The IDP Conundrum

Individual Development Plan (IDP) has been the bastion of development in many progressive organizations that have adopted leading HR practices. In fact it is a great tool that provides individuals a structured way to plan for career development. However, based on experience I would surmise that success of IDPs has been modest at best. In pockets they have yielded astounding results whereas on a larger scale they have not made a perceptible impact. In quite a few cases IDPs become like New Year Resolutions; they start with great euphoria and then die a sudden death. Through this short piece I want to explore some of the reasons I feel may have contributed to this predicament.

IDPs are prevalent across industries. In fact every development discussion is followed either by an actual or an advice to create an IDP. Development centers, which are now all pervasive also urge the participant to create development plans. Most leaders will agree that IDPs are the right thing to do. Yet the same will also agree that execution remains quite haphazard.

A few questions that have always intrigued me are Why IDP? HR departments and leadership want it for employee development, employees also see it as a development tool, so why don’t they succeed? I think answer to these questions can partly provide answers to the mixed success of IDPs. Principles of adult learning suggest that as adults our learning is goal oriented. Most of us pick up a new skill or enroll for a course at work, since we believe that is critical for us to remain on top of the job or just to keep up with times or we are just self-motivated to do it. In such cases, we see that learning has a direct impact on our goal. In cases where organizations can draw these linkages IDPs are bound to succeed. I have seen tremendous success of detailed IDPs when they have been created for individuals who have been identified for certain positions. Successful completion of the IDP has resulted in role movements. In such cases IDPs have been successful. However, in most cases there is an iffy connection of the IDP and a goal. For instance, employees do not want to develop business acumen skills for the sake of learning (a few may want to!). They need to see a strong linkage between the learning and its fruition to something they value. Many IDPs are created with the promise of career growth however when this does not happen, over a period the association of IDP with career growth also disappears. Hence the question, Why IDP is most significant. A blanket coverage of all employees post a performance cycle or assessment center does not create a compelling reason for an individual to create and work on an IDP. If this question is addressed I believe it is half battle won.

Organizations usually embrace some rule of thumb for individual development which is normally a mix of self-learning, coaching & training and on-the-job training. IDPs mirror this approach. I have observed that people managers have the greatest difficulty in putting things in the on-the-job section of an IDP. While most HR departments lay emphasis on action learning projects it is quite difficult for managers to conceive these projects for their employees. Teams are usually stretched and find little time to take on additional projects, managers are not sure on how to create new projects which seamlessly weave into everyday work. Thus, on-the-job section of an IDP typically remains the most under-utilized section albeit the organization’s directive that this should be the primary way for developing individuals. Most managers mention training programs that individuals should attend during the year for developing skills. This approach yields excellent results for developing knowledge skills however a major component of any IDP are behavioural competencies or soft skills which are application oriented and need more than just a training program. An IDP then gets reduced to an individualized training calendar.

Individual employees also face difficulty in preparing IDPs. They have the same questions that managers tend to have with respect to on-the- job learning, project based learning etc. However, a bigger challenge that employees encounter is the need itself. Employees may not completely agree with the needs that have been identified. In my experience, technical needs find easier acceptance than soft skills or behavioural competencies. In many cases, behavioral needs are either vague or too broad. Connection of these needs with goal achievement is not well identified. This does not mean that the needs are incorrect however acceptance tends to be lower in such cases.

Having worked with multiple consultants on assessments I see that consultants usually share a list of books to be read, videos to be watched for developing competence. It is quite utopian to think that individuals are going to read the books mentioned for self-development. While it looks great on paper, practical implementation remains suspect.

In an imaginary world, the HR siren for creating IDPs would have pushed the IDP machinery in action. Employees would have followed up with their managers to create IDPs and managers in turn would have relished this task. IDP reviews would have happened and deadlines would have been met. Unfortunately, this is far from reality. To be successful IDPs need to be viewed from multiple lenses of effort-reward relationship and principles of adult learning to make them relevant. Else it risks being, as the Floydian number goes ‘Another brick in the wall’. 

In my next article (next week) I plan to suggest a few actions which I believe can help address some of these gaps.