Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  Bio

    Posted 10-06-1997 18:10
    Hi, my name is Julie Johnson, and I have been participating in the list
    now for about a week. I really like it, and have learned a lot. Here
    is my Bio:

    Currently finishing my M.A. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology at
    California State University, Sacramento. My thesis is entitled "A
    Meta-Analysis of Management Training and Development Effectiveness:
    From 1980 to the Present" (some of you may have seen my "Call for
    Studies" email). Right now I am working as a technical recruiter, but I
    would really like to get into training (especially needs assessment and
    training evaluation) or OD. So (HINT HNIT) anyone know about any job
    openings for me?

    You can view my website at http://www.calweb.com/~bug/. However, it
    hasn't been updated since the summer, so you might want to wait until
    December (after I graduate and have time to re-do it).

    I welcome discussion, and am always interested in the careers and
    knowledge of others. So write me and tell me what you do, how you got
    there, etc!

    Julie A Johnson
    Technical Recruiter
    The Kemtah Group, Inc.
    (916) 774-7101

    P.S. I don't have the analysis completely finished yet on my thesis,
    but the results for management training and development effectiveness do
    not look very positive. I have some theories as to why --> but I would
    also like to hear some professional points of view!


  • 2.  Bio

    Posted 10-06-1997 19:16
    Reply to bio question from:

    > Julie A Johnson
    > Technical Recruiter
    > The Kemtah Group, Inc.
    > (916) 774-7101

    I've been working in this area for some years now and my experience has
    been that the main reason/s why such programs aren't working are:
    a. the desired activities are not always identified as being either
    training (something one needs to know/do for the current job), education
    (something that is important to put current or future work into
    environmental/political/community perspective), development (something
    that is for future work/jobs/positions/needs), or self-development
    (something that is nice to have but is either all or none of the above).
    As such, prioritisation and emphasis are sometimes out of balance - or
    not given any balance at all.
    b. the desired outcomes of these activities aren't always aimed
    directly at organisational needs in terms of short/medium/long term
    goals and objectives.
    c. the content of such programs are generally aimed at what the
    individual needs, and not what his/her position within the organisation
    needs. All organisational functions are put in place to achieve the
    goals of the organisation. If an individual doesn't have the skills and
    knowledge to fill these functions then we have a training need. Too many
    programs are centred on what the individual would like to do (or what
    someone else has decided he/she would like to do) and not on what the
    function he/she holds demands that he/she be capable of doing.
    d. very few programs are centred on competencies that link into all
    other HR aspects of an organisation. Remember the old model of three
    elements to work - technical, conceptual and human? Well, quite often we
    aim such programs at the technical and conceptual but forget the human.
    By this I mean the needs of training, education and development
    activities to keep people up to date and on top of technology and modern
    trends (including what the customers are doing), the needs of
    recruitment (including internal recruitment and promotions) and
    succession planning, obviously the needs of the organisation (by way of
    goals and objectives, keeping up with customers and suppliers, keeping
    ahead of workplace and enterprise bargaining and union requirements,
    goal setting etc.), and the needs of whatever performance appraisal
    system is put in place to monitor the level/degree of skills and
    knowledge AND whether or not such skills and knowledge are being
    implemented in such a way as to keep the organisation moving forward.
    e. too many of these programs focus on only technical or conceptual
    skills and knowledge (see above) and not on the true meaning of
    workplace effectiveness or competency which puts the spotlight clearly
    on the human side - including working with people, performing the job in
    a particular environment or community setting, leadership and staff
    management, developing and managing plans. Too often the core of the
    program tries to takes technical skills (planning, organising, coaching
    etc.) and turn them into something that fits every person's needs. Two
    points are often forgotten: (1) Technical skills are technical skills,
    and people skills are people skills. The two complement, border on,
    overlap, integrate etc each other, but neither can take the place of the
    other, and (2) People are hired for their skills and knowledge and are
    fired for their behaviour. The only solution is to provide them the
    skills and knowledge to increase their behavioural effectiveness while
    at the same time ensuring that their skills and knowledge are either
    maintained (if they are already at the right level), or are stretched to
    keep one step ahead of the opposition. How do we identify these? By
    analysing and identifying those activities important to the function as
    it fits within the organisational needs - in other words, a Functional
    Analysis to determine the skills/competency standards required of that
    function. If the function holder has all of these competencies then we
    can sit back and watch the world ignite. BUT, if the standards are
    analysed and written correctly then the standards will always be capable
    of stretching the function holder, no matter how smart or educated
    he/she is, and in doing so stretch the organisation as well.

    Just a few thoughts. If you want any further details please give me a
    call on: robnphil@ozemail.com.au and I'll be happy to respond.

    Regards
    PHIL RUTHERFORD



    >
    > P.S. I don't have the analysis completely finished yet on my thesis,
    > but the results for management training and development effectiveness do
    > not look very positive. I have some theories as to why --> but I would
    > also like to hear some professional points of view!


  • 3.  Bio

    Posted 10-07-1997 08:10
    Julie wrote (regarding her thesis paper):

    << I don't have the analysis completely finished yet on my thesis,
    but the results for management training and development effectiveness do
    not look very positive. I have some theories as to why --> but I would
    also like to hear some professional points of view! >>

    Without seeing either your predictor or criterion measures, I would guess the
    reason(s) may include:

    1) The things managers receive training on and what they appraised/rewarded
    for are often completely different. Not to sound too Skinnerian, but if you
    want to change behavior, change rewards.

    2) Some management training is on very broad, organizational topics, such as
    Improving Teamwork. Well, assuming the knowledge was learned, the training
    transfered and the person using it was effective, you would still have to be
    a professional graduate student to see if it really affected the organization
    since you wouldn't see its effects for a couple of years.

    3) Most training in the real world (not lab studies) just doesn't work.

    Good luck in your job search.

    Warren Bobrow, Ph.D.
    The Context Group
    www.contextgroup.com


  • 4.  Bio

    Posted 10-07-1997 13:47
    Julie wrote (regarding her thesis paper):
    >
    > << I don't have the analysis completely finished yet on my thesis,
    > but the results for management training and development effectiveness do
    > not look very positive. I have some theories as to why --> but I would
    > also like to hear some professional points of view! >>

    1. Very often managers behave in a certain way--not because they don't
    know HOW to do their job differently--but because the organization doesn't
    reward different behavior. I'm using "reward" here pretty broadly to
    include the idea of making alternative behavior easier than the old
    behavior, along with the ideas of being promoted, being recognized, and
    being compensated for certain behaivors.

    2. It is easier for an executive to say, "Go train (read: fix) those
    folks" even if the problem is an organizational problem and not a training
    problem.

    3. If training really did change behavior immediately, I would expect a
    slight downward dip in productivity and maybe even quality, as the
    organization adjusted to the new behavior. Measurable results would be
    long-term.

    4. Finally, I'm not sure how you account for intervening variables when
    you're measuring the effects of training. I spent 13 years directing the
    corporate training function for a Fortune 500 company, and that was always
    a problem we faced. I actually had an executive tell me once that I should
    guarantee that any manager who went through a new program we had developed
    would be improved by 25 percent. When I asked how he expected me to prove
    that, he said he didn't. "But," he said, winking, "just as you can't prove
    the managers did improve, we can't prove they didn't!" (I was tempted to
    take him up on his suggestion and rely on the Pygmalion effect to give us
    some real improvement, but the idea wouldn't pass through my own ethical
    screen!)

    Emily Schultheiss
    Why settle for surviving...when you could be thriving?