Chapter 1 Reflection

The definition that made most sense to me was Chalofsky’s from 1992. I personally believe that the underlying theory and philosophy should be related to human performance just as mentioned in that definition. I can understand and believe that a byproduct of structuring development around human performance results in performance improvement. The definition also specifically states that it is “the study and practice”, which ultimately is analysis/evaluation and implementation. Lastly, it makes perfect sense to me that the purpose is to optimize human and organizational growth, not just one or the other.

The definition that made least sense to me was the next one in 1993 from Marquardt and Engel. The entire definition is about the skills that are included in HRD. So, these are the skills that make up HRD, but what are the outcomes of those skills? What’s the point of having those skills? Also, this definition does not say anything about developing an individual, and I do not understand that because that is what HRD is about… developing humans… developing individuals to develop an organization.

I think most people could agree that training, development, assessment, learning, increasing performance, improving efficiency, sometimes employee selection, and helping to create relationships are all part of HRD. However, I think that the debate becomes more about the level that each is implemented, to what audience, and the role that the HRD professional has in the process. Do HRD professionals train the leadership so they can implement their own development? Or does the HRD Pro do the implementation within the organization and individuals? HRD pros are said to be wearing many different hats and have played many different roles. But as one of our textbooks in another class suggested, HRD pros, after initial assessment and program development, should train and educate the leadership of the organization. This will offer more time for the HRD pro to be more visionary and will also help improve, change, and sustain the culture of the organization because it will begin with the leadership. With one of the main complaints being lack of management support, this could help solve this problem. So, I think the real question is what does HRD do, because I think most people would agree on what are the parts of it.

I think the core belief that is closest to my beliefs is that organizations are human-made entities that rely on human expertise to establish and achieve their goals. Organizations are made up by the people that work them. You can have the best equipment, technology, and facility, however, without the "man-power" and "man-knowledge", those tangible, material things have no worth. And without training and continually developing the human resources that are available, that of which HRD pros do or assist in doing, the organization can crumble and most likely will. Especially with most organizations now moving towards service rather than product, it is especially important that the staff optimize their skills, including people skills, to maximize the output to people as people, not just consumers.

What interests me the most and gets me most excited to explore this field is that HRD is primarily about developing people to be better people and to help reach their potential. Its about creating a life long learning life-style, and one of the venues that we do this is through the work place. With depression strongly related to ones occupation, this is a great place to begin to alter and raise the quality of life. Helping people feel more productive will hopefully result in them feeling more worthy, and ultimately more satisfied and happy in life. It could be a revolution to create peace in the world! Well, maybe, but let's start with passing this course first...