Search results

This article introduces the “Investors in People (IIP) Small Business Handicap Hurdle Model”. The model represents a significant outcome of a survey carried out within small organizations in the north west of England during 1996. The survey was a preliminary phase of a major study conducted over a period of four years. The model offers both a conceptual integration of survey conclusions and also an empirical tool for application in a broader context. Findings about the appropriateness and acceptability of the IIP standard and framework in small organizations are reported. An overview of the IIP standard itself is presented.

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.

This paper reports on the findings of qualitative fieldwork aimed at exploring the motives, financial implications and the perceived benefits of achieving the Investors In People Standard. It examines perceptions of IIP at three different organisational levels. The research found differences between the motivation for, and perceptions of, IIP at all three levels as well as differences in the perceived benefits of the Standard. The views of senior management regarding the benefits of IIP were not generally shared at the other levels of the organisation. Indeed front‐line staff felt that IIP made little difference to them personally, the way they performed their jobs, or to the levels of satisfaction of their customers. This presents a major problem for senior management of local authority services if they are to achieve all the benefits attributed to IIP and so get beyond the “plaque on the wall”.

To explore the alleged causal link between Investors in People (IIP) recognition and improved business performance and profitability.

Four in‐depth case studies using semi‐structured interviews are used to gather the appropriate data.

The data collected challenges the direct relationship frequently proposed between IIP recognition and increases in business performance and profitability. Although it could be argued that changes are usually necessary in companies in order to align the organization with IIP standards and requirements, the cases explored instigated such changes independently of the pursuit of IIP. Only after these changes had taken place did the organizations consider a pursuit for IIP recognition. Thus, the findings point to a complex amalgam of factors at play in the micro and macro environments of the organizations studied rather than just an IIP‐profit/performance cause and effect nexus. In consequence, the reasons for these IIP recognized organizations performing better than non‐IIP organizations were due to their efforts prior to recognition and not because of it.

Further research is needed to explore and generalize the rhetoric and realities behind the alleged causal link between IIP recognition and increased business performance and profitability.

HR practitioners and managers need to exhibit caution before considering IIP recognition. The potential benefits suggested by advocates of the standard are not guaranteed, regardless of any alleged casual link.

This gives HR practitioners and managers a valuable and timely alternative discourse and perspective when considering employee development towards IIP recognition and the possibility of improved business performance and profitability.

Ever since the introduction of Investors in People (IiP), a management framework for high performance invented by the UK Government aimed at improving the UK’s industrial performance, there has been indistinctness about whether IiP actually improved organisational performance. The academic literature gives conflicting evidence and almost 25 years after the first exposure to IiP this issue has not been settled yet. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

In this paper the literature on the effects of IiP on organisational performance is collected and discussed, to try to give a definitive answer on the question what the effect of IiP is or should be.

After reviewing the evidence, the paper raises the question whether asking the question if IiP increases organisational performance is actually a relevant one. This is because IiP was originally intended to be the standard against which organisation could be evaluated and subsequently rewarded for excellent human resource management (HRM) practices. In the core this means that IiP consist of a set of by experts agreed upon indicators related to HRM practices which together form the yardstick against which organisations are measured.

This paper is the first one to actually create clarity of what the IiP standard actually is and how it should be perceived and applied by organisations and academics alike.

Investors in People (IIP), the heavily promoted government initiative to enhance organisations’ training and development practices, is significant for its deliberate intention to influence the conduct of management within the firm. While previous studies of IIP have tended to concentrate on large organisations, the dynamics of IIP in the increasingly important small firm population have been neglected. This article focuses on the experiences of three small firms, in particular the rationale for involvement with IIP, the market context of the small firms, its impact on market relations, and the extent to which IIP has made a difference to the nature of the business. The findings highlight the importance of sectoral and workplace relations. The IIP agenda of formalising training and development does not appear to sit easily with these processes; and appears to neglect the significance of informal training. Moreover, the requirements go against the grain of the distinctive small firm context.

The purpose of this paper is to present an outline of research, and provide a range of ideas and strategies that an organisation can adopt to improve its performance, in both financial and non‐financial measures.

A Cranfield University research paper used the Investors in People (IIP) quality standard to link the engagement of people to the development of high‐performance organisations

The research shows that by implementing commitment based HR strategies creates long‐term and quality engagement of employees. Furthermore, such strategies impact positively on financial as well as non‐financial performance of organisations.

The Standard has been the subject of research since its inception. Much of the previous research found that the IIP Standard has a positive impact on business performance although the conclusions were not unanimous. In addition, the Standard is reviewed and revised every three to five years, so past findings cannot always be related to the current Standard

A total of 40,000 organisations use the Investors in People standard because it: is a useful framework for organisations undergoing significant or a rapid change and it is business improvement focused – whatever the business priorities.

The paper focuses on business improvement research and practice.

Investors in People (IiP) is a UK government-backed scheme aimed at enabling organizations to develop their training and development cultures and, thereby, their competitiveness. The purpose of this paper is to examine the perceptions and understandings of individuals in six organizations undergoing IiP to explore recent claims within the literature concerning the Standard's impact on training and development, and job satisfaction.

Data from 35 semi-structured interviews among managers and employees of six diverse organizations were gathered and analysed.

The paper identifies three key findings in response to recent literature: first, the findings do not support a causal relationship between IiP and training and development; second, the findings do not support a causal relationship between IiP and job satisfaction; third, and to support the other findings, the results indicate little employee awareness of IiP.

If IiP – UKCES are to realize the potential of their Standard, it needs to find a way to ensure it has a direct and positive impact on skill development.

While much of the previous research has identified associations between IiP and various outcomes, this paper seeks to identify the extent to which these associations can be considered to be causal.

Previous research into the efficacy of the quality assurance standards in the ISO 9000 series has rarely focused upon their deployment in services. The UK standard Investors in People (IiP) has received relatively little research attention as a quality management method. The paper reports an investigation of the impact of the two standards on quality management in UK local authority leisure facilities. Three case studies registered to ISO 9002, three registered to IiP and one using no quality management method were studied through management team interviews and a survey of customer perceptions of quality. ISO 9002 was held to be useful by the managers, because it enabled them to provide a more consistent service and helped them to meet their performance objectives. IiP received a more mixed response from managers. However, customers of leisure facilities registered to IiP rated their services more highly than customers of ISO 9002‐registered facilities rated theirs. This was true of all of the elements of service investigated. It is suggested that, if ISO 9002 improves organisational processes, this is not apparent to customers. The results also suggest that IiP may be effective in assisting organisations to improve service quality as perceived by their customers.

Investigates the business benefits achievable through the process of recognition for investors in people (IIP). The policy context of IIP is examined. The possitbility of links between human resource initiatives such as IIP and business performance raises questions about a wider range of HR issues and their value. The potential benefits are explored through interviews with a variety of organisations which have achieved recognition. Two measurement frames are used, employee and organisational performance, allowing a wide range of measures to be examined. The study finds that motives for recognition are varied, leading to a widespread failure to identify the benefits which are in fact gained. Suggests that a wide range of benefits derive from the IIP process and that organisations which change substantially to achieve recognition would gain substantially greater benefits.