Organizations are comprised of people and technology , which operate within systems and processes to produce products and/or services for customers. To be successful organizations seek to optimize the performance of all of its assets: human capital and technological. For human resource development (HRD ) professionals, ensuring that employees are performing in their positions at the highest level possible is essential. They are tasked with providing the tools and resources that allow employees to enhance their knowledge, skills, abilities (KSAs ), and competencies as needed. Typically, KSAs have been the focus of HRD professionals but as work performance has evolved from labor-intensive to more cerebral expectations of employees, competencies are growing in prominence as a need. To assess desired expectations of employee performance , HRD professionals have been and are developing competency models.
As of September 20, 2018, the O*NET system (O*NET, 2018) contains almost 1000 occupations and according to the U.S. Department of Labor, there are 141,951,699 employed individuals in the United States covered by unemployment insurance (U.S. Department of Labor, 2018). The fact that so many employees are employed within less than 1000 occupations suggests that many people are employed within the same occupational categories and/or positions at work. When a person is assigned a position at work, there are job functions that must be completed by the person within the position. There is a distinct difference between a job and a position. In the position held there might be several jobs that a person must do.
This book examines Hughesâs (2012) construct of workforce inter-personnel diversity . Workforce inter-personnel diversity is defined as a focus on the ways that individuals differ in (and should be recognized for) their personal characteristics within the workplace despite having the same position classification as a co-worker; this is irrespective of gender, race , or other typical classifications for diversity. In essence, it is underscoring and honoring each employeeâs individual KSAs especially as it relates to potential for growth and improvement. As with diversity intelligence (DQ ), I believe that diversity should be defined within the appropriate context for it to have meaning. Workforce inter-personnel diversity is defined within the context of employees who are in the same positions in the workplace and need to be treated differently despite the same position title.
One concern with workforce inter-personnel diversity is that some individuals think that it is just another way to (re)package the construct of âskill set diversityâ among and between employees within the same position. However, skill set diversity is typically aligned with a specific skill set. When I refer to workforce inter-personnel diversity, I am looking beyond just the skills necessary to perform the specific tasks of the position. I am also referring to location in and of the position. I am referring to the ability to transition beyond the minimum skill set required to maintain the position. Some employees have the minimum skill set and can maintain that level of performance but as the position is escalated to require additional skills, the employee may not have the capacity to be further developed for that particular position anymore (Bolt & Rummler, 1982; Delery & Shaw, 2001; Hughes, 2009). I am also looking at how that person would self-develop if their position were to be eliminated for a new type of position within the organization or replaced by technology .
Information already exists within the career development and career pathing literature that addresses an organization embracing not only the performance, but also the potential of the individual employee vis-Ă -vis his unique KSAs (independent of the traditional diversity categories, such as race and gender). It is often a part of a learning organizationâs platform, which includes expertise seeking versus just competence at the job description, as well as organizational leaders leading these efforts to assist employees in self-actualizing. However, many organizations do not operate within a learning organizationâs platform.
The career development literature is addressing some of these issues for white-collar workers more so than blue-collar workers. When one talks about career development trends such as boundaryless career and the Gig economy , one is often referring to employees who have control of their career mobility. Many employees who are trying to reach Maslowâs (1987) hierarchy of needs level of self-actualization cannot just be placed there by leaders at work. It requires employees to have the capacity to help leaders help them attain their goals. Often, mid-level production, call center, nurses, etc.⊠employees do not have as much control over their ability to self-develop and transition within their current organizations. Many organizations do not even have career management systems .
This book requires leaders to examine their own mindfulness related to employee development and their DQ as related to inclusion and equity of all employees. Workforce inter-personnel diversity is distinctly different from skill set diversity in career development because it asks that leaders consider employeesâ skill sets along with their location , use , maintenance , modification , and time value to the organization. It requires that leaders consider the extent to which each individual employee meets the skill set requirements and performs beyond the routine, basic level of performance.
To understand and benefit from workplace inter-personnel diversity, supervisors, managers, and leaders of employees must operate within organizational systems that value each individual employeeâs contribution to the organization. To value each individual employee, the leader must use DQ alongside intellectual, emotional, and cultural intelligences (Hughes, 2016, 2018) and understand the five values of people and technology in the workplace (Hughes 2010, 2012, 2014). They must understand these constructs to the extent that they can care for both people and technology and not negatively impact one at the expense of the other. Often people are said to be an organizationâs most important asset; yet, people have been and are continuously being displaced by technology in the workplace.
The 4th industrial revolution is actually using artificial intelligence (AI) to substitute for employees in as many positions as possible. AI has been shown to be biased against women and minorities when programmed by individuals who lack DQ (Angwin, Larson, Mattu, & Kirchner, 2016; Buranyi, 2018; Dastin, 2018). Robots, in particular, are replacing much of the physical actions of people and intelligent machines are being taught to try to think and make decisions that people usually make (i.e. driverless vehicles).
Despite the advances made within all of the past and present industrial revolutions, the need for people in the workplace has not subsided. The positions that people are employed within are and will continue to change as new and emerging technologies are introduced into the workplace. HRD professionals must be ready and able to help employees adapt and adjust to these changes. They will not be able to succeed in helping employees change if they do not understand workforce inter-personnel diversity . They must be able to develop each employee to the highest extent possible, be flexible enough to recognize each employeeâs limitations, and work with workplace leaders to ensure that each employee is in the position that best represents each employeeâs capabilities and the organizationâs needs.
Often, HRD professionals and workplace leaders become complacent because they do not have a vision for change and the complexity of assessing employeesâ capabilities. It is easier to place employees in positions, and, as long as the employee can perform in their positions at the minimum standard necessary to remain employed, they leave them alone to do their work. In doing this, HRD professionals and workplace leaders often miss an employeeâs potential for growth and change, and misses the organizationâs potential fo...