Overview of Training and Development

CHAPTER  10 Overview of Training and Development

CHAPTER OUTLINE

Introduction

Views of Training and Development

* Education-Training Dichotomy

* Taxonomy of Performance

* Informal and Incidental Learning

Key Training and Development Terms and Strategies

* Subject Matter Focus of T&D

The General Training and Development Process

Instructional Systems Development (ISD)

Training for Performance System

* TPS Model

* Phases of the TPS

* Leading the Training & Development Process

Individual-Focused Training and Development

* Employee to Employee T&D

* Trainer to Employee T&D

Team/Group-Focused T&D

* Action Learning

* Organizational Learning

Training Roles and Responsibilities

Conclusion

Reflection Questions

225

226

Training and development constitutes the largest realm of HRD activity. Training and development (T&D) is defined as a process of systematically developing work-related knowledge and expertise for the purpose of improving performance. Training is not education-light–it is more than knowledge. People experiencing T&D should end up with new knowledge and be able to do things well after they complete a training program (Zemke, 1990). New knowledge by itself generally is not enough.

Within T&D, more effort is focused on training than on development. Also, training is more likely focused on new employees and those entering new job roles in contrast to long-term development. To be clear, the development portion of training and development is seen as “the planned growth and expansion of knowledge and expertise of people beyond the present job requirements” (Swanson, 2002, p. 6). In the majority of instances, development opportunities are provided to people who have a strong potential to contribute to the organization. Indeed, development often comes under the banner of management development and leadership development. In every case, people at all levels in all organizations need to know how to do their work (expertise) and generally need help with their learning. Davis and Davis (1998) provide an explanation that helps to frame this chapter:

Training is the process through which skills are developed, information is provided, and attributes are nurtured, in order to help individuals who work in organizations to become more effective and efficient in their work. Training helps the organization to fulfill its purposes and goals, while contributing to the overall development of workers. Training is necessary to help workers qualify for a job, do the job, or advance, but it is also essential for enhancing and transforming the job, so that the job actually adds value to the enterprise. Training facilitates learning, but learning is not only a formal activity designed and encouraged by specially prepared trainers to generate specific performance improvements. Learning is also a more universal activity, designed to increase capability and capacity and is facilitated formally and informally by many types of people at different levels of the organization. Training should always hold forth the promise of maximizing learning. (p. 44)

T&D as defined here often appears under other names. Organizations will often title T&D functions to match their communication goals. Beyond T&D, some carry broader names such as Executive Development or Corporate University. Others are very specific, such as Flight Safety School or Sales Training Department. Whatever the title, it is good to look beyond the name to see what actually is taking place.

VIEWS OF TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT

Fortunately, no single view of T&D exists. There is so much variety in the nature of organizations, the people who work in them, the conditions surrounding the

226

227

need for human expertise, and the process of learning that a single lens would be inadequate. Alternative views are useful. Three models that help in understanding T&D include the education-training dichotomy, the taxonomy for performance (Swanson, 2007), and the informal and incidental learning model (Marsick and Watkins, 1997).

Education-Training Dichotomy

The role of general knowledge versus specific job-related knowledge and expertise is an ongoing issue within organizational systems that sponsor T&D (Buckley and Caple, 2007). General knowledge that an individual has is marketable throughout the workplace. For example, the ability to read, write, and do math is not specific to any one organization. Thus, employers generally do not want to pay for programs that do not directly benefit them. Most organizations view high school programs and many college degree programs as providing general knowledge. They hire graduates of these programs understanding that they will need to learn the specific job knowledge and skills required by the employing organization.

Companies resist paying the bill for general knowledge learning programs, and governments resist paying the bill for organization-specific learning programs. Having said this, it is even messier in practice. Companies requiring entry-level workers in a tight labor market can find themselves providing basic education (reading, writing, etc.) as well as job-specific training. They will often appeal to government agencies for assistance in terms of funding for these efforts or for gaining access to public sector adult education resources to help them. Conversely, public sector economic development agencies often proactively fund job-specific T&D programs to maintain or to attract new business and industry in their geographic area.

The politics and pressures surrounding the development of human capital, within and between organizational systems, influences T&D decisions and programming. Questions of survival, competitive advantage, and the pursuit of defined strategies directly influence T&D decisions. For example, employing organizations may decide to support tuition reimbursement for employees who desire more general learning as long as they go about it on their own time. Tepid organizational support of tuition reimbursement programs may have as much to do with providing competitive employee benefits (holding on to good employees) as it does from expecting any direct return on their expenditures.

Taxonomy of Performance

One way of gaining perspective of the expertise required of organizations to function is through the taxonomy of performance (Swanson, 2007; see Figure 10.1). The taxonomy first illustrates the two large challenges that every organization faces that T&D is expected to address: maintaining the system and changing the system. Keeping any system up and running is hard work. Workplace systems

228

erode in many ways. For example: information is less readily available, equipment wears out, customers demand more than the work processes can produce, and expert workers leave their employment for a variety of reasons.

[Image: Figure 10.1 Swanson’s Taxonomy of Performance.]

Source: Swanson, 2007, p. 24.

Even though a work system is mature and reasonably predictable, conditions can change and things can go wrong. A variety of forces cause systems to erode. Thus, managers and workers have the continuing pressure of “maintaining” their work systems. When there is inadequate expertise, training can be applied. Furthermore, the “Maintaining the System” subcategories of understanding, operation, and troubleshooting of work systems allow for clearer specification of the performance required and what it takes to achieve it. You could not expect a person trained only to “understand” the work system to be able to go into the workplace with the expertise required to “operate” and “troubleshoot” in that system. A fundamental error in HRD practice would be to provide training to employees at one lower level and expect them to demonstrate expertise at a higher level.

It is generally assumed, either through on-the-job experience or through formal training, that people who have designed and worked successfully in a system are subject-matter experts on that system. Thus, these people are key resources to T&D professionals wanting to analyze what a person needs to know and be able to do to maintain the system. In addition, supporting documentation about the existing system is usually available that can also be used to put together sound training.

In contrast to the challenge of “maintaining systems,” the challenge of “changing systems” is presented by the taxonomy of performance. Changing the

229

system can mean either improving it or inventing a whole new system. Changing the system strikes another chord. What a person needs to know and be able to do in order to change a system is to engage in activity that is primarily outside the maintaining realm. A person needs expertise in problem identification and problem-solving methods. For example, training in human-factors design, process redesign, and statistical process control are specific strategies for improving the system that must be learned in order to apply them to an existing work system. A person can be an expert in this improvement work without being an expert in the system he or she wishes to improve. This individual typically partners with people having system-specific expertise. In other situations, organizations train people who are experts in existing systems on tools for improving the system with the expectation that they can apply those tools to change the very system in which they work. Thus, they are expecting the same people to be able to maintain and improve systems. Leading teams in carrying out improvement efforts falls in the realm of organization development, the natural partner of T&D.

The invention level of “changing the system” has little regard for the existing system. Totally new ways of thinking and doing work are entertained. One mea sure of success is that the existing system goes away as a result of being replaced by the new system and that the next challenge is to maintain the new system. This cycle of renewal is fed by HRD interventions and ends up requiring still more HRD interventions. Two examples include T&D experiences in scenario planning (see Chermack and Burt, 2008) and antecedents to creativity (Robinson and Stern, 1997). It is part of the dynamic of the HRD profession that both these demands of maintaining the system and changing the system go on–go on simultaneously in organizations and go on simultaneously within individual contributors.

Experts on changing the system (see Brache, 2002; Deming, 1986; Rummler and Brache, 1995) provide us fair warning about the realms of maintaining the system and changing the system in organizations. An organization in crisis first needs to focus itself on the core issue of maintaining the system before it goes about improving the system. While improving the system may be more appealing, it would be analogous to rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. More than once we have started with a “changing the system” project only to discover that there was a frantic need to develop core expertise in order to get the system functioning at an acceptable level (maintain)–to the point that changes to the system could then be entertained.

The learning and performance paradigms discussed in chapters 7 and 8 play an important role in meeting the challenges posed by the taxonomy of performance. With learning viewed as a driver of performance, it is easy to make a short-term connection between learning and performance when there are system maintenance issues. In comparison, it is not as easy to make the long-term learning-to-performance connection when T&D is involved in system change issues. The extended time required to change a work system makes it more difficult to claim system performance gains and suggests that intermediate evidence of learning

230

and new work behaviors are legitimate short-term goals until the change takes full effect.

The traditional lines drawn between those people working in a system who are responsible for maintaining it and those responsible for changing the system have been blurred. Some of the traditional thoughts about hourly workers getting short-term training versus salaried workers getting longer-term development experiences have also been blurred. Strategies must be thought through for each setting based on accurate analysis of the expertise required to function in specific jobs.

Informal and Incidental Learning

While it has been known all along, T&D professionals have only recently written formally about the unstructured dimensions of workplace learning. Most T&D professionals had been advocating their structured training view of the world only and not acknowledging the unstructured or trial-and-error role of learning in the organization. The classic rival to structured T&D has been unstructured T&D, which has not been viewed formally. Swanson and Sawzin (1976) define each, noting that the difference was whether or not there was a plan for learning coming from the organization–structured or unstructured training. Planning was at the heart of the argument. Jacobs is credited with consciously differentiating on-the-job training as being either structured or unstructured (see Jacobs and McGriffen,1987). The conscious acknowledgment and study of informal and incidental workplace learning has continued to be of interest in recent years. These studies are based on the reality that the majority of what people actually learn related to their work performance is not planned in the way T&D professionals have traditionally thought about work-related learning.

Marsick and Watkins (1997) have provided an “informal and incidental learning model” to understand this phenomenon (see Figure 10.2). Their model is based on a core premise that the behavior of individuals is a function of their interaction with their environment (Lewin, 1951). Work and the workplace context are at the core of informal and incidental workplace learning (Nijhof and Nieuwenhuis, 2008). One could argue that the moment an organization begins planning and taking actions to encourage informal and incidental learning, the process is no longer informal or incidental. Such an argument would shortchange the confidence in the capability and integrity of workers as learners that the informal and incidental learning perspective offers. They highlight power of the context–the organization and the work–both to ignite the learning process and to serve as the primary learning aid. The work provides the challenge to learn, to define problems, to solve problems, and there is usually not time to reflect. In this vein, Nijhof (2006) cautions the profession as to the limitations of the learning potential of work settings that demand ongoing performance.

231

[Chart: Figure 10.2 Marsick and Watkins’s Informal and Incidental Learning Model.]

Source: Marsick and Watkins, 1997, p. 299. Used with permission.

As a middle ground, it is no wonder that organizational leaders are interested in ideas that embrace action learning and team problem solving. Action learning results in learning and possible solutions to real contextual problems. Team problem solving results in solving a specific organization-specific problem with learning as a vehicle or side benefit. Both action learning and team problem solving rely on the power of work and context in their structured T&D experience.

KEY TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT TERMS AND STRATEGIES

Key training and development terms and concepts provide a basis of understanding the profession. Expertise, a human state, is acquired through a combination of knowledge and experience. It enables individuals to consistently achieve performance outcomes that meet or exceed the performance requirements (see chapter 11 for a full discussion of expertise). Training is the process of developing knowledge and expertise in people. Development is the planned growth and expansion of the knowledge and expertise of people beyond the present job requirements. This is accomplished through systematic training, learning experiences, work assignments, and assessment efforts.

T&D interventions vary in the amount of their structure. It is typical for T&D programs focused on life and death matters–such as medicine, flight operation, and nuclear power plant operation–to be highly structured. This is

232

especially true in managing the experiential portion of the T&D program and verifying attainment of the required expertise.

T&D can take place on the job or off the job. On-the-job programs take advantage of the resources of the workplace and actual conditions in which the person will be expected to perform. Off-the-job offerings allow learners to disconnect from the pressures of the workplace so in order to entertain new information and new ways of doing things better.

Individual T&D program titles are generally derived from a job title, job task, work concept, work system, work process, or hardware/software. T&D programs can be custom produced or purchased off the shelf. Custom-produced programs are designed to match the performance, learning, and expertise requirements of a specific group of people in a specific organization. Off-the-shelf programs are generic, generally cost much less, and are less likely to address the specific learning or performance needs. Organizations sometimes buy off-the-shelf programs from external providers and then customize portions of the program to establish a better fit.

Subject Matter Focus of T&D

Technical T&D programs are generally thought of as people-thing, people-procedure, or people-process focused. They are often classified and administered under varying banners within the same organization. For example, a large corporation with multiple divisions producing unique products or services can have division-level skill and technical training functions that are focused on the substance of the division-level technology.

In contrast, management and leadership T&D is almost always held constant across an organization. These programs focus on people-people and people-idea expertise that mirrors organizational culture and strategy that transcend specific divisions. Manager and supervisor tasks T&D primarily focuses on getting the work done–maintaining the system–with a lesser concern for improving and changing the system. In comparison, leadership tasks are more focused on concerns about the future state of the system, while not losing sight of the present.

Motivational T&D is a smaller segment of programming that focuses on attitudinal content in the form of values and beliefs. It is generally pursued through intense structured experiences. Emotional presentations by role model facilitators and placing people in unfamiliar settings, such as wilderness or survival situations (that are actually quite safe) are two familiar strategies. Motivational T&D programs are often used to create readiness for change, followed by either technical or management programs aimed at developing the expertise required to carry out the change.

Career T&D is an extended view of the learning and expertise development journey. A simple example would be to plan and construct a purposeful pattern of T&D experiences with an eye toward long-term development of one’s career.

233

A significant shift took place in the 1980s. Firms were sponsoring career development programs that groomed people to move up in their stable organizational system. Once the realization hit that firms were changing at such a rapid rate, organizations cut back on their career development programs, and the locus of control for career development moved from the firm to the individual. Thus, when a person is asked today, “Who is in charge of your career development?” the answer is most likely–“I am.” The void that presently exists results from individuals inadequately prepared to manage their own career development working in organizations that are tenuous about their own futures.

THE GENERAL TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

We have defined HRD as essentially a problem-defining and problem-solving method. For those who react negatively to the notion of problems, we suggest they use a positive word of their choice (e.g., opportunity, improvement, etc). We also characterize T&D as a five-phase process. We use variations in the wording for the HRD, T&D, and OD processes to capture the common thread and varying elements. Here are all three variations:

Human Resource Development

Phase 1 Analyze

↓

Phase 2 Propose

↓

Phase 3 Create

↓

Phase 4 Implement

↓

Phase 5 Assess

Training & Development

Analyze

↓

Design

↓

Develop

↓

Implement

↓

Evaluate

Organization Development

Analyze/Contract

↓

Diagnose/Feedback

↓

Plan/Develop

↓

Implement

↓

Evaluate/Institutionalize

T&D professionals within HRD almost universally talk about their work in terms of the ADDIE process (analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate). It is the most widely used methodology for developing systematic training (Allen, 2006). The origins of the ADDIE process are rooted in the four-step Training Method and the Instructional Systems Development model. The WWI and WWII Training Within Industry Project (Dooley, 1945) laid out the Four-Step Training Method:

1. Prepare the learner
2. Present instruction

234

3. Try out performance
4. Follow up

The instructional systems development (ISD) model was developed by the United States military in 1969 (United States, 1969; Campbell, 1984). Many contemporary training models are rooted in these early systematic training efforts.

INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT (ISD)

The instructional system development (ISD) model of procedures was developed by the U.S. military for the purpose of going about training in a systematic and effective manner in the context of an enormous military training enterprise. Furthermore, it was meant to provide a common language and process that transcended the various branches of the military service.

The ISD model is illustrated in Figure 10.3. The first level of the graphic shows the five phases of the training process in its original form as analysis, design, develop, implement and control. The control phase was later changed to evaluation in most adaptations of the original work. The second tier of the graphic specifies the numerous steps within the phases.

In that the original ISD was designed for the military, it is best suited to the following conditions:

* Large numbers of learners must be trained.

* A long lifetime is expected for the program.

* Standard training requirements must be maintained.

* High mastery levels are required because of criticality, such as safety or high cost of errors.

* Economic value is placed on learner’s time.

* Training is valued in the organizational culture (Gagne and Medsker, 1996).

The original IDS model began with the assumption that training is needed. Thus, the beginning point of the analysis phase was to analyze the job and its tasks. The ending points were to assess trainee behaviors and to revise programs as needed. The sheer size of the military and the degree of standardization in personnel and equipment helped shape the original ISD model with features that were incompatible with most business and industry training requirements.

Allen (2006) offers the following reflections on the ADDIE training model: “The ADDIE process is an adaptation of the systems engineering process to problems of workplace training and instruction. The process assumes that alternative solutions to instructional problems will be more or less cost efficient depending on the instructional need and environmental constraints, and that a

235

systems approach intelligently choosing among alternative solutions will produce the most effective results” (p. 431).

[Chart: Figure 10.3 The Model of Interservice Procedures for Instructional Systems Development (ISD).]

“In practice beyond the military context, the ADDIE process was found to be too rigid and did not account for the different situations and applications for which it had to be used. To account for the situational differences, the external control of the system (i.e., the boxes and arrows) gave way to phases of ADDIE that could be manipulated in any order by the training professional. This third generation model assumed that ADDIE was an interactive process that could be entered at any point depending on the current situation. Although behavioral learning theory was still dominant, cognitive theory was beginning to have an impact, such as in the use of simulations for acquisition of cognitive expertise in decision-making” (Allen, 2006, p. 431). The estimates on the evolution of ADDIE suggest that over one hundred variations of the model are in existence.

236

TRAINING FOR PERFORMANCE SYSTEM

The training for performance system (TPS) is a process for developing human expertise for the purpose of improving organization, process, and individual performance.

The TPS was originally developed in 1978 by Richard A. Swanson for a major United States manufacturing firm. The firm wanted a comprehensive training process that would embrace all training at all levels (corporate, division, and plant; management, technical, and motivational), thus allowing for a common systematic approach and common language for personnel training throughout the company. The system was originally called the “training technology system” and can be viewed as a major adaptation of the earlier ADDIE model more appropriate for dynamic organizations. The name was changed to reflect the true purpose of the training system better and eliminate the misinterpretations that were given to the word technology (Swanson, 1980).

When the TPS was developed in the late 1970s, the sponsoring firm raised several issues about the existing state of the training profession. First, there was a concern about the inadequacy of the dominant ISD model to connect up with core business performance requirements at the analysis phase. Second, the firm pointed out the inadequacy of the tools and processes being used in management training and development in getting at the substance of knowledge work. Third, it was similarly concerned about the inadequacy of the tools and processes being used in technical T&D in getting to the heart of systems/process work. And fourth, there was a concern about the inadequacy of the dominant instructional systems development (ISD) model to connect up with core business performance outcomes at the evaluation phase.

The TPS embraces the titles of the traditional five phases of training presented in most models (Swanson, 1996; see richardswanson.com): Analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate; the model is generally referred to as the “ADDIE” model as well as “TPS.” In addition, the critical overarching task of “leading the training and development process” is added to the ADDIE process.

TPS Model

The TPS model is illustrated in two forms in Figures 10.4 and 10.5. Figure 10.4 shows the five phases of the training process being integrated and supported through leadership. The second graphic of the TPS model, Figure 10.5, specifies the major steps within the phases and the leadership component.

It is important to note that the systematic process of the TPS has integrity and can be maintained even in the simplest of situations (severe time and budget constraints) or can be disregarded in the most luxurious situations (generous time and budget allocations). Professional expertise–training process knowledge and experience–is what is necessary to maintain training integrity.

237

[Image: Figure 10.5 Steps within the Process Phases of the Training for Performance System.]

[Image: Figure 10.4 Training for Performance System.]

Source: Swanson, 2002.

Phases of the TPS

The TPS is a process for developing human expertise for the purpose of improving organization, process, and individual performance. A closer look at its five phases and the overarching concern for leading the process:

Phase 1: Analyze

Diagnose the performance requirements of the organization that can be improved through training, and document the expertise required to perform in the workplace. The integrity of the TPS is in its connection to important performance goals and in answering one or more of the following questions positively

238

after the program: (1) Did the organization perform better? (2) Did the work process perform better? (3) Did the individuals (group) perform better?

The front-end organizational diagnosis is essential in clarifying the goal and in determining the performance variables that work together to achieve the goal. It requires the analyst to step back from T&D and to think more holistically about performance. This diagnosis culminates with a performance improvement proposal having the likely need of human expertise being a part of the improvement effort. The overall process is portrayed in Figure 10.6.

Given the need for human expertise, the documentation of what a person needs to know and be able to do (expertise) is the second part of the analysis phase. The TPS addresses job and task analysis with special tools for documenting procedural, system, and knowledge work. Task analysis invariably requires close careful study and generally spending time with a subject matter expert in his or her work setting. The process is portrayed in Figure 10.7.

Phase 2: Design

Create and/or acquire general and specific strategies for people to develop workplace expertise. T&D design is at the program and lesson/session levels. At the program design level, the overall design strategy must be economically, systemically, and psychologically sound. Critical information that will influence the design is gathered. The “Training Strategy Model” depicted in Figure 10.8 allows the program designer to consider the critical interaction between the stability of the content, the number of trainees, and the primary method used to develop the required knowledge and expertise.

[Chart: Figure 10.6 Diagnosing Performance.]

Source: Swanson, 2007, p. 58.

239

[Chart: Figure 10.7 Documenting Expertis.]

Source: Swanson, 2007, p. 130.

[Image: Figure 10.8 Training Strategy Model.]

240

In thinking about delivery methods one can plan using about the continuum of training being “Media-led” through “Instructor-led.” All would likely use media; the dividing point is when the locus of delivery control is in the instructor or within the media itself.

Media-led includes such alternatives as interactive video, computer-based training/performance support programmed instruction (video/audio/paper), and programmed instruction/job aid (paper). In contrast, instructor-led involves off-site classrooms, on-site classrooms, structured on-the-job, and learning team settings.

T&D Design Templates The “Whole-Part-Whole Learning Model” (Swanson and Law, 1993) serves as the basis for T&D design templates. The basic human psychological need for the “whole” (as explained by Gestalt psychology) and the need for the “parts” (as explained by behavioral psychology) are utilized to structure whole-part-whole (W-P-W) learning templates. The W-P-W model can be applied at both the program design and individual lesson/session design levels.

General Whole-Part-Whole Model

Whole-Part

1. Whole
2. 2. Part
3. Whole
4. Whole-Part-Whole Technical T&D Design Template

Whole-Part

1. Operation/equipment/system overview
2. Startup
3. Operation
4. Shutdown
5. Defects/faults
6. Troubleshooting
7. Solo performance
8. Whole-Part-Whole Management T&D Design Template

Whole-Part

1. Objectives/purpose of training
2. Illustration of good/bad performance
3. Conceptual model
4. Elements of the model
5. Techniques
6. Practice/role playing
7. Managerial implications discussion

241

1. Whole-Part-Whole Motivational T&D Design Template

Whole-Part

1. Acceptance of group/individuals
2. Problem/opportunity
3. Fear/greed illustrations (with role models)
4. The solution
5. Solicit commitment to solution
6. Vision success

Lesson/Session Plan Design The lesson/session plan is the final and official document in the design phase. It brings together the original performance requirement, the documentation of expertise, and the resulting training objectives into the “artful” articulation of content and method. The lesson/session plan is not a private document. It is the property of the sponsoring organization, and it should be detailed to the point that another knowledgeable trainer could take the lesson/session plan and the supporting materials and teach essentially the same content via the same method in the same period of time.

Phase 3: Develop

Develop and/or acquire participant and instructor training materials needed to execute the training design. There is an almost unlimited range of instructor-and media-based T&D materials and media options available to the T&D profession. The development of training materials is a paradox. While the range of creative options is enormous, most training programs actually utilize planned materials such as those portrayed in level 2 of the following five-level portrayal:

Level 1: No planned instructor materials; no planned participant materials.

Level 2: Projected slides; paper copies of the transparencies or slides for the participants.

Level 3: Projected slides; trainee’s print materials in the form of a structured trainee notebook (including paper copies of the transparencies or slides for the participants).

Level 4: Projected slides; trainees print materials in the form of a structured trainee notebook (paper copies of the transparencies or slides for the participants included); workplace objects and artifacts from the tasks to be learned; dynamic or interactive support materials such as video, interactive video, in-basket case, and simulation.

Level 5: Materials are designed to the level that they can mediate the development of knowledge and expertise without the need of a trainer.

There are practical reasons for producing materials at level 2. It is easy to visualize a situation in which only one to two trainees are participating and the content is unstable. In such an instance, structured on-the-job training would likely be

242

the best method utilizing inexpensive level 2 training materials (see Sisson, 2001). In a similar vein, practical considerations are the primary basis for choosing any of the levels.

Once materials are developed, the critical issue emerges of testing T&D programs prior to program implementation. Organizations can approach pilot-testing of training programs in five ways:

1. Conduct a full pilot test of the program with a representative sample of participants.
2. Conduct a full pilot test of the program with a group of available participants.
3. Utilize the first offering of the program as the pilot test, being sure to inform the participants of this fact and gain their support in providing improvement information.
4. Conduct a “walk-through” of the entire program with a selected group of professional colleagues and potential recipients.
5. Presenter of the program conducts a dry run by him- or herself.

Most organizations rely on 5, 4, and 3 to meet the pilot test requirements. For programs with limited offerings, options 4 and 5 are used.

Phase 4: Implement

Manage individual training programs and their delivery to participants. The issues around managing and delivering T&D to participants suggests that the strategies for both have been thought through and planned into program materials.

Managing individual T&D programs should not be confused with leading or managing a T&D department. The focus here is on managing individual programs that will most likely be offered on numerous occasions by a variety of presenters. Managing T&D programs should be thought of as those activities (things, conditions, and decisions) necessary to implement a particular training program. They can also be thought of as generally taking place before, during, or after the training event with time specifications recorded in weeks (or days) for the “before” and “after” time periods and hours (or minutes) on the lesson plans for the “during” period of the training event.

Either a simple paper- or computer-based project management system is typically used. It requires specification of the activity, activity details, initial and completion dates, and the responsible party for each. These data can be matrixed into a management chart or placed in a simple computer database for assignments and follow-ups.

Delivery of T&D to participants is the pressure point in the T&D process. Presenters want to succeed, and participants want high-quality interaction. Critics of T&D bemoan the fact that this often causes presenters to digress to gimmicks and entertainment instead of facing and managing delivery problems. One

243

study identified the following twelve most common delivery problems of beginning trainers and the general tactics used by expert trainers in addressing those problems (Swanson and Falkman, 1997):

Delivery Problems and Expert solutions (in brackets)

1. Fear (Be well prepared; Use ice breakers; Acknowledge fear).
2. Credibility (Dont apologize; Have an attitude of an expert; Share personal background).
3. Personal experiences (Report personal experiences; Report experiences of others; Use analogies, movies, famous people).
4. Difficult learners (Confront problem behavior; Circumvent dominating behavior; Use small groups for timid behavior).
5. Participation (Ask open-ended questions; Plan small group activities; Invite participation).
6. Timing (Plan well; Practice, practice, practice).
7. Adjust instruction (Know group needs; Request feedback; Redesign during breaks).
8. Questions (Answering: Anticipate questions; Paraphrase learners questions; “I don’t know” is OK). (Asking: Ask concise questions; Defer to participants).
9. 9. Feedback (Solicit informal feedback; Do summative evaluations).
10. Media, materials, facilities (Media: Know equipment; Have back-ups; Enlist assistance). (Material: Be prepared) (Facilities: Visit facility beforehand; Arrive early).
11. Openings and closings (Openings: Develop an “Openings” file; Memorize; Relax trainees; Clarify expectations). (Closings: Summarize concisely; Thank participants).
12. Dependence on notes (Notes are necessary; Use cards; Use visuals; Practice).

Phase 5: Evaluate

Determine and report training and development effectiveness in terms of performance, learning, and satisfaction. The TPS draws upon a results assessment system (Swanson and Holton, 1999) that is conceptually connected to the first phase–analysis. In effect, it is first and foremost a checkup on those three goal-focused questions from the analysis phase: (1) Does the organization perform better? (2) Does the work process perform better? (3) Do the individuals (group) perform better? With learning being an important performance variable, assessing learning in terms of knowledge and expertise is seen as an essential intermediate goal. To a lesser extent, the perception of T&D participants and program stakeholders is viewed as important.

244

Based on an analysis of actual T&D practices, traditionally there have been three domains of expected outcomes: performance (individual to organizational), learning (knowledge to expertise), and perception (participant and stakeholder). To focus on a single realm changes the purpose, strategy, and techniques of an intervention. If an intervention is expected to result in highly satisfied participant-learners, T&D professionals will engage in very different activities than if the expected outcome were to increase organizational performance. With organizational performance as the desired outcome, T&D professionals will spend time with managers, decision makers, and subject-matter experts close to the performance setting throughout the T&D process. If the outcome is satisfied learner-participants, T&D people will likely spend time asking potential participants what kind of T&D experience they like, will focus on “fun-filled” group processes, and will have facilities with pleasing amenities.

It is not always rational to think that every T&D program will promise and assess performance, learning, and perception outcomes. Furthermore, it is irrational to think that a singular focus on one domain (performance, learning, or perception) will result in gains in the others. For example:

* An overly demanding T&D program could leave participants less than thrilled with their experience.

* Participants may gain new knowledge and expertise that cannot be used in their work setting.

* Participants can thoroughly enjoy a T&D program but actually learn little or nothing.

Being clear about the expected outcomes from T&D is essential for good practice. As the saying goes, “If you do not know where you are going, you will likely end up someplace else” (Mager, 1966).

Leading the Training and Development Process

Lead and maintain the integrity of the training and development process. The leadership task is the most important task within the T&D effort. The training process requires strong individuals to champion the mission, goals, process, and specific efforts of training in context of the organization. To do this, the champion must clearly articulate to all parties the outputs of training and their connection to the organization, the process by which the work is done, and the roles and responsibilities of the training stakeholders.

Outputs of Training

The output of the TPS is human expertise for the purpose of improving performance. Such a decision radically affects the training process and the training stakeholders. The TPS acknowledges that training by itself can develop expertise and that workplace performance is beyond the training experience alone. Thus:

245

* Obtaining workplace performance almost always requires line manager actions as well as training.

* Managers must be fully responsible partners in performance improvement interventions that rely on training.

Other common, and less effective, outputs of training have been

* clock hours of training or the number of people trained;

* meeting compliance requirements from external or internal source of authority;

* management and/or participant satisfaction apart from measures of knowledge, expertise, and performance;

* knowledge gains that are marginally connected to performance requirements; and

* expertise gains that are marginally connected to performance requirements.

Process of Training

Training leaders must have expertise in a defined training process. The TPS is one such process. Training leaders must advocate for the training process based on findings from research and experience.

Training Stakeholders

Expertise among the stakeholders is required to carry out the defined training process. Leaders select or develop the professional training expertise required by the defined training process. Roles and responsibilities of those working in the process–the stakeholders–must also be defined and managed (see the next section).

INDIVIDUAL-FOCUSED TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT

Most traditional structured classroom T&D is organized for groups of 12-24. In the same organizations, workplaces are generally filled with ongoing delivery of one-on-one training involving a trainer and a trainee. Two well-documented systems provide strategies for this work that typically is provided just in time (at the time the worker needs the knowledge and expertise) and is narrow in scope (task focused). The first strategy, Hands-On Training (Sisson, 2001) involves using fellow workers to be trainers of realms in which they are subject-matter experts. The second is Structured On-the-Job Training (Jacobs, 2003) and involves a professional trainer engaging and preparing subject-matter experts to deliver task level training one-on-one in the workplace.

246

Employee to Employee T&D

Sisson (2001) describes Hands-on Training (HOT) as a way of organizational life and not really a training program in the traditional sense. He sees it as a tool that can become part of the natural work setting, yet still dependent on following a step-by-step system, trainees learning the right way of doing the job, and an instructor competent in using HOT.

Sisson presents HOT as including six steps, under the acronym POPPER, to be followed by the trainer/worker/subject-matter expert:

1. Prepare for training.
2. Open the session.
3. Present the subject.
4. Practice the skills
5. Evaluate the performance
6. Review the subject

Sisson’s one-hundred-page book describing HOT POPPER can be put directly into the hands of workers taking on the role of training others efficiently and effectively in tasks they have mastered. The core arguments supporting HOT POPPER include it having (1) low costs and high returns, (2) simplicity, and (3) the belief that it adds basic order to something that is going to happen anyway–learning from each other in the workplace.

Trainer to Employee T&D

Jacobs (2003) defines structured on-the-job training (S-OJT) as “The planned process of developing competencies on units of work by having an experienced employee train a novice employee at the work setting or a location that closely resembles the work setting” (p. 29). He estimates that 90 percent of job-specific knowledge is learned on the job (trial and error), and that more money is spent indirectly by organizations on OJT than is spent directly on structured training that takes place off the job. Furthermore, Jacobs (2003) estimates that the costs on unstructured OJT job training (trial and error) consumes up to one third of the salary paid to an employee in the first year.

The S-OJT system is illustrated in Figure 10.9. The four major elements include: Training Inputs, Training Process, Training Outputs, and Organizational Context.

S-OJT relies on T&D professionals to oversee and carry out programs. Subject-matter experts are called upon as team members for content input, development, and delivery while under the direction of a T&D specialist. This level of professional oversight distinguishes it from the HOT POPPER methodology that can be placed totally in the hands of the subject-matter expert.

247

[Chart: Figure 10.9 The Structured On-the-Job Training System.]

Source: Jacobs, 2003, p. 31.

TEAM/GROUP-FOCUSED T&D

Team/group-focused T&D is a relatively new phenomenon compared to groups of individuals experiencing a T&D program together. Various titles are used– such as action learning, organizational learning, and the learning organization– and they are rooted in two thought streams. One has to do with the power of group learning, versus individual learning and the second is related to the anticipated gains from creating an organizational culture that values and captures the fruits of continuous learning. These T&D options are typically pursued outside the demand for immediate performance results and in anticipation of future demands. Two well-documented strategies include action learning (Yorks, 2005) and the learning organization (Marquardt, 2002).

Action Learning

Yorks (2005) defines action learning as “an approach to working with, and developing people, on an actual project or problem as a way to learn. Participants work in small groups to take action to solve their problem and to learn from that action. Often a learning coach works with the group in order to help members learn how to balance their work with the learning from that work” (p.185).

Yorks provides a Work-based Learning Pyramid (see Figure 10.10) to help practitioners make one of four program design choices based on the outcomes desired.

248

[Image: Figure 10.10 Work-based Learning Pyramid.]

Source: Yorks, 2005, p. 189.

The pyramid illustrates learning experiences that increase in depth and complexity as action learning moves up from its base from level one to level four. The interplay with the intensity of the dynamics with the host organization also increases as the levels increase. He calls this factor organizational noise.

Yorks (2005) goes on to say that design decisions are important and that they must be in alignment with the purpose of the program, the adequacy of the support for the learning goals, and organizational culture readiness to support the action learning program.

Organizational Learning

Marquardt (2002) bluntly states that “organizations must learn faster and adapt faster to changes in the environment or they will simply not survive. As in any transitional period, the dominant but dying species (nonlearning organizations) and the emerging, more adaptive species (learning organizations) presently exist side by side. Within the next ten years, I predict that only learning organizations will be left” (pp. xi-xii). Marquardt goes on to list sixteen general steps in building a learning organization and the extensive cultural shift it demands:

249

1. Commit to becoming a learning organization
2. Form a powerful coalition for change.
3. Connect learning with business operations.
4. Access the organization’s capabilities on each subsystem of the Systems Learning Organization model.
5. Communicate the vision of a learning organization.
6. Recognize the importance of systems thinking and action.
7. Leaders demonstrate and model commitment to learning.
8. Transform the organizational culture to one of continuous learning and improvement.
9. Establish corporate-wide strategies for learning.
10. Reduce bureaucracy and streamline the structure.
11. Extend learning to the entire business chain.
12. Capture learning and release knowledge.
13. Acquire and apply best technology to the best learning.
14. Create short-term wins.
15. Measure learning and demonstrate learning successes.
16. Adapt, improve, and learn continuously (p. 211).

TRAINING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

T&D leaders manage and improve the training process. Having a defined process, such as the Training for Performance System (TPS), is a critical first step. Having people with adequate expertise to function in their assigned training process roles is another critical component. Even with these conditions in place, the training process will not necessarily work or work smoothly, let alone improve.

It is therefore important to identify the specific stakeholder roles in the training process, their responsibilities, and the process quality standards. The TPS phases and steps constitute the process. The roles, responsibilities, and process quality standard decisions could vary with specific organizations, but generally they would include the following:

Roles:

Upper management; Line manager; T&D manager; Program leader; Program evaluator; T&D specialist; Subject-matter expert; Support staff; External consultant; and External provider.

Responsibilities:

Leads program; manages program; produces outputs per program, phase, and/or step; determines whether phase/step level outputs meet quality

250

standard; provides information about program, phase, and/or step; and gets information about program, phase, and/or step.

T&D Process Quality Standards Categories (applied to each TPS phase or step outputs):

Quality features; timeliness; and quantity.

Best decisions as to the specifics on how the three sets of data above interact should be made, recorded, and communicated as a means of further defining the training process for the purpose of ensuring the highest quality of training. These training roles, responsibilities, and quality standards decisions would approximate (or actually become) training policy. Once they are stabilized and adhered to, improvements to the training process can be based on solid data and experience.

CONCLUSION

Training and development (T&D) is a process that has the potential of developing human expertise required to maintain and change organizations. As such, T&D can be strategically aligned to its host organization system strategy and performance goals. T&D also has the potential of developing the expertise required to create new strategic directions for the host organizational system.

REFLECTION QUESTIONS

1. How would you define T&D and describe its relationship to HRD?
2. What is the role of informal and incidental learning in T&D?
3. What are the unique aspects of the training and development component of HRD?
4. What is the purpose of each of the five phases of T&D and the relationship between the phases?
5. How does T&D help with organizational challenges of managing the system and changing the system?

251

CHAPTER 11 The Nature of Expertise

CHAPTER OUTLINE

Introduction

Knowledge versus Expertise

* Insights from Military Training Research and Practice

* Documenting Workplace Expertise

* Learning Strategies for Realms of Expertise

* Expertise and Expert Performance

Operational Definitions of Expertise and Competence Contributed by Richard W. Herling

* The Need for an Operational Understanding of Expertise

* Theoretical Perspectives on Expertise

* Forming an Operational Definition of Expertise

* Implications of Expertise for HRD

Conclusion

Reflection Questions

251

252

The concept of expertise lies at the core of human resource development (HRD). The definition of HRD posited by this book describes it as a process of developing and unleashing expertise for the purpose of improving performance, with training and development (T&D) on the developing side and organization development (OD) on the unleashing side. “Workplace expertise is the fuel of an organization. Expertise can be thought of as the level at which a person is able to perform within a specialized realm of activity” (Swanson, 2007, p. 125).

Expertise is more than just knowing. Pfeffer and Sutton (2000) make the extended and documented case that “knowing what to do is not enough” (p. 1). They go on to report: “One of the main reasons that knowledge management efforts are often divorced from day-to-day activities is that managers, consulting firms, and information technologists who design and build systems for collecting, storing, and retrieving knowledge have limited, often inaccurate, views of how people actually use knowledge in their jobs” (Pfeffer and Sutton, 2000, p. 18). Expertise, not just knowledge, addresses the serious issue of the knowing-doing gap. Groopman’s book on How Doctors Think magnifies the issue when he cites studies of doctors’ diagnoses being wrong 15-20 percent of the time (2000, p. 24). These are errors at the diagnosis stage, with treatment errors posing additional risks.

The success of an HRD intervention, regardless of the philosophy on which it is based–learning or performance–is achieved through the development and utilization of an organization’s human resources. The development of human resources for the purpose of improving performance requires an ability to understand expertise. While expertise is a complex human state, a basic grasp of the characteristics of expertise makes it possible to formulate an operational definition of expertise and its prerequisites that are applicable to HRD. A solid understanding of the nature of expertise is required of HRD professionals that desire to develop varying levels of expertise in others.

KNOWLEDGE VERSUS EXPERTISE

There are important considerations related to HRD programs sponsored by organizations with particular goals in mind. These considerations specifically influence the T&D role as it relates to developing expertise and its prerequisite knowledge.

Insights from Military Training Research and Practice

The disciplines of psychology and education have a long history of studying the learning process, what happens inside the learner, and the external conditions that bear upon the learning process. These extensive studies have resulted in countless learning principles and learning theories.

252

253

Learning psychologist Robert Gagne had a long and distinguished career working in the military as a researcher and as a university faculty member in both psychology and education. His presidential address to the American Psychological Association resulted in an article titled, “Military Training and the Principles of Learning” (Gagne, 1962). Addressing those with an orientation to studying the learner and the learning process, he presented a simple countertheory to effective training. He concluded from his years of research and practice that it was more important to analyze the detailed substance of the task to be learned than it was to analyze the learner. Furthermore, he advanced three principles (Gagne, 1962):

1. Provide instruction on a set of component tasks that build toward a final task.
2. Ensure that each component task is mastered.
3. Sequence the component tasks to ensure optimal transfer to the final task.

All three principles are predicated on a detailed analysis of the task expertise to be learned. As for trial-and-error experience, Gagne went on to illustrate its ineffectiveness. Assessment and feedback to the learners on their task experience while learning was found to be essential.

Documenting Workplace Expertise

Documenting required workplace expertise is a core activity in T&D. If it is done properly, this documentation has many uses. Documentation of workplace expertise clarifies the individual performance goals, provides invaluable information regarding the amount of effort needed to acquire the expertise, provides insights to select the best methods for developing the expertise, and provides the performance standards useful for creating learning goals and the criteria for assessing learner attainment of expertise. The overall process of documenting workplace expertise is illustrated in Figure 11.1.

The true substance of this process of analyzing expertise, as described earlier by Gagne, is in the detailed analysis of tasks (see Swanson, 2007). Three categories of tasks, each with a unique analysis process, are presented: Procedural Tasks, System Tasks, and Knowledge Tasks.

Learning Strategies for Realms of Expertise

The looming worry is that “T&D may become a kind of ritual, full of important-sounding terms and acronyms, trendy techniques, and clever activities, all supported by the latest technology but devoid of real learning” (Davis and Davis, 1998, p. 2). Davis and Davis, educational psychologists, have created T&D strategies that embrace Gagne’s view that studying the task to be learned is more important than studying the learner in creating the desired expertise.

254

[Chart: Figure 11.1 Overall Process of Documenting Workplace Expertise.]

Source: Swanson, 2007, p. 132.

255

Based on extensive field research of the learning needs in organizations, they created specific learning strategies organized around general areas of expertise required in contemporary organizations. Their approach is to start from the identified realm of expertise and then go to the selection of an appropriate training strategy, providing complete details related to the conduct of the strategy based on learning research. The seven training strategies proposed by Davis and Davis (1998) include:

* The Behavioral Strategy: Skill Development and Coaching

* The Cognitive Strategy: Presentations and Explanations

* The Inquiry Strategy: Critical, Creative, and Dialogical Thinking

* The Mental Models Strategy: Problem Solving and Decision Making

* The Group Dynamics Strategy: Human Relations and Teamwork

* The Virtual Reality Strategy: Role Play, Dramatic Scenarios, and Simulation

* The Holistic Strategy: Mentoring and Counseling

The intent of these strategies is to bridge the desired expertise needs of an organization and provide efficient and effective learning methods for achieving them.

Expertise and Expert Performance

The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (Ericsson, Charness, Feltovich, and Hoffman, Eds., 2006) provides a voluminous account of the quest for understanding expertise. From a psychological perspective, the handbook pro vides the following generalizable characteristics of expertise (Ericsson, Charness, Feltovich, and Hoffman, Eds., 2006, pp. 47-60):

Expertise is limited in its scope and elite performance does not transfer. People hardly ever reach the highest level in more than one domain. Even when domains are seemingly very similar, there is very little transfer in proficiency from one domain to another (Ericsson, Charness, Feltovich, and Hoffman, Eds., 2006).

Knowledge and content matter are important to expertise. Problem solving and expert performance in a specific realm are primarily a function of knowledge, patterns, and associated actions within that specific realm (Newell and Simon, 1972). Identifying the tasks and substance of expert performance gets beyond the general ability factors that are used to describe novices.

Expertise involves larger and more integrated cognitive units. The working environment of experts increases as they gain additional experience (Glaser and Chi, 1988). Experts chunk their knowledge and increase the size of those chunks for ready access.

Expertise involves functional, abstracted representations of presented information. While experts chunk their knowledge and can readily access and integrate it,

256

novices get caught up in trying to impose organization and meaning to their tasks. “Experts see and represent a problem in their domain at a deeper (more principled) level than novices; novices tend to represent a problem at a superficial level” (Glaser and Chi, 1988, p. xviii).

Expertise involves automated basic strokes. Experts with great experience perform faster, smoother, and with less cognitive effort. Thus, they have additional reserve for reflection and added tasks (Ericsson, Charness, Feltovich, and Hoffman, Eds., 2006). Research has shown that automaticity is central to the development of expertise and that it is gained through practice.

Expertise involves selective access to relevant information. Experts demonstrate a selectivity in sorting through information that is very useful versus tangential (Patel and Groen, 1991). Experts demonstrate capacity to invert knowledge as illustrated in understanding a normal functional process versus thinking backwards when troubleshooting that same process when it is failing (Swanson, 2007).

Expertise involves reflection. Experts have the cognitive capacity to perform, as well as the capacity to reflect on their thinking and their methods (Glaser and Chi, 1988). Experts reflecting have the capacity to backtrack through information and evaluate, often withholding decisions until they are satisfied with their conclusion.

Expertise is an adaptation. “The development of expertise is largely a matter of amassing considerable skills, knowledge, and mechanisms that monitor and control cognitive processes to perform a delimited set of tasks efficiently and effectively. Experts restructure, reorganize, and refine their representation of knowledge and procedures for efficient application to their work a day environments” (Ericsson, Charness, Feltovich, and Hoffman, Eds., 2006, p. 57).

Simple experience is not sufficient for the development of expertise. “Reviews of the relation between the amount of experience and the attained level of performance show consistently that once an acceptable level of performance is attained, there are hardly any benefits from the common kind of additional experience (Ericsson, Charness, Feltovich, and Hoffman, Eds., 2006, p. 60). To improve performance, opportunities for reflection, exploration of alternatives, and problem solving in a protected environment and the help of other experts is required.

Understanding expert performance provides insights as to those who perform higher than most others up through those who attain the highest possible levels of human performance. In addition, understanding expert performance also provides insights as to the steps, stages, and process of attaining expertise.

The following contribution by Richard W. Herling is a distillation of related ideas related to expertise, not a meta-analysis of the literature. The purpose is to present a basic conceptual understanding of expertise as it applies to individual performance within the context of HRD. This understanding can then be used to formulate an operational definition of human expertise applicable to the theory and practice of HRD.

257

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF EXPERTISE AND COMPETENCE

Contributed by Richard W. Herling

When discussing the concept of human performance, there is a natural tendency to interchange the terms expert and expertise. Several assumptions should be made in developing an operational definition of expertise. The first assumption is that expertise represents a journey, not just a destination. Therefore the term “expertise” characterizes an active process from which experts emerge. The second assumption is that every person, because of his or her acquired experiences, possesses some level of expertise. The final assumption is that human expertise and its development is of primary interest and importance to HRD.

The Need for an Operational Understanding of Expertise

After decades of downsizing, right-sizing, restructuring, reorganizing, and reengineering (various perceived methods of attaining organizational effectiveness), organizations are beginning to realize that their expensive workforce can be thought of as one resource at their disposal which has the greatest potential for attaining and maintaining long-term profitability and growth, not simply a cost to be reduced. In many organizations, human resources are widely recognized as a significant competitive advantage (Pfeffer, 1994; Reichheld, 1996). As noted by Torraco and Swanson (1995), “business success increasingly hinges on an organization’s ability to use its employee’s expertise as a factor in the shaping of its business strategy” (p. 11). Stated another way, it is the combined knowledge, experience, and expertise of the organization’s human resources that has become the new competitive edge in the marketplace.

Competence May No Longer Be Enough

As a result of recognizing the workforce as a competitive advantage, caring about their human competence base, and how it is developed, business organizations and governments now realize that their market value increasingly relies on the knowledge and expertise of their employees (McLagan, 2002). Fortunately, a competent workforce is well within the grasp of any organization, but competence is not enough.

The potential to use specific sets of knowledge and skills is what Jacobs (2002) defines as employee competence, noting “employee competence should be viewed within its proper performance context” (p. 281). In the context of most organizations, being competent only indicates that an employee has an ability to do something (one’s job) at a satisfactory level and not necessarily at a level that would be considered as outstanding, exceeding expectations, or even above average. In open and adaptive systems, change is inevitable, and therefore the “proper

258

performance context” is constantly being redefined. As represented by Swanson’s taxonomy of performance (2007, p. 24), the expertise required to maintain a system is significantly different from the expertise required to change the system.

This constant change and redefining serves to highlight the limitations of competence. To remain competitive, business organizations and the individuals within those organizations must be able to adapt to the “constantly changing world of new strategies, memberships on multiple teams, customer requirements, and competitive maneuvers” (McLagan, 1997, p. 45). They must become top performers, not satisfactory performers. Thus, to gain competitive advantage, it is the development of workplace expertise, not minimal competence, which is vital to optimal individual and organizational performance. HRD processes, at their best, provide the methods and the means for “improving performance through the development and unleashing of human expertise.”

The Context for Understanding of Expertise

In the context of individual performance and human resource development, expertise is defined as “the optimal level at which a person is able and/or expected to perform within a specialized realm of human activity” (Swanson, 2007, p. 125). As a descriptive definition of expertise, this provides clarity and focus as expertise is generally thought of as the possession of superior skills or knowledge in a particular area of study. Expertise is also generally recognized as implying proficiency, which is based on a common understanding that an individual gains expertise, and thus proficiency, only through experience and training.

Although an actual measurement of expertness remains illusive, the importance of quantifying expertise has long been recognized. The general level of expertise an individual possesses is readily observable through his or her actions. The need to quantify and the ease of recognizing various levels of expertness has resulted in the classification of different levels of human expertise using myriad terms, typically ranging from novice to expert (Jacobs, 2002; Hoffman, Shadbolt, Burton, and Klein, 1995; Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1993). Unfortunately, the classification of different levels of human expertise, without the ability to quantitatively measure expertise, has limited utility.

Linking Expertise to Performance through Measurement

It is well accepted that the performance of an organization can be evaluated and addressed at three levels: organization, process, and individual job performer (Rummler and Brache, 1995; Swanson, 2007), and that in regard to initiating performance improvement actions, the primary tool for linking the three levels of performance together is measurement. In fact, Rummler and Brache (1995) argue, “without measures we don’t get the desired performance” (p. 135), that “measurement is the foundation for managing organizations as systems” (p. 134), and that it is only through measurement that performance can be monitored, managed, and improved. Swanson (2007), in a more direct manner, simply notes

259

“it is foolhardy to talk about development, change, and performance improvement without specifying the measure of performance” (p.67).

This perspective establishes a clear need for the measurement of expertise– for a definition of the term that will support the efforts of an organization to improve its performance by enabling the performance levels of its human resources to be quantified. Current descriptive definitions of expertise do not meet this need because they do not operationally define what expertise is.

Theoretical Perspectives on Expertise

In the past thirty years entire books, complete chapters, and numerous papers have been written in response to the question: What is expertise? (Chi, Glaser, and Farr, 1988; Slatter, 1990; Ericcson and Smith, 1991; Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1993; Swanson, 2007). For the purpose of developing a basic conceptual understanding of expertise, an in-depth review of the past literature is not necessary; instead it can be derived from a brief examination of several theoretical perspectives.

Cognitive Theories of Expertise

The focused research efforts on the topic of experts and expertise began with the study of expert chess players by deGoot and his published findings in 1965. The flurry of research activity that immediately followed this initial event studied the differences in performance between experts and nonexperts (Johnson, 1988).

After researchers studied expert and nonexpert differences in various human domains, the focus shifted to exploring basic information-processing capabilities inside individuals. These studies resulted in “theories of problem-solving being stated in terms of the human information-processing system” (Kuchinke, 1997). These theories provided the basis for second generation theories that focused on the expert’s ability to solve complex problems. The outcome of this refocused research effort, as summarized by Glaser and Chi (1988) and included in Kuchinke’s (1997) update of the current theories and literature, was the identification of several key characteristics of experts related to how they solve problems and how they acquire, process, and retrieve information. This combined research indicated that experts (1) know more, (2) use the information they have differently, (3) have better recall, (4) solve problems faster, (5) see problems at a deeper level, (6) analyze problems qualitatively, and (7) are more aware of their ability to make mistakes.

Research on expertise theory is still evolving. Based on a realization that there may be no single expert way, current theory and research work is examining expertise as an “ability to rapidly organize and process small bits of information into meaningful and creative solutions to specific problems” (Kuchinke, 1997).

Overview of the Knowledge Engineering Theories of Expertise

While the cognitive psychologists attempted to discover what was required to be an expert, knowledge engineering, another area of study highly interested in

260

human expertise, took a different approach and focused on the replication of human expertise.

Through their attempts to create artificial intelligence, the work of knowledge engineers focused on how an expert thinks. Their results and findings closely paralleled the work of the cognitive psychologists. Over the decades, the knowledge engineers theorized expertise as a thinking process and formulated five major model classifications of human expertise: heuristic models, deep models, implicit models, competence models, and distributed models (Slatter, 1990).

In the beginning, the heuristic models loosely defined expertise as the acquisition of lots of information, including heuristic knowledge–knowledge about a specific domain. Heuristic knowledge, the problem-solving rules of thumb of a specific domain, was seen as the shallow knowledge.

The deep knowledge models advanced the general theory of expertise by suggesting that experts use “hierarchical relationships, causal models and specialist representation of domain objects … capturing the temporal, spatial, and/or analogical properties” of the domain to solve complex problems (Slatter, 1990, p. 138).

The implicit models that followed this initial work of the knowledge engineers, attempted to explain expertise by differentiating between implicit knowledge and explicit knowledge. In this context, explicit knowledge was seen to encompass the known facts of a specific domain, while implicit knowledge represented the “non-articulable experience-base knowledge that enables a skilled expert to solve a task in an effortless, seemingly intuitive fashion” (Slatter, 1990, p. 141).

The competence models made a distinction between domain knowledge (static knowledge) and task knowledge (action knowledge). The implication is that expertise is a competence-level term denoting the potential for doing something. These models of expertise recognize that experts know a great deal about a specific domain and that experts use this knowledge to effectively solve problems. The task knowledge, which is gained from the practice of domain-specific behaviors, is compiled by the expert within his or her domain of knowledge in an ongoing search for better ways to do things, including problem solving.

The underlying assumption of the fifth class of expertise models, the distributed models, is that the expertise required to solve complex problems may be distributed among many individuals. The distributed models explain expertise as being a combination of domain knowledge, task knowledge, and cooperative knowledge (knowledge about how one communicates and interacts with others). Consequently, these models are more concerned with what an expert must know to cooperatively solve problems.

The Elements of Expertise

Although a large body of knowledge has been, and continues to be, added to our understanding of the nature of expertise by the cognitive psychologists, cognitive scientists, and knowledge engineers, after thirty years of advancing research on

261

this topic have not been able to agree on what expertise is. In fact, Kuchinke’s (1997) review of the expertise theories and Slatter’s (1990) summary explanation of the expertise models have shown, through a lack of consensus, that human expertise cannot be operationally defined by its processes. However, the combined summaries of the two reviewers have brought to light several commonly shared elements in the various theories of expertise: (1) Expertise is a dynamic state; (2) expertise is domain specific; and (3) the basic components of expertise are knowledge and associated skills, experience, and problem-solving heuristics. Figure 11.2 is presented as a representation of the relationship of these three foundational concepts of expertise.

Working from this perspective, the most important concept of expertise is that it is a dynamic state–an internal process of continuous learning by the individual characterized by the constant acquisition of knowledge, reorganization of information, and progressive solving of problems. The importance of recognizing expertise as a dynamic state lies in the realization that a person never stops acquiring expertise. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993) summarized the dynamic characteristic of expertise in their descriptive comparison of experts and nonexperts. The “career of the expert is one of progressively advancing on problems constituting a field of work, whereas the career of the nonexpert is one of gradually constricting the field of work so that it more closely conforms to the routines the nonexpert is prepared to execute” (p. 11).

[Image: Figure 11.2 The Basic Components of Expertise.]

The second shared element, that of expertise being domain-specific, may have the most impact on the future creation of programs designed to develop expertise in individuals. The majority of research suggests that extensive, specialized knowledge is “required for excellence in most fields” (Gleespen, 1996, p. 502). Research also indicates that “there is little evidence that a person highly skilled in one domain can transfer the skill to another” (Glaser and Chi, 1988, p. xvii). Cognitive psychologists have theorized that “there are some domains where nearly everyone becomes an expert, like reading English words” (Posner, 1988, p. xxxi),

262

but note that the demonstration of expertise in one domain is no guarantee of expertise in other areas (Glaser, 1985, p. 7).

The third foundational concept highlighted by the earlier review of the expertise models and theories is that expertise is composed of a few basic components. Although there was not always agreement among the researchers as to which component took precedence, all identified in some manner knowledge, experience, and problem-solving heuristics as the distinguishing points of difference between experts and nonexperts. These three common elements can be viewed as the fundamental components of human expertise. Each one is clearly measurable, and therefore it is reasonable to expect that an operational definition of expertise can be developed from them.

To validate the proposed definition, a closer examination of each of the three components is required.

The Knowledge Component of Expertise

Knowledge appeared in every reviewed theory and model of expertise, and in almost every case it was either descriptively different, or multiple types of knowledge were specified.

Depending upon the theories or models being examined, the knowledge required for expertise could be implicit or explicit, shallow or deep, task specific or heuristic. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993), in their inquiry into the nature of expertise, noted that “every kind of knowledge has a part in expertise” (p. 74). Their definition for every kind of knowledge included what they classified as the obvious kinds of knowledge–procedural knowledge and formal knowledge–as well as what they referred to as the less obvious kinds–informal knowledge, impressionistic knowledge, and self-regulatory knowledge.

Although there may be some disagreement among the theories and models regarding the specific type of knowledge required for expertise, the theorists are in agreement on two points. First, that for the purposes of expertise, knowledge is, and has to be, domain-specific. Second, that knowledge is an interactive component of expertise, one of the requirements for expertise, but not expertise in and of itself. As noted by Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993), nonexperts, as well as experts, have knowledge, “the difference is in how much they have, how well integrated it is, and how effectively it is geared to performance” (p. 74).

The Experience Component of Expertise

Just as it is recognized that all experts are knowledgeable, it is also understood that all experts are experienced. Based on their studies of master’s-level chess players, Chase and Simon (1973), as cited in Posner (1988), “reasoned that to achieve a master level of expertise a player had to spend between 10,000 and 20,000 hours staring at chess positions” (p. xxxi). A number of years later, through the studied biographies of experts in many fields, it was generalized that 10,000 hours was the minimum amount of time required to gain expert experience

263

(Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1993, p.17). Thus it has been hypothesized from the research, but not verified, that to become an expert one must have the equivalent of ten years of combined studies and related work experience.

Unfortunately, the term experience, like that of expertise, is a term of varied meanings currently lacking qualifying and quantifying boundaries. When specifically related to the development of human expertise, experience is an interactive component that is heavily dependent upon the type and quality, as well as the quantity, of the events experienced by the individual. As Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993) observed in the performance of equally experienced schoolteachers, based on the training received and the number of years worked, experience in this context “distinguishes old-timers from beginners, but does not distinguish experts from experienced non-experts” (p. 81).

The Problem-Solving Component of Expertise

The key to expertise thus appears to lie in the third component, an individual’s propensity to solve problems. The knowledge engineers, in attempting to replicate the process of applying expertise, have viewed problem solving as the core concept of expertise, and like the concept of knowledge, have ended up describing and identifying a multitude of problem-solving processes.

The concept of problem solving as the primary component of expertise has also been heavily supported by the research of cognitive psychologists and scientists, as summarized by Glaser in his Thoughts on Expertise (Glaser, 1987, as cited by Chi, Glaser, and Farr, 1988). Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993) took the emphasis on this concept one step further by describing problem solving as the dynamic element in the growth of expertise.

Problem solving, as the term is currently used in cognitive psychology, constitutes some amount of searching and/or deliberation in order to find a way to achieve a goal, defining a problem as any nonroutine purposeful activity (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1993).

Wertheimer, an early Gestalt psychologist whose studies and research centered on insightful learning, focused on the abilities required by the individual to solve problems effectively. In his book Productive Thinking (1945), Wertheimer placed the emphasis on the type of solution used for solving a problem rather than on the problem itself. Wertheimer believed that problem solutions depended upon the previous experience of the problem solver, noting that “the prime difference was in the originality used by the problem solver to organize information,” (Hill, 1971, p.102). Wertheimer also believed that true problem solving involved a “real understanding” of both the problem and the environment in which the problem was framed, which in turn would lead to an insightful solution.

Wertheimer’s concepts of real understanding and insightful solutions can also be seen at the core of Bereiter and Scardamalia’s (1993) description of expert and nonexpert problem solving. Bereiter and Scardamalia see problem solving as

264

the single dynamic element in the growth of expertise and experts as being progressive problem solvers, while “the problem-solving efforts of the nonexpert is taken over by well learned routines … aimed at eliminating still more problems thus reducing the activity even further” (p. 81).

Forming an Operational Definition of Expertise

From the preceeding examination of the foundational components of expertise, it can be seen that nonexperts can have vast amounts of knowledge, can have many years of experience, and can also solve problems. Thus, a definition of expertise based simply on combining the elements of knowledge, experience, and problem solving would have very little value.

It is generally agreed that the presence of expertise is readily recognized in an individual’s actions and that we know expertise when we see it. Basing an operational definition on the characteristics of displayed behavior does carry a degree of practicality.

Experts are capable of doing things at a higher level; they have more knowledge, a greater skill level, and better solutions (VanLehn, 1989). The expert-novice research of different occupations (domains) has verified that this is true (Glaser and Chi, 1988; VanLehn, 1989; Ericcson and Smith, 1991). The fundamental basis of expert research has been based on the fact that there are observed differences in the displayed behavior of individuals engaged in the same activities. Thus, the concept of “demonstrated behavior” is essential in formulating an operational definition of expertise.

Behavior, as applied to the discussion of expertise, implies an intended behavior, or action, on the part of the individual, and an action has a consequence, it terminates with a result. Results, and the actions which lead to them, are measurable. Gilbert (1996), equating individual performance to a relationship involving both a behavior and its resulting consequence, believed that the result of behavior should be viewed in the context of value, “the consequence as a valuable accomplishment,” a “valuable performance” (Gilbert, 1996, p. 17). Thus, individual performance can be quantified by comparing the value of the result of the performance to a predetermined standard assessed in terms of time, quality, quantity, or cost. From this perspective, individual performance is representative of the effectiveness of the consequences of an individual’s intended behavior.

Competence is related to expertise. Barrie and Pace (1997) identify this “capacity to think about performance and also to perform” (p. 337) as competence, which concurs with Morf’s (1986) much earlier definition. Morf defined competence as the product of “the worker’s motivational dispositions and abilities that are relevant in the context of work” (p. 15).

Morf (1986) attempted to operationalize this relationship of individual performance to competence by stating that it is “a function of the interaction of the person and the work environment” (p. 113). Based on the premise that “the

265

aspect of the worker most frequently influenced by performance is ability levels,” Morf equated competence to the “new skills developed and new knowledge acquired in the very process of doing a job” (p. 14). In other words, the key element in Morf’s formula for performance was expertise.

Unlike Morf, Gilbert (1996) saw competence not as a component of performance, but as a function of “worthy performance” expressed as “the ratio of valuable accomplishments to costly behavior” (p. 18). Gilbert believed worthy performance was a product of both the work environment and an individual’s repertoire of behavior, or the specialized responses, knowledge, and understanding of a specific area (domain). In Gilbert’s mind, competent people were those individuals who could create valuable results without using excessively costly behavior, and his standard of competence was exemplary performance, which he qualified as the “historically best instance of performance” (p. 30).

Competence can thus be seen as a displayed characteristic of expertise and measurable subsets within an individual’s domain of expertise (Figure 11.3).

From this examination of the characteristics of individual performance and competence, as displayed behavior which is effective, efficient and thus measurable, the remaining pieces of an operational definition of human expertise have been uncovered. As previously stated, we recognize expertise in others by their demonstrated actions. Expanding upon this observation, we recognize experts as those individuals who do things better than anyone else. Experts, in their area of expertise, demonstrate their acquired expertise through outstanding performance, and this means that they can consistently do things more effectively and efficiently than nonexperts.

[Image: Figure 11.3 Competence of a Subset of Expertise.]

Expertise can thus be operationally defined by these two desired characteristics of displayed behavior–the consistent demonstrated actions of an individual which are (1) efficient in their execution and (2) effective in their results.

266

Implications of Expertise for HRD

As a general premise, HRD exists to serve the organization. While the activity of learning can contribute to performance, from the organization’s perspective it is only those activities which clearly improve performance that will be seen as value-added. Optimal performance has precedence over minimal performance, and in this context the ability to quantify expertise–efficient and effective behavior–can be seen as having significant implications to HRD.

One could argue that defining expertise adds no value because performance is reflective of only the lowest level of responsive behavior, and that it is competence which promotes efficiency (Barrie and Pace, 1997). Such an argument lacks merit, for although expertise and competence are clearly linked and unquestionably similar in nature, they are distinctly different. Figure 11.3 illustrates, by the relationship to expertise, the limitations of competence as the ultimate desired outcome.

Competence can be visualized as subsets of expertise. In other words, competence reflects very task-specific actions and is therefore found within an individual’s domain of expertise, not encircling it. In addition, competence, with its primary goal being efficient action, can be seen as both narrowing in its nature and static, unlike expertise which is dynamic and expanding. Competence is seen and described as an outcome (McLagan, 1997), a destination, while expertise is clearly a process (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1993), a journey. Finally, competence is limited to a specific domain of knowledge or expertise, while the individual’s area of expertise, while also recognized as domain specific, is not limited to a single domain but often extends into several related domains. As shown by the example in Figure 11.4, the competencies are tasks specific to selling houses, but the specific domain of expertise–Selling Houses–overlaps the related, but more general, domains of Selling, Marketing, and Real Estate. With the support of this example it should be evident that HRD must look past competence and focus on the development of expertise as a desired outcome in the process of improving performance.

This is not to say that the need or importance of learning, and the competencies that it supports, is diminished. It has always been generally understood that the acquisition of expertise requires study, practice, and experience, although it has never been clear as to how much of each is needed. The result of this lack of understanding has often been a “more-is-better” approach to providing training. Equipped with an operational definition of expertise, the HRD professional is positioned to gain a better understanding of the requirements for improving performance through the development of the organization’s human resources.

The proposed operational definition of expertise allows the actions of exemplary performers within an organization to be benchmarked in qualitative and quantitative terms. This provides HRD the opportunity to focus on the development and implementation of training interventions designed to accelerate both

267

the acquisition of specific knowledge and skills and the transfer of this expertise. However, even in this focused activity there is a potential danger should the goal of these activities be misconstrued by HRD to be the development of experts instead of expertise. As Rummler and Brache (1995) have emphasized, while failure to measure the right things results in no performance improvement, choosing to measure the wrong things (or measuring the right things for the wrong reasons) results in a loss of performance.

[Image: Figure 11.4 The Limitations of Competence.]

CONCLUSION

Based on Herling’s prior analysis, human expertise is clearly a complex, multi -faceted phenomenon, but by the means of an operational definition, expertise can be expressed in measurable terms. He defines expertise as

displayed behavior within a specialized domain and/or related domain in the form of consistently demonstrated actions of an individual which are both optimally efficient in their execution and effective in their results.

268

Competence, a related construct and component of expertise, can also be expressed in measurable terms and defined as

displayed behavior within a specialized domain in the form of consistently demonstrated actions of an individual which are both minimally efficient in their execution and effective in their results.

Through the use of an operational definition of expertise and the recognition of domain specific (1) knowledge, (2) experience, and (3) problem solving as being the core elements of expertise, the HRD profession gains conceptual access to one of the most powerful tools for improving performance. Without the capacity to think and deal with substantive issues of the expertise required by organizations, HRD interventions will be limited to low-level programs like new employee orientation training and general team-building exercises.

REFLECTION QUESTIONS

1. What exactly is expertise and why is it important to HRD?
2. Cite a personal experience that illustrates the concept of expertise.
3. What is the difference between knowledge, competence, and expertise?
4. How would HRD/T&D differ if it were committed to developing knowledge versus expertise?
5. How would HRD/T&D differ if it were committed to competence versus expertise?
6. What challenges to the profession arise from focusing on expertise as an outcome of T&D? How could they be overcome?

269

CHAPTER 12 Training and Development Practices

CHAPTER OUTLINE

Introduction

Variations in T&D Practices

Core T&D Practices

* T&D Revolves around the ADDIE Process

* Use of Subject-Matter Experts

* Interesting and Effective Delivery

* Transfer of Learning to the Workplace

* Effective Use of Information Technology

Individual-Focused T&D Practices

* Single Person Requiring T&D

* Multiple Job Holders Requiring Identical T&D

Group-Focused T&D Practices

* Action Learning

* Team Problem Solving

Work Process-Focused T&D Practices

* Understanding and Studying Processes

* Process-Referenced Training

Organization-Focused T&D Practices

* Core Values through T&D

* System-wide Knowledge and Expertise through T&D

Conclusion

Reflection Questions

269

270

Part Four deals with training and development (T&D). Chapter 10 captured the essence of the T&D component of HRD, and Chapter 11 delved deeper into the nature of expertise. This third and final chapter in this part of the book provides illustrations of T&D practice as it exists in host organizations, along with variations in core thinking that guides T&D practices, interventions, and tools.

VARIATIONS IN T&D PRACTICES

The practices in T&D are extremely varied because of a number of overarching variables. They include variability in mission of the host organization, purpose of the T&D function in the host organization, T&D professional expertise, content of the T&D program, T&D delivery methodology, and expected results from the T&D program. General commentary on these variables follows.

Mission and Culture of the Host Organization

Organizations vary greatly in terms of their missions and strategies, organizational structure, technology, and human resources. T&D in a high-tech financial firm or one that designs and manufactures heart pacemakers will look very different from T&D in a professional lawn care service. High-tech firms and multi-location organizations tend to use information technology in program delivery more than in low-tech, single location organizations.

Purpose of the T&D Function in the Host Organization

T&D based out of a general human resources function tends to be focused on new employee training and is very different from T&D directly under a business unit such as sales or manufacturing. Business unit T&D efforts are most likely to focus on the core expertise related to the goods or services that unit produces and its future technology and business requirements.

T&D Professional Expertise

People hired into T&D positions because of their subject-matter expertise (e.g., a financial investment expert) are very different from those hired because of their T&D process expertise. Ideally, T&D professional have both realms of expertise. Having both T&D expertise and subject matter expertise on a T&D team is required for program excellence.

Purpose of the T&D Program

T&D programs with the purpose of creating participant understanding or awareness will be very different from programs having the purpose of producing expert

270

271

performers upon the completion of the program. The level of expertise expected of people completing programs impacts the training design and in particular the amount and fidelity of experience, role playing, and actual performance within the learning experience. All too often T&D programs mandated by organizational leaders are a cover for incompetent leadership that places the blame for poor performance on ineffective T&D and ineffective workers rather than poor leaders and bad work systems.

Content of the T&D Program

T&D programs having goals and content related to influencing basic values and beliefs of individuals will be very different from technical and management T&D programs. Motivational training programs appeal to values and belief systems rather than logic. Technical training related to systems and procedures appeals to the inherent logic in the work systems. Management T&D related to planning methods and people skills appeals primarily to mental models of roles and strategies required to succeed.

Expected Results from the T&D Program

Expectations of T&D programs aimed at a high-profile performance problem will be looked at very differently from one dealing with a nice-to-know topic like general communication skills or new employee orientation. The closer the T&D effort is to fundamental performance issues, the greater the expectations are for strategic contribution and accountability.

CORE T&D PRACTICES

Within T&D there are a number of fairly standard practices. Six standard practices are presented in this section.

T&D Revolves around the ADDIE Process

While the analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate (ADDIE) phases are usually followed, T&D departments will usually supplement their expertise as needed. One example is the use of external consultants with high expertise and credibility for the analysis and evaluation phases on key projects. Another example is a T&D department holding on tightly to the analysis and evaluation phases and outsourcing the design, development, and implementation as a means of maintaining control while being flexible. Done this way, a relatively small T&D department focused on the analysis and evaluation phases can multiply its impact by being flexible in terms of staff allocation, obtaining required staff expertise on a consulting or contract basis when necessary.

272

Use of Subject-Matter Experts

Some would argue that relying on subject-matter experts is overdone. People who are considered experts in a subject-matter domain and who have good people skills are regularly recruited into the T&D profession because of their subject-matter expertise. They are the best salespeople, the best managers, or the best computer-repair people. The organization wants to “multiply” that expertise. The alternative strategy is to utilize subject-matter experts as members of the HRD team on a project-by-project basis working with those who have formal T&D professional preparation. In this way subject-matter experts continue on with their work while having a temporary T&D assignment or spending just a portion of their work time training people in their realm of expertise.

Professionally trained T&D practitioners operate from the perspective that they are experts in the T&D process, not necessarily the subject matter of a given T&D program. They are experts in the T&D process and as such are skilled at identifying and using subject-matter experts as assistants in the process. The argument can be made that the very best T&D professionals are experts in the T&D process plus the subject domains in which they function.

Interesting and Effective Delivery

T&D has a tradition of wanting to conduct interesting and effective programs. The good reason behind this can be found in the commonsense goal of believing that T&D should be a positive experience, not a negative one. The idea of engaging learners with interesting activities has led to a perverted “fun-filled” training goal that plays into the biggest false ideas that exist in T&D practice. It is not true, for example, that the more participants like a program, the more effective it is. Best practice would say you need to be effective first and worry about being interesting second. The research is clear about this. You can get very high ratings of T&D programs from participants who have not actually learned much and who have not changed as a result of the program when they are back on the job (Al-liger and Janek, 1989; Dixon, 1990).

Transfer of Learning to the Workplace

The goal of transfer is the full application of new knowledge and skills to improve individual and/or group performance in an organization or community. Important actions by a learning project manager and other stakeholders to support transfer of new knowledge and expertise are required for learning transfer.

When managing support for learning transfer becomes part of the organization’s way of doing business, there are no universal “start” or “stop” points. Stakeholder support becomes integrated into an organization-wide strategy. HRD professionals need to share responsibilities and actions with the client and stakeholders as partners. Without visible involvement by managers, learners do not perceive the behavioral change as strategically important to their organization.

273

The learning transfer process from the HRD professional perspective is as follows (Broad, 2000):

* Develop/maintain expertise in managing learning transfer.

* Identify performance requirements (including learning).

* Meet with client.

* Identify stakeholders.

* Meet with client and stakeholders.

* Analyze organizational context for transfer barriers and support.

* Develop learning design.

* Identify support for learners.

* Identify specific stakeholder transfer strategies.

* Implement learning project.

* Implement/manage transfer system.

Effective Use of Information Technology

The T&D component of HRD has had a long tradition of utilizing instructional and information technology in doing its work (Dobbs, 2006). This tradition was heightened with the teaching machines work of Crowder and Skinner in the 1950s. Over the years, many mediums have been and continue to be used. Some include audio recordings, slides, screen projections, movies, and videos.

Contemporary T&D presently uses CD-ROMs and Web-based training. For example, CIGNA HealthCare’s “Applying Underwriting Skills” CD-ROM computer-based instruction (CBI) program was designed for salespeople with less than one year’s experience in their company. The module contains basic- to intermediate-level underwriting information. As with many such technology-based training programs, this course was produced by CIGNA personnel in partnership with external consultants. It was systematically developed using the ADDIE process.

Extensive lesson design documentation was carried out, including the whole-part-whole template, flow charts, content, checkpoints, and formative tests. The extensive documentation of the design was generated by a team made up of CIGNA subject-matter experts and external provider professionals.

The CBI materials were designed to the level that they mediate the development of participant knowledge and expertise without the need of a trainer. A well-organized “Applying Underwriting Skills Reports Binder” was distributed to personnel. It contained a table of contents, twenty cases, job aids, and the CBI disk. In that this program is self-instructional CBI, implementation was driven by the requirement to successfully “test out” of the training modules.

The T&D design and development in this case were exemplary. It was conscious, purposeful, and orderly. The company project staff utilized external consultants in this work while maintaining full control over the project (e.g., design

274

documentation was provided to project staff for review and approval). The case studies were “real” company cases and directly connected training to work performance requirements. This project utilized existing technological infrastructure (portable computers, company local area network [LAN], and general communication technology) to achieve its core goal of developing core workplace knowledge and expertise.

INDIVIDUAL-FOCUSED T&D PRACTICES

It is common to consider T&D in terms of individuals. Organizations that think in terms of individual-focused T&D engage in some special practices. The historical roots of T&D are in technical training, and it is easy to visualize the worker at a workstation surrounded by tools and materials doing his or her craft. Training in this mental image has to do with a person’s need to know how to use a tool or operate a piece of equipment. The work system is well defined, and the worker needs to learn it. Thus, the focus is on the individual. The individual performer focus of T&D can be thought of in one of two ways: a single person requiring T&D or a classification of single performers requiring the same T&D. For example, a small community bank may need to train one teller every six months, while a major metropolitan bank may train fifty tellers each quarter.

Single Person Requiring T&D

Two general elements are employed for meeting single-person T&D requirements. One is to use an on-the-job T&D approach that embraces the worksite as a learning site and the other utilizes a subject-matter expert as the instructor. Hands-on training captures the essence of on-the-job training while assuring a reasonable amount of structure, to avoid the pitfalls of it being a trial and error learning experience. Sisson’s (2001) book opens with the following story:

Tim Horton was having a tough time on his new job. He knew it, his boss knew it and so did everyone else. It wasn’t as if he didn’t try, but the computer system was complex, and there were a lot of tricks to learn. Tim spent a week in formal training and had done well. Once he got on the job, however, he couldn’t keep up with the workload. Two of Tim’s co-workers had tried to help. It didn’t work. Tim seemed like he simply wasn’t catching on.

Tim’s boss, Shauna Davis, was now getting pressure to replace Tim with someone who could get the job done. But Shauna was reluctant to bring in yet another new person while there was still a chance that Tim might improve. “Maybe it isn’t Tim’s fault. Maybe he isn’t getting the right kind of help … after all, there is a difference between the classroom and the job,” she thought.

275

Shauna decided to have Tim work with a woman named Linda Hart. Linda was one of the very best people in their department. Linda was the semi-official department trainer and had been to a class about how to do hands-on training. But Linda was very busy. If she was going to help Tim, it would have to happen fast … three or four days at the most. They couldn’t afford more than that.

Tim met Linda in the break room. Linda spent a few minutes getting to know him better and asked about his training so far. Then they went out to Tim’s area and Linda watched him work for a while. As she watched, Linda began to notice a couple of patterns. Tim was going through too many steps, and he was making a number of mistakes. He was making the job more complicated than it really was. Linda asked if she could show Tim a couple of better techniques. She went through each one step by step, clearly explaining what to do. One procedure at a time, she had Tim do the job. As Tim practiced, Linda watched carefully. She asked him to say what he was doing and why. When Tim got it right, she told him so. When he made a mistake, she showed him how to do it better and had him try again. She asked questions to make sure Tim really understood. This went on for the rest of the day. It was smooth, it was natural, and it was effective.

The next morning Linda started by reviewing what they covered the day before. Then she had Tim go back to work while she watched. Linda was very careful to give Tim all the help and advice he needed. After a couple of hours, she started to leave Tim alone for a while and by noon, Linda wasn’t even around (pp. 1-2).

Multiple Job Holders Requiring Identical T&D

Martelli (1998) reports on a T&D case involving a Midwest steel company. In this instance there was a very expensive steel mill modernization investment. Given the new technology, there was “a need for a structured operator training program for ladle preheater operators” (p. 89). The case highlights the fact that the firm was so eager to get the new technology operating that it ignored training until it realized that the new technology required a definitive body of knowledge and expertise for proper and safe operation. As the training was being developed, existing workers were unsuccessfully trying to learn on the job. Equipment damage and shutdowns occurred during this period. Using systematic ADDIE training, a T&D program was produced and delivered. All the operators were trained, tested, and returned to the job. In a matter of months, the training resulted in a 135 percent return on investment. The conclusion was that in this case training was both cost-effective and educationally effective. Martelli goes on to inform us that project managers in organizations need to be aware that their system changes impact on other organizational and human aspects, and the T&D needs to be proactive in these change efforts.

276

GROUP-FOCUSED T&D PRACTICES

In recent years there has been a realization that a “group of learning heads” is better than one in a T&D effort. In addition, natural work teams that are already in place, or newly formed work groups poised to take on a new organizational challenge, are seen as logical focal points for T&D. This shift in perspective was primarily a result of Japanese views on group work, group problem solving, and group learning in the 1980s to 1990s.

Group-focused T&D practices have almost always utilized a real work-related problem facing the group and the learning that must occur to address the problem adequately. The pivot point between two perspectives on group T&D practices has to do with the relative importance of learning versus solving the actual problem:

* Action learning is committed to participant learning as the outcome–with the use of an actual problem that may or may not end up being solved.

* Team problem solving is committed to solving an actual problem–which may or may not end up with all the participants learning.

The difference is subtle yet important. It is subtle because in practice the two perspectives often look alike and can end up with the same result. They are different in the fact that what an organization is approving up front is a different potential outcome–learning versus a solved problem. More on these two perspectives follows.

Action Learning

Action learning is defined as “an approach to working with and developing people that uses work on an actual project or problem as a way to learn. Participants work in small groups to take action to solve their problem and to learn from that action. Often a learning coach works with the group in order to help the members learn how to balance their work with the learning from that work” (Yorks, O’Neil, and Marsick, 1999, p. 3). The preface of an action learning monograph edited by Yorks et al. (1999) provides a vivid example of action learning:

In a multinational food products company, an action learning team’s recommendations for change result in savings of over $500,000 in a single division in their company. The company is awarded a Corporate Excellence award by a national human resource management association in the process.

Struggling with breaking down strong business unit boundaries that had existed for years in the organization, a company creates a cross-functional action learning team to put together a plan for globally centralizing its materials management process. The very people in those business units who would be impacted by this centralization work together to come to a consensus

277

on a plan that anticipated and addressed the issues driven by existing business unit boundaries created by the change.

An organization in a highly regulated industry has to move rapidly into a competitive environment. There has been resistance to the kind of changes needed to address this challenge. After involvement in an action learning effort, individuals say things such as “Learning is ongoing, it never ends. I’ve learned how to learn. We’ve changed our outlook to ‘we’ and will go out to meet the competition.”

Stories such as these have fostered increasing interest in the use of action learning as an intervention that can produce individual, team, and organizational learning, and improve performance (pp. v-vi).

Team Problem Solving

Team problem solving can take many forms. In almost all cases, the team members learn one or more methods of problem solving and then apply the methods to a particular problem. In applying the method, the members must learn in order to solve the problem.

Scholtes (1988) identifies fourteen specific strategies for team problem solving. A well-known strategy is the plan-do-check-act (PDCA) approach developed by Walter Shewhart and popularized by W. Edwards Deming in the 1980s during the quality improvement movement in U.S. business and industry. Sholtes offers the following example of team problem solving:

An equipment maintenance department in a government agency realized that to cut the number of complaints they received, they’d have to find out what their customers wanted and start addressing those needs.

A group of mechanics and supervisors talked to representatives of each department they served to identify customer needs. They found two key concerns: First, the customers had different priorities than the maintenance department–despite severe cutbacks, the customers were still more concerned about safety than repair costs. Second, the customers felt that the repair process took too long.

The maintenance team then split into two groups. One found ways to resolve conflicting priorities by developing appropriate solutions. The second studies the repair process, localizing problems, looking for causes, and developing solutions.

Conflicts in priorities are now settled between a maintenance supervisor and a designated person in each department. The repair process has been streamlined with unnecessary steps cut out entirely. Other delays in repairs have been eliminated by revising purchasing policies of equipment to be more standardized, and by keeping better records of failure so that they can stock the right spare parts (pp. 35-36).

278

WORK PROCESS-FOCUSED T&D PRACTICES

In recent years, T&D has learned to think more in terms of work processes, not just jobs. The job perspective uses the job as the basis for thinking about and carrying out T&D. When job roles were stable, T&D could be organized around jobs and job hierarchies such as machine attendant, machine operator, lead operator, technician, supervisor, manager, and executive. Given the instability of jobs and the increased focus on how the work gets done, including the connections between jobs (i.e., internal customer-supplier relationships), work processes have become increasingly important.

Process-focused T&D can be thought of in two forms. One is related to understanding and studying processes and the other is developing knowledge and expertise that is derived from work processes (versus traditional job and task analysis).

Understanding and Studying Processes

A major producer of consumable goods was experiencing extreme problems in the quality of its product. An initial performance diagnosis made it clear that training was required as a result of the loss of expertise in the workplace. Worker turnover and changes in worker demographics were root causes of this loss.

The work involved a continuous production process, and no analysis or documentation of the process existed. The T&D manager chose to teach a team of workers how to analyze their job and particularly to analyze systems tasks using systems task analysis (Figure 12.1) as the basis for creating a T&D program for existing and future workers.

Amazingly, workers who were not experts were taught the tools required to analyze expertise. Then they analyzed their own work, became experts as a result of doing the analysis work, and the production problem went away (see Figure 12.2). Even though the immediate problem disappeared through analysis of the work processes and documenting the required expertise, a training program was produced for other work groups and future workers.

Process-Referenced Training

Most T&D is organized in relation to a person’s job. Job-referenced expertise is T&D connected to the work process instead of the job. Here is an example: Six people working in the organization make contributions to the successful execution of a sale. In the past, they viewed their work in terms of their individual jobs, such as office manager. The office manager job requires that person to support three different sales processes, sales marketing, and human resource management.

Instead of beginning with an analysis of the sales manager job, the starting point is to analyze the core processes and then see how the office manager fits

279

[Chart: Figure 12.1 Analyzing Systems Tasks.]

Source: Swanson, 2007, p. 191.

[Chart: Figure 12.2 Scrap and Rework Chart for a Fortune 100 Food-Processing Company Before and After Implementing the Training for Performance System.]

280

into the process. Figure 12.3 is a conceptual illustration of an integrated flowchart that shows process activity steps 1 through 17 of one of the three sales processes and the fact that people holding six different jobs (A-F) contribute to the process. Imagine that job E in Figure 12.3 is the sales manager job. The office manager participates in selected activity steps and may be a supplier, the customer or the person responsible person for that step. The activity steps are then classified into tasks by themselves or in clusters. These process-referenced tasks are then used as the unit of expertise analysis and training. This illustrates a fundamental reorientation of the isolated job activity to a composite of activities directly connected into core organizational processes that are shared by others in the organization. It results, then in process-referenced training (Swanson, 2007; Swanson and & Holton, 1998).

[Image: Figure 12.3 Process-Referenced Expertise.]

ORGANIZATION-FOCUSED T&D PRACTICES

Almost every sound T&D effort has an OD component and almost every sound OD effort has a T&D component. Large system change almost always requires T&D. The overall change effort will likely be classified as OD with a heavy dose of T&D. Organization-focused T&D can be thought of in two forms: one focused on core values, and the other on core knowledge and expertise.

Core Values through T&D

Standard business vocabulary has come to include vision and values. T&D regularly gets called upon to engage personnel with defining the company vision and

281

values and internalizing them for the purpose of harmonizing the workforce. Often such efforts require the changing of one value set for another (one Gestalt for another). For example, companies that embraced the total quality movement engaged in up-front training at all levels in the organization to get their personnel to accept the paradigms of customer, process, and quality as being essential for sustainable performance. These were in place of short-term output and financial measures.

Rasmussen (1997, p. 132) proposes nine steps to establishing a total organization-focused values learning effort through T&D:

1. Survey internal customers to identify need.
2. Form partnership with senior management.
3. Form vision team.
4. Communicate two-way with all employees.
5. Design/conduct the vision conference.
6. Design/conduct vision team training.
7. Design/conduct interdepartmental forum.
8. Design/conduct training for individuals.
9. On-going vision process meetings.

System-wide Knowledge and Expertise through T&D

There are times when T&D addresses an overarching system condition or state of affairs, not an individual contributor, work group, or work process problem. For example, in one Fortune 50 insurance organization, training efforts had been distributed across a number of different functions and levels. Uniformity was needed to ensure system-wide knowledge and expertise. Here is a portion of its T&D story:

A new team was formed to merge various training activities under one umbrella: Product training with sales training with technical training with operations training efforts. This “new training process” started the journey to becoming a performance-based effort.

The charter started with a request assuring that every employee receives the training they need to be successful in his or her position. In the sales organization, the charter is to significantly “touch” every person twice a year in a way that substantially improves that individual’s performance as verified by self-report and documented evaluation. This resulted in an overall training and performance consulting vision: To exceed the expectations of our business partners by providing world-class performance development processes, expertise, and tools driving superior performance. To achieve this vision by: (1) Consulting with our business partners to assess performance gaps, recommend improvement strategies and shepherd on-going performance

282

improvement, (2) Designing, developing, delivering, and producing HRD/performance improvement interventions for work processes and employees–new and old, (3) Evaluating the impact of T&D/performance improvement interventions focused on the strategic imperatives of achieving customer/provider satisfaction, dominating market share, maximizing profitability, and promoting a culture of winning with highly motivated, well-informed, diverse associates.

Recognizing that this required a shift in internal functioning and a realignment of relationships with customers, the training staff met as a team to consider what to rename what had been a training function. Based on the perceptions of a new role in the organization they selected “Training and Performance Consulting.” Training provided a connection to the past and a framework for internal customers to engage in the shifts implied by performance consulting. The name illustrated the recognition of the need to redesign T&D efforts around performance improvement from the beginning of every intervention and not to justify programs based on participant satisfaction (McClernon and Swanson, 1998, pp. 1-2).

Furthermore, a performance improvement roundtable of corporate stakeholders was established to guide the overall effort (see Figure 12.4).

[Chart: Figure 12.4 Performance Roundtable.]

Source: McClernon and Swanson, 1998.

CONCLUSION

Personnel training and development takes many forms. At the narrow and specific end of the spectrum, for example, there can be a very small training program

283

that teaches employees how to properly use their electronic access card to the building. It may end up being packaged as a self-instructional job aid that comes in the envelope with the access card. At the other end of the spectrum, one could find employees self-directing their own learning under the auspices of a company-sponsored tuition reimbursement plan in conjunction with a systematic self-managed career planning and career development process.

The dominant practices in the middle of the T&D spectrum described in this chapter are focused on imparting the expertise required of personnel to perform their present work or to prepare for the new work required of their changing workplace.

REFLECTION QUESTIONS

1. Briefly describe an organization with which you are familiar. Speculate as to how that organization’s mission could impact the T&D practices.
2. What are two to four major T&D implications of needing to train one person in an area versus two hundred people needing the same training?
3. When does team or group learning make sense and not make sense?
4. How does thinking about T&D at the work process level impact on the work of T&D professionals?
5. What does T&D need to do in order to be instrumental in organization-wide expertise issues?

284

This page intentionally left blank

285

PART FIVE Unleashing Expertise through Organization Development

This part captures the essence of the organization development component of HRD in unleashing expertise as well as the nature of the change process. It presents illustrations of organization development practice that exist in host organizations as well as variations in core thinking, processes, interventions, and tools.

CHAPTERS

13 Overview of Organization Development

14 The Nature of the Change Process

15 Organization Development Practices

285

286

This page intentionally left blank

287

CHAPTER 13 Overview of Organization Development

CHAPTER OUTLINE

Introduction

Views of Organization Development

* The Outcome Variable and Definitions of OD

* Taxonomy of Performance

* Early Change Models

* Whole System Change

Key Organization Development Terms

The General Organization Development Process

Action Research: Problem-Solving Method

Organization Development Process Model

Organization Development for Performance System

The ODPS Model

Phases of ODPS

Conclusion

Reflection Questions

287

288

The central view of organization development (OD) is that OD has the capability of unleashing human expertise, resulting in improvements at the organization, work process, team, and individual levels. OD constitutes the smaller realm of HRD practitioner activity when compared to training and development (T&D). It can also be argued, however, that OD has a larger or more systemic influence on the organization. As much effort has been focused within organization development on studying individuals in organizations as it has been on studying organizations themselves. Although this is the history of OD, there is a growing shift to an organizational system focus beyond individuals and groups within OD theory and practice.

Organization development practice is more likely to be focused on existing conditions that are not functioning well than on long-range improvement or holistic change efforts. In all cases, whether present performance issues related to system maintenance or system changes for the future, OD interventions deal with the change process for the purpose of improvement. Cummings and Worley provide a definition of organization development that helps introduce this chapter: “Organization development is a system-wide application of behavioral science knowledge to the planned development, improvement, and reinforcement of the strategies, structures, and processes that lead to organization effectiveness” (Cummings and Worley, 1997, p. 1).

In earlier chapters, we identified three core theories that stand as the basis of HRD, T&D, and OD: psychological, systems, and economic theories. Embracing the three necessarily causes us to revise the previous definition to go beyond the behavioral science base (psychological only) that has limited OD. A revised definition would read as follows:

Organization development is a system-wide application of behavioral and social science knowledge (primarily psychological, systems, and economic theories) to the planned development, improvement, and reinforcement of the strategies, structures, and processes that lead to organization performance.

Our concise definition of OD is as follows:

Organization development is a process of systematically unleashing expertise for the purpose of improving performance.

Organizational leaders need help in their quest for sustainable performance. According to Beer and Nohria (2000), the mantra for the twenty-first century is to “lead change.” They go on to report, “The results are not always encouraging, however…. The dramatic reduction in CEO tenure confirms that leaders do not have the knowledge and skills, or perhaps the will to transform their companies” (p. ix). Clearly, organizations need OD, and high-quality OD interventions are required to help organizations achieve their performance goals.

288

289

VIEWS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT

There is no single view of OD. The nature of organizations, the conditions surrounding the need for system change, and the process of change all vary so greatly that one lens would be inadequate. Alternative views are useful. Multiple snapshots will be presented in this chapter to capture the range of thinking in OD. First, we will look at some of the variation in the outcomes and definitions of OD as presented by various experts. Second, we will revisit early change models, including Lewin’s classic unfreeze-move-refreeze change process. Third, we will take a look at whole systems change such as the rigorous Brache’s (2002) holistic approach to organizational health.

The Outcome Variable and Definitions of OD

A great deal of literature and practice is aimed at systematically implementing organizational change for the purpose of improving performance that does not formally call itself “OD.” From Beckhard’s 1969 definition (the first reported use of the term in the literature) to the present, OD has been on an evolutionary journey. Egan (2000) produced an extensive report of this definitional history that is worth reviewing. Selections from that review along with some recent additions are presented in Figure 13.1.

Egan (2000) concludes from his analysis that ten key outcome variables are reported throughout the definitional literature (Figure 13.2). Reviewing these purported outcomes of OD highlights the range of thinking. For example, Facilitating Learning and Development as an outcome is very different from Enhancing Profitability and Competitiveness. The compilation of OD definitions found in the literature helps in understanding the range of thinking in OD and its historical development.

Taxonomy of Performance

Once again, the taxonomy of performance (see Figure 10.1) is one way of gaining perspective on OD. It poses the two challenges of “maintaining the system” and “changing the system.” Both realms can demand OD interventions as the development of human expertise (T&D) may not be enough to get the system improved. The “changing the system” portion of the taxonomy of performance–in the form of improvements or inventions of whole new systems–is where the most challenging and risky OD work takes place. This is also where the dark side of OD is most evident. The tools of OD (and HRD) are powerful in directing, controlling, and manipulating human behavior for negative, as well as positive, ends. Using OD to get employees to accept unfair and exploitative policies and practices is rarely discussed. Most organizational bankruptcy and restructuring efforts use sophisticated OD tools to get employee acceptance of downward

290

Figure 13.1 Selected Organization Development Definitions

Author	Date	Definitions	Outcome Variable
Beckhard	1969	Organization development is an effort (1) planned, (2) organization-wide, and (3) managed from the top, to (4) increase organization effectiveness and health through (5) planned interventions in the organization’s “processes,” using behavior-science knowledge.	Increase organization effectiveness and health
Bennis	1969	Organization development (OD) is a response to change, a complex educational strategy intended to change the beliefs, attitudes, values, and structure of organizations so that they can better adapt to new technologies, markets, and challenges and the dizzying rate of change itself.	Adapt to new technologies, markets, challenges and change
Beer	1980	Organization development is a system-wide process of data collection, diagnosis, action, planning, intervention, and evaluation aimed at (1) enhancing congruence between organizational structure, process, strategy, people, and culture; (2) developing new and creative organizational solutions; and (3) developing the organization’s renewing capacity. It occurs through collaboration of organizational members working with a change agent using behavioral science theory, research, and technology	Enhancing congruence; Developing creative organizational solutions and developing renewing capacity
Porras and Robertson	1992	Organizational development is a set of behavioral science-based theories, values, strategies, and techniques aimed at the planned change of the organizational work setting for the purpose of enhancing individual development and improving organizational performance, through the alteration of organizational members’ on-the-job behavior.	Enhancing individual development and organizational performance
Cummings and Worley	1993	Organization development is a system-wide application of behavioral science knowledge to the planned development and reinforcement of organizational strategies, structures, and processes for improving an organization’s effectiveness.	Improving organizational effectiveness
Burke	1994	Organization development is a planned process of change in an organization’s culture through the utilization of behavioral science technologies, research, and theory.	Culture change

291

Author	Date	Definitions	Outcome Variable
McLagan	1989	Organization Development: Assuring healthy inter- and intra-unit relationships and helping groups initiate and manage change. Organization development’s primary emphasis in on relationships and processes between and among individuals and groups. Its primary intervention is influence on the relationship of individuals and groups to effect and impact the organization as a system.	Initiate and manage change to effect and impact the organization
French and Bell	1999	Organization development is a long-term effort, led and supported by top management, to improve an organization’s visioning, empowerment, learning, and problem-solving processes, through an ongoing, collaborative management of organization culture–with special emphasis on the culture of intact work teams and other team configurations–using the consultant-facilitator role and the theory and technology of applied behavioral science, including action research.	Improve visioning, empowerment, learning and problem-solving processes
Lynham	1997	Organization development is a process of planned, systemic change through the utilization of human expertise for the purpose of improving individual, group, process, and organization performance.	Improve performance: individual, group, process, and organization
Mclean	2006	Organization development is any process or activity, based on the behavioral sciences, that, either initially or over the long term, has the potential in an organizational setting to enhance knowledge, expertise, productivity, satisfaction, income, interpersonal relationships, and other desired outcomes, whether for personal or group/team gain, or for the benefit of an organization, community, nation, region, or, ultimately, the whole of humanity.	Enhance knowledge, expertise, productivity, satisfaction, income, interpersonal relationships and other desired outcomes
Swanson	2008	2008 Organization development is a process of systematically unleashing human expertise for the purpose of improving performance.	Improve performance: individual, group, process and organization

Source: Adapted from Egan 2000, pp. 14-16. Used with Permission.

292

Figure 13.2 Ten Key Dependent Variables from Definitions of Organization Development

Facilitate Learning and Development

Improve Problem Solving

Advance Organizational Renewal

Strengthen System and Process Improvement

Increase Effectiveness

Enhance Profitability and Competitiveness

Ensure Health and Well-being of Organizations and Employees

Initiate and/or Manage Change

Support Adaptation to Change

Engage Organization Culture Change

Source: Egan, 2000. Used with permission.

compensation and benefits while at the same time upper management very often retains and even gains added rewards. OD that is partner in facilitating acceptance of an increase in a disproportionate slice of the consequences of performance is an ethical problem facing the profession. For example, the financial burden required for United Airlines to reemerge from bankruptcy in 2003 was disproportionately borne by workers and retirees while top management went unscathed. Familiar OD tools were used to gain employee concessions.

An organizational system that is mature, works well, and yields great returns will not necessarily remain in that state. A variety of forces causes organizations to deteriorate and sometimes to simply disappear. Fundamental paradigm shifts in technology or customer demands are two examples. Thus, leaders and managers have the continuing pressure of changing their organizational systems to meet the new demands of the immediate and far future. Curiously, it gives rise to an odd variation of a familiar phrase, “If it ain’t broke, fix it!”

Early Change Models

The classic change model of “unfreezing, moving, and refreezing” is attributed to Kurt Lewin (1951). This simple and basic model still has utility today as a word picture of change. The unfortunate part of this view is its rigid beginning and end states. But the 1950s was a different time. Today’s view of the world is closer to continuous change. As powerful as Lewin’s frozen imagery remains, it was refuted by systems theory in the 1950s, which informed us that all systems are open and therefore fluid and adapting.

It is important to note that the focal point of Lewin’s work was on individuals and groups within organizations. The unfreeze-move-freeze model declares that information highlighting the discrepancy between the actual and desired behaviors

293

among stakeholders will result in their willingness to engage in the change process–or to unfreeze. This was a fairly popular notion among various scholarly communities at the time and remains a basic tenet among many OD professionals.

Moreover, prior to Lewin’s work, Gunnar Myrdal (1944), the Swedish economist who studied the white-black racial divide in the United States, proposed that in a democratic society the higher-order beliefs among its members would win out over unexamined illogical practices. This idea is fundamental to OD practice, and it is interesting to note that so many of the implicit values of OD coming out of the behavioral sciences are predicated on democracy. Myrdal was named Nobel laureate in 1974 for his pioneering and penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social, and institutional phenomena.

Lewin’s moving phase involves intervening in the organization through changes in the organizational processes and structures to develop a new set of values and behaviors. The refreezing phase is one that systemically installs and reinforces the new set of values and behaviors. Again, while the freeze-move-refreeze metaphor dominates the interpretation of Lewin, it is his reliance on information showcasing discrepancies between actual and desired states that is probably the greater contribution to OD.

That Lewin was a scholar (not simply a problem solver) who experimented with the change process of individuals in the actual social situation, or the milieu of life, led to “field theory.” Field theory is the proposition that human behavior is related to one’s personal characteristics and the environment (Lewin, 1954). This view of OD–working through the individuals and groups from a psychologist’s view–continues to resonate in OD theory and practice. A rival to this behavioral science view is to study the organizational system and its connection with individuals from a social science perspective.

Whole System Change

One of the key characteristics of substantive whole system change through OD is the commitment to carefully study the organizational system. (This stands in contrast to engaging groups in a generic problem-solving method along with a reliance on stakeholder perception data as a measure of the intervention effectiveness.) Whole system change requires (1) careful study of the organization and (2) reliance on multiple sources of data. There is a fair amount of trite literature about whole system change that misses these two requirements and is reduced to action-oriented problem solving on narrowly focused issues.

Two examples of whole system OD can be characterized by system-level performance improvement by Brache (2002) and scenario planning by Schwartz (1996). Brache (2002) advocates a holistic analysis, planning, and action approach to organizational health that is “a function of understanding and managing an intricate and entwined set of variables” (p. 3). Schwartz advocates a scenario process of planning for an uncertain future and preparing for alternative

294

futures. The goal of his holistic future state systems planning is to provide paths to strategic insight for individuals and the company. Scenario planning can be seen as the expansive thinking that precedes traditional strategic planning.

The role of HRD and OD in strategic organizational planning is ill defined at best. One model for thinking about the theory and practice of strategic HRD combines scenario planning and strategic planning into strategic organizational planning (Swanson, Lynham, Ruona, and Provo, 1998). Central to this thinking are the three strategic roles of HRD and the inclusion of scenario building along with traditional strategic planning into an overall framework of strategic organizational planning. (See Figure 13.3).

HRD that is truly of strategic value to an organization is (1) performance based–it must contribute directly to important business goals and must be based on key business performance requirements; (2) it demonstrates its strategic capability–provides strategic organizational planning education and learning, and actively participates in the strategic organizational planning process, and (3) it is responsive to the emergent nature of strategy–it assumes a deliberate role in the emergent nature of strategic organizational planning (Torraco and Swanson, 1995).

KEY ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT TERMS

Beyond the definition of OD, key concepts and terms provide a basis of understanding the profession. A range of definitions are provided in Figure 13.4 that include basic OD terms as well as strategic OD and change role OD terms.

[Image: Figure 13.3 Strategic Organizational Planning (SOP).]

Source: Swanson, Lynham, Ruona, and Provo, 1998, p. 591.

295

Figure 13.4 Definitions of Selected Organization Development Terms

OD Term	Description/Definition of the Term
Client	The client is the organization, group, or individuals whose interests the change agent primarily serves. It is to the client that the consultant is responsible. On occasion the “client” may differ from those who originally sponsored, or participated in, the change effort.
Culture	The basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of an organization, that operate unconsciously, and that define in a basic “taken-for-granted” fashion an organization’s view of itself and its environment.
Intervention	A change effort or a change process. It implies an intentional entry into an ongoing system for the purpose of initiating or introducing change. The term intervention refers to a set of planned activities intended to help the organization increase its effectiveness.
Environment	Those external elements and forces that can affect the attainment of strategic goals, including suppliers, customers, competitors, and regulators, as well as cultural, political, and economic forces.
Human process intervention	Intervention processes focus on improving communication, problem solving, decision making, and leadership. Derive mainly from the disciplines of psychology and the applied fields of group dynamics and human relations.
Strategic intervention	Interventions that link the internal functioning of the organization to the larger environment and transform the organization to keep pace with changing conditions. They are organization-wide and bring about a fit among business strategy, structure, culture, and the larger environment.
Technostructural intervention	Interventions focused on the technology and structure of organizations. Are rooted in the disciplines of systems engineering, sociology, and psychology and in the applied fields of sociotechnical systems and organization design.
Client-centered consultation	Using the client’s knowledge and experience, by the OD practitioner, in delivery and conduct of the consulting process. Ensures consultant’s views are not imposed on the client and that the client develops the expertise and knowledge to conduct and sustain the intervention.
Process	Refers to “how” things are done. Is a key definitional component of OD and is dynamic in nature. For example, products or service delivery methods and how inputs get converted to outputs.
Mission	The organization’s major strategic purpose or reason for existing. May include specification of target customers and markets, principal products or services, geographic domain, core technologies, strategic objectives, and desired public image.
Change	A departure from the status quo and implies movement toward a goal, an idealized state, or a vision of what should be, and movement away from present conditions, beliefs, or attitudes.
Change agent	A person or team responsible for beginning and maintaining a change effort. May come from inside the organization (internal consuultant) or from outside the organization (external consultant).

296

OD Term	Description/Definition of the Term
Sponsor	The one/s who underwrites, legitimizes, and champions a change effort or OD intervention.
Stakeholder	The one who has an interest in the change intervention. Includes such stakeholders as customers, suppliers, distributors, employees, and government regulators.

THE GENERAL ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

We have defined OD as a five-phase process that is essentially a problem-defining and problem-solving method related to the organization. For those who react negatively to the notion of problems, we suggest the use of a positive word of their choice (e.g., opportunity, change, improvement, etc). In fact, there is an OD methodology called appreciative inquiry that demands a positive approach to change (Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987). This method only allows for the search and utilization of positive information in the OD process and thus is criticized for not presenting the complete picture (McLean, 2006).

The general five-phase process that captures the essence of OD is as follows:

1. Analyze/contract
2. Diagnose/feedback
3. Plan/develop
4. Implement
5. Evaluate/institutionalize

Recall that we identified the HRD phases as analyze, propose, create, implement, and assess and the T&D phases as analyze, design, develop, implement, and assess. There are several overriding constructs that generally undergird sound OD. First, organization development involves planned and systemic change, as opposed to short-term, intuitive, or segregated change. Second, organization development is aimed at ensuring the development of the requisite human expertise necessary to initiate, implement, maintain, and sustain the targeted change. Third, organization development is guided by system theory, meaning that the planned change is understood and managed in terms of integrated inputs, processes, outputs, and feedback. Fourth, it is itself a process; that is, organization development involves a specific way of implementing change, which is informed by humanistic values and theories, techniques and tools. Fifth, organization development takes place within a performance system and for purposes of performance

297

improvement within that performance system. Finally, organization development results in outputs in various domains of performance–for example, individual, group, process, and organization/system performance.

Unfortunately, the application of organization development is not always implemented in a manner that reflects these characteristics. Common criticisms of organization development include change interventions that are often fragmented and disconnected from the core business performance outcomes; interventions that build dependence on the external consultant for the expertise needed by the organization to maintain and sustain the change begun; change “cures” that are based more on the expertise of the change agent (usually external to the organization) than on the performance needs of the organization; a lack of ability and intent to show measurable, verifiable outcomes throughout and in conclusion of the change implemented; and the dilemma of short-term, high-turnover leadership in the context of long-term, large-scale change that depends on ongoing leadership support.

OD professionals within HRD usually do not talk about their work in universally agreed-upon terms, and many OD process models having unique terminology exist. Three models are reviewed here to illustrate some of the range in thinking. They are: Action Research (AR), the Organization Development Process (ODP), and the Organization Development for Performance System (ODPS).

ACTION RESEARCH: PROBLEM-SOLVING METHOD

Cummings and Worley (2001) have summarized “action research” (actually a problem-solving method) in eight steps (Figure 13.5). Some claim that action research is the foundation for most OD interventions (Rothwell et al., 1995). The Cummings and Worley (2001) portrayal of the action research process and their description of each process step follows (pp. 24-26):

1. Problem identification. This stage usually begins with a key executive in the organization or someone with power and influence who senses that the organization has one or more problems that might be solved with the help of an OD practitioner.
2. Consultation with a behavioral science expert. During the initial contact, the OD practitioner and the client carefully assess each other. The practitioner has his or her own normative, developmental theory or frame of reference and must be conscious of those assumptions and values. Sharing them with the client from the beginning establishes an open and collaborative atmosphere.
3. Data gathering and preliminary diagnosis. This step is usually completed by the OD practitioner, often in conjunction with organization members. It involves gathering appropriate information and analyzing it to

298

[Chart: Figure 13.5 Action Research Model.]

Source: Adapted from Cummings and Worley, 2001.

determine the underlying causes of organizational problems. The four basic methods of gathering data are interviews, process observation, questionnaires, and organizational performance data (the latter, unfortunately, is often overlooked). One approach to diagnosis begins with a questionnaire to measure precisely the problems identified by the earlier steps. When gathering diagnostic information, OD practitioners may influence members with whom they are collecting data. In OD, every action

299

on the part of the consultant constitutes an intervention that will have some effect on the organization.

4. Feedback to a key client or group. Because action research is a collaborative activity, the diagnostic data are fed back to the client, usually in a group or work team meeting. The feedback step, in which members are given the information gathered by the OD practitioner, helps them determine the strengths and weaknesses of the organization or the department under study. The consultant provides the client with all relevant and useful data. Obviously, the practitioner will protect confidential sources of information and, at times, may even withhold data. Defining what is relevant and useful involves considerable privacy and ethics as well as judgment about when the group is ready for the information or if the information would make the client overly defensive.
5. Joint diagnosis of the problem. At this point, members discuss the feedback and explore with the OD practitioner whether they want to work on identified problems. A close interrelationship exists among data gathering, feedback, and diagnosis because the consultant summarizes the basic data from the client members and presents the data to them for validation and further diagnosis. An important point to remember, as Schein (1970) suggests, is that the action research process is very different from the doctor-patient model in which the consultant comes in, makes a diagnosis, and prescribes a solution. Shein notes that the failure to establish a common frame of reference in the client-consultant relationship may lead to faulty diagnosis or to a communications gap whereby the client is sometimes “unwilling to believe the diagnosis or accept the prescription.” He believes “most companies have drawers full of reports by consultants, each loaded with diagnoses and recommendations which are either not understood or accepted by the ‘patient’” (p. 78).
6. Joint action planning. Next, the OD practitioner and the client members jointly agree on further actions to be taken. This is the beginning of the moving process (described in Lewin’s change model), as the organization decides how best to reach a different quasi-stationary equilibrium. At this stage, the specific action to be taken depends on the culture, technology, and environment of the organization, the diagnosis of the problem, and the time and expense of the intervention.
7. Action. This stage involves actual change from one organizational state to another. It may include installing new methods and procedures, reorganizing structures and work designs, and reinforcing new behaviors. Such actions typically cannot be implemented immediately but require a period as the organization moves from the present to a desired future state.
8. Data gathering after action. Because action research is a cyclical process, data must also be gathered after the action has been taken to measure

300

and determine the effects of the action and to feed the results back to the organization. This, in turn, may lead to rediagnosis and new action.

ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT PROCESS MODEL

The Organization development Process (ODP) model is presented by Gary N. McLean in his 2006 textbook. ODP represents a fully developed methodology for the OD process for achieving positive gains within in an organizational setting. Figure 13.6 illustrates the ODP Model and its unique process characteristics. The eight core phases are a variation of the basic input, process, output, feedback and open system model that organizes most HRD methods.

* Entry

* Start-up

* Assessment and Feedback

* Action Plan

* Implementation

* Evaluation

* Adoption

* Separation

Beyond the eight phases, the expanded description of the organizational context distinguishes and enhances the ODP model. McLean briefly describes the eight phases as follows (2006, p. 20-22):

* Entry. The first phase is when the OD professional (consultant), having done the requisite marketing, and a person representing the client organization (or part of an organization, or “client”) meet to decide whether they will work together, assess the readiness of the organization for change, and agree on the conditions under which they will work together.

* Start-up. The next phase occurs after an agreement has been reached to work together, and a basic infrastructure (such as a client team with whom the consultant will work) is in place.

* Assessment and Feedback. This phase is sometimes called analysis or diagnosis; in this phase, the consultant and the client together, determine the organizational culture, including its strengths and weaknesses.

* Action Plan. Based on what was determined to be in the previous step, plans are mutually developed as to how the organization wishes to move forward, in terms of both goals and objectives and how this will be accomplished.

301

[Chart: Figure 13.6 Organization Development Process Model.]

Source: McLean, 2006, p. xiii.

* Implementation. In this phase, the plans that were made in the previous step are implemented; in OD jargon, this is called an intervention.

* Evaluation. This phase answers the question, “How well did our intervention accomplish the objectives that were planned?”

* Adoption. If the evaluation indicates that the objectives of the intervention were accomplished, then the change that was implemented becomes institutionalized; that is, it becomes part of the way in which business is done in the organization. If the evaluation indicates that desired objectives were not met, then this phase is skipped. In both cases, the process begins all over again.

* Separation. At some point, the consultant will withdraw from the intervention process, having transferred his or her skills to the client organization (again, whether the OD consultant is internal or external). This may occur because additional change is no longer a priority to the client organization, or it is not ready for the next stage of change. It may be

302

because OD skills are needed that the current OD consultant does not possess. It may be that the consultant has been co-opted by the organizational culture and is no longer able to maintain objectivity. For whatever reason, separation should occur intentionally and not just by letting it happen.

ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT FOR PERFORMANCE SYSTEM

Organization Development for Performance System (ODPS) (Lynham, 2000c) again represents a basic OD process while highlighting performance improvement. The ODPS methodology focuses more on the conceptual phases of the intervention than on the professional activity of the OD consultant. Many authors writing about change talk about change out of context of rigorous identification of the needed change or the resulting excellence, improvement, and performance. For example, one edited handbook that details eighteen change methods pays scant attention to the question of the resulting excellence, improvement, and performance from any of the change methods (Holman and Devane, 1999). In contrast, ODPS is a process of planned, systemic change through the utilization of human expertise for the purpose of improving individual, group, process, and organization performance. This basic process is described as follows (Lynham, 2000c).

ODPS underscores the importance of system theory in organization development and frames organization development as a system of planned, systemic change, achieved through the development of related human expertise for the purpose of achieving specific and multiple performance domain outputs. ODPS embraces the above characteristics of traditional organization development as well as the titles of the traditional components of planned change presented in most models of organization development. These titles include (1) analyze and contract; (2) diagnose and feedback; (3) plan, design, and develop; (4) implement; and (5) evaluate and institutionalize. This five-phase model is generally referred to as the generic change model. In addition, the critical overarching task of “leading the organization development process” is added to the core change model.

The ODPS Model

The ODPS model is illustrated in Figure 13.7, which shows the five phases of the organization development for performance process being integrated and supported through leadership. Worthy of note is that the systematic process of the ODPS has integrity and can be maintained even in the simplest of situations (severe time, resource and budget constraints) or can be violated in the most luxurious of situations (generous time, resource and budget allocations). Professional expertise–organization development process knowledge and experience–is necessary to maintain organization development integrity.

303

[Chart: Figure 13.7 Organization Development for Performance System.]

Source: Susan A. Lynham, 2000.

Phases of ODPS

The five phases of the ODPS model are analyze and contract; diagnose and feedback; plan, design and develop; implement; and evaluate and institutionalize. It is assumed that there is a performance system with an apparent performance problem and need for change, and a recognized need to engage someone (either inside or outside the organization) to assist with the related problem solving and needed change.

Phase 1: Analyze and Contract

The first phase of the ODPS is composed of two steps. First, it is necessary to analyze the perceived performance problem and need for change. This first step requires that an initial analysis be done of the performance requirements of the organization that can be improved through the documenting and development of planned, systemic change and the development of human expertise required to implement, maintain, and sustain workplace change and performance. Analysis therefore provides the initial documented evidence that the problem presented for resolution and change is indeed real. Furthermore, analysis helps initially clarify the issues surrounding the problem, establishes the organization’s apparent commitment to problem resolution and change, and provides an opportunity to determine and optimize the “match” between the needs, values and expertise of the organization and those of the change consultant or agent.

The second step in phase 1 involves the contract. Informed by the outcomes of step 1, the contract documents agreements about how the OD process will proceed. This includes specification of agreements in terms of mutual expectations, time, money and other resources that will be made available during the change process, and the ground rules under which all involved parties will operate.

304

Phase 2: Diagnose and Feedback

The second phase of ODPS consists of two steps: to diagnose the performance problem and to provide feedback to the performance system on the change needed and the accompanying human expertise required to address and advance performance. A thorough diagnosis of the performance problem is critical to successful organization development intervention, as this step ensures that the root cause(s) for the problem and need for change are uncovered and made explicit to the performance system. Diagnosis plays a critical role in informing the rest of the organization development process. It is intended to ensure that the actual, and not necessarily the presenting, performance problem that gave rise to the need for the change intervention is effectively addressed.

Multiple data collection methods are used to perform a thorough diagnosis of the performance problem. Four commonly used methods of data collection used to diagnose the performance problem and inform the change needed include questionnaires or surveys, interviews, direct observations, and unobtrusive data (e.g., organization records). Each method of data collection has strengths and weaknesses. As a result, it is important that triangulation be pursued and as many data collection methods as possible used to conduct the diagnosis and inform the feedback steps in the ODPS.

Feedback, the second step in phase 2, involves the return of the data collected during the diagnostic step to the performance system for further verification, problem solving, decision making, and corrective action. The effectiveness of feedback varies according to both content and process–that is, what data are fed back and how data are fed back. Some criteria of good feedback data include relevance, appropriateness, timeliness, comparability, validity, clarity, and engagement. Criteria of a good feedback process include an appropriate setting, structure, and selection of participants, as well as using the feedback data to facilitate the development of human expertise for further problem solving and decision making regarding the performance problem and desired change

Both steps in phase 2 of ODPS, diagnosis and feedback, are critical in harnessing and activating commitment and energy for the rest of the organization development process, namely to plan, implement, and evaluate and institutionalize the desired and necessary change in the performance system.

Phase 3: Plan, Design, and Develop

Phase 3 of the ODPS involves three steps. First is that of compiling the plan required to ensure corrective action and development of the necessary human expertise to address the performance problem in multiple performance domains (individual, group, process, and organization) and in an enduring way. During the development of the plan, the kind of planned change (or intervention) and human expertise needed to address the performance problem effectively are discussed and agreed upon. Numerous types of planned change processes (also referred to as interventions) can be selected at this stage, and these vary according

305

to the performance domain and corresponding human expertise development at which they are targeted (individual, group, process, and organization). Due to the systemic nature of organization development, the plan of action often spans multiple types of planned change. Also typically included in the plan for change is the recognition and initial consideration of the actions required to manage the changes that will likely accompany the change intervention(s).

A good intervention plan is specific, is clear about roles and desired outcomes, makes the resulting human expertise explicit in terms of knowledge and experience, includes an achievable time line, and is derived in a participative and commitment-seeking manner.

The second step of phase 3 is the design, through either creation and/or acquisition, of general and specific change strategies (or interventions) for people to develop the expertise to implement and sustain workplace change and performance. The third step involves the development or acquisition of specific participant and change agent materials needed to execute the planned change strategy(ies) and/or programs.

Phase 4: Implement

The fourth phase in the ODPS is to implement the planned change strategies selected, designed, and developed in phase 3 of the ODPS. This involves managing the individual change strategies and programs as well as their delivery to the participants of the performance system.

Phase 5: Evaluate and Institutionalize

To determine whether the planned change has been successfully implemented, the effectiveness of the planned change strategies/programs in terms of performance, learning, and satisfaction must be established. The first step in phase 5 of the ODPS requires that one evaluate multiple aspects of the actual outcomes of the planned change strategies and compare these against the desired outcomes of the planned change strategies. Evaluation therefore requires determining and reporting on change strategy/program effectiveness in terms of performance, learning and satisfaction.

It is generally recognized that it is easier to implement change than it is to maintain and sustain it. As a result, it is very important that the new behaviors, practices, and processes that accompany planned change strategies are embedded into the organization’s culture and become part of the way business is done on a day-to-day basis in the organization. This embedding or stabilization of the new ways that accompany the planned change processes refers to the need to institutionalize the change strategies/programs, constituting the second step of phase 5. Institutionalizing the change strategies/programs for integrated and long-term performance requires both management of the institutionalization process and reinforcement of the changes through further feedback, rewards, and development of human expertise.

306

Leading the OD Process

The ODPS, like any performance system, requires leadership and management to maintain the integrity of the OD process in terms of inputs, processes, outputs, and feedback. Leading the ODPS requires, for example, championing the OD mission, values, and goals, as well as managing and improving the OD process.

CONCLUSION

Although the literature describes numerous OD processes, three have been selected here for the purpose of illustration and comparison. Organization development is a process with the potential of unleashing the expertise required to maintain and/or change organizations. As such, OD has the potential of strategically aligning the organizational components of its host organization in the context within which it must function. It also has the potential of searching out and utilizing the expertise required to create new strategic directions for the host organization.

REFLECTION QUESTIONS

1. How would you define OD and its relationship to HRD?
2. What are the unique aspects of the OD component of HRD?
3. What is the role of the OD consultant in the OD process?
4. Which OD model (AL, ODP, or ODPS) are you most attracted to? Explain why.
5. How does OD help with the organizational challenge of managing the system and the challenge of changing the system?
6. Discuss the personal attributes that you believe would help in facilitating OD projects and those that could hinder.

307

CHAPTER 14 The Nature of the Change Process

CHAPTER OUTLINE

Introduction

* Perspectives on Change for HRD

Core Dimensions of Change

* Incremental versus Transformational Change

* Continuous versus Episodic Change

Change Outcomes

General Theories of Change

* Field Theory

* Sociotechnical Systems Theory

* Typology of Change Theories

Resistance to Change

* Nature of Resistance

* Forms of Resistance

Focused Perspectives on Change

* Organizational Theories

* Work Process Theories

* Group Theories

* Individual Theories

Leading and Managing Organization Change

* Activities Contributing to Effective Change Management

* Change Phases Model

Conclusion

Reflection Questions

307

308

Change has been a central concept in human resource development (HRD) from the beginning. Thinking about change in HRD has emerged from two basic directions: individual change and organizational change. Individual change models focus on ways individuals change. While this may affect the organization, the primary emphasis is on the individual and helping the individual change himself or herself. Individual learning and expertise development through T&D can be seen as a special type of change at the individual level, especially transformational learning. Career development specialists focus on helping people to change their lives and jobs. Adult development theory focuses on the many ways that adults change throughout their life span. While none of these is usually thought of as change theory, we suggest that change is the overarching construct that unites them within HRD.

Organization change models embrace the individual, but within the context of changing the organization. Most of these models emerge from what is generically known as organization development. Organization development professionals specialize in change, usually at the group, work process, or organization level.

Thus, all HRD professionals can be seen as leading or facilitating change for the goal of improvement (Holton, 1997). The purpose of this chapter is to examine change as an organizing construct for human resource development in its effort to contribute to performance requirements. In this chapter we are not so interested in specific contexts of change, but rather in core understandings of the change process that cut across all areas of practice and research.

Perspectives on Change for HRD

Change is a familiar construct but one that is seldom explicitly defined. It is important to understand what is meant by change.

Change as Individual Development

Some definitions of change focus first on the fact that change in organizations always involves changing individual people: “Induction of new patterns of action, belief, and attitudes among substantial segments of a population” (Schein, 1970, p. 134). From this view, organizational change is about getting people in organizations to do, believe, or feel something different. It is this view of change that has dominated training-oriented change interventions.

Change as Learning

A second definition of change speaks to the means by which change occurs: “Change is a cyclical process of creating knowledge (the change or innovation), disseminating it, implementing the change, and then institutionalizing what is learned by making it part of the organization’s routines.” (Watkins and Marsick (1993, p. 21). This definition reminds us that change usually involves learning. “Learning and change processes are part of each other. Change is a learning

308

309

process and learning is a change process” (Beckhard and Pritchard, 1992). This fundamental relationship points out why change is one of the core constructs for the discipline of human resource development.

Change as Work and Life Roles

Within career development there is some disagreement about the exact definition of a career. Here are two leading definitions:

“the evolving sequence of a person’s work experiences over time” (Osipow and Fitzgerald, 1996, p. 51).

“the combination and sequence of roles played by a person during the course of a lifetime” (Super, 1980, p. 282; Super and Sverko, 1995, p. 23).

The point of agreement is that a career is conceptualized as the sequence of roles a person fills. The point of disagreement is whether those changes include just work roles, or work and life roles. Regardless, career development is fundamentally concerned with change and evolution of a person’s roles.

Change as Internal Adult Development

Another view of change comes from adult development theory, the now generally accepted notion that adults continue to develop throughout the life span– biologically, psychologically, cognitively, and socially and thus link adult development with change: “The concept of development, as with learning, is most often equated with change” (Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner, 2006, p. 93). Thus, adult development theory serves to define the types of internal changes that adults experience in their lives in contrast to career development theory, which defines the roles adults fill in society.

Change as Goal-Directed Activity

The previous definitions offer little guidance toward the purpose of change. Other definitions suggest in their definition that change should have a purpose: “Change is a departure from the status quo. It implies movement toward a goal, an idealized state, or a vision of what should be, and movement away from present conditions, beliefs, or attitudes” (Rothwell, Sullivan, and McLean, 1995, p. 9). Change should therefore be directed at some goal or outcome that represents a vision of a more desirable end state. Thus, they remind us that not all change is good. Change can be in negative directions, resulting in a less effective organization if it is not focused on desired outcomes.

Change as Innovation

Poole and Van de Ven (2004) define organizational change as “a difference in form, quality, or a state over time in an organizational entity (p. xi). Equally purposeful is the definition of innovation in organizations: “The innovation journey

310

is defined as new ideas that are developed and implemented to achieve outcomes by people who engage in transactions (relationships) with others in changing institutional and organizational contexts” (Van de Ven, Polley, Garud, and Venkataraman, 1999, p. 7). Change in these definitions consists of new ideas implemented in a social process directed at achieving outcomes to change organizations.

CORE DIMENSIONS OF CHANGE

Two core dimensions of change are important to consider: the depth of change (incremental vs. transformational) and the tempo of change (continuous vs. episodic).

Incremental versus Transformational Change

The distinction between incremental and transformational change is concerned with the depth and scope of change. Incremental change deals with smaller, more adaptive changes while transformational change requires major shifts in direction or perspective. This distinction is found in both the organization development and adult learning literature. Not surprisingly, the two are closely aligned.

OD and planned incremental change

A fundamental issue for OD has been the scope of change in which its tools are applied. The traditional focus of OD has been on planned incremental change. The OD approach is distinguished from other organization change approaches in this way:

OD and change management both address the effective implementation of planned change. They are concerned with the sequence of activities, processes and leadership issues that produce organizational improvements. They differ, however, in their underlying value orientation. OD’s behavioral science foundation supports values of human potential, participation, and development, whereas change management is more focused on economic potential and the creation of competitive advantage. As a result, OD’s distinguishing feature is its concern with the transfer of knowledge and skill such that the system is more able to manage change in the future. Change management does not necessarily require the transfer of such skills. In short, all OD involves change management, but change management does not involve OD. (Cummings and Worley, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added)

The change process that lends itself best to the values of human potential, participation and development is incremental change. That is, change that “produces appreciable, not radical, change in individual employees’ cognitions as well as behaviors” (Porras and Silvers, 1991).

311

The traditional emphasis on planned incremental change has limited OD’s influence on organizational change. This presents a perplexing dilemma for HRD. On the one hand, the philosophical ideals of human potential, participation, and development embedded in OD approaches to change are also ones traditionally embraced by HRD professionals. Most OD professionals have now embraced more holistic models of change (Poole and Van de Ven, 2004).

Transformational change

Transformational change has increasingly moved to the forefront of organizational and individual change and is defined as an

“extension of organization development that seeks to create massive changes in an organization’s structures, processes, culture, and orientation to its environment. Organization transformation is the application of behavioral science theory and practice to large-scale, paradigm-shifting organizational change. An organization transformation usually results in totally new paradigms or models for organizing and performing work. (French, Bell, and Zawacki, 199, p. vii)

Thus, transformational change goes well beyond the incremental change characterized by traditional OD and is a fairly recent addition to OD practice, though not to organizational life. Transformational change has five key characteristics (Cummings and Worley, 2001):

1. Triggered by environmental and internal disruptions–organizations must experience a severe threat to survival
2. Systemic and revolutionary–the entire nature of the organization must change, including its culture and design.
3. Demands a new organizing paradigm–by definition it requires gamma change (discussion to follow).
4. Is driven by senior executives and line management–transformational change cannot be a “bottom-up” process because senior management is in charge of strategic change.
5. Continuous learning and change–the learning process is likely to be substantial and require considerable unlearning and innovation.

Clearly this type of change does not lend itself to traditional OD methodologies. Sometimes transformational change threatens traditional OD values because it may entail layoffs or major restructurings. In addition, it is not always possible to have broad participation in planning transformational change, and it is often implemented in a top-down manner.

New methods have emerged in an attempt to expand OD’s reach into large-scale whole systems change in a manner that is consistent with OD values (Bunker and Alban, 1997). These include techniques such as future search (Weisbord

312

and Janoff, 2007), open space technology (Owens, 2007), real-time strategic change (Jacobs, 1999), and the ICA Strategic Planning Process (Spencer, 1989).

Incremental and transformational change can be implemented in reaction to events (reactive) or in a proactive way in anticipation of events that may occur (anticipatory) (Nadler and Tushman, 1995). Thus, they suggest four types of change: tuning, adaptation, reorientation, and re-creation (see Figure 14.1). Adaptation, which is reactive incremental change, is probably the most common type of change and occurs constantly in organizations. Reorientation, which is anticipatory transformational change, is the hardest type to implement.

Continuous versus Episodic Change

Another important dimension of change is its tempo, defined as the rate, rhythm, or pattern of the change process. The first tempo, continuous change, is described as “a pattern of endless modifications in work processes and social practices…. Numerous small accommodations cumulate and amplify” (Weick and Quinn, 1999, p. 366). Continuous change has historically been closely related to incremental change but is actually a different construct, which has an important implication in today’s fast-changing world.

The second tempo, episodic change, is defined as “occasional interruption or divergence from equilibrium…. It is seen as a failure of the organization to adapt its deep structure to a changing environment” (Weick and Quinn, 1999, p. 366). Episodic change tends to be infrequent and occurs in short-term episodes. In this view, organizations have a certain amount of change inertia until some force triggers them to change.

While this description is close to the definition of incremental versus transformational change, considering tempo of change (continuous vs. episodic) separately from scope of change (incremental vs. transformational) is useful. The problem is that deep change is defined as episodic. In today’s world, companies such as Internet-based firms are finding themselves having to make continuous transformational change, which is not even contemplated in the original definitions. The notion that transformational change only occurs episodically has been true historically but is increasingly being challenged today. Furthermore, it is also

[Image: Figure 14.1 Types of Organizational Change.]

313

possible for organizations to make episodic change that is actually only incremental rather than transformational. Corporate management teams are viewed as most likely to lead to incremental change–even when attempting strategic change–that ultimately causes them to overlook disruptive changes, technological and otherwise, that threaten their business (Christensen, 1997).

CHANGE OUTCOMES

When one considers the multitude of individual, process, group, and organizational constructs that can be affected by change, the possible outcomes from change are enormous. A more fundamental way to describe outcomes from change are through four basic types of change (Porras and Silvers (1992, p. 57):

* Alpha change–change in the perceived levels of variables within a paradigm without altering their configuration (e.g., a perceived improvement in skills)

* Beta change–change in people’s view about the meaning of the value of any variable within an existing paradigm without altering their configuration (e.g., change in standards)

* Gamma(A) change–change in the configuration of an existing paradigm without the addition of new variables (e.g., changing the central value of “production-driven” paradigm from “cost containment” to “total quality focus”). This results in the reconfiguration of all variables within this paradigm.

* Gamma(B) change–the replacement of one paradigm with another that contains some or all of new variables (e.g., replacing a “production-driven” paradigm with a “customer-responsive” paradigm)

For example, suppose you are dealing with an organization that has declining performance (e.g., profits) requiring some type of organizational change. An example of alpha change would be for them to focus on doing a better job at what they are already doing, perhaps by eliminating errors and waste. Beta change would result if the organization realized that the industry had become so competitive that their previous notions of what high performance meant had to be revised upward. An example of gamma(A) change might be the introduction of enterprise software to run their business more effectively but requiring a reorganization of their work processes. Gamma(B) change would result if they discarded their old business model of selling through retail stores and replaced it with one of selling through the Internet.

This conceptualization is useful because these different types of outcomes clearly would require different change strategies. These are portrayed in the model shown in Figure 14.2 (Porras and Silvers, 1991). Note that they begin with two basic types of change interventions discussed earlier: organization development

314

(incremental) and organization transformation. The target variables are those at which interventions are aimed. As a result of the interventions on these target variables, alpha, beta, or gamma cognitive change results in individual members, leading to enhanced individual development and improved organizational performance.

[Chart: Figure 14.2 Model of Change Outcomes.]

Source: Porras and Silvers, 1991, p. 53. Used with permission.

GENERAL THEORIES OF CHANGE

In this section, three general theories of change are discussed. Most other theories or models of change processes can be located within these three basic frameworks.

Field Theory

The classic general of change is Kurt Lewin’s (1951) field theory. This theory has influenced most change theories. The essence of field theory is deceptively simple and enduring.

315

The most fundamental construct in this theory is the field. According to Lewin, “All behavior is conceived of as a change of some state of a field in a given unit of time” (p. xi). For individuals, he said this is “the ‘life space’ of the individual. This life space consists of the person and the psychological environment as it exists for him” (p. xi). It is important to realize that a field also exists for any unit of social structure or organization. Thus, a field can be defined for a team, a department, or an organization.

The field or life space includes “all facts that have existence and excludes those that do not have existence for the individual or group under study” (p. xi). This is vitally important in considering change because individuals or groups may have distorted views of reality or may not see certain aspects of reality. What matters to the person or group, and what shapes their behavior, is only what they see as existing.

Finally, field theory acknowledges that behavior is not dependent on what happened in the past or what is expected to happen in the future, but rather on the field as it exists in the present. Lewin did not ignore the effects of history or anticipated events. Rather, he said that it is how those past or anticipated events manifest themselves in the present that affects behavior. In other words, it is how those events are perceived today that is part of a person’s field and influences the person’s behavior today.

Change, according to field theory, is the result of a constellation of psychological forces in a person’s field at a given point in time. Driving forces are those that push a person toward a positive outcome, while restraining forces are those that represent barriers. Driving forces push a person toward locomotion (movement), while restraining forces may inhibit locomotion. Forces in a person’s field create tension. If the driving and restraining forces are equal and in opposite directions, conflict results and no locomotion is likely to result. Thus, to understand a person or group’s likelihood of changing, driving forces have to be stronger than restraining forces. A field in which the forces are approximately in balance results in a quasi-equilibrium state in which no change is likely.

Perhaps the best-known part of Lewin’s field theory is his three-step change process: unfreezing, movement, and refreezing. However, it is rarely discussed in the context of field theory, which is the most useful way to understand it.

From the preceding discussion it would appear that all one has to do to invoke change is to increase driving forces or decrease restraining forces and a proportional change would result. According to Lewin, this is not the case. Social systems that are in a quasi-equilibrium develop an inner resistance to change, which he calls a social habit or custom. In force terms, the equilibrium level acquires a value itself, becoming a force working to maintain that equilibrium. Furthermore, “the greater the social value of a group standard the greater is the resistance of the individual group member to move away from this level” (p. 227).

To overcome this inner resistance, Lewin says that “an additional force seems to be required, a force sufficient to ‘break the habit,’ to ‘unfreeze’ the custom” (p. 225).

316

In other words, to begin the change process, some larger force is necessary to break the inherent resistance to change. The unfreezing force will result in a less than proportional movement, but it will begin the movement toward a new equilibrium. Lewin also notes that this is one reason group methods are so powerful in leading change. Because the inner resistance is often group norms, change is more likely to happen if the group can be encouraged to change those norms themselves.

Lewin goes on to note that change is often short-lived. After exerting the effort to unfreeze a group, change may occur but then people revert to the previous level. Therefore, equal attention must be paid to what he called freezing, usually referred to today as refreezing, rather than just moving people to a new level. Lewin defines freezing as “the new force field is made secure against change” (p. 229). Freezing involves harnessing the same power of the social field that acted to prevent change in the beginning by creating new group norms that reinforce the changes.

Sociotechnical Systems Theory

Sociotechnical system theory was developed by Eric Trist and was based on work he did with the British coal mining industry while he was at the Tavistock Institute (Fox, 1995). First presented in the early 1950s (Trist and Bamforth, 1951), it, too, has stood the test of time and remains at the core of most organizational development change efforts. Trist and Bamforth were studying a successful British coal mine at a time when most of the industry was experiencing a great deal of difficulty, despite large investments to improve mining technology. They observed that this particular mine had made improvements in the social structure of work (to autonomous work teams), not just to the technology. They realized that the cause of much of the industry’s problems was a failure to consider changes in the social structure of work to accompany the technical changes being made. While this may sound obvious, the same mistake is still being made today. For example, many organizations have struggled while trying to implement software systems largely because they have approached them as a technology problem without considering the people aspects.

From that work emerged the relatively simple but powerful concept that work consists of two interdependent systems that have to be jointly optimized. The technical system consists of the materials, machines, processes, and systems that produce the outputs of the organization. The social system is the system that relates the workers to the technical system and to each other (Cooper and Foster, 1971). Usually, organizational change initiatives emphasize one more than the other. Typically the technical system is emphasized more than the social system because it is easy to change computers, machines, or buildings and ignore the effect of the change on people.

Sociotechnical systems has remained a loosely defined metatheory without detailed explication. Instead, the intent and elements of sociotechnical systems theory are present in detail in many change models such as total quality management