Listen to this article:
Abstract: This article explores why a one-size-fits-all approach to employee development falls short and makes the case for a more customized, tailored framework. The research foundation is reviewed, highlighting how individuals have distinct learning styles, career aspirations, and developmental needs that are not well-served by universal programs. Leading organizations have shifted toward personalized development models to better leverage employee strengths, interests, and growth goals. The article outlines the key components of an effective customized approach, including individual assessments, co-created development plans, and a suite of tailored learning options. It also examines critical implementation factors like leadership buy-in, enabling infrastructure, and cultural change. Through case examples of Patagonia and Kimberly-Clark, the benefits of this research-backed, employee-centric model are demonstrated. The article concludes that investing in customized development is crucial for empowering employees and driving organizational success in today's dynamic business landscape.
In today's dynamic workplace, organizations are recognizing the importance of employee development more than ever before. A skilled, engaged, and empowered workforce is key to an organization's ability to thrive and stay competitive. However, taking a cookie-cutter approach to employee development that treats all individuals the same is ineffective and risks hindering employee growth and job satisfaction.
Today we will explore the research foundation for why a one-size-fits-all model for employee development falls short, and provide practical guidance for organizations on implementing a more tailored and customized approach that addresses the unique needs and goals of each employee.
Research on Individual Learning Styles and Preferences
One of the primary reasons a universal employee development program does not work is the extensive research demonstrating that individuals have distinct learning styles and preferences. Pashler et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis reviewing over 119 studies on learning styles and found evidence that accounting for an individual's learning style can enhance learning and achievement. Similarly, Coffield et al. (2004) reviewed over 71 learning style models and identified significant differences in how people prefer to take in and process new information. According to Kolb (1984), there are four distinct learning styles - diverging, assimilating, converging, and accommodating - that shape how effectively people learn through experience. Recognizing these unique styles is critical for developing tailored programs that meet each employee where they are.
Heterogeneity in Career Aspirations and Development Goals
Another factor limiting the effectiveness of a one-size-fits-all approach is the heterogeneity in career aspirations and development goals across employees. Studies show individuals have diverse interests, motivations, strengths, and ambitions that shape the type of learning and growth opportunities most beneficial for them (Baard et al., 2004; Heslin, 2005; Noe et al., 2013). Furthermore, an employee's career stage, experiences, and personal circumstances also influence their current goals and priorities for skills to obtain (London, 1983; Shea, 1992). A universal program fails to account for these nuanced differences and risks being misaligned with what employees themselves view as most crucial for their own career advancement.
Research on Motivation and Developmental Relationships
Relatedly, the psychological research on motivation emphasizes the importance of satisfying individuals' basic psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Feeling autonomous in one's development and having relatedness through developmental relationships have also been shown to positively impact learning and performance (Kram, 1985; Higgins & Kram, 2001; Carnes et al., 2015). Applying uniform training and development across all employees does not allow for this customization needed to sustain intrinsic motivation and fully leverage developmental relationships.
Tailored Development is the Standard in High-Performing Organizations
In light of this research foundation, leading organizations have moved away from standardized employee development toward more customized models. In a review of over 200 large global companies identified as most people-focused, Noe et al. (2014) found tailored, personalized approaches to learning and development were standard practice. Organizations like Google, LinkedIn, and Microsoft assess unique strengths and development needs, create individualized learning plans, and match employees with mentors and opportunities suited specifically for them. This alignment between research and industry best practices further underscores the limitations of a one-size-fits-all approach.
Designing a Customized Employee Development Framework
With the theoretical and practical case made for moving beyond uniform development, the question then becomes how organizations can design and implement a customized framework centered around each employee's distinct goals, contexts, and learning preferences. There are several critical components to building such a system.
Assess Each Employee's Strengths, Development Areas, GoalsThe foundation of a customized employee development effort begins with thorough individual assessments. Methods like multi-rater/360-degree feedback, developmental assessments, and one-on-one career conversations can help identify an employee's existing strengths and potential growth areas across various competencies (Bracken et al., 2001; Lombardo & Eichinger, 2011; Zenger & Folkman, 2009). Equally important is understanding employees' own development goals and career aspirations in both the near and long-term. Regularly revissessing keeps plans dynamic and aligned with changing priorities.
Create Individualized Development Plans
Based on assessment insights, the next step is crafting individualized development plans (IDPs) co-created by employees and their managers. Effective IDPs translate assessment results into clear, specific, and measurable development goals that employees themselves helped define and feel ownership over (Campion et al., 2011). They also outline strategies for achieving goals through customized experiences, courses, projects, and relationships. Regular progress check-ins maintain engagement with IDPs as dynamic working documents.
Offer a Suite of Tailored Options
Organizations then need to provide arrays of diverse options for employees to actualize their IDPs, addressing everything from hard and soft skills to leadership and strategic abilities. A range included self-paced online trainings, in-person workshops, rotational assignments, mentorships, coachings, special projects, and more. The goal is customizable choice aligned with each employee's assessed strengths, areas for growth, career stage and interests
Implementation Success Factors and Best Practices
While a customized approach to employee development has strong rationale, effective implementation requires addressing several additional considerations.
Leadership Alignment and Buy-In: Perhaps the most critical factor is committed executive leadership buy-in for the shift to a tailored model over simplistic uniform programs. Leadership needs to communicate consistent messaging around the rationale, resource commitment, and how customized development links to broader talent and business strategies (Kong, 2015). Formal training equips managers to have meaningful assessment and goal-setting conversations.
Infrastructure and Resource Allocation: Organizations must also invest in technology solutions and HR team bandwidth required to manage expanded individualization at scale. Solutions like Oracle Taleo and SAP SuccessFactors power customized IDPs, goal tracking, learning management, and analytics. Adequate training and program budgets ensure employees access options aligned with their plans.
Communication, Socialization, and Mindset Shift: Shifting culture from a one-size-fits-all mindset also necessitates socializing change rationale and customization benefits across all levels. Clear guidance and social support systems help navigate choice paralysis. Performance management and rewards systems likewise require adjustment to incentivize personalized growth over box-checking compliance.
Flexibility and Continuous Improvement: Given changing business needs and employee contexts, frameworks need built-in flexibility and room for adjustments. Feedback is collected to identify gaps, surface lessons learned, and enable a cycle of continuous advancement. A startup mentality helps maintain agility as the space evolves rapidly.
Patagonia and Kimberly-Clark
Leading companies operationalizing customized frameworks offer useful case examples. Outdoor apparel brand Patagonia assessed all 2,000+ employees, created IDPs addressing hard and soft goals, and offers a self-service learning catalog with over 1,000 options from technical to leadership training. Consumer products giant Kimberly-Clark rolled out an interactive digital platform powering goal-setting, learning recommendations, mentor matching, and analytics for 50,000 employees globally. Both saw improved engagement, development, and retention outcomes from moving beyond standard one-size-fits-all models.
Conclusion
In today's fast-paced knowledge economy, developing employees as thriving talent is crucial for organizational success. However, assuming a universal approach suits everyone represents an increasingly outdated perspective contradicted by extensive motivation and learning research. Forward-thinking companies recognize that honoring diverse strengths, interests, career contexts, and learning preferences through a customized development experience powered by continual assessment and communication yields far richer outcomes for both individuals and the organization overall. While shifting mindsets and implementing at scale poses challenges, leaders who commit to this research-backed, employee-centric framework empower their workforce to fulfill far greater potential.
References
Baard, P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well‐being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 2045–2068. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02690.x
Bracken, D. W., Timmreck, C. W., & Church, A. H. (2001). The handbook of multisource feedback: The comprehensive resource for designing and implementing MSF processes. Jossey-Bass.
Campion, M. A., Fink, A. A., Ruggeberg, B. J., Carr, L., Phillips, G. M., & Odman, R. B. (2011). Doing competencies well: Best practices in competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 225-262. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01207.x
Carnes, M., Lund, S., & Hoffman, B. (2015). Developing Leaders in a Fast-Paced Environment: An Evaluation of Citibank's Leadership Development Program. Harvard Business School.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. Learning and Skills Research Centre.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "What" and "Why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Heslin, P. A. (2005). Conceptualizing and evaluating career success. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(2), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.270
Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 264–288. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378023
Additional Reading
Westover, J. H. (2024). Optimizing Organizations: Reinvention through People, Adapted Mindsets, and the Dynamics of Change. HCI Academic Press. doi.org/10.70175/hclpress.2024.3
Westover, J. H. (2024). Reinventing Leadership: People-Centered Strategies for Empowering Organizational Change. HCI Academic Press. doi.org/10.70175/hclpress.2024.4
Westover, J. H. (2024). Cultivating Engagement: Mastering Inclusive Leadership, Culture Change, and Data-Informed Decision Making. HCI Academic Press. doi.org/10.70175/hclpress.2024.5
Westover, J. H. (2024). Energizing Innovation: Inspiring Peak Performance through Talent, Culture, and Growth. HCI Academic Press. doi.org/10.70175/hclpress.2024.6
Westover, J. H. (2024). Championing Performance: Aligning Organizational and Employee Trust, Purpose, and Well-Being. HCI Academic Press. doi.org/10.70175/hclpress.2024.7
Citation: Westover, J. H. (2024). Workforce Evolution: Strategies for Adapting to Changing Human Capital Needs. HCI Academic Press. doi.org/10.70175/hclpress.2024.8
Westover, J. H. (2024). Navigating Change: Keys to Organizational Agility, Innovation, and Impact. HCI Academic Press. doi.org/10.70175/hclpress.2024.11
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2024). Why a One-Size-Fits-All Approach to Employee Development Doesn't Work. Human Capital Leadership Review, 15(4). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.15.4.3
