Training Practices at Nestle and the UK Police Organisation - Case Study Example

 Training Practices at Nestle and the UK Police Organisation Summary Training and development programmes in the public sector versus the private sector are substantially different, based on the goals and strategies of the organisations. At Nestle, a large multi-national foods producer, training is focused around people, customer service and cultural understanding. This is because the organisation thrives in multi-cultural, global environments. In the UK Police Organisation, emphasis on training lies in areas of ethics and the method of this delivery is considerably different than in the private sector. This paper compares the training practices at Nestle with the UK Police Organisation, focusing on both similarities and differences in how training is approached in both groups. Nestle’s Training Methodology Because Nestle has operations that span across the globe, there is a strong emphasis on cultural development in employees at all levels of the organisation. There are unique cultural aspects in each territory where Nestle operates, therefore staff must understand how to work with diverse social needs in order to produce an effective final product and relationships. Stroh (2005) identifies that Nestle offers rigorous training to employees in areas of cross-cultural communication and improving socialisation in the face of market differences not generally found in the home country of operations. Managers, especially expatriates from other nations, are provided training with specific knowledge about foreign markets and cultures. This training is delivered by Nestle global managers, assisting in dealing with stress associated with cultural communications and how to effectively understand market needs in the local region. “In-depth knowledge of each culture and market where the firm operates is critical because production and product innovations take place in a variety of countries” (Stroh 2005, 45). There is a strong emphasis on cultural presence in training that acts at the heart of HR policy in order to build a more effective management team. Managers are working with local culture talent, therefore they must have an understanding of what drives motivation within certain ethnic or social groups. This training is delivered via a variety of means including technology and classroom environments. Nestle also involves line management heavily in training, which is somewhat of a difference from other private organisations that rely on human resources to plan and conduct the training. Nestle attempts to promote what is referred to as a learning culture, where line managers are invited to share their own experiences with their staff as part of visionary leadership (Baldwin-Evans 2007). Under this system, line management takes an active role in measuring training effectiveness and managers use a variety of assessment tools to ensure that employee needs are being met through training practices. Nestle seems to realise that employee needs vary and the line management most visible in their work environment is most equipped to determine whether employee training should be concentrated or adjusted for individual needs. There is a large disconnect between human resources and line management with the line leadership taking the majority of responsibility for training. What this creates is a customised training process determined on an as-needed basis. Nestle also has a very strong reliance on technology in supporting training. Nestle provides over 900 different open-learning courses related to self-development, business development and improvement of individual information technology skills (Pollitt 2004). Nestle uses the Intranet to provide some of the training in all of these areas, as well as what is known as Web-hosted learning available from a variety of specialised training suppliers (Pollitt). Using technology, Nestle has available round-the-clock training availability that can be accessed as needed, using the 900 different templates available for development and knowledge. Under this system, offered Dawn Waldron of Nestle, “learning can be personalized to individual requirements with staff taking control of learning, which has proved to be very motivating for employees” (Pollitt 2004, 27). Technology processes and its availability on a variety of technological sources gives employees ownership of their own training that can be enhanced as needed based on individual training needs. The key idea behind this method is to give employees a sense of autonomy in learning to improve perceptions of its value and the company’s trust in the employee to engage effectively via the Intranet or other technology applications. This adds a dimension of quality that helps employees reach their training and development goals, giving them the perception that their role in the organisation and their long-term career plans are considered. As part of this technological focus, Nestle uses Powersim technology, a simulation model called The OK Company Simulation. This system places training participants into a workshop environment where they actually perform simulated management and control activities in a virtual factory or distribution centre (powersimsolutions.com 2009). This software approach to learning includes production capacity, product range, cycle times and various report analysis and generation (powersimsolutions.com). This is unique from many different private sector businesses, as it gives learners real-time experience in operating a supply chain environment before they are granted management authority in a real-time Nestle supply management role. Additionally, as with other training at Nestle, there is less reliance on the human resources division for support and training is conducted at the line level using simulated software scenarios. Nestle seems to realise that line-level functions are some of the most important training aspects to consider, therefore these activities fall outside of HR leadership and is placed back at the operational level. Nestle’s approach to training is also very person-centric, meaning that it is a team-based effort in learning where everyone is involved and their input considered when developing new training modules. Training includes philosophies such as open communication, cooperation in service and teamworking. “Nestle is convinced that it is the people who form the strength of the company and nothing can be achieved without their energy; the most important asset” (nestle.pk 2009, 7). This is why employee development is so vital at Nestle and why there is a strong emphasis on teamworking and group organisational principles. There is a strong emphasis on social interaction and creating a cooperative business environment by developing a singular, unified organisational culture. If this approach to training and the lessons learned through it on teamworking were compared to existing models of learning, it would best be considered coaching. Since experiences are shared by line managers, along with encouragement and understanding, employees are made to feel like vital contributors to the organisation’s success. Managers use their knowledge and experiences to build employee confidence in their learning to make them more effective in a very global and team-oriented work environment. UK Police Organisation This public sector organisation differs rather largely from Nestle, which is attributed to the differences in how officers interact with internal political dynamics and the community outside of the organisation. Training is approached in a variety of different ways in this group. One method involves outsourced partnerships with UK universities that provide learning on occupational standards and how best to work with local community leadership and citizens (Martin 2008). Police training had once been delivered by police trainers in national colleges, however now this is being put back internally at the organisational level. Using outsourced university experts in this field, it gives a foundational degree in technical and occupational skills. This emphasis on training is similar to that of the private sector business Nestle as it has less reliance on human resources talent and makes learning internalised using outsourced professional assistance. This shows the dedication and commitment to building better skilled officers at all levels of career growth. The UK Police Organisation also has introduced a performance appraisal, linked to business goals and policing activities, that is considered a “best-value” review of training and development outcomes (Weekes 2005). Offers a leader in the group, “We’re trying to get away from the centralised approach” (Weekes 2005, 26). Decentralisation is the process of removing control from the top layers of the organisational hierarchy and distributing information and decision-making throughout the entire organisation. The performance appraisal acts as a measurement tool to determine whether training goals are being met and identify weaknesses and/or strengths that might exist. By putting this appraisal system into the hands of mid-level managers, it allows for customized learning on an as-needed basis. It is designed to empower workers at the local level to give learners and the training deliverers a sense of ownership and leadership in training. There is also a heavy lean toward knowledge management in this organisation, which is the effective distribution of information, decentralised, through a variety of different sources. A series of interviews were conducted with ten different police officers in three different forces, along with the National Policing Improvement Agency, in order to identify knowledge-sharing practices in these groups. There was a widespread acknowledgement in the importance of knowledge sharing and knowledge management in order to deliver an effective training programme (Seba & Rowley 2010). Knowledge sharing practices are vital in this environment since officers are responsible for working with the general public, a diverse environment with people of all different walks of life. Therefore knowledge exchanges must include citizen and ethnic profiles along with internal dynamics of operational standards. This information is delivered via technological means and through first-hand interaction with instructors where knowledge is readily available as needed. This differs slightly from Nestle that is not necessarily KM-focused, however access to information is readily available in both organisations for instant retrieval or sharing from peer to peer or manager to officer trainee. There is also, much like Nestle, a reliance on technological learning and software implementation in the training process. The National Centre of Applied Learning Technologies (NCALT) is an e-learning programme that has earned awards for its excellence in teaching and learning content (Howarth 2009). The classroom, instructor-to-learner style of learning is most common when training police officers, therefore NCALT needed to be adapted so that it would be considered culturally relevant in the police organisation. Its implementation has changed the method by which training is delivered to learners, therefore changing internal organisational culture and breaking down political barriers that once existed in this group (Howarth). As before, the approach to learning at the UK Police Organisation is dependent on technological delivery, similar to Nestle, that seems to improve efficiency of training delivery, quality of learning, and accessibility. Also, similar to Nestle, this group has outsourced training that brings the external environment and expertise into local training programmes. The organisation has a partnered relationship with the City of London University with a very strong ethics-based learning philosophy (Scott 2010). Outsourced training provides different insights that might not be found with in-house trainers to shape behaviours related to working with public citizens of all varieties. Some training provided to offers are mandated by national standards, therefore they are not flexible. However, outsourced learning from university instructors gives a unique learning experience without relying on in-house human resource professionals. This prepares the officer for working outside of the actual organisational environment and makes the learner more involved with knowledge exchanges through different, external expert perspectives about the field or non-policing educational materials such as literacy training. In this organisation, training is much less self-directed but is dictated by mandates, internal policy, and coordinated electronic training delivery. Unlike Nestle, there is much less individual ownership over learning, even though the organisation is attempting to continuously decentralise training efforts. There is less emphasis on mentoring and coaching, with more concentration being put toward fundamental learning principles needed for this particular job role. Quite different from Nestle, a company that values group consensus and learner input for continuous improvement, the UK Police Organisation has a more tightly controlled learning process with less flexibility for adjustment. Measurement tools Research did not uncover any measurement tools used to gauge performance at the UK Police Organisation other than the performance appraisal with very specific performance metrics and criteria. This is different from Nestle that is constantly adjusting what is considered vital performance keys and reshaping training based on staff and line level opinion. There seems to be fewer margins for learner input in the training process at the UK Police Organisation, whilst this is considered a top priority issue at Nestle in order to provide an effective and globally-relevant training programme. This could be due to the nature of how the public and private sector businesses operate and function internally and externally or simply due to the difference between being a global operation and one that is heavily localised, like in the case of the policing group. The largest similarity in training is recognising the importance of content as it relates to the community environment. Nestle and the UK Police must work with diverse people of multiple cultures, therefore both organisations strongly emphasize cultural and knowledge about socialisation as part of their training priorities. Though the methods by which this knowledge is exchanged differ at both groups, the content of training is service-based and quite interactive even though Nestle allows for much more employee input on training quality and design. Conclusion Nestle’s operations in foreign markets makes the need for understanding cultural factors a key learning philosophy in training delivery. What was most interesting about Nestle’s strategy is its flexibility designed to foster motivation, teamwork, cooperation and employee ownership over training as part of self-development. This is a critical role in training delivery at Nestle, which is something that the company seems to have considered to be best delivered by in-house staff through coaching or mentoring activities. The UK Police Organisation, however, has much more reliance on external teachers and software programmes where coaching is less priority and there is harder emphasis on mandated learning tools. Nestle employees are being taught by line management generally in order to boost their relationship and to really drive motivation and self-confidence all throughout the training process. They are considered valuable resources and are therefore allowed to actively participate in training and take a great deal of self-ownership over how training is delivered and the pace by which it moves. This differs largely in the UK Police Organisation. This could be due to the differences in operational standards associated with local law enforcement and their need to be authoritarians in difficult policing environments. By not essentially softening the training process at this group, training is viewed more as a necessity than a flexible effort in areas of mentoring and empowered learning. The knowledge management process at the UK Police Organisation also varied differently from Nestle, again likely a product of the internal politics associated with different job roles in the private versus public sectors. Because there is high flexibility in learning at Nestle, it would be difficult to establish a knowledge management system with performance measurements since the quality and content of training is individualised and constantly in a state of change. Since many learning tools are mandated in the police group, it is easier to set up a metrics system for exchange of knowledge in a way that can be categorized and passed on effectively. References Baldwin-Evans, K. (2007). The future of organisational learning, Industrial and Commercial Training, Guilsborough. 39,6, p.299. Howarth, N. (2009). An outstanding performance, E-learning Age, Twyford. February, pp.18-20. Martin, V. (2008). Faculty of Management and Info Sciences, Brighton Business School. [online] http://eprints.brighton.ac.uk/4953/ (retrieved October 31, 2010). Nestle.pk. (2009). The Nestle management and leadership principles. [online] http://www.nestle.pk/pdf/4c%20Management%20&%20Leadership%20Principles.pdf (retrieved October 31, 2010). Pollitt, D. (2004). Training is a never-ending process at Nestle, Human Resource Management International Digest, Bradford. 12,6, p.27. Powersimsolutions.com. (2009). Case study: Nestle. Training and development-supply chain analysis. [online] http://www.powersimsolutions.com/nestle.aspx. (retrieved November 1, 2010). Scott, L. (2010). How I made a difference…in-house recruitment training, Personnel Today, Sutton. Jan 12, p.16. Seba, I. & Rowley, J. (2010). Knowledge management in UK police forces, Journal of Knowledge Management, Kempston. 14,4, p.611. Stroh, L. (2005). International Assignments: An Integration of Strategy, Research and Practice, Mahwah: NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Weekes, S. (2005). On the beat, Personnel Today, Sutton. March 8, p.26. Read More