Human Resource Development Assignment Semester-II

Models of Human Resource Development

SUBMITTED BY: AZIM AKHTER M.A. HRM (SEMESTER-II) DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA
1|Page

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT: AN OVERVIEW OF MODELS

INTRODUCTION
A recent Secretary of the Navy frequently reminded his staff that "People are our most important resource." The subject of this chapter is how human resource models help the military departments manage their people so that the United States can meet its defense commitments. The overview paper developed and illustrated some general principles about models and contrasted model types by specific area of application. This chapter illustrates the general principles by highlighting the different types of human resource models, and points out problems that model builders should consider when they develop new models of this type.

MODEL FOR HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Major Companies Small Businesses Ventures

Prediction For Human Resources

Internship

Certification

Re-training

Supply Engineers

Universities

Government Research Institutes

Training Centers

2|Page

Some of the important aspects of Human Resource models: (1) The basic nature of human (2) The various types of human resource models; (3) A look at the future of human resource modeling.

THE NATURE OF HUMAN RESOURCE MODELS

The reader will note that we use the term "human resource" rather than "manpower." In the military services, the terms "manpower," "personnel," "training," and "assignment" refer to systems that constitute separate organizational entities and management processes by which people are brought together with a weapon or support system in specific jobs to produce something called national defense. Though each system and the models that support it conceptually have their place in an integrated process of human resource management, little has been actually been done to develop the interactive models into a single human resource system. Following common usage, we will define the separate systems and later return to the notion of an integrated system for managing human resources. Usually, the system is viewed as:
Manpower: the process of determining the numbers and types of people necessary

to accomplish a given task.

Personnel: the process of managing people, either directly by management action

or indirectly through incentives that affect behavior, so that an appropriate type of person, as defined by the manpower process, is available to be "assigned" to a given unit.
Assignment: the process by matching members of the available pool of personnel

to specific jobs.
Training: the process by which a person who has specific skills or attributes is

given a new set.

3|Page

Human resource modelsfor instance, and personnelare basically different from the combat models discussed in other chapters. Like logistics models, human resource models tend not to be built to support one-time policy decisions; rather, they have become integral parts of the process of managing human resources. For example, models are used to determine how many people will be recruited and promoted each month, how much they will be paid, and where they will be used. Unlike logistics models, the use of human resource models in personnel management is not new. Moreover, human resource models focus on the resource that is hardest to model, control, or predictpeople. This places special demands on the modeler. All human resource modelers must determine

How to describe people and what type of aggregation scheme to use. How to take account of the fact that, unlike other resources, people learn and modify their behavior in response to changing both factors, exogenous and endogenous.

Aggregation
Any attempt to model a human resource process starts with a decision to describe people according to a well defined aggregation scheme. The basic building block in a military human resource model is the occupational classification structure. In the Army and Marine Corps, the building block is the Military Occupation Specialty (MOS); in the Air Force, the Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC); and in the Navy, a Rating. Regardless of nomenclature, each occupational classification system is an aggregation of tasks into jobs, jobs into positions, positions into occupations, occupations into career fields, and career fields into occupational groups.

What should be noted is:

That each level is a somewhat arbitrary aggregation of an underlying structure. That once a level of aggregation is chosen for a model, variations in the substructure must

be ignored.
4|Page

 That the usefulness of a model is directly related to the appropriateness of the aggregation

scheme. There are many examples of human resource models at each level of aggregation. The Services have incorporated data about individual tasks as part of the "Instructional Systems Development" process for designing new training programs. The President's Commission on Military Compensation (PCMC), by contrast, used models that aggregated military personnel into cells containing all officers and all enlisted personnel for each year-of-service; for example, all officers in a given year-of service were assumedregardless of their backgroundto react in the same way to given changes in retirement policy. A faulty aggregation scheme may lead to unexpected results. The Air Force assumes that all journeyman avionics mechanics (AFSC 32672A) are homogeneous in their skills and "universally" assignable with equal effectiveness. To all models of the F-lll, F-15, and F-16, there is some evidence that differences in the tasks that make up the specific jobs on the different aircraft make this assumption invalid. The other Services make assignment on more specific classification structure which reflects training and experience on specific equipment. The Navy's Naval Enlisted Classification Code (NEC), for example, is used in conjunction with ratings to match people to specific jobs. Behavior The second problem that human resource modelers must face before they start building their models is how to account for people's ability to learn and change their behavior in response to factors incorporated in the model. Many human resource models use historical data on human responses deterministically, instead of realizing that the observed responses represent patterns of behavior that will themselves change as endogenous factors in the model change. This practice is illustrated by personnel planning models that use the transition probability obtained from historical records that an officer will move over time from the n year-of-service cell to the n+1 year ofservice cell. The model and the historic transition probability are used to explore the effect such policy changes as variations in promotion opportunities and tenure rules have on the officer profile.

5|Page

Yet the very act of changing the tenure rules or promotion opportunities alters not only the policy parameters of the model, but also the underlying transitional probabilities. Failure to account for human behavior compromises seriously the usefulness of the model.

HUMAN RESOURCE MODELS

Manpower Models Manpower requirements models are designed to tell the human resource planner how many of what types of people are needed to produce given levels of output. Models range from large-scale simulation types to Statistical models that show the numbers and types of people historically used to accomplish a measured amount of work. Simulation models tend to explore manning situations beyond the range of direct observation. By and large, industrial engineering approaches, which emphasize statistical analysis of workload and manpower actually employed, have gained broad acceptance as the prime tools for determining manpower requirements.

Conceptually, simulation models provide many advantages over traditional industrial engineering approaches. The structure of this simulation model enabled researchers to develop manpower requirements as a function of such elements as flying schedule, component reliability, and frequency of repair and to relate manpower explicitly to projected system output, such as sorties flown and ship operations. Unfortunately, simulations are often limited by the poor quality of the basic data.

SAMSON, developed by the Rand Corporation, is one such case. By at least one account noted in 1968, the quality of data from the Air Force's AFM 66-1 system was so poor that it was unable to support the simulations. (Ten years later, when this author had occasion to try to use the same 66-1 data, inconsistencies and incompleteness of the same data frustrated the analysis.)

All too often, simulation models prove the adage, "garbage-in/garbage out." The usefulness of a model may well be limited by inability to obtain reliable data with which to estimate its parameters. The analyst needs to give as much attention to the data he "feeds" his model as to the model itself. When someone offers a source of data which reportedly collects everything for all
6|Page

subjects, as the 66-1 data does for Air Force and 3M data for the Navy, a wise analyst will run and hide. In general, there is nothing so useless as an unreliable census. A carefully controlled and managed sample will almost always provide more reliable and usable information than an undisciplined census. A more common approach to developing manpower requirements falls under the heading of industrial engineering. Commonly, multiple regression statistical techniques are used to establish the relationship between work performed/output produced and the observed level of employment. Data used in the statistical analysis reflect the observed variation in the output and employment levels across a given type of unit, or over time, or both. Here lies a major problem. Having a statistically derived manpower factor that relates, for example, engine overhauls to manpower required is of only limited use to manpower planners. Planners must also identify the factors that determine the number of overhauls that will be performed in a given period. Attempts have been made to develop comprehensive planning systems for manpower requirements. The Navy's Manpower Mobilization System (NAMMOS) is a computer-assisted manpower system used by Navy planners and programmers to determine scenario-dependent requirement for mobilization manpower. Industrial engineering workload algorithms, however, account for only 54 percent of the Navy's mobilization manpower requirement. Fixed manning tables account for 28 percent of the manpower, with 18 percent of the total requirement related to policy judgment. A serious problem with both simulation models and industrial engineering statistical relationships as tools for determining manpower requirements is their general and often implicit assumption that the total manpower requirement is a direct function of the amount of work to be done, no consideration being given to the possibility of combining different types of labor to produce the same level of output at a differentand often lowercost. Important questions of labor-labor substitutions are generally ignored. An important application of economic research to questions of manpower requirements is use of the Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) production function and estimates of enlisted
7|Page

personnel productivity for a number of military occupations. Specifically, recent studies show the possibilities of increasing productivity with different mixes of labor. In general, higher skill occupations tend to over utilize first termers, and lower-skill occupations tend to underutilize them. Moreover, though the present overall ratio of first-termers to career people falls within the range that would be selected on the basis of economic efficiency, the distributions within specific occupations are not.

Personnel Models
The traditional feature of military personnel systems is that it has an "in-at-the-bottom, up-throughthe-ranks" structure. These systems are frequently modeled as a Markovian process, where movement through the system is determined by a set of transitional probabilities. These probabilities are either explicit policyonly a specified percentage of a cohort will be allowed to pass to the next yearor averages of observed behavior over time. In general application today, personnel planners and managers use three kinds of models: steady state, dynamic, and transition. The most common model is the static or steady-state model, in which the entire flow system is in equilibrium; i.e., the total number of people who enter the system is equal to the number who leaves. Although such models help us understand the long-run effects of policy changes on personnel profiles, they do not show how today's personnel profile will look next year, if the transition probabilities are modified, directly by policy or indirectly through incentives and behavior. Dynamic model It takes a given, non-equilibrium distribution of personnel and applies a Markovian process to obtain a new personnel profile for a specific period in the future. Thus, though the steady-state/ equilibrium solution is not calendar specific, the results of a dynamic model do change from period to period.

8|Page

In real-world applications, desirable steady-state policy solutions are often rejected when the nearterm effects, as determined by applying the policies through a dynamic model, are shown to be unacceptable. An example is the analysis of alternative retirement systems developed by the President's Commission on Military Compensation. The steady-state analysis of alternative systems showed the benefits of proposed changes in the retirement rules. But, applying the new policies to the existing force, as was done in a dynamic analysis, reveled the magnitude of the increases in near-term costs associated with the proposals. The proposals were never adopted. Transition Models In recent years, transition models have gained in importance. The Army's ELIM-COMPLIP system and the Navy's ADSTAP program are such goal-linear programming models. They incorporate constraints and objective functions, such as manpower requirements and budget ceilings, and are used to help formulate personnel policies and monitor progress against goals, budgets, and force levels. They are designed to describe the force structure that will come closest to satisfying a given set of manpower requirements given existing personnel constraints. Such applications are useful in the development of "optimal" combinations of policies that deal with a number of real-world constraints simultaneously.

Assignment Models Manpower models are designed to help personnel planners determine the numbers and types of people needed to perform specific tasks. Personnel models are used to predict the likely outcomes of changes in a personnel policy. Assignment models, by contrast, are designed to match given individuals with given jobs in such a way as to maximize some objective function, subject to a set of constraints. As used today, assignment models are employed in the initial classification and assignment process, as well as the reassignment of individuals. Examples of the former are the Air Force's PROMIS/PJM

9|Page

system, the Navy's PRIDE/CLASP system and the Army's REQUEST/PIM system. As structured, these models match men and jobs/school seats. They offer consider the attributes of assignees, their preferences, and the goals of the Service. It should be noted that these matches are not optimal over time. A specific match depends on the time that an individual, billet, or school seat is entered into the model, as well as matches performed. The Army recently proposed a multiyear, multimillion-dollar program to expand the present personnel allocation/assignment system and develop a new one that will more than match recruits against the minimum eligibility requirements for job/school seats. Noting the sequential nature of the personnel process, the Army wants to expand its assignment models to be able also to look ahead and answer such questions as these:

What is the effect of filling a training seat with a minimally qualified volunteer? What is the "cost" of deliberately leaving a training seat empty? What is the probability that a more qualified person will become available to fill some specific training seat in the next 24 hours somewhere in the U.S.?

A work of caution for those who develop assignment models: If such models are to be used, they must recognize that their subjects are human, not inanimate, and that people intervene in the assignment process. Many technically elegant models are never used because they are too mechanistic in their approach. Models can help in the assignment process. However, it is not realistic to believe that assignments can be made by computer without human intervention. Training The last human resource to consider is training. It can be argued that everything undertaken by the military in preparation for war is training. Though this is generally correct, distinguishing among types of training is useful:
Formal training: Formal Training of individuals usually takes place in a dedicated

schoolhouse setting, e.g., basic training and initial skill training.

10 | P a g e

 Unit/crew training: Unit/crew training sometimes takes place in established training

environments but is also part of fleet and unit training exercises.

On-the-job training: On the job training is incidental to everyday work.

Skill progression training: Formal and informal skill progression training is among the

requirements for promotion. The magnitude and diversity of the Department of Defense's training suggest the potential range of models of various kinds. Manpower models help planners determine the numbers of instructors and support personnel needed to train a given number of personnel. Assignments models help make sure that people with a given set of attributes are assigned to specific courses of instruction. Scheduling models help insure the smooth flow of students through the "training pipeline." Simulation models have been developed to help course planners judge the effects of alternative course design, equipment levels, instructor manning, and student flow rates on the operation of the training system.

Future Development of Human Resource Models

Earlier, human resource models were considered along the standard lines of manpower, personnel, assignment, and training. Future work will surely refine and extend models in each of these areas. The more innovative modelers, however, are increasingly aware that the functions and activities of the various organizations charged with managing human resources are intimately related. Decisions to change a training curriculum will result in changing work patterns and be reflected in changes in the statements of manpower requirements. Changes in retention patterns affect personnel policies, manpower requirements, and the ability of individual units to conduct on-thejob training. Although every Service has combined manpower and personnel under a single Deputy Chief of Staff, little has been done to develop an integrated system. The existence of such tools as the CES production function and its lack of use by Service planners to explore alternative manpower and
11 | P a g e

personnel structures reflect the continuing fragmentation among the various human resource subsystems. A second factor a future model builder should consider is how his model will be used. In any year, many more human resource models are developed than are actually used by the Services in the planning or management of personnel. All too often, the modeler develops an elegant technical model, only to find that it is not relevant to the management process he was supposedly trying to affect. The case of MOD1A provides an important lesson. MODIA was designed to help Training Command personnel examine the details of course design and course operation during the planning stage of the process of instruction system development. Though MODIA was a technical success, it was never used by the Air Force. MODIA reflected the desire of the Air Force leadership to search out cost-effective alternatives. But, it was designed to be used at a local training center during the development of a curriculum. Unfortunately, no oneneither Air Force leadership nor MODIAfs developersasked whether those who were to use the new tool had any incentive to search out alternatives. A 1974 field test of MODIA revealed that course planners did not operate in an environment of constrained resources and tended to game MODIA to justify the course designs they favored. The Air Force leadership which commissioned MODIA and supported its development never understood the incentive structure of those who would use it. The developers of MODIA did not understand how their model would fit into the management structure of the Air Training Command. The question of implementation was addressed only after the model was developed. If adequate attention had been paid earlier, a different and one hopesmore useful product might have been developed. The experience of MODIA is a good way to end our discussion of human resource models. These models are generally used to manage people. Substantial bureaucratic structures have been built up to perform the personnel, manpower, training, and assignment functions. Models and modelers who support these organizations must not only be skilled technicians but must also understand how
12 | P a g e

a specific model fits into the larger often implicit, human resource system and must be aware of the incentives of those who will use their models.

CASE STUDY A Human Resource Development Performance Improvement Model for Workers with Mental Retardation in Supported Employment
Florida International University, USA Abstract: This literature review discusses the factors for successful job retention of adult workers with mental retardation, including external factors related to work environments and internal issues of the individual worker. Through the synthesis of the literature, a performance improvement model for supported employment is discussed based on Holtons (1999) human resource development/performance improvement model. Among the 54 million adults with disabilities in the U.S., 33 million have a severe disability and 10 million need assistance in their daily living (U.S. Department of Census, 2000). Most individuals with disabilities want to work and are capable of exceptional job performance (Bellamy, Rhodes, Mank, & Albin, 1988; Konig & Schalock, 1991) and equal to people without disabilities in terms of productivity, turnover rates, absenteeism, and accident rates (Parent & Everson, 1986), yet over 75% of them remain unemployed (U.S. Department of Census, 2000). Organizations looking for creative staffing solutions in a tight labor market benefit from employing people with disabilities and mental retardation (MR) (Petkauskos, 2005). A pool of qualified employees could and should include individuals with MR who are able to fill the shortage of employees seeking entry-level positions. Employing individuals with MR improves the organizations competitive advantage through a diversified workforce (Petkauskos, 2005). Additionally, these organizations receive tax incentives and government contracts and are viewed as socially responsible (Vondracek, Learner, & Schulenberg, 1986). Whether organizations employ individuals with MR due to fill entry-level positions, create a more competitive advantage, or receive tax incentives, human resource development (HRD) faces new challenges.

13 | P a g e

Problem Statement Poor job retention and performance of adults with MR leads to their high unemployment rates. Their job retention is decreased by work environment and organizational factors, such as employer ignorance and bias (Rusch, 1986), lack of opportunities and role models, poor placement, inadequate job-match, and career development (Lagomarcino, Huges, & Huges, 1999). Poor job retention can be partially attributed to the failure of vocational rehabilitation practices, such as prevocational training programs, sheltered workshops and transitional employment, to provide integrated paid employment (Wehman, 1986). Even supported employment (SE), which has been identified as the most promising approach (Rusch, 1986), has not provided for long-term job retention (Konig & Schalock, 1991). Furthermore, poor job performance combined with social behavioral factors is a major cause of job loss for individuals with MR (Greenspan & Shoultz, 1981; Lagomarcino et al., 1989). The purpose of this paper is to adapt Holtons (1999) human resource development/performance improvement (PI/HRD) model to the employment of workers with MR. First, we will present an overview of the relevant literature on the external and internal factors that influence successful employment, followed by a discussion of the Holtons model, and conclude with the presentation of the adapted model and implications for HRD. Method Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycInfo, and ABI Inform were selected with the assistance of a reference librarian as most representative of education, psychology, and business. Abstracts and articles were read and categorized by external and internal factors influencing job retention in individuals with MR. Tables were created to organize the data. Cognitive mapping was used to create a mental model of the overall meaning of the text. Cognitive mapping lends itself to the comparison of semantic connections across texts and attempts to represent the relationships between ideas, beliefs, attitudes, and information (Palmquist, Carley, & Dale, 1997).

External Factors Influencing Successful Job Retention

14 | P a g e

External factors affecting job retention include: (a) job matching, work environment, and work culture (Holland, 1985) and (b) a support system that provides ongoing training and support to maintain job skills and valued work behaviors and attitudes (Chadsey-Rusch, 1986). Job Matching Congruency between an individuals interests, skills, abilities, personality characteristics and the job and work environment improves job satisfaction, job performance (Konig & Schalock, 1991; Leach, 2002), work motivation (Berkell, 1987), and long-term employment (Holland, 1985). This person-job congruency may be more critical to employment success than specific job skills (Berkell, 1987). Workers with MR should be empowered to make reliable choices about their job interests. This ability to chose is developed through learning to express their work preferences and matching their work, social, and personal strengths to job requirements (Leach, 2001). Job matching includes analysis of work settings and behavioral expectations followed by placement and adjustment of ones performance to achieve congruency.

Support System The continuous availability of support following job placement is a hallmark of the SE model. The amount of time or activities conducted by an employment specialist to enable employees with MR to obtain, learn, perform, and maintain a job and job skills is directly related to their success in job retention (Wehman et al., 1989). On-the-job training allows for rapid placement into paid community employment instead of a lengthy sheltered employment. These individuals are more likely to be employed in 9 months and work full-time in 15 months. They also achieve superior outcomes, such as higher employment rate, higher job satisfaction, and lower absenteeism (Wehman, 1986). Employees in SE socialize more with non-disabled co-workers, are more often competitively employed, and earn higher wages than the individuals in mobile work crews or clustered group.

15 | P a g e

Natural support promotes co-worker involvement as a means to provide consistent, ongoing training and follow-up services in an integrated work setting (Nisbet & Hagner, 1988). Natural support is any assistance, relationship, or intervention that allows a person with MR to maintain and advance in a job. Non-disabled co-workers serve as observers, trainers, associates, ongoing supervisors, advocates, and instructional program developers (Rusch, Hughes, & Johnson, 1991) and assist employees with MR in building productive work habits and social skills. These relationships and the support of the organization influence integration, job satisfaction, employment success, and job tenure of individuals with MR (Hill, Wehman, Hill, & Goodall, 1985). Increasingly, employers (e.g., Pizza Hut, Inc, MacDonalds, the Marriott Corporation) have realized that the skills co-workers learn when assuming support roles benefit the company as a whole (Nisbet & Hagner, 1988; Rogan et al., 1993). Community-based vocational education is an effective approach in delivering vocational education and training to individuals with MR which provides services in community work settings rather than in conventional school environments. Preparation of students with MR for life in integrated work and living situations should include experiential opportunities in dealing with the demands and expectations of these environments (Wehman & Kelchner, 1997). Individuals with MR often do not understand the unstated rules of the workplace, many of which relate to social interactions and social reciprocity. They also need to learn when the situation is different and the same (Wehman et al., 1986) which occurs more frequently when instruction takes place in the real world situations. Learning to perform certain behaviors and interacting with a variety of people in natural work settings increases the likelihood of performing those behaviors in novel settings (Lagomarcino et al., 1989). Community-based instruction within work environments bridges the gap between classroom learning and competitive job placement (Bellamy et al., 1988).

Internal Factors Influencing Successful Job Retention

A combination of inappropriate work-related social behaviors and poor job performance accounts for 70% of job separations (Chadsey-Rusch, 1986; Hill, Wehman, Hill, & Goodall, 1985). Successful job retention for adults with MR is directly related to their behavior and attitudes, including person-job congruency, self-determination (Wehman & Kregel, 1998), work-related
16 | P a g e

social behaviors, performance (Hill et al., 1985; Greenspan & Shoultz, 1981), and job satisfaction (Wright, 1980). Individual Work Behaviors and Attitudes Social behaviors related to specific interactions at work (Chadsey-Rusch, 1986) include (a) social awareness, (b) temperament and aberrant behaviors, and (c) personality characteristics (Rosenberg & Brady, 2000). Social awareness includes the ability to get along and interact with supervisors and co-workers and to understand the work environment (Greenspan & Shoultz, 1981; HanleyMaxwell, Rusch, Chadsey-Rusch, & Renzaglia, 1986). Temperament and aberrant behaviors include insubordinate and aggressive behaviors, idiosyncratic behaviors (Greenspan & Shoultz, 1981; Hill, Wehman, Hill, & Goodall, 1985), and the inability to deal with the pressures and stressor of the job (Salzberg, Agran, & Lignugirs/Kraft, 1986). Personal characteristics refer to absences, tardiness, being uncooperative (Greenspan & Shoultz, 1981), and the abilities to accept criticism, job responsibility (Lagomarcino et al, 1989), to take initiatives, to following directions, to ask for assistance (Salzberg et al., 1986), to take pride in ones work, and to value honesty and standards of truthfulness (Rosenberg & Brady, 2000). Personal Development Person Centered Approach Successful job retention is based on the principles of a person-centered approach, a process of discovery of individual aims, aspirations, and skills that focus on the individual rather than service provision constraints (Leach, 2002). Services are driven toward changes that lead to increased work effectiveness based on principles of employees (a) understanding of the relevancy of work required behaviors to their employment situation, (b) self-determination, (c) social and economic inclusion, (d) choice and independence, (e) learning about work in work, and (f) self-evaluation of their status (Leach, 2002; Rosenberg & Brady, 2000). The majority of job retention strategies foster individuals with MR to depend on the employment specialist (Chadsey-Rusch, 1986. Individuals with MR need assistance in personal development to explore their personality characteristics and skills, to learn to take personal responsibility, to develop self-esteem, and to learn to communicate effectively (Konig & Schalock, 1991). Personal development includes self17 | P a g e

knowledge and awareness, self-advocacy, self-efficacy and appreciation, planning and decisionmaking, performance and adjustment, and self-monitoring and evaluation (Wehmeyer et al., 1998). Individuals with MR can enhance their autonomy during job searching by learning selfmanagement skills which allow them to provide themselves with cues, create records of their work, evaluate their own performance, and provide themselves with feedback (Lagomarcino et al., 1989). Work-required Job Duties Among work-required job duties and skills, both verbal and non-verbal communication abilities are important to job placement and retention (Martin et al., 1987). Work required job duties and the abilities to perform specific work tasks require appropriate quality and quantity of work. When faced with alterations in routine, employees must maintain quality and quantity of work with appropriate work and social interactions. Safety also must be considered in work activities. When an individual develops work goals based on personal interests, abilities and barriers, they remain longer on the job (Rosenberg & Brady, 2000).

Daily Living Skills / Life Skills Daily living skills, including managing financial resources, understanding work schedules, knowing days off and holidays, and scheduling personal activities, are required for successful job retention (Bellamy et al., 1988). Family Individuals with MR become more successful in finding employment when their family is actively involved in their work life (Hill et al., 1985). Therefore, efforts to secure family involvement in all SE planning and decision making need to be a priority (Chadsey-Rusch, 1986).

A HRD Model for Performance Improvement in Supported Employment

18 | P a g e

Program approaches in SE share concerns and responsibility of providing opportunities for individuals with MR to obtain paid work in an integrated setting and access continual support to maintain employment. Holtons (1999) performance improvement human resource development model (PI/HRD) is used to illustrate a synthesized model for SE programs. The PI/HRD model (Holton, 1999) includes four domains (i.e., mission, process, critical subsystems, and an individual. Mission Domain Performance is measured by the outcomes (i.e., products or services) rather than by the processes (i.e., procedures) (Holton, 1999; Gilbert, 1978; von Beralanffy, 1968). The objectives derived from the systems mission specify the expected outcomes (Holton, 1999). In SE the mission is to provide competitive, integrated employment for individuals with MR. This mission reflects the systems relationship with the external environment, such as the relationship individuals with MR have with external organizations, the community, and individuals without disabilities. The notion of mission is particularly relevant to SE because of the focus on the valued outcomes which serves as the needed conceptual framework for clarifying the similarities across all SE approaches and providing a foundation for program planning and management (Bellamy et al., 1988). Process Domain Process is the specific ordering of actions or value chain, by which the system converts energy (input) from the environment into products and services (outputs) used by the system itself or by the environment (Rummler & Brache, 1995). Process can be modified in response to feedback about the system performance. To provide successful SE, an organization must create the opportunity for competitive integrated employment within an integrated system through (a) identifying what work needs to be accomplished and what employee abilities and skills are required (analysis), (b) designing the requirements for individuals with MR to perform and redesign the job itself if necessary (design), (c) developing the job and the supported program based on design information (develop), (d) integrating the employees with MR into the social and physical environment of the job and meet the employees ongoing support needs (implement), (e) evaluating if the work is performed according to the employers requirements and the SE environment and system (evaluate). Finally, the feedback process maintains the organizations capacity to offer SE. By accomplishing all these processes and outcomes, the organization will

19 | P a g e

succeed in its mission domain of successful job placement and job retention leading to long-term integrated, competitive employment for individuals with MR. Critical Sub-systems Domain While the mission domain defines performance outcomes relative to the external environment, the critical sub-systems domain defines them relative to internal outcomes that do not always directly connect with the external environment (Holton, 1999). Each sub-system may be part of many processes and not all sub-systems will be critical to the accomplishment of the systems mission (Holton, 1999a). For example, with a SE team, performance becomes an outcome of the critical sub-system of an effective team. Qualified individuals (e.g., job coaches, counselors, advocates, family members) must work together to create competitive paid employment for the individuals with MR to meet their goals. Individual Domain The individual domain aims to improve individual performance through expanding expertise (Holton, 1999). The essence of PI practice has been the improvement of individual human performance, particularly through expanded human expertise, which is believed to result in enhanced organizational performance (Holton, 1999a). The model focuses on individual performance through optimizing learning and expertise (Holton, 1999). This optimization takes place through training and non-learning interventions, such as incentives and consequences, feedback, information, work conditions, work redesign, and resources required for the individual to function in the system (Holton, 1999).

Implication for HRD

The purpose of HRD is to improve organizational performance through increased productivity, efficient work processes, and individual contributions (Swanson & Arnold, 1996). The constructs that improve human performance and individual contribution (e.g., person-job fit, job satisfaction, and self-determination) have been researched in the general population but may differ for individuals with MR. For example, this research has shown that while job satisfaction improves job retention, it does not necessarily improve performance in the non-disabled population
20 | P a g e

(Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985). In individuals with MR, research suggests the opposite (Wehmeyer, Kelchner, 1997). Thus, the training and career development strategies for individuals with MR may require modification based on various behaviors and work constructs and their relationship to workers with MR. An effective model and infrastructure should integrate HRD to move people with disabilities into an integrated paid employment environment. Holtons (1999) PI/HRD model is a system in which HRD can affect organizational change to improve traditional and non-traditional organizational learning of individuals with MR. Implementing SE requires the coordinated efforts of several groups, each with unique perspectives, needs, and responsibilities: employers who provide job opportunities; HRD that provides career development, training, and support; state and local agencies that fund, regulate, and evaluate programs; parents and advocates who choose among services and provide assistance outside the workplace; and persons with disabilities who choose whether or not to participate in particular jobs or programs (Bellamy et al., 1988).

References Bellamy, G. T., Rhodes, L. E., Mank, D. M., & Albin, J. M. (1988). Supported employment: A community implementation guide. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Berkell, D. E. (1987). Vocational assessment of students with severe handicaps: A review of the literature. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 10, 61-75. Chadsey-Rusch, J. (1986). Identifying and teaching valued social behaviors. In F. R. Rusch (Ed.), Competitive employment issues and strategies (pp. 273-287). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Gilbert. T. F. (1978). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. New York: McGraw-Hill. Greenspan, S., & Shoultz, B. (1981). Why mentally retarded adults lose their jobs. Social competence as a factor in work adjustment. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 2, 2338. Hill, J. W., Wehman, P., Hill, M., & Goodall, P. (1985). Differential reasons for job separation of previously employed mentally retarded adults. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 15, 179-186.
21 | P a g e

 Holland, J. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Holton, E. F. III. (1999). An integrated model of performance domains: Bounding the theory and practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 12(3), 95-118.

22 | P a g e

23 | P a g e