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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)