An Individual Development Plan (IDP), Dissertation Example

Chapter 1 Introduction

Background

In today’s fast-paced world with continually changing business strategy and goals, the need for employees to be ready to take on new, expanded, or different roles quickly is critical. Hertlein (2011) supported this idea stating that “the need for organizations to shift gears to adapt to fast changing markets and aggressive competitors requires them to quickly pinpoint gaps in their talent pool and emerging needs for new types of talent” (p. 1). Therefore, it stands to reasons that the identification and development of talent is considered a critical business issue nowadays (Bruce, 2010).

Lawler and Ulrich (2008) conducted a study of CEOs’ attitude to workforce, leadership development, and personal advancement, and found out that 72% are concerned about availability of talent with key professional skills at their workplaces. The book The War for Talent was published in 2001 and a recent article in the Harvard Business Review by Fernandez-Araoz, Groysberg, and Nohria (2011) both noted that a shortage of talent would continue for two more decades. Organizations in the past could rely on acquiring talent or developing talent, but nowadays the situation has changed; as Lawler and Ulrich (2008) noted, acquiring the right talent will become more challenging in the future. Since organizations lack talented employees, only those market participants that will effectively manage talent, promote talent, and manage leadership development programs, will have a chance to survive in the global market of the future.

How are organizations addressing this critical business issue, the shortage of talent? Without individuals prepared to step into key positions, organizations have little choice; they have either to promote individuals not ready for the position, or to leave the position vacant. Both options can be costly for an organization, since mistakes of new employees can be plentiful and hard to fix. In addition, overdue or incorrect work may incur penalties for lateness, and customers may take their business elsewhere due to inadequate service, continuous heavy workload on the current staff may lead to a burnout, possibly disengagement, or even resignation (Federman, 2009, p. 169). An organization’s need for talent may also occur due to retirement, illness, resignation, succession moves, or newly identified roles. The effects of a competitive market today lend themselves to talent shortages from changing business direction and new business roles (Hertlein, 2008).

For an organization to remain competitive, it is necessary to attract top talent, and to have individuals targeted at moving into roles on short notice. Many organizations engage in succession planning, which is a process of identifying individuals for future deployment to higher positions (Rothwell, Stavros, & Sullivan, 2011). The individuals identified in the framework of succession planning are assessed according to their skills and competencies for successful move into the new position or role. Once the development needs are identified, learning sources and tools are put into place.

Independent development plans (IDP), which became popular in 1990s, are a tool to capture the developmental actions and activities (Tamkin, 1996). Stringer and Cheloha (2004) noted that a Corporate Leadership Council report listed IDPs as the second most important tool for development. Streim (2002) identified development planning as a universal strategic tool used in organizations to focus on continued growth, and to increase productivity and retention of valuable employees. Employee development may also have an impact on job attractiveness, employee performance, retention, and job engagement. (Kaye, 2010; Streim, 2002).

IDPs in the workplace have two overarching purposes; they provide individual professional development, and represent a tool used for organizations to assess employees’ talent and readiness for promotion (Beausaert, Segers, & Gijselaers, 2011). The question thus arises on how this can be accomplished. The individual takes a set of assessments used to identify his or her current skills, knowledge, and abilities as well as strengths, leadership competencies, and development needs. Floodgate and Nixon (1994) conducted a case study of 360 IDP assessments used in the Trustee Savings Bank plc to create and identify any gaps in their current role and future role, and concluded about a significant part they play in promotion. IDPs are also described as a tool to foster workplace learning and self-reflection (Beausaert, Segers, & Gijselaers, 2011; Melero, Hernandez-Leo, Arroyo, & Blat, 2009).

However, implementation of IDPs is impossible in an isolated, self-directed manner. The research indicates that IDPs are successful when supported by the manager. The manager accountability and support was identified as most important in terms of providing coaching or mentoring alongside with coaching (Personal Development Plans, 1995; Kaye, 2010; Yost & Plunkett, 2010; Stringer & Cheloha, 2004). Some managers may have a natural tendency to have development discussions with their employees, though usually their own personal experiences usually influence the success of this inventive in case they are personally involved in coaching, or they have a history of being promoted due to their successful IDPs (Kaye, 2010; Yost & Plunkett, 2010; Stringer & Cheloha, 2004).

Organizational support is also essential for the positive IDP outcomes. Managers who supported PDPs may be a product of organizational culture, personal experiences, and natural tendencies; it is obvious that the initiative will experience further development if the organizational culture promotes development and if the top management of the company prioritizes development, learning, and talent retention. Research from the last two decades indicates that the cultural and organizational support has an impact on the success of IDP implementation at the workplace (Mooney, 2011; Kaye, 2010; Yost & Plunkett, 2011; Floodgate & Nixon, 1994; Higson & Wilson, 1995; Stringer & Cheloha, 2004; Tamkin, 1996; Allen & Hartman, 2008).

Employees’ perceptions of IDPs may be different from those of HR managers and organizational leaders. The Institute of Employment Studies research indicated that IDPs could fail to accomplish their goal if not done correctly (Professional Development Plans, 1995). Employees may not be as honest about their development needs if other employees may access the IDP; in addition, the improvement is less likely to occur in case the IDP formulation is not a voluntary undertaking (Beausaert, Segers, van der Rijt, & Gijselaers, 2011).

In the past decades, employees tended to wait for their manager to direct them on their career and had quite a limited view on the career opportunities within an organization. However, now the career management field has taken a different direction; career opportunities have become multifaceted and more complex than some years. Moving up a level is still an option, but waiting for a vertical move may limit one’s career because of a great number of horizontal advancement options (Kaye, 2010).

Organizations also stress the importance of a lateral move to learn and develop new skills that prepare an individual for the next level of responsibilities and rank. Due downsizing, reorganizations, budget constraints, and job profile evolution with technology advancements, some layers of leadership are dissolved and reshaped (Kaye, 2010). Moreover, a new way of considering career opportunities has emerged; when lateral career opportunities were introduced to the workforce, many available career options and the employees’ expectations about them became the new norm, intensifying the need for sound, systematic PDPs. Nowadays employees may feel they need to take more control of their career than in the past; however, the issue is raised about the effectiveness of PDPs in the light of the emerging employee needs.

IDPs need to be individualized to suit the particular needs of the employee (Stringer & Cheloha, 2004; Streim, 2002); they can also be viewed as a career tool that focuses on the whole person looking beyond their current employer (Floodgate & Nixon, 1994; Tomkin, 1996). If the organization supports IDPs, the two common reasons of IIDP ineffectiveness can be overcome – the progress against goals does not always coincide with the planned outcomes, which may be discouraging at the very onset of the IDP pursuit, and the fit into the individual’s career and development desires. Since IDPs are designed to be self-directed and flexible, individuals can decide and take charge of how often they want feedback on their progress. The first step to successful IDP implementation is to determine strengths and opportunities of a particular employee, and to decide what the individual wants from his or her development and career.

In addition, IDPs have to be initiated, designed, and implemented by the employees and not their managers or supervisors. The reason for this is that no company can guarantee long-term employment nowadays, as the business conditions are very dynamic, turbulent, and unpredictable (Yost & Plunkett, 2009). Therefore, the task of employees is to secure their future employment, if not at their current workplace, but in another organization. To ensure this, employees have to be constantly involved in self-improvement, self-education, and self-advancement, and they should design their individual program for achieving their key goals.

Succession management and talent management in an organization also depend directly on the established system of IDPs. In fact, the succession planning takes place only in case leaders train future leaders, which is impossible to accomplish without the visible advances of employees in their professional development. In addition to IDP monitoring, the succession planning efforts require the flawless operation of performance management (in which IDPs can also be successful), workplace planning, and flexibility in rewards and localization (Yost & Plunkett, 2009). As for talent management, performance management is also a key predictor for its success, and the main strategic advantage IDPs can provide in this field is to ensure that the organization and the employee pursue a common direction in their development. IDPs can also bring the personal goals of a particular employee in compliance with the strategic goals of the organization, which will ensure the individual fit between the employer and employee, and will benefit both immensely. Therefore, taking into account the indisputable advantages IDPs are likely to offer to businesses and employees, one has to consider the opportunity of their comprehensive implementation and adjustment to the current business needs.

Problem Statement

IDPs appear to be a successful method for developing leaders in business due to the self-paced and coordinated progress observed during their usage; however, the numerous literary sources suggest there is a gap in empirical research about the effectiveness of IDPs in the business field, beyond the measures of education and healthcare (Beausaert, Segers, van der Rijt, & Gijselaers, 2011). Therefore, there is an urgent need to focus on the application of IDPs in the corporate sphere for the sake of identifying the comparative advantage of this tool alongside with other leadership development and talent retention techniques.

Organizations need to discover and retain talent for the sake of achieving competitive advantage (Federman, 2009). Attracting and retaining employees continues to be a focus of the majority of leading, successful companies. In addition, organizations are seeking ways to develop the workforce, and prepare leaders for promotion or business role change. Beausaert, Segers, van der Rijt, & Gijselaers’s (2011) study identified suitability for promotion as one of the goals of an IDP. Hence, the preparation of employees for the transitions from one position to others has to be treated seriously, with the proper involvement into IDP generation, monitoring the IDP outcomes, and making strategically important HR decisions.

The new times require new approaches to business, human resource development, and management of the most valuable asset in any organization – its employees. Kaye et al. (2011) identified the acceleration of all processes in business nowadays; hence, the employee development, as well as the IDP accomplishment, has to be quicker as well. The role of current researchers is thus to identify the key features of modern IDPs, the pace of change that is likely to help incorporate IDPs in the modern organizational settings, and the features needed to target for the sake of talent retention and personal development improvement at the workplace.  Additionally, since the research findings stipulate the role of a manager in the progression of an IDP, the present paper aims at identifying what particular role managing staff has in the success of an IDP. Finally, the present paper aims at identifying the reasons for which IDPs are used in business, the advantages IDPs carry for organizational success, and the goals and outcomes posed for organizational IDPs nowadays. Recommendations regarding the improvement of IDP effectiveness will also be made explicit upon the completion of the present research.

Rationale of the Study

Development is a focus for many organizations, and HR development is a top priority for all market participants aware of the human resources’ strategic importance. Lawler and Ulrich (2008) noted employees are less likely to leave their employer, even in tough times, if they are given opportunities to grow and develop. It is usually the flexibility at work, challenges initiating personal development, and the self-advancement opportunities that increases employee commitment and helps employers to retain talents. Therefore, one may see that employee retention does not depend on financial incentives only, and the opportunities for development, recognition, and promotion are key players in building commitment to the employer and to the workplace, too.

Another important focus is the effect of the changing workforce and the kind of development needed for the modern period of business functioning. The new generations are seeking accelerated development; the era of a two-year development program needs a new approach to stay competitive; the development discussion can start with new employees in their first month while they are energetic and excited about their new opportunity (Kaye, 2010; Kaye, Cohen, & Crowell, 2011). There should be no hesitation about the propriety of quick involvement, especially including the crisis intensifying rivalry for talents and posing threats to businesses not only in terms of success, but also in terms of the very survival of an organization.

It is also necessary to find out whether IDPs have to be tied to the talent management process, since there is much evidence indicating the advantage and comparative benefits of such approach (Streim, 2002; Higson & Wilson, 1995; Yost & Plunkett, 2010). Streim (2002) and Yost and Plunkett (2010) recommended to design the conversations about IDPs in such a way so that they would not overshadow the performance goals of employees. Floodgate and Nixon (1994) originally introduced the IDP as part of the performance management process but found the response to the IDP was passive versus self-initiated and suggested some improvements in the field. Therefore, there is much to be done to identify the genuine place of IDPs in the business context, and to ensure their correct, comprehensive, and optimal implementation for the business success.

Finally, there is an issue to resolve about the contribution of IDP usage in other industries; this knowledge may contribute to the understanding of gaps and challenges awaiting business. Thus, for example, the use of IDPs in healthcare and education is comprehensive and intense, though there is some evidence of their out-datedness and impropriety to the healthcare context. Jennings (2007) discredited the usage of IDPs for medical doctors and executives, since he claimed that self-directed learning was not always accomplishable for employees, and the difference in learning styles and individual characteristics may either simplify or challenge the completion of IDP objectives. In addition, such skills as planning, reflective learning, analysis, and introspection are not taken for granted as default features of all people, so the progress of IDP may be challenged by absence of certain indispensible qualities (Jennings, 2007). As a result, there are some inconsistencies in the IDP approach, and they have to be assessed adequately when considering the application of IDPs in the corporate HR management.

Aim of the Study

For the purposes of this study, the research is seeking to identify the role of IDPs in the business settings, and to assess its capability to provide efficient leadership development tools for businesses. Given the need to recognize, develop, and retain talent in the organizational settings, the study will approach various employee encouragement and reward tools from a critical standpoint to get a clearer idea of the role they play in employee loyalty, employee performance, and employee promotion. The concept of IDPs will be examined from the historical perspective, with the proper account of the features it acquired when applied to various fields, and what specific features it has to possess to fit the business environment of modernity.

Research Questions

Since the present study aims at assessing the concept of IDPs and their effectiveness for leadership development, and employee retention and promotion, the following research questions have been generated to enlarge the scope of knowledge about IDPs:

• Are IDPs applicable in the business sphere?
• How can an effective IDP be formulated accomplished by employees?
• What are the changes needed for implementation in the current IDP approach to suit the needs of the 21^st century?
• What new time limits should be established for the sake of IDP efficiency?
• What is the current response and attitude to IDPs in various fields of their application?
• What advantage can implementation of the IDP approach bring to organizations?

Definition of Terms

The present terms will be repeatedly used in the present study. For the clarity and easiness of comprehension, they will be laid out in detail in the present section.

Talent Management is a “strategic activity aligned with the firm’s business strategy that aims to attract, develop, and retain talented employees at each level of the organization” (Hatum, 2010, p. 13).

Succession Planning is “the practice of identifying individuals who can fill specific leadership roles in the future” (Hatum, 2010, p. 69).

Individual Development Plan (IDP) assists each employee to “analyze individual development needs, set specific short and long-term goals, and target opportunities to meet identified goals. Its aim is to promote lifelong learning and continued personal growth” (“Individual Development Plan”, n.d., p. 1).

Personal Development Plan/Professional Development plan (PDP) is the “assessment tool used by employees in organizations that… gives an overview of the competencies the employee worked on in the past…; should be composed by an employee himself…in consultation with the supervisor; can be used as a basis/structure for conversations with the supervisor or coach…; serves as a decision-making tool…assessing the suitability for a promotion” (van den Bossche, Gijselaers, & Milter, 2011, p. 236).

Limitations and Delimitations

There are a number of limitations posed for the present study; first of all, the time limit and scope of research will be quite narrow for the sake of compliance with the academic requirements. Therefore, it is hard to predict the measure of the study results’ generalizability. There is an evident need of a longitudinal study in different regions of the country, or even across business enterprises in different countries (or at least different divisions of one multinational enterprise) to assess the true value of IDPs in the current business settings. In addition, the limitations of the present study indicate the lack of empirical evidence for the support of findings, which implies absence of primary sources of information, such as tacking a particular PDP completion by a sample of respondents within a particular business setting.

The data will be drawn from reports and interviews with individuals pursuing their personal and professional development via an IDP or PDP; therefore, there is a high threat of subjectivity of presented data, which will surely impede on the comprehension and further application of research findings. However, there are certain delimitations of the current study as well. The present research is intended to be limited to managers at one organization and one industry, which will narrow the scope of literature to be processed, and will make the results more feasible and realistic. In addition, studying the specificity of a particular industry, and the settings of a particular business enterprise, the researcher will get a complete image of IDP application in these settings, which will not distort the results and will make them more concise with the initial research objectives, aims, and questions.

References

Allen, S. J., & Hartman, N. S. (2008). Leadership Development: An Exploration of Sources of Learning. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 73(1), pp. 10-62.

Beausaert, S., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2011). The Personal Development Plan Practice Questionnaire: the development and validation of an instrument to assess the employee’s perception of personal development plan practice. International Journal of Training and Development. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00375.

Beausaert, S., Segers, M., van der Rijt, J., & Gijselaers, W. (2011). The Use of Personal Development Plans in the Workplace: A Literature Review. in P. Van den Bossche, W.Gijselaers, and R.Milter (eds), Building Learning Experiences in a Changing World, Advances in Business Education and Training III (Dordrecht: Springer), pp. 235–65.

Beckert, J., & Walsh, K. (1991). Development plans replace performance reviews at Harvey hotels. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 32(4), pp. 72-80.

Bruce, A. (2010). Perfect phrases for employee development plans: hundreds of ready-to-use phrases for motivating and growing employees for success. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Federman, B. (2009). Employee Engagement: A Roadmap for Creating Profits, Optimizing Performance, and Increasing Loyalty. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons.

Fernández-Aráoz, C., Groysberg, B., & Nohria, N. (2011). How to Hang On to Your High Potentials. Harvard Business Review, 89(10), pp. 76-83.

Floodgate, J., & Nixon, A.E. (1994). Personal Development Plans:: The Challenge of Implementation – A Case Study. Journal of European Industrial Training, 18(11),   pp. 43-47.

Hatum, A. (2011). Next Generation Talent Management: Talent Management to Survive Turmoil. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hertlein, J. (2011). The Importance of Effective Succession Planning. Retrieved from http://www.ogfj.com/index/article-display/318055/articles/oil-gas-financial-journal/volume-5/issue-1/features/the-importance-of-effective-succession-planning.html

Higson, M., & Wilson, J. (1995). Implementing Personal Development plans: a model for trainers, managers, and supervisors. Industrial and Commercial Training, 27(6), pp. 25-29.

Individual Development Plan (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.google.com.ua/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=individual%20development%20plan%20definition&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aces.uiuc.edu%2FProfDev%2Fdocs%2FIndividualDevelopmentPlan.doc&ei=3RypTpWFEpGk4ATGj733Dw&usg=AFQjCNE-wPFZ_UZbPSwJsHwlSZSQrgGvow&cad=rja

Jennings, S. F. (2007). Personal development plans and self-directed learning for healthcare professionals: are they evidence-based? Postgraduate Medical Journal, 83, pp. 518-524. doi:10.1136/pgmj.2006.053066

Kaye, B. (2010). IDP 2.0: The Future of the Development Dialogue. T+D, 64(12), pp. 52-55.

Lawler, E. E., & Ulrich, D. (2010). Talent: Making People Your Competitive Advantage. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Melero, J., Hernández-Leo, D., Arroyo, E., & Blat, J. (2009). Improving the usability of an approach for visually supporting the creation of Personal Development Plans. Workshop “Visual Instructional Design Languages and Applications in Technology Enhanced Learning” at ICALT, accepted. Retrieved from http://dspace.learningnetworks.org/bitstream/1820/1908/1/melero-et-al-ws-icalt09.pdf

Mooney, J. (2011). Ramp up Professional Growth with Individual Development Plans. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/orgempdev/articles/Pages/IndividualDevelopmentPlans.aspx

Personal development plans. (1995). Management Services, 39(4), pp. 3-4.

Rothwell, W. J., & Stavros, J. M., & Sullivan, R. L. (2009). Practicing Organization Development: A Guide for Leading Change. (3^rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Streim, M. (2002). 10 Key Points for Better Employee Development Planning. Retrieved from http://www.yourhrworld.com/attachments/human-resource-management/1306d1223871160-10-key-points-better-employee-development-planning-10_key_points_for_better_employee_140.doc

Stringer, R. A., & Cheloha, R. S. (2003). The Power of a Development Plan. Human Resource Planning, 26(4), pp. 10-17.

Tamkin, P. (1996). Practical Applications for Personal Development Plans. Management Development Review, 9(7), pp. 32-36.

Van Den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., & Milter, R. G. (2011). Building learning experiences in a changing world. Baltimore, MD: Springer.

Yost, P. R., & Plunkett, M. M. (2009). Real Time Leadership Development. Chichester, The UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.