Top 6 HRD Interventions For Any Organization

Top 6 HRD Interventions for any organization
Mar 2, 2015
5,201 views
10 Likes
0 Comments
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
The following are the most ROI giving interventions for any
organization which should be applied for Long run.
Competency Mapping Exercise: Map the competencies for the
entire organization. Use participative process. Use facilitators to
initiate the exercise. This intervention needs specialists in behavioral
science. Ascertain the qualifications of the facilitator. The facilitator
should have skills in identifying knowledge attitudes, skills, and
knowledge of competency mapping techniques. The competency
mapping by itself is a participative process. When mapped and the
competencies are used for organization wide interventions it
becomes an OD intervention. Competency mapping and designing
competency based HR systems is one of the most ROI giving
interventions if taken to logical end. By virtue of its linkages with
other HR systems it is a whole system involving exercise.
Start from the top.
Top management should know the purpose and importance of CM.
They should be involved in setting the vision and strategic plan.
Use Behavioral science specialists and knowledge. Unless
educationists trained in CM are used it may be hijacked into other
directions.
Use sequential approach. CM should start with diagnosis. What is

lacking because of lack of role directory, role clarity, team work,
capability shortage, succession planning? What a right diagnosis can
help? Use participative approach. Develop internal resource. Explain
the importance of CM to all levels. Disengage after competency
based HR systems one in place.
Use multiple interventions, workshops, seminars; interviews, task
forces etc. conduct it for all levels.
Demonstrate how it leads to organizational effectiveness and
change. Link it with all other systems recruitment, induction, PMS
Etc.
Leadership Development Programs (Using 360 Degree
Feedback and climate Surveys) : A number of organization use
leadership development in-house based on the 360 Degree
feedback. The usual design is to start with a competency framework
and develop a leadership and managerial effectiveness tool. This
tool is then used to get individual assessments made for the top
level, senior level and middle level executives. 360 Degree feedback
profiles are prepared based on the assessments of juniors, seniors,
internal and external customers of the candidate along with self
assessment. The assessments are summarized and graphically
presented to help the candidate get an insight into his/her own
behavior and leadership competencies. The profiles are then given
to the candidates individually and perhaps in a workshop form. The
candidates are then assisted to prepare action palms and make
commitments to change. The level-wise (HOD, General Manager,
Vice-presidents etc.) or the group-wise trends of the feedback are
shared and development activities undertaken by the HR

department. For example if most participants need to be vision
driven or systems driven then a series of programs to develop their
vision or systems orientation are made and a training intervention
undertaken. Individual coaching also becomes part of the
intervention.
Assessment and Development Centers : ADCs have begun as
potential assessment tools. Over a period of time they have
acquired the potential as competency building tools. They are being
used for identifying high fliers, succession planning and promotion
tools. Though they are tools with limited purpose they can be used
for larger purposes including culture change. However, when they
are used for larger purposes they should be used as culture building
tools. Creating a competency culture, high performance culture,
leadership culture are some of the higher goals. However they
should be supplemented with other interventions like climate
surveys, succession planning etc. The limitations of ADCs as
predictive tools should be explained. Organizations like Aditya Birla
Group in private sector in NTPC, HPCL etc. in public sector have used
these interventions to bring systematic changes. Most organizations
however make the mistake of frequently changing consultants.
Mostly they bring Consultants for specific interventions and as a
result synergistic effect is lost. Some consultants are also shy of
getting into long term contracts to bring change. Short term
interventions have better remuneration possibilities for consultants
but may have a limited impact.
Performance Appraisal Interventions: PMS is a great change

tool. However most organization treat it merely as a system to
manage people or as a human resource management system than
as a change management system. The potential of this tool has
been grossly underestimated and attention paid to this and
investments made on this are extremely small. The most important
investment it requires is a managerial time. The even this time is a
mere 1% to 5% of each managers time in a year to plan, review,
and develop the performance, competencies and culture of
individuals, dyads, teams and the organization as a whole.
Understand the potential of PMS.
Examine the multiple objectives of PMS and choose the objectives
that are manageable in a short span and in the long run.
Use a participative approach. Get top management commitment.
Help them to experience how it helps them focus their work, plan
time and maximize their impact.
PMS facilitator should be knowledgeable in behavioral sciences. The
person should be process sensitive, know goal setting, identify Key
Performance Areas KPAs, difference between KPAs & KRAs (Key
result Areas), force field analysis, coaching, biases in ratings etc.
The interventions may include education program, training internal
resource persons etc.
A good PMS can create new culture of transparency, integrity, and
promote OCTAPACE values mentioned earlier. The intervention
should be system driven and should involve the whole system.
HRD intervention is a process much more complex than accounting because the former
involves dynamic human behaviors. Benefits derived from HRD intervention often
tangle with the impact of other organizational variables.
Thus, ROI measurement for HRD programs requires identifying the HRD benefits and
separating them from other impacts, if the ROI measurements are to be accurate (Wang,
2000).
The task of conducting rigorous and reliable ROI evaluation of training exceeds the
resources and expertise of most organizations. Cost-effective ROI evaluation of training
must
overcome
the
following
challenges
and
obstacles:
Attribution of Effects to training is very difficult due to the influence on firm

performance of a complex myriad of other factors. Variables such as markets, revenues,
costs, interest rates and many other factors enter into profit determination, making it
difficult to isolate the impact of any incremental training expenditure. Most ROI figures
aren't precise, though they tend to be as accurate as many other estimates that
organizations
routinely
make.
Evaluation is complicated by serious problems with data collection and

measurement.
Costs of Training are generally known up front, often before the training takes
place, but benefits may accrue slowly over time and may depend on such unpredictable
factors
as
turnover
rates
among
workers
who
are
trained.
Objectives of Training are often murky and the rate of return cannot be measured
if
the
meaning
of
return
cannot
be
defined
in
quantifiable
terms.
Cultural Resistance may be the main reason ROI is not measured for training.
Some managers view ROI studies simply as promotion and marketing by the training
department. Moreover, the "best practice" companies in terms of training are often the
most resistant, accepting the value of training as an article of faith.
High Costs of Evaluation can be a major barrier, especially if they exceed the
benefits
from
training.
Informal Training and Learning-by-Doing, which are important sources of

learning, are embedded in production and, therefore, very difficult to measure.
The Inability to Attribute Causation to the training from before and after
comparisons due to the lack of a valid control group.
(Richard L. Tucker Robert W. Glover, Ph.D. Donald W. Long Carl T. Haas, Ph.D., P.E. Christine Alemany, 1999)
In addition, from an academic perspective, the three central problems are -
Obtaining
accurate
Measuring
Isolating
benefits
the
measures
without
impact
of
the
of
the
relying
training
on
on
full
subjective
changes
in
costs.
estimates.
performance.
To have most confidence in their results, academics evaluators favour Comprehensive

Evaluation Designs with components including a Process Evaluation, an Impact
Analysis,
Analysis
of
Participant
Existing
Perspectives,
and
Benefit-Cost
Measurement
Analysis.
Models
Measurement of the impact of HRD interventions have attracted significant research till
date,
some
of
the
works
in
these
areas
have
been:
Kirkpatrick's
Swanson
four
and
Hamblin's
Holton's
and
level
Cost
Benefit
model.
Analysis
Phillips's
model.
ROI
models.
Cascio's Utility Analysis model.

However, most of the evaluation models used in HRD have virtually ignored the
probabilistic nature of outcome's occurring. In utility terms, the expected utility is a
function of both the possible returns and the probability of those returns occurring.
Subjective Expected Utility acknowledges that in organizations, those probabilities are
rarely known, so they must be estimated subjectively by the decision maker. For
example, given the relatively poor track record of learning interventions transferring
into performance improvement, decision makers might view investments in training as
risky even though the possible returns are large. In organizations with a history of poor
outcomes from HRD interventions, the subjective expected utility could be very low
despite high forecasted ROIs. (Elwood F. Holton III, Sharon Naquin, 2005)
Key
Limitations
of
Existing
Accounting
Based
ROI
Models
First, current accounting equations for ROI analysis only deal with parameters having
dollar values. For intangible measures such as customer or employee satisfaction or ROI
measurement for an organization whose business objectives are not necessarily
measured in dollar values (government agency, military, or other nonprofit
organization),
the
current
ROI
approach
is
inapplicable.
Despite the strong need for intangible measurement in these organizations (J. Yan,
Personal Communication, April 16, 2000), practical approaches for such measurements
are
seldom
discussed
in
the
HRD
literature.
Second, business outcome can often be attributed to HRD programs plus many other
concurrently intervening variables. However, the current ROI approach fails to separate
true HRD program impact from other intervening variables. Although some general
guidelines have been discussed (Phillips, 1997a, 1997b), lack of rigorous methodology
for isolating HRD impact and separating it from other variables remains a major
obstacle for further ROI research and practices. In some cases, a control-group
approach may be a remedy. Yet in many cases the control-group approach may not be
applicable.
Furthermore, the current judgment-based dollar value estimation for "total benefit" to
obtain the numerator for the accounting ROI equations is rather ironic in the HRD field.
By definition, HRD as a profession is intent on improving competency-based
performance
(Gilbert,
1978).
Yet the participants who are asked to assign a dollar value, along with a confidence
percentage, to an HRD program may or may not be qualified to do so. The ROI results
obtained in this fashion can be not only subjective but also misleading. Such ROI
results, if serving top management in making HRD-related investment decisions, may
jeopardize the long-term credibility of HRD intervention.
The diverse situation in HRD interventions for many types of organizations and the
dilemma in existing ROI measurement approaches have led some practitioners to
search for a non-quantitative approach to circumventing the ROI issue. Return on
expectations (McLinden and Trochim, 1998) is one example of such an alternative.
As has been noted in several studies (Holton, 1996; Kaufman and Keller, 1994), if HRD
is to grow as a discipline and a profession it is vital to develop a rigorous, credible and a
comprehensive
How
evaluation
ROI
and
in
measurement
HR
is
system.
Different
From the preceding discussions, it is clear that ROI measurement in HRD may be
approached by integrating inter-disciplinary efforts with HRD realities and
characteristics. The field of HRD itself is inter-disciplinary, after all (Rothwell and Sredl,
1992; Swanson and Holton, 2001), Investment and returns in the HRD field differ
significantly from those in the accounting and financial world in several aspects; hence,
ROI
measurement
for
HRD
is
more
than
simply
an
accounting
issue.
Following are certain issues which need to be considered while developing integrated
ROI
models
for
HRD
interventiosns:
1. HRD investment is not an investment in fixed assets. Rather, it involves a learning

process with subsequent behavior change and performance improvement (McLagan,
1989; Rothwell and Sredl, 1992). How much one can learn and how successfully one
may apply the learned skills on the job depends on many variables: past learning
experience,
education
background,
work
experience,
and
the
like.
2. The impact of learning application on final business results often interacts with
factors at organizational and environmental levels, such as organization culture and
market
conditions
(Wang,
2000).
3. The benefit of HRD intervention may take on a value other than monetary. The
purpose of some HRD programs is to change participant behavior, which can rarely be
measured in dollars. Many studies have shown that behavior change may or may not
lead
to
change
in
productivity
(Pritchard,
1992).
Considering the characteristics of ROI in the HRD field, it is required to redefine return
on investment for an HRD program as any economic returns, monetary or non
monetary, that are accrued through investing in the HRD interventions. Monetary
returns refer to those that can be measured and expressed in dollar values; nonmonetary returns apply to any other returns that have economic impact on the business
results but may not be explicitly expressed in dollar values. Examples of non-monetary
return are such parameters as customer satisfaction and employee job satisfaction.
Concluding the above discussion, we can say that this field of HR measurements is still
in its infancy and would evolve with time.

Top 6 HRD Interventions For Any Organization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Top 6 HRD Interventions For Any Organization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Top 6 HRD Interventions For Any Organization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Top 6 HRD Interventions for any organization

Use sequential approach. CM should start with diagnosis. What is

shared and development activities undertaken by the HR

Performance Appraisal Interventions: PMS is a great change

Attribution of Effects to training is very difficult due to the influence on firm

Evaluation is complicated by serious problems with data collection and

Informal Training and Learning-by-Doing, which are important sources of

In addition, from an academic perspective, the three central problems are -

To have most confidence in their results, academics evaluators favour Comprehensive

Cascio's Utility Analysis model.

1. HRD investment is not an investment in fixed assets. Rather, it involves a learning

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.