What are the key challenges for setting a PDP in contemporary organisations?
Professional Development Plans (PDPs) are widely considered essential in contemporary organisations as they endeavour to align individual aspirations with organisational goals, fostering a culture of continuous learning and improvement. However, creating and implementing PDPs can be fraught with challenges that vary depending on several factors.
Firstly, the rapid pace of technological change and globalisation suggests that there may be difficulties in predicting future competencies with certainty (Clarke & Higgs, 2016). As a result, organisations should focus on instilling a mindset of lifelong learning rather than concentrating solely on specific, potentially transient skills.
Secondly, sustaining individual motivation and engagement in the PDP process can be challenging. Employees might perceive PDPs as a bureaucratic exercise if the programmes do not resonate with their career goals (Smith & Tillema, 2003). Therefore, involving employees in co-creating their PDPs could enhance their perceived value.
The alignment of personal and organisational goals often presents a complex challenge. Employees’ aspirations may align differently with current organisational objectives or roles, which could lead to tension. Effective communication and negotiation may moderate a balance.
Resource constraints are also a potential impediment to the implementation of PDPs. With often limited time, budget, and support from management, there is a risk that PDPs fail to achieve their intended depth or effectiveness (Garavan, 1997).
Finally, the measurement of PDP outcomes is a nuanced challenge. While quantifying the impact of professional development on performance is critical for justifying the investment in PDP programmes, it should be acknowledged that developing robust metrics that capture both qualitative and quantitative aspects of professional growth can be elusive (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006).
References
- Clarke, N., & Higgs, M. (2016). How strategic focus relates to the delivery of leadership training and development. Human Resource Management, 55(4), 541—565. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21683
- Garavan, T. (1997). The learning organisation: A review and evaluation. The Learning Organisation, 4(1), 18—29. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696479710156442
- Kirkpatrick, D.L., & Kirkpatrick, J.D. (2006). Evaluating Training Programmes: The Four Levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
- Smith, K., & Tillema, H. (2003). Clarifying different types of portfolio use. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(6), 625—648. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293032000130252
To what extent can you work to resolve issues of aligning bottom-up and top-down goals?
Aligning bottom-up and top-down goals is increasingly recognised as vital within the strategic management and human resource development discourse. However, balancing the macro-level organisational objectives with the micro-level employee aspirations is a complex task.
Understanding this alignment issue suggests that top-down goals often reflect the organisation's strategic imperatives. In contrast, bottom-up goals focus more on personal employee development and satisfaction (Locke & Latham, 2002). Aligning these goals requires an approach that is not purely hierarchical but collaborative, potentially involving negotiation and engagement.
Participative management styles are often cited as influential in fostering goal alignment. Such techniques may encourage a sense of ownership among employees regarding organisational objectives, thus aligning individual goals with those of the organisation (Argyris, 1998). The Management by Objectives (MBO) framework could be a practical application of this approach, allowing individual objectives to support the broader organisational goals (Drucker, 2006).
The importance of communication in this context cannot be overstated, and it is generally argued that HR professionals should facilitate a transparent and reciprocal dialogue. This involves conveying organisational goals clearly and genuinely considering employee feedback (Katzenback & Smith, 1993). Performance appraisals are commonly suggested as appropriate occasions for such exchanges (Den Hartog et al., 2004).
While aligning bottom-up and top-down goals can be challenging, it is generally achievable through strategic integration, employee engagement, and continuous dialogue. However, this perspective should be understood as one potential approach within a broader debate about effective HRM practices (Bourne et al., 2003).
References
- Argyris, C. (1998). Empowerment: The emperor’s new clothes. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/1998/05/empowerment-the-emperors-new-clothes
- Bourne, M., Franco, M., & Wilkes, J. (2003). Corporate performance management. Measuring Business Excellence, 7(3), 15—21. https://doi.org/10.1108/13683040310496462
- den Hartog, D.N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2004). Performance management. Applied Psychology, 53(4), 556—569. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00188.x
- Drucker, P.F. (2007). The practice of management. (Original work published 1954). Routledge.
- Katzenbach, J.R., & Smith, D.K. (1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/1993/03/the-discipline-of-teams-2
- Locke, E. A., & Latham, G.P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. The American Psychologist, 57(9), 705—717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
