Founding Director ·
Augmenting Your Future Workforce: Part 6
In the last post I argued that outcomes are designed, not delivered. This one goes further. If design decides whether a programme works, then the sequence of that design decides whether it sticks.
After 25 years at Mission Performance, I have earned the right to say something the industry rarely admits: most programmes fail not because the content is poor, but because the content arrives in the wrong order, at the wrong moment, with the wrong preparation around it.
Why the High-Performance Learning Journey works where programmes fail
Robert Brinkerhoff’s central observation is an uncomfortable one. The majority of a programme’s value is decided by what happens before and after the formal learning event — not during it. Yet the industry spends almost all of its energy, budget and ego on the event itself.
The High-Performance Learning Journey (HPLJ) treats learning as three connected phases — before, during and after — and designs each one deliberately. Most providers design one and hope for the other two. That is the difference between a workshop and a journey.
Getting ready to learn — and who really needs to
Here is a phrase we use often at Mission Performance: getting ready to learn applies as much to the organisation as it does to the learner.
This is the part most providers skip, and it is where we do some of our most important work. Before anyone walks into a room, we:
- Secure alignment to a real business need.What will this enable the organisation to do or have that it cannot today? What problem or opportunity is this programme a response to? If we cannot answer that, we have not yet earned the right to start.
- Do the pre-emptive work to remove barriers. Using Brinkerhoff’s process — or an equivalent — we strip out the friction that would otherwise stop the learning being applied. The most common reason learning fails to transfer is not the learner. It is the system they return to.
- Exchange expectations. Investment in learning comes at a price: an expectation that you will do something with it, for yourself and for the organisation. We make that explicit, on both sides, from the outset.
Impact the individual first
The business case applies to the learner too. What, specifically, will they focus on — and how will others notice when the change happens?
We use a well-formed outcome frame: simple, expressed in the positive, and ideally shared and recorded with a line manager and a buddy pair. That gives the learning purpose beyond the room.
But purpose alone is not enough. We strive for an emotional connection that anchors the learning in the learner’s actual life. The skill that makes you a better leader can make you a better parent, partner or friend.
We believe these things are connected — and it is when the learner makes that connection for themselves that learning genuinely sticks.
Commitment you can see
None of this survives without sponsorship. We ask for what we call Level 3 commitment: unconditional executive backing. Not a launch email, but launching the programme, staying with it, and mentoring the people inside it.
The learners will be watching. When a senior person genuinely gets behind a programme, the organisation notices. Do not underestimate the power of presence to show that you care. Resources people can actually use
We give feedback — and ask for it — in a format you can do something with. The same discipline applies to materials.
That means digital and hard copy, with a deliberate social element built in. And, perhaps surprisingly, an emphasis on stickers and old-fashioned journals to capture insight and aid recall. We want people’s attention in the room, not lost in a dense page of words.
Holding people through transfer
The “after” is where most journeys quietly collapse. So we design for it.
Every learner has access to coaching — one-to-one, team, or ten hours through our Learning Sustainment plan, powered by intelligent use of AI and learning technology. When people feel held, they feel safe enough to experiment with the behaviours, attitudes and beliefs they are trying to refine.
That is the whole point. Transfer is not a hope you bolt on at the end. It is an outcome you design for from the beginning.
The point
Content is necessary. It is not sufficient, and it is not where the leverage lives.
Sequencing beats content because learning is a journey, not an event — and journeys have to be planned before anyone sets off. After 25 years, that remains one of the few things I am completely certain about.
