HRD: Different Perspectives, Aims, and Objectives
Different paradigms present different perspectives of HARD (Human Resource Development) in terms of its aims and objectives. Consequently, it important to understand the different paradigms since each paradigm will have different approaches while solving HARD related problems. Experts advise that individuals build their personal beliefs regarding which paradigm suits his or her practice.
In our context, It is best to divide HARD into two different paradigms, the performance, and the learning paradigm since they are definite. Moreover, the learning paradigm and the performance paradigm overlook most of the HARD practice as well as the thinking. The learning paradigm Is especially predominant In HARD practice In the United States of America. The learning paradigm and the performance paradigm are very dissimilar in many aspects. For instance, as the learning paradigm focuses on individual learning the performance paradigm focuses on the individual performance improvement.
Learning paradigm of HARD is the field of study and practices that nature a long- term work-related learning capacity in an organization at all levels I. . Individual, organizational, and group levels. The performance paradigm of HARD is the art of realizing units of mission-related outputs. In addition, performance can be an organized system meant to accomplish a purpose or a mission. Though the two paradigms are diverse, they both agree on some aspects, for Instance they both agree that Improvement of organizations Is through human expertise.
Different experts and philosophers hold different perspectives on the performance aspect. Performance can be as a natural outcome of humans’ actively, reference is an important input in economic activities, or performance can also be a tool of oppression. There are different views held regarding then learning paradigm. Learning is a humanistic Endeavor, as it enhances the potential of human beings. Learning can also end up being an oppressive tool, for instance in the context of communism where learning is used to control the society.
Learning is an instrument for the transmission of information needed by individuals. Nevertheless, it would be ignorant to draw that the two paradigms cannot converge since HARD operates best under Integration of the two. Chapter 8 Primary, the chapter Is about the theories on performance. Performance theory varies In comparison to the learning theory since It concentrates on teams, processes, organizational systems, and Individuals. Organizational effectiveness Is the mall precursor to performance and can be in different models.
It can be a goal model, constituencies model. HARD is not the only discipline interested in performance and consequently analyzing HARD is normally on a basis on the different perspectives of performances. There are other different perspectives such as performance is a ultrasonically phenomenon. Performance models are of wide ranges of disciplines such as sociology, ethics, quality, psychology, and etcetera. Individual level performance models were because of HARD since; HARD has its foundation on individual learning.
The models are the human performance technology and they try to define the common individual performance and the factors influencing individual performance. The financial performance entails the financial benefits of the HARD programs. Different factors influence the HARD profession such as the value-laden myths. Some of the myths are that the cost of HARD is high, it is impossible to quantify the benefits of HARD or that giving organizations the HARD they want is appropriate.
Breaches enterprise model and Rumbles model provide integrated framework to achieve competitive advantage. Other common representative models are the John Campbell taxonomy and Thomas Gilbert’s human performance engineering model. The integration of the performance models bring about new perspectives to HARD research, practice, and thinking. Chapter 9 This chapter focuses on the different perspectives of learning and the different preventative theories on learning in HARD.
Learning is at the core of HARD and all debates ever carried out suggest that HARD embrace learning. The basic theories are six and include humanism, constructivism, holistic learning, social learning, behaviorism, and cognitive. These theories can apply in all the learning settings as well as for all age groups. Learning models can be at individual levels and at organizational levels. In the recent past, androgyny has been a theory of adult learning, a set of assumptions regarding adult learners, and a method of adult education.
At individual levels is the androgyny that is a principal adult learning in HARD. On an adult learning perspective, it is a genuine trial to focus on the adult learner. Ontological model avails core standards of important and key hypotheses on adult learners. Another king of learning that is increasingly gaining attention is the transformational learning. This kind of learning is deep and requires the learner to challenge the fundamental assumptions and the mental schema they hold regarding the world.
In relation to mental schema are restructuring, accretion, and tuning here accretion and tuning entails no change or incremental changes in an individual’s schemata and restructuring involves creating a new schema. Organizational learning is learning that occurs at system level and not at individual levels. The main feature differentiating individual and organizational learning is that individual learning makes their mental models precise. HARD develops the knowledge for organizations to be competitive in the economy. Swanson. A, Hilton. F, Hilton, E. Foundations of Human Resource Development. London: Barrett-Koehler Publishers, 2001.