The Importance Of Training Within The Organisation - Essay Example

? The importance of training within the organisation BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE The importance of training within the organisation Introduction Competitive organisations often rely on marketing to establish a differentiated market reputation, thereby distinguishing a product or service concept as being unique from rival offerings. This is an effective methodology for gaining profitability or building more visibility for a business brand to gain target market interest. However, not all organisations are able to establish a competitive edge utilising traditional differentiation tools and must, instead, rely on human resources to establish a tangible human capital advantage. There are some organisations, such as Sainsbury’s, a leading supermarket chain, that must establish a collaborative, culturally-sensitive model of teamwork in order to improve business position in a very mature and saturated marketplace. In order to ensure that employees have the skills and competencies necessary to gain competitive advantage, training becomes a critical imperative for HR professionals. This report describes the dynamics of the workplace that both hinder and support training in HRD, mitigating issues of organisational culture, and the potential conflict that can arise between theory and tangible HR practice when attempting to build human capital. Why training is an imperative Sainsbury’s positions itself on the market as a value leader and as an organisation with a strict compliance to multiple dimensions of corporate social responsibility to maintain a competitive edge (Sainsbury 2011). At the highest levels of governance, with decision-making occurring vertically throughout the organisational hierarchy, Sainsbury leadership establishes an ethical climate built on integrity, transparency and trustworthiness which are then disseminated throughout the organisational culture. Establishment of an ethical climate is quite different from development of an organisational culture, defined as the methodology by which employees perceive the established norms of the business culture (Denison 1996; Bartels et al. 1998). The premise of this ethical climate and supporting ethical culture is to ensure that the values and principles of Sainsbury’s business model are modelled by employees and managers to improve Sainsbury’s market reputation with multiple stakeholders and shareholders. Why is this important in the domain of HRD? Sainsbury, in order to maintain its high market share in this saturated marketplace, must ensure that the ethical and socially-responsible values are transparent and adopted throughout the organisational model. Sainsbury differentiates itself from major competitors such as Tesco and Morrison’s through branding, “a core marketing practice emphasising the continuity of the firm with important buyer markets”, translating the intangible of market-based assets to a tangible representation of value (Abimbola 2001, p.98). Sainsbury establishes a brand personality in dimensions of sincerity, competence, and sophistication, three dimensions necessary to gain market loyalty and subsequent brand equity (Aaker 1996). However, in order to provide tangible and recognisable value associated with this established brand personality, employees must be properly developed so that job role functions are aligned with core values and the elements of brand that leads to competitive advantages. This cannot be effectively accomplished without establishing a training programme that is homogenous and relevant for issues of ethics and social responsibility. Because the integrity of relationships with many stakeholders along the value network distinguish Sainsbury’s brand reputation from competitors, it is critical that interpersonal relationship development be improved between internal employees and external stakeholders. Without proper training and development in these key areas underpinned by ethical values, Sainsbury cannot maintain a unified culture that willingly and openly role models these vital behaviours. Thus, Sainsbury undertakes a humanistic approach to HRD, where employees agree to make dedicated investment to achieving organisational goals in return for guarantees of mutual respect and fair treatment (Korsgaard 1996). It is a people-centred model of HRD where the goal of training and development is to evoke an obligation to consider and attend to the well-being of multiple stakeholders. At the same time, tangible competency in job role function is critical, thus requiring a blended approach of skills development and humanism to achieve the development of a rigid culture dedicated to achieving outcomes associated with brand personality. Sainsbury therefore understands that in order to achieve its competitive edge through human capital, training must include elements of experiential learning to improve competency through NVQ whilst also utilising elements of transformational leadership in training to facilitate followership and ethical relationship development. To improve competency in key skills areas, Sainsbury supplements its humanistic, people-centric model of training to include apprenticeship to build capability and also improve service delivery conceptions that are aligned with corporate responsibility vital to achieving market differentiation (EDI 2011). Sainsbury (2011, p.15) offers, “When we set our goals and priorities, we are guided by a ‘materiality’ process which enables us to focus our attention on those areas of greatest impact and importance”. This materiality manifests itself by conducting needs analyses to determine the most important training needs and then applying it to an experiential training program supported by NVQ and apprenticeship. Research did not uncover any significant deficiencies in the training design developed by Sainsbury as the business believes that experiential training aligned with core values is achieving desired service and competency outcomes (EDI 2011). However, there are mitigating factors associated with firm structure and individualised values and principles inherent in employee groups that can potentially serve to complicate establishment of an effective training program. As it pertains to the harder-to-quantify aspects of training such as the psycho-social characteristics of ethical relationship development, there are barriers erected that can serve to complicate training delivery. Not all employees, inherently, share the same core values of the organisation, creating risks of change resistance for new policies and procedures developed that are supported by training imperatives. In order to establish a desired culture, leaders must inspire, consistently reiterate mission and vision, and open lines of communication that include coaching and mentoring as well as role modelling desired ethical behaviours (Fairholm 2009). At the same time, Grieves (2010) pronounces that change, regardless of its form, must be negotiated in the organisation between management and employees in order to exert the appropriate HR influence and achieve desired outcomes. What this, then, requires is for the HR professional and supporting line management representatives to be more active and visible during training and post-training to ensure that compliance to ethical imperatives have been achieved and adopted. In-house training must be supplemented with ongoing elements of transformational leadership philosophy in order to secure long-term commitment to compliance with ethical values and beliefs at the heart of core business principles. Feedback systems, then, become a critical dimension of assessing whether the training program developed to foster core values is achieving a return on investment. Under HR theory, the establishment of multi-rater (360 degree) feedback is a powerful motivator that gives employees the perception of procedural justice, credibility and accuracy about their individual performance when it stems from multiple stakeholders (Edwards and Ewen 1996; Wimer and Nowack 2010). “Employees are more motivated to change their work habits in order to obtain the esteem of their co-workers” (Edwards and Ewen, p.31). Figure 1 illustrates a relevant HRD model of feedback that involves assessment, multi-rater feedback systems, and ultimate development of an action plan aligned with desired training outcomes. Figure 1: HRD model of training assessment, feedback, and team effectiveness analyses Source: Finntrack. (2011). http://finntrack.co.uk/institutions/hrm_cert.htm Theoretically, aligning training program with core values of ethics and social responsibility would achieve positive team outcomes necessary to maintain brand reputation among competition. There are, however, difficulties of using the 360 degree feedback system to justify training delivery. Such assessments often provide an abundance of information that is difficult to correlate and analyse, where it is difficult to reconcile perceived differences between the rater and the ratee (DeNisi and Griffin 2001). There is, oftentimes, the need to establish a feedback coach along the training network to filter and interpret the abundance of feedback provided by peers, colleagues, managers and even external stakeholders, which only serves to complicate the HRD process and demand more tangible investment by HR leaders (DeNisi and Griffin 2001). The feedback coach becomes an advocate for helping employees deal effectively with negative ratings and providing coaching to encourage the employee to reflect on the quality of their interactions with others (Luthans and Peterson 2003). Not all employees are going to agree with feedback provided by peers, mentors or line managers when it conflicts with their own views of self-efficacy and competency. The above scenario highlighting the importance and challenges of providing meaningful feedback illustrate the complexity of human behaviour that continues to strain training budgets and elongate the process of cultural development achievable through socially-relevant training conceptions. Where HR theory deduces that so long as training is values-relevant and maintains important feedback systems it will provide motivational outcomes and better followership, the individual values and self-belief about employee aptitude and proficiency can create change resistance and complicate establishing a budget-conscious training design that will actually achieve desired results. Armstrong (2003) iterates that line managers will often resist supporting complex training programs if they are not persuaded the effort is worth the labour investment or costs, which can further conflict the HR role in a training environment, such as that at Sainsbury’s, that demands support and participation by line management. If employees believe that any element of change conflicts with their individual needs or agenda, they too will be openly cynical about supporting the change (Armstrong 2003). The complexities between theory and actual business practice, as illustrated, are significant. The risks associated with change resistance and individual, inherent needs and principles of employees not necessary aligned with core corporate values require significant preliminary analyses to determine what type of training will be the most valuable and sustainable over the long-term which can be applied homogenously across the organisation. As illustrated by Figure 2, the needs analysis requires assessment of job, individuals, and organisation utilising qualitative and quantitative research tools in order to develop an appropriate training design. Where theory suggests a rather simplistic methodology in training development and implementation, the intricacies of employee and manager attitudes and propensity to resist changes requires substantial investment by HR professionals even in the earliest stages of training planning. For an organisation such as Sainsbury’s that requires a blend of experiential learning for skills development supplemented with a strong focus on social dimensions, it becomes a question as to whether the costs and labour investments are worth the long-term consequences. Unlike other organisations that can develop in-house training to develop a single skill, usually occurring in a single session, organisations such as Sainsbury with multiple, inter-dependent divisions and systems must determine whether the investment is worth the opportunity costs of these complex stages of training design and facilitation. Figure 2: A needs analysis model for developing appropriate training programs Source: SMR Group. (2008). http://www.smrhrs.com/learning_needs_analysis.html Critical assessment of training systems There is another complication in actual HRD practice as opposed to theoretical positions that can serve to hinder a successful training program. Employees in the organisation all maintain different learning styles and preferences that will determine the extent to which training conceptions are embraced and understood. Cox (2011) identifies those that learn through visual aids, those who learn more effectively through hands-on application, and those who understand through auditory instruction. An in-house training program is not going to be effective unless it is properly aligned with the learning needs of diverse individuals (Cox 2011). According to Jarvis (1995) intrinsic motivation is more powerful than extrinsic motivation for adult learners, suggesting it would be more difficult to gain commitment and interest in absorbing training content through appeals from the external environment. This is one of the main complexities of the HR function: determining what methods are most effective for perking human interest and dedication when the drivers for these positive behaviours are largely intrinsic and founded on years of personal experience in the social and professional environment. Attempting to create a homogenous training program aligned with core values and ethics whilst operating in a diverse culture with radically different inherent beliefs further complicates the training process. However, for organisations such as Sainsbury, training is absolutely critical for achieving a positive market reputation and gaining human capital advantages. This is the paradox of theory versus practice in a large organisation that tends to suggest a need to customise theoretical positions on what constitutes effective training planning and delivery in order to satisfy multiple, unique employee stakeholders. Tesco, as one example of where training differs, utilises a different approach to motivating employees, following a transactional leadership design. Under this model of leadership, employees are granted rewards that are strictly contingent on performance and achievement of identified, desired business outcomes (Armstrong 2007). Tesco does not position itself in the market as a socially responsible business with core values associated with ethics, instead the business focuses on quality and pricing as differentiation tools. Thus, establishment of a training imperative becomes easier as reward systems are built right into the training model from the earliest conception of design. There are much less difficulties in establishing training for this type of business without emphasis on branding through psycho-social relationship development, thus it is a less costly investment related to labour and tangible capital expenditures. Though there is no research evidence that Tesco’s model of training under transactional reward methodology achieves greater results, it does illustrate the complexity for some organisations in developing a relevant and pertinent training program that does not strain organisational resources. Therefore, there is ample evidence provided that the theoretical foundations of training development and its importance in the firm differ substantially from actual HR practice in dynamic and diverse organisations. Komninos (2002) reminds the business world that it is often difficult for businesses to recognise when their products or services are reaching the decline stage in the life cycle model, that is, until sales revenues drop to illustrate diminishing consumer demand. Companies can become weak in their current market positions without much advanced warning, representing a risk for companies that compete for profit in saturated industries. In the case of Sainbury’s, a business that relies heavily on its socially-responsible reputation, market decline of existing service and relationship dynamics would significantly erode its competitive advantages. Therefore, it is absolutely vital that the business maintains a culture of ethics and integrity to keep this advantage and avoid sales declines for an outmoded service model. However, at the same time, firm structure and human behaviour conflicts training development and planning, representing an interesting irony and contradiction between actual practice and HRD theoretical models of best practice in training. According to Starnes, Truhon and McCarthy (2010), genuine and authentic relationships are only able to be developed over time, a reciprocal relationship starting with small acts with a mutual benefit to both parties to foster trust. HRD theory tends to paint a picture of training as a largely easily-manageable process involving a series of steps starting at planning and assessment and ultimately leading to final evaluation of training effectiveness and comprehension outcomes. It would appear that in order to improve training and make it more relevant for achieving desired learning outcomes, managers need to be more pragmatic about training and its many obligations to determine whether it is worth the investment. Though HRD theory almost unanimously recognises that training is one of the most important elements of sustaining competitive advantage through human capital development, it does not recognise the multitude of inconveniences and risk-related barriers imposed by change-resistant employees and managers. “Awareness of different cultural influences will more effectively build support for homogenization” (Dorfman, Hanges and Brodbeck 2004, p.672). In an organisation such as Sainsbury, homogenous training is practical and budget-relevant and the team-focused environment with a collectivist mentality in the organisational culture tends to forbid individualised, customised training development. Even though training is critical to maintaining a positive market position among competition for Sainsbury, there is no established HRD theoretical model that takes into consideration the highly-personalised needs of a diverse business organisation conflicting training planning and implementation. Conclusion The research identified many factors that continue to support the need for training in the organisation and its relevancy for achieving both market positioning and sustaining competitive advantage through human capital improvement. Complications in this process, as identified through research, include human behavioural components, line management willingness to participate in training delivery and planning, firm structure, and problems in creating homogenous training where attitudes and values are diverse and not always related to the core principles and mission of the organisation. Theory tends to influence us to believe that training development can circumvent these problems or simply negate their existence in the organisation under ideological models of HR. The reality of large organisations such as those identified in this project forbid simplistic incorporation of new training imperatives, requiring an adaptable training model that best fits the strategic needs and culture of the specific organisation. It is clear that training is a very central concept to attain better competitive advantage and further market reputations, especially for businesses that rely on social systems to differentiate their business from competition in the same industry. Whether the training is worth the expenditure requires significant pre- and post-evaluations which may not be satisfactory under an HR model that is already dynamic and requires significant investment outside of simply training. Whatever the case, despite its essential ingredients for achieving better organisational outcomes, training is absolutely conflicted by a variety of mitigating factors that must be determined on an individual basis to achieve desired long-term results from the activity. Without a realistic approach to assessing the organisational environment and human behavioural propensities, it would appear that it would be irresponsible and an oversight to believe that training can be implemented against only theoretical HR models and achieve desired results both competency-based and skills-based for achieving competitive advantages. References Aaker, D.A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets, California Management Review, 38(2), pp.102-120. Abimbola, T. (2001). Branding as a competitive strategy for demand management in SMEs, Journal of Research in Marketing & Entrepreneurship, 3(2), pp.97-106. Armstrong, M. (2003). A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, 9th ed. London: Kogan Page. Armstrong, M. (2007). Employee Reward Management and Practice. United Kingdom: Bell & Bain. Bartels, L.K. et al. (1998). The relationship between ethical climate and ethical problems within human resource management, Journal of Business Ethics, 17(1), pp.799-804. Cox, D. (2011). Education 101: How to improve your department’s training program, Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology, 45(4), pp.279-281. DeNisi, A.S. and Griffin, R.W. (2001). Human Resource Management. Houghton Mifflin. Denison, D.R. (1996). What is the difference between organisational culture and organisational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars, Academy of Management Review, 21(3), pp.619-654. Dorfman, P., Hanges, P. and Brodbeck, F. (2004). Leadership and cultural variation: The identification of culturally endorsed leadership profiles, in R.J. House, P. Hanges, et al. (eds) Culture, Leadership and Organisations: The GLOBE study of 32 societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage. EDI. (2010). How Sainsbury’s is working with leading awarding body to drive qualifications and career prospects in retail. [online] Available at: http://www.ediplc.com/Documents/Sainsbury%27s.pdf (accessed 13 December 2012). Edwards, M.R. and Ewen, A.J. (1996). 360 Degree Feedback: The Powerful New Model for Assessment and Performance Improvement. AMACOM Books. Fairholm, M. (2009). Leadership and Organizational Strategy, The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 14(1), pp.26-27. Grieves, J. (2010). Organisational Change: Themes and Issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jarvis, P. (1995). Adult and Continuing Education: Theory and Practice, 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Komninos, I. (2002). Product life cycle management, p.8. [online] Available at: http://www.urenio.org/tools/en/Product_Life_Cycle_Management.pdf (accessed 14 December 2012). Korsgaard, C.M. (1996). The Sources of Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Luthans, F. and Peterson, S. (2003). 360 degree feedback with systematic coaching: Empirical analysis suggests a winning combination, Human Resource Management, 42(3), p.243. Sainsbury. (2011). Annual report and financial statements 2011 – Director’s Report. [online] Available at: http://annualreport2011.j-sainsbury.co.uk/governance/directorsreport.shtml (accessed 13 December 2012). Starnes, B.J., Truhon, S.A. and McCarthy, V. (2010). A primer on organisational trust, ASQ Human Development and Leadership. [online] Available at: http://rube.asq.org/hdl/2010/06/a-primer-on-organizational-trust.pdf (accessed 14 December 2012). Wimer, S. and Nowack, K.M. (2010). Fast, flexible and affordable 360 degree feedback. [online] Available at: http://www.360degreefeedback.net/media/13CommonMistakes.pdf (accessed 12 December 2012). Read More