Human Resource

Development
Assignment
Semester-II
Models of Human
Resource
Development

SUBMITTED BY:

AZIM AKHTER

M.A. HRM (SEMESTER-II)

1 | Page
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK

JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

2 | Page
 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT:
AN OVERVIEW OF MODELS

INTRODUCTION
A recent Secretary of the Navy frequently reminded his staff that "People are our most important
resource." The subject of this chapter is how human resource models help the military
departments manage their people so that the United States can meet its defense commitments.
The overview paper developed and illustrated some general principles about models and
contrasted model types by specific area of application. This chapter illustrates the general
principles by highlighting the different types of human resource models, and points out problems
that model builders should consider when they develop new models of this type.

MODEL FOR HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Major Small Ventures

Companies Businesses

Prediction Internship Certification Re-training Supply

For Human Engineers
Resources

Government Training
Universities
Research Centers
Institutes

3 | Page
Some of the important aspects of Human Resource models:

(1) The basic nature of human

(2) The various types of human resource models;
(3) A look at the future of human resource modeling.

THE NATURE OF HUMAN RESOURCE MODELS

The reader will note that we use the term "human resource" rather than "manpower." In the
military services, the terms "manpower," "personnel," "training," and "assignment" refer to
systems that constitute separate organizational entities and management processes by which
people are brought together with a weapon or support system in specific jobs to produce
something called national defense. Though each
system and the models that support it conceptually have their place in an integrated process of
human resource management, little has been actually been done to develop the interactive
models into a single human resource system. Following common usage, we will define the
separate systems and later return to the notion of an integrated system for managing human
resources. Usually, the system is viewed as:

 Manpower: the process of determining the numbers and types of people

necessary to accomplish a given task.
 Personnel: the process of managing people, either directly by management action
or indirectly through incentives that affect behavior, so that an appropriate type of
person, as defined by the manpower process, is available to be "assigned" to a
given unit.

 Assignment: the process by matching members of the available pool of personnel

to specific jobs.

 Training: the process by which a person who has specific skills or attributes is
given a new set.

4 | Page
Human resource models—for instance, and personnel—are basically different from the combat
models discussed in other chapters. Like logistics models, human resource models tend not to be
built to support one-time policy decisions; rather, they have become integral parts of the process
of managing human resources. For example, models are used to determine how many people will
be recruited and promoted each month, how much they will be paid, and where they will be used.
Unlike logistics models, the use of human resource models in personnel management is not new.
Moreover, human resource models focus on the resource that is hardest to model, control, or
predict—people. This places special demands on the modeler. All human resource modelers must
determine

• How to describe people and what type of aggregation scheme to use.

• How to take account of the fact that, unlike other resources, people learn and
modify their behavior in response to changing both factors, exogenous and
endogenous.

Aggregation
Any attempt to model a human resource process starts with a decision to describe people
according to a well defined aggregation scheme. The basic building block in a military human
resource model is the occupational classification structure. In the Army and Marine Corps, the
building block is the Military Occupation Specialty (MOS); in the Air Force, the Air Force
Specialty Code (AFSC); and in the Navy, a Rating. Regardless of nomenclature, each
occupational classification system is an aggregation of tasks into jobs, jobs into positions,
positions into occupations, occupations into career fields, and career fields into occupational
groups.

What should be noted is:

 That each level is a somewhat arbitrary aggregation of an underlying structure.

5 | Page
  That once a level of aggregation is chosen for a model, variations in the substructure must
be ignored.
 That the usefulness of a model is directly related to the appropriateness of the aggregation
scheme.

There are many examples of human resource models at each level of aggregation. The Services
have incorporated data about individual tasks as part of the "Instructional Systems Development"
process for designing new training programs. The President's Commission on Military
Compensation (PCMC), by contrast, used models that aggregated military personnel into cells
containing all officers and all enlisted personnel for each year-of-service; for example, all
officers in a given year-of service were assumed—regardless of their background—to react in the
same way to given changes in retirement policy.

A faulty aggregation scheme may lead to unexpected results. The Air Force assumes that all
journeyman avionics mechanics (AFSC 32672A) are homogeneous in their skills and
"universally" assignable with equal effectiveness. To all models of the F-lll, F-15, and F-16, there
is some evidence that differences in the tasks that make up the specific jobs on the different
aircraft make this assumption invalid.

The other Services make assignment on more specific classification structure which reflects
training and experience on specific equipment. The Navy's Naval Enlisted Classification Code
(NEC), for example, is used in conjunction with ratings to match people to specific jobs.
Behavior The second problem that human resource modelers must face before they start building
their models is how to account for people's ability to learn and change their behavior in response
to factors incorporated in the model. Many human resource models use historical data on human
responses deterministically, instead of realizing that the observed responses represent patterns of
behavior that will themselves change as endogenous factors in the model change. This practice is
illustrated by personnel planning models that use the transition probability obtained from
historical records that an officer will move over time from the n year-of-service cell to the n+1
year of- service cell. The model and the historic transition probability are used to explore the

6 | Page
effect such policy changes as variations in promotion opportunities and tenure rules have on the
officer profile.

Yet the very act of changing the tenure rules or promotion opportunities alters not only the policy
parameters of the model, but also the underlying transitional probabilities. Failure to account for
human behavior compromises seriously the usefulness of the model.

HUMAN RESOURCE MODELS

Manpower Models
Manpower requirements models are designed to tell the human resource planner how many of
what types of people are needed to produce given levels of output. Models range from large-
scale simulation types to Statistical models that show the numbers and types of people
historically used to accomplish a measured amount of work. Simulation models tend to explore
manning situations beyond the range of direct observation. By and large, industrial engineering
approaches, which emphasize statistical analysis of workload and manpower actually employed,
have gained broad acceptance as the prime tools for determining manpower requirements.
• Conceptually, simulation models provide many advantages over traditional
industrial engineering approaches. The structure of this simulation model enabled
researchers to develop manpower requirements as a function of such elements as
flying schedule, component reliability, and frequency of repair and to relate
manpower explicitly to projected system output, such as sorties flown and ship
operations. Unfortunately, simulations are often limited by the poor quality of the
basic data.
• SAMSON, developed by the Rand Corporation, is one such case. By at least one
account noted in 1968, the quality of data from the Air Force's AFM 66-1 system
was so poor that it was unable to support the simulations. (Ten years later, when
this author had occasion to try to use the same 66-1 data, inconsistencies and
incompleteness of the same data frustrated the analysis.)

7 | Page
All too often, simulation models prove the adage, "garbage-in/garbage out." The usefulness of a
model may well be limited by inability to obtain reliable data with which to estimate its
parameters. The analyst needs to give as much attention to the data he "feeds" his model as to the
model itself. When someone offers a source of data which reportedly collects everything for all
subjects, as the 66-1 data does for Air Force and 3M data for the Navy, a wise analyst will run
and hide. In general, there is nothing so useless as an unreliable census. A carefully controlled
and managed sample will almost always provide more reliable and usable information than an
undisciplined census.

A more common approach to developing manpower requirements falls under the heading of
industrial engineering. Commonly, multiple regression statistical techniques are used to establish
the relationship between work performed/output produced and the observed level of
employment. Data used in the statistical analysis reflect the observed variation in the output and
employment levels across a given type of unit, or over time, or both. Here lies a major problem.
Having a statistically derived manpower factor that relates, for example, engine overhauls to
manpower required is of only limited use to manpower planners. Planners must also identify the
factors that determine the number of overhauls that will be performed in a given period.

Attempts have been made to develop comprehensive planning systems for manpower
requirements. The Navy's Manpower Mobilization System (NAMMOS) is a computer-assisted
manpower system used by Navy planners and programmers to determine scenario-dependent
requirement for mobilization manpower. Industrial engineering workload algorithms, however,
account for only 54 percent of the Navy's mobilization manpower requirement. Fixed manning
tables account for 28 percent of the manpower, with 18 percent of the total requirement related to
policy judgment.

A serious problem with both simulation models and industrial engineering statistical
relationships as tools for determining manpower requirements is their general and often implicit
assumption that the total manpower requirement is a direct function of the amount of work to be
done, no consideration being given to the possibility of combining different types of labor to

8 | Page
produce the same level of output at a different—and often lower—cost. Important questions of
labor-labor substitutions are generally ignored.

An important application of economic research to questions of manpower requirements is use of

the Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) production function and estimates of enlisted
personnel productivity for a number of military occupations. Specifically, recent studies show the
possibilities of increasing productivity with different mixes of labor. In general, higher skill
occupations tend to over utilize first termers, and lower-skill occupations tend to underutilize
them. Moreover, though the present overall ratio of first-termers to career people falls within the
range that would be selected on the basis of economic efficiency, the distributions within specific
occupations are not.

Personnel Models

The traditional feature of military personnel systems is that it has an "in-at-the-bottom, up-
through-the-ranks" structure. These systems are frequently modeled as a Markovian process,
where movement through the system is determined by a set of transitional probabilities.
These probabilities are either explicit policy—only a specified percentage of a cohort will be
allowed to pass to the next year—or averages of observed behavior over time. In general
application today, personnel planners and managers use three kinds of models: steady state,
dynamic, and transition.

The most common model is the static or steady-state model, in which the entire flow system is in
equilibrium; i.e., the total number of people who enter the system is equal to the number who
leaves. Although such models help us understand the long-run effects of policy changes on
personnel profiles, they do not show how today's personnel profile will look next year, if the
transition probabilities are modified, directly by policy or indirectly through incentives and
behavior.

Dynamic model

9 | Page
It takes a given, non-equilibrium distribution of personnel and applies a Markovian process to
obtain a new personnel profile for a specific period in the future. Thus, though the steady-state/
equilibrium solution is not calendar specific, the results of a dynamic model do change from
period to period.

In real-world applications, desirable steady-state policy solutions are often rejected when the
near-term effects, as determined by applying the policies through a dynamic model, are shown to
be unacceptable. An example is the analysis of alternative retirement systems developed by the
President's Commission on Military Compensation. The steady-state analysis of alternative
systems showed the benefits of proposed changes in the retirement rules. But, applying the new
policies to the existing force, as was done in a dynamic analysis, reveled the magnitude of the
increases in near-term costs associated with the proposals. The proposals were never adopted.

Transition Models
In recent years, transition models have gained in importance. The Army's ELIM-COMPLIP
system and the Navy's ADSTAP program are such goal-linear programming models. They
incorporate constraints and objective functions, such as manpower requirements and budget
ceilings, and are used to help formulate personnel policies and monitor progress against goals,
budgets, and force levels. They are designed to describe the force structure that will come closest
to satisfying a given set of manpower requirements given existing personnel constraints. Such
applications are useful in the development of "optimal" combinations of policies that deal with a
number of real-world constraints simultaneously.

Assignment Models
Manpower models are designed to help personnel planners determine the numbers and types of
people needed to perform specific tasks. Personnel models are used to predict the likely
outcomes of changes in a personnel policy. Assignment models, by contrast, are designed to
match given individuals with given jobs in such a way as to maximize some objective function,
subject to a set of constraints.

10 | P a g e
As used today, assignment models are employed in the initial classification and assignment
process, as well as the reassignment of individuals. Examples of the former are the Air Force's
PROMIS/PJM
system, the Navy's PRIDE/CLASP system and the Army's REQUEST/PIM system. As
structured, these models match men and jobs/school seats. They offer consider the attributes of
assignees, their preferences, and the goals of the Service.

It should be noted that these matches are not optimal over time. A specific match depends on the
time that an individual, billet, or school seat is entered into the model, as well as matches
performed. The Army
recently proposed a multiyear, multimillion-dollar program to expand the present personnel
allocation/assignment system and develop a new one that will more than match recruits against
the minimum eligibility requirements for job/school seats. Noting the sequential nature of the
personnel process, the Army wants to expand its assignment models to be able also to look ahead
and answer such questions as these:
• What is the effect of filling a training seat with a minimally qualified volunteer?
• What is the "cost" of deliberately leaving a training seat empty?
• What is the probability that a more qualified person will become available to fill some
specific training seat in the next 24 hours somewhere in the U.S.?

A work of caution for those who develop assignment models: If such models are to be used, they
must recognize that their subjects are human, not inanimate, and that people intervene in the
assignment
process. Many technically elegant models are never used because they are too mechanistic in
their approach. Models can help in the assignment process. However, it is not realistic to believe
that
assignments can be made by computer without human intervention.

Training

11 | P a g e
The last human resource to consider is training. It can be argued that everything undertaken by
the military in preparation for war is training. Though this is generally correct, distinguishing
among types of training is useful:
 Formal training: Formal Training of individuals usually takes place in a dedicated
schoolhouse setting, e.g., basic training and initial skill training.

 Unit/crew training: Unit/crew training sometimes takes place in established training

environments but is also part of fleet and unit training exercises.

 On-the-job training: On the job training is incidental to everyday work.

 Skill progression training: Formal and informal skill progression training is among the
requirements for promotion.

The magnitude and diversity of the Department of Defense's training suggest the potential range
of models of various kinds. Manpower models help planners determine the numbers of
instructors and support personnel needed to train a given number of personnel. Assignments
models help make sure that people with a given set of attributes are assigned to specific courses
of instruction. Scheduling models help insure the smooth flow of students through the "training
pipeline." Simulation models have been developed to help course planners judge the effects of
alternative course design, equipment levels, instructor manning, and student flow rates on the
operation of the training system.

Future Development of Human Resource Models

Earlier, human resource models were considered along the standard lines of manpower,
personnel, assignment, and training. Future work will surely refine and extend models in each of
these areas. The more innovative modelers, however, are increasingly aware that the functions
and activities of the various organizations charged with managing human resources are
intimately related. Decisions to change a training curriculum will result in changing work
patterns and be reflected in changes in the statements of manpower requirements. Changes in
12 | P a g e
retention patterns affect personnel policies, manpower requirements, and the ability of individual
units to conduct on-the-job training.

Although every Service has combined manpower and personnel under a single Deputy Chief of
Staff, little has been done to develop an integrated system. The existence of such tools as the
CES production function and its lack of use by Service planners to explore alternative manpower
and personnel structures reflect the continuing fragmentation among the various human resource
subsystems.

A second factor a future model builder should consider is how his model will be used. In any
year, many more human resource models are developed than are actually used by the Services in
the planning or management of personnel. All too often, the modeler develops an elegant
technical model, only to find that it is not relevant to the management process he was supposedly
trying to affect.

The case of MOD1A provides an important lesson. MODIA was designed to help Training
Command personnel examine the details of course design and course operation during the
planning stage of the process of instruction system development. Though MODIA was a
technical success, it was never used by the Air Force. MODIA reflected the desire of the Air
Force leadership to search out cost-effective alternatives. But, it was designed to be used at a
local training center during the development of a curriculum. Unfortunately, no one—neither Air
Force leadership nor MODIAfs developers—asked whether those who were to use the new tool
had any incentive to search out alternatives. A 1974 field test of MODIA revealed that course
planners did not operate in an environment of constrained resources and tended to game MODIA
to justify the course designs they favored.

The Air Force leadership which commissioned MODIA and supported its development never
understood the incentive structure of those who would use it. The developers of MODIA did not
understand how their model would fit into the management structure of the Air Training
Command. The question of implementation was addressed only after the model was developed.

13 | P a g e
If adequate attention had been paid earlier, a different— and one hopes—more useful product
might have been developed.

The experience of MODIA is a good way to end our discussion of human resource models. These
models are generally used to manage people. Substantial bureaucratic structures have been built
up to perform the personnel, manpower, training, and assignment functions. Models and
modelers who support these organizations must not only be skilled technicians but must also
understand how a specific model fits into the larger often implicit, human resource system and
must be aware of the incentives of those who will use their models.

CASE STUDY

A Human Resource Development Performance Improvement Model for

Workers with Mental Retardation in Supported Employment
Florida International University, USA

Abstract: This literature review discusses the factors for successful job retention of
adult workers with mental retardation, including external factors related to work
environments and internal issues of the individual worker. Through the synthesis of the
literature, a performance improvement model for supported employment is discussed
based on Holton’s (1999) human resource development/performance improvement
model.

Among the 54 million adults with disabilities in the U.S., 33 million have a severe disability and
10 million need assistance in their daily living (U.S. Department of Census, 2000). Most
individuals with disabilities want to work and are capable of exceptional job performance
(Bellamy, Rhodes, Mank, & Albin, 1988; Konig & Schalock, 1991) and equal to people without
disabilities in terms of productivity, turnover rates, absenteeism, and accident rates (Parent &
Everson, 1986), yet over 75% of them remain unemployed (U.S. Department of Census, 2000).
Organizations looking for creative staffing solutions in a tight labor market benefit from
employing people with disabilities and mental retardation (MR) (Petkauskos, 2005). A pool of

14 | P a g e
qualified employees could and should include individuals with MR who are able to fill the
shortage of employees seeking entry-level positions. Employing individuals with MR improves
the organization’s competitive advantage through a diversified workforce (Petkauskos, 2005).
Additionally, these organizations receive tax incentives and government contracts and are viewed
as socially responsible (Vondracek, Learner, & Schulenberg, 1986). Whether organizations
employ individuals with MR due to fill entry-level positions, create a more competitive
advantage, or receive tax incentives, human resource development (HRD) faces new challenges.

Problem Statement

Poor job retention and performance of adults with MR leads to their high unemployment rates.
Their job retention is decreased by work environment and organizational factors, such as
employer ignorance and bias (Rusch, 1986), lack of opportunities and role models, poor
placement, inadequate job-match, and career development (Lagomarcino, Huges, & Huges,
1999). Poor job retention can be partially attributed to the failure of vocational rehabilitation
practices, such as prevocational training programs, sheltered workshops and transitional
employment, to provide integrated paid employment (Wehman, 1986). Even supported
employment (SE), which has been identified as the most promising approach (Rusch, 1986), has
not provided for long-term job retention (Konig & Schalock, 1991). Furthermore, poor job
performance combined with social behavioral factors is a major cause of job loss for individuals
with MR (Greenspan & Shoultz, 1981; Lagomarcino et al., 1989). The purpose of this paper is to
adapt Holton’s (1999) human resource development/performance improvement (PI/HRD) model
to the employment of workers with MR. First, we will present an overview of the relevant
literature on the external and internal factors that influence successful employment, followed by
a discussion of the Holton’s model, and conclude with the presentation of the adapted model and
implications for HRD.

Method

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycInfo, and ABI Inform were selected with
the assistance of a reference librarian as most representative of education, psychology, and
business. Abstracts and articles were read and categorized by external and internal factors

15 | P a g e
influencing job retention in individuals with MR. Tables were created to organize the data.
Cognitive mapping was used to create a mental model of the overall meaning of the text.
Cognitive mapping lends itself to the comparison of semantic connections across texts and
attempts to represent the relationships between ideas, beliefs, attitudes, and information
(Palmquist, Carley, & Dale, 1997).

External Factors Influencing Successful Job Retention

External factors affecting job retention include: (a) job matching, work environment, and work
culture (Holland, 1985) and (b) a support system that provides ongoing training and support to
maintain job skills and valued work behaviors and attitudes (Chadsey-Rusch, 1986).

Job Matching

Congruency between an individual’s interests, skills, abilities, personality characteristics and the
job and work environment improves job satisfaction, job performance (Konig & Schalock, 1991;
Leach, 2002), work motivation (Berkell, 1987), and long-term employment (Holland, 1985).
This person-job congruency may be more critical to employment success than specific job skills
(Berkell, 1987). Workers with MR should be empowered to make reliable choices about their job
interests. This ability to chose is developed through learning to express their work preferences
and matching their work, social, and personal strengths to job requirements (Leach, 2001). Job
matching includes analysis of work settings and behavioral expectations followed by placement
and adjustment of one’s performance to achieve congruency.

Support System

The continuous availability of support following job placement is a hallmark of the SE model.
The amount of time or activities conducted by an employment specialist to enable employees
with MR to obtain, learn, perform, and maintain a job and job skills is directly related to their
success in job retention (Wehman et al., 1989).

16 | P a g e
On-the-job training allows for rapid placement into paid community employment instead of a
lengthy sheltered employment. These individuals are more likely to be employed in 9 months
and work full-time in 15 months. They also achieve superior outcomes, such as higher
employment rate, higher job satisfaction, and lower absenteeism (Wehman, 1986). Employees in
SE socialize more with non-disabled co-workers, are more often competitively employed, and
earn higher wages than the individuals in mobile work crews or clustered group.

Natural support promotes co-worker involvement as a means to provide consistent, ongoing

training and follow-up services in an integrated work setting (Nisbet & Hagner, 1988). Natural
support is any assistance, relationship, or intervention that allows a person with MR to maintain
and advance in a job. Non-disabled co-workers serve as observers, trainers, associates, ongoing
supervisors, advocates, and instructional program developers (Rusch, Hughes, & Johnson, 1991)
and assist employees with MR in building productive work habits and social skills. These
relationships and the support of the organization influence integration, job satisfaction,
employment success, and job tenure of individuals with MR (Hill, Wehman, Hill, & Goodall,
1985). Increasingly, employers (e.g., Pizza Hut, Inc, MacDonalds, the Marriott Corporation)
have realized that the skills co-workers learn when assuming support roles benefit the company
as a whole (Nisbet & Hagner, 1988; Rogan et al., 1993).

Community-based vocational education is an effective approach in delivering vocational

education and training to individuals with MR which provides services in community work
settings rather than in conventional school environments. Preparation of students with MR for
life in integrated work and living situations should include experiential opportunities in dealing
with the demands and expectations of these environments (Wehman & Kelchner, 1997).
Individuals with MR often do not understand the unstated rules of the workplace, many of which
relate to social interactions and social reciprocity. They also need to learn when the situation is
different and the same (Wehman et al., 1986) which occurs more frequently when instruction
takes place in the real world situations. Learning to perform certain behaviors and interacting
with a variety of people in natural work settings increases the likelihood of performing those
behaviors in novel settings (Lagomarcino et al., 1989). Community-based instruction within

17 | P a g e
work environments bridges the gap between classroom learning and competitive job placement
(Bellamy et al., 1988).

Internal Factors Influencing Successful Job Retention

A combination of inappropriate work-related social behaviors and poor job performance

accounts for 70% of job separations (Chadsey-Rusch, 1986; Hill, Wehman, Hill, & Goodall,
1985). Successful job retention for adults with MR is directly related to their behavior and
attitudes, including person-job congruency, self-determination (Wehman & Kregel, 1998), work-
related social behaviors, performance (Hill et al., 1985; Greenspan & Shoultz, 1981), and job
satisfaction (Wright, 1980).

Individual Work Behaviors and Attitudes

Social behaviors related to specific interactions at work (Chadsey-Rusch, 1986) include (a)
social awareness, (b) temperament and aberrant behaviors, and (c) personality characteristics
(Rosenberg & Brady, 2000). Social awareness includes the ability to get along and interact with
supervisors and co-workers and to understand the work environment (Greenspan & Shoultz,
1981; Hanley-Maxwell, Rusch, Chadsey-Rusch, & Renzaglia, 1986). Temperament and aberrant
behaviors include insubordinate and aggressive behaviors, idiosyncratic behaviors (Greenspan &
Shoultz, 1981; Hill, Wehman, Hill, & Goodall, 1985), and the inability to deal with the pressures
and stressor of the job (Salzberg, Agran, & Lignugirs/Kraft, 1986). Personal characteristics refer
to absences, tardiness, being uncooperative (Greenspan & Shoultz, 1981), and the abilities to
accept criticism, job responsibility (Lagomarcino et al, 1989), to take initiatives, to following
directions, to ask for assistance (Salzberg et al., 1986), to take pride in one’s work, and to value
honesty and standards of truthfulness (Rosenberg & Brady, 2000).
Personal Development – Person Centered Approach

Successful job retention is based on the principles of a person-centered approach, a process of

discovery of individual aims, aspirations, and skills that focus on the individual rather than
service provision constraints (Leach, 2002). Services are driven toward changes that lead to
increased work effectiveness based on principles of employees’ (a) understanding of the
relevancy of work required behaviors to their employment situation, (b) self-determination, (c)
18 | P a g e
social and economic inclusion, (d) choice and independence, (e) learning about work in work,
and (f) self-evaluation of their status (Leach, 2002; Rosenberg & Brady, 2000).

The majority of job retention strategies foster individuals with MR to depend on the employment
specialist (Chadsey-Rusch, 1986. Individuals with MR need assistance in personal development
to explore their personality
characteristics and skills, to learn to take personal responsibility, to develop self-esteem, and to
learn to communicate effectively (Konig & Schalock, 1991). Personal development includes self-
knowledge and awareness, self-advocacy, self-efficacy and appreciation, planning and decision-
making, performance and adjustment, and self-monitoring and evaluation (Wehmeyer et al.,
1998). Individuals with MR can enhance their autonomy during job searching by learning self-
management skills which allow them to provide themselves with cues, create records of their
work, evaluate their own performance, and provide themselves with feedback (Lagomarcino et
al., 1989).

Work-required Job Duties

Among work-required job duties and skills, both verbal and non-verbal communication abilities
are important to job placement and retention (Martin et al., 1987). Work required job duties and
the abilities to perform specific work tasks require appropriate quality and quantity of work.
When faced with alterations in routine, employees must maintain quality and quantity of work
with appropriate work and social interactions. Safety also must be considered in work activities.
When an individual develops work goals based on personal interests, abilities and barriers, they
remain longer on the job (Rosenberg & Brady, 2000).

Daily Living Skills / Life Skills

Daily living skills, including managing financial resources, understanding work schedules,
knowing days off and holidays, and scheduling personal activities, are required for successful job
retention (Bellamy et al., 1988).

19 | P a g e
Family

Individuals with MR become more successful in finding employment when their family is
actively involved in their work life (Hill et al., 1985). Therefore, efforts to secure family
involvement in all SE planning and decision making need to be a priority (Chadsey-Rusch,
1986).

A HRD Model for Performance Improvement in Supported Employment

Program approaches in SE share concerns and responsibility of providing opportunities for

individuals with MR to obtain paid work in an integrated setting and access continual support to
maintain employment. Holton’s (1999) performance improvement – human resource
development model (PI/HRD) is used to illustrate a synthesized model for SE programs. The
PI/HRD model (Holton, 1999) includes four domains (i.e., mission, process, critical subsystems,
and an individual.

Mission Domain

Performance is measured by the outcomes (i.e., products or services) rather than by the processes
(i.e., procedures) (Holton, 1999; Gilbert, 1978; von Beralanffy, 1968). The objectives derived
from the systems mission specify the expected outcomes (Holton, 1999). In SE the mission is to
provide competitive, integrated employment for individuals with MR. This mission reflects the
system’s relationship with the external environment, such as the relationship individuals with
MR have with external organizations, the community, and individuals without disabilities. The
notion of mission is particularly relevant to SE because of the focus on the valued outcomes
which serves as the needed conceptual framework for clarifying the similarities across all SE
approaches and providing a foundation for program planning and management (Bellamy et al.,
1988).
Process Domain
Process is the specific ordering of actions or value chain, by which the system converts energy
(input) from the environment into products and services (outputs) used by the system itself or by
the environment (Rummler & Brache, 1995). Process can be modified in response to feedback
20 | P a g e
about the system performance. To provide successful SE, an organization must create the
opportunity for competitive integrated employment within an integrated system through (a)
identifying what work needs to be accomplished and what employee abilities and skills are
required (analysis), (b) designing the requirements for individuals with MR to perform and
redesign the job itself if necessary (design), (c) developing the job and the supported program
based on design information (develop), (d) integrating the employees with MR into the social
and physical environment of the job and meet the employees’ ongoing support needs
(implement), (e) evaluating if the work is performed according to the employer’s requirements
and the SE environment and system (evaluate). Finally, the feedback process maintains the
organization’s capacity to offer SE. By accomplishing all these processes and outcomes, the
organization will succeed in its mission domain of successful job placement and job retention
leading to long-term integrated, competitive employment for individuals with MR.

Critical Sub-systems Domain

While the mission domain defines performance outcomes relative to the external environment,
the critical sub-systems domain defines them relative to internal outcomes that do not always
directly connect with the external environment (Holton, 1999). Each sub-system may be part of
many processes and not all sub-systems will be critical to the accomplishment of the system’s
mission (Holton, 1999a). For example, with a SE team, performance becomes an outcome of the
critical sub-system of an effective team. Qualified individuals (e.g., job coaches, counselors,
advocates, family members) must work together to create competitive paid employment for the
individuals with MR to meet their goals.

Individual Domain

The individual domain aims to improve individual performance through expanding expertise
(Holton, 1999). The essence of PI practice has been the improvement of individual human
performance, particularly through expanded human expertise, which is believed to result in
enhanced organizational performance (Holton, 1999a). The model focuses on individual
performance through optimizing learning and expertise (Holton, 1999). This optimization takes
place through training and non-learning interventions, such as incentives and consequences,

21 | P a g e
feedback, information, work conditions, work redesign, and resources required for the individual
to function in the system (Holton, 1999).

Implication for HRD

The purpose of HRD is to improve organizational performance through increased productivity,

efficient work processes, and individual contributions (Swanson & Arnold, 1996). The constructs
that improve human performance and individual contribution (e.g., person-job “fit”, job
satisfaction, and self-determination) have been researched in the general population but may
differ for individuals with MR. For example, this research has shown that while job satisfaction
improves job retention, it does not necessarily improve performance in the non-disabled
population (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985). In individuals with MR, research suggests the
opposite (Wehmeyer, Kelchner, 1997). Thus, the training and career development strategies for
individuals with MR may require modification based on various behaviors and work constructs
and their relationship to workers with MR.

An effective model and infrastructure should integrate HRD to move people with disabilities into
an integrated paid employment environment. Holton’s (1999) PI/HRD model is a system in
which HRD can affect organizational change to improve traditional and non-traditional
organizational learning of individuals with MR. Implementing SE requires the coordinated
efforts of several groups, each with unique perspectives, needs, and responsibilities: employers
who provide job opportunities; HRD that provides career development, training, and support;
state and local agencies that fund, regulate, and evaluate programs; parents and advocates who
choose among services and provide assistance outside the workplace; and persons with
disabilities who choose whether or not to participate in particular jobs or programs (Bellamy et
al., 1988).

References

 Bellamy, G. T., Rhodes, L. E., Mank, D. M., & Albin, J. M. (1988). Supported
employment: A community implementation guide. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

22 | P a g e
 Berkell, D. E. (1987). Vocational assessment of students with severe handicaps: A review
of the literature. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 10, 61-75.

 Chadsey-Rusch, J. (1986). Identifying and teaching valued social behaviors. In F. R.

Rusch (Ed.), Competitive employment issues and strategies (pp. 273-287). Baltimore:
Paul H. Brookes.

 Gilbert. T. F. (1978). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

 Greenspan, S., & Shoultz, B. (1981). Why mentally retarded adults lose their jobs. Social
competence as a factor in work adjustment. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 2,
23-38.

 Hill, J. W., Wehman, P., Hill, M., & Goodall, P. (1985). Differential reasons for job
separation of previously employed mentally retarded adults. Education and Training of
the Mentally Retarded, 15, 179-186.

 Holland, J. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and

work environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

 Holton, E. F. III. (1999). An integrated model of performance domains: Bounding the

theory and practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 12(3), 95-118.

23 | P a g e
24 | P a g e