Critical Analysis of HRD Intervention
Introduction
The people within an organisation are its human resource, regarded as the most important element in the success of the organisation. In order for every organisation to maximise the effectiveness of the enterprise, it must focus on the individual’s growth and development through various educational initiatives. Known as human resource development (HRD), such medium drives organised processes of training and learning, allowing individual employee development which will benefit both the individual and the organisation. HRD views an employee as an asset to the organisation whose value must be enhanced by educational furtherance. With that said, the paper will critically analyse an HRD program by the name of Teambuilding Seminar. Such program will be analysed in lieu with two adult learning theories as Edward Lee Thorndike’s connectionism theory and Albert Bandura’s social cognitive learning. The analyses will be drawn from the principles of learning and criteria of good learning.
Teambuilding Seminar
As conducted, the teambuilding workshop purports on clarifying the goal and building ownership across the team. Likewise, it aimed at determining the inhibitors toward performing effectively and removing or overcoming the challenges of unproductive teams. The consequences of being unable to mitigate the negative effects of such teams are also discussed. Put simply, the teambuilding seminar that we engaged in disclosed the current strengths and weaknesses of teams and which of the practices affect the obtainment of team and organisational goals. A design intended to close the gap between desired and actual states of team performance, the seminar was able to develop a collective motivation necessary in accomplishing tasks, leading to sound results while also enhancing cohesiveness and collective performance.
Connectionism Theory
Thorndike et al (1928) formulated the theory of connectionism, arguing that learning consists of the formation or strengthening of a connection or a bond between a specific situation or stimulus and a specific response. The theory asserts that human activity is based on association between stimulus and response. As such, an activity has a stimulating situation which influences or affects the individual; a response which the individual makes towards the situation and a connection between the situation and the response. There are four laws to express the principles of connectionism. First is the law of belongingness. This law states that the strength of connection is increased if the paired stimuli is familiar or common or possess the quality of belongingness. Consequently, the law of effect discloses that when a connection between a stimulus and response is made and is followed by a satisfier or a satisfying result, the connection is strengthened. The third law which is the law of exercise envisages that connection is strengthened with use and weakened with disuse, making repetition or practice valuable in learning. The law of readiness, the fourth, clarifies than when a person is prepared to respond or act, giving the response is satisfying and being prevented from doing so is annoying. The importance of attention or motivation of learning is central to the fourth law.
Social Cognitive Learning
Bandura (1977) introduced a very important mechanism in social learning theory which is the modeling or observational learning. The role of watching others and imitating the things that they are doing is called observational learning. Modeling has been recognised as a significant influence on behaviour. Bandura’s four-step model is a group of interrelated processes as attention or acquisition processes, retention processes, behaviour production processes and reinforcement and motivational processes. In the first process, the individual attempts to recognise and differentiate among distinctive, significant features of model’s responses. Through observation, the observer notices the significant features of the modeled behaviour. Original observational inputs must be retained for the observer to reproduce the behaviour even without the continued presence of the model. The ability to make the response necessary to translate what have been learned from observation into behaviour is the next step. Once the behaviour has been modeled, reinforcement follows. For learning to be activated into overt performances, there must be positive incentives, however. As such, although all types of behaviour may be learned, whether they will be enacted depends on the perceived consequences of action.
Analysis
Principles of learning
As Delahaye (2005) puts it, any learning episode shall start at the learner’s current level of knowledge or perspective then gradually progress. As such, the teambuilding process starts with forming where individuals are committed to their own objectives. These members will only invest their times only if they will realise that the teambuilding process is worth it. If the collective objectives of the teambuilding seminar will be seen as important as their individual objectives, not only 100% buy in will be achieved but also the commitment to finish and participate in the session. Based on Thorndike’s (1932) propositions, the individual team member’s association is because of connection which is determined by the attitude of the person whereby the participation to teambuilding session is determined by the extent to which s/he will deem the session as beneficial.
The existence of the feeling of readiness to learn will determine the degree of satisfaction about a specific action or activity. Thorndike (1932) argues that the learner must have first the requisite maturation without the burden of being irritated. Applying the law of readiness to teambuilding seminar, performing at some ineffective level is not enough reason to institute training. The view I am trying to put forward here is the fact that waiting until the capacity for benefiting from training is at higher level might be more suitable time. If the individual team members do not possess the pre-requisite maturation, the experience of trying to learn will be an annoying and frustrating undertaking. As such, the members of the team must not be forced beyond his or her level of knowledge, competence and expertise.
Learning new information is acceptable if it encompasses a simple to complex process. Space is also an important element. Although not a core part of connectionism theory, Thorndike et al (1928) also proposed the law of partial activity. Such law contends that choosing the elements if a learning situation that best meets one’s need is crucial. A process of selectivity in learning, this could relate that teambuilding must not be a single event or is something that can be done by someone outside the team. Based on the law, the teambuilding process must be offered in a spatial manner where it could target the individual where team composition is continually changing; the teams with static membership; a larger scale which operates between teams and the largest team scale which is the organisation as a whole. Bandura (1977), however, assert that expectations and awareness of contingencies play roles in cognitive learning. As such, not a single training design could be applicable to these team types thereby requiring a ladderised, spatial approach.
Active learning is the knowledge creation process of internalisation. Bandura (1977) asserts that this is central to the reinforcement and motivational processes where learning will not likely manifest itself unless sufficient incentives or social approval are present. Teambuilding, as we know it, brings people together physically, but more than that, it also aimed at encouraging positive and informal interactions between team members and instilling the ‘winning’ culture throughout the organisation. Active learning for teambuilding then must focus the responsibility of learning on learners provided that there is the inexistence of specific incentives such as creating an incentive-pay plan to those who will actively participate in sessions.
Overlearning is best explained by the law of exercise whereby the more frequent the connection is used, the stronger the connection and the opposite effect when connection is not exercise. In order to promote learning within teams, practice must be accompanied by reward or by knowledge of results. For instance, striving for a win-win situation may not be practiced inside teams in a persistent manner. But if the team will going to practice the creation of win-win situations beyond the point of what the team has learned, the rate of forgetting or disuse will show a decline (Thorndike, 1932).
Delahaye (2005) points out that the diversity of processes in learning and the importance of the instruments, tools and devices used in the processes are likely to determine the amount of learning. Several teambuilding training methods can be used depending on the target group, subjects and objectives. Each method has its pros and cons, but it has also been proven that people learn best through experience, therefore, the method chosen for teambuilding should be as participatory as possible. Supposedly, trainees are adults, having solved problems, having independent views, opinions and belief and broad view of life situations. As such, the cognitive factors of learning center on the attention to actions and developing verbal and visual representations of actions (Bandura, 1986).
Either informational or motivational, feedbacks intend to provide useful information for future decisions and development. Since cognition plays a role in learning (Bandura, 1977, 1986), learning through feedbacks in teambuilding is evident by means of clarifying issues or correcting misconceptions or wrong perceptions about another team member, purporting keeping relationships healthy and growing and enhancing work behaviour. As part of social learning, the teambuilding, coupled with feedbacking, could teach individual members to expand self-awareness, verify self-concept and increase one’s sensitivity of impact on others as well as strengthen relationships, enhance group productivity and efficiency and develop collective intelligence. Thorndike (1932) believes that intelligence is a function of the number of connections learned.
Effective transfer of learning happens when the learning task and transfer task are identical. As such, similarity, motivations, previous or past experience and similarity of stimulus affects the transfer of learning (Thorndike, 1932). As already mentioned, the facilitator of teambuilding seminar must be someone from inside the organisation due to the fact that it will only lead to negative transfer of learning if an external consultant will facilitate the teambuilding session. Through by which behaviours could be modeled considering teambuilding, eliciting effect would only be credible if it will be modeled from someone the participants are acquainted with and they respect in return. Belonging to the same class of behaviour is critical in transfer of learning considering the teambuilding seminar within the organisation setting. Bandura (1986) noted that the transfer of learning could be influenced by environment and cognition such as that although learning occurs from watching others, learning can occur without a change in behaviour.
Criteria of good learning
Teambuilding seminar, like other workshop or training, is an active process and that one learns through self-activity. The individual team members learn exactly the reactions s/he practices or s/he learns what s/he experiences. As such, the facilitator cannot learn for the participants of the seminar. Learning is perceived good when the learner has motive for learning. Burns (1995) noted that cognitivism focuses on an unobservable change in mental knowledge. Real learning takes place when a learning situation fills a need to satisfy a purpose. That’s why, the teambuilding seminar has set its objectives so that the members will be properly guided on what they should expect and how they should align their individual learning to team learning. The laws of learning as readiness, exercise and effect attempt to state the more fundamental conditions favorable to the learning process. Applicably, it cannot be denied that the teambuilding seminar is influenced in some measure by motivation, practice and reward as well as the importance of experience, meaning, problem-solving and development of insights (Burns, 2002)
The premise of learning is: purposeful and functional learning is well added by meaning and understanding derived from experience. The meaning attached to any situation comes from the experience related to it. Learning experiences delivered by the teambuilding seminar must ensure understanding. Teambuilding, to be meaningful, must be life-like and of practical value to the learner. This calls for the use of proper training methodologies. Self-directed learning or adult learning implicates the particular focus on the function of reitefication and of reflectivity through these methods. Mezirow (1984) termed this as perspective transformation as one of the learning domains unique to adult learners. In making the teambuilding learning experiences more meaningful, the transfer of learning which depends on identical elements that are comprehended must be a priority. The rule of transfer that we can apply to teambuilding learning is to make learning functional in the real-life setting. Senge (1994) believes that learning is not very particular with the quantity of the information but as a process that enhances capacity. Notably, the failure of transfer is the failure of learning.
Learning is also effective if more senses are utilised by the learner. For the teambuilding, the use of different senses could also add effectiveness in causing learning to be meaningful and functional perhaps though teambuilding activities that will highlight the characteristics of a high-performance team. For instance, there should be activities intended each for participative leadership, shared responsibility and high communication among others. As Nonaka and Takeuchi argued (1995), organisational knowledge creation refers to the capability of the company to create new knowledge, disseminate through the organisation and embody it in products, services and systems. In addition, the use of different instructional devices or audio-visual aids will stimulate greater number of senses. Subsequently, good learning has provision for individual differences. Since people differ in learning potential, the rate of amount of learning varies from one category to one another. In teambuilding seminars, the facilitator must treat the participant as a learner as he is but at the same time with reference to what he might become after the said seminar.
Provided that good learning utilises group processes, learning such as that of the teambuilding seminar as a social process shall allow participants to integrate self with the environment. Such process calls for interaction between the facilitator and the participants and among the participant-cum-learners themselves. Integration is a process which operates in the unifying of separate items into perceptual whole, making knowledge as simultaneously an input, medium and output (Newell et al, 2002). As such, teambuilding is best when differentiation and integration occurs in the process. Through integration, related experiences are organised into bends of greater meaningfulness. Developing generalisations and relationships through teambuilding makes learning useful in future situations. As a result of democratic methods and procedures, the teambuilding seminar must be geared to the capacity of participants to understand and assimilate such methods and procedures. The democratic procedures used in teambuilding sessions stresses the individual worth and integrity of human personality. Moreover, a powerful motive is knowledge of results whereby the process, if not the participants of, teambuilding must be appraised of the progress or results. The result of the teambuilding seminar will reveal the specific points of strengths and weaknesses of the learning of the people. However, this might not be immediately achievable.
Reflections
Teambuilding must not be viewed as a commodity; the foundation of all teambuilding is commitment to the shared goal. The choice of an HRD intervention strategy must not only depend on the current state of teamwork but on the nature of the people. The teambuilding seminar then must be regarded as an HRD intervention that shall develop individual and relational schemes as well as in/out groups and cultural contexts. For instance, the development of individual skills and the establishment of familiarity with shared processes must be pursued. The improvement of unconscious dynamics and the engenderment of a sense of common purpose and commitment must be likewise accomplished. Tackling barriers and building teamwork ethos are other things to consider in developing a teamwork-based HRD intervention.
As per the HRD intervention the paper is considering, the teambuilding process must be thoroughly drawn up and approved. The necessary first step is to make other members of the team understand the rationale behind conducting a teambuilding seminar. The implementation of these processes is for avoiding mediocrity and underachievement, which from a personal viewpoint, process-wise, was achieved. Though the employment of the seminar is treated as an ad hoc, it is the most structured approach there is, considering the need to foster a teamworking culture. As a structured process, the teambuilding seminar was not a one-time decision instead it is a process that undergone a critical decision-making on what improvements the organisation requires, and one which could be realistically expect the team to achieve. The common thing is that the shared experience of the people was able to drive them to be effective.
Anyhow, there are specific areas that the teambuilding session proved to be ineffective. A lack of buy in was experienced and that the HRD intervention is made out of sequence. The commitment to teambuilding activities is high; however, I have observed that the individual team members think that being committed to their own objectives means that they are also committed to the team, which is something not so true. As a matter of fact, the commitment to teambuilding activities is never predicated to commitment to overall direction/goals of the team. In addition, improving interpersonal relationships requires that there must be a clearly defined structure, roles and responsibilities. However, even if there are clear-cut structures and roles and responsibilities, misaligned commitment could likely to influence the effectiveness of the teambuilding seminar. The teambuilding session was also taken from a very generic context that is why the session failed to add a real and lasting value to the learning of the participants.
Personally, the teambuilding session must be based on customary requirements of the team members/participants so that real ownership of the process could be achieved. It is of my best belief that the training needs analysis must be performed first and that the employees must be given a say as to what trainings/seminars/workshops are needed, actually. Am not saying that the HR staff and the top management who deliberated for what specific trainings lack credibility and are not competent enough, what I am trying to prove is that if organisational members including those in teams will be given full ownership to the process, their participation shall commence with decision-making, a proactive decision-making that is. In simpler terms, diagnosis is required to effective development of HRD intervention strategies, and that diagnosis must conform to a top-down decision-making.
One of the most essential elements of an effective HRD intervention strategy is its processual nature. The development process itself is a learning experience where learning and experiences come together. Toward the designing of an HRD strategy there is the necessity to assess together and individually the know-how, expertise and competencies to conceptualise agreed upon HRD practices and intervention strategies unique to the organisation and then apply learnings in a universally-accepted manner. To wit, cultivating an effective HRD strategy is not a panacea but could be a starting point in further creation of sustainable learning organisation. This is a challenge of transforming passivity to activity and better yet proactivity. Having a learning environment is so important in achieving servanthood inside the organisation in every sense of the word. Servanthood that we are trying to consider here is the capability, and willingness, of every organisational member to contribute their individual learning to the organisational learning hence collective learning.
Engaging in transformational learning, the accomplishment of the ultimate goal of creating organisational learning is also by itself a virtue which guides the organisation and the people in continually developing personally and professionally. Self-actualisation implies that the sense of ownership and knowledge are very important for organisational members. Though such ideology is true, a fact remains that people can never learn everything and that people can never learn all things academically. Establishing the organisational learning community through HRD not only calls for competent and effective strategies but also requires the capability to instill onto the members the importance of interacting with their surrounding including workmates. Such undertaking points to three things: the role of HRD strategies and the role of organisational members and the interplay between the two that benefits the organisation as a whole. This means that building organisational learning community is a mutual-helping and self-helping endeavor. Thereby, making life long learning evident in organisations.
Conclusion
As the most important element of virtually every organisation, the people must be empowered through education and development. HRD strategies within organisations are critical, and must be efficient enough to maximise learning which could benefit not just the individuals but the organisation itself. The teambuilding seminar is the HRD program that the paper considers, and was analysed in lieu with connectionism theory and social cognitive learning. Principles of learning and criteria of good learning are utilised as the bases of analysis. Delahaye sets forth the principles of learning including starting with the known, readiness to learn, part and spaced learning, active learning, overlearning, multiple sense learning and meaningful material, feedback and transfer of learning. The criteria, on the other hand, are: utilisation of the theory of self-activity, purposeful, utilisation of the laws of learning, a process of understanding, transferability, depends on the senses utilised in the process, has provision for individual differences, utilisation of group processes, a process of integration, governed by democratic principles and includes evaluation.
Reference
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Cognitive Learning. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
Burns, R. (1995). The adult learner at work: a comprehensive guide to the context, psychology and methods of learning for the workplace. Chatswood, N.S.W., Business and Professional Publishing
Burns, R. (2002). The adult learner at work: the challenges of lifelong education in the new millennium. Warriewood, N.S.W., Business Publishing.
Mezirow, J. (1984). A critical Theory of adult learning and education. Selected writings on philosophy and adult education. S. B. Mirriam. Malabar, Fla, R.E. Krieger: (p.123-139).
Newell, S., Robertson, M., Scarborough, H. and Swan, J. (2002). Managing knowledge work. New York, Palgrave.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Senge, P. M. (1994). The Fifth discipline field-book: strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York, Currency, Doubleday.
Thorndike, E. (1932). The Fundamentals of Learning. New York, Teachers College Press.
Thorndike, E. et al. (1928), Adult Learning. New York, Macmillan.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment