Aligning Organizational Development with Staff Development

Aligning Organizational Development with Staff Development

Is the organizational career dead? This course has made me contemplate my career with the company I've worked for for the last eight years. I was recently promoted, and I'm very excited about the opportunity, however, it does make me think there could be limits to the opportunities? What if there was to be a change in the senior leadership I directly report to; would the replacements see what I bring to the operations of our division in the same way the current Vice President does? I've selected to concentrate this paper on the efforts of organizations to further their staff with career development, growth opportunities and encouragement. Some questions I had when outlining this as a topic were as to whether my career is the responsibility of the company I'm with? Do we partner in furthering my career? Or am I sole owner of my career?

According to an article published this year by Lips-Wiersma & Hall in the Journal of Organizational Behavior, individuals are in charge of their career and are taking increasing responsibility for it. As a result, it is suggested, careers are becoming less central to organizational management practices. New forms of careers have received increased attention in contemporary organizational research. A prominent focus in this research has been whether and how, in an increasingly unpredictable career environment, individuals are taking responsibility for their own career development. The various theories underpinning the new career have in common that they argue that the individual can and should take more responsibility for their career. Being responsible means to Ð''achieve goals that are personally meaningful to the individual, rather than those set by parents, peers, an organization, or society' (Mirvis & Hall, 1996, p. 138). It also means internalizing a measure of career success that is not measured by hierarchical progress in one particular organization, but measured by marketability and employability (Viney, Adamson, & Doherty, 1995). The implication is that career is becoming less central to organizational management practices. At the same time there is evidence that organizational changes typically described in this literature have had a negative impact on career progress, resulting in resistance to change. The implication here is that career concerns are more central to organizational management practices. Lips-Wiersma & Hall (2007) conducted an in-depth qualitative case study examining whether individuals do in fact take more responsibility for their career development during times of organizational change. Examining whether this does indeed mean that the organization takes less responsibility for career management. Their data indicates that individuals are, in fact, taking more responsibility for their own careers. At the same time, Lips-Wiersma and Hall (2007), found that the organization in their case study also became more actively involved in career development and management. However, this active approach did not resemble traditional top-down career management and development. To them, the pattern of organizational and individual career development actions appear to constitute a kind of 'organizational dance,' a highly interactive mutual influence process, in which both parties are at once the agent and the target of career influence. Strengths and limitations of the study are discussed, as are directions for future research. (Lips-Wiersma & Hall, 2007)

I work in the healthcare industry, so I was very intrigued when I came across a journal article during my research titled "Leadership development in healthcare: a qualitative study" from the Journal of Organizational Behavior. McAlearney (2006) states that the typically dual role of physicians as both consumers of healthcare resources and controllers of organizational revenues in their ability to direct patients and prescribe care, makes leader relationships with physicians fairly atypical in comparison with key stakeholder relationships in other industries. From my experience at work, physicians are excellent at providing healthcare, but are not the most business savvy for executive leadership. Further, researchers and authors have recently emphasized that great leadership must be transformational, requiring leaders to be able to empower and motivate their workforce, define and articulate a vision, build and foster trust and relationships, adhere to accepted values and standards, and inspire their followers to accept change and meet organizational goals on multiple levels. Yet a sense of how to best develop these great, transformational leaders is far from established, especially in healthcare organizations. I once again asked myself whether leadership is strongly aligned with human resources divisions of companies.

What is and should be the role of HR? HR has two major roles: Maintaining an organization (human resource management or HRMÐ'--formerly Personnel Department functions), and developing an organization (human resource development, or HRD). Although some overlap exists, each role has its own distinct responsibilities. (Bobinski 2005)

Bridging the gap becomes the necessary task for a company's success. At the heart of all workplace and management issues are people, and all workplace activities are tied to the bottom line. Strategic alignment.

In strategic alignment, human resource development is an integral part of the big picture. Dan Bobinksi outlines how to accomplish this in a web article titled Ð''When Managers Misunderstand Human Resources'. The following is an excerpt from Bobinski's article:

1. A company that knows where it's going has a clearly articulated vision. Parts of HR's responsibilities include coordinating individual and