Understanding the new Investors in People standard – lessons from experience
| Date | 01 October 2004 |
| Pages | 583-604 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480410550170 |
| Published date | 01 October 2004 |
| Author | Lorna A. Collins,Alison J. Smith |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Understanding the new Investors
in People standard – lessons from
experience
Lorna A. Collins
Small Business and Enterprise Research Group, Leicester Business School,
De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
Alison J. Smith
Management Development Centre, Loughborough University,
Loughborough, UK
Keywords Investors in people, Case studies, Small enterprises, Culture (sociology)
Abstract Investors in People (IIP), the government initiative designed to enhance organisation
training and development practices, adopted a new standard in 1999, which focuses on the
development of a “training culture” within an organisation. Previous studies of IIP have been
conducted on firms accredited using the old standard, and most of these have focused on large
firms. Few studies have examined the process of implementing IIP through the eyes of people
within the firm and from the point of view of all organisation members. Likewise few studies have
examined the process by which accreditation for IIP is achieved under the new standard in small
firms where various pressures to adopt the standard may result in significant and wide-ranging
effects on existing organisation culture. This paper discusses the differences between the old and
the new standard from a cultural perspective and explores the challenges and impact of
implementing the new standard in one small printing firm, Checkprint Ltd, through the eyes of
those in the firm. The paper considers possible changes required in the way IIP is implemented and
evaluates the applicability of methods used by IIP to determine qualification for accreditation. The
paper concludes with implications and recommendations concerning the implementation of IIP.
Introduction
Launched in Great Britain in October 1991, the objective of Investors in People is to
improve business performance through enhanced training and skill development.
Studies of the effectiveness and applicability of the old standard have been conducted,
mostly using a quantitative approach and large-scale surveys (Alberga et al., 1997;
Hillage and Moralee, 1996). However, with few exceptions, for instance Ram (2000) and
his qualitative study of three small firms in the information intensive services sector,
the dynamics of “becoming involved” and “living with”, the different stages of the
investors in people (IIP) process have not been investigated in any depth. Further study
of the actual impact of IIP has been called for (Down and Smith, 1998; Spilsbury et al.,
1995) using qualitative methods and, given the limited number of empirical studies
conducted about IIP in relation to small firms, the need to explore the topic using an
ethnographic approach seems particularly appropriate. Exploring this organisation
from a cultural perspective is timely in the light of current calls for the expansion of
small firm’s research into the areas of “culture” and “related notions” (Curran, 2000;
Gibb, 2000a, b). Researching the implementation of the new standard, which was
introduced in 1999, is new.
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
Understanding
the new
IIP Standard
583
Received March 2002
Revised March 2003
Accepted June 2003
Personnel Review
Vol. 33 No. 5, 2004
pp. 583-604
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/00483480410550170
The changes to the standard seem to signal an explicit interest in organizational
culture and, although there is plenty of prescriptive advice on how this might work, the
dynamics of this process have not been examined. This paper explores this notion and
how IIP was implemented in one small printing firm, Checkprint Ltd (CPL). The paper
evaluates the applicability of methods used by IIP advisers and assessors to examine
qualification for accreditation. It draws conclusions regarding the effect of the new
standard and gives suggestions for change.
Organizational culture and IIP
Organizational culture, as an area of inquiry, lacks a common definition and cultural
researchers do not share a theoretical paradigm. However, numerous attempts have
been made to clarify the concept of culture theoretically and apply it to the analysis of
organisations (Alvesson, 1987; Kilmann et al., 1985; Schein, 1992). Organizational
culture is viewed in one of three ways: from a rationalist perspective where culture is a
tool for achievement of organizational goals; functionalist perspective where culture is
a pattern of shared values and basic assumptions which perform functions concerning
external adaptation and internal integration; and symbolic perspective where culture
is viewed as a shared pattern of socially constructed symbols and meanings
(Schultz, 1994).
The functionalist approach looks at “deep” assumptions and is suggested to be what
culture is “fundamentally” all about with the implication that these depths can be
influenced and managed from above, if their underlying structure is understood (Parker,
2000). The underlying assumption in a functionalist approach is that it is possible to
uncover what is actually going on at a deep level in an organisation to manage it
culturally. According to Schein (1992), basic assumptions are the invisible and “implicit
assumptions that actually guide behaviour, that tell group members how to perceive,
think about, and feel about things” (p. 22) and it is widely agreed that basic assumptions
cannot easily be uncovered (Martin, 1992). Another underlying belief of the functional ist
view is that “organizational culture is a normative system which is somehow caused by
either the environment or the capitalist system and in both these cases meaning is seen
as secondary to some kind of external reality” (Parker, 2000, p. 68).
Against this notion of culture as something that an organisation has, the
interpretative view suggests that culture is something an organisation is, a distinction
that moves from culture as “social facts” to cultures as ongoing social construction s
(Smircich, 1983, 1985). The interpretative paradigm stresses the local nature of cultural
processes and by reducing the object of enquiry to the actor level, it cautions against
thinking of organisations as a system, however open or negotiated. The objects of
study are the actors themselves as well as symbols, language, and actions. Hence we
can refer to actors’ understandings of a system but must be careful not to confuse those
understandings with our own (Parker, 2000). Culture can be formulated as sets of
common understandings held by actors in particular organisation settings but these
are continually in process – what Smircich calls “organisation making” (1985, p. 66).
For the purpose of understanding the process of implementing IIP, and to
complement the exploratory nature of the study, an interpretative perspective of culture
was adopted; that is, the organisation is a culture and that organizational culture is a
process that is locally created by people within an organisation but that it can also be
usefully talked about as a thing with particular effects on people (Parker, 2000).
PR
33,5
584
To continue reading
Request your trial