Curran and Blackburn, (2000) mentioned that the Training and Enterprise Councils (TEC) funding from central government in the early 1990s became increasingly based on outputs, resulting in a ‘payment by results’ type system. This method of performance management, within which funding was in part dependent on the number of IiP recognitions achieved, encouraged TECs to focus on companies that were most likely to be able to secure accreditation. According to Mawson, (1996), by the mid-1990s, it was being suggested that TECs were ‘cherry picking’ employers deliberately targeting larger companies that already had a substantial number of the policies and procedures in place that were necessary to secure accreditation. In this respect, according to Bell et al., (2001) recognition as an Investor in People merely encapsulated what ‘good’ employers were already doing, rather than encouraging the introduction of better practice. In addition, the initial focus on companies where training procedures were better established meant that the companies most in need of help or guidance which were the small and medium sized companies in particular were in particular the ones that received the least encouragement to engage with the Standard.
There is also evidence in the take-up of IiP by industry. IiP UK’s own statistics demonstrate that the combined figure for commitment and recognitions is higher in the electricity, gas and water supply industry, transport and communication and public administration, the wholesale and retail trade, hotels and catering and financial intermediation. According to Hoque, (2003), this is largely supported by analysis of the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey, which shows that, public sector workplaces are more likely to have secured accreditation than private sector workplaces. The importance of customer service within these sectors may have resulted in an appreciation of the importance of initiatives such as IiP. That's why it may be easier for workplaces within these sectors to demonstrate that they meet the requirements of the Standard.
There is also issues related to the impact of IiP on training activity, in assessing the contribution of IiP to the development of a high skills image, Down and Smith, (1998) mentioned that, it is important to acknowledge that some firms have sought accreditation as a positive endorsement of existing training activity, rather than as a means of actually increasing the amount of training provided or improving their training procedures. In addition, there is evidence to suggest that training activity in some accredited workplaces falls below the ideal. Hoque, (2003) stated that analysis of the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey indicates that 16 per cent of workplaces with IiP accreditation did not give any formal off-the-job training to experienced employees in the largest occupational group, and a further 18 per cent provided it to fewer than 20 per cent of such employees in the preceding 12 months. 22 per cent of IiP-accredited workplaces had no multi-skilled employees within the largest occupational group, and 8 per cent did not have a standard induction programme, despite the fact that this was a formal requirement of the Standard at the time the survey was undertaken.
In the small business sector, Ram, (2000) mentioned that an event have been found in which the importance of the IiP logo as a PR device for marketing purposes is recognized by both employers and employees. In such instances, however, accreditation comes to be viewed as a paper-based exercise with no subsequent impact on training activity. Hoque’s (2003), stated that not only is there evidence that many accredited workplaces are failing to engage in good training practice, but there is also evidence to suggest that managerial and professional employees benefit more from the training that is provided than non-management employees.
After carefully reviewing these issues or problems relating to IiP, I have decided on some suggestion which would be made toward the future development of the standard in terms of the take-up of the Standard in both sectors and also in terms of its impact on training activity. The Standard itself should undergo change, these changes should relate to the nature of the Standard, and the way in which it is managed. My argument is that, as a result of these Changes, the requirements of the Standard should be accessible in all sectors. When it was originally launched in October 1991, according to Taylor, P and Thackwray, B. (1996) IiP was based on four key principles in the notion to lead to good practice in the management of training: commitment, planning, action, and evaluation. Employers were assessed on whether they: made a public commitment at the highest organisational level to develop all employees to better achieve business objectives; reviewed the training and development needs of all employees regularly; took action to train and develop both recruits and existing employees; and evaluated the effects of their investment in training and development. Organisations seeking IiP recognition were tested against these four principles, which were measured using 23 indicators. The Standard should therefore simplify to a version that has only 12 indicators as opposed to the previous 23. It should be claimed that the Standard should now be awarded without any paper-based evidence.
In addition, Changes should be made in the management of the Standard. There is clearly a particular problem in terms of low rates of accreditation within the small business sector. This in part is driven by the initial approach adopted by the TECs, which promoted IiP to larger companies that already satisfied many of its requirements, in order to enable government targets to be reached and to help raise the profile of the Standard. However, despite the need for training in small companies, it is important that they are encouraged to seek IiP accreditation for appropriate reasons. Batenburg and de Witte, (2001), view the Dutch government’s interest in IiP comes from the desire, compared to the UK which is to raise levels of employer demand for skills. A key difference between IiP in the UK and the Netherlands however, relates to implementation strategy. Batenburg and de Witte, (2001), also mentioned that the Dutch government started from the same viewpoint as the UK government that says skills development in the workplace results in a stronger economy but their method of encouraging this has been different. In the UK, large and prestigious companies were targeted to give the Standard prestige and credibility in the early stages, in the hope that companies would follow this pattern. In the Netherlands, by contrast, the main aim has been to bring companies that have little or no engagement with training and development activity up to a basic level.
However, encouraging the adoption of the Standard among smaller businesses could also have certain negative unintended consequences. In my view particularly, the Standard may come to be devalued in the eyes of large, prestigious organisations. Bell et al., (2001), mentioned that a manager in one research study said, ‘if the hairdresser down the road can get IiP as well, then it starts to lose some of its shine’. For IiP to remain fashionable and prestigious as a badge, one possible solution would be for several levels of award to be incorporated into the Standard. This could include the development of some kind of advanced or ‘gold’ Standard to enable the highest performers to differentiate themselves from the growing mass of organisations with accreditation, while the lowest performers could be encouraged at the very least to cross some kind of performance threshold, evidenced perhaps through an initial award. This would prevent the badge from losing its shininess as indicating membership of an exclusive club, while at the same time encouraging a wider range of companies to engage with the Standard.
In concluding this essay, I will agree to the facts that evidence suggests that rates are uneven; the Standard is certainly not being adopted across all industrial sectors with equal enthusiasm. This suggests that if the Standard is to make a contribution to improving access to work-based training and improving UK-wide economic performance, then greater effort needs to be placed on raising accreditation rates within certain sectors of the economy, perhaps by introducing flexibility into both the language and requirements of the Standard to better reflect the diversity of workplaces across the economy as a whole.
Significant proportions of accredited workplaces are failing to engage in a basic minimum of good training practice. One explanation for this relates to the fact that, organisations goes through the re-accreditation process only once every three years. There was therefore plenty of scope for them to revert to usual business (Douglas et al., 1999) once accreditation was secured. Similarly, it has been argued that some organisations have become engaged in a cycle of ‘badge collecting’, to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Within such organisations, IiP and other various quality standards ‘come and go’ in terms of organisational importance, depending on how close re-assessment is. Also, the ‘badge collecting’ mentality is likely to lead to only a superficial engagement with the Standard, attention is only being paid to it when the organisation is just about to go through the re-accreditation process.
The badge will only lose its shininess, however, if the proportion of organizations applying for accreditation can be significantly increased. This, in itself, may prove difficult to achieve. As argued earlier, the initial TEC policy was to deliberately promote IiP to large, prestigious companies that already satisfied many of the requirements, in order to reach government-set targets and raise the prestige of the Standard. Such a policy meant that the companies with the most to gain from the Standard which are the smaller companies engaging in little training and development activity, they are also the ones that received the least attention. Encouraging these companies to engage with the Standard could prove to be extremely difficult. Those responsible for the present delivery structure will have to overcome the image of IiP as a business improvement tool for larger businesses. Encouraging organisations that for over a decade have dismissed the Standard as irrelevant to their needs is likely to prove a considerable challenge.
REFERENCES:
Alberga, T., Tyson, S. and Parsons, D. (1997) ‘An evaluation of the Investors in People standard’, Human Resource Management Journal, 7(2): 47-60.
Ashton, D. and Felstead, A. (2001) ‘From training to lifelong learning: the birth of the knowledge society?’ Human Resource Management: a critical text. London: Thomson.
Batenburg, R. and de Witte, M. (2001) ‘Underemployment in the Netherlands: How the Dutch “Poldermodel” failed to close the education-jobs gap’, Work, Employment and Society, 15(1): 73-94. full text [Online]. Sage Publications URL: [20/03/2007]
Bell, E., Taylor, S. and Thorpe, R. (2001) ‘Investors in People and the standardization of professional knowledge in personnel management’, Management Learning, 32(2): 201-219. full text [Online]. Sage Publications URL: [10/03/2007]
Cully, M., Woodland, S., O’Reilly, A. and Dix, G. (1999) Britain at work: as depicted by the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey. London: Routledge.
Douglas, A., Kirk, D., Brennan, C. and Ingram, A. (1999) ‘The impact of Investors in People on Scottish local government services’, Journal of Workplace Learning, 11(5): 164-9. Full text [Online]. Emerald,
[10/03/2007]
Down, S. and Smith, D. (1998) ‘It pays to be nice to people. Investors in People: the search for measurable benefits’, Personnel Review, 27(2): 143-155.
Hill, R. and Stewart, J. (1999) ‘Investors in People in small organisations: learning to stay the course?’ Journal of European Industrial Training, 23(6): 286-299. Hoque, K. (2003)
Mawson, J. (1996) ‘Policy review section’, Regional Studies, 30(5): 509-532. full text [Online] EBSCO Publishing
[1/03/2007]
Ram, M. (2000) ‘Investors in People in small firms: Case study evidence from the business services sector’, Personnel Review, 29(1): 69-91.
Taylor, P. and Thackwray, B. (1996) Investors in People explained. London: Kogan
Page.
