Introduction

Fink (2009) defines a Literature Review as “a systematic, explicit and reducible method for identifying, evaluation and synthesizing the existing body of completed and recorded work produced by researchers, scholars and practitioners”. Saunders et al. (2009) further states that reviewing literature provides the foundation on which any research is built due to the fact that it is used to help develop a good understanding and insight into trends that have emerged. They further stated that any review is for either two (2) purpose Deductive and Inductive approach. Deductive approach is said to be used to help identify theories and ideas that you will test using data whilst Inductive approach is used to explore your data and to develop theories from them to be used to the literature.

Chapter 2 examines the importance of an “Induction Training program” and how such a program may benefit the organization thus increasing competency and capability by employees, to enhance performance in their given position as well as using strategies to improve the company’s overall performance.

An organization set amidst its competitors seeks to outperform and stand out as number one amongst them all. However, the diversity of company’s structures and cultures in our society today as well as the dynamic changes made and continue to be made due to the globalization process has harnessed an era where the adoption of new styles and behaviors poses to be a source of constant threat for organizations. To assume that after following recruiting and selecting tactics, new employees would automatically fit into the company’s ways of doing things may not be compatible in this era.

Induction Training

Foot and Hook (2008, p. 293) define Induction as; “the process of helping a new employee to settle quickly into their job so that they soon become an efficient and productive employee”. They also stated that the induction process helps create a favourable image of the organization for the new employee. “It involves the introduction of a new member of staff to the culture and environment of the organization, its policies and practices and to other members of staff” says Mullins (2002). Goyal (2007) agrees with this as he to defines it similarly as “the process of bringing/introducing/familiarizing a new recruit into the organization” and adds that “this program familiarizes the new employee about the culture, accepted practices and performance standards of the organization”.

However, though Induction programmes are highly praised by the masses, Bailey (2002) highlights that there is a one sided view on induction programs and states that “the problem with induction is that most induction training are geared mainly to achieving the goals of the organization and further to this she adds that, “these types of induction training tends to be full of formal legislative information and most individual will absorb little and retain less”. Though these statements seems true to some extent, Karve (2010) states that, “The aim of induction training is to facilitate seamless integration of newly inducted employees into an organization by achieving harmony and a sense of alignment between individual values and organizational values”.

These definitions demonstrate that the purpose of an induction program is to maximize the efficiency of new staff with the objective of allowing them to fit into the organization as quickly as possible. However, to ensure that this is achieved, the creation of a well structured Induction training programme should be geared to benefit not only the employee but also the organization and their goals. Nevertheless, we can review who, within the organization is responsible for administering this training.

Who’s responsible for Staff Induction?

In many organizations, their idea of induction training is having an “unauthorized”, unfamiliar person “hurriedly” introduce the new recruit to immediate staff and briefly informed them of all that is expected of them within the quickest time (half day or so) however, when duty commands, this inductee has to perform as if he or she has been at the job for years; employers expectations are high however their concerns are low.

In an article done by Daniels (2010) of the Chartered Institute for Personnel Development (CIPD) entitled ‘Induction’, stated that “the main responsibility of induction training lies with the line manager however the overall responsibility of establishing the company’s induction policies, programs and courses is the responsibility of the Human Resource (HR) department and some parts of the actual training would have to be conducted by HR” (dependent on the size of the organization). McConnell (2007) interjects that though HR and or the Department manager are the ideal persons to carry out induction trainings; and that no one person should be responsible for doing the entire induction program; induction should be as interactive as possible. Kumar (2000) also concur that the line manager or supervisor are the best suited individuals for induction training however he also states that giving the responsibilities to one of the new employee’s coworker would make the new recruit gain a friend and add in the dissemination of personal as well as group information. Mullins (2002) also suggested that the active cooperation of managers, supervisors are ideal for the training however, appointing a ‘buddy’ is an effective induction tool for mentoring the new employee.

The authors suggest that though it is initially the responsibility of the HR department to design and formulate induction training programs, it is a best practice that the immediate managers or supervisors be the ones to carry out the actual training however, not just one person but a series of persons specialized in the field of training and department to which the employee is introduced to, example Health and Safety suggested by McConnell (2007).

Importance of Induction Training

In an analysis done by Gregg and Wadsworth (1999) shows in a survey of 870000 workers starting new jobs in 1992 that as many as 17 percent had left within three months and 42 percent within 12 months all of which could have been accredited to none or poor induction programs.