Summary of readings 10 pages - APA Format & Turnitin Receipt
Chapter 7 – Paradigms of HRD
Introduction
• HRD includes multiple paradigms that represent fundamentally different views, including goals,
aims, values, and guidelines for practice (Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 140). It is also important
that each person
Overview of the HRD Paradigms
• HRD is divided into two primary paradigms, Learning and Performance.
(Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 141)
• A third paradigm in HRD, the meaning of work and work-life had started to emerge out of a
backlash from downsizings, layoffs and other corporate actions that have left workers
unemployed and disfranchised (Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 140).
Debates about Learning and Performance
• The debate focuses more on HRD moving more toward performance paradigms and not
learning. There are those that debate that individual value has decreased with this shift.
• Swanson and Holton (2009) contend that much of the debate has been based off gross errors
and misunderstandings and that the two are closer than suggested.
Philosophical Views of Learning and Performance
• Three Views of Performance (Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 144)
o Performance as a Natural Outcome of Human Activity
▪ Performance is accepted as a natural part of human existence.
o Performance as Necessary for Economic Activity
▪ Performance is an instrumental activity that enhances individuals and society
because it supports economic gains.
o Performance as an Instrument of Organizational Oppression
▪ Performance is seen as a means of control and dehumanization.
• Three Views of Learning (Swanson & Holton, 2009, pp. 145-146)
o Learning as a Humanistic Endeavor
▪ Meant to enhance human potential
o Learning as a Value-Neutral Transmission of Information
▪ The transfer of information that individuals need and desire
o Learning as a Tool for Societal Oppression
▪ Largely overlooked – that learning can also be a tool for oppression, particularly
outside organizational settings.
• Comparing Philosophical Foundations (Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 146)
o Neither Learning nor Performance are inherently good or bad.
o Both can be used as instruments of oppression or means to elevate human potential.
o Performance-based HRD should adopt the perspective that both learning and
performance are inherently good for the individual because both are natural parts of
human existence.
Learning Paradigm of HRD
• Definition of the Learning Paradigm (Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 146)
o HRD is the field of study and practice responsible for the fostering of a long-term work-
related learning capacity at the individual, group, and organizational level of
organizations. It also works to enhance individuals’ capacity to lean, to help groups
overcome barriers to learning, and to help organizations create a culture which
promotes conscious learning.
• Core Theoretical Assumptions of the Learning Paradigm (Swanson & Holton, 2009, pp. 147-149)
o Assumption 1 – Individual education, growth, learning and development are inherently
good for the individual.
o Assumption 2 – People should be valued for their intrinsic work as people, not just as
resources to achieve an outcome.
o Assumption 3 – The primary purpose of HRD is development of the individual.
o Assumption 4 – The primary outcome of HRD is learning and development.
o Assumption 5 - Organizations are best advances by having fully developed individuals.
o Assumption 6 – Individuals should control their own learning process.
o Assumption 7 – Development of the individual should be holistic.
o Assumption 8 – The organization much provide people a means to achieve their fullest
human potential through meaningful work.
o Assumption 9 – An emphasis on performance or organizational benefits create a
mechanistic view of people that prevents them from reaching their full potential.
Performance Paradigm of HRD
• Definition of the Performance Paradigm (Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 149)
o The performance paradigm of HRD holds that the purpose of HRD is to advance the
mission of the performance system that sponsors the HRD efforts by improving the
capabilities of individuals working in the system and improving systems in which they
perform their work.
• Core Theoretical Assumptions of the Performance Paradigm (Swanson & Holton, 2009, pp. 150-
155)
o Assumption 1 – Performance systems must perform to survive and prosper, and
individuals who work within them must perform if they wish to advance their careers
and maintain employment or membership.
o Assumption 2 – The ultimate purpose of HRD is to improve performance of the system
in which it is embedded and which provides the resources to support it.
o Assumption 3 – The primary outcome of HRD is not just learning but also performance.
o Assumption 4 – Human potential is organizations must be nurtured, respected and
developed.
o Assumption 5 – HRD must enhance current performance and build capacity for future
performance effectiveness in order to create sustainable high performance.
o Assumption 6 – HRD professionals have an ethical and moral obligation to ensure that
attaining organizational performance goals is not abusive to individual employees.
o Assumption 7 – Training/learning activities cannot be separated from other parts of the
performance system and are best bundled with other performance improvement
interventions.
o Assumption 8 – Effective performance and performance systems are rewarding to the
individual and to the organization.
o Assumption 9 – Whole systems performance improvement seeks to enhance thevalue of
learning in an organization
o Assumption 10 – HRD must partner with functional departments to achieve
performance goals
o Assumption 11 – The transfer of learning into job performance is of primary importance.
• Myths about the Performance Paradigm (Swanson & Holton, 2009, pp. 156-157)
o Performance is behavioristic
o Performance is deterministic
o Performance ignores individual learning and growth
o Performance is abusive to employees
o Performance is focused on the short term
Fusing the Two Paradigms
• There is substantial overlap between the learning and performance paradigms for HRD. They
are (Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 158):
o A strong belief in learning and development as avenues to individual growth
o A belief that organizations can be improved through human expertise
o A desire to see people and organizations as healthy and growing
o A commitment to people and human potential
o A passion for learning and productivity
• The biggest difference between the two is who should in control of the learning process – the
organization or the individual.
Conclusion
• In the end, the learning and performance paradigms are a lot closer than either side would like
to admit. HRD would be must better served by the integration of the two paradigms (Swanson
& Holton, 2009, p. 160).
*************************************************************************************
Chapter 8 – Perspectives on Performance in HRD
Introduction
• This chapter focuses more on the theories of performance. Performance theories are diverse
and do not just focus on individuals (learning), but also focus on teams, processes and
organizational systems
Organizational Effectiveness as a Precursor to Performance
• Organizational effectiveness was once the dominant outcome or dependent variable in
organizational studies, and that other variables have taken its place like customer loyalty,
productivity, error rates, financial ratios, and share prices (Swanson & Holton, 2009, pp. 164-
165)
(Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 164)
(Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 165)
Disciplinary Perspectives on Performance (Swanson & Holton, 2009, pp. 166-167)
• HRD is advanced, challenged, and judged by these various performance perspectives in business
and societal organizations:
o Performance is a multidisciplinary phenomenon.
o Performance models have a disciplinary bias.
o There is no such thing as a single view of performance.
o Types (levels) of performance and indicators of performance are confused in some
models.
o Subsystems in the models vary widely.
Financial Performance
• Units of Performance (Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 171)
o Organizations produce goods and services and overtime they must have income that
equals or exceeds their organizational cost.
o Goods and services produced = units of performance
o Sales organizations can be broken down further into units of performance by comparing
the total organization, divisions, departments, teams, products and individuals.
• Financial Benefits Analysis (Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 172)
o Performance Value (performance value resulting from the HRD interventions)
Cost (cost of the HRD intervention)
_______________
Benefit (benefit is the performance value minus the cost)
What is the forecasted financial benefit resulting from an HRD intervention?
What is the actual financial benefit resulting from an HRD intervention?
What is the approximate financial benefit resulting from an HRD intervention?
• ROI of Human Capital
o Methodology for assessing human capital performance contributions at the
organizational level
(Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 173)
Multilevel Performance Models
• Brache’s Enterprise Model
o A holistic view of the structures of an organization that are categorized into internal and
external components (Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 174).
(Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 175)
• Rummler and Branche’s Performance Model
o Provide an integrated framework for achieving competitive advantages by learning how
to manage organizations, processes, and individuals effectively (Swanson & Holton,
2009, p. 174).
(Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 176)
• Performance Diagnosis Process and Matrix
o Swanson’s model – begins with an initial purpose and culminated in a performance
improvement proposal (Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 178).
(Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 178)
(Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 180)
• Organization Development Performance Model (Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 179)
o Cummings and Worley (2001) organizational diagnosis model
o Includes group or team performance level.
(Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 181)
• Holton’s Integrated Taxonomy of Performance Domains
o An attempt to reconcile differences between various models and to make language
more universal (Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 182)
(Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 182)
Process and Team-level Performance Models (Swanson & Holton, 2009, pp. 185-186)
• Process Performance - Two major views
o Reengineering -
▪ Radical approach
▪ Lacks patience with standard process improvement and willing to scrap a whole
project for one that is more efficient and effective.
o Process improvement –
▪ Focuses on measuring processes at each step and assessing the process steps
and the process as a while as being under control.
• Team Performance –
o Often pursued as a part of process performance.
o Main idea is that teams can oversee a process and collectively make sound judgements
to make improvements.
Individual-Level Performance Model
• Campbell’s Model of Individual Performance
o Model of individual performance is considered one of the few performance models in
industrial psychology
(Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 187)
• Gilbert’s Human Performance Engineering Model (Swanson & Holton, 2009, pp. 188-189)
o Leisurely Theorems
▪ Human competence is a function of worthy performance (W), which is a
function of the ratio of valuable accomplishments (A) to costly behavior (B).
W= 𝐴
𝐵
o Typical Performance
▪ Inversely proportional to the potential for improving performance (the PIP),
which is the ratio of exemplary performance to typical performance.
PIP= 𝑊𝑒𝑥
𝑤𝑡
The Spoils of Performance
• Some people can use HRD tools and techniques for evil purposes. These should be easily
recognizable and should be dealt with.
Conclusion
• We should be reminded that individuals are part of the performance process and that
individuals play a key role in the success of an organization.
*************************************************************************************
Chapter 9 – Perspectives on Learning in HRD
Introduction
• Learning is key to HRD no matter what the debate might be.
Basic Theories of Learning (Swanson & Holton, 2009, pp. 195-203)
(Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 195)
• Behaviorism –
o Primarily concerned with changes in behavior as a result of learning.
• Cognitivism (Gestalt) –
o Arose as a direct response to the limits of behaviorism, particularly the “thoughtless”
approach to human learning.
• Humanism –
o Suggests that the core assumptions of humanism are as follows:
▪ The person as a whole is the main subject of humanistic psychology.
▪ Humanistic psychology is concerned with the knowledge of a person’s entire life
history.
▪ Human existence and intention are also of great importance.
▪ Life goals are of equal importance.
▪ Human creativity has a primary place.
▪ Humanistic psychology is frequently applied to psychotherapy.
• Social Learning
o Focuses on how people learn by interacting with and observing other people.
• Constructivism
o Controversial
o Emerging as a useful perspective for some adult learning situation
o Stresses that all knowledge is context bound and that individuals make personal
meaning of their learning experiences.
• Holistic Learning
(Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 202)
(Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 203)
Learning Models at the Individual Level
• Andragogy: The Adult Learning Perspective
o The Core Andragogical Model
▪ The core principles of adult learning are believed to enable those designing and
conducting adult learning to create more effective learning process for adults.
(Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 206)
o Early on, Knowles presented andragogy as an integrated system, but now it seems more
like a practical application/assumption
o Andragogy in Practice
(Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 208)
o The traditional view of among most scholars and practitioners of adult learning is to
think exclusively of individual growth.
o Adult learning equally powerful in developing better institutions, as well ass individuals.
o Individual and situational differences, the middle ring of the andragogy in practice
model, are portrayed as variables.
o The andragogy in practice framework is an expanded conceptualization of andragogy
that incorporates domain of factors that will influence application of core andragogical
principles.
• Experiential Learning Model (Swanson & Holton, 2009, pp. 211-212)
o Kolb
o The process whereby knowledge is created through transformation of experience.
o 4-steps
▪ Concrete experience – being fully involved in here-and-now experiences
▪ Observations and reflections – reflecting on and observing their experiences
from many perspectives
▪ Formation of abstract concepts and generalizations – creating concepts that
integrate their observations into logically sound theories
▪ Testing implications of new concepts in new situations – using these theories to
make decisions and solve problems
(Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 212)
• Informal and Incidental Workplace Learning (Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 213)
o Informal learning, a category which includes incidental learning, may occur in
institutions, but is not typically classroom-based or highly structured, and control of
learning rests primarily in the hands of the learner.
o Incidental learning is defined as a byproduct of some other activity, such as task
accomplishment, interpersonal interaction, sensing the organizational culture, trail-and-
error experimentation, or even formal learning.
• Transformational Learning (Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 215)
o The fundamental premise is that people, just like organizations, may engage in
incremental learning or in deeper learning that requires them to challenge fundamental
assumptions and meaning schema they have about the world.
Learning Models at the Organizational Level
• The Learning Organization Strategy
o Senge’s Learning Organization Theory
(Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 219)
• Learning Organization and Performance Outcomes (Swanson & Holton, 2009, pp. 219-220)
o Learning organizations perceive learning as the means to long-term performance
improvements.
o This hypothesized model of the learning organization as a performance improvement
strategy results in the following conclusion:
▪ Learning – in particular, improved learning at the team and organizational levels
– leads to increased organization innovation.
▪ The adoption of learning organization strategies is appropriate for organizations
in markets where innovation is a key performance.
▪ Innovation in expected to result in improved performance outcomes, leading to
competitive advantage for the organization.
(Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 220)
Conclusion
• Learning in HRD is currently highly regarded, which is positive
• HRD has been entrusted to make organizations more competitive and effective in the global
economy.
• There is still a lot to be known in the learning process for HRD.
Reference:
Swanson, R., & Holton, E. (2009). Foundations of human resource development (2nd ed. ed.). San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Retrieved from http://www.richardswanson.com/textbook
resources/book/foundations-of-human-resource-development/