Ref.: 10.10 Desperately seeking alignement: Reflections of senior line managers and HRD executives Refereed Paper Valerie Anderson 1, University of Portsmouth Business School Email: Valerie.anderson@port.ac.uk Keywords: Alignment; Strategic HRD; HRD executive; Senior management, HRD investment Abstract This paper is grounded in theories of strategic HRD. Alignment is a key feature of the strategic HRD literature but it is under-researched. An interpretivist approach was taken for this exploratory research which sought to understand alignment as it really is from the perspective of those involved, taking into account their personal and organizational contexts. Data from semi-structured interviews with HRD executives and senior managers addressed the following research questions: How are organizational decisions about investment in HRD processes and practices made? How is ongoing alignment of HRD activities achieved? To what extent are senior manager and HRD executive views about the strategic alignment of learning similar or different? The research indicates that alignment is an aspiration rather than a reality in many organizations. Devolved responsibility for HRD means that budgets with implications for learning are often dispersed throughout the organization and are the responsibility of a range of different managers. Engagement in business planning and review processes; effective communication of a business case, and constructive formal and informal dialogue with line managers are perceived by those involved to enhance alignment. Measures and metrics for monitoring or managing alignment are best described as a work in progress in many organizations. Approaches to alignment are many and varied in UK organizations and contextual factors, particularly organization size, sector and the nature of skill or capability requirements are important influences. The research indicates the iterative nature of alignment processes which involve reconciling organizational imperatives to: deliver cost-effective labour and strategic readiness ; engage with emergent and strategically opportunistic decision-making, and meet immediate priorities at an operational level. For HRD practitioners who may be desperately seeking alignment a focus on building networks of influence and engaging in constructive dialogue seems to be an essential pre-requisite to achieving their aspiration. ; 1 Richmond Building, Portland Street, Portsmouth, PO1 3DE, United Kingdom, Tel: +0(44)23 9284 4029 1
This paper is grounded in theories of strategic human resource development (HRD) which assert that HRD professionals should work with senior managers to align workplace learning with other organizational systems (Zula and Chermack 2007; Boselie, Dietz and Boon 2005; Elias and Scarborough 2004; Williams 2002; Gilley and Maycunich 1998. Ciborra (1997), however, argues that strategic alignment is a conceptual truism that is rarely demonstrated empirically. This paper contributes an exploratory assessment of perceptions about the alignment of HRD. Alignment Alignment is variously referred to as: integration, fit, linkage and bridge (Weill and Broadbent 1998; Ciborra 1997; Porter 1996; Henderson and Venkatraman 1989) and in the HRD literature it forms one element in achieving human capital efficiency and economic outcomes (Zula and Chermack 2007). Theoretically it should be achieved at both strategic and operational levels (Wognum 2001). It is also predicated on the existence of a clearly communicated strategy, something which can be problematic in fast-moving business environments (Francis and Keegan 2006; Boselie, Dietz, and Boon 2005). Equally it is possible that alignment might be too tight and so reduce future strategic capability (Avison et al. 2004). Beer et al. (2005) advocate that organizations should develop both fit (as initial strategic alignment) and also fitness (as a dynamic organizational design) to provide the capacity for organizational members to learn and change in order to adapt to new circumstances. Alignment is, therefore, a dual concept; it can be viewed as both an outcome and a process involving attention to strategic planning methods and measures (see, for example, Weill and Broadbent 1998) and interactions between organizational actors, networks and values (see, for example, Avison 2004; Labovitz and Rosansky 1997). Empirical evidence spanning more than ten years casts doubt on the extent to which the strategic alignment of HRD has been achieved in organizations in Europe and North America (see, for example, Garavan, Heraty, and Morley 1998; Wognum 2001; Kuchinke 2003; Accenture 2004; O Driscoll, Sugrue and Vona 2005; CIPD 2007; Wolff 2007; IBM 2007). Specifically there is limited evidence of the extent to which strategic HRD theories of what HRD alignment should be are enacted by strategic players particularly those senior decision makers who ultimately determine organizational levels of investment in HRD. The research addressed the following questions: How are decisions about investment in HRD processes and practices made? How is an ongoing alignment of HRD activities achieved? To what extent are senior manager and HRD executive views about the strategic alignment of learning similar or different? Methodology This exploratory study examined alignment processes as reported by those involved. Grounded in an interpretivist approach it used semi-structured interview data to explore the processes from the perspective of those involved (Gubrium and Holstein 1977; Kuchinke 2003). A purposive sample was selected reflecting different sectoral and organizational contexts. Twenty-four interviews in twelve UK organizations (see Table 1) on a matched 2
pair basis were undertaken involving both a senior operational manager and the most senior person responsible for HRD. Table 1: Profile of sample organizations Organization Size Type Code A Large Private sector B Medium Not-for-profit C Large Partnership D Large Public Sector E Medium Not-for-profit F Medium Not-for-profit G Medium Private sector H Large Private sector J Large Public sector K Medium Private sector L Large Private sector M Large Private sector The interviews revolved around a set of core questions that drew on the most recently published research in this area (Sugrue, O Driscoll and Vona 2006). Interviews were tape recorded (with permission) and transcribed for later analysis. An iterative approach to data collection and analysis was taken which set out to explore and analyse data without prior or fixed assumptions as to what would be found (Bryman and Bell 2007). The themes were then used as a basis for coding and analysis using the NVivo7 qualitative data analysis software. Findings Decisions about investment in HRD processes The research confirms the importance of organizational size and type in influencing perceptions of the nature of alignment (Kuchinke 2003). Aligning investment in HRD is also shown to be a complex and fluid process. This may reflect the trend of devolving responsibility for learning to line managers (see, for example, Whittaker and Marchington 2003; Gibb 2002; McGovern et al. 1997). Although some budgets are managed by HRD practitioners other sources of funding are the responsibility of other stakeholders and are not necessarily designated for HRD purposes. Given the disparate nature of HRD investment it is important to examine how those involved are endeavouring to incorporate alignment in organizational decision-making processes. The interview data suggest three different but interrelated processes. Firstly, interviewees stressed the importance of the involvement of HRD practitioners in regular business planning and budgeting processes as a way of aligning investment in HRD. In addition to involvement in regular planning processes HRD executives also reflected on the need to make a case for additional investment in HRD in response to emergent strategic priorities. Whether the influencing process was through formal meetings or on an informal basis the chances of success depended in these cases on an effective business case. However, a significant lack of involvement in business planning processes in a number of organizations was also evident where investment in HRD was essentially a process of inheriting a year-onyear budget. In such circumstances HRD practitioners were not necessarily involved in 3
business planning processes and a specific justification to ensure continued investment was not required of them. Although interview responses by HRD executives and senior managers reflected broad agreement in some areas there were also areas of a difference regarding the focus of HRD in regard to alignment. There was an agreement between the two consitutencies about the importance of achieving alignment to deliver cost-effective labour for the organization and to ensure what might be termed strategic readiness. There were also differences of emphasis: HRD executives reflected more on the issues of alignment involved in talent or management development / succession processes whereas the senior managers focused more on investing in HRD to achieve performance improvement. Ongoing alignment of HRD processes The data confirm the difficulties and challenges that are experienced with ongoing alignment (see, for example, CIPD 2007; Wolff 2007; Sugrue, O Driscoll and Vona 2006). Four of the twelve senior managers indicated that they were not sure how the HRD function ensured it maintained ongoing alignment. Where respondents were able to reflect on experiences in this area two broad approaches were indicated. Firstly, dialogue was described as a way of ensuring ongoing alignment. Interviewees described how participation in regular business progress meetings with line managers provided an opportunity to assess ongoing alignment. Participation in a range of consultative opportunities involving different stakeholders where the role of HRD and its contribution in the organization could be discussed was also cited as a further avenue. The development of informal working relationships with line managers; taking their needs as internal customers seriously and ensuring their involvement in monitoring learning processes was portrayed as a further alignment opportunity. Secondly, measures or metrics were discussed as a way of assessing ongoing alignment. Four organizations highlighted the use of external benchmarks and interviewees indicated that they were reassured of ongoing alignment if, through benchmarking, the HRD function could demonstrate that it was operating in accordance with best practice. Key performance indicators and metrics were also highlighted by interviewees, such as: customer satisfaction measures, productivity measures, management succession indicators and employee retention. Conclusion The research indicates that alignment is an aspiration rather than a reality in many organizations. Devolved responsibility for HRD means that budgets with implications for learning are often dispersed throughout the organization and are the responsibility of a range of different managers. Engagement in business planning and review processes; effective communication of a business case, and constructive formal and informal dialogue with line managers are perceived by those involved to enhance alignment. Measures and metrics for monitoring or managing alignment are best described as a work in progress in many organizations. Approaches to alignment are many and varied in UK organizations and contextual factors, in particular organization size, sector and the nature of skill or capability requirements are important influences. 4
The research indicates the iterative nature of alignment processes which involve reconciling organizational imperatives to: deliver cost-effective labour and strategic readiness ; engage with emergent and strategically opportunistic decision-making, and meet immediate priorities at an operational level. For those HRD practitioners who may be desperately seeking alignment a focus on building networks of influence and engaging in constructive dialogue is perceived to be an essential pre-requisite to achieving their aspiration. References Accenture. 2004. High-Performance workforce study. http://www.cpp.com/pr/accenture.pdf [accessed 18 May 2007]. Avison, D., J. Jones, P. Powell and D, Wilson. 2004. Using and validating the strategic alignment model. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 3, no. 3: 223-246. Beer, M., S.C. Voelpel, M. Leibold and E.B. Tekie. 2005. Strategic Management as organizational learning: Developing fit and alignment through a disciplined process. Long Range Planning 38: 445 465. Boselie, P., G. Dietz and C. Boon. 2005. Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research. Human Resource Management Journal 15 no. 3: 67-94. Bryman, A. and E. Bell 2007. Business Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chartered Institute Of Personnel and Development. 2007. Learning and development. Annual Survey Report. http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/lrnanddev/general/_lrngdevsvy.htm?issrchres=1 [accessed 25 August 2007]. Ciborra, C. 1997. De Profundis? Desconstructing the concept of strategic alignment. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 9, no. 1: 67-82. Elias, J and H. Scarbrough. 2004. Evaluating human capital: an exploratory study of management practice. Human Resource Management Journal 14, no.4: 21-40. Francis, H. and A. Keegan. 2006. The changing face of HRM: in search of balance. Human Resource Management Journal 16, no. 3: 231-249. Garavan, T.N.N. Heraty and M. Morley. 1998. Actors in the HRD Process. International Studies of Management and Organization 28, no. 1: 114-135. Gibb, S. 2002. Line manager involvement in learning and development: small beer or big deal? Employee Relations 25, no. 3: 281-93. Gilley, J.W. and A. Maycunich. 1998. Strategically integrated HRD: Partnering to Maximize Organizational Performance., Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley 5
Gubrium, J.F. and J.A. Holstein. 1977. The new language of qualitative method, New York: Oxford University Press. Henderson, J. and N. Venkatramen. 1989. Strategic alignment: A model for organizational transformation. in Transforming Organizations, ed. T. Kochan and M. Unseem. New York: OUP. IBM Global Business Services. 2007. Unlocking the DNA of the Adaptable Workforce: The global human capital study: 2008. Presentation on 15 October 2007, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Wessex Branch. http://www.cipd.co.uk/nr/rdonlyres/8bb4cfc5-cd7e-424a-9241-3a40ddd6308c/0/hewit_am.pdf [accessed 31 March 2008]. Kuchinke, K.P. 2003. Contingent HRD: Toward a theory of variation and differentiation in formal human resource development. Human Resource Development Review 2, no. 3: 294-309. Labovitz, G. and V. Rosansky. 1997. The Power of Alignment., CA: John Wiley and Sons. McGovern, P., L. Gratton, V. Hope-Hailey, P. Stiles and C. Truss. 1997. Human resource management on the line? Human Resource Management Journal 7, no. 4: 12-29. O Driscoll, T., B. Sugrue and M.K. Vona. 2005. The C-Level and the value of learning, Training and Development. October 2005: 70-75. Porter, M.E. 1996. What is strategy? Harvard Business Review Nov-Dec 1996: 61-78. Sugrue, B., T. O Driscoll and M.K. Vona. 2006. C Level Perceptions of the Strategic Value of Learning Research Report. Alexandria VA: American Society for Training and Development and IBM. Weill, P. and M. Broadbent. 1998. Leveraging the New Infrastructure Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Whittaker, S. and M. Marchington. 2003. Devolving responsibility to the line: threat or partnership? Employee Relations 25, no. 3: 245-61. Williams, S.L. 2002. Strategic planning and organizational values: links to alignment. Human Resource Development International 5, no. 2: 217-233. Wognum, A.A. 2001. Vertical integration of HRD policy within companies. Human Resource Development International 4, no. 3: 407-421. Wolff, C. 2007. Workplace training budgets and challenges. IRS Employment Review. http://www.xperthr.co.uk/article/79809/survey--workplace-training---budgets-and-challenges- 2007.aspx [accessed 31 March 2008]. Zula, K.J. and T.J. Chermack. 2007. Human capital planning: A review of literature and implications for human resource development. Human Resource Development Review 6, no. 3: 245-262. 6
7