Human resource development strategy refers to the means by which specific human resource management functions are implemented. The human resource functions in organisation may relate to the recruitment and selection policies, reward/recognition policies, disciplinary procedures as well as learning and development policies. Nevertheless, all of these HRM functions must be properly aligned in order to correspond with the overall business strategy.
It is against this background that Okemakinde (2014) emphasised the need to put in place robust HRD strategy that will bring about sustainable learning and development in Higher Education Institutions in Nigeria in line with global best practices. He maintained that the Federal Government of Nigeria should accord greater attention to the transformation of higher education systems by developing policies and systems that will
54
facilitate learning and development of academic staff. Such policies and systems he asserts should entail a shift to a more pragmatic approach that encourages the involvement of everybody in the drive towards the promotion of quality, something which has been obtained in other developed countries who have at various points in the education system evolved HRD strategies to facilitate the learning and development of academic staff.
In the United Kingdom for instance, an English White Paper titled “the future of Higher Education” stated that “All providers should set down their expectations of teachers with reference to national professional standards; should ensure that staff are trained to teach and continue to develop professionally; should have effective quality assurance systems and robust degree standards; and should value teaching and reward good teachers” (DfES, 2003:49). In respect to HEI’s in the UK, the white paper noted that the government expects that institutions will develop policies and systems to ensure that all staff are engaged in continuing professional development to maintain, develop and update their skills. (DfES, 2003:50).
Also in the UK, other frameworks and approaches to staff development have also emerged such as: Investors in People (IIP) (2004), the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) (2003), the UK’s Higher Education Academy (2004), and the UK Professional Standard Framework for Teaching and Supporting Learning in Higher Education, (2011). These systems, techniques and strategies lay emphasis on the professional development of academic staff.
In Higher Education Institutions in the UK as elsewhere, different strategies and methods are deployed for academic staff development and thus have different outcomes. Cummins et al (2005) discussed two contrasting strategies which are: top-down and bottom- up. A top-down strategy is one in which the authority within the institution develops a strategic plan and present it to academic staff. In this case, the strategic plan is done without consultation with the envisaged participants. There is usually no discussion and academic staff are usually expected to abide by the plans. The assumption here is that the institution managers know the developmental needs of the academic staff and forcefully implement their assumption without any due consultation with academic staff.
55
Cummings (2005), refering to the work of Miller (1995), noted that the top-down approach seeks to achieve change through the imposition of central policies, using power-coercive strategies to effect change; that is, change is forced through strategic, financial, or industrial means. Brew (1995) justifying the top-down approach to staff development noted that the strategy is beneficial in the sense that it avoids duplication of academic staff development across disciplines and in principle reduces financial waste.
Baume and Kahn (2004) observed that the top-down approach is efficient but maintained that the strategy for development may be rejected by staff that have made no input, with that rejection taking the form of subtle non-compliance. Commenting further Baume and Kahn (2004) argued that the down side is that academic staff would normally see this approach as a waste of time because, since there was no consultation to ascertain their developmental needs, the programme would not address their immediate needs. Also, Petrov et al, (2006) noted that the top-down approach may also be criticised by academic staff for restricting academic autonomy. Agreeing, Baum and Kahn (2004) noted that where a more top-down approach is favoured, developers can be confronted with mixed emotions from academic staff as they question or even criticise elements of the strategy.
In contrast with a bottom-up strategy, academic staff participate and drive the ideas that end up in the plan. Academic staff are given the opportunity to state where they think they lack skills and what developmental interventions will assist them overcome whatever difficulty they are experiencing in their profession. The bottom-up approach places premium on needs assessment and is based on the assumption that academic staff do not readily respond to the opportunity to undergo staff development unless they feel that they have identifiable needs. Baume and Kahn (2004) noted that this approach has the advantage of engendering an atmosphere of dialogue within the institution and also giving academic staff a sense of ownership because they participate in planning the strategy. However, Baume and Kahn (2004) noted that the down side is that the bottom-up strategy is time consuming and can lead to frustrations if academic staff have ideas they value and advocate, but are not included in the final strategic plan. Also, academic staff may have different perspectives from management and there might be no process in place for negotiation.
56
In view of the criticisms levelled against these two approaches, some writers (Fullan, 1994; Baume and Kahn, 2004; Pearce, 2004) have found that a combined top- down, bottom-up process is usually the most effective. This process will ensure that staff development is looked at holistically for the common good of academic staff and the organisation at large.
From the foregoing, even though the implementation of HRD strategy (whether top-down approach or bottom-up approach or a combined top-down, bottom-up) has been acknowledged, the successful implementation of these approaches is not possible without good governance. By governance here we mean that the HRD Strategy adopted by the organisation must be properly driven at all levels so that there is a coordinated and concerted effort in understanding shared responsibilities. It is important that good governance will facilitate the creation of an environment that will not only promote professionalism, a culture of learning and development, but also foster implementation success. Nine critical characteristics provided by Garavan (1991), later developed by McCraken and Wallace (2000), provide a robust framework that is considered “Best Practice” in the implementation of HRD strategy in organisations. For the purpose of this study it will be argued that these nine characteristics discussed below are critical in guiding top management in the successful implementation of HRD policy and strategy for academic staff in Nigerian Polytechnics.
1. Integration with organizational mission, goals and strategies
The environment in which organizations operate demands that HRD plays a central role in the shaping of organizational strategy (Jacobs, 2003). The ability of organizations to survive and adapt in an increasingly volatile business environment hinges on an organization’s ability to harness and utilize the expertise of its intellectual capital as a factor in the shaping of its strategy. Agreeing, Tseng and Mclean (2008) maintained that among other things, the integration of HRD with organizational mission, goals and strategies remain a precursor for the achievement of HRD outcomes that have a “developmental effect” on organizations. Louma (2000) also argues that HRD plays a pivotal role in the formulation and implementation of strategy, with the vision for the organization being pursued through the execution of HRD. The kernel of this
57
characteristic is that there is an overarching need for there to be a direct link between the goals of Polytechnics and their HRD activities (Armstrong, 2012) and the need for a fit between HRD and organizational strategy (McCraken and Wallace; 2000)
2. Top Management Support
A number of scholars have emphasized the importance of top management support for the development of human resources in the organization. Top management rather than being passive have been enjoined to actively pursue HRD strategies that will leverage performance in organizations (McCracken and Wallace; 2000). Fricker (1994) emphasized the need for top management to recognize the value of learning as the primary force to facilitate and achieve change. Baldwin and Magjuka (1997) assert that top management must show their support for HRD through visible commitment and ensuring a strong financial commitment to HRD. Budhwar (2000) assert that without top management support, human resource activities will fail to be part of the early stage of the decision-making process.
3. Environmental scanning
Garavan (1991) assert that continuous knowledge of the environment in which organizations operate, in terms of threats and opportunities it presents for the organization and HRD in particular, is critical to the survival of organizations in a period characterized by constant change. McCracken and Wallace, (2000) advanced the need for management to channel their energy towards the development of a planning framework that could be applied in the organization for scanning the external environment and aligning human resources with predicted change.
4. HRD plans and policies
Rothwel and Kazenas (1989) advocate the need for a formal systematic approach to planning as a prerequisite for the achievement of strategic human resource development (SHRD). Garavan et al., (1999) agreeing, however, adds that in order
58
for HRD to be strategic in focus, the need to formulate plans and policies that flow from, and are aligned with, overall organizational plans and policies that remain critical to organizational vitality and viability. Corroborating, McCracken and Wallace (2000) opine that in order to adapt in a business environment that is constantly in a state of flux, organizations must strive to ensure that HRD policies and plans must be augmented by HRD strategies.
5. Line manager commitment and involvement
Some scholars (for example Garavan, 1991; Horwitz, 1999; Wittaker and Marchington, 2003) have argued that the responsibility for HRD lies with the line managers and that their involvement in the development of human resources in organization is Strategic HRD. McCracken and Wallace, (2000) observed that given the fact that line managers have responsibility for HRD, it is important that there should exist a synergy between HRD specialist and line managers in such a way that both can work as partners in the development of human resources in the organization. Harrison (2000) emphasized the need for shared ownership of HRD such that the interest of key HRD stakeholders is taking into consideration in the implementation of HRD strategies. Also, Herman and Herman (1998) assert that a greater involvement of stakeholders is critical to the implementation of HRD strategies. They argued further that stakeholder involvement leads to psychological ownership and remains a precondition for implementing effective HRD programmes and other learning interventions. Garavan (2007) suggest that any conceptualization of Strategic HRD must be focused on an evaluation of the linkages among organizational strategies, HRD systems, and policies and practices that incorporate the perspectives of multiple stakeholders, and focus on contributions at multiple levels of analysis.
6. Existence of complementary HRM activities
Wilton (2013) stress the need for horizontal fit between different elements of the HR “mix” as one component of a strategic approach to HRD. Louma (2000) equally emphasized the need for HRD to fit with other HR practices in the organization and that competencies developed through HRD must be sustained and
59
strengthened with the help of other domains of HRM. Garavan (2007:25) defines strategic HRD as “a coherent, vertically aligned and horizontally integrated set of learning and development activities”. Here, Garavan (2007) emphasized that HRD,while being complimentary with other aspects of HRM, should equally have “vertical fit” with organizational strategy and objective. Agreeing, Louma (2000) notes that the HR strategy should co-ordinate and direct the different HR efforts to ensure that they are contributing to a common goal.
7. Expanded trainer role
Garavan (1991) argued that rather than viewing the role of the HRD specialist as a simple provider of training they should instead be seen as proactive and central contributor to the attainment of organizational goals which Garavan (1991) considers as being central to the adoption of a strategic approach to HRD. In this regard, Nadler and Nadler (1989) contend that the human resource developer must embrace three key roles: that of learning specialist, manager of HRD and consultant (see table 3.1)
Table 3. 1 Roles of the Human Resources Developer
Learning Specialist Manager of HRD Consultant
Facilitator of learning Supervisor of HRD
program
Programs Expert
Designer of learning Developer of HRD
personnel
Advocate Developer of instructional
strategies
Arranger of facilities and finance
Stimulator
Maintainer of relations Change Agent
Source: Nadler and Nadler (1989:6)
8. Recognition of culture
Garavan (1991) emphasized that it is paramount for the HRD function to be sensitive to the prevailing culture of the organization and ensure that there is an alignment between the culture and the strategic option pursued. Johnson (2000) maintained that culture exerts powerful influence on all aspects of the strategic management process and it is said to be a significant barrier to the leveraging of intellectual capital in an organization (David and Fahey, 2000). Therefore,
60
McCracken and Wallace (2000) maintained that, considering the influence culture exerts in the HRD process, it is important to view culture as a major variable when designing, delivering and evaluating HRD interventions. Horwitz (1999) observed that one of the key features of the SHRD model is the creation of an organizational culture of continuous learning and transfer of learning between functional units. As noted by Armstrong, (2001), the emphasis of the learning organization model lies in the creation of an environment that is supportive of learning at the individual, team or group levels.
9. Emphasis on evaluation
Garavan (1991) asserts that for HRD to have a strategic focus, monitoring and evaluation of HRD activities must be considered. He advocated that the criteria suggested by Johnson et al., (2008) such as: the criteria of suitability, feasibility and acceptability should be applied to HRD interventions. Lee (1996) advocates the use of a pay-back approach and a pay-forward approach to address the issue of evaluation. The pay-back approach holds that return on training investment is measurable in financial terms and offers tangible quantifiable results in a short time. On the other hand, the pay-forward view maintains that the benefits of training investment accrue in the longer term. The pay-forward view equally maintains that the benefits from HRD are demonstrated in organization’s capacity to learn and change.
The foregoing “Best Practice” in the implementation of HRD strategy in organisations lay emphasis on the professional development of staff and underscores the need for academic staff development in Higher Education Institutions.