to any of these questions is no, stop.
Not because the issue is unimportant, but because acting without clarity creates noise instead of progress. Training built on poorly defined problems does not fail because people do not learn—it fails because it was never aimed at a real target.
This test reinforces decision discipline. It helps leaders, L&D professionals, and project sponsors distinguish between evidence-based gaps and assumptions that feel urgent but lack proof.
Why This Step Is Non-Negotiable
Organizations often skip this step because it feels slow. In reality, it is the fastest way to avoid wasted effort. When the performance problem is clearly defined:
Debates driven by opinion are replaced with evidence-based conversations.
Solution bias (“We’ve always used training for this”) is reduced.
Stakeholders align around shared expectations before resources are committed.
Most importantly, credibility is protected. Leaders who can articulate a measurable performance gap demonstrate discipline, not hesitation. This principle sits at the core of the Diagnose First, Train Second approach.
Decision Point
This first question functions as a gate.
If no measurable performance gap exists, stop.
Do not design training. Do not roll out initiatives. Do not ask people to change behavior without proof that a gap exists. Instead, invest time in clarifying expectations, defining metrics, and collecting baseline data. In some cases—such as regulatory or compliance requirements—training may still be necessary, but it should be positioned as an obligation, not a solution.
Only when a clear gap is confirmed does it make sense to move forward.
What Comes Next
Once a measurable gap exists, the next question becomes unavoidable: Is the problem worth fixing? Not every gap deserves intervention, and not every issue justifies the cost of change.
Diagnosis is not about saying no to improvement. It is about ensuring that when organizations say yes, they are solving the right problem—on purpose, with evidence, and with intent.