A Strategic Process Model for Small Business Training and Development

Abstract

A STRATEGIC PROCESS MODEL FOR SMALL BUSINESS TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT To survive and grow in increasingly competitive markets, service firms have often been advised to develop a distinctive competence. For example, in Peters and Waterman's book, In Search of Excellence, they cite the success of Delta Airlines' creation of a family atmosphere and Disney Productions' service-through-people. There is one area, however, which is often mentioned but rarely treated seriously as a potential source of competitive advantage. That area is training and development. Training and development may sometimes be viewed as a luxury or necessary evil by senior management. In addition, few senior managers have the time to become personally involved in such labor-intensive activities, so they do not see the direct benefits which can be gained from these efforts. It may also be the case that senior management overlooks or avoids this area because they do not have a clear model for making decisions about whether or not training and development activities will lead to a competitive advantage. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that while training and development may be a luxury in certain business situations, in others it is a vital part of a larger corporate strategy. When such activities do become part of a strategic plan, senior managers should become directly involved in several aspects of the effort. In this article a strategic process model is outlined which can aid managers in deciding whether or not training and development activities are likely to lead to competitive advantage in their organizations. The use of the model is illustrated in the case of one service organization. STRATEGIC PROCESS MODEL When service organizations report dissatisfaction with their training and development activities, the cause can often be traced to the process by which the activities were created. More often than not, such programs are developed in response to a crisis such as the departure of several valued employees, a rash of customer complaints, and/or new regulatory reporting requirements. In response to these pressures, a content-oriented, reactive, and piece-meal effort is mounted, which may serve short-run demands, but rarely addresses long-term issues. To move beyond this quick fix mentality, a fundamental shift in thinking must occur about ways of developing pro-active, goal-oriented programs that can be integrated with other human resource activities. In figure 1 a strategic decision-making process model, organized around three sequential stages, is outlined as one way of approaching training and development strategy. Stage 1 calls for both external and internal assessments of the organization's goals, strengths, and weaknesses. Stage 2 requires that decisions be made about defining the role and function of training and development within the context of the larger organization. Stage 3 focuses on several basic implementation decisions to insure that the plan will become part of a general approach to management. The value of this model to managers in small- and mid-size organizations is that it highlights key choice points in the decision-making process. The three stages of the model and ten critical decision areas within them are explored below, followed by a case study detailing how one service organization used this model to create a strategic training and development program. Stage 1: Organizational Assessment The first step in developing a strategic plan is to identify where the organization wants to position itself within its industry and to assess its strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately, senior managers often fail to consider training and development as a serious means of gaining competitive advantage, and training specialists, when present, frequently overlook the need to design their efforts to support the attainment of larger corporate goals. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 24 citations exist upstream.