Discussion On Staffing Systems With Organizational Strategy

Discussion on Staffing Systems with Organizational Strategy and Kirk

Discuss the alignment of staffing systems with organizational strategy, considering the firm's orientation according to the Miles and Snow framework. Explain how the firm will adapt staffing through retraining, hiring, or outsourcing to meet future demands. Additionally, evaluate how processes can be improved in light of the strategic orientation. Furthermore, analyze the value and limitations of Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Evaluation Model, including recent updates and how applying such a model could enhance training effectiveness in a specific organizational context.

Paper For Above instruction

Aligning Staffing Systems with Organizational Strategy

Aligning staffing systems with organizational strategy is crucial for firms to remain competitive and adaptable in dynamic markets. The Miles and Snow framework categorizes firms into four strategic orientations: defender, prospector, analyzer, and reactor. Each orientation necessitates different staffing approaches and process adaptations to sustain competitive advantage. For example, a defender firm prioritizes stability and efficiency, seeking to optimize internal processes and reduce variability, which entails hiring for operational expertise and retraining employees for process excellence (Miles & Snow, 1978). Conversely, a prospector-oriented organization emphasizes innovation and market exploration, requiring a flexible staffing approach that fosters creativity and risk-taking. This firm might invest heavily in retraining staff to develop entrepreneurial skills or outsource specialized functions to agile external partners capable of rapid innovation (Hitt et al., 2007).

Outsourcing can facilitate cost-effective access to specialized skills and flexibility, especially relevant for firms with a prospector or analyzer strategy (Lonsdale & Ross, 2019). For example, technology companies like Apple adopt a strategic blend, balancing innovation with protecting proprietary advancements, often hiring top-tier talent globally and outsourcing manufacturing and logistics to streamline supply chains (Hein, 2015). Processes can be improved by aligning hiring criteria with strategic goals; for innovators, recruitment should focus on creativity and adaptability, whereas operational efficiency may require stringent training programs. Regular process assessments through performance metrics aligned with strategic priorities ensure responsiveness and continuous improvement. In sum, firms must tailor staffing strategies—retraining, hiring, or outsourcing—to their strategic orientation, fostering agility and innovation while maintaining operational excellence (Hitt et al., 2007).

Evaluating Kirkpatrick’s Model and Its Application

Donald Kirkpatrick's Four-Level Evaluation Model remains a foundational framework in training assessment, encompassing Reaction, Learning, Behavior, and Results. Since its inception in the 1970s, the model has undergone notable updates, most significantly in 1993, when Kirkpatrick expanded on each level to emphasize the importance of measuring long-term impact and organizational change (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). The 1993 revision introduced the concept of summative and formative evaluations, promoting ongoing feedback and adjustments throughout the training process. Recent scholarly work suggests that while the core structure remains sound, integrating new evaluation tools and aligning with technological advancements can enhance the model's utility (Biech, 2014; Phillips & Phillips, 2016). For instance, digital analytics and learning management systems enable real-time data collection and more precise measurement of training outcomes.

Applying an updated Kirkpatrick Model can notably improve training efficacy within organizations by offering clear, measurable benchmarks and fostering accountability. For example, in a customer service organization, Reaction can be gauged using post-training surveys, Learning through assessments, Behavior via performance metrics, and Results by analyzing customer satisfaction scores or sales growth (Tan & Newman, 2013). To maximize its effectiveness, organizations should embed evaluation at each stage of training development, utilizing technology for continuous monitoring. This approach ensures training aligns with organizational goals and adapts dynamically to evolving needs. Overall, while the foundational structure remains valid, embracing technological innovations and a continuous feedback loop enhances the model’s relevance and impact (Phillips & Phillips, 2016).

References

• Biech, E. (2014). Training and Development for Dummies. Wiley.
• Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2007). Strategic Management: Competitiveness and Globalization. South-Western College Pub.
• Hein, B. (2015). Want to work for Apple? Here’s the grueling hiring process. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/
• Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
• Lonsdale, C., & Ross, K. (2019). Outsourcing and strategic flexibility: The perspective of small firms. Journal of Business Strategy, 40(4), 28-36.
• Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2007). Strategic Management: Competitiveness and Globalization. South-Western College Pub.
• Phillips, J. J., & Phillips, P. P. (2016). The Six Levels of Training Evaluation. ATD Press.
• Tan, K., & Newman, E. (2013). The evaluation of sales force training in retail organizations: A test of Kirkpatrick's four-level model. International Journal of Management, 30(2), 288-305.
• Lonsdale, C., & Ross, K. (2019). Outsourcing and strategic flexibility: The perspective of small firms. Journal of Business Strategy, 40(4), 28-36.
• Hunt, S. T. (2014). Common Sense Talent Management.