Fundamentals of Staff Development - Essay Example

Fundamentals of Staff Development Q: According to Spencer (Topic s) supervision is pivotal to staff development. With reference to the Spencer model and wider readings (from the Readings), and your experience in your own organization, explain how this is so. Various writers see the supervision process from different perspectives. Dalton (1996) views it as individual-oriented with his definition of it as “talent development.” To him, supervision is significant because it allows proper assessment of employee skills and knowledge, the blueprinting of performance goals, the calculation of results and most of all provides for the proper training of the employees. For Mills (2000), supervision works towards the progress of the institution and its priorities because he believes that supervision accomplishes goals by working through others. To achieve these goals, Mills believed that it is important for supervisors to have communication skills allowing him to clearly put across the goals in definite terms to the employees as well as the ability to inspire and motivate them. Carlisle and Schuh (1991), on the other hand, view supervision as a staff to staff relationship with one staff member giving support, opportunity and structure to another. However, Winston and Creamer (1998) define the term as a function of management which has a dual-focused view: organisational goals and individuals. This it does by working for the achievement of the goals of the organisations as well as improving the capabilities of the staff (Janosik & Creamer 2003 p 3). Barrett cited Wright (1989) who viewed the supervision process as individual-oriented defining it as “a meeting between two or more people with a declared interest in ‘examining a piece of work’ (Barrett 2002 p 279). Spencer likewise focuses on the individual when he speaks of supervision, viewing it both as management prerogative and duty and an employee right (Riley 2009 p 33). On the premise that organizational effectiveness is the primary goal of every organization, then staff development, according to John Spencer, is the fundamental and underlying reason that affects its success. This is because people are normally the largest variable in an organization and it would seem that the one principle in the Spencer staffing model that would affect all the other principles is staff supervision. The Spencer staff development enumerates ten components which he collectively calls the Facilitative, Needs-based Staff Development model, namely: recruitment and selection; induction; supervision; evaluation; planned individual development; further professional development; career path planning, and; the three attitude principles of heterogeneity, accountability and responsibility, and altruistic vision. Staff supervision, usually the most undermined concept of management, plays a pivotal role in staff development because it singularly improves the effectiveness of all the other nine principles in the model although these principles are characterized as interdependent. It is through supervision, for example, in which the effectiveness of selection and induction can be verified, or that a basis for evaluation and planned individual career can be made, or incentives for further development in the profession and planning for career direction can be made. Moreover, it is supervision that can guide, boost and inspire employees to develop the attitudes of heterogeneity, accountability and responsibility, and altruistic vision (Spencer 2009 p 32). Staff supervision is necessary to verify the appropriateness of the methods pursued during the selection and recruitment process. This is important because the recruitment and selection process is a very delicate and critical procedure which ultimately determines the quality of the organization’s staffing. Error during this stage could potentially mean high cost and eventual loss to the organization. Spencer cited Sullivan and Decker who enumerated two kinds of cost that an improper selection could result in: the visible cost which pertains to the actual cost of recruitment which will occur when the newly recruited employee is eventually terminated for his/her unsatisfactory performance and; hidden cost which can be equated to low quality of work (which could result unfortunately to loss of customers or clients) (Riley 2009 p 20). Churchouse and Churchouse, for example, described a selection and recruitment process that entails a lot managerial discretion that could turn out to be erroneous. This is especially true with respect to the prerogative of the interviewer to select the tools and techniques, which to him/her would be the most appropriate and effective in the selection of the potential candidate for employment (1998 pp 43-58). A subsequent supervision process with newly recruited personnel would either validate the wisdom of such methods used or invalidate such methods. Either way, the manager/interviewer could pursue the use of such techniques and perfect them or amend them for the next recruitment and selection process. In the matter of the induction of a newly recruited employee, supervision is vital not only as a continuation of the validation process of the recruitment and selection process but also to properly orient them to the nature of the work they will be doing and the organization they are joining. Spencer referred to the induction stage as the time when the organization must comply with its obligation of “unique responsibility of taking raw material and moulding it or fitting it into the enterprise of the profession, not just for the employee’s sake, but for the sake of all the staff and clients who will ever come under his/her influence” (Riley 2009 p 27). Spencer observed that organizations often failed in this endeavor which could have been an opportunity for employers to correct misinterpretation or misimpressions of organizational goals by the novice employee. This is where quality supervision should come in. Lacey in her article Building Bridges – Making Mentoring Happen suggests the institutionalization of the process of mentoring or the close supervision by an experienced staff over an organization novice to help the former develop his/her skills in the organizational context (Lacey 1999 pp 9-11). The mentoring program was discussed in more detail in the case study Mentoring: the Arnott’s Experience. In the Arnott Case Study, four teen-agers were taken into and trained by Arnott for a pilot four-year competency program. To induct them into the Arnott way of life, four line managers were quickly turned into coaches or supervisors for the four understudies on the basis of their job competence, communication skills, flexibility and dedication to the Arnott principles. The program proved to be a success not only for the mentees but for the mentors as well who felt they had personally gained from the experience (MacGregor and Kerswell 1997). The supervision process, successfully and closely executed through the one-on-one mentoring program provides a mechanism for newly recruited employees to enter into the organizational arena with confidence because of the emotional and technical support resulting in new employees ready and competent for the job who are properly and correctly oriented with the real goals of the organization. Evaluation is an important cog in the staff development model, according to Spencer, because improvement is impossible without a set goal or standard performance. Moreover, Spencer stresses that the existence of such goals are likewise pointless if these are not clearly communicated and indicated to the employees. There is a need therefore: to know what the goals are; what the standard is; to be aided in reaching for those goals in accordance with the standard set, and; to be notified in the event that such standard is unmet to ensure that proper adjustments of actions are made (Riley 2009 p 39). A consideration of the purposes and procedure for evaluation obviously entails supervisory intervention for the average employee to be apprised of these goals and to be assisted in the pursuit of these goals. A good supervisory intervention should not only meet these purposes but also provide the inspiration to sustain the employee in the process of meeting such goals. In the same way the supervision is vital to evaluation, so is it important in planned individual development. The supervisor is placed in a vantage point where he/she could see the direction of the development and growth of the employee and therefore is in the position to render advice to him/her. Planned individual development is essential in staff development because the unit individual is a cog of the entire organizational machinery and it allows the individual to go even beyond the competence set by the group as a whole. The success of the individual will eventually create a ripple effect on those around him as competition becomes inevitable, driving the organization to greater heights. The further professional development of the employee signals the maturation of his skills, knowledge and competencies transcending the standards established by the organization for its members. This is an important phase in an organizational member because it allows the potential for making decisions that are beyond the ambit of the standard instructions of the organization, using intelligence and knowledge derived externally during situations that can crop every now and then in any organizational set up. Supervisory techniques and methods can be potent in stirring the interest and consciousness of subordinates to develop their potential for further professional development. This is likewise true with career path planning. Supervision is necessary to remind and urge the subordinate of proper career path development (Riley 2009 p 50). Moreover, Spencer directly equates staff supervision with organizational effectiveness which therefore reinforces the necessity of effective supervision as a fundamental process. In this respect, staff supervision must therefore cease to be a choice but become a must with planned objectives. It must be part of the scheme of things, strictly imposed by the very head of the organization to ensure its institutionalization within that organization to the extent that staff supervision ultimately receives corporate acceptance and commitment from all. Spencer believed that the head of the organization itself must be committed to the institutionalization of supervision so that everyone down to the last level of the organization will come to accept it as part of organizational life (Riley 2009 p 33-34). Spencer’s elevation of the supervision process to an organizational pedestal is timely considering the many challenges that have been hurled at organizations especially during the last decade. Burke enumerated these challenges as swelling competition, economic recession, consumers with escalating demands, the need to trim down, increasing interference by governments and the to be more productive the smarter way. Citing the service sector, Burke considers the supervision process as a means of meeting the growing demand for quality control in this area, quality control being seen as one of the solutions for the problems besetting it. To prove this contention, Burke developed a research model based on the initial hypothesis that supervisory quality has a direct bearing on “barriers to service, supports for service, job satisfaction, and quality of service and products provided by the firm” (see Fig 1) (Burke 2001 pp 28-29). The Burke Research Model is a secondary analysis of data collected from a survey conducted by a professional services firm involving 2,150 of its employees. The survey was limited to the study of professionals and managers. The results of the survey show that the quality of the supervision has a bearing on all four factors, namely: barriers to service, supports for service, job satisfaction, and quality of service and products provided by the firm. A majority of the managers and professionals surveyed who found their supervisors possessed of good supervisory skills also declared that they had fewer barriers to service, more supports for service, more job satisfaction and more quality of service (Burke 2001 p 30). Spencer’s assertion that Figure 1 Burke Research Model staff supervision is ‘pivotal’ to staff development finds congruence here considering that the positive effects that the quality of supervision have on the four mentioned aspects of service sector creates a rippling effect on the relationships of these elements with each other. Fewer barriers to services, for example, help in increasing quality of service and provide more supports for services. More supports for services, on the other hand, affect quality of services and job satisfaction positively and finally, more job satisfaction can directly influence quality of service. Spencer asserted that staff supervision should be gauged as ultimately successful only when organizational aims and staff needs eventually congregate. In addition, there should be tangible proof of development of the staff’s skills and satisfaction of their desires and hopes, there is satisfaction of clients’ interests, there is common perception of continuous organizational growth, and the assessment aspect of the supervisory process is perceived not as condemnatory but as constructive criticism (Riley 2009 p 33-34). The Janosik and Creamer perspective makes supervision the fundamental element in the staffing model. The Staff Development model envisioned by Janosik and Creamer, like the Spencer model, shows the centrality of the supervision process. In addition, the duo stress that the nature of supervision in their model is synergistic referring to the two-prong purpose of supervision. As can be seen from Figure 2, supervision is linked to all aspects of the staffing model: Recruitment and Selection, Orientation to Position, Staff Development, Performance and Appraisal and Separation. Staff development under this model broadly refers to assisting employees in meeting the requirements of the job as well as the pursuit of personal and individual growth. Supervision under this model becomes an organizational tool that allows a close observation of the individual. An open exchange of communication as well as mutual respect during supervision can bring about a correct appraisal of performance of the subordinate. On the other hand, supervision is as much needed during the separation of an individual from the organization as during recruitment and selection. Separation can be brought about because of personal reasons, professional causes, involuntary separation, incapacity, death or illness or incapacity - all of which entail emotional upheaval. Supervision is therefore necessary at this stage to provide emotional cushion and psychological and moral support. In all of these stages, support plays a vital role. External Environment Institutional Culture Fig 2 Janosik and Creamer Staffing Model Unfortunately, administrators usually give supervision secondary importance in their multifarious functions. Similarly, the role of supervision takes a backstage in all other human resources publications and programs although authors Janosik and Creamer were of the opinion that supervision is really the key to employee productivity (2003 p 3). Spencer himself stressed that supervision must ceased to be an ad hoc things but rather become an imperative for managers. However, he also stressed that any kind of supervision will not do but only supervision that veers away from ‘imposition to consensus’ and finally removed itself from the traditional connotation of supervision being a tool for autocratic control over individuals. Moreover, Spencer is highly critical and distrustful of the traditional supervision concept which is internally-centered and which seeks bureaucratic affirmation because it implicitly excludes outsiders and has a destructive consequence because of the fear and distrust it engenders (Riley 2009 p 36). From the preceding discussion of the power of supervision, it would seem that Spencer had a point when he asserted that supervision plays a pivotal role in staff development. Albeit all ten principles of staff development are interdependent, supervision has a critical role in the success of these principles because it involves close watch and interaction with the largest variable of organizational resources – the human resources. The importance of the supervision process, so far as they can be equated with the overall success of staff development, is evinced not only from the Spencer model of staff development but from all other models like the Burke Research Model and Janosik and Creamer Staffing Model and can be gleaned from the articles on mentoring program and the case study of the Arnott Case. References: Barrett, Roger 2002, Mentor Supervision and Development – Exploration of Lived Experience Burke, Ronald J. 2001, Supervision and Service Quality Churchouse, J. & Churchouse, C. 1998, The Dos and Donts of Selecting Staff, in Managing People, Gower, Brookfield, VT, pp. 41, 43-58. Lacey, K. 1999, Building bridges - Making mentoring happen, Training and Development in Australia, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 9 - 11. Janosik, Steven Michael and Don G. Creamer 2003, Supervising new professionals in student affairs: a guide for practitioners, Routledge Mental Health, 2003 MacGregor, Linda and Grant Kerswell 1997, Mentoring: The Arnott’s Experience, HR Monthly Riley, Dan 2009, Fundamentals of Staff Development Topic Notes Read More