Developing Human Potential in Organizations: A Management Guide

Introduction

When an organization makes the decision to take an individual on as a member of staff, it is effectively making a human capital investment in that individual (Lepak & Snell, 1999). The organization pays for the training, insurance, and salary of that individual, who is in turn expected to perform the tasks within their job description efficiently and accurately, thus allowing the organization to function successfully — and more importantly, profitably. However, when a human element is involved, there is always a degree of risk present. In the case of developing the potential of employees to maximize their value within the company, there are many factors which must be addressed in the overall assessment of their potential and potential value relative to the risk they pose to the company (Abowd & Kramarz, 2003).

The factors influencing employee performance — and thereby the performance of an organization as a whole — are many and complex. Variables originating both from within and outside the organization will ultimately impact employee performance. For the purposes of this paper, however, only those factors which are within the control of the organization will be discussed. An effective analogy for business and the way organizations function is to think of them as living organisms, with all of the independent systems working jointly to produce a positive outcome. Though individual systems are often specialized and disparate, they must still find common ground through which they can interact successfully. Management effectively performs the function of the central nervous system, organizing the activity, response, and interaction of the other systems, each of which performs a specific task within the overall directive of the organization. Management is responsible not only for organization-wide success, but also for the relative efficacy of each individual employee (Bowen & Lawler, 1992).

Management is generally divided into levels, with each ascending level having simultaneously a greater sense of objectivity as well as an increased burden to adhere to the organization's overall goals and directives (Simons, 1991). Though senior managers are more directly concerned with the overall objectives of the organization, they must balance those objectives with the individual and often disparate needs of different departments. The successively lower levels of management interact more closely with individual departments and even with personnel directly, yet they are still ultimately responsible to senior management and tasked with maximizing the efficacy of their personnel and department for the purposes of efficiently and accurately achieving departmental goals — which in turn further the goals of the organization. Within this system, it is not difficult for the goals and needs of individual employees to be overlooked, especially in the context of a larger organization. However, when the needs of individual employees are not met, they become less effective workers, and in turn departmental and organization-wide goals may suffer (Bretz et al., 1992).

Of the many challenges facing management personnel, the individual development of employees so as to maximize their efficacy in their position is perhaps the most challenging and ongoing aspect of the management field (Patterson et al., 1997). In this paper, four empirically significant problems will be addressed through a review of relevant literature. These concerns will then be assessed in the context of a child welfare organization. Though a generic understanding of issues facing management is useful, understanding the challenges of motivating and training employees is most effective when discussed contextually.

Areas of Specific Focus

The first challenge lies in successfully identifying individuals with significant potential during the interview and hiring process. A number of factors are in play in this instance. For the company to invest time and money in an employee, it must be certain not only that the individual will be able to competently and efficiently accomplish the tasks set before them, but also that they will remain with the company relatively long-term, depending on the position (Delaney & Husleid, 1996). Staff turnover is one of the largest single expenses facing any company, in that the organization not only loses money from the loss of an individual performing an essential function, but also incurs the time and cost of hiring a temporary replacement and then interviewing, selecting, and training a permanent one (Abowd & Kramarz, 2003). It is therefore in the best interests of a company to utilize effective measures for assessing potential candidates. These measures often include not only standard background checks but also assessments of personality, mental health, and integrity (Rosse et al., 1998) — all of which contribute to whether an individual will be able to work effectively and consistently in the role for which they are applying.

The second challenge is implementing effective training methods that are specialized enough to give employees a sense of individual value and identity, yet broad enough to be applicable across a large group. Training is a necessary part of job performance (Collins & Clark, 2003). When new strategies or protocols are implemented, the personnel affected by the change must be taught to perform their various jobs within the context of this new framework. However, as with any learning situation, individual learning style must be considered, yet in the context of a large organization it is impossible to fully individualize training programs. It falls to the managerial staff to determine the most effective approach to train as many people as possible while spending the least amount of time and money doing so (Husleid et al., 1997).

The third challenge is the decision regarding which management strategy will be most effective within a group of diverse individuals. Though a manager is ostensibly in charge, employees' personality types and ability to work well as part of a team are important factors in the relative efficacy of any management strategy. Current research indicates that human resource management is one of the most cost-saving functions of management and is therefore extremely valuable — not only in terms of perpetuating the success of the company, but also in the ability of employees to grow and develop within it (Husleid, 1995). Though management is undoubtedly tiered such that lower-level managers have comparatively little power over important decisions, an effective, efficient, and consistent management infrastructure — in which senior-level management is at least aware of individual employees — is often the most effective (Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall, 1988).

The fourth challenge is the continued motivation of the workforce. Studies show that when a workforce is unmotivated, the rate of absenteeism increases at an inverse proportional rate to efficiency (Reason, 2000). A company whose employees spend more time absent than present and performing their roles will not perform well. It is left to managerial staff not only to keep their staff motivated but also to challenge them to outperform the specific goals set by higher-level management or the company itself. Employees who feel undervalued or who have become bored with their roles will actually begin costing the company money rather than contributing to the generation of profit (Jackson, 1995). Keeping positions interesting and challenging is therefore an integral aspect of the managerial role. Implicit in this motivational function is also the necessity for managers to resolve conflicts within their departments. This requires a thorough knowledge of mediation techniques, as well as an ability to quickly assess a situation, assert authority, and make decisions effectively (Brett, 2001). Employees who feel threatened — much like those who feel undervalued — will not perform well and could even bring suit against the company for failing to protect them.

The practice of hiring new personnel is a decision fraught with risk for the organization. While it is important to determine whether an individual is qualified for a specific position and physically and psychologically fit to fill that role, organizations must also be careful not to violate that individual's right to privacy. Equally important is an awareness of potentially discriminatory practices that might unlawfully inhibit a qualified individual from filling an open position (Holzer et al., 2002). The strict laws governing hiring practices and discrimination force employers to comply with basic standards of equality and privacy; however, there remains a great deal of potential for infringement of both the rights of the applicant and the rights of the employer (Bretz et al., 1992).

Previously, the criteria for selecting new employees from a pool of applicants were based on the simple determination of which candidate best fit the parameters of a specific job (Bowen et al., 1991). In such instances, whole individuals were hired based on a single ability or skill, with all other factors deemed irrelevant. When hiring, say, a new accounts payable person or a receivables clerk, their overall ability to fit in with the organization and the existing staff was not addressed; the only factor for consideration was whether they were proficient in a single task. Among the problems with this approach is that it made no provision for employees to rise within the company, and it did not result in cohesive, effective departments. An individual can be an incredibly talented accountant, but if they are prone to arguments and do not work well with others, their presence will ultimately be a disruption rather than an asset.

Hiring Practices

The question remained: was it truly necessary to understand the prospective employee as a whole person — given that their inherent traits will ultimately guide their behavior and their ability to fit into a situation — or was workplace behavior simply a reflection of the situational environment, thus negating the need to understand the applicant as anything more than a qualification or skill set (Bowen et al., 1991)? A number of studies on the subject have observed that it is indeed the former, rather than the latter, which determines the behavioral outcomes of individuals in various settings.

Most organizations function on the premise that the best managerial strategy is one which controls as much of employees' behavior as possible — in theory eliminating the potential for interpersonal disputes (Wright & Boswell, 2002). However, within a highly regimented, trained, and socialized group, there is no real individuality, which studies have shown ultimately leads to employee dissatisfaction and a decline in performance (Becker & Gerhart, 1996). This managerial style is fairly pervasive in the business world, shared among high-tech and low-tech companies across a variety of industries. It was believed that sameness resulted in solidarity and better adherence to rules, when in fact it produces an inverse reaction in the long term (Becker & Gerhart, 1996).

A far more effective strategy is one which, rather than finding an individual who can perform a specific task, finds an individual who is particularly suited to a position within the organization. This profile is based not only on the needs of the individual position but also on the overall needs of the company, assuming that the individual will continue with the company long-term. The factors assessed include the work environment, the type of individual required, which tests and protocols the ideal candidate should be able to successfully complete, and — above all else — whether their personality fits with the rest of the organization (Bowen et al., 1991). This ensures that any individual selected for a position would not simply be a brain or a pair of hands capable of a specific task, divorced from the rest of themselves as an individual, but rather a person capable of becoming part of a cohesive unit — someone who, to put it simply, fits (Bowen et al., 1991).

Most employers require candidates to undergo not only a background check but also a number of psychologist-designed measures intended to determine whether the individual will be an asset or a detriment to the company (Holzer et al., 2002). This testing has, however, been met with mixed reactions. The trepidation stems at least in part from the reality that applicants are not likely to respond to every question truthfully: they are attempting to acquire a position with the company and are therefore motivated to provide socially desirable responses (Rosse et al., 1998). Indeed, a study assessing the degree of distortion present when applicants completed one of two commercially available measures commonly used to assess conscientiousness found that more than half of the sample responded falsely — translating to a possible 88% of new hires having successfully deceived the measure (Rosse et al., 1998). Though it seems counterintuitive to lie on a formal test administered by a potential employer, the rationale is that, given the nature of the test and the information it assesses, false responses are highly unlikely to be "caught" by the employer (Rosse et al., 1998).

Interestingly, incoming candidates are apparently more likely to respond falsely than individuals who already hold a position within the company (Rosse et al., 1998). There was an overwhelmingly more significant distortion in responses from individuals seeking entry to a company than from incumbent employees. In order to address this, the acceptable scores for positively viewed traits must be adjusted to correct for this distortion. While testing using empirical measures remains an acceptable and invaluable method of gathering information about employment candidates, it must be understood that the method, though effective, is not as accurate as was once thought.

With the recognition that more extensive testing and evaluation may be necessary to ensure the most accurate description of potential candidates is available to administrators, it must also be acknowledged that some standard screening methods may present a problem by excluding a significantly higher proportion of one population than another (Holzer et al., 2002). It is standard practice — alongside personality and conscientiousness measures — to ask for a history of any and all criminal convictions and to require applicants to submit to a background check. Though it is not always directly stated, employers will often reject an applicant on the grounds of previous criminal convictions. In the United States, the majority of the prison population is composed of young African American males. If employers systematically decline to hire individuals with criminal records, it will be disproportionately more difficult for young African American males in general to find employment (Holzer et al., 2002). Though this example is relatively straightforward, there are many additional issues arising during the application process which may unjustly exclude entire segments of the population.

Background checks can be rather costly. For smaller organizations without access to criminal records, this may result in the unfair implied assumption of prior conviction even where no conviction exists in an individual's history. As police have been called into the spotlight for racial profiling, so too are employers being observed closely to ensure that statistics regarding ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality do not ultimately count against a fully qualified and technically eligible individual (Holzer et al., 2002).

Findings of a study specifically designed to assess the relative stigmatization of comparatively marginalized groups of workers indicate that the negative preconceptions described above do in fact affect individuals who belong to stigmatized groups — whether due to race or an inconsistent employment history (Holzer et al., 2002). This effect is most pronounced among employers who cannot access criminal records or do not run background checks. Remarkably, the most recent hires of individuals belonging to stigmatized groups were made by employers who expressed an extreme distaste for working with individuals with criminal records and who consequently ran thorough background checks on potential employees (Holzer et al., 2002). This seemingly counterintuitive result indicates that employers who are truly averse to criminal histories are unwilling to rest on assumptions and are therefore more thorough and ultimately more equitable in their selection process.

Another effect was also observed in the context of criminal records and employability. When some employers became aware that applicants had criminal histories, they leveraged this information to their own advantage (Holzer et al., 2002). Rather than simply rejecting such individuals, some employers were observed to offer them employment at reduced wages or without benefits. Because the likelihood of an individual with a criminal record securing a job is slim, these already stigmatized individuals may be taken advantage of through their desperation for work and an unethical employer's ability to dictate whatever terms they like (Holzer et al., 2002). Ultimately, this discrimination — whether based on incorrect perception or not — may reduce the employability of African American males by as much as 13%, with equally significant consequences for the wages this population would have access to.

These concepts are specifically related to human development because, within an organization, human development is extremely dependent on an individual's ability to work well with others and within the existing rules and strategies that govern the environment. The research suggests that individuals develop most effectively and efficiently in environments to which they are suited — not only in terms of skill, but also in terms of fitting into the overall goals and culture of the organization without requiring extensive re-engineering through training and acculturation. Where many organizations spend a great deal of money trying to redesign individuals to meet their needs, it would be far more effective to hire individuals who fit the job as well as the organization from the outset. Moreover, if an employee is in an environment in which they fit, they are much more likely to remain there long-term.

Conclusion

Collins, C., & Clark, K. (2003). Strategic human resource practices, top management team social networks, and firm performance: The role of human resource practices in creating organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 740–751.

Bowen, D., Ledford, G., & Nathan, B. (1991). Hiring for the organization, not the job. Academy of Management Executive, 5, 35–51.

Wright, P., & Boswell, W. (2002). Desegregating HRM: A review and synthesis of micro and macro human resource management research. Journal of Management, 28, 247–276.

Bowen, D., & Lawler, E. (1992). Total quality-oriented human resource management. Organizational Dynamics, 1–19.

Lepak, D., & Snell, S. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review, 24, 31–48.

Brett, E. (2001). Participation and accountability in development management. Interdisciplinary Studies of the Tercer Sector.