The article examines “How A Strategically Focused Training And Development Offer More Flexible And Long-Term Advantages Through Continuous Learning.” The research was carried out by conducting a case study on 62 organizations across the US (HR, Human Resource Planning, 1998, 2, 1; ProQuest Central). The researchers reviewed training system materials and interviewed training and development executives to understand and explain how their training and development programs promoted the strategic leadership agenda.
The study used benchmarking and applied the following criteria; Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Winners (1988-1992), Fortune Magazine (top 20), American Society for Training and Development (1985-1992), Training Magazine (1992). They developed a training and development framework consisting of four phases. They included plan (strategic role, value and policies, needs, and transfer), do (contents, methods, and applications), check (evaluation), and act (sustaining and advancing for the best practices).
Training and development are parts of strategic priority in establishing policies and values that aid training and development programs, assessment, and enhancement of training and job performance. The goals and objectives of organizations guide training and development activities. Olian and fellow authors present a well-researched paper that covers the best organizations in the US. The research has in-depth information on various organizations’ training and development practices, policies, and structural features. However, they fail to identify a single factor responsible for a strategically aligned training and development that supports continuous learning.
Also, the research fails to show connections between the four elements and how organizations apply them in their training and development practices. They also fail to cover how the US organizations with a global presence can apply their model in different cultures and economic conditions. However, they note the importance of embedding training and development framework into organizational structures, policies, and practices.
Olian and other authors highlight the importance of aligning training and development with organizational objectives. However, they note that training and development need sustained investment. This makes training and development an important element of the “organizational value system, part of employees’ routine behaviors, and maintained during financial crises” (Olian et al. 30). The process requires a commitment of the senior executives.
These authors also acknowledge challenges that executives encounter, like uncertainty related to market changes and technology influences. They note that organizations can respond to such uncertainties by developing an internal discipline that creates readiness for several alternatives for strategic directions (Olian et al. 30). A strong linkage between training and development and organizational planning establishes leadership and skill readiness. This research shows how organizations have used training and development to create a competitive advantage.
McDowall and Saunders conducted a study to investigate “How Managers Responsible For Training And Development Functions, Conceptualize Activities In Practice, Factors That Guide Their Decision-Making, How They Evaluate Outcomes, And The Extent To Which They Perceive A Relationship Between Training And Development.” The research took a realistic perspective with 26 interviews conducted with the UK managers (Journal of European Industrial Training Vol. 34 No. 7, 2010 pp. 609-630).
They found the variation in managers’ conceptualization of training and development. They favored formal training because of expected tangible returns on investment—training aimed at enhancing job-related skills. However, outcomes differed and were difficult to measure.
Managers showed that training and development had value when combined. This was because managers considered training and development to be different. The observation was consistent with the literature review. Managers distinguished training and development using practical aspects. According to this article, “managers regarded training as skills-based, technical and focused on the current job, whereas they considered development as wider-ranging and relating to interpersonal skills” (McDowall and Saunders 9). Managers considered training to be planned and organized.
Conversely, they viewed development as informal, sporadic, and unplanned. According to managers, development emanated from employees’ willingness and motivation so that they could develop skills for success beyond their current positions. On the other hand, managers argued that training originated from the organization. However, they noted that learning could occur from support and interaction with others. The article demonstrates that managers were unwilling to support or allocate resources to initiatives in which they could not quantify their outcomes like development.
This article calls for further research to establish a link between training and development and create tools for evaluating training and development. This research indicated a need to go beyond currently available means of evaluating training and development practices. Managers based their decisions to support training or development on employees’ job levels. Employees got training in key areas they had lacked skills, but managers considered development to occur after training. Researchers also noticed that it could be difficult to translate findings into practice due to the diverse views managers had on training and development. They acknowledged that insights from 26 managers in the UK could not provide a complete view but offered ideas on how managers considered training and development.
This article reviewed “Icarda’s Philosophy And Concepts On Training, Collaborating Institutions, Educational Materials, Categories Of Training, Development Of Training Courses, Significant Outcomes Of Training, Shifting Paradigms, And Future Directions.” The study focused on trainees from the WANA region and beyond (Sustainable Agriculture Research; Vol. 1, No. 2; 2012). These authors acknowledged the importance of training in international development and attributed the success of ICARDA in its mandate to its training program. These authors noted that training and human resource development greatly enhanced benefits gained from human skills. However, organizations undervalued and under-funded them. Thus, they aimed to give renewed focus on the value of training and development.
These authors noted that training covered a wide range of institutional and educational development. However, ICARDA’s Training Program focused on specific areas trainers considered relevant. First, they highlighted that training needs should have been mission- and need-based. This approach should have taken into account organizational core capabilities, which accounted for both comparative and competitive advantage.
Second, these authors also argued that success, goals, or impacts acted as a basis for training initiatives and efforts. For instance, there was a need for training to positively impact the farm or rural levels. Third, training required collaboration, partnership, and networking. Fourth, training needed core principles, such as professionalism, quality assurance, accountability, transparency, and scientific integrity, at least, regarding ICARDA’s Training Program. Training also required continuous education for sustainability purposes. It also encompasses a multifaceted approach focused on the best practices with modern forms of communication, technology, and education systems.
Ryan and other researchers noted that the rate of knowledge acquisition increased as new technologies emerged. This necessitated further development in education and communication due to the need for new approaches to tackle emerging and elusive old problems. This means that training for capacity building should remain a core priority in most organizations as they play important roles in economic growth and development.
In this regard, the article mentioned that both formal and informal training activities were necessary for complementing ongoing activities in organizations. The article noted that there should have been emphases on training and development to reverse declining trends noticed in recent years. Also, training should have involved the use of up-to-date skills, knowledge, and equipment. Therefore, training materials for capacity building were to be comprehensive and highlight technical, managerial, and policy in given areas (Ryan et al. 67).
Drost and fellow researchers conducted a study to “Compare Training And Development Practices Within And Across Nine Countries And One Region, And Address Whether There Were Universal Training And Development Practices” (Human Resource Management; Spring 2002; 41.1; ProQuest Central). They conducted literature reviews of training and development on selected countries and regions to identify specific training and development practices.
The study highlighted current and desired training and development needs within and across countries and regions. Those results did not indicate any specific or similarities among countries in training and development practices. However, there were some similarities across the states. They concluded that such similarities could have resulted from specific industry needs and cultural similarities.
This study indicated the importance of context when designing guidelines for training and development. The industry trends influenced training and development across various countries. For instance, the article showed that Mexico and Latin America used training and development as a response to changes in the economy and growths in trade. They mainly focused on needs that could create competitiveness due to changes in the industry.
In the US, Canada, and Australia, training and development took a resourceful approach based on the industry technology. At the same time, organizations aimed at cutting costs through outsourcing their training needs. Organizations expected their employees to think critically, build teams, and learn on the job. In Asia, globalization and trade changed activities in many organizations. Organizations, which relied on heavy labor, have shifted to cut costs.
For instance, when the cost of labor started to rise in countries like Taiwan and Korea, investors shifted their attention to Thailand and Malaysia in search of cheap labor. This implies that such industries shift to technology and capital-intensive systems. The authors observed stability in training and development practices in the Asian region despite a financial crisis. These researchers investigated two diverse cultures of individualism in North American countries and collectivism in Asian regions.
This study concentrated on the context in relation to training and development practices. They noted that government policies, economic situations, and business practices had a significant influence on training and development. The article concluded that similarities occurred due to industry trends and cultural practices. They found out that such observations should have acted as initial points of reference for practitioners in training and development.
The article argued that practitioners should have taken caution when deciding on training and development practices for the future, especially in cases where there were no data to guide the process. However, these researchers claimed that future studies should have focused on how business strategies, government policies, and industry activities influenced training and development.
Works Cited
Drost, Ellen, Colette Frayne, Kevin Lowe and Michael Geringer. “Benchmarking training and development practices: A multi-country comparative analysis.” Human Resource Management, 41.1 (2002): 67-85. Print.
McDowall, Almuth and Mark Saunders. “UK managers’ conceptions of employee training and development.” Journal of European Industrial Training, 34.7 (2010): 609-630. Print.
Olian, Judy, Carthy Durham, Amy Cristof, Kenneth Brown, Richard Pierce and Linda Kunder. “Designing Management Training and Development for comeptitive advantage: Lesson from the best.” HR, Human Resource Planning, 2.1 (1998): 20-31. Print.
Ryan, John, Habib Ibrahim, Afif Dakermanji and Abdoul Aziz Niane. “Training and Capacity Building: An Essential Strategy for Development at an International Research Center.” Sustainable Agriculture Research, 1.2 (2012): 57-71. Print.