Annotated Bibliography 2
240 Managing multiple forms of strategic training fit
© 2019 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
International Journal of Training and Development 23:3 ISSN 1360-3736 doi: 10.1111/ijtd.12160
Managing multiple forms of strategic training fit through the Balanced Scorecard
Antonella CifalinÒ and Irene Eleonora Lisi
Although the literature recognizes training as an essential driver of organizational effectiveness, little is still known about how to explicitly focus and align training to organi- zational strategic priorities. This note proposes a model that bridges the strategic human resource management (SHRM) lit- erature and the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) literature – which is one of the most widely recognized strategic performance evalu- ation approaches intended to foster organizational alignment by translating the firm’s strategy into a multidimensional set of financial and non-financial measures. After having briefly discussed the main differences between the return on invest- ment (ROI) model, which represents one of the major attempt to make training strategic within the existing evaluation research, and the BSC model applied to training management, this note highlights multiple forms of strategic training fit and suggests how to manage training through various scenarios of BSC development. Specifically, the note illustrates four forms of strategic fit – the vertical fit, the horizontal inter-functional fit, the horizontal intra-functional fit and the human capital readiness – and discusses their pursuit in terms of six scenarios of training management through the BSC. The note expands some exploratory empirical evidence on the feasibility and usefulness of training scorecards (i.e. the application of the BSC to training) in order to develop some theoretical insights and practical guidance on how they can be leveraged to foster the strategic alignment of training.
Introduction In recent decades, research has increasingly emphasized the importance of workforce knowledge and skill to organizational success (e.g. Salas et al., 2012). Organizations have thus been urged to take a more strategic approach to training evaluation and
❒ Antonella Cifalinò and Irene Eleonora Lisi, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy. Email: antonella.cifalino@unicatt.it.
bs_bs_banner
20101 Brian Towers (B(ITOT) and John Tiley y Sons Ltd Managing multiple forms of strategic training fit 241
management fostering the alignment of training to the organization’s strategic direc- tion (e.g. Kraiger et al., 2004; Tannenbaum, 2002). Indeed, as noted by Tharenou, Saks and Moore (2007, p. 268), ‘if training is to increase organizational effectiveness, train- ing must be of strategic importance to the organization, effectively designed and delivered’. However, training research is still mainly characterized by an ‘operational’ approach, which is focused on improving the quality of training delivery in itself (i.e. doing things right) without explicitly articulating how the training aligns with the organization’s strategic priorities (i.e. doing the right things) (Baraldi y Cifalinò 2015). As a result, the extant literature offers little guidance on how to explicitly leverage training initiatives and resources to improve the performance that ultimately drives business results.
This note addresses this gap by proposing a model for how organizations can stra- tegically manage their training activities. The model bridges two streams of literature: the strategic human resource management (SH(M) research, which deals with the fit concept (e.g. Lengnick-Hall et al., 20001), and the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) literature, which deals with the BSC – one of the most widely recognized strategic performance evaluation approaches (e.g. Hoque, 2014; Soderberg et al., 2010). Our model highlights multiple forms of strategic training fit and various scenarios of training management through the BSC.
The SH(M literature is relevant to our purposes because it has noted that each H(M activity contributes to a firm’s competitive advantage when it is aligned both externally to the corporate strategy as well as internally to the other H(M activities in place (e.g. Lengnick-Hall et al., 20001). Consequently, researchers have identified and described multiple forms of external and internal H(M fit (e.g. Delery, 101018; Jiang et al., 2012; Kepes y Delery, 2007). Drawing on these research insights, we propose a model that highlights the strategic training fit in terms of vertical, horizontal inter-functional and horizontal intra-functional fit.
Meanwhile, there are several dimensions of the BSC literature that are relevant to our purposes. The BSC represents a performance evaluation system intended to foster organizational alignment by translating the firm’s strategy into a multidimensional set of financial and non-financial measures to be cascaded throughout the organization from the corporate to the business unit and staff levels (Kaplan y Norton, 101012, 101016, 2001, 2004). Exploratory studies have already highlighted the feasibility and advan- tages of applying the BSC model to training management issues (Baraldi y Cifalinò 2015; Cifalinò y Baraldi 20001).
Tithin the training evaluation research, there have been attempts to link training to the strategic direction of the organization, particularly by measuring the return on investment ((OI) generated by training initiatives (Phillips y Phillips, 2001). However, the BSC model and the (OI approach differ in several ways. A first difference regards the unit of evaluation. Thile the (OI is basically aimed at evaluating training pro- grams (Phillips y Phillips, 2001), the BSC model can be applied not only to selected training initiatives, but also to the overall processes developed by the training func- tion. Second, the two methods differ in the nature and timing of evaluation. The (OI approach is mainly focused on summative evaluation, which concentrates on the effec- tiveness and efficiency of completed interventions by isolating the related total costs and benefits (ex post evaluation) (Curado y Bernardino, 2018). Instead, the BSC model is a performance measurement and management system aiming at supporting both a proper definition and an effective execution of the training strategy, thus equally bal- ancing various evaluating perspectives before, during, and after the training programs and processes occur (ex ante, in itinere and ex post evaluation). As a consequence, and third, the two methods differ in the content of evaluation. The (OI method ultimately offers a single lagging indicator which synthesizes the monetary value of the benefits generated by a completed training program, compared to the fully loaded costs of the program. On the contrary, the BSC model suggests a holistic evaluation approach which balances various multidimensional (i.e. monetary and non-monetary) key per- formance indicators highlighting both the determinants (leading indicators) and the effects (lagging indicators) related to a specific training strategy.
20101 Brian Towers (B(ITOT) and John Tiley y Sons Ltd 242 International Journal of Training and Development
Moving on these premises, this note builds on the available preliminary evidence about the application of the BSC model to training and develops further theoreti- cal insights and practical guidance on how to leverage the BSC approach for train- ing management. First, it outlines a fourth dimension of training fit – the concept of human capital readiness – which is widely debated within the BSC literature. Second, it discusses how to manage the four forms of strategic training fit through the BSC.
This note is structured as follows: the next section briefly reviews the SH(M litera- ture dealing with the fit notion in order to clarify this construct’s constitutive dimen- sions. The third section presents the BSC model (including the related concept of human capital readiness) and reviews the literature that has applied the framework to H( (and training) management. The fourth section discusses the model for managing the four forms of strategic training fit through BSC. The fifth section highlights how to translate into professional practice the application of the BSC model to training man- agement. The last section offers some concluding thoughts, including also the mana- gerial implications of this work.
The notion of fit within the SHRM literature Over the past 30 years, the SH(M literature has widely investigated the impact of H(M activities on individual-, unit- and firm-level outcomes (for recent reviews, see Jackson et al., 2014; Jiang et al., 2013; Kaufman, 2015; Lengnick-Hall et al., 20001; Saridakis et al., 2017), on the premise that H(M activities can affect firms’ competitive advan- tage (Huselid, 101015).1 Yet, important issues remain regarding the specific mechanisms through which H(M contributes to organizational effectiveness (Prowse y Prowse, 2010). Ever since Becker and Gerhart (101016) introduced the idea of a ‘black box’ between H(M activities and firm performance, there have been repeated calls for studies that explain this complex causal chain (Banks y Kepes, 2015; Patel y Cardon, 2010). To more clearly define such a ‘black box’, SH(M researchers started to examine how H(M can serve as a resource for a sustainable competitive advantage (e.g. Jiang et al., 2012) – whether through the alignment of H(M to external contingencies or the align- ment among different H(M activities. As a result, the SH(M literature has arrived at two main perspectives (Banks y Kepes, 2015; Delery y Doty, 101016; Lengnick-Hall et al., 20001)2.
Contingency perspective: the vertical fit of HRM activities
The first perspective is the contingency perspective. According to this view, the extent to which H(M activities influence individual-, unit- and firm-level outcomes is depen- dent upon contingency factors (Tright y Snell, 101018). Tithin the various contingency variables analyzed in the literature (e.g. industry, life cycle stages, labor market condi- tions, unionization), organizational strategy stands out (for reviews, see Jackson et al., 2014; Lepak y Shaw, 2008). As such, this perspective suggests that H(M activities
1 As noted by Bank and Kepes (2015), a particularly influential perspective in the SH(M literature that has been used to explain the H(M-performance relationship is the resource-based view of the firm. This view argues that an organization gains a competitive advantage from the internal re- sources it controls that are ‘V(IN’, i.e. valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable (Barney, 101011). Therefore, H(M practices are supposed to lead to superior performance through attracting, develop- ing and retaining V(IN human and social capital (e.g., Buller and McEvoy, 2012; Tright et al., 2001; Tright and McMahan, 2011). 2 For the sake of completeness, a third perspective (known as the universalistic perspective) can be identified within the SH(M literature. As the name implies, this perspective contends that some H(M activities lead to positive organizational outcomes across all organizations and under all con- ditions. Consequently, there is no need to align H(M activities with a firm’s contextual factors, nor is there a need to align H(M activities with each other. Yet, this perspective is seen as limited since its underlying logic cannot easily explain the causal dynamics within the ‘black box’ (Banks y Kepes, 2015).
20101 Brian Towers (B(ITOT) and John Tiley y Sons Ltd Managing multiple forms of strategic training fit 243
should be designed and implemented consistently with a firm’s overarching strate- gic goals (Kepes y Delery, 2007; Lengnick-Hall et al., 20001). This alignment of H(M has been variously referred to as ‘external’ or ‘vertical’ fit (Delery, 101018; Tright y McMahan, 101012). Thile this perspective has merit, it does not consider the interrela- tions among H(M activities. Yet, these interrelations may be important to describing the causally ambiguous dynamics within the ‘black box’.
Configurational perspective: the horizontal inter-functional and intra-functional fits of HRM activities
In an effort to overcome this limit, the literature devised a second perspective: the so-called configurational perspective. In this vein, H(M activities are explored as inte- grated systems of interrelated activities (Delery y Doty, 101016; Jackson et al., 2014; Jiang et al., 2013; Lepaket al., 2006). The underlying logic of the configurational perspec- tive is that the effectiveness of any particular H(M activity is dependent upon other H(M activities within an H(M system (Delery y Doty, 101016). As noted by Lado and Tilson (101014), an H(M system is not merely a composite of H(M activities, but a dynamic bundle of activities that is deliberately designed to achieve some desired organizational goals. Such ‘bundles’ or ‘configurations’ of H(M activities can have positive (negative) synergistic effects that lead to a sustainable competitive (dis)advan- tage when the activities are (mis)aligned (Barney y Tright, 101018; Delery, 101018). Thus, this perspective focuses on the ‘internal’ or ‘horizontal’ fit among H(M activities (Chadwick, 2010; Lepak y Shaw, 2008).
In short, H(M systems are complex bundles of activities pertaining to different hierarchical levels (i.e. practices, policies, ad systems) (Jiang et al., 2012) and different sub-functions or ‘activity areas’ (e.g. recruitment, training, performance management, compensation) (Kepes y Delery, 2007). Following this line of research, some authors have advanced more fine-grained conceptualizations of the internal (or horizontal) fit construct. As a result, various types of fits have been proposed along and across the hierarchical categories and/or functional areas of H(M activities, leading to the concept of multiple internal fits (e.g. Lengnick-Hall et al., 20001). Although researchers have outlined many types of fit, this note focuses on the following (Jiang et al., 2012; Kepes y Delery, 2007):
• the horizontal inter-functional fit, which highlights the alignment between H(M activities delivered across different areas or sub-functions;
• the horizontal intra-functional fit, which refers to the alignment of different activi- ties delivered within the same area or sub-function.
In sum, despite the variety of terms and nuanced conceptualizations, the central emphasis of the SH(M field is defining and delivering coherent H(M systems that can achieve superior performance.
The Balanced Scorecard as a strategic approach to training management
Among H(M activity areas, training has assumed a strategic relevance in today’s business contexts as continuous learning and skill development are now essential conditions for organizations to remain competitive (Salas et al., 2012). Yet, research on training evaluation is still largely characterized by an ‘operational’ approach aimed at improving the quality of training delivery in itself by focusing on the processes by which a training program is decided, designed and delivered (Cifalinò y Baraldi 20001). As a result, calls have been made for a more ‘strategic’ approach, which aims at achieving the greatest impact on organizational performance from training initiatives by linking them to the organization’s strategic direction (e.g. Kraiger et al., 2004; Salas et al., 2012; Tannenbaum, 2002; Tharenou et al., 2007). According to Tannenbaum (2002), aligning training with the organization’s strategic direction involves examining key
20101 Brian Towers (B(ITOT) and John Tiley y Sons Ltd 244 International Journal of Training and Development
business objectives and challenges, identifying the functions and jobs that most influ- ence organizational success, clarifying the most critical organizational competencies and establishing overall strategic learning imperatives.
In turning to such a strategic approach to training evaluation and management, use- ful insights can be drawn from the literature on strategic performance measurement and management (SPMM) systems. As a new generation of performance measure- ment and management frameworks, these systems are aimed at translating strategy into a multidimensional set of financial and non-financial measures, which are usually cascaded throughout the organization. More specifically, their distinctive features are (1) the integration of long-term strategy and operational goals; (2) the presence of per- formance indicators covering different perspectives (in addition to the financial one); (3) the provision of a sequence of goal-target-action plans, and (4) the presence of explicit cause-and-effect linkages between goals and/or performance indicators within so-called strategy maps (e.g. Chenhall, 2005; Franco-Santos, Lucianetti y Bourne, 2012; Gimbert, Bisbe y Mendoza, 2010). Among SPMM systems, Kaplan and Norton’s BSC construct (Kaplan y Norton, 101012, 101016, 2001, 2004) has gained particu- lar popularity among both academic researchers and practitioners (for overviews, see Hoque, 2014; Soderberg et al., 2010), becoming the most notable example of an SPMM system. Then correctly understood and properly implemented, the BSC is supposed to improve organizational performance by translating strategy into specific objectives and measures along few multidimensional perspectives3, thus fostering strategic focus and alignment.
The particular relevance of the BSC to our purposes lies in its recognition of human capital and learning issues as strategic levers. According to this approach, it is crucial to clearly identify and develop training initiatives that lead to human capital readi- ness, which ‘represents the availability of employee skills, talent, and know-how to perform the internal processes critical to the strategy’s success’ (Kaplan y Norton, 2004, p. 225). In other words, human capital can only create value if it is aligned with the organization’s strategy. Despite these findings, organizations have struggled to implement training programs designed to foster such human capital readiness.
As a first attempt to overcome this vagueness, researchers have started to discuss the application of the BSC model to the H( function. Because of the H( function’s overall contribution to strategy implementation, it can cascade the BSC framework throughout the organization with respect to the organizational unit responsible for defining and delivering the H(M strategy. For instance, researchers have proposed an ‘H( scorecard’ (Becker et al., 2001) to effectively capture and manage H(’s role in the firm’s success. Alternatively, Huselid et al. (2005) argue that workforce performance and success is a ‘people’ issue; as such, developing a ‘workforce scorecard’ can be an effective means of highlighting employees’ strategic performance beyond the contri- bution of the H( function itself.
However, as noted by Cifalinò and Baraldi (20001) and Baraldi and Cifalinò (2015), these frameworks generally refer to overall H(M activities, without explicitly aligning training to the organization’s strategic priorities. Thus, they provide no conclusive evidence about how to further cascade the BSC within the training function, which possibly hinders the organization’s ability to define and execute its training strategy. As a result, the authors suggested ‘training scorecards’ – both at the level of single training programs (Cifalinò y Baraldi 20001) and at the level of the training function itself (Baraldi y Cifalinò, 2015) – and empirically demonstrated their practical feasi- bility and advantages. In their 20001 paper, the authors showed how the use of the BSC
3 The perspectives identified within the model vary according to the organizational cascading of the BSC. For instance, at the corporate and business unit levels, the four perspectives traditionally con- sidered are: financial, customer, internal business process and learning and growth. At the staff level, the perspectives will of course differ depending on the specific organizational function under con- sideration. For examples of the specific perspectives that have been suggested for the H(, workforce or training levels, see Becker et al. (2001), Huselid et al. (2005), Cifalinò and Baraldi (20001) and Baraldi and Cifalinò (2015) respectively.
20101 Brian Towers (B(ITOT) and John Tiley y Sons Ltd Managing multiple forms of strategic training fit 245
allows organizations to hone the strategy of the training program, even in terms of expected behavioral and organizational results. Their 2015 study expanded on these results by showing that the BSC is a feasible approach for evaluating the overall train- ing function’s contribution to the achievement of organizational goals.
Thile these studies undoubtedly pave the way for a strategic approach to training management, they only marginally address the strategic alignment theme (Salas et al., 2012; Tannenbaum, 2002). That is, they do not explicitly analyze how training score- cards can be leveraged to manage strategic training fit along its constitutive dimen- sions. In order to overcome this void, the next section builds on these exploratory works and proposes a conceptual model that captures various scenarios for develop- ing training scorecards and using them to apply the principle of strategic training fit.
How to manage strategic fit of training through the Balanced Scorecard
To discuss how the BSC model can foster strategic training fit, we need to first identify the specific forms that training fit may assume. By drawing on the research insights offered by both the BSC and SH(M literature – as briefly summarized in the previous sections – we specifically highlight the following forms of fit.
Human capital readiness
The human capital readiness reflects the alignment between human capital compe- tences (as an outcome of training) and the company’s strategic goals.
Vertical training fit
The vertical training fit reflects the alignment between training activities and the organizational strategy (e.g. prioritizing overall training needs and allocating train- ing resources with regard to the most pressing organizational strategic goals).
Horizontal inter-functional training fit
The horizontal inter-functional training fit reflects the alignment between training activities and the H(M activities related to other activity areas or sub-functions (e.g. need assessment activities delivered within the training function and selection activ- ities developed by the recruitment function).
Horizontal intra-functional training fit
The horizontal intra-functional training fit reflects the alignment of the various activ- ities delivered by the training function (e.g. need assessment and training program design delivered within the training function).
Moving on these premises, the contribution of the BSC model to the achievement of these various forms of fit will depend on the different levels along which the BSC model is cascaded throughout an organization. More specifically, it is possible to dis- tinguish six different scenarios according to whether an organization has adopted the BSC as strategic performance management system: i) at the corporate level4; ii) at the level of training programs and iii) at the level of the training function (see Figure 1).
4 As already mentioned, to fully achieve strategic focus and alignment throughout the organization, the BSC model suggests a cascading process, according to which scorecards are defined across the various organizational levels – from the corporate to the business unit level. Therefore, in those orga- nizations applying the BSC methodology in its most pervasive form, the corporate scorecard is ac- companied by business unit-level scorecards. From now on, the term ‘corporate BSC’ is meant to refer to both the corporate scorecard and the (eventual) business unit scorecards.
20101 Brian Towers (B(ITOT) and John Tiley y Sons Ltd 246 International Journal of Training and Development
Scenario 1: operational approach to training management
The first scenario, in which the BSC in not applied at the corporate or training lev- els, represents the conventional (‘operational’) approach to training management (Cifalinò y Baraldi 20001).
Scenarios 2 and 3: strategic approach to training program/function management
The second and the third scenario emerge when an organization chooses to apply the BSC methodology directly to training management, even if the model has not been developed at the corporate level. Such scenarios, which represent an emerging fron- tier in training research and practice (Baraldi y Cifalinò 2015; Cifalinò y Baraldi 20001), aim to apply the BSC model at the training program level (Scenario 2) and/or at the training function level (Scenario 3) for defining, describing and executing the corre- sponding strategies5.
Scenario 4: strategic alignment of human capital competencies
In the fourth scenario, by contrast, the BSC model has been developed at the corporate level without a specific application at the training level. Even in the absence of an explicit formalization of the BSC at the training program or function levels, this sce- nario emphasizes the necessity of orienting training management toward the devel- opment of human capital competences aligned with the company’s strategic priorities (i.e. human capital readiness).
Scenarios 5 and 6: integrated strategic approach to training program/function management
The last two scenarios emerge when the development of the BSC at the corporate level is also accompanied by a further cascading of the model within the training activity area, in relation to the single training programs (Scenario 5) and/or to the training function itself (Scenario 6). These scenarios aim at a formal, explicit and rational inte- gration between the goals defined at the corporate level (as identified within the cor- porate BSC) and the goals pursued at the training level (as identified within the training program scorecards and/or training function scorecard), in order to create a direct and explicit alignment between the corporate strategy and the training strategy.6
5 These two scenarios have to be intended as complementary, and not substitutive. Indeed, the simul- taneous application of the BSC model – both at the training program and training function levels – allows training managers to clearly and explicitly identify and pursue synergies between the train- ing program strategies and the overall functional strategy. 6 Similarly to what was noted in the previous footnote, also in this case the two scenarios are best intended as complementary, in order to fully exploit the alignment potential of the BSC model.
Figure 1: Scenarios of training management through the BSC.
CORPORATE BSC
Absent
Scenario 1 Operational approach to
training management
Scenario 2 Strategic approach to
training program management
Scenario 3 Strategic approach to
training function management
Present
Scenario 4 Strategic alignment of
human capital competences
Scenario 5 Integrated strategic approach to training
program management
Scenario 6 Integrated strategic approach to training function management
Absent Training Program BSC Training Function BSC
TRAINING BSC
20101 Brian Towers (B(ITOT) and John Tiley y Sons Ltd Managing multiple forms of strategic training fit 247
Managing the various forms of strategic training fit in each scenario of training management
Considering this framework, it is now possible to discuss how the six scenarios of training management through the BSC may contribute to achieving the various forms of strategic training fit (see Figure 2).
As shown in Figure 2, there is no expected form of strategic fit in the first scenario, given that the conventional (operational) approach to training management is mainly focused on doing training right instead of doing the right training.
The first type of strategic fit (human capital readiness) emerges when the BSC is applied at the corporate level (Scenario 4). As already noted, a basic principle for developing the BSC is aligning human capital competences –which are seen as a pow- erful strategic lever – to the organization’s strategic goals. As a result, a well-applied corporate BSC may elucidate the specific employee skills, talent, and know-how that are critical to the strategy’s success—and are therefore the main desired outcome of training efforts. To be clear, this process of aligning competences also characterizes Scenarios 5 and 6.
The remaining forms of strategic fit emerge in an explicit and precise manner when the BSC model is developed with specific reference to training management. In particular, vertical fit is achieved whenever the training strategy (at the program or functional level) is explicitly defined in coherence with the organization’s strategic priorities through training scorecards, independently of whether the BSC is applied at the corporate level (Scenarios 2, 3, 5 and 6). At the level of programs and/or function, training scorecards are defined and utilized for the purpose of developing training programs and functional processes that can achieve the company’s strategic goals. Of course, we can expect this form of fit to reach its highest expression when the compa- ny’s strategic priorities are also formalized within the corporate BSC (Scenarios 5 and 6) – in which case they would provide explicit input for defining the training strategy.
The horizontal inter-functional form of training fit represents an explicit link between the functional training strategy and the overall H(M strategy. Given the interrelated- ness between training and other H(M activities pertaining to different functional areas (e.g. recruitment, performance management, compensation), it is important that said H(M activities are designed and integrated in such a way as to maximize the positive synergistic effects of the system’s constitutive elements. This situation (corresponding to Scenarios 3 and 6) requires an explicit formalization of the training function score- card, and eventually the corporate BSC. Of course, this form of fit becomes most valu- able when the organization has cascaded the BSC so pervasively that it applies to the overall H(M function. This case represents a specific instance within Scenario 6, when the corporate BSC is cascaded to not only the business units, but also the staff units such as the H(M function. In this instance, it is possible to explicitly link the strategic priorities of the training function (as defined in its scorecard) to those of the overall H(M function (as represented in the corresponding H( scorecard).
Figure 2: Scenarios of training management through the BSC and forms of strategic training fit.
Forms of strategic training fit
Human capital
readiness
Vertical training fit
Horizontal inter-
functional training fit
Horizontal intra-
functional training fit
S ce
n ar
io s
1. Operational approach to training management 2. Strategic approach to training program management 3. Strategic approach to training function management 4. Strategic alignment of human capital competences 5. Integrated strategic approach to training program management 6. Integrated strategic approach to training function management
20101 Brian Towers (B(ITOT) and John Tiley y Sons Ltd 248 International Journal of Training and Development
The last form of strategic fit (horizontal intra-functional training fit) requires train- ing activities that are internally coherent within the training functional area. In gen- eral terms, this fit emerges whenever the BSC methodology is specifically applied to training management at the program and/or functional level (Scenarios 2, 3, 5 and 6). By developing training scorecards, it can identify the most effective and internally coherent path for achieving organizational goals via the development of human capi- tal competences. The intra-functional training fit becomes particularly relevant when the BSC model is applied simultaneously at the level of both training programs and the training function. In this case, it is possible to strive for the maximum coherence while aligning and integrating the various training program scorecards within the functional scorecard, considering the overall corporate strategy.
Guidance for professional practice Moving from the model, as proposed and illustrated in the previous section, to profes- sional guidance, the following steps can be suggested to training managers interested in translating it into practice.
Step 1: choosing the scenario of training management through BSC
First, it needs to choose which scenario of training management through BSC to adopt in a given organizational context (see Figure 1). Excluding scenario 1, which does not rely on a BSC implementation, this choice depends on whether the BSC approach is (or is not) already applied at a corporate level (see Figure 1, vertical axis) and on training managers’ decision regarding whether to apply the BSC to single programs and/or to the overall training function (see Figure 1, horizontal axis). Taking into account these alternatives, training managers may position their BSC implementation to training into a resulting scenario.
Step 2: identifying the achievable forms of strategic training fit
Second, training managers need to identify the forms of strategic training fit which can be promoted through the selected scenario of training management through BSC (see Figure 2). Further, taking into account the specific training strategy pursued within the organizational context, it needs to formalize and describe the practical content of each form of strategic training fit. Table 1 offers key questions which may support this description.
Step 3: designing the BSC structure
Third, it needs to design the BSC structure. According to the BSC methodology, this design primarily includes the perspectives of evaluation, the key performance area related to each perspective, the key performance indicators used in each key perfor- mance area, and the cause-and-effect relationships among the various perspectives and areas (examples of such a design are discussed in Baraldi y Cifalinò 2015; Cifalinò y Baraldi 20001).
Step 4: using the BSC model
Finally, the BSC should be used as much as possible to support the management of training programs and processes. For instance, the organizational priorities mapped in the lagging perspectives of a corporate BSC (i.e. financial, customer and internal processes perspectives) should be used as expected benefits in training function/ program scorecards, thus inspiring the design of training programs and processes and subsequently orienting their implementation and evaluation (vertical fit of training). Further, the strategic competences mapped in the leading perspective of a corporate BSC (i.e. learning and growth perspective) should be used to focus the
20101 Brian Towers (B(ITOT) and John Tiley y Sons Ltd Managing multiple forms of strategic training fit 2401
expected learning outcomes in training function/program scorecards (human capital readiness). Moreover, the priorities which characterize a given training strategy (i.e. key people to be trained, competences to be developed, needs assessment processes, training methodologies to be adopted, training scheduling to be applied and so on) should be focused in a clear and coherent way not only to design and implement the various training programs and processes (horizontal intra-functional training fit) but also with respect to the activities developed by the other H(M sub-functions (hori- zontal inter-functional training fit).
Conclusions Extant research offers little guidance on how organizations can strategically align their training initiatives so as to maximize their contribution to organizational per- formance. To address this gap, this note has presented a model discussing the various scenarios for managing strategic training fit through the BSC. More specifically, we bridged the literatures on SH(M and the BSC to outline the concept of strategic train- ing fit along its constitutive dimensions of human capital readiness, vertical fit, hori- zontal inter-functional fit and horizontal intra-functional fit. Te then applied the BSC approach to training management in order to highlight how training scorecards can be used to foster coherent training strategies that explicitly recognize and pursue the four forms of fit. Te also offered some practical guidance about the suggested model.
Practical applications
Our analysis features various practical applications.
Encouraging shared responsibility for achieving training strategic outcomes Organizations may be able to encourage shared responsibility for strategic outcomes by appropriately cascading and integrating the various scorecards at the corporate, training function and training program levels. In particular, by linking the various training program scorecards to both one another and the corporate BSC, organizations
Table 1: Key questions supporting the content description of each form of strategic training fit
Forms of strategic training fit Key questions
Human capital readiness Thich are the strategic job families to be developed?
Thich are the strategic competences to be developed?
Vertical training fit Thich are the organizational priorities to be pursued through training?
How to design and implement training programs and processes fitting with these organizational priorities?
Horizontal inter-functional training fit
Thich are the H(M activities, different from training, which contribute to the achievement of the organizational priorities?
How to design and implement training programs and processes fitting with these other H(M activities?
Horizontal intra-functional training fit
How to design and implement training programs and processes which are reciprocally coherent?
20101 Brian Towers (B(ITOT) and John Tiley y Sons Ltd 250 International Journal of Training and Development
would create joint responsibility among: i) corporate-level managers, who can use and support training in pursuit of specific organizational goals; ii) training function managers, who can contribute to upper-level strategic goals through the design and delivery of effective training processes (e.g. organizational need analysis, job need analysis, etc.) and iii) managers in charge of single training programs, which can help achieve said goals through the design and delivery of effective training programs.
Communicating the strategic relevance of training Further, by applying training scorecards at the program level, firms can explicitly communicate the relevance of not only employees’ training initiatives, but also the associated organizational outcomes. As such, our suggested model seems to be a use- ful training management framework for the so-called ‘H( Triad’ – a concept used to argue that line managers, H( professionals and employees collectively enact H(M systems (Jackson y Schuler, 2003).
Closing the gap between intended and implemented training In addition, this process of joint accountability may help to not only align various training activities along and across the organization, but also close the gap between intended and implemented training activities over time. This form of temporal con- sistency (also called ‘fit over time’) has already been outlined as a critical issue in the SH(M literature (Chadwick, 2010; Lengnick-Hall et al., 20001; Tright y Boswell, 2002). Our model can support a ‘fit over time’ for training because it helps to both outline and execute strategically aligned training activities. Indeed, training scorecards can be used not only to define ex-ante training goals, but also to monitor in itinere and ex-post training results, as measured by indicators of training output delivery and related learning and organizational outcomes (Baraldi y Cifalinò 2015; Cifalinò y Baraldi 20001). Consequently, our model may be used to foster training transfer before, during and after training (Blume et al., 2010; Grossman y Salas, 2011).
Future research
In conclusion, this work contributes to training practice by sketching a methodol- ogy for effectively implementing the principle of strategic training fit. Te derived a model based on a few exploratory works into the development of training scorecards (Baraldi y Cifalinò 2015; Cifalinò y Baraldi 20001), which have suggested their practi- cal feasibility and usefulness. However, in-depth fieldwork will be needed to ascer- tain the empirical validity of the proposed model, particularly with regard to the link between training-level and corporate-level scorecards.
References Banks, G. C. and Kepes, S. (2015), ‘The influence of internal H(M activity fit on the dynamics
within the “black box”’, Human Resource Management Review, 25, 4, 352–67. Baraldi, S. and Cifalinò, A. (2015), ‘Delivering training strategies: the balanced scorecard at
work’, International Journal of Training and Development, 19, 3, 1701–018. Barney, J. (101011), ‘Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage’, Journal of Management,
17, 1, 0101–120. Barney, J. B. and Tright, P. M. (101018), ‘On becoming a strategic partner: the role of human
resources in gaining competitive advantage’, Human Resource Management, 37, 1, 31–46. Becker, B. and Gerhart, B. (101016), ‘The impact of human resource management on organizational
performance: progress and prospects’, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 4, 7701–801. Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A. and Ulrich, D. (2001), The HR Scorecard (Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press). Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T. and Huang, J. L. (2010), ‘Transfer of training: a meta-
analytic review’, Journal of Management, 36, 4, 1065–105. Buller, P. F. and McEvoy, G. M. (2012), ‘Strategy, human resource management and performance:
sharpening line of sight’, Human Resource Management Review, 22, 1, 43–56.
20101 Brian Towers (B(ITOT) and John Tiley y Sons Ltd Managing multiple forms of strategic training fit 251
Chadwick, C. (2010), ‘Theoretic insights on the nature of performance synergies in human resource systems: toward greater precision’, Human Resource Management Review, 20, 2, 85–101.
Chenhall, (. H. (2005), ‘Integrative strategic performance measurement systems, strategi- calignment of manufacturing, learning and strategic outcomes: an exploratory study’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30, 5, 3015–422.
Cifalinò, A. and Baraldi, S. (20001), ‘Training programs and performance measurement: evidence from healthcare organisations’, Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting, 13, 4, 2014–315.
Curado, C. and Bernardino, G. (2018), ‘Training programs’ return on investment in the Portuguese railway company: a fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis’, International Journal of Training and Development, 22, 4, 2301–55.
Delery, J. E. (101018), ‘Issues of fit in strategic human resource management: implications forre- search’, Human Resource Management Review, 8, 3, 2801–3001.
Delery, J. E. and Doty, D. H. (101016), ‘Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource manage- ment: tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions’, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 4, 802–35.
Franco-Santos, M., Lucianetti, L. and Bourne, M. (2012), ‘Contemporary performance measure- ment systems: a review of their consequences and a framework for research’, Management accounting research, 23, 2, 701–1101.
Gimbert, X., Bisbe, J. and Mendoza, X. (2010), ‘The role of performance measurement systems in strategy formulation processes’, Long Range Planning, 43, 4, 477–017.
Grossman, (. and Salas, E. (2011), ‘The transfer of training: what really matters’, International Journal of Training and Development, 15, 2, 103–20.
Hoque, Z. (2014), ‘20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: trends, accomplishments, gaps and opportunities for future research’, The British Accounting Review, 46, 1, 33–501.
Huselid, M. A. (101015), ‘The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, pro- ductivity, and corporate financial performance’, Academy of Management Journal, 38, 3, 635–72.
Huselid, M. A., Becker, B. E. and Beatty, (. T. (2005), The Workforce Scorecard: Managing Human Capital to Execute Strategy, (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).
Jackson, S. E. and Schuler, (. S. (2003), Managing Human Resources Through Strategic Partnerships, 8th edn (Mason, OH: Southwestern).
Jackson, S. E., Schuler, (. S. and Jiang, K. (2014), ‘An aspirational framework for strategic human resource management’, The Academy of Management Annals, 8, 1, 1–56.
Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Han, K., Hong, Y., Kim, A. and Tinkler, A. L. (2012), ‘Clarifying the construct of human resource systems: relating human resource management to employee performance’, Human Resource Management Review, 22, 2, 73–85.
Jiang, K., Takeuchi, (. and Lepak, D. P. (2013), ‘There do we go from here? New perspectives on the black box in strategic human resource management research’, Journal of Management Studies, 50, 8, 1448–80.
Kaplan, (. S. and Norton, D. P. (101012), ‘The Balanced Scorecard: measures that drive perfor- mance’, Harvard Business Review, 70, 71–01.
Kaplan, (. S. and Norton, D. P. (101016), The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).
Kaplan, (. S. and Norton, D. P. (2001), The Strategy-Focused Organization (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).
Kaplan, (. S. and Norton, D. P. (2004), Strategy Maps (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).
Kaufman, B. E. (2015), ‘‘Evolution of strategic H(M as seen through two founding books: A 30th anniversary perspective on development of the field’, Human Resource Management, 54, 3, 3801–407.
Kepes, S. and Delery, J. E. (2007), ‘H( Policy and the Problem of Internal Fit’, in P. Boxall, J. Purcell and P. Tright (eds.), The Oxford University Press Handbook of Human Resource Management (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press), pp. 385–404.
Kraiger, K., McLinden, D. and Casper, T. J. (2004), ‘Collaborative planning for training impact’, Human Resource Management, 43, 4, 337–51.
Lado, A. A. and Tilson, M. C. (101014), ‘Human resource systems and sustained competitive advantage: a competency-based perspective’, Academy of Management Review, 19, 4, 60101–727.
Lengnick-Hall, M. L., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Andrade, L. S. and Drake, B. (20001), ‘Strategic human resource management: the evolution of the field’, Human Resource Management Review, 19, 2, 64–85.
20101 Brian Towers (B(ITOT) and John Tiley y Sons Ltd 252 International Journal of Training and Development
Lepak, D. P., Liao, H., Chung, Y. and Harden, E. E. (2006), ‘A conceptual review of human resource management systems in strategic human resource management research’, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 25, 217–71.
Lepak, D. P. and Shaw, J. D. (2008), ‘Strategic H(M in North America: looking to the future’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 8, 1486–0101.
Patel, P. C. and Cardon, M. S. (2010), ‘Adopting H(M practices and their effectiveness in small firms facing product–market competition’, Human Resource Management, 49, 2, 265–010.
Phillips, P. P. and Phillips, J. J. (2001), ‘Symposium on the evaluation of training’, International Journal of Training and Development, 5, 4, 240–7.
Prowse, P. and Prowse, J. (2010), ‘Thatever happened to human resource management perfor- mance?’, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59, 2, 145–62.
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K. and Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012), ‘The science of training and development in organizations: what matters in practice’, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 2, 74–101.
Saridakis, G., Lai, Y. and Cooper, C. L. (2017), ‘Exploring the relationship between H(M and firm performance: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies’, Human Resource Management Review, 27, 1, 87–016.
Soderberg, S., Kalagnanam, S., Sheehan, N. T. and Vaidyanathan, G. (2010), ‘Then is a bal- anced scorecard a balanced scorecard?’, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 60, 7, 688–708.
Tannenbaum, S. (2002), ‘A Strategic View of Organizational Training and Learning’, in K. Kraiger (ed), Creating, Implementing, and Managing Effective Training and Development (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass), pp. 10–52.
Tharenou, P., Saks, A. M. and Moore, C. (2007), ‘A review and critique of research on training and organizational-level outcomes’, Human Resource Management Review, 17, 3, 251–73.
Tright, P. M. and Boswell, T. (. (2002), ‘Desegregating H(M: a review and synthesis of micro and macro human resource management research’, Journal of Management, 28, 3, 247–76.
Tright, P. M. and McMahan, G. C. (101012), ‘Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management’, Journal of Management, 18, 2, 2015–320.
Tright, P. M. and McMahan, G. C. (2011), ‘Exploring human capital: putting ‘human’back into strategic human resource management’, Human Resource Management Journal, 21, 2, 013–104.
Tright, P. M. and Snell, S. A. (101018), ‘Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibility in strategic human resource management’, Academy of Management Review, 23, 4, 756–72.
Tright, P. M., Dunford, B. B. and Snell, S. A. (2001), ‘Human resources and the resource based view of the firm’, Journal of Management, 27, 6, 701–21.
Copyright of International Journal of Training & Development is the property of Wiley- Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.