Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
1
NOT SOUL MATES , BUT ODD COUPLES ; ALIGNMENT MYTHS AND REALITIES
IN ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
DR STEPHEN GIBB
UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE
SENIOR LECTURER
DEPARTMENT OF HRM
GRAHAM HILLS BUILDING
GLASGOW
G1 1XT
REFEREED PAPER
TRACK 7; HRD Evaluation & Learning
2
2
NOT SOUL MATES , BUT ODD COUPLES ; ALIGNMENT MYTHS AND REALITIES
IN ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
Abstract
The literature on evaluating HRD assumes the most effective Human Resource Development
(HRD) in an organization will be ‘aligned’, closely fitting and matched. Adopting a romance
metaphor, the organization and its HRD are soul mates. The only question is then alignment of
what with what ? This study examined alignment using a Competing Values Framework (CVF)
to describe general organization capabilities and HRD practice.
In the study effective HRD is measured by three items; the comprehensiveness, excellence and
equity of HRD activities. Organization capabilities and HRD practices are defined using the four
core constructs of the CVF; these are the constructs of ’ competing’, ‘controlling’, ‘creating’ and
‘collaborating’. The alignment of these can be measured in degrees; full alignment, partial
alignment and incongruent alignment.
The method used was a survey of employees, managers and HRD staff in a sample of
organizations including banking, retail, technology, and education. Data from 76 organizations
and 274 respondents was collected. The findings are that the most effective HRD is associated
with partial alignment. It looks as if relations being organizations and HRD which resemble
those of an ‘odd couple’ rather than being soul mates has a positive impact on HRD. Further
research on why this is apparently so can be a source of theory development and practical
insights into the evaluation of HRD.
3
3
INTRODUCTION
Human Resource Development (HRD) is the field of adult learning in work and employment
(Swanson & Holton 2001, Hamlin & Stewart 2011 ) concerned with the development of skilled
people and successful organizations. HRD done effectively, focussing on the right activity from
all the possible options available, can provide competent workforces and more. It can provide
wider benefits such as high incomes, health, and enhanced employment prospects (Kuchinke
2010; Keeley 2007, Keep & Mayhew 2010).
How HRD effectiveness is to be evaluated, defined in theory and measured in practice has been
approached in a variety of ways (Russ-Eft & Preskill 2005) . The different streams in theory and
practice have been concerned with describing and measuring Returns on Investment (ROI),
Beliefs and value systems, and alignment (see Figure 1). These approaches emerged in an era
and ethos where there was a relatively narrow focus and concern with understanding and
measuring the effectiveness of systems for ‘hard’ and technical skills training needed for
performance in well demarcated work roles. Stable, predominantly hierarchical, organizational
structures and employment practices provided the environment within which HRD was
understood and practiced. They are evolving in a much changed era, and so subject to much
critique.
Insert Figure 1 about here
4
4
The issues and critique is perhaps sharpest and clearest with ROI. ROI has been explored both in
the workplace and the national HRD policy context , though a valid and reliable way to frame
ROI has not yet been proposed (Park & Jacobs 2011). One study (Ashbrook 2011) suggested
that evaluating the gains from training expected by respondents in organizations were more
focussed on improved quality and workforce morale than on proving productivity and
profitability changes. This reflects a disinterest in what Holton and Naquin (2005) consider a
particular kind of thinking; rational-economic, decision-making thinking. The use of this
rational-economic evaluation thinking in HRD may be futile, and even counterproductive. This is
because stakeholders in organizations do not make decisions in the manner envisaged by the
rational-economic model, which is to proceed by considering all the costs and benefits and
coming to a view of the optimal alternatives by gauging that information rationally. So people
form and hold aspirations, and if these are met and satisfied, then conclusions will be positive; if
not, conclusions will be negative. Understanding what ‘satisfies’ not what ‘optimises’ is the key
to evaluation and measuring HRD effectiveness.
With the emergence of broader and deeper concerns about understanding the management of
knowledge and learning, both formal and informal, in organizations, new approaches to
evaluation are emerging. These better fit an environment of dynamic change around high
performance cultures with more flexible employment practices and careers (Poell, van Dam,
van den Berg 2004). Concerns need to reflect managing ‘learning’ as well as delivering
‘training’ beyond the traditional concern with levels of evaluation (Bassi & McMurrer 2008;
CIPD 2010; Russ-Eft 2008; Sherlock & Perry 2008; Wang & Spitzer 2005;). The modern
5
5
environment is one where describing and measuring evaluation and measuring HRD
effectiveness is a different, more significant task and more complex task (Fisher 2005; Hatcher
2002). HRD evaluation has come to favour and be framed more in relation to measuring beliefs
and value creation. The logic of this is that commitments to and engagement with HRD in
organizations reflects and will be shaped by different kinds of beliefs and value. Measuring the
kind and extent to which beliefs and values are present provides a focus for evaluation; for
effectiveness will be understood in relation to living by and fulfilling those values. Jun Jo, Jeung,
Park, Yoon (2009) identified a duality of beliefs in HRD, between ‘learning’ and ‘performance’
rationales for HRD.
Bates & Chen (2004, 2005) in an empirical study which explored some of these belief and value
themes classed and operationalised the different value sets active in HRD in six forms;
Improving Individual Job Performance; Providing Individual Learning Experiences; Enabling
Meaningful Work; Improving Organizational Performance; Building Learning Systems; Building
Socially Responsible Organizations. These provide six potential foci for modelling and
measuring effectiveness in HRD. The belief and values stream suggests some directions of
interest when classifying organizations aims and goals for HRD, but offers no clear common or
single model to adopt to evaluate and measure HRD effectiveness.
6
6
Other strands in the management and organization literature on the evaluation, description and
measurement of HRD effectiveness in the contemporary environment are concerned with
alignment. One of these is to describe the alignment and fit of HRD with organization strategy as
the factor which underpins effectiveness, and differentiates the more and less effective
(Malloch, Cairns, Evans, O'Connor 2011). Within this are studies modelling and illustrating the
integration, or otherwise, of aspects of training strategies with organization strategies (Garavan
2007; Grieves 2003; Tseng & McLean 2008). Other strands include those concerned with
alignment to generic approaches to HRD such as organizational learning (Baumard & Starbuck
2006 ), or talent management (Blass 2009; Iles, Preece, Chuai 2010; Stewart & Rigg 2011. These
all assume that most effective HRD is that which is most closely aligned with organizational or
HRD strategy. Logically the least effective HRD will be that which is not aligned with an
organizational or HRD strategy, which in some way is independent of best fit. The constructs of
strategic HRD and ‘learning organizations’ may have face validity, however, studies showing
alignment are not evident in this literature.
Others question alignment for various reasons (Anderson 2009, Short & Harris 2010, Chivers
2011). Short & Harris found that adapting to changing organizational circumstances was
relevant, and this presented ‘alignment’ opportunities and challenges for HRD professionals. On
the one hand HRD was potentially ‘centre stage’ in significant ways that related to an
organizations core purposes. On the other hand HRD was understood by these HRD
professionals to be seen as a marginal and undervalued activity. Aiming for closer alignment
could be a way in which this ambiguous position might be resolved. Or it might be that living
with the ambiguity was a more realistic goal to have. Anderson also found that seeking to
7
7
develop the alignment of HRD with organization strategy was a complex and ambiguous task.
There was a substantial degree of bartering and negotiation, in the context of business plans and
the more general process of managing stakeholder relations and expectations. Chivers studied
the HRD of a group of investment bankers, whose HRD was evidently not aligned. They relied
as a group on informal learning, often collaboratively with peers. This was haphazard , often
without support of managers. They did not engage with formal learning, which was perceived to
have limited relevance and benefits. HRD for these investment bankers appeared to have evolved
in the absence of any substantial HRD alignment in any meaningful and formal sense, even
though provisions for that did exist. They were, as a group, often unclear about the full range of
competency required for success, but were enthusiastic and self-directed learners. This group is
worth mentioning particularly as it raises questions about the role of HRD in the environment
which led to the finance sector driven crisis that provides the backdrop to current economic
circumstances.
The challenge of alignment can be truly significant, as what is at stake is considerable. In one
national context, Mason & Bishop (2010) concluded that across the workforce as a whole,
average levels of job-related training had declined through the early part of the 21st Century, and
returned to levels they were at in 1993. This is not just a concern as the absolute level of HRD is
declining, for it is also declining in a way that reinforces social injustice and economic weakness.
Where previously there had been some narrowing of the gap in HRD provision for low-qualified
and highly-qualified employees that has been halted, or even reversed.
8
8
A Consolidated Approach To Examining Alignment
These strands all feature, though alignment appears to matter most, but is not well and explicitly
studied in the context of evaluating HRD. To consolidate these and explore alignment in the
contemporary context a fresh approach can be proposed. This is to use the Competing Values
Framework (CVF), a theory and model of organization capabilities (Cameron Quinn, Degraff,
Thakor 2006, Scott et al 2003). The CVF has been used to define and explore issues in
organization management and effectiveness (DeGraff & Quinn 2007; Hartnell, Ou, Kinicki
2011) and examine how different forms of organizational culture are associated with variations
in organizational processes and outcomes (Newman 2001; Talbot 2008, Scott et al 2003). The
definition of ‘values’ in this model is an economic definition, with value being generated by
capability in four forms. These forms of capability are considered to be present and significant to
different degrees in all organizations. The four forms of capability are defined as ‘compete’,
‘control’, ‘create’, and ‘collaborate’. To compete well is to engage with rivals and win, and to be
able to change quickly. To control well is to do things right, and be able to change to do them
better. To create well is to do new things first, and be able to change to break new ground. To
collaborate well is to do things together, and be able to change with consensus and cooperation.
To be effective an organization needs to have and sustain a culture and systems that support and
enable these relative to their significance. This is not a matter of having a culture and systems
for one form of capability only. Rather the model can be used to identify and characterise a
ranked hierarchy of organization capabilities and the systems associated with them (Quinn
2007). An ordering of relative significance of organization capabilities can be achieved by
9
9
ranking the four possible forms. That ranking describes the dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and
inferior set of capabilities. A dominant form of capability is one which people in the organization
see, feel and believe to be the most significant influence on performance, beliefs and systems. An
auxiliary form of capability is the one which people in the organization see, feel and believe to
be the next most important influence on performance, beliefs and systems. A tertiary form of
capability is the one which people in the organization see, feel and believe to be less important
for performance, beliefs and systems. An inferior form of capability is the one which people in
the organization see, feel and believe as the least important influence on performance, beliefs
and systems.
This ranking can be used to predict and explain the alignment that will be encountered in any
aspects of leadership and management, including HRD. In the case of HRD practices the need
would be to describe forms of HRD practice which embody and are consistent with the four
constructs capability too. HRD can be measured as present and as a ranked hierarchy of
activities also reflecting the constructs of compete, control, creativity and collaboration
capabilities. Consequently organizations and their HRD practices can be described using a
shared language and constructs , so that it becomes possible to compare like with like, and
explore issues about alignment explicitly. Figure 2 gives an overview of the core constructs and
relationships in this study.
Insert Figure 2 about here
10
10
Hypotheses and Constructs
The hypotheses guiding this study were;
Hypothesis 1 The compete, control, create and collaborate constructs can be used to
describe and rank organization capabilities
Hypothesis 2 The compete, control, create and collaborate constructs can be used to
describe and rank HRD practices
Hypothesis 3 There will be greatest HRD effectiveness where organization capability
rankings and HRD practice rankings are most aligned
Hypothesis 3 is the most significant focus of the study , and represent the ‘soul mate’ theory of
alignment and close fit.
The construct of HRD Effectiveness can be operationalized and measured with three items, using
a 1-5 Likert scale (see Figure 3).
Insert Figure 3 about here
The constructs of organization capabilities and HRD practices are operationalised and measured
using the CVF. There are three items for each of the constructs of compete, control, create and
collaborate, associated with organization reputation, operational performance and leadership
concerns. These embody the four forms of capability both in the organization and in HRD
practices specifically. Organization capabilities were also measured with a 5 item Likert scale
from rarely significant’ to ‘always significant’ (see Figure 4). The hierarchy of general
11
11
organization capabilities is established by organization members perceptions of the importance
of competing, control, creativity or collaboration as capabilities in the organization.
Insert Figure 4 about here
HRD practices were operationalized using the same constructs of competing, control, creativity
and collaboration constructs, but were not measured with a Likert scale. They were measured
and ranked using a paired comparison method ( see figure 5). This was adopted to enable
respondents to consider each of the four potential forms of HRD practice (for example ‘compete’
forms of HRD practice) directly with all the others (for example ‘compete’ with control, and
create and collaborate forms of HRD practice). The ranking of HRD practices is then derived
from established the number of times form of HRD practice is chosen from the total occasion on
which it could be chosen. There was a set of 18 paired choices, covering all the 6 possible
comparison with three items. Any individual form of choice (e.g. HRD practices in compete
forms) could potentially be chosen a maximum of 9 times and a minimum of 0 times. That gives
a maximum proportion out of 100% for any of the four capabilities of 50% (meaning it was
always chosen when it could be chosen), and a minimum of 0% (never chosen when it could
have been chosen). The outcome of this method could have been at one extreme that data on
HRD practices would show two and only two equally dominant forms of HRD practice.
Alternatively at the other end of possibility, all four forms of HRD practice could be equally
represented as being chosen all equally, around 25% each.
Insert Figure 5 here
12
12
Alignment categories are defined as follows;
• Full alignment ; four or three organization capabilities and HRD practice rankings match
• Partial alignment, High ; two organization capabilities and HRD practices are matched
• Partial alignment , Low ; one organization capability and HRD practice are matched
• Incongruent alignment; no capabilities and HRD practices are matched
Full alignment can be classed as cases where the rankings for capabilities and HRD practices all
match. Partial degrees of alignment can also be seen; where the rankings a person has are one
degree apart, or two degrees apart. Incongruent alignment is where rankings are three degrees
apart.
FINDINGS
The Sample
Organizations and respondents were selected by asking participants on HRD programmes to
complete the on-line survey In their roles as employees or managers in organizations, and to
distribute it to organization contacts. Seventy six participants did this. Returns from
organization contacts ranged from two to eighteen respondents. In total there were 270 usable
responses submitted to the on-line survey. The sample represents the perceptions of employees
and managers in medium-sized and large organizations, predominantly in the private sector (see
Tables 1, 2 and 3.
13
13
Insert Table 1, 2 and 3 about here
Most organizations and respondents were from workforces based in the UK, though there are
some responses from Europe (France, Spain, Denmark, Netherlands, Ireland) and China,
Thailand and the Middle East.
Reliability and validity measures are given. Reliability is given by Cronbach’s alpha, and refers
to the internal consistency of the scales for constructs. Construct validity how far test scores can
be interpreted as measuring only what they are intended to measure. Predictive validity here is
the extent to which a set of scores predicts an expected outcome or criterion, in this case
concerned with predicting HRD effectiveness.
The HRD effectiveness scale has a Cronbachs alpha of .776. In this sample the mean is 3.6. and a
standard deviation of .896 on a scale of 1-5.
Insert Table 4 about here
The 3.6. mean suggests that HRD is perceived as effective, and learning priorities are being well
fulfilled. The caveat would be that there is support for believing that there is comprehensive
HRD though there is less confidence in the quality of HRD.
The ranking of organization capabilities in this sample is given in Table 5. The standard
deviations are, respectively, for compete .699, for control .765, for create . 908 and for
collaborate .781
Insert Table 5 about here
14
14
Organization Capabilities
The organization capabilities scale has a Cronbach’s alpha of .824 for its 16 items.
Organizational priorities are constituted of items that have been classified and ranked as
‘dominant’, ‘auxiliary’, ‘tertiary’ and ‘inferior’ (Table 6). When this classification ranking of
items is consolidated the dominance of competing and controlling is emphasised, and the tertiary
and inferior ranking of creativity and collaboration is evident.
Insert Table 6 about here
The highest ranked priority items for organization capabilities among the whole set of reputation,
operational performance and leadership items were; leaders focused on diligence and prudence;
leaders are focused on winning; reputation depends on outperforming rivals. The three lowest
ranked priorities were ; innovation and new ideas, services and products are key to our
performance; leaders are focused on creativity and innovation ; leaders are focussed on having a
long term view. The predominant organization priorities in this sample are associated with
Control, followed by Competing.
Insert Table 7 About here
The priorities are a balancing of being diligent while leaders focussing on winning and
outperforming rivals. This all points to a view of organization capabilities and priorities in which
perception, and it would be expected actions, are dominated by balancing control and
competition. This relegates or restricts the attention being devoted to creativity and collaboration.
15
15
Managers perceive higher levels of priority for compete and control, while employees have the
lowest perception of create and collaborate as priorities.
Insert Tables 8, 9 and 10 about here.
Smaller organizations have stronger perceptions of organizational priorities in control, create and
collaborate. Medium sized organizations have the lowest ratings for all capabilities. The private
sector rate competing slightly higher than the public sector; the public sector rates creating
higher than the private sector.
HRD practices
The highest ranked form of HRD Practice (see Table 11) was compete, followed by collaborate,
with control and create equally low ranked. The most frequently selected inferior ranking was for
control.
Insert Table 11 about here
The highest ranked drivers of HRD Practice were; productivity improvements; meet financial
targets ; keep abreast of emerging trends in social and economic behaviour; keeping pools of
talent together for long periods. The areas of HRD practice priority which are most widely seen
16
16
are. The HRD Practice drivers chosen show that while competing is dominant there are both
creativity and collaboration related priorities present as well. These areas are ‘inferior’ in
perceptions of organization priorities.
Alignment
Full alignment is when the rankings for organization capabilities and HRD practices all match.
Partial degrees of alignment are also defined; where the rankings a person has are one degree
apart, or two degrees apart. Incongruent alignment is where rankings are three degrees apart.
Table 12 puts together and compares the organization capability rankings and the HRD practice
rankings for the sample as a whole. This shows that there is not alignment in the sample as a
whole, as the dominant organization capability is control while the dominant ranking for HRD
practice is compete. For HRD practice control is actually inferior. The ranking of auxiliary and
tertiary capabilities and HRD practices are not aligned either.
Insert Table 12 about here
If the alignment is considered in finer detail and more closely by looking at all the instances of
alignment in individual respondents the data shows that in 29% of all cases there was full
alignment with a further (38%) being partially aligned and only one rank apart. In the sample
then total there was 67% full or good partial alignment. There was only 11% incongruent
alignment.
17
17
Variation in HRD effectiveness is then related to alignment, though that relationship is not the
expected one. Being soul mates is not the key to HRD effectiveness. Those perceiving greatest
alignment are associated with a lower mean for HRD effectiveness. Greatest HRD effectiveness
is perceived with partial alignment (Table 13), and then low or incongruent alignment.
Insert Table 13 about here
Organization values for all capabilities are similar across the private and public sector. The
rankings for HRD practices show greater differences when sectors are compared. In the private
sector the highest category of HRD practice driver is compete, in the public sector it is
collaborate. Degrees of alignment are very similar by sector.
ANALYSIS
H1 is confirmed, as there is evidence showing a ranked and balancing set of organization
capabilities. This validates the underlying theory and construct of describing organizations in
terms of ranked and balanced capabilities.
H2 is also confirmed, as the data also shows HRD practice can also be described with these
ranked and balanced capabilities.
H3 is not confirmed, as HRD effectiveness is not greatest where there is most alignment. HRD
effectiveness is greatest with partial alignment.
18
18
There is no significant association between HRD effectiveness and other variables (role of
respondent, organization size or organization sector, the number of respondents per
organization).
The soul mates hypothesis is not confirmed, and it looks rather as if the relationship of an ‘odd
couple’ may be most closely associated with HRD effectiveness. Why this is so opens up a
number of themes and topics for further research.
CONCLUSIONS
Understanding what ‘satisfies’ not what ‘optimises’ was identified as a possible good focus for
evaluation and measuring HRD effectiveness. Alignment can be retained as a focus for that, the
and a possible source of evidence. However, these findings can be interpreted to suggest that the
goal or endeavour to tightly align HRD practices with organization capabilities can have a
negative impact on HRD effectiveness. A policy of seeking maximum alignment negatively
impacts on the comprehensiveness, excellence and provision for all which constitute effective
HRD.
An alternative interpretation is that the study shows that an alignment gap is good for effective
HRD, and patterns in the data which suggest aspects of being an ‘odd couple’ rather than soul
mates should be nurtured and sustained. The most frequently aligned organization capabilities
and HRD practices are ‘compete’, then collaborate and control, with ‘create’ the least well
aligned. The value most frequently seen as an incongruent alignment is ‘control’.
The ‘odd couple’ conclusion matters as HRD effectiveness matters and is a concern for a number
of reasons. In the biggest picture this is part of the exploration of ways to recover and grow in an
19
19
era of austerity, when previous social or organizational options for stimulating growth through
human capital investments are constrained given public finances being stuck as they are in
negative dynamics. It is though also relevant for those currently experiencing growth, especially
through low-wage and low-skill growth embedded. For organizations and stakeholders operating
in either of these contexts the effectiveness of HRD is not a marginal concern, and the benefits
of ‘odd couple’ relations when promoting and delivering HRD. There is more at stake than
collaborating on shaving, or indeed slicing, some costs from training budgets. Connecting
discussions about core value in the organization (Lepak, Smith & Taylor 2007) and HRD can
help to keep debates in HRD in touch with changing organizational and stakeholder realities.
Odd couple dynamics and conflicts will always be most striking when associated with a
dominant form of value, given that is integral to operational and strategic performance and
organizational culture. Other aspects of ‘odd couple’ relations and conflict to manage may be
significant too though in an auxiliary way. Tertiary aspects of conflict will be those which are
present to a lesser degree, and less of a challenge. A tertiary odd couple conflict would be one
which is occasionally significant , with HRD for this is managed variably, rarely focused on and
practiced. Finally, with aspects of ‘odd couple’ relations that are not evidently central to the
success of an organization there can be inferior conflicts, with these peripheral to the
organization.
Ultimately these odd couple conflicts can provide evidence for, and raise awareness of, the
different priorities and challenges which matter in HRD. In terms of methods, previous
descriptions of HRD effectiveness do not allow patterns across organizations to be examined.
20
20
This approach does, and so allows stakeholders to explore critically more than the internal
espousal of ideals of a commitment to human development in employment. It is a framework
intended to open up and explore what is actually being done to achieve effective human
development in work given conflicting demands. This is of concern to the HRD research and
teaching communities, and managers and professionals concerned with the operational and
strategic management of human development. More broadly it is of concern in advancing policy
and practice for promoting economic growth and social progress through sustaining and
improving organizational efforts for human development.
Strategically, and in the longer term, the risk of ineffective HRD is to the sustainability of the
organization. Operationally the pressure on engaging effectively in HRD may erode competence
and ultimately contribute to organizational failure. It becomes all the more significant then to be
able to describe and evaluate the management of growth through meeting potentially conflicting
demands in HRD practice in a detailed and critical way. HRD practice is to be viewed in terms
of not only aligning with the core value in the present, but also anticipating and preparing for
future developments with insight.
In these hard and difficult times the resilience of HRD as central to organizational success, may
be seen in action. The interest is not in seeking to expose a merely rhetorical commitment to
HRD which evaporates when the going gets tough; the interest is in seeking to shed light on how
the authentic ambitions many share for HRD can be sustained in tougher times.
21
21
Some employers may respond by cutting spending on HRD; and risk the loss of momentum on
the specific economic, social and wider benefits of HRD as they deal with day-to-day survival
issues. Others may seek to develop refreshed strategies for adapting to and surviving recession
that include focusing on raising skills and HRD as a key ingredient in those strategies. At the
same time individuals may see such hard economic periods as an opportunity to devote more
time to their personal HRD. Whether cutting back, re-orienting, or increasing HRD the
underlying question, for employers is alignment with what is essential to have. Some perception
of alignment can be believed to provide the answer, or the compass on effectiveness to help
orient stakeholders on a way through difficult decisions in hard times.
Revised Hypotheses to explore in theory and in further research to explain the association of
HRD effectiveness with partial alignment and the relations of the ‘odd couple’ rather than soul
mates would include the following;
H1r; Full Alignment is negative as it leads to an over-concentration ; Full alignment is
driven by ‘dominant’ organization concerns, not anticipating and moving on areas of
auxiliary and tertiary concern;
H2r; Loose-fit is positive; being an odd couple gives greater scope for sharper insight
into good strategic objectives that helps with best focussing HRD
H3r; Emergent Re-balancing is positive; where is always an active and emerging sense
of conflict and difference there is re-balancing and more attention is given to HRD than
when a sense of being fully aligned exists.
22
22
H4r; Misperceptions of odd couples; those whose perceptions are of partial alignment
are systematically misperceiving HRD Effectiveness, they emphasise their differences but
really they are the same
H5r; Reciprocal Counterbalancing; where and when one capability becomes dominant
the others are neglected and then are perceived as problems and so attention moves to
them
The study provides that evidence that HRD can be evaluated, measured and associated with the
alignment of organization values and choices made about HRD practices. This can advance our
understanding of the complex issues encountered in understanding how and where HRD
resources and priorities need to be focused and perhaps in many circumstances to be dynamically
refocused.
It is evident there are many organizations surprisingly where the odd couple seems to be made up
of people sharing the dominant organizational value of ‘control’, yet with HRD practices
associated with the value of ‘compete’. For an organization oriented on ‘control’ requires
predictability, consistency and standardization for quality, yet HRD focuses more on change at
‘speed’, aiming at producing short-term results for key shareholders (profitability or meeting
targets for public sector organizations) , as that is what ‘compete’ means and requires. Is this the
odd coupling of the future in which HRD will need to work and prosper ?
23
23
References
Anderson.V. 2009. Desperately seeking alignment: reflections of senior line managers and HRD
executives. Human Resource Development International. 12(3): 263-277
Ashbrook (2011) Qualifications and Employers Views; Final Report, The Scottish Qualifications
Authority/ The Alliance of Sector Skills Councils
Bassi, L., McMurrer, D. 2008. Toward a human capital measurement methodology. Advances in
Developing Human Resources. 10(6): 863-881
Bates, R., Chen, H. 2004. Human resource development value orientations: a construct validation
study. Human Resource Development International. 7(3) 351—70.
Bates, R., Chen, H. 2005. Value priorities of human resource development professionals.
Human Resource Development Quarterly. 16 (3): 345-368
Baumard, P., P Starbuck, W. 2006. Is organizational learning a myth? Aim, Executive Briefing
Blass, E. 2009. Talent Management: Cases and Commentary. London: Palgrave Macmillan,
Cameron, K.S., Quinn, R.E., Degraff, J., Thakor, A. 2006. Competing Values Leadership ;
Creating Value in Organizations. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
24
24
Chivers, G. 2011. Supporting informal learning by traders in investment banks. Journal of
European Industrial Training. 35 (2). 154-175
CIPD. 2010. Shared purpose: the golden thread ? Chartered Institute of Personnel &
Development Report. London: CIPD.
Degraff, J. & Quinn, S. E. 2007. Leading innovation. New York: McGraw Hill.
Fisher, C. (2005) HRD attitudes: or the roles and ethical stances of human resource developers,
Human Resource Development International. 8 (2): 239 – 255.
Garavan, T. 2007. A strategic perspective on human resource development. Advances in
Developing Human Resources. 9 (1): 11-30.
Grieves, J. 2003. Strategic HRD. London: Sage.
Hamlin, B., Stewart,J. 2011. What is HRD ? A definitional review and synthesis of the HRD
domain. Journal of European Industrial Training. 35 (3): 199-220
Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. 2011. Organizational culture and organizational
effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework's theoretical
suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 677-694.
Hatcher, T. 2002. Ethics and HRD: A new approach to leading responsible organizations.
New York: Basic Books.
25
25
Holton, E. and Naquin, S. 20 0 5. A critical analysis of HRD evaluation models from a decision-
making perspective. Human Resource Development Quarterly.16(2). 257-280 .
Iles, P., Preece, D., Chuai, X. 2010. Talent Management as a management fashion in HRD;
towards a research agenda. Human resource Development International. 13(2): 125-146.
Jun Jo, S., Jeung, C., Park,S. Yoon, S. 2009. Who is citing whom: citation
network analysis among HRD publications from 1990 to 2007. Human Resource Development
Quarterly. 20 (4): 503-537.
Keely, B., 2007. Human Capital; how what you know shapes your life. OECD.
Keep, E., Mayhew, K. 2010. Moving beyond skills as a social and economic panacea.
Work, Employment & Society. 24 (3): 565-577.
Kuchinke, P. 2010. Human development as a central goal for human resource development.
Human Resource Development International. 13(5): 575-585.
Lepak, D. K., Smith, M., Taylor, S. 2007. Value Creation and Value Capture; A Multilevel
Perpective. Academy of Management Review. 32 (1). 180–194.
Mafi, S. 2000. Managing the HRD function and service quality: A call for a new approach.
Human Resource Development Quarterly. 11(1): 81-86
26
26
Mason, G., Bishop, K. 2010. Adult training, skills updating and recession in the UK: The
implications for competitiveness and social inclusion. Centre for Learning and Life Chances
in Knowledge Economies and Societies, Research Paper 10.
Newman, J. 2001. Modernising Governance – New Labour, Policy and Society. London:
Sage.
Park, Y., Jacobs, R. (2011) The influence of investment in workplace learning on learning
outomes and organizational performance, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22 (4),
437-458
Poell,R., van Dam, K., van den Berg, P (2004) Organising Learning in Work Contexts. Applied
Psychology: An International Review.53 (4).529 –540
Russ-eft, D. and Preskill, H. (2005) ‘In Search of the Holy Grail: Return on investment Evaluation
in Human Resource Development’, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7 (1), pp 71-
85.
Russ-Eft, D. F. 2008. Evaluator competencies: standards for the practice of evaluation in
organizations. San Francisco Josey Bass.
Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H., Marshall, M. (2003) The Quantitative measurement of
Organizational Culture in Health Care: A review of the Available Instruments, Health Services
Research, 38:3, 923-945
27
27
Sherlock, D. and Perry, N. 2008. Quality Improvement in Vocational Adult Education and
Training London: Kogan Page.
Short, T., Harris, R. 2010. Human resource development and workplace learning: perspectives
from human resource professionals in New Zealand. Australian Journal of Adult Learning.
50(2): 1-14.
Stewart, J. Rigg, C. 2011. Learning and Talent Development. London, CIPD
Swanson, R.A. and Holton, E. F. 2001. Foundations of human resource development. San
Francisco: Berret-Koehler.
Talbot, C. 2008. Measuring public value; A competing values approach. London: The Work
Foundation
Tseng, C., McLean.N. 2008. Strategic HRD practices as key factors in organizational learning.
Journal of European Industrial Training.32(6): 418-432.
Wang, G., Spitzer, D. 2005. Human resource development measurement and evaluation: looking
back and moving forward. Advances in Developing Human Resources. 7(1): 5-15.
28
28
Streams Scholarly
and Academic
Themes
Pragmatic
and Professional
Themes
Ethical and
Social Themes
Validity and
Reliability Themes
Belief and Value
systems
The role of value
systems in
shaping
behaviour is well
established;
classifying and
measuring
organization and
professional
values
There are at least
two value systems
in the professional
context, and
balancing these can
be a source of
inspiration or
challenge
A value system
measurement approach
can either emphasize
ethical-social aspects
or the psychological-
scientific aspects
The face validity of
measuring beliefs and
value systems is
strong. The variables
involved in measuring
value systems are not
well established.
There are few
empirical studies on
values.
Alignment
Constructs of
strategy are well
established,
though also
contentious;
strategies are
both planned and
emergent.
Tend to focus
attention on higher
level decision-
making and policy
questions and
activities, rather
than operational
levels of
effectiveness
Measurement is
concerned with
internal alignment
more than any ethical
and social concerns
associated with
different kinds of
strategy
The face validity of an
alignment with
strategy is strong. The
variables used to
operationalise strategy
and HRD are diverse
and contested. Case
studies are
predominant, giving
high ecological
validity with low
reliability
Return on
Investment
Critiqued as a
constraining
mindset for
thinking about
HRD as a whole;
focuses on
financial
information and
rationality when
broader
stakeholder
interests are
significant
Sought as a ‘holy
grail’ for credibility
in workplaces, but
often more
metaphysical than
practical
Least concerned with
ethical and social
aspects, most focused
on quantification in
financial forms
The face validity of
ROI in the
organization is strong.
The variables
involved in measuring
actual costs and
benefits are not clear.
Methods of ROI are
debated, though
published studies are
rare.
Figure 1; Streams in Evaluating and Measuring HRD Effectiveness
29
29
Figure 2; GRAPHIC OVERVIEW OF STUDY CONSTRUCTS AND
RELATIONSHIPS
Organization Capabilities Higher
HRD Effectiveness
Lower
HRD Practices
Alignment
Compete
Control
Create
Collaborate
30
30
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither
Agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly
Agree
There is comprehensive
HRD in my workplace � � � � �
There is excellent HRD in
my workplace � � � � �
There is training,
development and learning
for all in my workplace
� � � � �
Figure 3; HRD Effectiveness Items and Scale
Reputation Our reputation depends on outperforming rivals
Our reputation depends on us doing things right
Our reputation depends on us creating the new
Our reputation depends on making progress in good causes
Identity We need to have and maintain competitive advantages
Managing high risks and working safely is critical for us
Innovation and new ideas, services and products are key to our performance
We are a community of talents committed to a common purpose
Leadership
focus
Our leaders are focused on winning
Our leaders are focused on diligence and prudence
Our leaders are focused on creativity and innovation
Our leaders are focussed on having a long term view
Figure 4; Organization Capabilities, Three Items; compete, control, create and
collaborate
31
31
Capabilities
compared
Reputational
Factors
Operational
Performance Factors
Leadership Factors
1 Compete
Control
I think the core purpose of
HRD is
performance concerns would be
seen because
Positive results of HRD are
associated with
Increase
productiv
ity
Safer working financial
targets were
not attained
quality of work
was below
expectations
Productivity
Improvement
quality
Improvements
2 Compete
Create
Our main kind of change is Our culture is one that most
values and rewards
The best motto for why we need HRD
is
a lot of
Fast
change
occasional
Transformation
al change
Meeting
financial
targets
Producing
innovations
Try harder or
we go extinct
Greenhouse the
new, or we
stagnate
3 Compete
Collaborate
We are an organization that
would want to be known for
In HRD we are aware of and
seek to measure
A critical incident exposing HRD as
deficient would be
4 Control
Create
It is most important for us to
learn so that we
If you visit another organization
like yours what would most like
to learn ?
We are most concerned with
encouraging
Keep
abreast of
safety and
quality
issues
Keep abreast of
an emerging
trends
about their
safety and
quality practices
about their
research and
development activity
Specialist
training for
professionals in their fields
Self-directed
learning among
peers working on projects
5 Control
Collaborate
Our success in the future is
most likely based on
What I feel really matters most
about our performance is
Learning new things can feel
challenging here because
continuo
us,
Incremen
tal
change
Keeping talent
together for
long periods
Get it right
and avoid
catastrophic
failure
Work to make a
difference in the
long term
There is a
tradition and a
rigidity about
how things are
done
tendency to
excessive
discussion without
action
6 Create
Collaborate
It is more the case in this
organization that
HRD more often is needed to
support the performance issues
of
We face problems with managing
change because
Skills and
knowledg
e are
dynamic
and
changing
It takes time and effort to
become skilled/
knowledgeable
new teams and new
projects
well established teams and
projects
Change fatigue Time to action being slow as
consensus is
needed
Figure 5 HRD Practice Items by Factor and in Paired Choices
32
32
Employee 51%
Manager 35%
HRD/HRM professional 9%
Other 5%
Table 1 Respondents (N=270)
>2000 39%
501-2000 9%
101-500 21%
21-100 20%
<20 11%
Table 2 Organization Size (N=270)
HRD Effectiveness items Mean
Overall HRD effectiveness 3.6
Item1; There is comprehensive HRD in my workplace 3.9
Item 2; There is excellent HRD in my workplace 3.3
Item 3; There is training and learning for all in my workplace 3.7
Table 4 HRD Effectiveness
Private 76 %
Public 21 %
Social Enterprise 0 %
Other 3 %
Table 3 Organization Sector (N=270)
33
33
Organization Capabilities
Mean,
ranked
by
mean
Control 3.6
Compete 3.5
Create 3.3
Collaborate 3.3
Table 5 Organization Capabilities Ranking
Ranking
Organization Capability Rankings
Competing
(%)
Control
(%)
Creativity
(%)
Collaboration
(%)
156 Dominant 49 47 33 27
87 Auxiliary 20 25 19 22
84 Tertiary 19 16 20 29
73 Inferior 12 12 28 21
100 100 100 100
Table 6 Organization Capability Choices by Ranking *
Factor Item Mean
Control Our leaders are focused on diligence and prudence 3.8
Compete Our leaders are focused on winning 3.6
Compete Our reputation depends on outperforming rivals 3.6
Control Our reputation depends on us doing things right 3.5
Compete We need to have and maintain competitive advantages 3.5
Create Our reputation depends on us creating the new 3.4
Collaborate
We are a community of talents committed to a common
purpose 3.3
Control Managing high risks and working safely is critical for us 3.3
Collaborate Our reputation depends on making progress in good causes 3.3
Create
Innovation and new ideas, services and products are key to
our performance 3.2
Create our leaders are focused on creativity and innovation 3.2
Collaborate Our leaders are focussed on having a long term view 3.2
Table 7 Organization Priority By Means
34
34
Organization Capabilities
compete control create collaboration
HRD 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.4
Manager 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.4
Other 3.8 3.5 3.4 3.5
Table 8; Means for Organization Capabilities by Respondent
Organization Capabilities
compete control create collaborate
<20 3.6 3.8 3.4 3.5
21-100 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.2
101-500 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.3
501-2000 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.3
>2000 3.6 3.6 3.3 3.3
Table 9; Capabilities by Organization Size
Organization Capabilities
compete control create collaborate
Private
sector 3.6 3.5 3.2 3.2
Public
sector 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.3
Other 3.1 3.9 3.2 3.3
Table 10 ; Capabilities by Organization Sector
Forms of HRD Practice
Rankings compete control create collaborate
Dominant 43 24 24 33
Auxiliary 20 22 37 29
Tertiary 20 31 23 20
Inferior 17 23 16 17
Most
dominant Inferior
Auxiliary/
Tertiary
Auxiliary/
Tertiary
Emplo
yee 3.4 3.5
3.
2 3.1
35
35
% of times
chosen
Overall
26.9 22.3 25 25
Table 11; HRD practices % of times chosen at different ranking levels
Organization Capabilities Mean
HRD Practices (% of paired
comparisons)
Dominant; Control 3.6
Not
aligned 22.3 Control; (Inferior)
Auxiliary; Compete 3.5
Not
aligned 26.9 Compete (Dominant)
Tertiary/Inferior; Create 3.3
Not
aligned 25 Create; (Auxiliary/Teritary)
Tertiary/Inferior; Collaborate 3.3
Not
aligned 25 Collaborate (Auxiliary/Tertiary)
Table 12 Organization Priorities for all Organizations by Capabilities and HRD
practices
N=270
HRD
Effectiveness
Mean
Full alignment; two or more ranked same at full and one
degree away 46 3.5
Partial alignment; two ranked same and others two or
more degrees off 40 3.7
Partial alignment lower; only one ranked same 118 3.6
Incongruent alignment; None ranked the same 66 3.6
Table 13 Degrees of Alignment and HRD Effectiveness
