Student Reg.

459312

RELEVANT LITERATURE Who is responsible for managing the employee development has invited unending debate among the HR ! " #riters and pra$titioners. %iterature on human resour$e development seems a little bit polar in this regard. &ertain #riters parti$ularly #ith traditional $areer beliefs emphasise it as an organi'ational domain (organizational perspective)) #hereas the proponents of the $ontemporary version of the $areer are in the favour of the idea that it should be responsibility of the individual ( individual perspective*. +nd there is a third vie# as #ell that re$on$iles these t#o polar vie#s. ,homson et al) 2--1 $onfirm e.isten$e of su$h differing vie#s over employee development responsibility saying that some organi'ations in the past had pla$ed prime responsibility on individuals to loo/ after their o#n development0 others had put this responsibility in the hands of the organi'ation. Ho#ever) over the past de$ade) there had been a migration from these polar e.tremes to a more balan$ed sharing of responsibility bet#een the organi'ation and the individual ($ited in 1rest) 2--2a*. ultiplitude of the vantage points to#ards it broadens and strengthens the $all for debate about the employee development theory. +nd follo#ing the same line of argument) in the essay under vie#) 3 #ill be dis$ussing the responsibility of the employee development from three angles4 1. 3ndividual perspe$tive 2. 5rgani'ation perspe$tive 3. Re$on$iliatory and integrative vie# 1. INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVE ,he first reason of emphasis on the individuals for ta/ing $harge of their o#n development is natural0 being the main agents of their o#n 6ob progress (+rthur) 1992* and o#ners of their $areers) the people themselves should a$t as their 7s$ulptors8 shaping them a$$ording to their o#n needs (9ell et al) 199:*. Sin$e they /no# better about their $apabilities) previous e.perien$e) $urrent position) age) domesti$ $ir$umstan$es) finan$ial situation) lifestyle $hoi$es) and future plans (;a$/son) 2---*) they are supposed to be in better position to ta/e de$isions about their o#n development and $areers. Se$ond reason of emphasis on the individual perspe$tive is the fast $hanging environment in the modern day #orld. <lobalisation) te$hnologi$al advan$es (<reenhaus et. al 1994*) and $ultural $hanges (S$hein 19=4* that led to redundan$ies) simplified and flatter organi'ational stru$tures) disappearan$e of traditional promotional $hannels) repla$ement of the full>time 6obs #ith the part>time ones) short>term $ontra$ts and pro6e$t #or/s

Student Reg. 459312

(9eard#ell et al) 2--10 ,orrington et. al 2--2*) have loosened traditional $ontrol of the organi'ations over the individuals. +mid this un$ertainty and unpredi$tability of the ne# environment (?i$holson 1992* #herein only the fe#er organi'ations are able to guarantee lifetime 6ob se$urity (Waterman et. al 1994) Walton 1999) Harrison 2--5*) the employees are needed to shift their fo$us from employment to#ards employability (Waterman et. al) 19940 Walton) 1999* by means of managing themselves and building up their s/ills) /no#ledge and portfolios (Handy 1994*. ?o# this idea is gaining ground rapidly that maintaining employability or) in other #ords) remaining 7up>to>date8 ( egginson et al 1999* is a profitable investment against ris/ (+rnold) 199:* and is the 7biggest 6ob se$urity8 in un$ertain $ir$umstan$es (@anter) 19=9* sin$e it $onfers on the individuals $areer resilien$e (%ondon 19=3) Herriot 1992* and $areer self>relian$e (Waterman et. al 1994*. ,his in$reasing shift of the fo$us from employment to#ards employability has also shifted the $on$ept of $areer a$$ordingly. ,raditional version of the $areer (Walton) 19990 ,orrington et. al 2--2* that #as based on the old $on$ept of psy$hologi$al $ontra$t (Waterman et al) 1994* and that entailed lifelong hierar$hi$al promotion based employment (@anter 19=90 <reenhause et. al 199=0 Walton 19990 ;a$/son 2---* is fast being repla$ed #ith the $ontemporary version of the individually managed fle.ible $areers #ith different patterns li/e) protean $areers (?oe 2---*) portfolio $areers (Handy 1994*) boundary>less $areers (+rthur 1994*) spiral $areers (+rthur) 1992* and intelligent $areers (&laman et. al 1995* et$. ,hese $on$epts and styles of $areer are based on fle.ible pattern of #or/ing (Harrison 2--5* rather than stati$ employment. With this line of argument) the $on$ept of self>development has be$ome a rising star in the $onstellation of management development in re$ent years ("orrell) 199-*. Self> development is the term used to denote both development of the self and development by the self (1edler) 199-*. ,he first refers to learner $ontrol and self>dire$tion) and is to do #ith empo#ering the learner and de>po#ering the tea$her) trainer) e.pert or e.ternal authority (ibid*. ,he se$ond refers to the dimension of personal gro#th or self> a$tuali'ation as a result of development (ibid*. +rguments in favour of self>development fo$us around self>management (1rest) 2--2a* and self>dire$tedness (@no#les 199-0 9roo/field 19=2* being its pre>reAuisites (Stafylara/is et. al 2--2*. Self>dire$tedness to#ards learning a$tuates among the individuals ta/ing initiative in designing the learning e.perien$es) diagnosing the learning needs) lo$ating resour$es) and evaluating the learning ensued) themselves (@no#les 199-0 Simpson 19=-0 9roo/field 19=2* in andragogi$al rather than pedagogi$al #ay (@no#les 19=-*. +nd it steers the managers) as adult learners) to $apitali'e on the learning opportunities available in and around the 6ob ("ale 1999* shedding their traditional passivity>re$eptivity (Harrison et al) 199:* based a$$usative role and adopting 2

Student Reg. 459312

a$tivity>initiation (ibid* based nominative role) ta/ing $harge of their o#n learning a$$ording to their o#n learning needs identified by themselves rather than by the trainers (,orrington et. al 2--20 9roo/field 19=20 Stafylara/is et. al 2--2*. Resultantly) the individuals #ith self>dire$ted attitude are seen ta/ing greater responsibility in identifying their o#n learning needs and meeting them) often through performing their everyday #or/) monitoring their progress) assessing their out$omes) and reassessing their goals (@no#les) 19=4 ! 199-0 9roo/field) 19=20 Simpson) 19=-0 1edler) 199-0 9eard#ell et al) 2--10 ,orrington et al) 2--2*. egginson et al) (1992* elaborate it little bit more saying that the individuals #ho $hoose to develop themselves have mu$h more motivation to learn and su$$eed than those #ho are instru$ted to learn for something 7good8 for the organi'ation. Robotham (1995* goes still deeper and says that even in traditional training and edu$ation setting) a self>dire$ted learner no longer operates as a passive re$eiver of information) but ta/es responsibility for the a$hievement) and ultimately the setting of learning out$omes) thus) blurring the traditional trainer>trainee divide) as sBhe begins to stru$ture the program proa$tively to mat$h herBhis learning attributes ($ited in 1rest) 2--2a*. 2. ORGANIZATION PERSPECTIVE ,he most $ommon argument in favor of the organi'ation perspe$tive has its origin in the traditional $on$ept of 7o#ning8 the individuals by the organi'ations (Herriot 1992*. 3pso fa$to) the organi'ations are supposed to ta/e the responsibility of planning) managing) and developing the individual employees8 $areers) to ensure that their $ontributions meet the organi'ations8 reAuirements) both no# and in the future (1rest) 2--2b*. Se$ond) fast emerging strategi$ role of the valued /no#ledge #or/ers in attaining the $ompetitive advantage has started a 7#ar>of>talent8 (Harrison 2--5* among the organi'ations. 9ailyn (1992* says that the organi'ations) under pressure for more produ$tivity) in$reasingly need their employees to have a high level of edu$ation and s/ills so that they $an operate ne# te$hnology and $an adapt to $hanging $ir$umstan$es. 3t means the organi'ations $annot afford to abdi$ate their $ommitment to development (Walton) 1999* and abandon the individuals engendering hostility among them ( egginson et al) 1999*) rather they have to remain proa$tive in maintaining their s/ill base and human $apital (Hirsh et al) 1992*. ,he organi'ations are also a#are of the fa$t that dissatisfa$tion #ith the developmental prospe$ts is a ma6or $ause of the turnover (?oe 2---*. So) if they do not pay heed to the developmental needs of the individuals and they get frustrated out of the absen$e of the gro#th dire$tion) it is possible that they may turn into liabilities over them either through poor performan$e or voluntary termination (<reenhaus et. al 1994*. 1rest (2--2a* 3

Student Reg. 459312

advan$es this point saying that 7#here individuals are left to identify their o#n needs or to find a$$ess to solutions #ithout support) there is danger that they may not find the motivation to follo# through the pro$ess) parti$ularly #here they have benefited from employer>managed support in the past. +lternatively) there is a danger that they #ill manage their o#n self>development in a dire$tion that is not in line #ith organi'ational strategy.8 ,he $on$lusion is that if more and more organi'ations ta/e the similar vie# of 7it is up to you8) learning is li/ely to be sAuee'ed out and be$ome one of those things people are supposed to do in their o#n time (Honey) 2--2*. 1ut in other #ay) leaving up to the #hims of the individuals alone) may ma/e the pro$ess of self>development dire$tionless (Walton) 1999* and 7illusory8 mas/ed by the individuals8 false $ons$iousnesses and 7invisible8 ego defen$es (1edler) 199-*) and su$h learning does not ne$essarily bring any $ontribution to the organi'ation ( egginson et al) 1999*. @no#les (19=-* li/e protagonist of self>dire$ted learning even does not hesitate to say that the organi'ations $annot be in position to allo# the learner total $ontrol over #hat is to be a$hieved rather they need to spe$ify #hat out$omes are e.pe$ted of the learners. He (ibid* further says that the learners should not be thro#n into the strange #aters of self>dire$ted learning and hope they $an s#im rather) they should be $aringly and $arefully prepared for the 6ourney into andragogy. ,his point is more relevant to the developing $ountries li/e 1a/istan #here ma6ority of the individuals do not #ant greater self>$ontrol over their development. 9eing more sustenan$e>driven and dependen$y and se$urity oriented (<ellerman 19=-* in general) they prefer lifeline $ash se$urity) and smooth and predi$table move along the hierar$hy that is possible only through organi'ationally based $areers (<reenhause et al) 19940 Walton) 19990 ;a$/son) 2---0 ,orrington et al) 2--2*. ,o these people) the $on$epts of employability) portfolio $areers and boundary>less $areers that persuade the individuals to brea/ the organi'ational leash) $annot be sold nor are they appropriate for them (+rthur et. al 1999*. +nother point that $alls for a$tive role of the organi'ations in matters of employee development is that the individuals #ill in fa$t need organisational support in managing their learning and development. 3t is be$ause of the fa$t that all the individuals are neither #illing nor able to ta/e responsibility of their learning and development eAually ( umford et. al 2--4*) and nor are they same on the s$ale of desire for self>development (1edler et. al 1994*. Rather they differ on the grounds of their individual features li/e gro#th>need level (Ha$/man 19::*) degree of self>dire$tedness (@no#les 199-) Simpson 19=-*) biologi$al fa$tors (9roo/field et. al 19=2*) ability to brea/ the mental models of previous e.perien$es (Smith 19=2*) la$/ of re$ognition that a learning need e.ists

Student Reg. 459312

( umford et. al 2--4*) learning styles (Honey et. al 19=9*) and learning ability (Harrison) 199:* et$. ,hese fa$tors affe$ting the degree of learning by the individuals are $olle$tively $alled 7learning territory8 (Culler et al) 2--4* or 7baggage8 ( ar$hington) 1992* of the individual learners. Sin$e every individual has its uniAue learning territory and baggage) it #ill be dangerous to assume eAual level of self>dire$tedness for learning and development among all the individuals (9rundage et al) 19=-* and the organi'ations are reAuired to $ome up for help to the people individually. 3. RECONCILIATORY AND INTEGRATIVE VIEW 3 see a #ay out to this $hallenge implied in the integrated and shared approa$h to#ards employee development (Walton) 1999* that in$orporates needs of the both organi'ation and the individuals amidst $hallenges of the ne# realities) and $reates a good degree of symbiosis) re$ipro$ity (Herriot 1992) +rthur et. al 1999*) mutual $ommitment (Harrison 2--5* and good fit (Herriot et. al) 1992* bet#een them) a$hieving a D#e8re>in>togetherE (;a$/son 2---* state of e.isten$e. ,he #riters li/e (@no#les 199-0 Hens$hel 19930 Walton 19990 umford 2--4* support this argument #ith their vie# that the individuals8 initiative #ill be of greater gain if they are provided #ith supporting environment) are ta/en in humanisti$ #ay by the organi'ations in the terms of $<regor8s ,heory F (Stafylara/is et. al 2--2*) are allo#ed opportunity to venture ( ann 1999*) and have dis$retion and fle.ibility of #or/ based on feedba$/ ("ra/e 1995* rather than being foisted on a $oo/boo/ of methods or transfer models for learning from the outside (Hens$hel 1993*. ,his vie# loo/s e.tension of that of Stuart (19=4* #ho says that the attempts to help managers develop their abilities to e.ploit the full potential for learning offered by their on>the>6ob a$tivities) pays higher dividends. 9illett (2--4* also supports it saying that sin$e learning is interdependent bet#een the individuals8 parti$ipation and #or/pla$e affordan$es) instead of remaining informal) providing #or/pla$e support to the individuals gives the pro$ess of learning $ontinuity. 9ut it is paramount to mention that organi'ational support is sought only to provide dire$tion to the self>development endeavours of the individuals (1edler et al) 1994* and not $urbing their ingenuity and de$ision>ma/ing through trying to impart them learning on the stimulus>response theory basis (Harrison) 2--5* in traditional paternalisti$ style (Clippo) 19:2*. Ste#art (1992* advan$es this vie# and says that the traditional approa$hes to#ards employee development have the effe$t of 7tea$hing8 dependen$y be$ause of #hi$h the individuals do not learn to thin/ and a$t independently but rather 5

Student Reg. 459312

learn to rely on others to provide dire$tion. +nd he (ibid* e.horts that the approa$h to employee development should refle$t prin$iple of involvement and should en$ourage the development of independen$e) innovation and responsibility. 3n pra$ti$e the organi'ations $an underta/e numerous interventions to provide assisted development ( ayo) 1991* to the employees. +mong them are $ompeten$y profiling of the 6obs (Shellabear) 2--2*) the personal development plans (+rmstrong) 2---*) and the personal learning $ontra$ts (@no#les) 199-0 Harri>+ugstein et al) 19950 ,orrington) 2--2*. &ompeten$y profiling ma/es the individuals do their self>s$rutiny (,homas et al) 19=9* and lets them /no# #hat spe$ialised s/ills) /no#ledge) attitudes and behaviour are ne$essary to fulfilling a tas/) and also enables them to assess their ability and re$ogni'e development areas (Shellabear) 2--2*. 1ersonal development plans and personal learning $ontra$ts) on the other hand) are the interventions that fa$ilitate targeted employee learning and development level agreed upon mutually bet#een the individuals and their managers through guidan$e) en$ouragement and support from the latter as reAuired (+rmstrong) 2---*. 9esides) $oa$hing ( egginson et al) 19:9*) mentoring (&lutterbu$/) 1991*) assessment and development $entres (,orrington et al) 2--2*) $areer $ounselling and $areer #or/shops (;a$/son) 2---0 ,orrington et al) 2--2*) su$$ession planning (;a$/son) 2---* et$etera are the interventions that bring about both e.ternal as #ell as internal $areer gro#th (S$hein 1993) Fahuda 2--4* to the employees and $reate re$ipro$ity and mutuality bet#een the individuals and the organi'ations (Harrison) 199:* #hereby the employees may offer high produ$tivity and total $ommitment in e.$hange for the employers offering enhan$ed employability through enabling them to develop s/ills that are in demand (,orrington et. al 2--2*.