PLEASE VISIT OUR SPONSORS

---

Dashboard

Published May 2006

Integration of Learning and Performance Management Processes

Josh Bersin

 

Although some companies have succeeded in integrating learning and performance management, their numbers are relatively small, and their investments—in dollars, time and human resources—are usually large. However, with newly available technology support and a strong business imperative, integration of these two complementary processes can be accomplished with significant business payoff.

Many Issues Impede Integration

But before we discuss how and when integration can best be accomplished, it's important to understand why learning and performance integration often fails. From these challenges, we can learn the pitfalls and impediments that often thwart best-intentioned projects.

Although learning and performance management processes are vitally linked, they have significant differences. (See Figure 1.)

In most organizations, HR enforces the performance management function, and first- and second-line managers drive it. Typically, the process is heavily focused on aligning employee performance and accomplishments with business objectives. In some large organizations, such as Microsoft, every single employee signs up for a quarterly set of deliverables. Annual compensation, ratings, rankings and promotions are based on achievement of these objectives. The performance management process is generally taken seriously—it impacts an individual's compensation, career direction and retention. Performance management processes are sometimes specific to business units, and sometimes processes are conducted across the enterprise. Interestingly, Bersin & Associates research shows that less than one-third of organizations have a consistent enterprise-wide performance management process.

As affordable performance management systems become more widely available, many companies are starting to automate the PM process. Such automation does not in itself create a successful process, but technology does make procedures more consistent, easier to measure and easier to manage. On the other hand, learning and development is usually a much less- formal process. Typically, the training function grows over time and the team develops training programs based on the most urgent business needs. Some training programs are very disciplined and specific to needs of a particular business function. For example, IT training is usually aligned with IT projects and technologies. Employees rarely use it in other business functions. On the other hand, some training initiatives, such as management and supervisory training, are corporate driven and impact employee audiences across the enterprise. Many learning programs are outsourced. According to Bersin & Associates research, approximately 25 percent of training-related spending goes to outside contractors and content providers.

The training function is usually decentralized. Most business units and geographies have their own independent training specialists. Often these individuals do not report to HR.