Locus of Responsibility for Professional Development in the Perspective of Organizations and Individuals – the Results of Empirical Research in Poland

Introduction

Modern companies operate under conditions of permanent change. Technological advancement, competition, rising quality requirements, make it necessary for the organization to have the ability to continually absorb new ideas, technologies, to create their own solutions - in other words, to have the capacity for continuing growth.

These assumptions seem to be met by the model of a learning organization. M. Pearn, C. Roderick and F. Mulrooney list six factors involved in the creation of the necessary conditions for continuous learning and innovativeness of organizations (Wachowiak, 2002, p. 85). They are: organizational structure conducive to change, supportive management, support for learning, the vision of learning, culture conducive to growth and development, and focus on learning. An important element in this model is the focus on learning, understood as the striving of all members of the organization for the development of existing knowledge and skills. For organizations must adapt by changing to the conditions in which they operate; such a change, however, is possible only when the people change. As early as in 1974 A. Toffler noted (1974, p. 236) that "the technology of tomorrow requires not millions of poorly educated people, ready as always to agreeably perform the same operations, does not require people who without saying a word fill the orders and who for the price of bread succumb automatically to power, but those who can think critically and pave their way in a new environment, who can quickly establish contacts and see the sense in an ever changing world.”

A developing organization must be accompanied by developing people. This aspect seems particularly relevant at the present time, when the acquired education, with the constantly changing conditions, quickly loses its topicality, and the employees, succumbing to "the tyranny of development", should permanently improve their skills (Januszkiewicz, 2012). Thus, if the development is imperative, the question arises who has responsibility for it - is it the organization that makes human resources its strategic resource, or the employees, who in times of change redefine their relation to work? The answer to that question is not conclusive. The perspective of the organization may vary, even very much, from the perspective of the individual - what appears to be beneficial for one entity may not always be the optimal choice for another (McElroy, Weng, 2016).

The aim of the article in its theoretical layer is to present a dialectical approach to responsibility for professional development, which may be located on the side of the organization (type I), of the employee (Type III.) or be the result of interaction between these entities (type II.). However, in its empirical layer, the aim of this article is to compare the perception of the locus of responsibility for the professional development of employees in the perspective of the organization (including the number of employees and industry) and the employees (by gender, age, seniority and the position occupied). Analyses were carried out on the basis of the results of own research carried out on a representative sample of 289 businesses and 2,274 workers in Poland in 2015.

Development of the Organization and Development of the Employee

Employee development, one of the key elements of the policy of human resources management in the organization, is treated as a phenomenon clearly positive. When treating the organization in terms of the system, it should be considered that the components of the system are strongly linked - the behaviour of each of them influences the others and at the same time is dependent on them. Thus increasing the possibilities of individual elements of the organization (e.g. social subsystem - employees), contributes to the success of the organization as a whole. A direct rendition of the staff capabilities onto the capacity of the enterprise is of course a gross simplification, but the strategic aspect of this factor seems to be invaluable.

Employee development on the one hand contributes to attaining the objectives the company, as it helps it in getting employees able to meet the expectations placed in them and ready to take on the challenges of both current and future tasks. On the other hand - it is the essence of the process of self-realization, creates the possibility of achieving professional and personal goals, and "climbing" the ladder.

In a situation where the benefits are mutual, it seems reasonable to raise a question whether the employees' development can be seen as a process controlled exclusively by the company, especially in a situation where the dominant trend in management is to reduce costs? The answer is not clear. In terms of a learning organization, in addition to the orientation on learning, there are a number of factors, the fulfilment of which is certainly on the side of the company (organizational structure conducive to change, supportive management, support for learning, the vision of learning, culture conducive to the growth and development), management, support for learning, the vision of learning, culture conducive to the growth and development), putting at it the duty to create “favourable conditions” (Guskey, 2003). Widely discussed and implemented today organizational plans for the improvement of employees (including: training, building up "business" career paths) are, in their essence, rational activities within in the meaning of adapting the actions to the objectives set (Bielski, 2002, p. 181). Organizations in accordance with what was said before take care to secure for themselves the workforce that possess the desired qualifications. The company, when analyzing the current situation and where they would like to be in the future, can determine what employees it needs, and hence, which competences are in deficiency, and how these differences can be overcome. These actions are consistent with the perspective of the approach to the employees as the most valuable asset of the company.

However, there are indications that undermine the exclusivity of the role that the organization should play in the educational process. Top-down educational initiatives may not raise sufficient commitment and can be treated not as a concern of the organization about "their capital", but as yet another obligation imposed on workers. Participation in training on the principle of coercion is not effective. Little are we able to learn by osmosis. Ongoing learning cannot be realized if there is no incentive in the form of personal commitment. If there is lack of this key element, people will be willing to accept any training. However, the effects of such actions persist for a while, and the trainees, in the absence of acceptance of the actions taken, quickly cease to practice new skills. Losing them gradually, they often forget the principles and theories which used to convince them about the importance of training (Senge, 2002, p. 231). Moreover, today's models of professional career increasingly emphasize the need to self-manage own development and independence from the parent organizational environment on behalf of an organosphere- a space in which each organization becomes a potential employer, and managing own professional development means a skilful use of the emerging opportunities.

In modern Polish organizations, this aspect takes on a new meaning. The old social system did not develop in people a sense of responsibility for their own fate. In the mentality of employees still lingers a wrongful today assumption that the most important thing is to focus on the present. Difficult economic conditions cause that for the employees a key role plays an optimal implementation of current tasks. In this situation, plans for their own development are treated as somewhat ancillary activities. Executives feel a responsibility for the fate of the organization, for the people working in it, they see the need for massive changes that await modern companies, they complain about the passivity and indolence of these actions, often forgetting, however, the most important, that the responsibility for professional development is a polymorphic phenomenon.

The Model of Locus of Responsibility for Professional Development - Dialectical Approach

Professional development of workers is a process which naturally involves two entities: the organization - the realization of strategic objectives depends on the quality of human resources; and the individuals - their position not only in the organization but also in the labour market depends on the updating of the knowledge. However, the question should be asked, who is in this situation responsible for the course of this process? More specifically, where in the perception of the organization and employees is the responsibility for its course located?

Based on the Hegelian dialectic, it can be assumed that the responsibility for the professional development of employees lies with the organization (thesis - Type I), which is the one to plan, organize and settle accounts for effects of the actions undertaken by the employees. The antithesis will therefore be a claim that the employees are responsible for their development, subordinating its course to their own goals (Type III.). So clear a divergence in the perception of the locus of responsibility leads to the synthesis, where the employee's development is the result of a consensus which respects both the strategic objectives of the organization and the expectations of the employee (Type II.). Each of the distinguished types entails specific implications both for the functioning of the organization (applied organizational solutions) as well as the workers themselves (manifested organizational behaviour).

Fig. 1. Model of locus of responsibility for professional development – dialectical approach

Source: own study

The first type of locus of responsibility for the development can be called a traditional approach, in which the employee is treated instrumentally, like a "cog in the machine", whereas the subject of activities is the organization and its goals. Tools of personnel policy mainly concern the administration of human resources and ensure continuity in the work. The direction and pace of development are determined first of all by the current needs of the organization and its ability to act.

Organisational behaviours type I relate to situations where the employee transfers the responsibility for the development onto the organization and fulfils the tasks primarily in the manner and to the extent strictly defined by the organization. The employee does not feel a major participant in the work process, treating his duties fragmentarily. He performs daily tasks on the basis of principles and standards applicable to his workplace, not seeking a broader reference to the work in terms of the entire section, department, or organization. Development is not a priority of action here, but only the necessity arising from the need to adapt to the conditions imposed by the organization.

At the other extreme, there are organizations where employees of key importance to the continuity of the organization are of strategic importance, in other cases prevails the externalization of employment (type III). The subject of activities is the organization and its goals; cooperation with employees is established temporarily and adequately to them. Expenditure on development is incurred in relation to "key competencies", in the case of other employees the organization looks for "complete" people.

For organizational behaviours type III, Characteristic is temporary and task- oriented attitude of the employee towards the organization. Current employer is treated instrumentally, as a provider of resources necessary to perform assigned tasks. For this type of behaviour, characteristic is also high awareness of the necessity of development, combined with the adoption of the responsibility for its course. The employee of future has a clearly marked out career path, in the environment (with subsequent employers) looks for opportunities to develop specific competencies.

An intermediate model is therefore a model in which human resources are of strategic importance, but that potential is optimized by building employee engagement (type II.). Thus the subject of action, as in type I, is the organization and its goals, but in this case the personnel policy is conducted with consideration for the needs of the worker. In this perspective, human resources are seen as an organization's assets and source of competitive advantage. The most important feature is postulating the integration of personal matters with business affairs. Investing in employee development is subordinated to the implementation of strategic objectives of the organization, that is why in the creation of career pathways are involved both the employees themselves, their supervisors, and employees of the personnel department. The organization offers the possibility of vertical and horizontal promotion, wherein preparation for taking on new tasks includes development of both implementing and social skills.

For organizational behaviour type II characteristic is the full involvement of the employees in an organizational reality. The tasks they perform are treated by the workers as important and in connection with other activities of the organization. Strong identification allows for build organizational identity, which is the basis of building a development path within the organization. Employees characterised by the behaviours of the modern type appreciate, on the one hand, the need for security and belonging - that is why they choose to be bound with one organization and are involved in the implementation of its objectives; on the other hand, they are professionally active people, who satisfy the need for change by intra-organizational transfer. This approach involves the transfer of part of responsibility for the development onto the organization, but on terms agreed with the employee.

Analysis of each type raises questions about the reason for the differences in the locus of responsibility for the development. On the one hand it is to be considered whether the characteristics of the organization affects its organizational solutions, on the other hand, is the employee's attitude to the development determined by biographical-professional variables?

Methods

In order to identify differences in locus of responsibility for professional development, the article used the data derived in course of realization of a research project entitled „Multi-dimensional Analysis of Organizational Behaviors [WAZO] – methodology and the measurement tool” (The project was financed by National Centre of Science; award based on the number of decisions

DEC-2013/09 / B / HS4 / 02722). The research was conducted on a sample group of enterprises which have at least 50 employees. The sample was selected on a random basis within the scope of groups selected based on employment figure criterion (medium/high) and the type of business (trade, industry and services). Due to over-representation in the sample of commercial enterprises and under-representation in the sample of service enterprises and also due to varied responsiveness of particular groups of entities, the structure of the sample was leveled to the structure of medium and large enterprises populations in Poland, by adopting the values of analytical weights.

Table 1. Subjective and objective scope of research

Source: own study

According to the adopted model, the implementation of empirical research has been divided into two phases. In the first phase of the study, the subject is an organization, and the object - organizational solutions used in various dimensions. In the second phase, the subject of the study is the employee, and the object - its organizational behaviour against the background of the individual dimensions (Table 1).

The study used a WAZO questionnaire designed to study the organizational and cognitive aspects of organizational behaviour both in general and broken down by dimension¹. The content presented in the article refers to one of the dimensions of organizational behaviour used in the questionnaire, described as HR policy, and allows for answering the question:

Where is the responsibility for professional development located in the perspective of the organization and employees?

Theoretical constructs highlighted in the model (Type I, II, III of the locus of responsibility for development) were operationalized in empirical study using indicators relating to organizational solutions (phase I of the study) and organizational behaviour (phase II of the study). The dependent variable is the type of responsibility, the independent variable for organizations is employment size and industry, and for the employees - gender, position, age, work experience.

Characteristics of the Surveyed Population

In the first phase of the study participated 289 companies, of which 71.6% were companies employing 50 to 249 employees ( defined in the study as the average), while 26.3% were companies employing over 250 employees ( defined in the study as big). In the case of 2.1% of companies, the data on the volume of employment was not provided. In the sample, 42.8% of the companies represented the service industry, 40.9% - the manufacturing industry, and 15.9% were companies belonging to the retail industry.

The results presented in the article are taken from the second phase of the research, in which 2274 employees from 40 organizations selected from the sample of these organizations, which took part in phase I of the research, also took part. The sex ratio in the group was 36% women and 64% men. The persons on managerial positions constituted 24% of the population and the persons on non-managerial positions constituted 76% of the population. The average age of the respondents was 38.2 years (STD = 10.7 years). Half of the employees are not more than 36 years of age. The youngest was 15 years old and the oldest - 83 years old. 25% of not more than 30 years old, on the other hand, 25% - not less than 45 years of age. The most numerous age groups are - 25 - 24 years (27.6%) and 35 - 44 years (24.4%), while the far less numerous were the youngest group (under 25 years - 4.1%) and over 55 years of age (8%). About every fourth person did not disclose their age.²

Findings. The results show that on the Polish market there are organizations representing each of the analyzed approaches to the professional development of employees, the most numerous are type I organizations (55.4%), and the least numerous are organizations type III (6.1%). Detailed results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Responsibility for professional development - organizational perspective

Source: own calculations, based on individual results from the study on organization [n =289].

Turning to the detailed analysis, it is worth noting that the traditional approach to a greater extent characterizes medium-sized organizations, employing 50 to 249 people (59%), while for large organizations most replies were given for type II (50.7%). The approach characteristic of the organization of the future (type III), was far less common, regardless of the size of employment (7.3% and 4.2% respectively). At the same time, although the differences between the two groups were not statistically significant (p = 0.064), one can observe a tendency towards the development of a model of co-responsibility in the case of large organizations. Detailed data is shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Responsibility for professional development - organizational perspective by employment size

p = 0.064; p – probability in the independency test chi-square; * - statistically significant variable (α = 0.05).

Source: own calculations, based on individual results from the study on organization [n = 289].

Likewise, the industry in which operations are conducted, turned out not to be the factor differentiating the approach of surveyed organizations to the development of their employees (p = 0.235). Both in Commerce, Production and Services the most common approach was Type I. (in each group, more than half of respondents declared such an approach), then Type II, and Type III was represented the most seldom. (See also table 4).

Table 4: Responsibility for professional development - organizational perspective by Industry

p = 0.235; p – probability in the independency test chi-square; * - statistically significant variable (α = 0.05).

Source: own calculations, based on individual results from the study on organization [n = 289].

However, in the perspective of workers, typically represented approach was the approach characteristic for Type II (65.8%). While little more than 20% of respondents indicated Type I, and the proceedings in accordance with Type II were declared by 13.4% of respondents (the details are presented in Table 5).

Table 5: Responsibility for professional development - the perspective of the individual

Source: own calculations, based on individual results from the study on employees [n = 2274].

Co-participation in the development process turned out to be just as important for women as for men, more than half of the indications in both groups falls on Type II. Regardless of the gender of the subjects in second place with just over 20% of the responses came in Type I and developmental behavior of Type III was declared respectively by 11.6% women and 14.5% men. The differences in this case are not statistically significant (p = 0.094). Detailed data are presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Responsibility for professional development - the perspective of the individual broken down by gender

p = 0.094; p – probability in the independency test chi-square; * - statistically significant variable (α = 0.05).

Source: own calculations, based on individual results from the study on employees [n = 2274].

Similarly, a variable having no influence on the developmental behavior in the light of the data obtained, turned out to be the position. Both employees in managerial and non-managerial positions frequently declared behavior characteristic for Type II. In both groups, nearly one-fifth of employees delegated responsibility for the development to the organization (respectively type I - managers 18.1%, non-managers - 21.8%), while the fewest indications in the groups fall to Type III. (See also table 7).

Table 7: Responsibility for professional development - the perspective of the individual by his position

p = 0.193; p – probability in the independency test chi-square; * - statistically significant variable (α = 0.05).

Source: own calculations, based on individual results from the study on employees [n = 2274].

Approach to professional development, however, remains in a statistically significant relationship with the age of the subjects and with seniority.

Table 8: Responsibility for professional development – the perspective of the individual by age of the respondents

p = 0.000*; p – probability in the independency test chi-square; * - statistically significant variable (α = 0.05).

Source: own calculations, based on individual results from the study on employees [n = 2274].

At the beginning it is worth to point out that regardless of the age group most responses were obtained for Type II (in each group over 60%). In contrast, with the age of the respondents generally increases willingness to behavior characteristic for Type I (from 18.6% to 24.3%), and decreases the frequency of indications for Type III (from 13.4% to 5.9%). The exception is in that case the group over 64 years of age, for whom beside the dominant behavior of Type-II, behaviour Type I and III are characteristic in the same way (11.1%). A detailed overview is shown in Table 8.

Table 9: Responsibility for professional development - perspective of the individual by seniority

p = 0.023*; p – probability in the independency test chi-square; * - statistically significant variable (α = 0.05).

Source: own calculations, based on individual results from the study on employees [n = 2274].

A similar relationship can be observed by analyzing the approach to development, depending on the seniority of the respondents. Regardless of the group, type II behavior prevails (over 60%), however, generally the frequency of declaration for Type I slightly increases (from 19.1% to 23.3%) and drops for the Type III - in this case the change is slightly larger, from 17.4% to 9.8%. Slightly different from the above described trends are the results of workers employed in the organization for 1 to 2 years. Table 8 contains detailed data.

Discussion of Results

Based on the obtained results it can be concluded that the Polish market is dominated by organizations of characteristic for Type I traditional approach to human resources, locating the responsibility for the development of employees in the organization. More than half of subjects surveyed (55.4%) feel the owners of this process, which on one hand can be an expression of maturity and responsibility, on the other, however, and this interpretation seems to be closer to the truth, it may be a manifestation of ignoring the interests of workers and subordinating all activities related to the development of human resources to the interests of the company. The results of the study indicate that the tendency to autocratic management of professional development of employees is characteristic for an organization, regardless of the size of employment (p = 0.064) and the sector of activity (p = 0.235).

It should be noted that in this case the perspective of the organization differs significantly from the perspective of workers, who in the vast majority (65.8%) perceive their development as a result of interaction with the organization (type II). Only close to one-fifth of the surveyed population transfer all the responsibility into the hands of the organization, while just over 13% see themselves as the only owners of the process. Variables not discriminating the studied population were in this respect: gender (p = 0.094) and the position held (p = 0.193). In contrast, variables that significantly affect the perception of responsibility for professional development are the age of the subjects and seniority. It is worth noting that the percentage of people co-participating in management of their own development increases with age and it is a correlation statistically significant at p = 0.000 *. It can be assumed that the commitment to the process is favored by the professional experience acquired during the career. Employees, increasingly aware of their capabilities, become partners in the process, during the life their self-awareness increases, and so does their knowledge about the extent to which they can take advantage of the offer of the organization. One exception here is a group of workers in mid-career (35 - 44 years old), the results of which were the lowest for Type II. However, this is the period during which a person performs a re-evaluation of past actions, and chooses the path for the next years of work, and that is where precisely this "deceleration" may result from.

A similar correlation can be observed in regard to seniority, which is dominated by Type II. However, with the number of working years a greater willingness appears to transfer the responsibility for career onto the organization. At the same time it is worth noting that most employees ready to share responsibility for managing the development are in the group of those employed from 1 to 2 years. It is difficult to clearly determine whether this is the result of increasing confidence in the organization and entrusting it with own professional destiny, or some kind of surrender to its policies. Indirectly, the accuracy of the second solution may be indicated by a decline in responses for Type III, where the least-represented are the employees with more than ten years of work experience. It is hard to make in this case, a one-dimensional interpretation so it may be worthwhile to focus on the consequences of such a state. On the one hand, the result suggests in fact the limited impact of the organizational environment on the behavior of employees, which really means lack of modeling based on the patterns promoted by the organization. The second layer of interpretation, however, is to some extent a consequence of this conclusion. If we assume that organizational solutions used under the dimension of personnel policy do not shape the behavior, then the workers taking up employment in companies with inconsistent typology are forced to work in an organizational environment that does not support their actions. Lack of matching in time means that workers do not succumb to external pressure and they either independently look for opportunities to pursue their own goals and aspirations, or experience frustration and pay the price of reduced sense of quality of life at work. Consequences of matching behavior to organizational solutions were not studied, however, hence these proposals can be considered only as certain assumptions, requiring in-depth analysis in the future.

Findings and Conclusions

Diagnosed discrepancies in locating the responsibility for professional development in the perspective of employees and the organization can be defined as the phenomenon of dual development, where subjects differently interpret their roles and responsibilities. The process of professional development implies that both organizations and employees are trying to achieve their goals, wherein the organization is growing by focusing the development of employees, and the workers - thanks to the possibilities posed by the organizations. In today's world, such a system has a chance of success, however, vital to the smooth operation of this symbiosis is consciousness, what the roles and responsibilities of each party are (Kuron, Schweitzer and all, 2016). The results confirm that employees to a greater extent than organizations are ready for a new cooperation model - based on partnership and, what is worth emphasizing, benefiting each party. This attitude is most often declared by employees regardless of gender or their position. Awareness of the importance of development is an important factor in the success of both managerial and non-managerial positions. Even if it is not yet directing own learning³, but the resulting from cooperative orientation [See: Reykowski, 1986, pp. 135-137] form of calculative participation [Sikorski, 1998, p 149], each party has a lot to offer and organizations should take advantage of this opportunity, more appreciating the employees involvement.

A study conducted on a representative sample, was however limited to the organizations and employees in Poland. Therefore, it should be considered to undertake in the future research on the locus of responsibility for the development of employees in other countries, which would allow for the cross-cultural comparison and generalizations of conclusions. In addition, the results indicate that the locus of control may be also moderated by other factors not directly related to the characteristics of the organization or employees (e.g. the assessment of quality of life, trust in the organization, etc.), so further research projects should be extended also by those elements.

To recapitulate, it should be stated that the issue of the locus of responsibility for professional development of employees is nowadays particularly important. The pace of the changes is forcing organizations to permanent adaptation, and employees to increase awareness of career management. Organizations should take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the willingness of employees to share the responsibility. These activities must be increasingly taken into account in the organizational solutions and systems of shaping the behavior of people in the work environment. For only the awareness of mutual expectations of these two entities will increase the effectiveness of these actions.

References