In recent
years, Learning & Development (L&D) has become an important function of
Human Resources Management (HRM) in a company. What used to be a small training
cell, has now become equal in importance to other HR functions such as
recruitment and performance management. L&D is an important bridge between
recruitment from the marketplace and delivery in the workplace. L&D can
play a vital role in the overall talent management of the company, receiving
and providing inputs from the other HR functions. Previously viewed as a
corporate function, L&D is now viewed as an important site and business
function. However, its importance as a function that could bridge the gaps between
academic education and industrial needs for young entrants on one hand and
reskilling and retooling of the aging workforce on the other is yet to be
appreciated to the full potential. There are, however, reservations as to
whether the function is living up to the expectations.
The reasons for
such doubts are many. Firstly, there is no clear body of knowledge as to what
constitutes the right methodology for L&D. An overwhelming number of CXOs
would still vote for on- the-job development, largely because the L&D
specialists have been unable to make an effective case for dedicated learning
streams. Secondly, L&D is often seen as a soft-skill initiative (based on
generic outsourced canned programmes), leaving the line managers to grapple
with the challenges of technical development (that require company-specific customization).
Thirdly, despite having one of the world’s largest educational infrastructures
in the world, L&D departments have been unable to forge viable
academic-industry collaborations. Fourthly, it is unclear if L&D function
is regarded as a mainstream HR function that can throw up future heads of HR
function or the businesses themselves. Fifthly, the metrics to determine the
effectiveness of L&D are yet to be developed to any appreciable extent. As
a result, L&D continues to be a function of high potential but beset with
unclear delivery.
Opportunism of learning
It is interesting
that most functions in HR are not exactly the functions that provide ‘universal
joy’ in organizations, given their requirements to be objective in business
partnering. Recruitment, for example, has to bring in new talent to make
businesses and operations competitive, even at higher salaries; this certainly
is not a matter of joy for internal aspirants. Rewards management has to
structure compensation within the means available to a firm, notwithstanding
what industry pays or what staff believe they deserve. Performance appraisal introduces relativity
amongst employees with all its disharmony; bell curve or no bell curve.
Succession planning is a function that demands hard (perception-wise harsh)
choices; many top level separations are caused by succession battles.
Industrial relations in traditional companies (and right sizing in new
generation firms), of course, has been the cauldron of strife and disharmony in
established organizations. In contrast to all these HR functions, L&D
emerges as a relatively welcome function that brings forth no hard feelings!
In-house
learning has, therefore, been quick to grab for itself the joyous characteristic
of non-graded learning. Sponsorship to learning programmes is seen as a relief
from the day to day work drudgery. If the sponsorship is to off campus and
overseas learning programmes, the joy is even higher. Usually company learning
programmes have neither the rigour of institutional teaching nor the challenge
of end-of-the-learning gradation. Fun though such limited company learning is, firms
can hardly become competitive just based on the joy of such non-demanding
learning processes. In-company learning needs to be as studious and demanding
as an academic programme of a top-notch institution tends to be; this is the
only way to develop the needed skill sets. L&D has to be a mini HR system;
from selecting the right candidates to providing the needed inputs, and from
measuring learning to rewarding learning. L&D professionals should be
willing to become gentle but tough taskmasters who would be both facilitative
and objective.
Opportunity of development
The real joy of
learning must come from the fulfilment of the accompanying development process.
Learning and development are the two sides of the same coin. There can be no
development without learning and learning sans development is infructuous. Just
as a student who leaves the portals of a college is expected to be decidedly
better than the one who enters, every employee who leaves a learning programme
must be a better performer than the one who enters. The learning programmes
could be simple ones such as fortifying one’s known language skills or challenging
ones such as learning an absolutely new coding language. The joy for the
learners as well as the teachers of such company programmes must be in terms of
measurable increases in individual competence, and hence in organizational
competitiveness. L&D professionals must impart seriousness and objectivity
to the process of ‘learner-teacher match’ to focus on competencies and
competitiveness.
Many times, the
relative short span of internal programmes is held to be working against the
objective of enduring developmental impact of the programmes. The fallacy lies
here itself; why should a firm undertake learning programmes that are deemed
suboptimal as a design itself? Are L&D professionals giving importance to
form rather than substance, operational managers giving precedence to current
work rather than future potential, `and corporate managements getting bogged
down by budget impacts rather than by competency needs? It is important that
firms decide on a few core themes and work towards programme structures and
contents that reshape the skill sets in a decisive manner. This requires that
L&D professionals become a part of value chain in the laboratories, plants
and markets, list out the needs and develop customized programmes. A panel of
line and HR leaders must vet the programmes, oversee coaching and evaluate the
outcomes.
Accessing the infrastructure
India has such
a large educational infrastructure that firms can indeed develop very effective
programmes in collaboration with leading educational institutions. Rather than consider
expensive executive education programmes, which are again general in nature,
L&D would do well to tie up with colleges and universities to provide full
course programmes such as Bachelors for Diploma holders, Masters for Bachelors
degree holders, and Ph D for Masters degree holders. Many public sector
undertakings such as HAL, SAIL and BEL (and some leading private sector
companies such as L&T) had taken the lead, decades ago, in structuring such
company specific academic programmes with intensely practical slant. With newer
fields such as artificial intelligence, robotics, mechatronics, sensor
technologies, Internet of Things, bionics, nanotechnology, epigenetics, and
wearable technologies set to transform all industries, it is important that
middle level employees are reskilled in such domains so that organizations can
stay contemporary at the minimum, and futuristic as a target.
There is a
dilemma here though. On one hand, so much investment has been made in India by
private agencies and the governments on colleges and institutions as well as
teaching staff that it makes sense, at least for mid-rung companies, to utilize
the investments. On the other, there does exist a criticism that Indian colleges
and academic programmes are not known to be up to date in terms of knowledge
base and pedagogy as a result of which the graduates do not have readily
deployable skillsets, forcing companies to resort to on the job experimental
development. Consequently, the confidence with which the industry can approach
the academia is yet to be built. The paradox can be resolved to mutual benefit
only if industry and academia decide to move together for collaborative
programmes. Scale is necessary for making such programmes meaningful for
companies as well as for institutions.
Learning bench
The concept of
learning bench is relevant in this context. Depending on the nature of business
and the technologies deployed, each firm should predetermine the number of
executives in each cadre and each function that should be constantly learning.
As a matter of hypothetical example, a pharmaceutical company could decide that
20 percent of its staff should constitute the learning bench at all times, so
that in a span of five years the entire organization would be reskilled.
Depending on the business model (whether it is research, manufacturing or
marketing oriented), the relative percentages of staff in those and related
domains and the nature of programmes could vary. Once a learning bench concept
is embedded, selection of staff that need to qualify into the learning bench
must be an annual feature with well specified criteria.
There should be
a three tier approach to pass the learning bench through academic
collaboration. The first tier would comprise the IITs, NITs, IIMs and other top
ranking autonomous institutions such as BITS which can take the lead for
creating industrial laboratory based research as well as advanced masters
programmes. Entry into this tier must be based on proven potential as well as
open competition. The second tier would comprise the large number of colleges
and institutions which can impart academic programmes after learning industrial
needs themselves. Entry into this tier would be open for the large numbers of
young, operating staff who need their academic capabilities customized to
industry needs. The third tier would comprise in-house programmes which are led
by domain experts of the industry and institutions together with the learning
bench staff that has already gone through tier 1 and 2 learning and development
processes.
Companies baulk
at making such huge investments on L&D as they are uncertain that
executives so trained would remain in the company. The author is reminded of
what an executive of Telco (now, Tata Motors) told him in 1976; he said that
Telco, and for that matter all Tata Group companies invest a lot in training
engineers under the Graduate Engineer Training schemes or in sponsoring middle
level executives to XLRI three year evening programmes, fully aware that not
all would stay. Yet, it has been the view of the Group that by training
graduates and developing them and others in their companies the Tata Group is,
in fact, building national competencies. That such a progressive concept was integral
to Tata organizational development four decades ago, and could be articulated
so clearly at a time when the fancy concepts of L&D were not in vogue in
Indian industry, speaks of the visionary mind-set of Telco and the Tata Group.
It should not be too much to expect the more enlightened companies of today to
view learning and development as an immersive commitment, for their companies’
competitive advantage and India’s comparative advantage.
Posted by Dr CB
Rao on April 30, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment