Introduction

The primary reason for evaluation being adopted in any sector is to determine the effectiveness of processes and the ways to improve them. A single meaning for the term ‘evaluation’ is not easy to find. Weiss (1972; p.1) saw evaluation as ‘an elastic word that stretches to cover judgements of many kinds’. We can thus suggest that one meaning of evaluation in L&D is concerned with judgements relating to the value of particular processes. Taken in this way, we can see that evaluating is closely connected with people’s view of L&D and the criteria use to make judgements. If one accepts that evaluation is an attempt to judge the value that L&D adds to an organisation then Bramley (1991) and other as per (Appendix 1) argues that purpose of evaluation is not only to add value but to discover to what extent the learning is useful for the job and has the learning transferred to workplace.

Development activities intended to increase the effectiveness of managers can be evaluated at number of levels. The proposed framework for evaluation by Kirkpatrick (1959) is as follows:

Reaction: The reaction of learners following an activity.

Learning: The skills, knowledge gained as a result of the activity

Behaviour: The effect on the performance of the learner within the workplace

Results: The effect of changes in performance on measurable results at work

This view has become conventional wisdom with regard to evaluation where different levels can be linked in a chain of consequences (Hamblin, 1974). Another level was added by Phillips (1996) to enable a return on investment (ROI) which could provide direct link between L&D and an organisation’s results. Most organisations carry out evaluation at the reaction level, some measure learning in technical skills, but few attempts to assess changes in behaviour or criteria of organisational effectiveness (Ralphs and Stephan, 1986).

Representation of Kirkpatrick’s and Phillips’ model of learning analytics showing level-wise measurement objectives

Fig 1: Representation of Kirkpatrick’s and Phillips model of learning analytics showing level-wise measurement objectives (http://leanlearning.wikispaces.com/learning_analytics).

Methodology will partly depend on the beliefs held about what happens in L&D. The two board approaches of methodology can be identified as positivist methodologies which are based on observations and measurements, whereas phenomenological methodologies are based on action and implementation (Mumford and Gold, 2004). The differing perspectives offered by positivism and phenomenology provide evaluators of L&D with different thoughts to inform the choice of evaluation models and methods. In UK, for many years a systematic model of training and evaluation has been regarded as the orthodoxy. A typical presentation of this model is shown below.

IDENTIFY TRAINING NEEDS AND SPECIFY OBJECTIVES

DESIGN

ACTIVITIES

IMPLEMENT

ACTIVITIES

EVALUATE

ACTIVITIES

Fig 2: A systematic model of training (Mumford and Gold, 2004)

The four stages model emphasises the need to evaluate at the conclusion of activities. Data collected can then be analysed and decisions made on the value of the activities and the extent to which the objectives set were valid. The data gathered may be subject to bias and distortion, dependent on the feelings of the group at the time of completion (Smith, 1990).

The various meaning of evaluation has tended to focus on the outcomes of L&D activities. It also suggests that value can change throughout participation and that objectives at the start of process are not the same during the process and on completion of it. Here we could make use of a distinction that is frequently made between (Appendix 2) summative evaluation, which occurs on completion of an activity and formative evaluation, which occurs while the activity is happening. These variations and presence of different interests make evaluation a complex process for it needs to take into account and respond to different interests and their judgements (Easterby-Smith, 1994).

Leadership Development

It is hard to overstate the importance of leadership in today’s corporate environment, especially in the light of business failures. Leadership can play a critical role in almost every aspect of corporate and communal life (Ashkanasy, 2004: 165). There are many models of leadership; a traditional approach is the trait-based model (Bird, 1940; Mann, 1959; Stogdill, 1948; Zaccaro, Kemp & Bader, 2004). This approach seeks to find those attributes of persons that are associated with leadership success. There are few problems associated with this approach as it tends to be modest to moderate and hence can account for only a part of what makes a leader successful, also it undervalues the importance of modification and the approach is static, whereas leadership is dynamic (Antonkasi et al, 2004).

Stenberg’s WICs Model

The theory proposed here views leadership as in large part of how one formulates, makes and acts upon decisions (Sternberg & Vroom, 2002). According to this model, the three key components of leadership are wisdom, intelligence and creativity (WICS). The basic idea is that one needs these three components working together in order to be a highly effective leader.

Intelligence: academic intelligence (memory and analytical abilities) and practical intelligence (ability to solve everyday problems and manage oneself, others and tasks).

Wisdom: using intelligence, creativity and experience moderated by values to reach a common good, balance between own, others and organisational interest, over the short and long term to adapt, shape and select environments.

Creativity: skill in generating ideas and products that are novel, high quality, appropriate for the task in hand. generation of ideas that others will follow.

Leadership

Fig 3: Sternberg’s WICs model of leadership (Sadler-Smith, 2006)

The WICs model is related to many other models which incorporates elements of transformational as well as transactional leadership (Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bass, Avolio & Atwater, 1996), emotionally intelligent leadership (Goleman, 1998), visionary leadership (Sashkin, 1988, 2004), and charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanugo, 1998; Weber, 1968). WICS provides a framework that not only integrates many of the models that have come earlier, but also that have individually included only some of these interlocking skills, attitudes, and situational variables.

Leadership development is expected to improve these attributes further and also to maintain balance in negotiating situational demands and tensions. All of these theories propose explanations for developing leaders but they have not been scientifically proven and some might require an in depth analysis to prove their effectiveness. Most of these strategies tend to concentrate on the individual leader but they tend to ignore the effects of dynamic or individual’s environment on the leaders performance.

Day et al. (2003) mentions that due to constantly changing environment with a variety of stakeholder’s requests and expectations, the possibility of using one best approach to leadership development is unlikely. In today’s dynamic environment organisations might need to take a global approach to follow a mixture of some models of leadership development (Ivancevich & Matteson 1996). The importance of effective leadership could be emphasised by looking at the LBG leadership model.

Lloyds Banking Group (LBG) Leadership Model

Creating a high performance culture, identifying future leaders and building the talent pipeline to expand organisational capability are critical areas of focus for all leaders in the group. In challenging economic times, the group’s ability to build distinctive leadership capability will differentiate it from its competitors. JDIE (Judgement; Drive; Influence and Execution – Appendix 3) is the leadership model that LBG widely uses across all its divisions.

Fig 4: Lloyds Leadership Model (https://www.learningatlloydsbankinggroup.com/exec/exec.asp)

The model has 4 capabilities that determine outstanding leadership performance and potential. At the centre of the Leadership Diamond are the Values which underpin all the behavioural capability statements. Individual performance rating is based on their total contribution equally assessing ‘what’ they have achieved against their objectives in the Balanced Scorecard and ‘how’ they have achieved it using the LBG values and the JDIE leadership model. The JDIE leadership model describes outstanding leadership in the Group and is based around the organisational values, which drives culture, engagement and performance/potential.

Benefits of JDIE model:

Enables individual to take ownership and accountability for accelerating personal and team development, achieving higher performance and delivering quality.

Builds deep and strong relationship among members of the team.

Enlightened individual and collective awareness.

Improving coaching and feedback skills among team members.

Role of Evaluation in Leadership Development:

Evaluations have replaced assumptions with evidence. It has used new knowledge to stimulate discussion or debate, have solved practical problems and have proved the feasibility of innovative programs.

The following examples demonstrate the kinds of benefits organisations have obtained from evaluation:

Evaluations improve performance and promote accountability through monitoring.

Evaluations provide important and action-oriented lessons about implementation.

Evaluations provide powerful evidence about impacts.

Evaluations provide practical information about who participates and who benefits, thereby improving the targeting of services.

Evaluations provide crucial information on costs.

Evaluations assess the logic and the knowledge underlying the design of new programs.

The following examples demonstrate the kinds of issues organisations might face from evaluations:

There could be insufficient knowledge of the value of an appropriate pre-course for assessment of individual and organisational needs.

Limited support appears to be provided to aid the transfer of individual’s learning benefits to organisation.

The organisations need to focus on leadership as a social process for developing leadership beyond individual leaders and thus maintaining equilibrium among human and social capital.

It is not yet clear of the potential measurement criteria to assess impact on return on investment. Such criteria need to be re-designed to develop a suitable framework.

Currently available leadership development models and theories lay a lot of emphasis on the importance of change, but they may not operate scientifically to validate the change framework. Effectiveness of most of these existing leadership models tends to lay prominence on the initial stages of the change cycle, which assumes that individuals would be able to change themselves at the wrap-up phase of the programme (Bernal, E. 2009). As there is no perfect model for leadership and organisations may tend to use views of different models to achieve their strategic goals, so further we will look at the strategic human resources development models in an organisation.

Strategic Human Resources Development

Strategic human resource development (SHRD) focuses on integrating HRD activities with organisational goals and values to develop core capabilities that enhance firm competitive advantage (Garavan, 1991). Competitive advantage is secured when organisations have skills and capabilities that are unique, difficult to replicate and imitate by competitors (Rainbird, 1995). It promotes practices that enhance the strategic performance of employees and organisations. It also emphasizes proactive change in management which enables organisations to survive in an increasingly complex, unstable, competitive, and global environment (Grieves, 2003).

Garavan (1991) proposed a prescriptive model of SHRD outlining three characteristics: focus, orientation, and strategies. Furthermore, the model acknowledges the importance of multiple stakeholders that have emerged in the design, development, and implementation of SHRD, both internal and external to the organization. The model emphasizes horizontal and vertical linkages throughout and suggests various stakeholder-focused outcomes.

Fig 5: Conceptual Framework of SHRD (Garavan, 2007)

In the period since the original definition, several notable contributions have been made by Horwitz (1999),Walton (1999), McCracken and Wallace (2000), Harrison (2004), Maxwell,Watson, and Quail (2004) and Sadler-Smith (2006). A number of themes emerge from these models:

SHRD facilitates the development of core capabilities that are critical in developing and maintaining sustained competitive advantage.

SHRD enables the firm to make the best use of existing firm-specific capabilities and through the development of new capabilities and skills enables it to cope with change.

SHRD must be sensitive to both emergent and planned strategies.

Any of these three SHRD strategies can be adopted to facilitate the focus on organizational learning, organizational change, and organizational performance. LBG has preferred to use organisational performance SHRD strategy along with a small percentage of organisational learning & change strategy.

Lloyds Banking Group SHRD Model

Organizational performance-focused SHRD strategies emphasize skills training, job and competency analysis, and management and leadership development. A key role for organizational SHRD is to identify performance needs and thereby developing core competencies to meet the demands of organizations.

Fig 6: Lloyds SHRD Model (https://www.learningatlloydsbankinggroup.com/exec/exec.asp)

Leading in the Human Resources function – Leading by example within the HR function, role modelling LBG values and one HR approach to work thereby build the capability and structure of the HR function.

Strategy, Insights and Solutions – Uses deep understanding of the business and the HR function to deliver strategy and sustainable solutions that meet the needs of the business, colleagues & customers.

Learning and Talent Development – Ensures that people at all levels possess the skills, knowledge and experience to fulfil the short and long term ambitions of the organisation and that they are motivated to develop and perform well.

Evaluation of LBG SHRD model:

Uses and analyses a full range of information and knowledge, using judgement to identify options and make robust decisions.

Evaluates information from multiple sources, applying judgement to weigh their value and relevance to the decision at hand.

Makes effective decisions in the absence of complete information, ensuring things can move forward while further analysis is conducted.

Identifies how best to distil a mass of complex data into distinct, clear and concise concepts others can understand.

Maintains a ‘helicopter’ view of the situation, identifying the key elements while keeping an overview of the detail.

Gives concepts meaning, often using powerful illustrations and comparisons.

Creates an environment where others can make decisions by clarifying roles and responsibilities and providing appropriate support.

Knows the different key questions to ask in complex situations to extract information, view points, risks and potential solutions.

The above model emphasises on assumptions in absence of complete information thus the strategy might not be completely effective under the phase of these assumptions. Evaluating the strategy requires a complex skill set which is difficult to acquire. Different organizational stakeholders, such as owners, investors, employees, suppliers, and customers, are likely to evaluate the contribution of SHRD differently.

Conclusion:

No matter which of the evaluation approaches or models is followed, there are at least two features that need to be considered, namely the credibility and trust, as well as externalization and replication of the validation carried out.

SHRD can contribute to the development of both operational capability and enhanced capacity to learn.

Appendix 1

The Purpose of Evaluation

Source Purposes

Bramley (1991) Feedback, research, intervention, power, control

Easterby-Smith (1994) Proving, improving, learning, controlling

Gibb (2002) Pragmatic, ethical, intellectual, social, business, personal

Newby (1992) Quality control, efficient L&D design, professional self-esteem, track record, identification of assessment criteria, intervention

Reid and Barrington (1999) Investment appraisal, feedback, improvement, learning, achievement of objectives

Stewart (199) Promoting (in addition to proving, improving and learning)

Source: Sadler-Smith, E (2006, p.382)

Appendix 2

Appendix 3

Source: Lloyds Intranet (Internal Database)