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.
Friday, September 28, 2007
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)