When a company discovers a problem, they often jump to training as a solution even if that would not be the most appropriate (Stolovitch & Keeps, 2004). Before jumping into training, a needs assessment should be done to determine the causes and possible solutions for the gap (Noe, 2013). For this week’s assignment we get to consider how to approach a needs assessment for a major company by gathering information from the company website. I picked natural foods giant Whole Foods.
A Little Background
In June 2013, Whole Foods got into some hot water for their policy on language usage. Two employees were suspended for their behavior at the workplace but said they were punished for questioning the English-only policy. To deal with the ensuing firestorm, Whole Foods consulted LULAC and ACLU to arrive at a different policy that permits languages other than English under certain circumstances.
Now, nearly two years later, has Whole Foods made any ground on this issue? Do they still have room to improve? Did the new policy cause other performance problems?
I would use a needs assessment to determine first if all employees felt that they had equality in the workplace and second if the new policy had unfortunate unintended consequences.
Multiple stakeholders were affected by the Whole Foods language policy, and so they should be considered in a needs analysis. These stakeholders would include customers, managers, English-only associates, and multilingual associates. The policy as shown in the company blog specifically mentioned how to choose the appropriate language with customers, so input from a sample of shoppers would help with the assessment. Next, employees were deeply involved in the original 2013 disagreement. Their opinions on whether the new policy helped equality or hindered it would also be helpful. Finally, managers are expected to maintain order, handle disputes, and understand the policies, but how many of them actually know both the policy and the reasons behind it?
A needs assessment includes an analysis of the organization as a whole, the people involved, and the task to be improved. The organization analysis considers whether training would be in line with the company’s strategic planning. At this level, I would consider the company’s stated values of supporting team member excellence. Some useful information would be whether employees felt respected by their coworkers managers. That would reveal overt aggression or microaggressions, small actions or words that insult often unintentionally (Murphy-Shigematsu, 2010). More specifically, I would ask stakeholders to describe times when they felt particularly included or excluded on basis of their preferred language.
Documents and records might include a copy of the current language use policy as well as the details of the 2013 incident. I might also ask for the HR records regarding issues of language.
A number of techniques would be useful, but a few from the chart in the Noe text (2013) standout as obvious choices. Documentation would show what the current ideal situation is, and might include records of inappropriate incidents. Questionnaires and interviews would be a useful way to collect information in a relatively nonthreatening way.
If training is indicated, the next steps would include figuring out who needs to be involved and doing a task analysis to identify the exact material to be taught in what ways (Noe, 2013).
An analysis of the current situation might take some time, funds, and effort, but ultimately, the resources are worth the effort. Without first seeking the information, Whole Foods might invest in a training program for the wrong reasons or on the wrong topics (Noe, 2013).
Murphy-Shigematsu, S. (2010). Microaggressions by supervisors of color. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 4(1), 16–18.
Noe, R. A. (2013). Employee training and development (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Stolovitch, H. D., & Keeps, E. J. (2004). Training ain’t performance. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.