How to Train Experienced Supervisors - Essay Example

re prosthetics who become mngers trined nd prepred for their mngement role [Nme of the School] Nme] Introduction The rpidly chnging economic conditions t home nd brod require orgniztions to mintin their competitiveness nd to mximize the effectiveness of their mngement. Most lrger orgniztions, therefore, devote substntil portion of their humn resource effort to proper mngers selection nd mngeril trining. Compnies now perceive the importnce of teching mngers nd trinees under wht conditions they will mke effective use of wht they hve lerned. lot of mngers know, for exmple, tht they should not get md t their subordintes or tht they should remin cool in emergencies or tht they should rely on their experience. How mny trining progrms tell them how to pply this fund of knowledge This problem is common to ledership selection s well s to ledership trining, nd I shll discuss tht in the pper tht follows. Selection of new mngers Mngers selection is the decision process by which pplicnts re ssigned to one of two possible outcomes (e.g., "hire" vs. "do not hire"). The decision could be with regrd to hiring for prticulr job or prticulr clss of jobs. Mngers clssifiction refers to decision process tht requires ech individul to be either not hired or hired nd then ssigned to one of two or more job lterntives. Tht is, if individuls re hired, there re lterntive job ssignments for which they could be considered. If there exist some set of ssignment decision rules tht will yield more benefit to the orgniztion thn rndom ssignment, then there exists potentil clssifiction gin. Consequently, the benefits from improving selection nd clssifiction procedures cn ccrue from two mjor sources. Better selection would bring in people whose predicted benefit would be higher, no mtter wht the job ssignment (i.e., verged cross ll the different jobs they could tke). Better clssifiction would, for ll those people hired, chieve better "fit" of individuls with different chrcteristics to jobs with different requirements. The more ny orgniztion cn lern bout the benefits nd costs of lterntive methods for selecting nd clssifying the individuls who pply, the more effective its personnel mngement systems cn be. Idelly, personnel mngement would benefit most from complete simultion of the entire system tht would permit full rnge of "wht if" questions focused on the effects of chnges in () lbor supply, (b) recruiting procedures, (c) selection nd clssifiction mesures, (d) decision-mking lgorithms, (e) pplicnt preferences, (f) vrious orgniztionl constrints, nd (g) orgniztionl gols (e.g.. mximizing ggregte performnce, chieving certin distribution of individul performnce in ech job, minimizing ttrition, minimizing discipline problems, or mximizing morle). Further, it would be desirble to hve good estimte of the specific costs involved when ech prmeter is chnged. However, describing, or "modeling" effective selection nd clssifiction in lrge orgniztion is complex business. When considering ll the vritions in ll the relevnt components, there my be dozens, or even hundreds, of lterntive models. lso, there is lwys t lest one constrint on mngers decision-mking specific to the orgniztion, which complictes the decision model even further. The overll complexity of ny rel-world personnel mngement sitution is such tht it probbly cnnot be fully modeled by currently vilble nlytic methods (Cmpbell, 1990). It my not be possible even to describe ll the potentil prmeters tht influence the outcomes of rel-world selection procedure. However, for purposes of setting the context for this series of projects, we strt by simply listing some of the mjor prmeters of selection nd clssifiction decision-mking tht we do know bout, nd the principl implictions of ech. The Gol(s) of Selection By definition, selection nd clssifiction decision procedures re implemented to chieve prticulr objective, or set of objectives. Identifying the objective(s) for the selection system is the most criticl ingredient in the design of the system becuse it directly determines the pproprite input informtion nd procedures to be used in decision-mking. Some possible lterntive objectives re to () mximize the men individul performnce cross jobs, (b) mximize the number of people bove certin performnce level in ech job, (c) mximize the correspondence of the ctul distribution of performnce in ech job to desired distribution, (d) minimize turnover cross ll jobs, (e) minimize the number of "problem" employees cross ll jobs, (f) fill ll jobs with people who meet miniml qulifictions, (g) mximize the utility, or vlue, of performnce cross jobs, or (h) minimize the cost of chieving specific level of performnce cross jobs. There re mny importnt implictions reltive to these lterntive decision-mking objectives. For exmple, the procedure for mximizing verge expected performnce would not be the sme s for mximizing verge expected utility, if the utility of performnce differs cross jobs nd/or the reltionship of performnce to performnce utility within jobs is not liner. If improving future performnce is gol, the wy in which performnce is to be defined nd mesured is lso criticl. For exmple, if mjor components of performnce cn be identified, then which component is to be mximized If the objective is to mximize some joint function of multiple gols (e.g., mximize verge performnce nd minimize ttrition), then deciding on the combintion rules is mjor issue in itself. For exmple, should multiple gols be ddressed sequentilly or s weighted composite of some kind Selection Versus Clssifiction mngers decision-mking system could give vrying degrees of emphsis to selection versus clssifiction. t one extreme, individuls could be selected into the orgniztion nd then ssigned t rndom to k different jobs, or seprte pplicnt pools could be used for ech job. t the other extreme, no overll selection would occur nd ll vilble informtion would be used to mke optiml job ssignments until ll vilble openings were filled. In between, vriety of multiple step models could emphsize different objectives for selection nd clssifiction. For exmple, selection could emphsize minimizing turnover while clssifiction could emphsize those spects of individul performnce tht re the most job specific. For clssifiction to offer n dvntge over selection, jobs must, in fct, differ in terms of their requirements, predictbility, difficulty level, or reltive vlue (utility). The first two fctors relte to the chrcteristics of the set of jobs to be filled. With regrd to job differences, gins from clssifiction (over selection plus rndom ssignment) cn be greter to the extent tht () jobs differ in the knowledges, skills, nd bilities (KSs) required, nd consequently greter degree of differentil prediction is possible; (b) jobs differ in terms of the ccurcy with which performnce cn be predicted nd higher bility people re ssigned to the more predictble jobs; (c) jobs differ in terms of the men vlue or men utility of performnce; or (d) jobs differ in terms of the within job vrince of performnce or performnce utility (i.e., SDy) nd, other things being equl, higher bility people re ssigned to jobs with higher SDy's. The number of jobs is lso relevnt. (Ghiselli, 2001) Other things being equl, the gins from clssifiction re greter to the extent tht the number of distinct jobs, or job fmilies, is greter. The next three fctors, selection rtio, pplicnt qulifictions, nd individul preferences, relte to chrcteristics of the pplicnt pool. The gins from both selection nd clssifiction re greter to the extent tht () the number of pplicnts exceeds the number of openings, (b) the men qulifiction level of the pplicnt pool is high, nd (c) pplicnt preferences correlte positively with the profile of jobs in which they re predicted to be most successful. Obviously, the effectiveness of selection nd clssifiction decisions re lso dependent upon chrcteristics of the predictor bttery. Gins from selection re directly proportionl to increses in the vlidity coefficient (R). Gins from clssifiction re joint function of the verge R cross jobs nd the level of differentil prediction cross jobs tht cn be obtined by using different predictor bttery for ech job or ech job fmily. The nture of this joint function is perhps bit more complex thn the conventionl wisdom implies (e.g., Brogden, 1954). nother set of fctors tht help determine the success of selection nd clssifiction system relte to chrcteristics of the decision-mking process, tht is, job Jill requirements, rel time versus btch decision-mking, nd orgniztionl constrints. Other things being equl (e.g., the totl number of people to be ssigned), the gins from clssifiction re less to the extent tht ech job hs specified number (quot) of openings tht must be filled. Similrly, to the extent tht job ssignments must be mde in rel time nd the chrcteristics of future pplicnts during specified time periods must be estimted, the gins from clssifiction will be reduced. (Hough, 1993) The decrement will be greter to the extent tht the chrcteristics of future pplicnts cnnot be ccurtely estimted. nd finlly, in ll orgniztions, the selection nd clssifiction decision-mking process must operte under one or more constrints (e.g., budget limittions, trining "set" vilbility, hiring gols for specific subgroups, mngement priorities). In generl, the existence of constrints reduces the gins from selection nd clssifiction. These effects must be tken into ccount. The gins from selection nd clssifiction obtined by recruiting more pplicnts, recruiting higher qulity pplicnts, improving the ssessment of qulifictions (e.g., better predictor bttery), enbling more informed individul preferences, nd improving the ssignment lgorithm, re prtilly offset by increses in relted costs. The primry cost fctors re recruiting, ssessment, pplicnt processing, trining, seprtion, nd system development (R&D). It is possible tht prticulr gin from improvements in clssifiction could be entirely offset by incresed costs. ny ttempt to fully model the selection nd clssifiction decision process in rel-world orgniztion must tke t lest the bove issues into ccount, nd deling with them systemticlly is nything but simple. Trining of new mngers Mngeril trining progrms tht re designed to include individuls from vrious orgniztionl levels nd functions represent strtegic sset to the orgniztion. They re strtegic becuse they help develop mechnisms to support horizontl nd verticl integrtion in the orgniztion. This trining is prticulrly criticl when mngeril performnce tkes plce in orgniztionl contexts chrcterized by highly differentited nd complex structures, s is the cse with helth cre orgniztions. Hospitls re usully orgnized round n elborte division of lbor represented in delineted jobs, levels of supervision, nd high degree of functionl speciliztion in deprtments nd specilties. Delivering qulity cre in this complex orgniztion requires mnging tsks nd resources cross horizontl nd verticl boundries. To prepre new mngers for their upcoming positions, mny gencies look to trining nd development progrms. n ssumption is tht trining nd development cn equip women with skills necessry to dvnce. This underscores Ndler's (1970) view tht trining is used to enhnce present or future job performnce. In contrst, Knowles (1978) regrds trining nd development s prts of orgniztionl chnge strtegies. From this perspective, chnging individul performnce cnnot be done effectively unless other structures in orgniztions chnge concomitntly. broder rgument in these two instnces is the concept of self-responsibility versus structurl conditions in bringing bout chnge: in this cse, individul mobility. Severl reserch studies hve pointed to individul chrcteristics, such s motivtion, risk tking, nd chievement orienttion, for instnce, s influencing new mngers' mobility. On the other hnd, Knter, White et l, nd Miller, mintin tht orgniztionl structures limit mobility. Exmples re jobs of low-ceilings, jobs with nrrow scopes of responsibility, nd functionl reltionships between deprtments which restrict flow of informtion. To ssess the role of trining nd development in the creers of federl women mngers, recent disserttion study conducted 14 cse histories of women mngers in five different orgniztions. The respondents included women t vrying grde levels, yers of experience, nd position titles. Two minorities were included. The orgniztions in which they worked rnged from lrge gencies with militry or regultory missions nd employing few numbers of women s mngers, to medium-sized, socil mission orgniztions with pproximtely equl numbers of mle nd new mngers. For trining progrm to be beneficil in both cost nd trnsferble knowledge, proper plnning is required. Plnning begins with setting gols. Whether the trining is to introduce new concept or review opertionl procedure, the security mnger must decide wht behviorl chnge is required to ccomplish the trining gol. If relevnt trining mteril is to be developed, significnt reserch nd plnning must go into the project. One method of ccomplishing this tsk is to estblish prtnership in trining progrm development. If trining touches more individuls thn just those who receive the instruction, others should be involved in creting instructionl mteril. (ustin, 2004) When conceptulizing progrm, the mnger should obtin input from severl sources. Those ffected by the trining must be considered, such s mngement nd supervisory personnel, progrm implementers, other employees, nd visitors. (ustin, 2004) Since trining should be directed towrd chnging behvior, the content of n instructionl progrm should contin informtion imed towrd tht objective. The first step in rriving t this gol is to initite needs ssessment. s mentioned erlier, security force trining ffects the entire compny nd thus should include recommendtions from other individuls in the orgniztion. To ensure essentil informtion is obtined for instructionl modules, the ssessment process should include individuls who cn provide input to the progrms. (Hrtwig, 2003) Before embrking on ny trining venture, the mnger must identify wht mteril is relevnt to present to trinees. To initite progrm without determining wht to tech is wste of time, money, nd stffing. Without cler instructionl direction, the ctivities tht go into the development of trining progrm my hve negtive results. Therefore, needs ssessment must be performed prior to designing instructionl mteril (Hrtwig, 2003) Trining progrms re designed to improve employees' bility to crry out their job responsibilities. Whether progrm is developed to improve or correct current performnce or ensure new opertionl procedure is performed ppropritely, security mngers must ensure efforts re directed towrd tht end. The tempttion to provide instructionl mterils without conducting thorough needs ssessment must be voided if relevnt nd needed trining is to be provided. The time it tkes to dminister needs ssessment is well worth the effort when compred to trining progrm tht hs not improved employee performnce. Trining gols, whether in the form of lerning or progrm objectives, re the cornerstone of ny instructionl endevor (Keter, 2004). Unless they re clerly delineted, there is no wy for the mnger to determine if the progrm hs been successful. Therefore, it is the security mnger's responsibility to ensure needs ssessment is performed prior to ny trining progrm. Bibliogrphy: 1. Brodwell, M. 2004. "How to Trin Experienced Supervisors." Trining, 30(5): 61-66, My. 2. Knowles, The dult Lerner: Neglected Species, Second Edition, (Houston: Gulf Publishing Compny), 1978. 3. nthony F. Buono nd Judith B. Kmm, "Mrginlity nd the Orgniztionl Sociliztion of Femle Mngers," Humn Reltions, Vol. 35 No. 12, September 1982, pp. 1125-1140. lso see T.R. Dye nd J.R. Stricklnd, "Women t the Top: Note on Institutionl Ledership," Socil Science Qurterly, Vol. 63, June 1982, pp. 333-341. 4. ustin, N. 2004. "Where Employee Trining Works." Working Womn. My issue. 5. Brodwell, M. 2004. "Seven Steps to Building Better Trining." Trining, 30(10): 75081, October. 6. Brogden. H. E. (1954). simple proof of personnel clssifiction theorem. Psychometrik, 19, 205-208. 7. Cmpbell, J. P.. & Zook, L. M. (Eds. ) (1990). Building nnd retining the creer force: New procedures for ccessing nd ssigning rmy enlisted personnel-nnul report, 1990 jiscl yer (RI Reserch Note 952). lexndri. V: U. S. rmy Reserch Institute for the Behviorl nd Socil Sciences. (D 252 675) 8. Grvgli, P. 2004. "How to Ensure Trnsfer of Trining," Trining nd Development, n.47 (10): 63-68, October. 9. Ghiselli, E. E. (2001). The vlidity of ptitude tests in personnel selection. Personrzel Psychology, 26, 461477. 10. Hrtwig, P. 2003. "Mngeril Stff Development: Plnning for Successful Progrm." Topics in Mngement nd Finncing, 19(3): 17-23, Spring. 11. Hough, L. M,, Gst, I. F., White, L. ., & McCloy, R. (1996, ugust). The reltion of ledership nd individul differences to job performnce. Pper presented t the meeting of the mericn Psychologicl ssocition, Wshington, D. C. 12. Jon Miller, Pthwys in the Workplce, (New York: Cmbridge University Press), 1986. 13. Keter, M. 2004. "Cross Trining: The Tcticl View." Trining, 30(3): 35-39. 14. Leonrd Ndler, Developing Humn Resources, (Houston: Gulf Publishing Compny), 1970. 15. Michel C. White et l, "chievement, Self-Confidence, Personlity Trits, nd Ledership bility: Review of the Literture on Sex Differences," Psychologicl Reports, Vol. 48, 1981, pp. 547-569. 16. Rosbeth Moss Knter, Men nd Women of the Corportion, (New York: Bsic Books), 1977. Read More