The HRD Role in a Growing Organization - Example

INTEGRATIVE ANALYSIS OF HRD SITUATION Introduction While business growth is expectedly a hailed development, it is also an occasion that poses serious challenge to the organization. As in the case written by Dent, Krefft & Schaefer (2004), a growing business enterprise would normally stand in need for significant changes in organizational form and culture. Experienced as growing pangs, these changes are so important that failure to recognize them and act on them would spell disaster for the organization. A specific way of acting on organizational change is through human resource development (HRD) – or the process for developing and unleashing human expertise through training and development and organization development for the purpose of improving performance (Swanson, 1994). This report focuses on human resource development viz. organizational change. Specifically, it will dwell on the role of the HRD in a transitioning business organization. It will also delve into the particular task by the HRD concerning the strategic conversations among the members of the top-level management team, and in relation to the prioritization of what the organization learns from its (growth) experience. The HRD role in a growing organization More elaborately defined, the human resource development is any process or activity that either initially or over the long term has the potential to develop adults’ work-based knowledge, expertise, productivity and satisfaction, whether for personal or group/team gain, or for the benefit of an organization, a community, nation or ultimately the whole of humanity (McLean & McLean, 2001). In many capacities, HRD professionals are practically (internal) consultants whose job it is to develop a unique set of behavioral and technical skills among the members of the organization. They are tasked by an organization to do what it thinks need to be done. Especially pertinent to the case study by Dent, Krefft & Schaeffer (2004), its significance consists in its potential to serve the various needs of an organization. For one, as HRD keeps pace with the increasingly sophisticated information and production technologies diffusing in all industries (Swanson & Torraco, 1994), it could be relied on to support a broad range of business initiatives that require a competent workforce. Vital to optimal business performance, the employee expertise – or the optimal level at which a person is able and/or expected to perform within a specialized realm of human activity (Swanson, 1994) – is developed by effective programs of employee development through HRD. And, as business success has increasingly been hinged on the organization’s ability to use employee expertise as a factor in the shaping of business strategy, HRD in today’s business environment is not only counted on to support business strategies but to form them. These two contributions essentially constitute the strategic role of HRD. Likewise, the significance of HRD is certainly recognized even when an organization grows or is in a process of evolution. In fact, its concern has always been to help the organizations prepare for the future (Swanson, 1994; Torraco & Swanson, 1995). Chermack & Swanson (2008) maintain that the HRD’s role in organizations that experience growth consists of the following: identification of the future workforce demands, formulation of organizational strategy that considers the capacity of existing and available human resources, leading group-process strategic planning efforts, and building strategic capacity for comprehending and dealing with the future through scenario planning. For besides the traditional role of the HRD to meet the needs of the organization, its strategic role consists of lending a hand in the shaping of strategies and/or enabling the organization to take full advantage of emergent business strategies (Torraco & Swanson, 1995). HR function may not be taken responsible for the (organizational) change (Luecke, 2003), but Wilson (2005, pp. 55) is categorical in saying that among the functions in an organization it is the HRD that should be sensitive to organizational changes that take place and facilitate these rather than add to its complexity. Accordingly, to embrace both the process of change and its associated tasks, the human resource professional may be designated to take on the role of a consultant, expert or agent by the organization. Swart et al. (2005) say that as internal change agent the human resource professionals are counted on for their consultancy and facilitative skills and who are expected to be process oriented especially as they and their organization operate in a sensitive mode or environment. More prescriptive on this concern, Sims (2006) acknowledges that there is no singular perspective on the role by the human resource professionals in meeting the challenges that spring from organizational change(s). This is accounted for by the fact that human resource management role in growing or transitioning organization is shaped by the contexts, circumstances and cultures peculiar to the organization. By and large, the specific roles of HRD as the organization goes through the pangs of growth or transition are by ways of marshalling human resources that support the organizational strategy and implementing the chosen strategy efficiently and effectively, utilizing the full potential of the human resources to the organization’s advantage, and leveraging other resources such as physical assets and capital to complement and augment the human resources-based advantage. In addition to directly participating in the strategic planning process (see Swanson & Holton, 2001, pp. 354), the HRD has strategic capabilities such as providing education and training to line managers in the concepts and methods of strategic management and planning and providing training to all employees that is aligned with the goals and strategies of the organization (Sims, 2006, pp. 6). Pattanayak (2005) is even more practical in viewing the role(s) of HRD in a growing or transitioning organization. Primarily positing that it is people that are the most important and valuable resources of any organization, he refers to HRD as a continuing process to ensure the development of employee dynamism, effectiveness, competencies and motivation in a systematic and planned manner. In effect, HRD is accordingly about employees’ competency and motivation development and organizational climate development. The case study on which this paper is made illustrates the very process of HRD, which was launched to assist a telecommunications company that undergoes transitioning eventuated by its initial business success. By working on the three key areas of purpose, process, and people, the company has hoped to redirect the employees into their new positions in their growing or transitioning organization. HRD and strategic conversations As may be gleaned from the discussion in the preceding section, human resource practitioners and writers have maintained a consensus on the strategic importance of HRD to organizational performance. For one, HRD can play a role in the identification and analysis of internal strengths and weakness that may have determining effect on the viability of the organization’s strategic options, as well as the external opportunities and threats that may be crucial in the success of the organization. Besides, HRD is in unique position to participate in the strategic planning by supplying the competitive intelligence that would inform the (planning) process (Sims, 2006). Now, among the many forms of HRD is strategic conversation (Chermack & Swanson, 2008). Although still strictly undefined, strategic conversation is said to generally refer to core skills that are needed within an organization to help improve the over-all performance of employees (Johnson, 2006). These core skills or functioning are strategic on account of their purpose and topic. Their purpose is to enhance, for instance, the organization’s market position; and their topic belongs to one or more components in an organization’s strategic loop. In other words, it must concern scanning, planning, implementing, measuring, assessing, etc – in that order – without missing a step. Strategic conversations require an effective way of communicating to get the reactions that are needed in order for plans to be formed, implemented and succeed. The usefulness of strategic conversation to strategic planning is vouched by Nekoranec & Kusy (2005), as it is a methodical tool that assists the vision of the top management and guides the implementation of the strategic plan. Moreover, Tseng & McLean (2008) have explored the relationship among strategic HRD practices such as culture recognition, environmental scanning and organizational mission and goals – among others. They have found out that organizations that learn and develop their strategic HRD practices have more opportunities to obtain and integrate HRD outcomes – i.e., organizational mission and goals, top management leadership, environmental scanning, HRD strategies and plans, strategic partnerships with line management, strategic partnerships with HRM, trainers as organizational change consultants, influence corporate culture, and emphasis on individual productivity and participation – in the learning process. An alternative to the Holistic Organizational Model by Dent, the Strategic Thinking Conversation Model that is particularly discussed by Nekoranec & Kusy (2005) is among the many possibilities of structuring a strategic conversation. It is said to work among both the executives and the rank and file of the organization. This model makes use of eight interactive questions (see Nekoranec & Kusy, 2005, pp. 22), offers a three-part analysis process to executive thinking (Nekoranec & Kusy, 2005, pp. 22-24), and provides a platform for how the organizational members’ thinking may be responded to and interacted with (Nekoranec & Kussy, 2005, pp. 23). Prioritization of learning needs Organizational learning refers to the learning not at the individual, but at the system level. A higher level of learning, it is of five areas: information acquisition, information distribution and interpretation, making meaning, organizational memory, and information retrieval (Dixon, 2006). Tseng & McLean (2008) are categorical that the outcomes of strategic HRD are related to organizational learning. Tjepkeme et al. (2002) maintain that HRD has its defined role in learning organizations – that is, the organizations that support workers’ learning. While the models for big organizations do not serve the purpose of small firms, Saru (2007) has established that small firms learn too as they go through the process of HRD. Now, an organization becomes successful when its capacity to learn exceeds the rate of change that is imposed on it (Revans, 1983). For, unless an organization learns, it cannot re-engineer its business processes and cannot have many opportunities for significant step change improvements (Buckler, 1996). And, when an organization identifies its learning needs effectively, it sets to take an important step in the learning process since it would be enabled to set its priorities (Riley, 2008). It becomes understandable, thus, that as in the case study for this paper there are a number of learning needs that must be addressed prior to the implementation of the organizational changes that need to be made. And, prioritization of how these learning needs are addressed seems to be of crucial nature. Buckler’s (1996) summary of techniques that help the learning process has posited that it would all depend on the models of learning. According to him, the extremes of these models are the taught model, which sees learning as something that is done to people, and the discovery model, which understands learning as something that people do for themselves. Besides the fact that these models both have sound theoretical foundations – i.e., behaviorism for the taught model and gestalt for discovery model – they also have multiple ranges of options in between. And, very importantly, Buckler suggested that it would help more to relate to the relative benefits of each of these models viz. the objectives of the process considered, rather than to take a black/white or good/bad position. Now, after the learning model has been decided on, the next item to resolve concerns the prioritization of learning needs. Dent, Krefft & Schaeffer (2004) mention about the “strike where it hurts the most” criterion to decide for which learning needs to take precedence and to require priority action. Buckler (1996) recommends “a little (but) often” approach, which is expected to prevent the swamping of daunting list of activities upon the individuals and teams. This is understandably in conjunction with a process to merge the individual and team learning priorities with the priorities of the organization. This approach is expectedly going to make the organization members to focus on just few vital areas within a short timescale. A quantitative approach would consist of the use of a weighted voting process to prioritize the learning needs across the organization. Following the “a little (but) often” approach, the learning needs may be prioritized thus: firstly, the communication and information management on the purpose of the organization – or the strategic framework – needs to be addressed. That it receives primary attention is justified by the fact that it is the communication of the vision of the company from the top-level managers down to the ordinary organization members is prerequisite to the succeeding vital areas of re-engineering in the organization. More particularly, it would put the top managers in a position to focus on broader objectives as it makes the lower level managers dwell on their detailed plans. The second in the priority list is the identification and the training of potential key personnel across the organization whose task it is to cascade the vision further down to the rank-and-file staff of the organization, and facilitate whatever trainings may be necessitated by them especially as everyone in the organization individually adjust alongside the adjustments done by the entire organization. The third in the priority list is all the kinds of technical trainings for every department of the organization. Conclusion This paper has dwelt on the HRD and a growing or transitioning organization. It has posited that the former is particular tool that helps organizations make sense of their experience involving growth pangs. HRD is accordingly primarily preoccupied to help an organization come to terms with its future, by preparing and equipping – among other things – its human resource. A form of HRD intervention is strategic conversation. Its importance consists in its being able to bring into surface the relevant topics for discussion among the members of the organization. As the organization deals with its strategic issues, its learning needs as well as its members are identified. Having done so, the learning needs must be prioritized so as to set an order to its initiatives. References: Buckler, B. (1996). A learning process model to achieve continuous improvement and innovation. The Learning Organization, 3 (3), pp. 31-39. Chermack, T.J. & Swanson, R.J. (2008). Scenario planning: human resource development’s strategic learning tool. Advances in Developing Human Resources, doi: 10.1177/1523422307313530 Dent, S.M., Krefft, J.H. & Schaefer, S. (2004). Driving growth through a holistic strategic framework: a telecommunications company case study. In L. Yorks (Ed.), Strategic human resource development, pp. 266-273. Stanford: Cengage Learning. Dixon, N.M. (2006). Organizational learning: a review of the literature with implications for HRD professionals. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3 (1), pp. 29-49. Johnson, I. (2006). Strategic conversation: defining, measuring and applying the construct in organizations (Doctoral dissertation). Griffith University, Australia. Luecke, R. (2003). Managing change and transition. Boston (MA): HBS Press. Nekoranec, W. & Kusy, M. (2005). Engaging executives in strategic conversations (more than random events). OD Practitioner, 37 (4), pp. 20-25. Pattanayak, B. (2005). Human resource management, 3rd Ed. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall. Revans, R. (1983). The ABC of action learning. London: Chartwell-Bratt Bromley. Riley, B. (2008). Crammer’s corner. InnovAIT, 1 (10), pp. 715-717. Saru, E. (2007). Organizational learning and HRD: how appropriate are they for small firms? Journal of European Industrial Training, 31 (1), pp. 36-51. Sims, R. (2006). Human resource development: today and tomorrow. Charlotte (NC): Information Age Publishing Inc. Swanson, R.A. (1994). Analysis for improving performance: tools for diagnosing organizations and documenting workplace expertise. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Swanson, R.A. & Holton, E.F. (2001). Foundations of human resource management. San Francisco (CA): Berrett-Kohler Publishers, Inc. Swanson, R.A. & Torraco, R.J. (1994). The history of technical training. In L. Kelly (Ed.), The ASTD technical and skills training handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill. Swart, J. et al. (2005). Human resource development: strategy and tactics. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Tjepkeme, S. et al. (2002). HRD and learning organizations in Europe. London: Routledge. Torraco, R.J. & Swanson, R.A. (1995). The strategic roles of human resource development. Human Resource Planning, 18 (4), pp. 10-21. Tseng, C. & McLean, G.N. (2008). Strategic HRD practices as key factors in organizational learning, Journal of European Industrial Training, 32 (6), pp. 418-432. Wilson, J.P. (2005). Human resource development: learning and training for individuals and organizations. London: Kogan Page Limited. Read More