Discuss about the Human Resource Development for Organization Culture.
Starbuck has a servant leadership approach that implies one of its organizational culture. The management, team leaders and managers provide support to other employee’s under their leadership so that every person grows. As such this trend by the company’s organizational culture makes employees are given priority first. By doing this, Starbucks demonstrates the merits of taking care of employees. According to the former Chief Executive Officer, caring for employees means they reciprocate the same to clients, hence the need for such an organizational culture (Wang and Yang, 2011, p. 263-273). The organizational culture of Starbuck also ensure collaborative effort by promoting communication. Employee at the cafes communicate clearly while fulfilling orders. Besides they unite to work ease the process of activities more easily. More importantly is openness. This organizational culture allows workers to freely express their opinions. Employees can also make inquiries and clarification. Evidently through this feature the organization is able to empower workers and encourage their innovation (Auernhammer and Hall, 2014, p. 154-166).
Issue affecting the organization
Apparently, one issue facing Starbucks is a stiff competition from other related businesses with almost similar if not identical application (Patterson, Scott, and Uncles, 2010, p. 41-47). Either way still, by training its employees the company can provide techniques towards the challenge. Which means by training, every worker understand the organizations depending on the clients` perspective, despite the clients` status. Also, training can be key factor of accomplishing promises on branding and an essential in promoting the company by word of mouth and if anything a stuff that can deliver differentiation is a well-trained stuff. At the end solving organizational challenge of strict competition makes it more effective to meet its strategies, which is other activities of operation can follow without strain and less complication. For instance the company is impelled to a state that it defends its position from other competitors by sustaining its brand advantage. A step to manage competitors means, Starbucks remain to be noticed, all the all the time in the market whether or not the competitors are around York, 2010, p. 34). Maybe the only problem that Starbucks may encounter is purely economic status that determines the consumers’ purchasing power (Seaford, Culp, and Brooks, 2012, p. 39). The upscale nature after addressing competition may too high to ever meet any other challenge affecting it activities.
Training and Human Resource Development (HRD) process model
In order to train employees appropriately, Starbucks can use the Training and Human Resource Development (HRD) process model in order to outline the manner the training intervention will be designed and conducted. The template as illustrated in the LMS provides five key stages; analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation. During analysis, which is the immediate step, Starbucks will develop a content of training strategies by analyzing the most recent status of the company with other competing organizations. This entail a series of questions to comprehend and internalize what particularly is the main aim of training its employees. This impacts much during decision making later in the process. Few obvious questions are what will be the point training, why is the training done, what nature of behavior change is desired and will training provide a solution. Such a session should be investigating about the market, the company’s objectives, training techniques and form of media used. As soon as this is complete then the company can addresses the issue in place. Apparently, the main concern about the issue in the organization remains ta determining factor for the processes that follow (Garavan and McCarthy, 2008, p. 451-471).
Next, on design Starbucks Company will get into the design phase once the training plan is done. This is the stage where it considers all the lessons in the earlier phase and then imply it to make determine on practical decisions. This includes, strategy, method of delivery, structure, duration, assessment and response. Still on design but after having knowledge about the past phases of training it will compare and select on the best teaching. Very quickly it can consult to solicit opinions from other stake holders on what is good for the employees. A prior phase of testing the idea is a good thing; this is a confirmation that made before any further progress (Gillespie and Riddle, 2015).
During development stage, the company will the training program, guided by earlier compared statistics. Every element of the plan is developed in relevance with the design phase. The company is tasked with the making the training plan more elaborate since the main idea is already decided upon. To some organizations, this step may seem less value but ideally it has a lot of impact on how weighty is the training. The careful identification and separation of the elements assure the company the training program is carried out in an appealing manner, which can is noticeable after the employees’ analysis. Notably, the stage of development should be iterative. Once the company initiates a training plan it should carry on to test it and ascertain very minimal errors.
Soon after completing the training plan and convinced the plan is adequately assess, the company will share it out with the employees. The decision arrived upon in the design phase influences how this stage is actually conducted. However, in most circumstances, the training plan is uploaded on LMS and the delivery are automatically set up (Yueh and Hsu, 2008, p. 59-63). Those are employees from which department are involved, the duration for training and comments, reward for assessment and a final feedback. Any activity pertaining to delivery, tracking and reporting are managed by LMS. The in charge personnel is expected to monitor the condition to carry out a test of the plan before implementing the content on the entire group.
Finally on evaluation, getting response about the training is very important ant to the company. After that it will decide in weather eliminate the plan or select on it but revise it. In particular it can put focus on certain issues. One, if really the goal is achieved as stated earlier in the phase of analysis. Secondly, it can accept the outcome and revisit the whole process of analyzing and also select other requirement for training. Moreover, it can put attention in the possible alteration in the type of media or approach. The best way to generate good end results is to request the trained employees during that session to complete surveys after the plan is concluded. Evaluation can be facilitated within the plan or as by LMS. Additionally, the employees can give their feedback to the company so that it is aware of the shortcomings during the training.
References
Auernhammer, J. and Hall, H., 2014. Organizational culture in knowledge creation, creativity and innovation: Towards the Freiraum model. Journal of Information Science, 40(2), pp.154-166.
Garavan, T.N. and McCarthy, A., 2008. Collective learning processes and human resource development. Advances in developing human resources, 10(4), pp.451-471.
Gillespie, K. and Riddle, L., 2015. Global marketing. Routledge.
Patterson, P.G., Scott, J. and Uncles, M.D., 2010. How the local competition defeated a global brand: The case of Starbucks. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 18(1), pp.41-47.
Seaford, B.C., Culp, R.C. and Brooks, B.W., 2012. Starbucks: Maintaining a clear position. Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies, 18(3), p.39.
Wang, D., Su, Z. and Yang, D., 2011. Organizational culture and knowledge creation capability. Journal of knowledge management, 15(3), pp.363-373.
York, E.B., 2010. Starbucks gets its business brewing again with social media. Advertising Age, 81(8), p.34.
Yueh, H.P. and Hsu, S., 2008. Designing a learning management system to support instruction. Communications of the ACM, 51(4), pp.59-63.