Is it training? The verdict per cause
The question the requester asked was “can you build a 2-hour e-learning course?” The question the evidence answers is narrower: which of these causes can training fix? Each cause, its training verdict, and where it lands in the recommendation:
| # | Cause | Evidence (all simulated) | Can training fix it? | Recommended fix | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E-2 | Environment: one-on-ones aren’t scheduled; no template or allocated time; managers have 12–18 direct reports | Survey Findings 2 & 4; org chart; interviews M1, M3; HR-P-014 review | No | Recommended 1:1 cadence + template; rostered meeting time; span-of-control review flagged to leadership | Ops directors / COO |
| P-1/P-2 | Process: annual reviews are the only formal feedback point; the review form only asks for ratings | Form + policy review; interviews S1, M2; HR1 | No (a course cannot change a form) | Add 2 qualitative questions to the review form; quarterly pulse survey | HR |
| S-1 | Skill: new managers avoid hard conversations and don’t know how to structure feedback | Interview M1; pulse Finding 1 (structure gap 1.9 → 3.4); Finding 3 (tenure nearly flat) | Yes — this is the real training need, and it’s narrow | 15-minute branching scenario (practice deciding, not information) + “Feedback in 5 minutes” job aid | L&D |
| M-4 | Motivation & consequences: managers are measured on clinic throughput, not team development; feedback has no recognition | Scorecard review (0% weight); interviews M1, M2, M3; HR1 | No (training cannot re-weight a scorecard) | Add team-development items to manager scorecards; recognize feedback work | COO / Ops |
The 2-minute defense of “not a 2-hour course”
- The biggest gaps are structural. Usefulness scores differ by 1.5 points between staff with and without regular one-on-ones, and fall from 3.1 to 1.5 as spans grow — but only 2.3 → 2.6 across manager tenure. A course leaves the first two untouched.
- Training can’t change what it doesn’t control. No module makes a one-on-one appear on a calendar, edits the review form, or re-weights a scorecard. Those are policy, tooling, and leadership decisions.
- The skill gap that does exist is small and specific — structuring and holding one difficult conversation — which is a practice problem, not an information problem. Fifteen minutes of consequential practice beats two hours of slides-and-quiz, and a job aid carries the structure into the room where it’s needed.
- What the course would cost vs. deliver: ~1,400 manager-hours (70 managers × 2 h × multiplier for scheduling) plus build cost, aimed at the narrowest cause. The blend redirects that budget to the causes with the largest gaps. (Cost comparison in the proposal.)
So: is it training? Partly — one narrow skill slice, inside a system that has to be fixed around it. That blend is designed in the next section.