1 Introduction to induction
Induction programs are used in many businesses to welcome new employees to the company and prepare them for their new role. Inductions are also commonly known as orientation in certain countries. The general focus for any induction program is to help employees make a quick, positive and smooth adjustment in their new job (Smalley, as cited in Stirzaker, 2004). Induction helps employees in forming their first impressions about the organisation. A proper induction program helps both, the organisation and the new employee. According to Wallace (2009), inductions usually follow the hiring process, which is usually stressful to both employee and employer. Induction is meant to address this stress before it spins out of control. Improper induction could start a cycle wherein the employee starts to look for a new job or the employer starts to advertise for a new employee again. Organisations can use induction as a control mechanism devised to enforce conformity with the existing culture. It could identify unsatisfactory new employees before they do any damage (Fowler, cited in Stirzaker, 2004).
Inductions are very important and need to be effective and continuously evaluated to prevent any adverse fallout. According to Hacker (2004), research indicates that simply improving new employee orientation can increase retention rates by as much as 25 percent. Induction programs should avoid being boring, overwhelming, irrelevant and de-motivating. A wrongly designed induction program can affect the attrition, turnaround time for the resource and infuse low morale. Hence, induction is too important a task to be taken lightly. This article discusses different views about effective induction programs and the perils of ineffective ones. Furthermore, it shows how an effective induction program can be beneficial to both the organisation and the employee.
Research around induction is usually focused on how induction program need to be done and improved. They focus on identifying the problems in the programs through exit interviews, questionnaires for making it more effective. However, what happens once a problem in the induction process is identified. Does the organisation reorient the impacted employees? Should they ignore the issue and move forward? This area needs more research to analyse the impacts and fallouts.
2 Techniques in induction
Almost every organisation has some sort of induction program. Some inductions start on the employee’s first day, while others start right when the offer is accepted. According to Cirilo & Kleiner (2003), orientation can be divided into three parts namely 1) Pre-orientation,
2) orientation to the organization
3) orientation to the job.
Chapman (2009) looks at orientation as a process that could be varied and take place over a period of time. Hacker (2004) identified induction in stages such as Pre-Hire, Post-Hire and an elongated period for up to one year.
Pre-orientation or Pre-Hire is done after the offer is accepted, but before joinning, to give the employee a feel about the organisation. Emails, phone or mail is usually the medium for this easy and cheap stage. It usually provides supervisor information and other general information.
The Post-Hire section (Hacker, 2004) encompases the stages Orientation to the orgnisation and Job orientation as described by Cirilo & Kleiner (2003). Orientation to the orgnisation helps the employee learn about the company company, its history, philosophy, mission, structure, policies and procedures. A job orientation helps the employee learn about his/her role, duties and expectations. Some organisation assign a buddy to provides on-the-job training and mentoring (Cirilo and Kleiner, 2003). In addition to these stages Chapman (2009), includes a third stage which focuses on the employee becoming comfortable in the new job. This stage goes beyond the first week and can last up to one year.
However, Wallace (2009) suggests a more detailed approach and suggests that organization should avoid the one-size-fits-all approach to planning or revising an orientation program.
Although most organisations have induction programs, they do not put much effort to capitalise from the program. The common errors a associated with orientation revolve around factors such as lack of information, too much information and conflicting information (Brechlin and Rossett, 1991). Some of the examples below show how ineffective induction programs indirectly cause losses to the organisation. According to Brechlin & Rossett (1991), induction programs need to be continuously analysed for relevance to keep them effective. Most orientation programs are planned based on past programs, fiat, and just done randomly. The results of an induction can vary depending on how it is delivered.
A major UK energy provider Scottish & Southern Energy (2008) had a 12-week induction program that included three weeks of classroom training, four weeks of one-to-one support on live calls, and five weeks receiving intensive support. However, the company was losing up to 12 new employees every four weeks, at a monthly cost of up to £60,000. Most were leaving within six months of joining the firm. Some of the reasons investigated were regarding the boring style of the induction training, being treated as kids, overwhelming information, team integration issues and lack of support and interest from managers. Hence, a long induction program does not guarantee the success of the program.
According to Wells (2005), losing a newly hired executive can incur direct costs (recruitment, relocation, compensation, training and severance) and indirect cost such as lost opportunities, business delays, and damage to relationships with staff and customers. Direct costs could amount to two or three times the executive's salary, while indirect costs-such could cost the company nearly 24 times base salary. RHR International conducted a study using inputs from employees ranging from senior managers to CEO’s. Surprisingly, only 39 percent were satisfied with their organization's efforts to integrate them into the organisation (Wells, 2005). This shows that inductions have a huge impact on both the employee and the organisation. Hence, organisations need to consider continuously evaluating their induction programs to make them more meaningful and effective.
4 Effective Induction, benefits and evaluation
Gilles, Davis & McGlamery (2009) suggest that both the organisation and the employee can benefit out of an induction program that is mutually beneficial. Successful orientation is 60 percent talent and 40 percent support (Friedman, 2006). A well-oriented employee will approach a new job with heightened confidence and better performance. It also minimizes the costs associated with attempting to learn and to work at the same time (Meister, cited in Randolph Cirilo and Kleiner, 2003). The success of any orientation program is difficult to measure. However, North Carolina State University conducted an evaluation based on staff inputs; found that effective orientation programs reduce attrition and absenteeism. It helps in preventing performance problems and promotes positive attitudes. Furthermore, it helps built the communication between supervisor and employee (Ballard and Blessing, cited in Chapman, 2009).
5 Conclusion
Induction can be beneficial or detrimental to both the organisation and the individual. It completely depends on the way it is executed and evaluated. Some effective induction programs could become ineffective over time. The effectiveness of the induction program should be evaluated continuously. This is done by evaluating the outcomes of the induction over a period of time. Effective inductions can boost confidence, improve performance and save costs. Inductions lacking in substance may lead to losses and can impact business severely by way of monetary losses, loss of talent or efficiency. Hence, every induction should be considered as an ongoing process that should be continuously evaluated keeping the known pitfalls in mind.
References
Brechlin, J, & Rossett, A. (1991). Orienting New Employees. Training, 28(4), 45.
Retrieved April 10, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 827002).
Gilles, C., Davis, B., & McGlamery, S. (2009). Induction Programs That Work.
Phi Delta Kappan, 91(2), 42-47. Retrieved April 11, 2010, from Academic
Research Library. (Document ID: 1893067991).
Chapman, C. (2009). Retention begins before day one: orientation and
socialization in libraries. New Library World, 110(3/4), 122-135. Retrieved
April 10, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1878220591).
Friedman, L. (2006). Are You Losing Potential New Hires at
Hello? T + D, 60(11), 25,27. Retrieved April 11, 2010, from ABI/INFORM
Global. (Document ID: 1162454961).
Hacker, C. A. (2004), “New employee orientation: make it pay dividends for years to
come”,Information Systems Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 89-92.
Cirilo, R. & Kleiner, B. (2003). How to orient employees into new positions
successfully. Management Research News, 26(8), 16-26. Retrieved April 10,
2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 446212801).
Scottish & Southern Energy, (2007). “Scottish & Southern Energy slashes staff
attrition :Better, shorter induction program helps to double customer-satisfaction
ratings”. Human Resource Management International Digest, 15(2), 14.
Retrieved April 10, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document
ID: 1230575281).
Stirzaker, R. (2004). "Staff Induction: Issues Surrounding Induction into International
Schools. " Journal of Research in International Education 3(1): 31-49.
Wallace, K. (2009). Creating an Effective New Employee Orientation
