Who drives employee development at your organization – the organization or the employee?
Many organizations have employee-driven development programs. These organizations provide employees with training and development opportunities, but expect employees to identify their development needs, initiate discussions with their manager, and seek out relevant opportunities
I think this approach is seriously flawed. To explain, let’s talk about kindergarten.
What I want to be when I grow up
Back in kindergarten, we had a “What do you want to be when you grow up?” day. I wanted to be a veterinarian. I loved animals, and the thought of helping sick animals seemed like the perfect gig. That dream lasted for over a decade. Then one day in high school I realized that I suck at biological science. If you want to be a vet, that’s kind of a big deal.
After several years of trying to rediscover “what I wanted to be,” I ended up pursuing a degree in anthropology. I loved learning about human cultures and how they develop and change over time.
Junior year, I realized that I loved studying anthropology, but didn’t actually want to be an anthropologist. I felt completely lost. My dad kept pushing me to look into human resources as a career. After a little pushing, I took an internship in human resources, just to see if I liked it.
I loved it. Human resources is very much the anthropology of the business world. When we recruit, we evaluate how people will fit into the organizational culture. When we develop strategic programs, we have to consider what effect the program will have on the culture and vice-versa.
My dad saw an intersection between my passions and skills that I hadn’t ever considered. If he hadn’t, I’d be digging up artifacts in a desert somewhere… and hating every minute of it.
The problem with employee-driven development
People don’t always realize what their strengths are, and they don’t always realize what’s holding them back. They also can’t always connect the dots between their strengths and passions and new opportunities. Expecting employees to drive their own development is a lot like expecting a kindergartner to pick their profession. They may think they want to do something, and then one day they realize that their talents and their dreams don’t actually line up.
Don’t get me wrong – employees should be active participants in development discussions. I think at some organizations, the process is the exact opposite of employee-driven development. Managers and the organization drive the entire process and employees don’t take ownership.
The ideal process is somewhere in the middle: Employees identify their passions, managers help them understand their strengths and weaknesses (and give them a little push every now and then), and organizations provide development opportunities that align passions with needs.
Editor’s Note - This is a guest post by our friend Chris Ferdinandi of Renegade HR. By day, Chris is an associate HR generalist at EMC where he focuses on employee development, coaching, training, onboarding and employee relations. Chris’ dad made him write this post for us… because well, his dad still directs his every career move. You know, classic millennial and helicopter parent. Gotta love it.
Softscape conducted a global survey of 215 HR leaders in December 2008 and asked this very question. The results:
Who should be responsible and accountable for an employee’s career and development planning? (select one)
All – 79%
Employee – 13%
Manager – 7%
HR – 1%
Based on the results and what we are observing in the market, I agree that the ideal process is somewhere in the middle, yet trending toward employee-driven development. The reason being that there is always a sizeable portion of the workforce that are satisfied with what they are doing and have no desire to advance or grow. So to shove a development plan down the throats of these people is counterproductive.
Over time, I believe HR will increasingly act as an “enabler” by providing the right processes and tools for employees to self-engage in career and developing planning and therefore take an active interest in their own growth and advancement.
Steve – Thanks for the stats, and I largely agree with you. But development and advancement aren’t the same thing. The notion that anyone would have to “shove development down the throats” of their employees is, I think, a bit laughable.
Not wanting to grow and learn new things seems pretty mediocre, and I don’t think I want mediocrity from my employees. If you’re in a manufacturing environment, sure, maybe your people don’t need to learn the latest and greatest techniques and that’s where they want to be.
But if we’re talking office employees, I think almost EVERYONE can learn something new.
Chris- agree that almost everyone CAN learn something new, but not everyone WANTS to. Call me a cynic, but there is a lot of mediocrity out there, a lot of disengaged workers, (%ages vary widely but call it 25% for argument’s sake), and many many people that simply work to collect paychecks. I’ve seen companies mandate development plans. My point was simply that it’s not worthwhile to focus on these people (from a development perspective, engagement is a different matter). Rather, if workers have the drive to develop – and why do people want to develop themselves? so they can advance – then they will use all the tools and techniques at their disposal to do so. I believe it is HR/OD’s responsibility to provide those tools.
Steve, that’s a fair point. Whether or not mediocrity should be allowed to exist in an organization is a much bigger question, only tangentially related to this post.
I truly believe that development doesn’t have to be solely for the purpose of advancing. Some people just enjoy learning new things to become even better at what they currently do or move laterally (which may or may not be considered advancing”. This committment to continuous development regardless of advancement is where we get rockstar employees from.
Look at Sully Sullenberger, the pilot in the Hudson River. There’s an individual who continued to actively grown and develop, despite being near the pinnacle of his career. That ongoing development saved the lives of everyone on his plane.
Steve, that’s a fair point. Whether or not mediocrity should be allowed to exist in an organization is a much bigger question, only tangentially related to this post.
I truly believe that development doesn’t have to be solely for the purpose of advancing. Some people just enjoy learning new things to become even better at what they currently do or move laterally (which may or may not be considered advancing”. This committment to continuous development regardless of advancement is where we get rockstar employees from.
Look at Sully Sullenberger, the pilot in the Hudson River. There’s an individual who continued to actively grown and develop, despite being near the pinnacle of his career. That ongoing development saved the lives of everyone on his plane.
As I understand Chris’ core point it’s that the initiative in personal development is too important to be left solely to the person. While I think everyone should take responsibility for their own development, I also agree that we don’t always see ourselves as clearly as we need to and everyone will be better off if we are sometimes prodded into action or have a new path through the forest pointed out to use.
Whether HR does that or not, I think it’s part of a boss’s responsibility to do that for team members. That’s a bit of the coaching part of the job.
Chris… This is a powerful post – one worth expanding on.
There are way too many people in the wrong jobs who are hoping that “employee development” will help them. It will likely be wasted resources.
The ownership of “employee development” is between the manager and the employee team member.
The job of the manager is to bring the best talent possible to the “game”. The job of the talent (employee team member) is to maximize their contribution through experience, skill-building, and other professional development. The biggest question that needs to answered is, “Does this employee team member fit the job?” If they do not – do not spend resources training – it will only frustrate the employee team member and the manager.
Management should use the resources of HR and outside partners to bring to bear the best combination of training, development, and experiences to help the employee team member be the biggest contribution they can be.
We are dealing with this at work as we speak. “Who owns what?”
) they are not on their own. They have resources: their manager, their peers, HR, parents and their social network.
To me the development of an employee sits squarely with the employee – it’s their career. HOWEVER (note the capitals!
All these combined, if the employee is open to input, will help them discover their passions and strengths. The reason managers are seen as traditionally critical is simply an organisational reporting anomaly that they are “the” ones to deliver the developmental input.
But an employee would benefit from recognising they need be able to use all their resources.
What a great discussion and post! I beleive employee development is really up to the employee but a company that provides more resources will likely see more developed employees. It is true that someone who wants to develop will find the resources where ever they can, but if you provide a wealth of good resources, in a conveniently accessible way, and in mediums that engage the learners, you save them the leg work and minimize the risk of them learning from bad information.
There are software tools that help employees create their own development plans based on identified critical skill weaknesses. Some of these even match learning resources with skill gaps to make finding good and relevant training a breeze. I think it’s the manager’s role to help guide the employee’s development into the areas where they can be most effective in the organization.
I don’t think anyone’s suggesting just allowing them to totally control what training they need and get. That would prove to be disastrous.