Talents Management in Consulting Firm The Academy for Professional Development - Case Study Example

? Governance and Talent Management in a professional services Introduction The case deals with various talents management issues of the renowned business education and consulting firm “The Academy for Professional Development”. The firm was established in the year 1993 in Belarus. After the disintegration of Soviet Union, the former Soviet countries were implementing the free market oriented reform programs. Belarusian Politician Pavel Dronov proposed a plan to provide business education to the managers to make them competitive in the global market. The country was a part of former Soviet Union for a long time. The economy was a close economy and that is why they did not face any major business competition from the international market. But in the changing political scenario there was a need for business education. In the year of 1993, Dronov formed the “Academy for Professional Development” with the help of Soros foundation and local ministry of privatization. His goal was to provide better education to a large group of people in Belarus. For this purpose he arranged the best talents for the academy who can provide competitive and modern business solution matching with the local environment. With the changes in the political situation, the academy changed its dimension to provide the best market oriented programs. The best talent management techniques were applied to sustain in the changing political and social environment. But still with all of its efforts, the academy was facing some crucial problems with their strategic management and talent management issues. The case sheds light on the major problems faced by the academy time to time. Section 1 The case focused on the development and transitions of APD with the changing political environment of Belarus. Dronov encouraged the hiring of the best faculties of the countries to educate the top management and officials of the country. After the collapse of former Soviet Union, all the Soviet countries were following the free market mechanism and for that some major reform steps were being taken. Privatization took place as a part of reform in Belarus. The target client group was Belarusian officials and top management of state enterprises. The business program included the successful reform measures of post Soviet disintegration. In the year 1994, Lukashenka became the first president of Belarus and he went back to Soviet Era politics by reducing the privatization and by reinforcing the state controlled economic policies and by restricting the freedom of speech. That time the focus was given to the business functioning economic courses. During, 1999-2002, while there was total state control in the economy took place, only few of the private business could survive. Due to of the political connection of Dronov, APD could successfully able to run their private business. During 2002-2005, the market for traditional MBA was became saturated. People used to do many certification courses from the business schools of Moscow. The courses focused on dealing with the practical competitive market. Experienced international faculties used to share the strategies important for the international market but, how those strategies would be implemented this was not clear for many managers. APD came up with some new courses like Executive MBA, diploma certification courses for Marketing. For that, the organization structure also been changed. The B-schools of Moscow was providing the Mini-MBA certification courses and different combined certification courses. For competing with the short term courses provided by different B-Schools of Moscow, APD introduced a different concept of “Develop your Business” program. In this situation Government took some economic decisions which were both favorable as well non favorable for APD. Government announced a tariff cut for the companies situated in small cities and some favorable policies were taken for small and medium scale industries. In that situation, in one hand APD had an opportunity to grow but on the other hand they had a threats of new entrants also as the external business environment was in favor of the new entrants. The socialist government was questioning frequently about the loyalty of Dronov. In one hand, he was suffering from threats of government and in the other hand he was suffering from the threats of severe health reduction (Peter. 2008). In the early forties he was suffering from a severe blood pressure issues. In this situation, he decided to leave Belarus and became the Dean of Russian Business School. Golko became one of three members of shareholders and appointed as a director but Dronov retained his position as a chairman and executed the control from overseas. After Golko started implementing his policies there was huge conflicts came into limelight between Golko and Dronov. The problems are as follows: The point of view of looking at the way of business was different. From different statements of former and current employees mentioned in the case, it is clear that Dronov had a huge contribution for this organization but as the things were changing he could not follow the changed process. The mission set in the time of introduction of the organization was to serve more and more people in Belarus for better education which remained at the same level even after 10-12 years later of the journey of the organization. Golko wanted some changes in the way of conducting business. He proposed some realistic and practical goals for the organization. But Dronov did not like to accept any proposal from Golko. Secondly, Dronov was known as an autocratic leader. He was the founder of the organization and he used to form all the strategies for the organization. Many of the senior faculties became frustrated as they were not getting proper recognition from the organization. As per the statement of a former senior faculty, Dronov was very authoritarian leader. He used to have the command over all the strategies and faculties used to follow his instructions. There was no engagement of the faculties in the decision making process though all the faculties had an international experience to form and execute strategies. The recognition does not only come from monetary rewards given but also from proper honor given. That is why most of the senior faculties were leaving APD. Dronov and Golko had separate believe for running the operation. Dronov wanted a highly structured organization where his decision will be taken as granted without any discussion. Golko believed on smooth processing of operation by fixing priorities and changing goals (Peter. 2008). For Golko, there was no value for the organization’s earlier mission statement. He wanted a new strategy that would be beneficial for the employees and organization as he believed that the earlier mission was not able to motivate the employees. Golko tried to establish a strong unique culture of the organization so that everyone can move toward a single goal. But Dronov wanted a director for giving his own direction only he did not entertain any short of suggestions from Golko (Peter. 2008). Dronov blamed Golko for not implementation of new programs and not to hire new talent in the organization. As per him, there was no new project, no new faculty and no new direction for the organization. According to him, Golko was not sincerely doing his job for organization’s betterment. But there was no clear delegation of the work. As per a senior faculty of the organization, the recruitment and training were solely done by Dronov himself for years. He did not even entertain any kind of interference in this process. Golko was responsible for the organization’s process development only (Schweyer, 2004). The changes occurred in the process of the organization in Golko’s direction was entirely not helping the organization’s development. The major decisions were taken for his own benefits. The faculties who were close to Golko used to follow the new direction but the remaining faculties could not associate themselves with the changes occurred in the organization. They did not find any growth and future prospect in the organization. As an individual and as a faculty Golko was very successful to get popularity but when it comes for the team work, the implementation of the changes did not work properly. Draining of talent was a big problem for APD. The faculties and employees could not found any security and growth in the organization. They could get better remuneration and rewards in Russia so most of the senior faculties were leaving APD. Dronov occasionally visited APD. It was very difficult for anyone to being a part of an organization wholeheartedly when the person doesn’t keep association with the organization on regular basis. Section 2 Q.1. From the APD case it can be learned that every organization needs to adopt the changes taking place in the business environment. APD was a very prestigious and renowned organization in the education, training and service field. The organization developed various program structures as per its changing needs. For adopting new program structures the organization sometimes changed its organization structure also. But there were no specific guidelines for the corporate governance of the organization. There should be a proper distinction between the responsibilities of the management and the employees. Hiring the best World talent is not so tough but retaining the talents and developing more talents is very difficult. The top management should have plans to deal with the highly qualified talents of the organization to retain them. The top management needs to develop a specific model to delegate the authority. The company’s objective was to serve the people for their betterment and the target group of the company was the top executives. APD provided business management programs to the top management of the corporate. Initially, the organization hired the international experts for delivering the ways of business in the international market (Israelite, 2009). But when it feels the need of localized solutions from the clients they hired some senior professionals who were expert in both international affairs and local know- how. For providing better service the organization acquired skills with different working groups. In the group system, there was an existence of star who is no one except the senior faculty. Under the senior faculty there were staffs and junior faculties. The junior faculties were responsible for the execution of the project and the staffs were responsible for the coordination with the client. But there was a huge problem with the collaboration between different groups. Each group was responsible for doing their respective subject oriented projects. For a combined topic project, the group could not coordinate with each other as a result the quality of the projects was hampered. Each senior faculty used to select their own team of junior faculties and most of the time the senior faculties used to do the entire project to earn high compensation. Talent management not only focuses on recruiting the best talents but also there is a need for developing succession plans for leadership management. Dronov was politically so connected that he neglected the major issues of talent management from the beginning. Talent management comprises gaining insights on the global talent, arranging training programs, nurturing resources by providing career growth plans (Vaiman, 2008). In the prevailed system of the organization, junior faculties would not find any opportunity to grow. Each time they had changed their course structure, service structure even organization structure as Prof. Zolev tried to standardize the operational process of APD to avoid conflict, but there was no effort observed to implement better talent management tools (Peter. 2008). Q. 2. Golko’s managerial style as per my view is not also consistent with the prestige of APD. Like Dronov, Golko also wanted to introduce a centralized organization structure where decisions will be taken by him only. Golko’s standardized process implementation could provide short term benefit to the organization. The faculties were happy that they got standard guidelines for doing every project. Earlier for each project they had to invent a new guideline. It introduces clarity among the faculties. But Golko did not take any initiative for development program or implementing good talent management tools (Israelite, 2009). The process was changed in the way that it could help Golko to fulfill his own objective. Senior faculty members were not given the liberty to take part in the decision making process. For the organization’s development Golko streamlined the entire organization procedure but there was a little acceptance of the change occurred in the organization as it was not properly implemented (Scheieman, 2009). Q.3. In the prevailing situation, the main problem rose due to of the conflict raised between Dronov and Golko. It is very important to specify each person’s responsibility in the organization. If I was in the position of Dronov, the first thing I would be doing is that to divide the responsibilities of the Chairman and Director. Secondly, by accepting the changing organization’s need it was very important to approach a free-rein leadership style (Israelite, 2009). Each board of directors should be given the opportunity to convey their proposal and senior faculties should also be involved in the decision making process. Delegation of power was needed. Thirdly, it is suggested effective talent management tools to gain the previous prestige of the organization. An effective talent management can be done by: Retaining and engaging the employees. After recruiting the best talents of the country it is important to provide them the information what the organization exactly expect from them. Giving the opportunity to the employees to manage a critical role in the decision making process. Optimizing deployment of the employees can be done by performance appraisal, career development plans. Achieving the growth of the key talent by assigning right kind of responsibility to right person. Moreover, Dronov needed to increase his presence in Belarus to motivate the employees who are not sure about their future. Combined with the above steps he also needed to communicate more with the employees to retain them. A new compensation policy would bring to compete with Russian B-schools and Universities. Conclusion From the above discussion it is clear that neither Golko nor Dronov had able to provide a sustainable solution to ADP. Both of their management style authoritative and both of them were trying to establish their own power in the organization. In the power game of the organization, the employees were feeling unsecure; the major issues of the organization were neglected. Dronov and Golko both realized a requirement of indeed change. Dronov was in the favor to implementation for new programs and for that he needed a new talent force in his organization. But all he wanted to do by Golko by his strict instructions only. On the other side, Golko was in the favor to streamline the operation process of APD. He maintained a strict process where no freedom was given to anyone. Such environment were proved as more frustrating for the senior faculties as they had experience in international strategy formulation but they were not getting any scope to implement their skills. Golko did not take any measure for career development; the senior faculties were not getting proper recognition and compensation from the organization. With different internal problems Government restrictions for privatization were increasing. In that very moment Dronov left Belarus to Mucow. His step also weakened the internal as well the external position of the organization. References Israelite, L., (2009). Talent Management: Strategies for Success from Six Leading Companies. UK: ASTD Press. Peter, A., (2008). Talent on Demand: Managing Talent in an Age of Uncertainty, UK: Harvard Business School Publishing. Scheieman, W., (2009). Reinventing Talent Management: How to Maximize Performance in the New .New York: Wiley. Schweyer. A., (2004). Talent Management Systems: Best Practices in Technology Solutions for Recruitment, Retention and Workforce Planning. UK: Wiley. Vaiman, V., (2008). Smart Talent Management: Building Knowledge Assets for Competitive Advantage. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Read More