Learning Needs Assessment, Employee Performance, and Organizations Performance - Essay Example

HRM Learning and Development: The Link Between Learning Needs’ Assessment, Employee Performance, and Organization’s Performance Every organization has its own distinct culture that is shaped by a multitude of factors that include but are not limited to the nature of work the organization is involved in, the organizational structure of the organization, the managerial hierarchy, competency of the decision making authority, and the challenges the organization has been exposed to in the past as well as the way it changed its ways to handle those challenges. Employees in an organization are recruited if they qualify for a certain position given their academic and professional record. While an employee enters the organizational workforce with the basic skills and competencies as per the requirement of his/her position, there is always a need to customize the employee’s skills in due accordance with the needs of the organization because the organizational culture, nature of work the organization is involved in, and the resources present in the organization vary from one case to another, and thus call for the need to adjust to them on the part of the newly recruited employee. The responsibility of supervising the newly recruited employee through this process of customization of skills and competencies normally rests with the human resource development (HRD). As the name indicates, HRD is the department that is supposed to not only look after the basic needs of the employees so as to make sure that they are provided with all the necessities in order to be in a position to deliver, but also assess their learning needs so that the employees can be provided with the opportunities of learning and development in order to enable them to deliver. The performance of an employee in an organization is fundamentally governed by the extent to which he/she is learned and skilled to deliver the work of the required nature. Accordingly, the performance of the whole organization depends upon the skills and competencies of the individual employees since they are basically the operating units of the organization. Importance of accurate assessment of the employees’ learning needs cannot be overestimated (Grant, 2001) as it is a pre-requisite of raising the skills and competencies of the employees to the level that they are productive for the organization. Assessment of the learning needs of employees, employees’ performance, and organizational performance are like three corners of a triangle whose three sides represent the cause-and-effect relationship between each of the two adjacent corners. Assessment of the learning needs of employees becomes the cause of improvement in the employees’ performance since by assessing the learning needs of employees, the HRD is able to design such training and development programs for them that inculcate the knowledge required by the employees to improve their performance (Hong et al., p. 61, 2012) in terms of better quality of work and adherence to the deadlines. Learning needs assessment and investment in the employees’ training and development offers an organization competitive advantage (Lee et al., 2003). Good performance at the part of the employees becomes the cause of maximization of the organization’s efficiency as well as its profitability, thus making good organizational performance an effect of good employees’ performance (Hameed and Waheed, 2011, p. 224; Elena, 2000). “The implicit belief both in academe and practice is that the relationship runs from employee satisfaction sentiments to organizational effectiveness and efficiency outcomes” (Cole and Cole, n.d., p. 7). Also, the level of excellence achieved in each successive corner of the triangle depends upon the quality of work in the preceding corner. This means that the better the assessment of learning needs of the employees, the better the employees’ performance, and the better the organizational performance. Likewise, poor assessment of learning needs by the HRD department leads to poor performance at the two successive corners. It can be argued that the link between HRD department’s assessment of the learning needs of the employees, employees’ performance, and organizational performance may actually be reversed with the three still being the corners of one triangle owing to the fact that organizations that perform good and have a high repute among the public are sources of attraction for the potential candidates. Everybody wants to be part of an organization that does good business and has a good name among the public because people associate high expectations with such organizations. Since these organizations do good business, they make a lot of money and can thus address the interests of the employees. “Employees have higher levels of motivation when they perceive that management cares about their welfare, when they are involved in the management process, and when the management-labor environment is positive” (Kamery, 2004, p. 139). Since organizations handling large businesses are able to offer their employees more benefits, privileges, and opportunities of training and development as compared to other organizations in the market, employees tend to keep their performance high in order to keep being part of such an organization. This in effect generates an inverse cause-and-effect relationship between employees’ performance and organizational performance than the one described before. In the same way, employees’ performance can be the cause of better assessment of the learning needs on the part of the HRD department. This happens when employees performing good exert pressure on the senior management to provide them with better opportunities of training and development so that they may take their performance to the next level. Considering the fact that these employees have already been achieving good in the past, the decision-making authorities tend to feel obliged to provide them with all the facilities of training and development because the authorities trust the employees with the use of those services. On the other hand, if the strategic planning of a certain organization has not been good in the past and the organization has shown poor performance, it has a regressive effect on both the performance of the employees and the HRD department’s assessment of the learning needs of the employees. “When an organisation is operating in an environment of high uncertainty and unpredictability it is difficult for that organisation to plan in the long term and to establish routine rules and procedures” (Elding, n.d., p. 13). Another factor that may adversely affect the employees’ performance is the poor leadership in the organization. If the employees feel bad about the leader and are not satisfied with the rules and regulations enforced by the leader in the organization, their loyalty with the organization declines. The style of leadership in an organization affects employee branding that is defined as “the process by which employees internalize the desired brand image and are motivated to project the image to customers and other organizational constituents” (Miles & Mangold, 2004, p. 68). Considering both the cases i.e. the direct and inverse cause-and-effect relationship between the three corners of the triangle, it can be argued that the suitability of either of the two types of triangles to a certain organization depends upon the extent to which the organization is developed. In a vast majority of cases, organizations that have just been established and do not have much recognition or competitive advantage in the market, the cause-and-effect link between the assessment of learning needs of employees, employees’ performance, and the organizational performance is in the same order, whereas for organizations that have been working successfully in the market for considerable time and have earned name and fame through successful business strategies in the past, the cause-and-effect link between the three variables is inverse. However, there can also be two-way cause-and-effect link between the three variables in the triangle. The brand image in the public eye is one of the most important external factors that influence the organization’s performance as a whole, the individualistic performances of its employees, as well as the assessment of learning needs of the employees by the HRD department. Sometimes, organizations get stereotyped among the public because of certain unfortunate incidents for which the organization has been responsible in some way. “These stereotypes, even when inaccurate, can have a profound impact since people may evaluate an individual belonging to a stereotyped group in terms of the expectations of the group and not in terms of his individual traits and characteristics” (Wentzel, 2008, p. 13). This is very detrimental for the efficiency of an organization because damage to the brand image serves as a disincentive for the even the hard-working employees because their individualistic efforts and skills are marred by the declining image of the brand. Consequently, their motivation lowers, and so does the organization’s performance, and this also has a negative effect on the HRD department’s tendency to assess the learning needs of the employees. This triangle takes the shape of a pyramid with resources at the top of the pyramid and the three variables i.e. assessment of learning needs of employees by the HRD department, employees’ performance, and organizational performance forming the three corners of the triangle at the base of the pyramid. These resources include but are not limited to human resources, financial resources, information resources, and physical resources. Resources play a fundamental role in the quality of work at each of the three corners. These resources include but are not limited to funds, availability of advanced technology, and availability of skilled tutors and trainers for the workforce. These resources essentially play the role of basic ingredients in the ultimate recipe of organizational success. One of the most important resources that governs the link between the HRD department’s assessment of the employees’ learning needs, employees’ performance, and the organizational performance is the research and development (R&D) department in the organization. Responsibilities of the R&D department include but are not limited to gathering information regarding the latest and most advanced courses of training and development that address the specific needs of the employees, identifying the various options of training and development and comparing them with one another so as to recommend the training option that is the most educative and useful for the employees and is the most cost-effective among the rest of the options at the same time, and conducting in-house research to use the resources within the organization to develop training and development programs that can provide the employees with the best opportunities of development in-house. The whole triangle functions as per the recommendations of the R&D department, though these recommendations need the final approval of the senior management with the decision-making authority. In a vast majority of cases, the senior management modifies the recommendation considering the current and prospective circumstances in the organization and the factors both within and outside the organization that have the tendency to affect the organization for better or worse. Just like resources act like ingredients in the improvement of organizational performance, the motivation of organizational personnel at each of the three levels i.e. the HRD department, subordinates, and managers plays the role of catalyst in the process of improvement of organizational performance. The importance of employees’ motivation in the process cannot be overemphasized since their motivation is the fundamental depicter of the quality of work at each of the three corners of the triangle. “[O]rganizational productivity and efficiency is achieved through employee satisfaction and attention to employees’ physical as well as socioemotional needs” (Cole and Cole, n.d., p. 2). Satisfied employees show better performance that improves effectiveness of the organization as a whole (Champathes, 2006). Researchers in the field of human relations mutually consent that the best way to achieve the employee satisfaction sentiments is by developing an environment of positive social organization which can be achieved by providing the employees with an environment of mutual trust, increased participation and autonomy (Likert, 1961). Like motivators are the catalysts, dictatorship and communication gaps between the senior management with the decision-making authority and the subordinates serve as the hinderers of the process. Employees need to be empowered to raise their motivation. This can be achieved by involving the employees in the establishment of organizational goals, and decision-making (Osborne, 2002). Learning needs’ assessment and provision of employees with the required training is never the complete solution to the skill gaps and performance lapse. The organization needs well developed communication channels, awareness, healthy organizational culture, and mutual trust among organizational personnel and the top management for the performance of employees to improve (Antonacopoulou and FitzGerald, 1996). “Leading writers argue that the companies that will survive are those with strong "cultures", driven by leaders who relentlessly pursue a "vision", through "simple structures", providing "world-class training", that value "people skills", and that foster "entrepreneurship"” (Boudreau, 1996, p. 4). In order for the system to be efficient to the optimal level, it is imperative that the motivation is maximal while the communication gap between leader and subordinates is minimal. Such a culture in the organization increases the level of engagement and involvement of the subordinates in the process of organizational success so that everybody at all levels makes maximum effort to deliver his/her best. Concluding, HRD department’s assessment of the learning needs of employees, employees’ performance, and organizational performance are three variables that are linked with one another in a triangular relationship with each of the three variables occupying one corner of the triangle. The direction of influence of one variable upon the other can run both ways in a triangle. In a vast majority of cases, there is a two-way flow along the triangles, with the flow of one direction stronger as compared to the other depending upon several external and internal factors that influence the organization’s culture, employees’ motivation, and brand image in the public eye. Generally, if at least one of the three variables is good, it has a positive effect on the rest of the two variables irrespective of the direction of flow of link along the sides of the triangle. Likewise, poor performance shown by one of the three variables can have a regressive effect on the rest of the variables no matter which direction the link flows in. Bibliography Antonacopoulou, E.P., and FitzGerald, L. “Reframing competency in management development: a critique”. Human Resource Management Journal 6, 1, (1996): 27-48. Boudreau, John W. “Human Resources and Organization Success”. Cornell University ILR School. (1996). Accessed August 11, 2012. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1173&context=cahrswp. Champathes, M. R. “Coaching for performance improvement: The coach model”. Development and Learning in Organizations 20, 2, (2006): 17-18. Cole, Larry E., and Michael S. Cole. “Employee Satisfaction And Organizational Performance: A Summary Of Key Findings From Applied Psychology”. (n.d.). Accessed August 11, 2012. http://www.teammax.net/files/LiteratureReview.pdf. Elding, Darren J. “Modelling Employee Motivation and Performance”. The University of Birmingham. (n.d.). Accessed August 11, 2012. http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/11/1/Elding05PhD.pdf. Elena P. Antonacopoulou. “Employee development through self-development in three retail banks.” Journal of Personnel Review 29, 4, (2000): 491-508. Grant, Janet 2001, “Learning needs assessment: assessing the need”. British Medical Journal (2001). http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7330/156.full. Hameed, Abdul, and Aamer Waheed. “Employee Development and Its Affect on Employee Performance A Conceptual Framework.” International Journal of Business and Social Science 2, 13 (2011): 224-229. Hong, Eric Ng Chee; Lam Zheng Hao, Ramesh Kumar, Charles Ramendran, and Vimala Kadiresan. “An Effectiveness of Human Resource Management Practices on Employee Retention in Institute of Higher learning: - A Regression Analysis.” International Journal of Business Research and Management 3, 2 (2012): 60-79. Kamery, Rob H. “Employee Motivation As It Relates To Effectiveness, Efficiency, Productivity, And Performance”. Allied Academies International Conference. (2004). Accessed August 11, 2012. http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/allied/2004_maui/legal_ethical_regulatory_issues/27.pdf. Likert, R. L. The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. Lee, Chay Hoon, and Norman T. Bruvold. “Creating value for employees: investment in employee development”, International Journal of Human Resource Management 14, 6, (2003): 981–1000. Miles, S. J., and Mangold, G. “A conceptualization of the employee branding Process”. Journal of Relationship Marketing 3, 2/3 (2004): 65-87. Osborne, Jane Shannon. Components of empowerment and how they differentially relate to employee job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intent to leave the job. Vanderbilt University, 2002. Wentzel, Daniel. “The Impact of Employee Behavior on Brand Impressions: Theoretical and Experimental Analyses”. The University of St. Gallen. (2008). Accessed August 11, 2012. http://www1.unisg.ch/www/edis.nsf/SysLkpByIdentifier/3487/$FILE/dis3487.pdf. Read More