One of the main research questions of concern to this study is the strategic nature of the HRD/Training function. With this in mind, Garavan’s conceptualisation of strategic HRD provided a useful framework for identifying the essential components of strategic HRD/Training. This framework was selected for use in this study because it is well- constructed, well-established and has been used by others as a basis for analysis of strategic HRD (McCracken & Wallace 2000a, 2000b).
Garavan (1991) proposed that in order for HRD to be ‘strategic’ it needed to incorporate nine core features: integration with organisational mission and goals, top management support, environmental scanning, HRD plans and policies, line manager involvement and commitment, existence of complementary HRM activities, expanded trainer role, recognition of culture, and emphasis on evaluation.
Garavan’s framework was modified slightly to reflect the range of features of strategic HRD/Training represented in the literature and reworked into one incorporating ten defining features instead of the nine in Garavan’s original model (Table 3.3). The specific elements included in the adapted framework were the addition of: 1. HRD/T’s relationship with corporate strategy (that is, the extent to which its focus and activities took account of and were responsive to established and emergent corporate strategy), 2. HRD having a feedback loop to senior management (that is, the extent to which HRD/Training systematically reports back the impact of its activities to senior management and is adapts its approach and priorities to reflect their specific and possibly changing concerns); and, 3. HRD/Training attuned to stakeholder perceptions & expectations. Further, this adapted model informed the design of sections of the questionnaire survey and the ten dimensions of the framework at described briefly, below in Table 3.3..
Table 3.3: An Adapted Model of Strategic HRD
Features of Adapted Model Description of Features 1. HRD/T goals & plans aligned with corporate
strategy
HRD/T’s goals and plans correspond to and are in line with the organisation’s corporate strategy and strategic priorities.
2. Top management support Top management recognises the strategic value of the HRD/T function and supports it appropriately in terms of resourcing.
3. Scans Environment Takes a wider perspective and looks for and anticipates emerging opportunities and threats to its work and that of the organisation.
4. State of function’s goals, policies & plans HRD/Training goals, policies & plans are long- terms, clear and consistent.
5. Partnership with managers HRD/T has a strong working partnership with managers in terms of meeting the development needs of their staff.
6. Relationship with HR function HRD/T has a strong, closely aligned and consistent working relationship with the HR in terms of priorities and delivery.
7. Relationship with corporate strategy HRD/ supports and shapes corporate strategy especially in identifying emerging and future employee and organisational capability needs. 8. Feedback loop with senior managers HRD/Training systematically & regularly reports
back to senior managers the impact of its activities & adapts its approach to reflect their specific and possibly changing concerns.
9. Multi-level Evaluations HRD/T undertakes systematic and planned evaluations at the level of individual learners experience, learning transfer & organisational impact.
10. Attuned to stakeholder perceptions HRD/T is in touch with perceptions of and expectations of it, and responds to any emerging concerns.
While most aspects of the adapted model may be clear, it might be worth offering a brief explanation for the inclusion of ‘environmental scanning’. According to Garavan, an important condition for HRD/Training’s development of a coherent set of strategies, policies and practices is an understanding of the environmental context in which it and the organisation of which it is a sub-unit operates (Garavan, 2007). He suggests HRD/Training professionals need to engage in continuous environmental scanning and to develop an understanding of how elements of the external environment affect HRD/Training activities. Building on this, McClean and McClean (2001) cite particular examples from the wider environment which can affect HRD practice including national workforce development policies, the demand for qualifications, approaches to curriculum development, and funding arrangements, and emphasize the importance of the HRD/Training function being equipped and proactive about responding to such developments.
The second conceptual framework that was found to be particularly useful was that of 'organisational fit' as proposed by Miles and Snow (Miles and Snow 1990; Horowitz 1999). This framework was described in Chapter Two: Literature Review, so the details of the framework will not be repeated here apart from restating that Miles and Snow argued that successful organisations are those that have a strong fit between their operational arrangements, their organisational goals and the broader contextual environment. The original model differentiates between four types of ‘fit’: minimal, tight, early and fragile. For purposes of this research, and largely driven by the need of
grouped to three types of ‘fit’ - ‘tight fit’, ‘loose fit’ and ‘fragile fit’ - and these new categorisations were used to assess survey respondents’ perceptions of the fit between the HRD/Training function and the organisation . At the point of considering the model’s suitability as a model for use in this study, it was not entirely clear how far the fourth type of fit in Miles and Snow’s original model – early fit – would have resonance in with the state of the public sector HRD/Training function given its existing structural constraints such as being part of a formal, regulated bureaucracy with limited autonomy and resources. It was hard to imagine under what circumstances a public sector HRD/T function could be said to match the early fit dimension, characterised as the organisation or function discovering or articulating a new pattern of strategy, structure or process frequently resulting in record levels of performance and a competitive breakthrough.
The ‘loose fit’ category corresponds to the ‘minimal fit’ type and refers to those cases, for example, where the HRD/Training function has an intermittent and moderate degree of alignment, integration and responsiveness to the organisation, its goals, business strategy and broader environment, or where the HRD/Training function has a moderate, variable and loose relationship with the broader human resource management (HRM) function . ‘Tight fit’ corresponds to Miles and Snow’s ‘tight fit’ type and refers to the case where the HRD/Training function has, for example, a strong and consistent degree of alignment, integration and responsiveness to the organisation, its goals, business strategy and broader environment, or a strong and consistent partnership with managers within its organisation. The third type – ‘fragile fit’ – corresponds to Miles and Snow’s ‘fragile fit’ and refers to the state, for example, where the HRD/Training function has very weak or no alignment, integration or responsiveness to the organisation and its internal and
external environment and conditions, rendering it vulnerable to environmental shifts and prone to the risk of unravelling (Table 3.4).
Table 3.4: The Adapted Strategic Fit HRD/Training Framework
Type of Fit/
Features of Strategic HRD/Training
Tight Fit
tightly integrated, strategic, secure
Loose Fit
loosely integrated, non- strategic, vulnerable Fragile Fit non-integrated, peripheral, vulnerable 1. Partnership with managers
Strong, consistent, active Loosely structured, variable Weak or non-existent
2. Feedback Loop Strong, consistent, well-
established
Moderate, variable, loosely structured
Weak or non-existent
3. Top management support Strong, consistent, active Moderate, intermittent,
variable
Weak or non-existent
4. Alignment with HR Strong, consistent, active Moderate, variable, loosely
structured
Weak or non-existent
5. Relationship with
corporate strategy
Interdependent, two-way flow (shapes & supports)
Dependent, one-way flow (supports but does not shape)
Independent, now flow
6. HRD goals, policies, plans Long term, focused, well structured
Short-term, focused, loosely structured
Weak or non-existent
7. Alignment with corporate
strategy
Strong, consistent, active Loose, intermittent, variable Weak or no alignment
8. Environmental scanning
& responsiveness
Frequent, active, responsive Intermittent, reactive, partial Rare or never
9. Stakeholder perceptions
of role
Strategic, organisation development & change architect
HRD/Training specialist Training events administrator
10. Evaluations Consistently at level of
learning transfer & organisational impact
Individual reactions to training & development events
Infrequent, ad hoc, weak or non- existent
In terms of the use of the concepts of ‘alignment, integration and responsive’, these are intended to denote the idea of there being a close relationship between HRD/Training and various aspects of its business context. They simply refers to the need for the HRD/Training function to being attuned to, in line with, consistent with, supportive of important aspects of the business, and being proactive in responding to any emerging business needs. According to Semler, alignment is the level of congruence between organisational processes and the level to which HRD practice elicits behaviours in line
HRD contributes to an organisational culture that supports organisational goals, objectives and strategy (Truss & Gratton, 1994). Having discussed the main conceptual frameworks underpinning this study, the next section describes the specific research methods and tools employed.