Perspectives on the Changing Face of Employee Development

Introduction

Employee development cannot rely solely on work experience, if one goes by the above lines of TS Elliot’s poem. Interventions must complement on-the-job experience to enable employee development. The term ‘employee development’ has evolved over the last century. It began with training. Then came the next version—development. The initial phase of ‘training’ employees was focused on promoting the interests of the employer. Gradually, a shift happened, and the ‘employee’ moved to the centre of ‘training’ as the recipient of skill-building. When the process of training evolved into a series of robust interventions, it became ‘development’. Employers also benefitted from developing their employees. So, the win-win it created, became embedded in the high-performance culture of organisations. The concept of employee development has evolved with changing times and situations. The multiple iterations of the concept have made it more democratic, contextual and relevant to the times.

Evolution of Employee Development

In the UK, employers first felt the need for learning and development after the onset of the industrial revolution. Many employers realised that they did not have skilled employees to meet the demands of mechanisation. A few years later, the beginning of World War I increased the demand for ammunition. Trained, skilled manpower was needed to produce large scale ammunition. Hence, training interventions to prepare a role-ready workforce were introduced by the Ministry of Munitions, UK. As the war began taking the lives of young British defence personnel, the onus of participation in the labour workforce of the manufacturing sector fell on women. They too needed to be trained quickly to aid their quick assimilation into the industry so that they could be productive and help in the war efforts. After the war ended, the disabled soldiers were trained and rehabilitated under a programme run by the UK government named The King’s National Roll. (This was the precursor of the Rehabilitation wing of Indian defence forces.) A couple of decades later, a skilled workforce had to be developed to enable the reconstruction of post-World War II Britain (Wingrove, 2015a). The beneficiaries of this gap were the construction and infrastructure sectors. The British government and industries came together to build the curricula and training framework to help transform unskilled human resources into a skilled workforce. However, employee development did not take into consideration the need, aspirations or growth potential of the employees. It was, in fact, parochial in approach. Employees were mere cogs in the wheel of the industry.

Almost till the end of World War I, there was no defined structure to employee development, Training was ad hoc and need based. In 1917, the first known model to train workers—Show, Tell, Do & Check—was devised by Charles R. Allen. In his book, The Roots of Lean, Jim Huntzinger refers to the model as a precursor of Training within Industry (TWI) and thereafter Lean. Allen discussed ‘how improperly trained employees create excess cost and that the cheapest method was to use only well-trained people from the start’ (Allen, 1919, p. 3). The cost of poor quality (COPQ), though not articulated in so many words, was manifested in Allen’s thinking at a time when Six Sigma or Lean were not in vogue. He brought in the concepts of quality, zero defects, leveraging the skills of well-trained professionals, thus, emphasising the need for developing employees to carry out work at reasonable cost, with minimal waste. These concepts remain quintessentially relevant though in a different avatar. Henry Ford said ‘The only thing worse than training your employees and having them leave is not training them and having them stay’ (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2018).

At a time when the UK was conceptualising training as an employee development tool, the USA too was grappling with informally formulating and institutionalising the concept. The USA participated in the World War II and soon realised the need for a bigger pool of trained workers. But there was an important difference between the needs of the two countries. The USA had a need to augment its workforce in professional services. This was because training and development in the USA emerged in the period during and after its involvement in World War II. During this period, there was a dramatic increase in the demand for trained workers brought on by the expanding wartime economy and by technological innovations (Torraco, 2016, p. 2).

Both in the USA and the UK, the primary drivers for building training programmes were to meet either the increasing shortage of skills or the increasing demand for goods. Employers tried to meet their business objectives with no intent of workers’ welfare in mind. ‘Training was designed with organizations in mind, not end-users. The result was an learning and development (L&D) programme that could be scaled but ultimately offered little impact’ (Welna, 2019). This early phase was completely devoid of ‘Employee development’. The focus was on the efficacy of training as a tool which led to enhanced employee performance or better customer service delivery. In this phase, there was not much change in the way employees worked. It was mundane work with a smattering of employer-induced training programmes.

Changing Paradigm

We saw the first paradigm shift in the 1960s when employment rates in the west reached an all-time high. Post World War II, Britain saw employment rates of nearly 100%. In the USA, the unemployment rate hovered in the range from 6% in 1961 to 3.5% in 1969. ² With such a high level of employment, the government decreed that the responsibility for training workers should lie with the employer. During this time the primary means of L&D delivery was apprenticeships (Wingrove, 2015b). With this decree, the onus shifted to the employers to create a pipeline for the future. Apprenticeship gained ground in India at the same time. The Apprenticeship Act, 1961, opened the doors for training students in technical domains and giving them real-time experience. The mandate worked in creating the workforce of the future. This was indeed a visionary intervention in employee development at scale.

A Paradigm Shift

Economic development, global competition, scarcity of skilled talent, technology and cost consciousness are the primary factors influencing employee development every few years. The 1980s saw employee development becoming a more holistic concept. The paradigm shift from Training to Human Capital became apparent in the 1980s (Poonam, 2019).

Changes in Training Pedagogy

Till the 1970s, classroom training and on-the-job-training were the predominant forms of training pedagogy. Though they continue to remain in fashion even now, several contemporary and more impactful ways have been added to the arsenal.

One of the first widely adopted models for designing training was the instructional systems development (ISD) model … which emphasized the importance of needs assessment before training and evaluating its effectiveness after training. The five phases of the ISD model—analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate—gave rise to the acronym, ADDIE, the popular term used for this training model. (Torraco, 2016, pp. 2–3)

Organisational development (OD) started taking roots at this time. Training needs identification (TNI) ensured an incisive approach towards employee development. Individual development plans (IDP) were created as a result of TNI. The employee became the centre of the development efforts unlike in the past when the needs of the employers dictated employee L&D. The period from the 1970s to the 1990s saw the usage of psychometric tools of assessment and modern techniques of training to aid in employee development. Sensitivity training, T-groups, laboratory training became popular tools of understanding individual behaviour and group dynamics.

The late 1990s and the next decade saw the advent of computer-based learning. This phase was the precursor of e-learning modules. Simulations, computerised technical modules and greater use of technology facilitated the easy assimilation of learning in the process of employee development. The learning gap identification happened through various competency-based frameworks with the aid of tailormade technology tools. At the same time, case study-based learning was introduced to enhance analytical, problem solving and critical thinking skills of employees as part of their development. To make learning seamless and easy-to-comprehend, management games were introduced. They were improvised to make them industry-specific so that the domain expertise of employees could be strengthened. Around the same time, role plays were institutionalised as a learning tool. They worked especially well in training on negotiations. Due to their inherently interesting nature, role plays became popular as well as effective (Bohlander et al., 2000, p. 249).

Performance Paradigm and Employee Development

For the most part of around three decades, either the needs of the employer or the requirements of the employee dictated the learning intervention or employee development process. But, in the 1990s, the paradigm shifted towards performance as a key variable in the employee development process. Surry and Stanfield (2008, Chapter 28) explained the influence of learning in enhancing the performance of an employee. As they wrote, ‘performance technology takes a more holistic view to identify performance problems and develop solutions to those problems. From a performance technology perspective, training is one of many possible solutions to a performance problem, not the only, and often not the best solution’ (Surry & Stanfield, 2008, Chapter 28, p. 1).

Taking the research on performance technology a step further, Deterline and Rosenberg (1992) and Rothwell (1996) used a model consisting of three phases: performance analysis, needs assessment, and support intervention in the employee development process. This process has been institutionalised in corporates. In the contemporary scenario, high potentials and / or high performers are subjected to the three-step process. Based on the level of their (high) performance or potential, either their supervisors evaluate their needs assessment or the employees themselves are put through role-based competency tests for assessment of their development needs. The needs assessment is considered to identify the most suitable development intervention so that the gap can be bridged in the best possible manner, in the shortest possible duration and at the lowest cost.

As part of the Performance Management Process, evaluation of leadership behaviours began to be done using a 360-degree framework. Organisations realised that they did not run on mere direct reporting structures. Matrix organisations, with two-pen reporting, or feedback from several stakeholders including vendors and customers spread beyond the employee’s office gave insights on performance as a constructive input. Even direct reports were added to the process, making the exercise transparent and reinforcing the culture of candour in organisations. As a step towards developing employees, the 360-degree feedback was embedded into the IDP (Individual development plan). ‘You can use the results of a 360-degree assessment as a metric to reinforce what to change’ (Effron & Ort, 2018, p. 39).

Building the Culture of Development

Hewlett Packard, known for its best-in-class employee development practices, is one of the best examples. Agilent was carved out of Hewlett Packard in 1999 and it continued employee development with the same rigour. Its leadership firmly believed that organisations had a responsibility for creating opportunities for employees. It was a new paradigm where the employee, and not the product, became the pivotal point of the company. Ron Nersesian, president of Agilent’s then largest business said, ‘Products perish. The only thing that stays is the institutional learning and the development of the skills and the capabilities that we have of our people’ (Conaty & Ram Charan, 2010, p. 161). Wherever top leaders take personal interest in developing employees across the organisation, the culture flows downwards. The flip side is its dependence on personalities. The key is to embed it in the business processes and hence the culture of the company to make it sustainable.

Potential and Employee Development

Over time, potential became a buzzword in reputed firms. While high performers were the beneficiaries of rewards and recognition, high potentials were the budding leaders of the future on whose development, the maximum share of the learning budget was spent. Senior leaders became concerned with performance inhibitors stalling high potentials from excelling. To enable high potentials to become high performers, the impediments that stopped them from delivering to their potential started getting attention from leaders. This became another paradigm in the evolution of employee development.

Developing Superkeepers is a strategic decision with organizations investing millions of dollars in training and development efforts. This very small group of individuals who have demonstrated superior accomplishments, who have inspired others to attain superior accomplishments, and who embody the core competencies and values of the organization should be optimally developed and should receive a larger proportion of the training budget. Other employees, who include the Keepers—those individuals who exceed organization expectations—should receive a lesser proportion of the budget but still be appropriately developed to continue to add value to the organization. (Berger & Berger, 2017, Chap. 18, p. 199)

Democratisation of Employee Development

In the current decade, the paradigm has further changed. Employee development has become more democratic. Employees are now more empowered to choose the medium of their development at a time and pace of their convenience. Internet and easy access have empowered the employees to leverage the contents as per their choice. In an HBR article, A Roundtable with Chief Learning Officers, Issue March–April 2019, the magazine after interviewing the then chief learning officers of Tata Sons, McKinsey and American Express gave a tagline to the article which best summarised the conclusion—‘We’re Giving Ownership of Development to Individuals’.

E-learning tools, tailormade learning modules to address specific needs and capsules of programmes accessible 24/7 on the mobile phone, have enabled learning outside the classroom. Robotics and virtual reality are being used in the dissemination of training. Now, employees can use their free time more productively. This does not in any way undermine the classroom or group learning which is imperative for team building or collaboration enhancing exercises. But employee development is in the hands of the employees like never before!

Upskilling and Reskilling

Start-ups, entrepreneurial ventures and the pro-business environment in many countries have created jobs and wealth, setting in motion the multiplier effect. The paradigm of employee development has added retention to its arsenal. Technological advancements, automation and innovation have thrown another challenge—employees becoming redundant and their skills irrelevant. Organisations have set in motion ‘skill-development’ initiatives to retain and engage employees. The cost of replacement is high. It makes better business sense to upskill employees rather than recruit externally. Agile learning interventions serve the twin objectives of keeping costs under check and ensuring the availability of trained employees in the organisation. Reskilling and upskilling have gained ground as credible interventions to transform people into the skilled, relevant workforce of the future.

With rapid mushrooming of start-ups and executives frequently hopping jobs, an easy casualty is the process of cultural assimilation and employee development. Due to pressures on supervisors to achieve quarterly targets, they often lose sight of a quarter century ahead, that is, long-term vision.

This time crunch impacting the supervisor largely happens with the ‘growth paradigm’. As a consequence of this phenomena, leadership development and coaching have been outsourced to experts who can offer exploratory spaces, meaningful conversations, and competency building for the incumbent leaders. (Gagandeep & Raghu, 2013, pp. 233–234)

Impact of the Pandemic: Employee Wellness and Development

Human capital is nowadays perceived as a valuable and desirable good, which, when properly applied, stimulates the growth of the company’s market value and, in the long run, proves to be much more important than the possession and use of material resources and financial capital. (Mikołajczyk, 2021)

Over the last 2 years, since 2020, the employee development paradigm has evolved to encompass wellness for employees and even their families in its purview. This is the latest shift in the evolution of employee development.

‘In some cases, gamification has become increasingly common in employee training’.

‘One also notices decreased employee engagement and increased fatigue with the use of multiple, online development initiatives’ (Mikołajczyk, 2021)

‘The coronavirus has been a catalyst for change and has only accelerated the transformation of learning’.

Digital Transformation

The pandemic has fast forwarded the digital transformation of employee development. Technology-based learning modules are apt for technical topics and classroom setting is used for interventions requiring person-to-person interaction. And the hybrid form is here to stay as the benefits of leveraging technology have ensured that employee development is not impaired by remote working. After all, technology is a tool for learning. The pandemic has also made employees take ownership for their development needs by asking for the right intervention to help them bridge the gap. It has moved the paradigm of employee development from being the sole responsibility of the organisation to being a joint responsibility of the employee and the organisation. The employee pilots the efforts and the organisation discharges the co-pilot role.

Conclusion

Today, some of the consistently used interventions to develop employees include coaching, mentoring, shadowing, bubble assignments, stretch assignments on critical projects, exposure and visibility to senior leadership, seminars, conferences, webinars, international assignments, business travel, sponsoring executive education in reputed national and foreign universities, tailor-made learning modules and external training programmes. Despite the heavy investment of money, time and effort with the hope that that the employee will deliver beyond expectations, there is no definite way of measuring success or return on the investment made in these interventions.

For the success of employee development, a conducive internal culture is a sine qua non. And OD is dependent upon effective mechanisms for employee development. In a way, training and development is critical to OD and vice versa. Both complement each other, eventually leading to organisational effectiveness and economic value creation for the stakeholders.