Organizational Perception on Training and Development in a Manufacturing Environment
Background of the Study
Bandt & Haines (2002) defines human resource as the energies and talents of individuals available to an organization as possible contributors to the realization and creation of the mission, vision, goals and values of the organizations. Development is the process of dynamic learning from experience, which leads to purposeful and systematic development of the whole individual: mind, spirit and body. Therefore, Human Resource Development (HRD) refers to the integrated deployment of training, career development and organizational development efforts in order to enhance the effectiveness of individuals, group and the organization as a whole. Organizational reaction to training and development in any manufacturing environment is determined by the perception and attitude of the employees. According to Ashar et al. (2013), the perception and attitude of employees have substantial effect on the performance of employees that in turn determines the organizational performance. There is a need to fulfill the wants of the employees that would be the result of their enthusiasm shown by them towards their work achievement.
Statement of the Problem
The attitude and perception of employees have a significant effect on the achievement of any organization (Bandt & Haines 2002). If workers view training and development practices in the positive way, it is definite that it will positively affect the organization. If the workers are contented with the training and development, or human resource development, then they are likely to have a positive attitude towards the organizational management. On the other hand, unsatisfied employees will have a negative attitude towards organizational management (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin & Cardy 2004). The perception and attitude of the workforce relies on the job satisfaction derived from the manufacturing organization. Job satisfaction is determined by recruitment and selection procedure, training and development compensation methods, amenities available, general working environment, and perquisites offered by the manufacturing organization. In this regard, his research proposal focuses on the organizational perception on training and development in manufacturing environments.
Research Aims and Objectives
The research will be conducted with the following aims and objectives:
- To assess the discernment of workers towards training and development in manufacturing environment;
- To assess the mind-set of wokers towards training and development in manufacturing environment; and
- To provide recommendations and suggestions for successful adoption of training and development in manufacturing environment in order to create a favorable climate for these organizations.
The following research questions will also be used in achieving the above-specified research objectives:
- The is insignificant difference in the workers perception towards training and development practices among workers; and
- There is insignificant difference in workers; attitude towards training and development practices among workers.
Literature Review
A significant point to make before the assessment of HR is the transition that took place within the manufacturing field in the recent years (Iveta 2012). Conventionally, the human resource function was focused mainly on administration legalities and duties. However, more recently, a more significant role of HR operation has been adopted. Some critics have continuously focused on the ambiguities surrounding the roles that have been implemented. Some critics such as Karsh, Booske & Sainfort (2005) have gone further to argue that the HR is reinventing itself to remain relevant in management. Regardless of these criticisms, the transformation of workers development accreditation has remarkably improved in the few recent years resulting in various benefits. Some large manufacturing organizations have maintained that regardless of the difficult economic times, training and development budget was constant. According to Karsh, Booske & Sainfort (2005), this is because such organizations acknowledge the significance towards workers’ skills and engagement.
Earlier literature by Lee & Bruvold (2003) revealed a positive association between organizational performance and investments in training. Most lately expressed in McDonald & Makin’s (2000) report is the demands on a human resource practitioner to be responsive, proactive, engaging with customers and align HR practices with corporate goals. In the US, the government policy urges manufacturing organizations to invest more in training. Because of government’s urge, manufacturing companies and industries spend billions of dollars on training and development every year. Within the last two decades, a large literature volume has been written to explore the significance and usefulness of T&D practices to organizational performance.
Studies conducted by McKnight (2007) revealed that HR practices determine the well-being of employees that associated with employee perception and attitudes. Nevertheless, the research findings were not clear across the entire organization, because every person in individual. This was a significant research because the organization used was a service base. Various research findings have legitimate practical implications. Nevertheless, limitations are the same to previous studies. Scott (2003) and Sudhakar, Rao & Naik (2011) argued that selecting and recruiting the best individuals does not promise organizational capabilities. This implied that internal development is of great significance. Through human resource practices like training and development, transformed interest in motivation, leadership training and empowerment are apparent.
With regard to employee development activity and social exchange, Swart et al. (2012) argued that workers might engage in development activities to benefit partially the manufacturing organization so a positive social exchange might take place. According to Swart et al. (2012), this implied a lack of desire for organizational efficiency. In addition, it also suggests more requirements from an organizational point of view. Ansari (2011), in his study, concluded that self-development integrates going beyond and above the requirements, which is a form of pro-social behavior. On the contrary, a research conducted by Bandt & Haines (2002) revealed that self-management training improved outcome expectancy and self-efficacy. This referred to a symbolic of effective employee-organization relation (EOR). An effective EOR can result in affective organizational commitment (AOC) that describes an efficient emotional attachment to organization. This attachment is such that the strongly dedicated employees identifies with and enjoys membership in the manufacturing organization. Iveta’s (2012) study also revealed that motivation for training, access to training, and support for training all positively influence employee’s commitment. The access to training suggests the perception of employees of effectiveness or profitability of attending organizational training. According to Gomez-Mejia, Balkin & Cardy (2004), access to training suggests changing the perceptions of training instead of just requiring participation. As a result, if the perceived benefits for employees increase, then there will be the willingness to take part in future organizational training.
According to Karsh, Booske & Sainfort (2005), workers in relation to benefits of the practices might not often perceive training as intended by the organization. There might be weak association between worker and employee assessment. Nevertheless, regardless of these possible differences, the benefits of training are intended to be practical. Ansari’s (2011) work reviewed three areas of significance in training transfers: training design, trainee characteristics and work environment. Trainee characteristics comprises if cognitive ability, perceived utility of training, motivation and self-efficacy. According to Lee & Bruvold (2003), training design comprises of realistic training environments and error management. According to Sudhakar, Rao & Naik (2011), work environment integrates support, transfer climate, follow-up and opportunity to perform.
The Overview of Methodology
The research is explorative in nature and will utilize a mixed research design comprising of both qualitative and quantitative research design. The collection of data will comprise of primary source. Mixed research design is most appropriate for this topic because it is evident that the study is explorative. In addition, mixed research is suitable because of the need to quantify variables related to productivity and workplace environment, and come up with patterns of the link between variables. It is also evident that the research needs qualitative data, including specific workplace variable that constitute the manufacturing environment. The participants for the research will be randomly chosen from organizations. After the selection, the participants would give their perceptions on training and development in the manufacturing environment. The investigator will ask for the consent of these organizations, as well as that of the participants, to participate in the study.
The utilization of variables will be very important in affirming the validity and reliability of the research findings. The major investigative method will be the questionnaire that will be deployed in collecting data from the participants. The independent variables will be the manufacturing workplace environment, whereas the dependent workplace environment will be factors of production and employee productivity. The data concerning the productivity of employee will be availed by the manufacturing organizations that will be associated with the perceptions of employees concerning training and development. Besides employee perceptions concerning training and development, the researcher will ask for the services of experts in order to rate the quality of training and development. Additionally, the workers participating in the research will be educated on the elements of their training and development before proving their ratings concerning their perceptions of training and development. The participants will also be asked to describe how training and development determines their productivity variables like motivation, collaboration and creativity.
The techniques for data analysis will include mainly multivariate and bivariate data analysis. Bivariate analysis is deployed in determining the association between two variables. On the other hand, multivariate analysis is vital in modeling a single variable with respect to other variables.
Gaunt Chart
| WeekActivity | 11 | 22 | 33 | 44 | 55 | 66 | 77 | 88 |
| Researching on literature and reading them | x | x | ||||||
| Making consultations pertaining the study and gathering necessary requirements for the study | x | x | x | |||||
| Designing the questionnaire and establishing pilot questionnaires | x | x | x | |||||
| Drafting the literature review | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| Collect questionnaires and make appointments of interviews. | x | x | ||||||
| Writing literature review and making necessary adjustments | ||||||||
| Analysing results of primary data, and writing the research report. Submit dissertation. |
References
Ansari, R 2011, Physical work environment and industrial safety of the employees in power sector, Vinayaka Mission University, Salem, India.
Ashar, M, Ghafoor, M, Munir, E & Hafeez, S 2013, ‘The impact of perceptions of training on employee commitment and turnover intention: evidence from Pakistan’, International Journal of Human Resource Studies, vol 3, no. 1, pp. 2162-3058.
Bandt, A & Haines, S 2002, Successful strategic human resource planning: creating your people as a competitive advantage, Systems Thinking Press, New York.
Gomez-Mejia, L, Balkin, D & Cardy, R 2004, Managing human resources, Pearson Education, New Delhi.
Iveta, G 2012, ‘Human resources key performance indicators’, Journal of Competitiveness , vol 4, no. 1, pp. 117-128.
Karsh, B, Booske, B & Sainfort, F 2005, ‘Job and organizational determinants of nursing home employee commitment, job satisfaction and intent to turnover’, Ergonomics, vol 2, no. 3, pp. 1260-1281.
Lee, H & Bruvold, N 2003, ‘Creating value for employees: investment in employee development’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management , vol 2, no. 1, pp. 981-1000.
McDonald, D & Makin, P 2000, ‘The psychological contract, organisational commitment and job satisfaction of temporary staff ‘, Leadership & Organization, vol 4, no. 2, pp. 84-91.
McKnight, A 2007, ‘Measuring organizational support for training: The establishment of the Organizational Training Support Inventory (OTSI)’, The Journal of Global Business Management, vol 3, no. 1, pp. 14-21.
Scott, R 2003, Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Sudhakar, K, Rao, M & Naik, B 2011, ‘Employees perception about the training & development: a qualitative study’, International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences, vol 2, no. 1, pp. 2249-7382.
Swart, J, Mann, C, Brown, S & Price, A 2012, Human resource development, Routledge, London.
Is this the question you were looking for? If so, place your order here to get started!
