Training and Management Policy - Essay Example

? Human Resources Management, Training and Management Policy Introduction The purpose of the present project is to understand the effectiveness of training in organizations. It tries to explore the importance of learning in the present organizational context. The position of training and development as being an integral part of the management activities of organizations have been tried to be established in this module. Before making the above analysis it is important to identify the exact meaning and definition of the term. As per the definition presented by Buckley and Caple, (2007), training is considered to be a systematic effort directed towards the modification, or development of knowledge, skills and attitudes of employees through an experience of learning in order to achieve greater performance in a particular or a wide variety of activities (Buckley and Caple, 2007, p.5). On the other hand learning is considered to be the processes through individuals acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes through experience, instruction, study or reflection (Buckley and Caple, 2007, p.5). The main aim of the project is to make an analysis as to how effective training programs are in the organizational context. There are very few who would disagree to the above fact. However, practice suggests that in numerous organizations the validation of training programs is either ignored or is approached in either an unprofessional or unconvincing manner. In fact some organizations have even claimed that validation is a costly affair and that the point that it proves cannot be relied on completely. Moreover, the applicability of the program has been questioned on grounds that training effectiveness is not measurable in financial terms. Validation is perceived as having two different components, namely internal validation and external validation. Many organizations undertake the process of validation either in an unconvincing manner or in an unprofessional manner (Buckley & Caple, 2007, p.210). However, critics have put forth that in practice they cannot be distinguished as they are intimately linked and are perceived as a single component by trainers for being mutually dependent on each other. Some of the primary components for measuring effectiveness of training is by making an analysis of the extent of achievement and attainment of objectives of training programs, the learning inculcated by candidates and the extent to which candidates were able to take the learning that was imparted to them (Buckley and Caple, 2007, p.5). The idea is to realise and identify a relationship between training and productivity of organizations. However there are various factors which accelerate or hinder the progress of the process. Some of these factors would be discussed in details in the project. Most importantly organizations must seek to attain the support of employees in accepting this program. Moreover all organizational structures also might not be sufficient for bringing out the best results. The reasons for particular structures to be effective for implementing such programs would be one of the primary subjects of this study. Implementing the right training evaluation criteria and proper learning are some of the key areas which need to be explored before evaluating the needs of such programs. Effectiveness of Training in organizations Previous research has proved the establishment of the fact that training is effective in organizations in terms of employee as well as organizational performance. As presented by Edens & Bell, (2003), the continuous requirement of employees and organizational development can be traced back to the numerous demands existing in the market place which includes the maintaining superiority among competitors, enhancing skills and knowledge base of employees and enhancing productivity. One of the main dilemmas that are confronted with modern organizations is the delivery of strong leadership and guidance and also encouraging innovation and initiative at the same time. Scholars have argued with the fact that the two aims are completely incompatible with one another. It is seen that the training effectiveness in organizations can be brought about by the coordinated effort of the influential and the senior people of the organization. Moreover, the use of the program lie the degree of innovativeness and flexibility associated with it. The role of innovation and guidance plays a predominant role behind the effectiveness of training and development programs in organizations. However, the above aspects might be necessary but they are not sufficient. The organizational structure also needs to be considered at the same time. The following paragraph would reveal the type of organizational structure, whether hierarchical or bureaucratic provide the best possible support for such programs. This dilemma has been found to be most apparent in the field of training and development. As per one group of researchers the policies for training must be taken with utmost seriousness and must be managed professionally by influential people. The other group have claimed that organizations must remain extremely flexible and responsive towards the immediate requirements rather than being bureaucratic and hierarchical in nature (University of Leicester, n.d., p.3). Training has been perceived as one of the pervasive methods of enhancing the productivity of employees and communicating the goals and objectives of the organization to the new personnel who are recruited (Edens & Bell, 2003, p.1). In the year 2000, America demonstrated a budget of $54 billion being spent by US organizations on formal training. Researchers have felt that in order to have a detailed and thorough analysis of the effectiveness of training, organizations must try and understand the relationship existing between training designs and evaluation features (Edens & Bell, 2003, p.1). Thus it can be concluded that the growing interest in the field of training in organizations is encouraged through the perception that innovation and learning are two of the key components in the survival of the organization amidst competition and the external dynamic scenario. Training Evaluation Criteria Training and development can only be effective if employees and the management are willing to adopt the idea and respond positively to the process. The main idea is to understand if the training and development programs are being effective and area adding to the welfare of the organization. General learning may be effective in enhancing the overall knowledge base of the human resource; however, the specialized skills can only come with learning at the place of work. This can be in the form of either training. The extent to which the programs would be effective depends largely on the employee’s response and reactions to the training criteria and programs. Openness to learning, perception of such programs in the eyes of the employees needs to be explored. Employees need to be comfortable with the evaluation criteria of such programs to be effective. Greater focus must be given on the choice of evaluation criteria which would be used for measuring the training effectiveness. The choice of evaluation criteria i.e. the measure for operationalising the effectiveness of training is one the main and crucial decisions that have to be made while evaluating training effectiveness. Reaction criteria have been operationalized by the use of self report measures, which represent the trainees’ attitudinal and affective response towards the training programs. However, there exist little reasons which allow believing how the trainees feel about the training programs. It does much more insight into the extent of learning they acquire through the programs, changes in their work performances and other job related behaviours, or utility of the programs towards the organization. The fact is further supported by the poor evidences which exist demonstrating the relationship between the reaction criteria and the rest of the three criteria (Edens & Bell, 2003, p.2). Despite the fact that reaction measures are not considered to be a suitable replacement for the other indexes of effectiveness of training, evidences suggests that it is used as one of the most widely used criteria of evaluation in applied settings. For example, in the American Society of Training and Development, 78% of the organizations which were surveyed reportedly used reaction measures as against 32%, 9% and 7% used the learning, behavioural and results criteria respectively (Edens & Bell, 2003, p.2). Learning Criteria The learning criteria are some of the measures of learning outcomes of training programs in organization. However, they are not considered measures of the job performances of employees. As per the views of Tannenbaum and Yukl (1992), learning for trainees is perceived as being necessities but they are not quite sufficient for bringing about changes in behaviour. Learning criteria is also considered to be the internal criteria as they primarily focus on that which occurs during the implementation of the training programs (Landy & Conte, 2009, p.340).On the contrary behavioural criteria can be considered to be one of the most effectively used measures of actual performance of employees on the jobs. Use of this criterion has been most effective in yielding the best results for measuring the effectiveness of training on the actual performance of employees (Edens & Bell, 2003, p.2). One of the other factors which need to be taken into account for measuring effectiveness of training programs is making needs assessment. Needs analysis is considered to be the process through which determines the training needs and requirements of organizations and can answer questions as to whether the organizational needs, goals and objectives can be attained and achieved through the process of personnel training. Processes like auditing individuals in the place of work accounts for a major approach of making training needs assessments for projecting the training requirement of employees in the future (Ford & Kozlowski, 1997, p.4). Thus for measuring training effectiveness conducting a systematic process of needs assessment would be a crucial step towards developing and designing training modules which would then influence the overall productivity and effectiveness of the training programs (Edens & Bell, 2003, p.2). In particular the systematic needs assessment can serve as guide and director for the development, designing and implementation of the training programs. Some practitioners have emphasized more on the factor of analysing the training needs already identified while some have focussed more on the identification of new factors (Peterson, 1998, p.8). Thus consequently the comprehensiveness and presence of needs assessment must be linked with the complete and overall effectiveness of such programs because of the fact it provides the basis and mechanism through which the questions lying central to the effectiveness of the programs can be easily answered (Edens & Bell, 2003, p.2). During the designing and development of the training modules the systematic approaches towards identifying and understanding the needs and requirements of training can identify the various job requirements that are to be trained, the candidates who require training can be identified and the kind of training that would be the most effective can be identified as well. Thus the focus of many researches is to bring out a relationship between training outcomes and the training needs assessments (Edens & Bell, 2003, p.2). The extent of training required in businesses Researchers and practitioners have focussed on the determination of the extent or degree of training that is required in organizations. The obvious answer that emerges is the amount of training which is necessary for the organization to perform effectively and efficiently. This can be further extended to the fact that the necessity of training remains up to the point where the business can remain ahead of its competitors. However, the answer to the question is based on the basic assumption that the training function forms a critical component towards the efficiency and effectiveness of organizations. Previous literature on the application of theory to practice of training in commercial settings, throws light on the fact that training has a direct relationship with the profitability of organizations. However, literature on business finance is hardly found to have any mention on training. At times when it is actually mentioned it is found to be categorised as a cost. Thus the importance and benefits of training can be often undermined by people who are responsible for making strategic policy decisions which often results in unfortunate consequences (University of Leicester, n.d., p.7). Among researchers and practitioners and even in the society, there exists a certain degree of consensus about the fact that training and development are crucial for the competitiveness and productivity of organizations. It is also apparent and evident that organizations must focus on training and development for attaining adaptability and be innovative in the market. The question which follows is why organizations certain organizations make greater investments in training and development along with a varied portfolio of the same as compared to such other organizations which are of comparable size, industrial size and turnover. Researchers are also concerned about the apparent disparity which exists in the market and which also accounts for one of the main subjects of research lately. Consequently the most common questions that arises is the ways to explore the factors which has influence over the training, the role of organizations providing such trainings and the way other organizations might be persuaded to increase training in order to reap maximum benefits from the market (University of Leicester, n.d., p.8). In the case of the professional trainers, making an understanding about the background as to why organizations adopt a particular approach towards employee development is considered important. This is considered to be of prime importance especially when it wants to make the maximum advantage of their position for development of their training functions in future and also influence strategy. This might include the fact the size of organizations and the existing limitations might have to be overcome, which is especially true for the small and medium sized firms. Literature reflects both contrasting views over the processes of formation of skills in the small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) (Ashton, Sung & Raddon, 2005, p.4). The most predominant approach undertaken by the SMEs is to make lower investments in training programs mainly because of the fact that they use less use of the formal courses. This fact about the minimum use of formal training by the SMEs has been repeatedly used and established in previous literature works and has been well documented in the UK Training and learning surveys conducted in the UK. As the formal courses for training have been considered by both the policy makers and academics to be manifested by companies and through individual investment in human capital, the question which immediately arises is why do SMEs fail to make investments in skills enhancements which is considered to be most crucial for the success of companies and for the productive base of the economy. The SMEs view themselves as being the smaller versions of large organizations. What follows from the above fact is that the difference existing between the small and micro organizations and the large and medium enterprises is that of their scales. The lower quality or degree of training incorporated in the SMEs is explained as ignorance of the employers or arises out of market failures arising out of supply and demand side differences like short term perspectives which prevent recognition of the long term advantages and benefits of training (Westhead & Storey, 1997, p.17). Thus the lack of training in the SMEs is perceived as the main reason for their low productivity. There has been extensive government intervention across the world in the SMEs for their up gradation. It is therefore recommended that the makers of policies must first consider implementing training and support activities which would focus exclusively on the needs of the small and micro businesses and their workforces (Matlay, 2002, p.15). In the recent years there has been a contrasting series of argument generated which considers a different perspective of the problem. The fact is that the fundamental training needs of SMEs differ from the larger organizations because in the large enterprises they are met adequately through informal learning taking place between them. Previous works undertaken by researchers suggest that a substantial amount of learning occur in the smaller enterprises, however this is necessarily informal in nature. Ashton and Sung (2001), have argued that the small organizations have their own unique learning and training needs which differ from that in the medium sized firms. This is an argument which has been supported by more research conducted by Hughes et al, (2002), and by Doyle & Hughes (2004). In 2002, through the extension of the definition of training beyond just formal courses towards the inclusion of such activities through which all workers and managers can improve their work related knowledge and skills, Kitchin & Blackburn’s survey threw light on the fact that a lot of such formal training were undertaken in the small and micro organizations, although of such informal character, Ridoutt et al, (2002) & Smith et al, (2002), had came up with similar findings in Australia. Consequently this resulted in the UK Small Business Council which is the industrial body for the small companies, to call for the government towards recognition and supporting of such informal learning as qualifications were not always considered to be the right measure of employability and skills (Gemmell, 2003). Here, the SMEs are found to conduct and implement considerable and substantial training. Here the training nature differs on the fact that they are informal in character. In a recent publication it was said that the training imparted by small enterprises are different as that recognized by the governments but they are equally valid (Small Business Council, 2003, p.2). However, it is argued that in order to have proper understanding of the matter, researchers need to step back from the political debate and seek to answer the more fundamental questions with regards to the characteristics of formation of skills. There are two fundamental questions underlining the present debate. Firstly the process of skill formation varies as per the size of organizations and that the larger organizations undertake more formal approaches for training than the smaller enterprises. The second question which arises is whether formalising the training needs necessarily mean high degrees of formation of skills. In case the latter is more applicable, then government intervention could include more formal courses towards training workers in SMEs. However, in case the informal approaches of learning are able to deliver an equivalent amount of knowledge and skill, then providing formal training might result in wastage of the nation’s national resources (Ashton, Sung & Raddon, 2005, p.6). The more important concept that has come up is the extent of skill formation rather than training. Skill formation is associated more with informal as well as formal learning as being a broader concept of involved in the acquisition and transfer of skills and knowledge for performing at the place of work. Moreover, if the process is conceptualized over a period of time, then greater focus can be put on the conditions, along with the growth of the firm, the process of formalization of training. The system of educating the employees must be based on skill formation and (Ashton & Green, 1996, p.99). This would consequently help to understand the process of formalized training and how it impacts on the skills and knowledge of employees. It would also reflect how the formal training is more effective training in imparting skills to employees than informal trainings. The process of formal and informal training has got different impacts on the level of enhancement of skills and knowledge of employees (Columbus & Shohov, 2003, p.91). This is the reason why as firms grow in size the process of training becomes more institutionalized. However, this is not necessarily complemented with a higher level of outcome from employees. In certain cases formal training is associated with higher acquisition of skills but in others it might not be so (Ashton, Sung & Raddon, 2005, p.6). Conclusion Previous research conducted has proved that training and development has a direct relationship with the development of skills and knowledge of employees and performance of the organization on the whole. It has been identified as the most pervasive methods of improving productivity of organisations and attainment of goals and objectives of the same. However, prime importance has been given to the identification of training needs of the organization trough training needs assessments. Understanding of the job requirements and the required skills meant for performing the job happens to be one of the most important factors for the success of training and development programs. However the small organizations are found to be making inadequate investments in training and developmental activities. With the growth of firms however, the training processes get more formalized and organizations make more investments in the same. In this regard, greater emphasis is provided to the process of skill formation and skill acquisition than training. This can be attained through the process of learning which covers a broader perspective. The analysis of the project reveals that that institutionalisation of the process of skill formation process remains closely related to the size of the company. Size of the company influences the ways through which skills and knowledge needed to create the skills are transferred in different kinds of organisations, and to have an understanding of the different experiences associated with the process. It is believed that having an understanding of the process of institutionalisation has major implications with regards to the policy debates which have presented in the paper. Firstly the process of formalization is dealt with which is followed by the process of institutionalization. Here, this analysis provides insight into the fact that formalization of training might not be directly related with the creation of higher levels of skills and knowledge. There is not empirical evidence which would influence the small and medium enterprises towards formalizing the process of training. The process of formation of skills takes up a different form and path in small and micro forms in comparison to the large organizations. From the perspective of the researchers it highlights the inefficiencies of using formal training methods as being an investment made by employers towards skill development (Ashton, Sung & Raddon, 2005, p.32). Reference Arredondo, P. & Arredondo, P. M. (1996). Successful diversity management initiatives: a blueprint for planning and implementation. SAGE. Ashton, D., Sung, J. & Raddon, A. (2005). A case where size matters: A preliminary investigation into the institutionalisation of skill formation and firm size. Research Paper No. 60 Autumn 2005. [Pdf]. Available at: http://www.skope.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/SKOPERP60.pdf. [Accessed on July 14, 2011]. Andrews, R. (2003). Research questions. Continuum International Publishing Group. Ashton, D. N. & Green, F. (1996). Education, training, and the global economy. Edward Elgar Publishing. Bajpai, N. 2009. Business Statistics. Pearson Education India. Brown, S. M. & Seidner, C. J. (1998). Evaluating corporate training: models and issues. Springer. Buckley, R. and Caple, J. (2007). The Theory and Practice of Training. Kogan Page Publishers. Burton, J. F. (1988). New perspectives in workers' compensation. Cornell University Press. Columbus, F. H. & Shohov, S. P. (2003). Advances in psychology research, Volume 22. Nova Publishers. Cook, K. S. (2007). Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches. Russell Sage Foundation. Dickie, C. & Soldan, Z. (2011). Diversity Management. Tilde University Press. Edens, P. S. & Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness of Training in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis of Design and Evaluation Features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, Vol. 88, No. 2, 234–245. Frazis, H. & Loewenstein, M. (2007). On-the-Job Training. Now Publishers Inc,. Ford, J. K. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1997). Improving training effectiveness in work organizations. Routledge. Flick, U. 2009. An introduction to qualitative research. SAGE Publications Ltd. Glanz, B. A. (2002). Handle with care: motivating and retaining your employees. Handle with care: motivating and retaining your employees. Gemmell, S. (2003) ‘‘No wrong door’ The nuts and bolts of stimulating small business demand for skills’ London: Small Business Council. Ghuman, K. (2010). Management: Concepts, Practice & Cases. Tata McGraw-Hill Education. Holloway, I. & Wheeler, S. (2009). Qualitative Research in Nursing and Healthcare. John Wiley and Sons. Islam, K. A. (2006). Developing and measuring training the six sigma way: a business approach to training and development. John Wiley and Sons. Kamin, M. (2006). Customer Service Training. Elsevier. Lax, D. A. & Sebenius, J. K. (1986). The manager as negotiator: bargaining for cooperation and competitive gain. Simon and Schuster. Landy, F. J. & Conte, J. M. (2009). Work in the 21st Century: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology. John Wiley and Sons. Locke, E. A. (2000). The Blackwell handbook of principles of organizational behaviour. Wiley-Blackwell. Matlay, H. (2002). Contemporary Training Initiatives in Britain: A Small Business Perspective. SKOPE Research Paper No. 24, Spring 2002. [Pdf]. Available at: http://ora.ouls.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid%3A37bc6e08-9092-4d1f-9943-43a5cac1a3c7/datastreams/ATTACHMENT01. [Accessed on July 14, 2011]. Paton, R. (2005). Handbook of corporate university development: managing strategic learning initiatives in public and private domains. Gower Publishing, Ltd. Peterson, B. (1998). Training needs assessment: meeting the training needs for quality performance. Kogan Page Publishers. Philips, J. J. & Stone, R. D. (2002). How to measure training results: a practical guide to tracking the six key indicators. McGraw-Hill Professional. Saunders. (2003). Research Methods for Business Students. Pearson Education India. Seale, C. (2004). Researching society and culture. SAGE. Stockdale, M. S. & Crosby, F. J. (2004). The psychology and management of workplace diversity. Wiley-Blackwell. Small Business Council (2003) Measuring Training in Small Firms. The Small Business Council’s Perspective, London: SBC. Westhead, P. & Storey, D. J. (1997). Training Provision and Development of Small and Medium–Sized Enterprises. Research Report No. 26, London: DfEE. [Pdf]. Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED419936.pdf. [Accessed on July 14, 2011]. Wilkinson, A., Redman, T. & Snell, S. (2009). The SAGE handbook of human resource management. SAGE Publications Ltd. Wrench, J. (2007). Diversity management and discrimination: immigrants and ethnic minorities in the EU. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.. University of Leicester. (2010). Training and Management Policy. Centre of Labor Market Studies. Read More