Like most business practices, it is no longer enough to say you are doing a good job. Maybe you are doing job. Maybe you aren’t. Either way talking about it seems pointless. Today’s culture is all about performance and the bottom line. Sadly enough that seems to have been replaced with things like honesty and integrity. Now we need things like accountability, a way to prove we are actually doing what we have said. We have to provide hard data and metrics to ensure that we aren’t liars. While that seems a bit sad to me, could I work at a university with 3000 other staff and no accountability? I would like to yes. Do I want to test that? Maybe not.
Accountability within HR has become a more pressing issue in recent years. One of the most well-known and least used (go figure that out) is the 1998 Kirkpatrick Model of training evaluation. It states that training should be evaluated at four levels:
1. Participant reactions
2. Learning
3. On the job behaviors
4. Results from behavior change
That sounds lovely, but the reality of the situation is most businesses only measure level one, or perhaps level two. Rarely does anyone measure three and four, which seems odd to be because that is the most important and powerful parts. While everything else in HRD is measured by performance, professionals are going measure training by whether people liked it (participant reactions)? This is silly because I could REALLY like something and not learn anything or dislike the training in general but learn enough to completely enhance my skills/work.
So if everybody knows about this model, why isn’t it used? There are several criticisms of the model. First, the model is not supported by research. (Gosh, why would an accountability model need to be supported by research?). Second the main emphasis is mostly on reaction measures, which have demonstrated a zero correlation with learning and/or performance. So basically you are measuring something which has no relation to what you are trying to do. Third, despite the vast changes in the business world, and there have been numerous major changes in the last few decades, the model itself hasn’t been updated. Then there is the fact that people don’t actually use the model, which is problematic. Lastly, the model can lead to incorrect decisions because it leaves out many variables of training. Wow, and people don’t want to use that model?
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
What's the deal with OD?
We have already discussed the idea and definition of organizational development, but now we are going to take a closer look at what OD actually does and why its considered important within HRD. Outcomes for OD are now clearly linked to performance results. Some researchers have likened OD to a giant Rubik cube (with way too many elements for me to list here) focused on the axis’s of diagnosed problem, focus of attention, and mode of intervention.
The authors of my book note that “OD does not employ a large number of standard practices; rather, practices issues are fairly standard.” After like the fifteenth time of reading that, I think it means that the same problems that OD deals with tend to occur pretty frequently. (But I could be wrong about that, please leave me comments with your ideas.) Anyway, there are three core issues. First is the issue that OD revolves around the change process. It is the primary goal of OD guide the change process and mediates the rate and type of change (see previous blog) for the purpose of helping organizations achieve worthy goals. Second, OD deals with trust and integrity. The core process within OD work is gathering information from key stakeholders, employees, and managers. This information can be disturbing and possible even harmful if made public. It is imperative that OD professionals maintain confidentiality and fairness to all involved. Without trusting the OD workers, all results and future plans will be skewed and worthless. Third, OD is a dynamic enterprise. The changes that occur while working with OD are challenging and happen over time, making the whole process risky at times.
Organizational development can be focused on group or individual work. Cross- cultural team building helps a team become more effective working together while meeting the needs of the differing group members. This is important in today’s business climate as workers come from a variety of backgrounds and cultures. Learning to work together may be more difficult as diversity grows, but ultimately can fuel better ideas and offer exciting new perspectives. Organizational development can also work within group conflict to analyze communication techniques and offer problem resolutions. Sometimes this outside source is the best way to diagnosis problems and offer a balanced understanding of the difficulty.
Individual organizational development may also be utilized. 360 degree feedback enables a person to receive feedback from a large number of people relating to their behavior, skills, and competencies. The individual may even help design the feedback. This multi-layered approach provides a great deal of information which may be sued to improve performance or analyze company procedures. Career development and assessment can also be used with individuals to engage people. Practice in high fidelity simulations and role plays help assess leadership for upper management. Development helps current employees stay active in an organization and make the most of their unique talents and abilities.
The authors of my book note that “OD does not employ a large number of standard practices; rather, practices issues are fairly standard.” After like the fifteenth time of reading that, I think it means that the same problems that OD deals with tend to occur pretty frequently. (But I could be wrong about that, please leave me comments with your ideas.) Anyway, there are three core issues. First is the issue that OD revolves around the change process. It is the primary goal of OD guide the change process and mediates the rate and type of change (see previous blog) for the purpose of helping organizations achieve worthy goals. Second, OD deals with trust and integrity. The core process within OD work is gathering information from key stakeholders, employees, and managers. This information can be disturbing and possible even harmful if made public. It is imperative that OD professionals maintain confidentiality and fairness to all involved. Without trusting the OD workers, all results and future plans will be skewed and worthless. Third, OD is a dynamic enterprise. The changes that occur while working with OD are challenging and happen over time, making the whole process risky at times.
Organizational development can be focused on group or individual work. Cross- cultural team building helps a team become more effective working together while meeting the needs of the differing group members. This is important in today’s business climate as workers come from a variety of backgrounds and cultures. Learning to work together may be more difficult as diversity grows, but ultimately can fuel better ideas and offer exciting new perspectives. Organizational development can also work within group conflict to analyze communication techniques and offer problem resolutions. Sometimes this outside source is the best way to diagnosis problems and offer a balanced understanding of the difficulty.
Individual organizational development may also be utilized. 360 degree feedback enables a person to receive feedback from a large number of people relating to their behavior, skills, and competencies. The individual may even help design the feedback. This multi-layered approach provides a great deal of information which may be sued to improve performance or analyze company procedures. Career development and assessment can also be used with individuals to engage people. Practice in high fidelity simulations and role plays help assess leadership for upper management. Development helps current employees stay active in an organization and make the most of their unique talents and abilities.
The More Things Change
It has often been said that nothing stays the same, that the only constant thing in life is change. While that may be true, for better or for worse, change is critical factor in human resource development generally and organizational development specifically. This makes sense because we know that as people go through their lives they change, and since organizations are filled with people they too would change as a result. But HRD is also dealing with the creation of change, when an organization is purposely trying to teach a new concept or implement a new policy. The complication arises when these two changes are occurring at the same time and moving in opposition.
Change can be studied by looking at its core dimensions: depth and tempo. Depth refers to the extent of the change. Incremental change is often planned by an organization to produce improvement and manage the transfer of knowledge most efficiently. Incremental changes are often implemented by OD as part of strategic plan and allow employees to adapt and negotiate their new tasks and working climate. Transformational change is more often seen by individuals and organizational leaders resulting in a paradigm shift in thinking. Transformational change has five core characteristics: triggered by environmental and internal disruptions; systematic and revolutionary; demands a new organizing paradigm; is driven by senior executives and line management; and requires continuous learning and change. This type of change is extreme and may be utilized in reaction to other events or in anticipation of events.
The temp of changes refers to the rate, rhythm or pattern of change that occurs. Continuous change is an endless pattern of modifications and new ideas, which is becoming more the state of norm in businesses today. Episodic change is an occasional interruption from the standard process. While in the past, transformational change occurred only in episodic events it is becoming more commonplace for continuous transformational change due to globalization and technological advancement. This has left both organizations and OD professionals struggling to redefine both change and the change process.
To understand and use change in strategic planning, researchers have defined four types of change.
1. alpha change- this involves change in the variables within a system of thinking without changing the configuration, such as perceiving an improvement in skills
2. beta change- this involves changing people’s perspective about the value of the variables, such as a change in standards
3. Gamma A change- this involves changing the configuration of a paradigm without adding new elements, but subsequently this results in reconfiguring all the variables
4. Gamma B change- this involves replacing one paradigm with another that includes some or all new elements, for example moving from a production driven school of throught to a customer service way of thinking.
Change comes in many forms and the study of change is critical to understand organizational strengths and weaknesses, as well as determining a course for future planning.
Change can be studied by looking at its core dimensions: depth and tempo. Depth refers to the extent of the change. Incremental change is often planned by an organization to produce improvement and manage the transfer of knowledge most efficiently. Incremental changes are often implemented by OD as part of strategic plan and allow employees to adapt and negotiate their new tasks and working climate. Transformational change is more often seen by individuals and organizational leaders resulting in a paradigm shift in thinking. Transformational change has five core characteristics: triggered by environmental and internal disruptions; systematic and revolutionary; demands a new organizing paradigm; is driven by senior executives and line management; and requires continuous learning and change. This type of change is extreme and may be utilized in reaction to other events or in anticipation of events.
The temp of changes refers to the rate, rhythm or pattern of change that occurs. Continuous change is an endless pattern of modifications and new ideas, which is becoming more the state of norm in businesses today. Episodic change is an occasional interruption from the standard process. While in the past, transformational change occurred only in episodic events it is becoming more commonplace for continuous transformational change due to globalization and technological advancement. This has left both organizations and OD professionals struggling to redefine both change and the change process.
To understand and use change in strategic planning, researchers have defined four types of change.
1. alpha change- this involves change in the variables within a system of thinking without changing the configuration, such as perceiving an improvement in skills
2. beta change- this involves changing people’s perspective about the value of the variables, such as a change in standards
3. Gamma A change- this involves changing the configuration of a paradigm without adding new elements, but subsequently this results in reconfiguring all the variables
4. Gamma B change- this involves replacing one paradigm with another that includes some or all new elements, for example moving from a production driven school of throught to a customer service way of thinking.
Change comes in many forms and the study of change is critical to understand organizational strengths and weaknesses, as well as determining a course for future planning.
Monday, October 29, 2007
What's so good about OD?
Organizational Development. Those two simple words have always evoked an image of change and new ideas to me. Organizational development puts the fun and creativity back in Human Resource Development IMHO. So, naturally it is one of my favorite concepts. What’s not so fun is that my textbook lists not one, not two, but …twenty-seven different definitions of organizational development. And as this is still a young field, the definitions didn’t start until 1969 when a guy named Beckhard coined the term (although the book is curiously silent on who Beckhard was and what he was actually doing at the time). I would also like to point out that my book lists the key terms of OD, of which there also happen to be 27. So there are as many terms associated with OD, as there are definitions of OD. Does that seem strange to anyone else? Maybe it’s the author’s favorite number.
Moving along. The text decides to use the author’s definition of OD out of the 27 (who saw that coming?) which describes OD as “the process of systematically unleashing human expertise to implement organizational change for the purpose of improving performance” (p.271). ‘Systematically unleashing’ seems like a strange juxtaposition to me, unleashing connotes something that is required to restrained and watched (I’m picturing a mean dog pull away from an owner that had a leash on him). Would the opposite be human expertise that is already unleashed and running amok making mayhem by providing insight to everyone that needs it? And if that’s the case, that human expertise is normally leashed, how does one ‘systematically’ unleash it? The ideas of seem to oppose one another.
Either way, OD can work in two ways. It is important to note that OD is not the same as HRD, but rather a component of it. Like Training & Development (T&D), organizational development serves a specific purpose with human resource development but the terms (and actions) are not interchangeable. First OD can work to maintain the system. In an age of globalization and ever changing technology, it requires change to stay the same. Secondly, OD can work to improve or change the system. This is where OD professionals can work to introduce new ideas and develop alternate perspectives to change the entire organization. That work is the most risky, but can also be the most fun.
Moving along. The text decides to use the author’s definition of OD out of the 27 (who saw that coming?) which describes OD as “the process of systematically unleashing human expertise to implement organizational change for the purpose of improving performance” (p.271). ‘Systematically unleashing’ seems like a strange juxtaposition to me, unleashing connotes something that is required to restrained and watched (I’m picturing a mean dog pull away from an owner that had a leash on him). Would the opposite be human expertise that is already unleashed and running amok making mayhem by providing insight to everyone that needs it? And if that’s the case, that human expertise is normally leashed, how does one ‘systematically’ unleash it? The ideas of seem to oppose one another.
Either way, OD can work in two ways. It is important to note that OD is not the same as HRD, but rather a component of it. Like Training & Development (T&D), organizational development serves a specific purpose with human resource development but the terms (and actions) are not interchangeable. First OD can work to maintain the system. In an age of globalization and ever changing technology, it requires change to stay the same. Secondly, OD can work to improve or change the system. This is where OD professionals can work to introduce new ideas and develop alternate perspectives to change the entire organization. That work is the most risky, but can also be the most fun.
Would you like some T&D with that?
One of the major aspects of Human Resource Development is Training and Development (T&D). Faithful readers (all one of you) will remember a brief discussion of this a few blogs ago. However because this is such a foundational part of HRD, we are going to revisit this topic and this time dig a little deeper.
T&D varies greatly from organization because of its scope and mission. This is largely determined by a series of variables within the host organization. The mission and culture of the organization plays a large role in determining what kind of T&D will take place. Training that occurs in a non-profit, community anti-drug coalition will cover materials and address issues vastly different that a state university. The purpose of T&D within the host organization also changes things. A department focused on new employee training will function differently and use different tactics than those of trying to train car salesmen. The expertise behind the T&D department will also alter its workings; consider those hired because of their subject matter expertise as compared with those who are hired because of their general training expertise. The purpose of the T&D program, as well as the content of the program, is driven by the needs of the organization. Trainers will need to adjust their strategy if they must change from conducting orientations to making sure workers can pass a competency test. And like most ventures in HRD, the expected result is foundational to T&D elements.
Regardless of the ideas listed above, there are six core T&D practices that are typically employed by HRD professionals:
1. The ADDIE process- everyone say it with me now, ADDIE stands for Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate which helps us identify the problem and see how the possible solutions are working out (see my previous blog for more info on this)
2. Subject Matter Experts- remember from last week that experts and expertise can be different. And while a HRD professional may be an ‘expert’ in the development process, they may not be an expert in the subject matter needed (such as creating internet software to upgrade website product sales). The use of subject matter experts allows businesses to find the best possible answer to an identified problem.
3. Interesting and Effective Delivery- While the first goal of T&D would not be to have a good time and relax, the overall experience should be pleasant and meet the needs of the learner.
4. Transfer of learning to the Workplace- Not to open a can of HRD worms, but the point of training and development is too teach people skills that they can use in their employment. If the knowledge, due to subject matter or instruction format, can’t be applied that T&D has not been successful.
5. Effective use of Information Technology- That’s right, HRD professionals have an official excuse for fooling around with the latest technological goodies. Using these tools to present information in new and meaningful ways provides an invaluable asset to reaching learners, wherever their knowledge base happens to be.
6. Good Editing Skills- Because although my book firmly states that there are six standard practices, the author only lists five. Yes, I have checked several times. Unless Swanson is counting “interesting and effective delivery” as two different things, only five are listed. Either way, it proves he is quite silly.
T&D varies greatly from organization because of its scope and mission. This is largely determined by a series of variables within the host organization. The mission and culture of the organization plays a large role in determining what kind of T&D will take place. Training that occurs in a non-profit, community anti-drug coalition will cover materials and address issues vastly different that a state university. The purpose of T&D within the host organization also changes things. A department focused on new employee training will function differently and use different tactics than those of trying to train car salesmen. The expertise behind the T&D department will also alter its workings; consider those hired because of their subject matter expertise as compared with those who are hired because of their general training expertise. The purpose of the T&D program, as well as the content of the program, is driven by the needs of the organization. Trainers will need to adjust their strategy if they must change from conducting orientations to making sure workers can pass a competency test. And like most ventures in HRD, the expected result is foundational to T&D elements.
Regardless of the ideas listed above, there are six core T&D practices that are typically employed by HRD professionals:
1. The ADDIE process- everyone say it with me now, ADDIE stands for Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate which helps us identify the problem and see how the possible solutions are working out (see my previous blog for more info on this)
2. Subject Matter Experts- remember from last week that experts and expertise can be different. And while a HRD professional may be an ‘expert’ in the development process, they may not be an expert in the subject matter needed (such as creating internet software to upgrade website product sales). The use of subject matter experts allows businesses to find the best possible answer to an identified problem.
3. Interesting and Effective Delivery- While the first goal of T&D would not be to have a good time and relax, the overall experience should be pleasant and meet the needs of the learner.
4. Transfer of learning to the Workplace- Not to open a can of HRD worms, but the point of training and development is too teach people skills that they can use in their employment. If the knowledge, due to subject matter or instruction format, can’t be applied that T&D has not been successful.
5. Effective use of Information Technology- That’s right, HRD professionals have an official excuse for fooling around with the latest technological goodies. Using these tools to present information in new and meaningful ways provides an invaluable asset to reaching learners, wherever their knowledge base happens to be.
6. Good Editing Skills- Because although my book firmly states that there are six standard practices, the author only lists five. Yes, I have checked several times. Unless Swanson is counting “interesting and effective delivery” as two different things, only five are listed. Either way, it proves he is quite silly.
Trust me, I'm an Expert
So when organizations find themselves in trouble, facing an unexpected situation that they have no idea how to solve, what do they do? Bring in an expert, naturally. This could be in the form of a new employee, a consultant, or Lizzie the bulldog (depending on what you want an expert in). So, this begs the questions, how does one become an “expert” and why should we trust them?
Lets start off with a point of clarification, there is an expert and there is expertise. Lets think of expertise as a body of knowledge, a journey if you will. As such an expert would be the result of knowing that body of knowledge, more the destination. While obviously everyone is not an expert, everyone has some level of expertise. Clear as mud? Good, lets move on.
People began studying what we would recognize as ‘expertise’ in 1965 with chess players. There are still several schools of thought regarding expertise, but most of them overlap with the idea that experts have more experience and solve problems differently. Within their area of expertise, experts are thought to possess specific characteristics (p.231):
1. More knowledge (okay, that one was obvious)
2. Use the information they know differently
3. Have better memory recall of the information they know
4. Solve problems faster
5. See problems at different levels
6. Analyze problems qualitatively
7. Have a greater awareness of their ability to make mistakes
So, how many experts do you know? Are you an expert on anything?
For my analytical friends out there, a researcher named Morf (sad, but true) has attempted to operationalize this idea of expertise with individual performance. With the idea that competence is the product of “ the workers motivational dispositions and abilities that are relevant in the context of work”, Morf emphasizes the importance of expertise. His formula: Performance = Competence X Work Environment, demonstrates the importance that expertise has on organizational performance.
Lets start off with a point of clarification, there is an expert and there is expertise. Lets think of expertise as a body of knowledge, a journey if you will. As such an expert would be the result of knowing that body of knowledge, more the destination. While obviously everyone is not an expert, everyone has some level of expertise. Clear as mud? Good, lets move on.
People began studying what we would recognize as ‘expertise’ in 1965 with chess players. There are still several schools of thought regarding expertise, but most of them overlap with the idea that experts have more experience and solve problems differently. Within their area of expertise, experts are thought to possess specific characteristics (p.231):
1. More knowledge (okay, that one was obvious)
2. Use the information they know differently
3. Have better memory recall of the information they know
4. Solve problems faster
5. See problems at different levels
6. Analyze problems qualitatively
7. Have a greater awareness of their ability to make mistakes
So, how many experts do you know? Are you an expert on anything?
For my analytical friends out there, a researcher named Morf (sad, but true) has attempted to operationalize this idea of expertise with individual performance. With the idea that competence is the product of “ the workers motivational dispositions and abilities that are relevant in the context of work”, Morf emphasizes the importance of expertise. His formula: Performance = Competence X Work Environment, demonstrates the importance that expertise has on organizational performance.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Has anyone seen ADDIE?
Training and Development (T&D) is the term used to describe teaching people new skills to increase their job performance. Typically training refers to teaching new employees and development refers to teaching current employees how to enhance their skills. Like every other term used by human resource development, there is no one definitive description used by all professionals in the field, but that is the gist of it. (Makes me wonder if they do that on purpose to confuse people in other jobs/academic fields knowing that only other HR people in the field will be able to figure out what exactly they mean, if they themselves know). But I digress, moving right along….
Training and development consist of five phases. Known as ADDIE in the T&D field, these phases are quite similar with the ones in HRD and OD (organizational development) but use slightly different names (keeping with my mass confusion theory). ADDIE is well used by HRD professionals and stands for Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate. Longer more in depth version of ADDIE involve multiple processes at each level and step-by-step instruction for each sub process.
Step 1-Analyse includes diagnosis the problem and gathering expertise to learn about the problem. If an HR person is brought in to determine why performance is down across the factory, all the HR expertise in the world will not help her determine what workers in the line actually do.
Step 2- Design involves the creation of workplace training or teaching that will teach new skills to address the problem. Teaching can be in various forms including instructor led or media led.
Step 3- Develop requires gathering and assembling the materials needed to conduct the training. This may be as simple as overhead slides and paper handouts or as complex developing an interactive computer simulation program. This depends upon the need of the skill to be taught, the background of you workers, and your budget!
Phase 4- Implement is pretty much like how it sounds and involves putting the developing teaching plan into action.
Phase 5- Evaluate, which may be one of the most important phases allows the HRD professional to access the value of the training, retention of materials and if the skills taught will actually help the problem diagnosised.
Evaluation can be tricky because participants can really like the training but not learn anything; participants may learn but the new knowledge may not have any effect on the current problem; or participants may learn a great deal but not like the training overall. So while ADDIE may seem simple to use, even too simple, the accuracy of the actions is quite complex.
Training and development consist of five phases. Known as ADDIE in the T&D field, these phases are quite similar with the ones in HRD and OD (organizational development) but use slightly different names (keeping with my mass confusion theory). ADDIE is well used by HRD professionals and stands for Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate. Longer more in depth version of ADDIE involve multiple processes at each level and step-by-step instruction for each sub process.
Step 1-Analyse includes diagnosis the problem and gathering expertise to learn about the problem. If an HR person is brought in to determine why performance is down across the factory, all the HR expertise in the world will not help her determine what workers in the line actually do.
Step 2- Design involves the creation of workplace training or teaching that will teach new skills to address the problem. Teaching can be in various forms including instructor led or media led.
Step 3- Develop requires gathering and assembling the materials needed to conduct the training. This may be as simple as overhead slides and paper handouts or as complex developing an interactive computer simulation program. This depends upon the need of the skill to be taught, the background of you workers, and your budget!
Phase 4- Implement is pretty much like how it sounds and involves putting the developing teaching plan into action.
Phase 5- Evaluate, which may be one of the most important phases allows the HRD professional to access the value of the training, retention of materials and if the skills taught will actually help the problem diagnosised.
Evaluation can be tricky because participants can really like the training but not learn anything; participants may learn but the new knowledge may not have any effect on the current problem; or participants may learn a great deal but not like the training overall. So while ADDIE may seem simple to use, even too simple, the accuracy of the actions is quite complex.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Down with the Man
One of the major jobs of Human Resource Development is to analyze company performance and look for weaknesses or problem areas. To this extent there are a variety of performance models aimed at the HRD professional do just that. I think that Rummler and Brache’s nine-cell matrix (think tic tac toe board closed in) performance model best represent the constructs of HRD. Presented with a holistic approach, the underlying point of their model is that organizational failures are not a matter of poor effort or simple laziness, but a lack of understanding regarding the variables that influence organizational operations. This point is critical in diagnosing organizational problems which management all too quickly blames on an employee or department error. Instead Rummler and Brache discuss three levels of performance: 1) organization (including market relationships and major functions of the organization); 2) process (how work actually gets done); and 3) job/performer (the people actually doing the jobs). Within these performances they define three variables: 1) goals (specific standards that reflect the customers expectations); 2) design (structure necessary to meet the goals); and 3) management (practices that assure goals are being achieved). Allowing for these measures provides a much better framework to diagnosis potential problems within organizational environments.
Rummler and Brache’s performance model is one of several multilevel performance models being utilized by HRD. Others include Swanson’s Performance Diagnosis Matrix which examines performance levels and performance variables; Holton’s Taxonomy of performance Domains which examines the four domains of mission, process, social sub-system, and individual; and the Organization Development Performance Model which includes examination of defined levels of process performance, group, and individual. Such multilevel models are important tool to analyze the complex nature of organizational systems. Just as businesses have grown and evolved to include many sublevels of process and function, so must an effective analytical tool. Trying to identify weakness or problem areas in only one part of that system will almost always lead to failure.
However while performance models will provide increased diagnostic advantage, their misuse may diminish organizational learning. Systems thinking emphasizes that the whole is greater than the sum of their parts. However, in performance models each part is analyzed within its own sphere. The danger lies in compartmentalizing each process (for example workers, management, goals, etc.) for examination so completely, that the holistic value is lost. When happens, the idea of learning becomes so focused within the boundaries of a particular process that those in other spheres stop trying to learn or unrestrained what is happening elsewhere. While no one expects one person within an organization to be an expert in all matters, and trying to do so would undoubtedly stifle growth, when people stop trying to learn what others do the whole idea of learning suffers within the organization.
It is with the same idea that performance models are often seen as useful by mangers, but disliked by employees. Mangers may appreciate the diagnostic evaluation of the company, but then leave it up to the workers to make any “necessary changes” in the organizational process. By claiming ignorance of the workers process, they may far too easily excuse themselves from contributing to the challenge of company improvement in a fundamental level while at the same time taking all the credit for any organizational growth that occurs. In essence on party (workers) are doing all of the change/work while another party (mangers) are taking all the glory that such work produces. Down with the man!
Rummler and Brache’s performance model is one of several multilevel performance models being utilized by HRD. Others include Swanson’s Performance Diagnosis Matrix which examines performance levels and performance variables; Holton’s Taxonomy of performance Domains which examines the four domains of mission, process, social sub-system, and individual; and the Organization Development Performance Model which includes examination of defined levels of process performance, group, and individual. Such multilevel models are important tool to analyze the complex nature of organizational systems. Just as businesses have grown and evolved to include many sublevels of process and function, so must an effective analytical tool. Trying to identify weakness or problem areas in only one part of that system will almost always lead to failure.
However while performance models will provide increased diagnostic advantage, their misuse may diminish organizational learning. Systems thinking emphasizes that the whole is greater than the sum of their parts. However, in performance models each part is analyzed within its own sphere. The danger lies in compartmentalizing each process (for example workers, management, goals, etc.) for examination so completely, that the holistic value is lost. When happens, the idea of learning becomes so focused within the boundaries of a particular process that those in other spheres stop trying to learn or unrestrained what is happening elsewhere. While no one expects one person within an organization to be an expert in all matters, and trying to do so would undoubtedly stifle growth, when people stop trying to learn what others do the whole idea of learning suffers within the organization.
It is with the same idea that performance models are often seen as useful by mangers, but disliked by employees. Mangers may appreciate the diagnostic evaluation of the company, but then leave it up to the workers to make any “necessary changes” in the organizational process. By claiming ignorance of the workers process, they may far too easily excuse themselves from contributing to the challenge of company improvement in a fundamental level while at the same time taking all the credit for any organizational growth that occurs. In essence on party (workers) are doing all of the change/work while another party (mangers) are taking all the glory that such work produces. Down with the man!
We all scream for learning
Richard Swanson and Elfwood Holton, III tell us that “learning has always been at the heart of HRD, and it continues to be a core part of all paradigms of HRD” (p.149). How then can learning be made more powerful in organizations? First we must look at the role learning currently plays in most businesses. In my experience learning is the direct response to problem solving, that is to say that learning occurs as a means to an end. Sometimes learning occurs in a formal environment such as a mandatory training to access specific software or to pass a job requirement. Other times learning is more indirect, figuring out how to accomplish a task when no other solution is in place. In both cases learning is the “effect” rather than the cause; it’s a secondary response to solve a primary concern. When learning is only performed in these environments, its power is limited at best. To increase the role of learning, we must move it to becoming the primary cause. This can be accomplished through a variety of ways, such as offering trainings that aren’t mandatory but might increase efficiency. Encourage workers to brainstorm more effective solutions to everyday activities before problems arise. Creating a “learning friendly” workplace allows the learning process to realize its potential in employees and organizations as a whole.
Informal and Incidental learning demonstrate this idea. Through this learning model, the control of learning is determined by the learner and is a byproduct of another activity. Although this can take place in a workplace where learning is not specifically encouraged, it will flourish in an environment where workers regularly try new things and aren’t punished for collaboration. Consider Social Learning, one of the metatheories of learning, which argues that people learn through their interactions with other people and from observation. (This is particularly evident with new employees who learn the ropes from seeing how other employees conduct themselves and interact with each other and management.) Some employees will receive a mentor to guide them in learning a new role or skills, an example of informal learning. Others will learn through socialization, the process of passing along organizational culture to new employees, and could easily lead to incidental learning.
The Andragogy in Practice Model also demonstrates how to enhance the application of adult learning in human resource development. Having goals and a purpose for learning allows adults to better focus their attention on particular areas of interest. This may include individual growth (shown to be a major factor in adult learning), institutional growth where organizational performance is a focus, or societal growth that allows an individual to gain the knowledge which will help the community or society at large. Being aware of individual and situational differences allows a facilitator to teach in the most effective way. The differences in subject matter may require a teacher to adjust their teaching methods. Being aware of situational differences allows the teacher to troubleshoot potential problems before they occur, making the learning process much easier to navigate for everyone involved. Perhaps most important is considering individual differences. For examples students in HRD class with a previous knowledge of psychological theories and studies will most likely be able to learn human resource material (which has a large base in psychology) faster than students with a business background. The flexibility of these different approaches underscore the important of the Andragogy in Practice Model to a learning environment.
Informal and Incidental learning demonstrate this idea. Through this learning model, the control of learning is determined by the learner and is a byproduct of another activity. Although this can take place in a workplace where learning is not specifically encouraged, it will flourish in an environment where workers regularly try new things and aren’t punished for collaboration. Consider Social Learning, one of the metatheories of learning, which argues that people learn through their interactions with other people and from observation. (This is particularly evident with new employees who learn the ropes from seeing how other employees conduct themselves and interact with each other and management.) Some employees will receive a mentor to guide them in learning a new role or skills, an example of informal learning. Others will learn through socialization, the process of passing along organizational culture to new employees, and could easily lead to incidental learning.
The Andragogy in Practice Model also demonstrates how to enhance the application of adult learning in human resource development. Having goals and a purpose for learning allows adults to better focus their attention on particular areas of interest. This may include individual growth (shown to be a major factor in adult learning), institutional growth where organizational performance is a focus, or societal growth that allows an individual to gain the knowledge which will help the community or society at large. Being aware of individual and situational differences allows a facilitator to teach in the most effective way. The differences in subject matter may require a teacher to adjust their teaching methods. Being aware of situational differences allows the teacher to troubleshoot potential problems before they occur, making the learning process much easier to navigate for everyone involved. Perhaps most important is considering individual differences. For examples students in HRD class with a previous knowledge of psychological theories and studies will most likely be able to learn human resource material (which has a large base in psychology) faster than students with a business background. The flexibility of these different approaches underscore the important of the Andragogy in Practice Model to a learning environment.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Come Sit by the Fire
When you think about people in Human Resource Development, are they generally friendly well-meaning people? Individuals eager to chat with you and be fascinated by any bit of information you are willing to reveal about yourself? That’s been my typical experience. But like many things in life, there is a dark side, where lines are drawn and harsh words spread through academic journals like a flame wars on a Brittany Spears bulletin board. In HRD the gauntlet is thrown when professionals in the field begin talking about paradigms, or a school of thought on a subject, in this case human resources. While there are some younger paradigms still in their infancy, namely the meaning of work and spirituality at work paradigms, almost everyone in the HRD sets up camp in either learning OR performance. To the uninitiated they may seem similar, there arguments congruent, but be forewarned friend, to say as much will draw sharp critism from both sides. It seems the point in which agreement is formed is that you must pick a side. And who am I to gainsay what must be done? Can you guess at which camp I am currently roasting my marshmallows? If you guessed performance, then smores for everyone.
The performance paradigm focuses on the results on learning, and has often been labeled as “bad” and mechanistic by critics. Depending on whom you speak with, performance is viewed as a natural outcome for human activity, necessary for economic growth or instrument for organizational oppression. So how can those in Camp Performance ensure that HR is used for the powers of good? By ensuring that learning is made available to everyone and that transferring learning into job performance is a holistic measure. This is partly based upon Assumption 11 of the Performance paradigm (the transfer of learning) but I have added the availability and holistic approach. I think the performance paradigm scares people because they have this image of some horrible training with an impossibly difficult task to learn and then an immediate test of this task with everyone who can’t immediately replicate the said task with perfection being fired on the spot and sent home to starve to death. This all seems quite silly to me. The truth lies much more in the understanding that what is learned should be incorporated into how one does their job. In some cases it may be a direct task-performance relationship, but in the majority of cases performance comes in the form of integration, resulting in an improved methodology and happier worker.
Over in Camp Learning, the focus is on the learning itself for individuals, teams and organizations. In a system where learning, not results, are the bottom line how can HR play a strategic role in organizations? I’m not sure it can. An important role yes, but strategic? That’s questionable. While learning new things is three shades of fantastic, if that learning has no effect of organizational practices what is the point? I appreciate the dedication to individual development and growth, as I believe everyone in the performance paradigm does, but stopping the outcome there is totally missing the point. As we are in camp, lets talk about fire. Suppose I built this big, beautiful fire at our camp. The only down side is that this fire has no heat. Yes it can still look just as pretty, but without heat (or in this case performance) there is no light, no protection from wild animals, no way to cook food (hence why we have the smores) and no point for this fire! While I agree with many of the beliefs in the learning paradigm, I disagree with their stopping point. And I think regardless of position (manager, employee, or CEO), everyone can see the logic of having a reason for learning and growth. While knowledge is key to organizational development, knowledge without action is worthless.
The performance paradigm focuses on the results on learning, and has often been labeled as “bad” and mechanistic by critics. Depending on whom you speak with, performance is viewed as a natural outcome for human activity, necessary for economic growth or instrument for organizational oppression. So how can those in Camp Performance ensure that HR is used for the powers of good? By ensuring that learning is made available to everyone and that transferring learning into job performance is a holistic measure. This is partly based upon Assumption 11 of the Performance paradigm (the transfer of learning) but I have added the availability and holistic approach. I think the performance paradigm scares people because they have this image of some horrible training with an impossibly difficult task to learn and then an immediate test of this task with everyone who can’t immediately replicate the said task with perfection being fired on the spot and sent home to starve to death. This all seems quite silly to me. The truth lies much more in the understanding that what is learned should be incorporated into how one does their job. In some cases it may be a direct task-performance relationship, but in the majority of cases performance comes in the form of integration, resulting in an improved methodology and happier worker.
Over in Camp Learning, the focus is on the learning itself for individuals, teams and organizations. In a system where learning, not results, are the bottom line how can HR play a strategic role in organizations? I’m not sure it can. An important role yes, but strategic? That’s questionable. While learning new things is three shades of fantastic, if that learning has no effect of organizational practices what is the point? I appreciate the dedication to individual development and growth, as I believe everyone in the performance paradigm does, but stopping the outcome there is totally missing the point. As we are in camp, lets talk about fire. Suppose I built this big, beautiful fire at our camp. The only down side is that this fire has no heat. Yes it can still look just as pretty, but without heat (or in this case performance) there is no light, no protection from wild animals, no way to cook food (hence why we have the smores) and no point for this fire! While I agree with many of the beliefs in the learning paradigm, I disagree with their stopping point. And I think regardless of position (manager, employee, or CEO), everyone can see the logic of having a reason for learning and growth. While knowledge is key to organizational development, knowledge without action is worthless.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Organized Chaos
Faithful readers will recall last week’s reflection on theory and its use in human resource development. And I know what you’re thinking, theories are all well and good, but what about practical applications? You make an excellent point. A model for human resource development pulls together the multiple processes, analyses, inputs and outputs to direct organizations toward a course of action. While HRD is bounded by the organization from which it is working, the best-utilized models are based upon practical experience and multidimensional thinking. Models by definition are not required to have a theory, but may help construct a theory. However, models should not be equally substituted for theory.
Still, we grapple with a single definition of human resource development. You are not alone in this battle. There is currently no universal agreement of what theory/theories form human resource development. However, there is common understanding that elements of three core disciplines work in conjunction to form the elements used in HRD.
Psychological components within HRD include learning theories about decision-making, social learning, motivation, group dynamics, memory, and behavior. The most common perspectives within HRD are Gestalt psychology (seeing elements as meaningful wholes instead of a gathering of parts), behavioral psychology (the how and what of individual behavior), and cognitive psychology (the thoughts and why of behavior). While elements of these disciplines help lay the groundwork for psychology within HRD, they still fail to address some important behaviors. Researchers have also begun to study other emergent fields within the social sciences. Humanistic psychology studies an individual’s motivation and potential for growth, a crucial part of human resource development. Social psychology studies the interactions between individuals and groups. While neither field has yielded a complete theoretical understanding, both offer to provide new insight into important HRD psychological issues.
While most HRD professionals will tell you human resources are much more than a numbers game, organizational decisions are often made based upon finances and resources. Components of economic theory play a vital role in HRD. Scarce resource theory explains that everything has limitations and making wise choices regarding time, resources, and money will yield the greatest return on investment (ROI). The Sustainable resource theory is more long term thinking, stating the importance of resources that will last well into the future and their implications. Human capital theory, which sounds rather scary, actually means that people are true commodities and investments in their training and care will lead to calculated investment returns. Economic theory and HRD work together within an organization to most efficiently manage resources, thus leading to increased wealth. HRD must also contend with opportunity costs, agency theory, and production functions to truly provide guidance and improvement to an organization.
Systems theory can be an encompassing field, but four theories provide major contributions to HRD. General systems theory (GST) allows is think more in-depth about inputs, outputs, processes, and feedback and determine relationships about them. Chaos theory is a qualitative study regarding processes that appear to be unpredictable and in defiance of normal rules. Findings in chaos theory show that unusual events are not actually random, but a complex pattern that has reacted to initial conditions. Complex adaptive systems theorize that systems may emerge and border a chaotic state through the conduction of self-organizing and learning processes. Futures theory places emphasis on studying and planning for future conditions that are still evolving. No matter what element is used, systems theory argues that all systems can organized, despite their complexity, and that discovering this organization will allow us to analyze and solve system problems.
Often depicted as a three-legged stool, complementary theories from economics, psychology, and systems thinking work together to form the core beliefs of HRD. These ideas operate within an ethical framework to create a holistic HRD model for practice.
Still, we grapple with a single definition of human resource development. You are not alone in this battle. There is currently no universal agreement of what theory/theories form human resource development. However, there is common understanding that elements of three core disciplines work in conjunction to form the elements used in HRD.
Psychological components within HRD include learning theories about decision-making, social learning, motivation, group dynamics, memory, and behavior. The most common perspectives within HRD are Gestalt psychology (seeing elements as meaningful wholes instead of a gathering of parts), behavioral psychology (the how and what of individual behavior), and cognitive psychology (the thoughts and why of behavior). While elements of these disciplines help lay the groundwork for psychology within HRD, they still fail to address some important behaviors. Researchers have also begun to study other emergent fields within the social sciences. Humanistic psychology studies an individual’s motivation and potential for growth, a crucial part of human resource development. Social psychology studies the interactions between individuals and groups. While neither field has yielded a complete theoretical understanding, both offer to provide new insight into important HRD psychological issues.
While most HRD professionals will tell you human resources are much more than a numbers game, organizational decisions are often made based upon finances and resources. Components of economic theory play a vital role in HRD. Scarce resource theory explains that everything has limitations and making wise choices regarding time, resources, and money will yield the greatest return on investment (ROI). The Sustainable resource theory is more long term thinking, stating the importance of resources that will last well into the future and their implications. Human capital theory, which sounds rather scary, actually means that people are true commodities and investments in their training and care will lead to calculated investment returns. Economic theory and HRD work together within an organization to most efficiently manage resources, thus leading to increased wealth. HRD must also contend with opportunity costs, agency theory, and production functions to truly provide guidance and improvement to an organization.
Systems theory can be an encompassing field, but four theories provide major contributions to HRD. General systems theory (GST) allows is think more in-depth about inputs, outputs, processes, and feedback and determine relationships about them. Chaos theory is a qualitative study regarding processes that appear to be unpredictable and in defiance of normal rules. Findings in chaos theory show that unusual events are not actually random, but a complex pattern that has reacted to initial conditions. Complex adaptive systems theorize that systems may emerge and border a chaotic state through the conduction of self-organizing and learning processes. Futures theory places emphasis on studying and planning for future conditions that are still evolving. No matter what element is used, systems theory argues that all systems can organized, despite their complexity, and that discovering this organization will allow us to analyze and solve system problems.
Often depicted as a three-legged stool, complementary theories from economics, psychology, and systems thinking work together to form the core beliefs of HRD. These ideas operate within an ethical framework to create a holistic HRD model for practice.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Do you have any theories about that?
“A theory is the more impressive the greater is the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates and the more extended the range of its applicability.”
-Albert Einstein
Human Resource Development is a descriptively complicated field. Unlike other disciplines which are clear-cut in their implementation and practice, the who, what, why and how of the HRD practice is still not clearly understood by many. Even those in the field may have trouble articulating their practices, unless they can employ accurate theory building.
So what is a theory and why should anyone care? According to Torraco, “a theory simply explains what a phenomenon is and how it works.” So basically theories give us a working idea of why something is happening, with ‘working’ being the key word there. Theories are not proof, evidence, or fact. They simply provide a loose understanding of something until more information allows us to modify or refine this knowledge. And this cycle continues.
Within a field of study, it is theory building that helps to drive new ideas and power the constant search for improvement and better understanding. Theories of practice allow us to use the best methods available while striving to learn more and unite workers within a continuum of similar techniques. Moreover, sound theory allows professionals and the public alike to discern those with poor methods and implausible results. It is through the marriage of theory with research and practice that HRD professionals deliver quality service to organizations as well as advance the field. As such, each part of this work (theory and practice) serves to guide the other for the ultimate benefit of both.
There are a variety of theories within human resource development employed by its practitioners. While all of them have similar goals of improvement, the methodologies used vary. While admittedly young in the field, I feel the strongest claim with the ‘organizational designer’ metaphor, “the process of first diagnosing and then selecting the structure and formal style of communication, authority, and responsibility to achieve organizational goals”(Hellriegal, Slocum, & Woddman, 1986). Through this theory, the HRD professional makes decisions through the evaluation of stimuli, inputs, content, and outputs. All activities are defined as programmed (one simple understandable stimulus) or unprogrammed (elements without a clear cut and effective response due to newness, importance, or complexity) with the goal of HRD to design effective and productive responses to unprogrammed activities. Within each unprogrammed element there are three stages including intelligence, design, and choice activities (Swanson & Holton, 2001). Intelligence activity draws upon problem framing, or examining what context and perspective is used to define the problem, an ability that varies greatly with the individual. Employees with limited work capacity (the amount of time one can work on a project without feedback) are often incapable of seeing problems in a broader perspective that encompasses long-term solutions and boundary defying implications. Design activity allows one to analyze among varying courses of action based upon situational parameters, required skill sets, necessary components, and client defined outcomes to determine which one yields the most effective plan. While seeming common sense, design theory was born from the product combination of many fields including art and architecture. Choice activity involves selecting the course of action that will best resolve the problem and establish organizational planned activities.
-Albert Einstein
Human Resource Development is a descriptively complicated field. Unlike other disciplines which are clear-cut in their implementation and practice, the who, what, why and how of the HRD practice is still not clearly understood by many. Even those in the field may have trouble articulating their practices, unless they can employ accurate theory building.
So what is a theory and why should anyone care? According to Torraco, “a theory simply explains what a phenomenon is and how it works.” So basically theories give us a working idea of why something is happening, with ‘working’ being the key word there. Theories are not proof, evidence, or fact. They simply provide a loose understanding of something until more information allows us to modify or refine this knowledge. And this cycle continues.
Within a field of study, it is theory building that helps to drive new ideas and power the constant search for improvement and better understanding. Theories of practice allow us to use the best methods available while striving to learn more and unite workers within a continuum of similar techniques. Moreover, sound theory allows professionals and the public alike to discern those with poor methods and implausible results. It is through the marriage of theory with research and practice that HRD professionals deliver quality service to organizations as well as advance the field. As such, each part of this work (theory and practice) serves to guide the other for the ultimate benefit of both.
There are a variety of theories within human resource development employed by its practitioners. While all of them have similar goals of improvement, the methodologies used vary. While admittedly young in the field, I feel the strongest claim with the ‘organizational designer’ metaphor, “the process of first diagnosing and then selecting the structure and formal style of communication, authority, and responsibility to achieve organizational goals”(Hellriegal, Slocum, & Woddman, 1986). Through this theory, the HRD professional makes decisions through the evaluation of stimuli, inputs, content, and outputs. All activities are defined as programmed (one simple understandable stimulus) or unprogrammed (elements without a clear cut and effective response due to newness, importance, or complexity) with the goal of HRD to design effective and productive responses to unprogrammed activities. Within each unprogrammed element there are three stages including intelligence, design, and choice activities (Swanson & Holton, 2001). Intelligence activity draws upon problem framing, or examining what context and perspective is used to define the problem, an ability that varies greatly with the individual. Employees with limited work capacity (the amount of time one can work on a project without feedback) are often incapable of seeing problems in a broader perspective that encompasses long-term solutions and boundary defying implications. Design activity allows one to analyze among varying courses of action based upon situational parameters, required skill sets, necessary components, and client defined outcomes to determine which one yields the most effective plan. While seeming common sense, design theory was born from the product combination of many fields including art and architecture. Choice activity involves selecting the course of action that will best resolve the problem and establish organizational planned activities.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Martin Luther was a Feminist!!!
In order to fully understand the implications of Human Resource Development today, it’s beneficial to understand how it began in the first place. While HRD itself is a young field, the components and ideology of HRD have been around throughout history. Think back to one of the earliest times in history, say around 100 B.C. through 300 A.D. Some of you may recognize this period as a time of major Greek and Roman influence, teachers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were all the rage. The Greeks valued the pursuit of knowledge simply to know things. The up side of this is that people were truly taught to think, the down side was that the Greeks had a strong dislike for any sort of manual labor and social classes were very distinguished. So, unless you were in the upper echelon of Greek society and rich enough to spend you days ‘thinking’, off to the farming and merchant trades you went. In HRD terms, this was one step forward, two steps backward. Obviously, HRD professionals would agree with the pursuit of knowledge as a means of individual improvement. However, limiting such improvement to only a select portion of the population would never float with HRD. Moreover HRD is typically housed within organizations, the exact place the Greeks denied the pursuit of knowledge, so I’m guessing this would limit my job offers.
Now lets examine the middle ages, 300 – 1300 AD where the influence of Christianity began to dominate and replace Grecko-Roman education. Monastic life played a big role in education where communities learned to be self sufficient and practical learning replaced philosophical pursuits. Monks also placed a heavy emphasis on reading and writing, thus allowing knowledge to be shared with others. These ideas easily lend themselves to current components of HRD that is often based upon performance driven learning. Like the monks, HRD sees the value and important of practical skills that can be utilized by the individual to better the overall product.
Now lets consider the Renaissance, approximately 1400-1800 A.D. Enter our hero, Martin Luther. Many of you may recognize this name from Luther’s controversial critique of the Roman Catholic Church that helped bring forth the Protestant Reformation. Perhaps lesser known is Luther’s criticism of the monastic schools that he believed were overly harsh and rigid. It was Luthers’ idea that education should be given to all people regardless of wealth or gender—yes, even teach the girls! This was quite scandalous at the time. However I think Luther’s ideas were complimentary to modern HRD. Both believed in the power of education, but felt that the benefits of learning and knowledge shouldn’t be restricted to any segment of the population.
But perhaps the biggest influence on HRD as we know it today was in the not so far past. World War II saw a huge surge of workers and a large demand for products which mandated some kind of management and training within organizations. It was the War Manpower Commission which officially established Training Within Industry (TWI) and made a clear distinction between education and training. Three of the four TWI components are still critical to HRD today including performance, quality, and human relations. Program success was measured by production, efficiency, and cost effectiveness. Employees were encouraged to troubleshoot potential problems and try new methods to correct them. Supervisors were encouraged and trained to establish good relationships with their employees. All of these ideas may seem common sense now, but at the time they were revolutionary and provided a strong foundation for human resource development practices that are employed in the field today.
Now lets examine the middle ages, 300 – 1300 AD where the influence of Christianity began to dominate and replace Grecko-Roman education. Monastic life played a big role in education where communities learned to be self sufficient and practical learning replaced philosophical pursuits. Monks also placed a heavy emphasis on reading and writing, thus allowing knowledge to be shared with others. These ideas easily lend themselves to current components of HRD that is often based upon performance driven learning. Like the monks, HRD sees the value and important of practical skills that can be utilized by the individual to better the overall product.
Now lets consider the Renaissance, approximately 1400-1800 A.D. Enter our hero, Martin Luther. Many of you may recognize this name from Luther’s controversial critique of the Roman Catholic Church that helped bring forth the Protestant Reformation. Perhaps lesser known is Luther’s criticism of the monastic schools that he believed were overly harsh and rigid. It was Luthers’ idea that education should be given to all people regardless of wealth or gender—yes, even teach the girls! This was quite scandalous at the time. However I think Luther’s ideas were complimentary to modern HRD. Both believed in the power of education, but felt that the benefits of learning and knowledge shouldn’t be restricted to any segment of the population.
But perhaps the biggest influence on HRD as we know it today was in the not so far past. World War II saw a huge surge of workers and a large demand for products which mandated some kind of management and training within organizations. It was the War Manpower Commission which officially established Training Within Industry (TWI) and made a clear distinction between education and training. Three of the four TWI components are still critical to HRD today including performance, quality, and human relations. Program success was measured by production, efficiency, and cost effectiveness. Employees were encouraged to troubleshoot potential problems and try new methods to correct them. Supervisors were encouraged and trained to establish good relationships with their employees. All of these ideas may seem common sense now, but at the time they were revolutionary and provided a strong foundation for human resource development practices that are employed in the field today.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
HRD in an Alternate Universe???
Did you ever see one of those old episodes of Star Trek (or any sci-fi show of your choice) where they end up in an alternate universe somehow? Instead of being good and noble, the main characters are self-serving and evil (not to mention the drinking, tight clothes, and pointy black beards). As evil beings that are still in positions of power and influence, they exert an evil influence of those around them simply by the choices they make. HRD professionals without standards of ethics and integrity can have a similarly detrimental influence. By nature of their work, HRD professionals guide and direct organizations with employees from varying cultures, backgrounds, and experience. While it is questionable whether a HRD professional would truly be working to make an organization evil, without clear guidelines for ethics each person must rely on their own interpretation of right and wrong which may be clouded by bias or inclination. As such it is imperative to have established standards to guide organizational procedures, conflict resolution, and general practices.
Although there are still many differing theories within the field of HRD, the goal of improvement, problem orientation, and systems thinking provide overriding points of agreement. When I explain to people that I am returning to school to obtain a Masters degree in adult education/ human resource development, I am typically met with a blank look and pleasant “that’s nice”. However when I go on to state my own ‘bottom line purpose of human resource development’ by explaining that I want to help organizations do what they do, only do it much better, I receive a much more interested and comprehensive response. All three of these concepts work toward that goal of helping organizations do things “better” which I believe to be the heart (though not the soul, check back for my article review on this subject) of HRD. I understand that contemporaries in the field such as Bierema completely disagree with me, arguing that productivity based performance measures lead to a slippery slope of mechanism. However learning without performance seems to me much like eating when you are not hungry. You could do it, but what would be the point? Your condition will not be improved, and you may even be in worse shape afterward. However, as I am young to this field, I reserve the right to completely change my mind by the end of this course if rational thought can induce me to do so.
Basic systems theory has always seems pretty common sense to my analytical nature. In order to figure out how to reach your goal (or in HRD lingo, ‘desired state’) you have to figure out which elements are in place (input), what in the relationship between these elements or what is currently being done to them (process), and what is the result (output). Once you understand this process, which by no means is necessarily an easy task, you can set about trying to change/modify/add to what is currently happening to reach your desired state. However what surprised me was the idea and emphasis Swanson and Holton III place on naming and defining the system in place (2001, 17). I can easily imagine this alone being a point of contention among colleagues, thus invariably resulting in skewed results, and misunderstandings. Failing to understand these crucial elements will ultimately lead to a faulty process and failure to reach the desired goal. I am converted to believe that explicit clarification of what is being discussed should precede any discussion that is analytical or compensatory in nature.
HRD is such an enormous concept, that placing it within a worldview helps people understand it in a more applicable way. While I fully believe that people are responsible for their own actions, placing all of the responsibility on the individual worker to reach out to the organization for learning, training, etc (as seen in the “learner perspective”) undercuts the core of the issue. Yes, organizations have faulty processes and sometimes a worker will be the first to recognize something is not working well. However as I have stated earlier, workers and departments have a limited point of view that only allows them to see a certain perspective on the situation. Thus, putting the emphasis on them to realize and/or seek training to fix this process will yield poor results. Placing the burden fully on the worker OR organization fails to recognize the value of impartial consultation. The organization as a whole must be able to see the big picture (most likely the human resource development department) and implement a change that will most effectively solve the current problem.
Although there are still many differing theories within the field of HRD, the goal of improvement, problem orientation, and systems thinking provide overriding points of agreement. When I explain to people that I am returning to school to obtain a Masters degree in adult education/ human resource development, I am typically met with a blank look and pleasant “that’s nice”. However when I go on to state my own ‘bottom line purpose of human resource development’ by explaining that I want to help organizations do what they do, only do it much better, I receive a much more interested and comprehensive response. All three of these concepts work toward that goal of helping organizations do things “better” which I believe to be the heart (though not the soul, check back for my article review on this subject) of HRD. I understand that contemporaries in the field such as Bierema completely disagree with me, arguing that productivity based performance measures lead to a slippery slope of mechanism. However learning without performance seems to me much like eating when you are not hungry. You could do it, but what would be the point? Your condition will not be improved, and you may even be in worse shape afterward. However, as I am young to this field, I reserve the right to completely change my mind by the end of this course if rational thought can induce me to do so.
Basic systems theory has always seems pretty common sense to my analytical nature. In order to figure out how to reach your goal (or in HRD lingo, ‘desired state’) you have to figure out which elements are in place (input), what in the relationship between these elements or what is currently being done to them (process), and what is the result (output). Once you understand this process, which by no means is necessarily an easy task, you can set about trying to change/modify/add to what is currently happening to reach your desired state. However what surprised me was the idea and emphasis Swanson and Holton III place on naming and defining the system in place (2001, 17). I can easily imagine this alone being a point of contention among colleagues, thus invariably resulting in skewed results, and misunderstandings. Failing to understand these crucial elements will ultimately lead to a faulty process and failure to reach the desired goal. I am converted to believe that explicit clarification of what is being discussed should precede any discussion that is analytical or compensatory in nature.
HRD is such an enormous concept, that placing it within a worldview helps people understand it in a more applicable way. While I fully believe that people are responsible for their own actions, placing all of the responsibility on the individual worker to reach out to the organization for learning, training, etc (as seen in the “learner perspective”) undercuts the core of the issue. Yes, organizations have faulty processes and sometimes a worker will be the first to recognize something is not working well. However as I have stated earlier, workers and departments have a limited point of view that only allows them to see a certain perspective on the situation. Thus, putting the emphasis on them to realize and/or seek training to fix this process will yield poor results. Placing the burden fully on the worker OR organization fails to recognize the value of impartial consultation. The organization as a whole must be able to see the big picture (most likely the human resource development department) and implement a change that will most effectively solve the current problem.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Why am I on a blog????
As some of you may have heard, my Professor for my Human Resouce Development class has declared that paper is evil (I'm paraphasing) and as such we are not allowed to use it.That means that at least once a week my very own personal reflections on the reading materials (as well as whatever else I feel like typing) are required to be published in a blog. Black backgrounds, scary red type font, and angst ridden poetry are optional. Since this was my first actual homework assignment in six years, give or take, my first post is quite tame and educational. But as my sarcasm can only be held back for so long, it is bound to show up sooner or later. Until then, I will settle for disagreeing with the status quo opinion whenever I can. Please stop by and leave me some comments (wonder if I get a better grade for that, hmmm). I will be writing at least once a week. Enjoy!
What is HRD?
I find myself most in agreement with Jones (1981) definition of HRD which states that “HRD is a systematic expansion of people’s work-related abilities, focused on the attainment of both organization and personal goals”. Unlike many other definitions of HRD, Jones includes a personal element in addition to organizational focus. While HRD is usually located within the context of an organization, it is also composed of people and their motivations to improve. To define HRD without focusing on elements of the individual seems to eliminate a crucial part of this process and as such, potentially skew results and goals. I also like the encompassing nature of Jones definition; he is one of the few to include a philosophical element. HRD is such a broad category of activities, events, and mental frameworks that to list them all would be impossible. On the other hand, to leave such events out would seem incomplete. By engaging in a general philosophy or way of thinking about HRD, one can understand its essence without falling into the trap of trying to list all of its components.
Nadler’s 1970 definition of HRD as “a series of organized activities conducted within a specified time and designed to produce behavioral change” seems the least accurate and logical. While I appreciate that Nadlers’ definition was one of the first, his focus strictly on the psychological ignores important elements such as philosophical, economic, and systems. And while Nadler focuses on behavior change, he fails to clarify the extent or duration of this change. Furthermore, his definition fails to take into account the purpose of the change (such as increase performance) or the organizational process required to make this change. Nadler’s definition fails to “see the big picture” that is necessary for human resource development success.
Trying to list all the components of HRD seems to be a very complicated task. While there are certain elements that overlap in all areas of HRD, I think the exact items vary depending on the organization it is working within. HRD at a university would look very different than HRD at car manufacturing plant because these organizations have different needs, goals, and missions. Regardless of the organization HRD should include organization development and personnel training, but the extent of those elements and how they are deployed should vary by business/agency to be most efficient. The mission of HRD should be the same, but the tactics it uses to accomplish that mission should be flexible and work in conjunction with the host entity.
I agree the most with the core belief that “HRD professionals are advocates of individual/group, work process and organizational integrity”. Those working in HRD have the unique opportunity to see information in its entirety (as opposed to a single department only seeing an issue from their view point) and as such have the responsibility to make decisions that are best for the organization as a whole. Furthermore, they have the opportunity more than others to think “outside the box” and look for solutions to potential problems across a greater continuum of long-term impact. HRD professionals have the blessing and curse for seeing the ripple effect of a single decision and implementing the best course of action to accomplish the mission of the organization.
The field of Human Resource development is an interesting one. As it is still a “young” field, the developments and fresh insights within the study are still emerging. This provides a versatility not found in many fields. More, it welcomes professionals new to the HRD arena (such as myself) to learn about the foundation of human resource development while still allowing new additions to shape its identity. And because HRD contains this flexibility, it can make a successful contribution to virtually any established discipline.
Nadler’s 1970 definition of HRD as “a series of organized activities conducted within a specified time and designed to produce behavioral change” seems the least accurate and logical. While I appreciate that Nadlers’ definition was one of the first, his focus strictly on the psychological ignores important elements such as philosophical, economic, and systems. And while Nadler focuses on behavior change, he fails to clarify the extent or duration of this change. Furthermore, his definition fails to take into account the purpose of the change (such as increase performance) or the organizational process required to make this change. Nadler’s definition fails to “see the big picture” that is necessary for human resource development success.
Trying to list all the components of HRD seems to be a very complicated task. While there are certain elements that overlap in all areas of HRD, I think the exact items vary depending on the organization it is working within. HRD at a university would look very different than HRD at car manufacturing plant because these organizations have different needs, goals, and missions. Regardless of the organization HRD should include organization development and personnel training, but the extent of those elements and how they are deployed should vary by business/agency to be most efficient. The mission of HRD should be the same, but the tactics it uses to accomplish that mission should be flexible and work in conjunction with the host entity.
I agree the most with the core belief that “HRD professionals are advocates of individual/group, work process and organizational integrity”. Those working in HRD have the unique opportunity to see information in its entirety (as opposed to a single department only seeing an issue from their view point) and as such have the responsibility to make decisions that are best for the organization as a whole. Furthermore, they have the opportunity more than others to think “outside the box” and look for solutions to potential problems across a greater continuum of long-term impact. HRD professionals have the blessing and curse for seeing the ripple effect of a single decision and implementing the best course of action to accomplish the mission of the organization.
The field of Human Resource development is an interesting one. As it is still a “young” field, the developments and fresh insights within the study are still emerging. This provides a versatility not found in many fields. More, it welcomes professionals new to the HRD arena (such as myself) to learn about the foundation of human resource development while still allowing new additions to shape its identity. And because HRD contains this flexibility, it can make a successful contribution to virtually any established discipline.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)