Found an article on the need for better staff development in higher ed. Could be valuable in "selling" my ideas during the front-end analysis phase of implementing my model.
http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/principal/mission.html
Friday, February 19, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Model Reflection: Change
Generally speaking, I think change definately needs to be considered within my model. However, the question is whether it should/could be considered from a macro view (i.e., the institutional vision, mission, competencies, etc.) or a more micro view (i.e., job analysis within job clusters - e.g., supervison, admin support, customer service, etc.)
There was a top-down driven initiative under the Shaw administration called "SUIQ." It attempted to marry higher ed with TQM, and change the culture of SU by offering management and non-exempt training and associated rewards programming. While the effort has systematically vanished, it is alive an well in some depts. or areas that either like it, or don't know what else to do.
The key word in the SUIQ discussion is "top-down." HR has not been successful in recent years in gaining the top level support needed to drive such an initiative. So, we have been creating training we "think" is appropriate. (Maybe this is why we've not been very successful in gaining upper level support!!)
I think it's a new day, and we should go for the "ideal" state that Diamond supports. It will take longer, but I have found that HR seems to have new access to upper management in its new dual-reporting relationship to the Provost and the CFO.
To accomplish this, I envision writing a proposal to convene a cross functional Talent Management working group to collaboratively create a plan of attack on such things as job descriptions, competencies, job clusters or families. Based on that information, we would move through the front-end analysis to define the ideal state on "what" training for support staff would work. I have also thought that a diffusion step might be useful here. I'm not sure where we'd get the money, but it would calibrate the organization on where we are going as a team. I have done this in the past by using a Learning Map process to "get the word out" on the future state. Obviously I've got much more research ahead on this.
There was a top-down driven initiative under the Shaw administration called "SUIQ." It attempted to marry higher ed with TQM, and change the culture of SU by offering management and non-exempt training and associated rewards programming. While the effort has systematically vanished, it is alive an well in some depts. or areas that either like it, or don't know what else to do.
The key word in the SUIQ discussion is "top-down." HR has not been successful in recent years in gaining the top level support needed to drive such an initiative. So, we have been creating training we "think" is appropriate. (Maybe this is why we've not been very successful in gaining upper level support!!)
I think it's a new day, and we should go for the "ideal" state that Diamond supports. It will take longer, but I have found that HR seems to have new access to upper management in its new dual-reporting relationship to the Provost and the CFO.
To accomplish this, I envision writing a proposal to convene a cross functional Talent Management working group to collaboratively create a plan of attack on such things as job descriptions, competencies, job clusters or families. Based on that information, we would move through the front-end analysis to define the ideal state on "what" training for support staff would work. I have also thought that a diffusion step might be useful here. I'm not sure where we'd get the money, but it would calibrate the organization on where we are going as a team. I have done this in the past by using a Learning Map process to "get the word out" on the future state. Obviously I've got much more research ahead on this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)