Globalization
Globalization, the global economy... there is so much to it. It's about poverty, wealth, power, technology, expediting processes, increasing the speed of life, increased population, hunger, disease. In my opinion, it's not a good thing. Maybe that's because I'm a simple person & I like to keep things simple. I feel like globalization makes things complicated. However, because our economy is becoming more global, we are able to help and assist those troubled areas. Yet, at the same time, globalization is increasing the issues & difficulties our world is suffering from. It's so sad to believe that our country houses ONLY 5% of the world's population, yet utilizes 25% of the world's resources. Almost makes me sick thinking about it.
Specific activities that could help would mostly be geared around education and awareness. These activities would also have to be related to people's current experiences. I feel like almost all high school & college students should have an international experience, preferably in a third world country. Activities could even involve treating people the way others in the world are treated. Instead of trying to overtake their countries to make them like "us", maybe we should help them accomplish things their way, if we are to intervene at all.
Sorry, but globalization annoys me because people are naive & ignorant!
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Chapter 14 Reflection
We're gonna KISS this:
Principle 1: Revolves around the change process. Change is a good thing, dang it! So go with it!
Principle 2: Trust an integrity are a big deal. Kinda like the anchorman, but better.
Principle 3: Organizatioal Development is a Dynamic thing. There are lots of pieces and it takes time.
UREC is a perfect example. The mission drives everything we do and the mission of the division within the university drives everything we do as well. The mission is basically to promote healthy lifestyles & for the division of student affairs is to develop students outside of the classroom (Basically). So, all of our programs, including with how we train & develop our student staff is geared towards those two things. It impacts every single one of our practices & if somethng doesn't align, then it is instantly evaluated.
I think for this one, I am going to call it quits. My roommates cat literally just came up and peed on my arm. One of the sickest things that has ever happened to me (& a lot of sick things have happened to me) and I need to go knife that cat or something! Arr! So, Until next chapter...
Principle 1: Revolves around the change process. Change is a good thing, dang it! So go with it!
Principle 2: Trust an integrity are a big deal. Kinda like the anchorman, but better.
Principle 3: Organizatioal Development is a Dynamic thing. There are lots of pieces and it takes time.
UREC is a perfect example. The mission drives everything we do and the mission of the division within the university drives everything we do as well. The mission is basically to promote healthy lifestyles & for the division of student affairs is to develop students outside of the classroom (Basically). So, all of our programs, including with how we train & develop our student staff is geared towards those two things. It impacts every single one of our practices & if somethng doesn't align, then it is instantly evaluated.
I think for this one, I am going to call it quits. My roommates cat literally just came up and peed on my arm. One of the sickest things that has ever happened to me (& a lot of sick things have happened to me) and I need to go knife that cat or something! Arr! So, Until next chapter...
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Chapter 13 Reflection
I just realized I have some pretty amazing blog titles, huh? Yeah, what can I say, I'm pretty original, like a guy named Robert.... A random tangent, but fun story:
Last year, about this time of year I went to a coffee shop with my two friends Jenna & Calin to get some work done. The coffee shop closed & we stood outside underneath the awning chatting for another hour & a half. Our visit there wouldn't have been as long had a man named Robert not crossed out path. He was an extremely intoxicated bearded guy who had just come from a bar wearing jeans, a cream colored T-shirt with a flannel long sleeve it. We noticed this shadow running towards us rather awkwardly. Well, not only was he intoxicated, but was also trying to run with his hands in his pockets - try doing it sober... you'll see why it looked so funny. Anyway, he began talking to us & told us all about his evening & eventually his life. He had come from a bar down the street where he met a Native American Woman who only had one arm. They kept buying each other drinks, but as he explained he was just a friendly guy & in no way did he have intentions of having "relations" with her after the bar and drinks. Then he proceeded to tell us about some random idea or perspective that he had on something. We commended him for his insightful thoughts and he looked at us, shrugged his shoulders with his hands in his pockets and said very seriously, "It's not original or anything, I just made it up." Now, back to the task at hand.
I believe that change is and is not a changing construct for HRD. Change has to be considered in almost every aspect of HRD. So, change should be a constant construct in HRD processes. However, just in our performance analysis & needs assessment project, we're finding that as we are working to improve & change the process of a program, its naturally changing without our intervention at all.
Similarities, I see that all of them require steps. There's not just one thing you do to change. Every level requires development, one thing to build off of another. To recognize this is the first step in anything. Agreeing to change is making a commitment. Differences, well, the more individualistic you go, the more detailed the development becomes. And the way I see it, one is ground for the next. If you go through individual change, it's the first step in the team process for change & so on.
I feel that teleological & life cycle cover all change. Life cycle covers all things that happen naturally and incidentally. Teleological seems to cover all change that is based around goals. I think that evolutionary & dialectic theory full within this one. If there are scarce resources, then goals would be realigned to deal with the scarcity. If there is conflict and change is a matter of resulting that, then I feel that ultimately this falls within teleological theory because goals are reassigned, realigned, or recreated.
Responsible connection? Isn't this anthropomorphic? Giving human characteristics (responsibility) to a non-living thing (a connection). The responsible connection between change & performance is basically understanding that performance can not be improved without some sort of change. Whether the change be internal or external, something has to happen for other things to happen because all systems are open. A pretty generic answer, but that's the basics & I don't like to make things complicated... like Avril.
Last year, about this time of year I went to a coffee shop with my two friends Jenna & Calin to get some work done. The coffee shop closed & we stood outside underneath the awning chatting for another hour & a half. Our visit there wouldn't have been as long had a man named Robert not crossed out path. He was an extremely intoxicated bearded guy who had just come from a bar wearing jeans, a cream colored T-shirt with a flannel long sleeve it. We noticed this shadow running towards us rather awkwardly. Well, not only was he intoxicated, but was also trying to run with his hands in his pockets - try doing it sober... you'll see why it looked so funny. Anyway, he began talking to us & told us all about his evening & eventually his life. He had come from a bar down the street where he met a Native American Woman who only had one arm. They kept buying each other drinks, but as he explained he was just a friendly guy & in no way did he have intentions of having "relations" with her after the bar and drinks. Then he proceeded to tell us about some random idea or perspective that he had on something. We commended him for his insightful thoughts and he looked at us, shrugged his shoulders with his hands in his pockets and said very seriously, "It's not original or anything, I just made it up." Now, back to the task at hand.
I believe that change is and is not a changing construct for HRD. Change has to be considered in almost every aspect of HRD. So, change should be a constant construct in HRD processes. However, just in our performance analysis & needs assessment project, we're finding that as we are working to improve & change the process of a program, its naturally changing without our intervention at all.
Similarities, I see that all of them require steps. There's not just one thing you do to change. Every level requires development, one thing to build off of another. To recognize this is the first step in anything. Agreeing to change is making a commitment. Differences, well, the more individualistic you go, the more detailed the development becomes. And the way I see it, one is ground for the next. If you go through individual change, it's the first step in the team process for change & so on.
I feel that teleological & life cycle cover all change. Life cycle covers all things that happen naturally and incidentally. Teleological seems to cover all change that is based around goals. I think that evolutionary & dialectic theory full within this one. If there are scarce resources, then goals would be realigned to deal with the scarcity. If there is conflict and change is a matter of resulting that, then I feel that ultimately this falls within teleological theory because goals are reassigned, realigned, or recreated.
Responsible connection? Isn't this anthropomorphic? Giving human characteristics (responsibility) to a non-living thing (a connection). The responsible connection between change & performance is basically understanding that performance can not be improved without some sort of change. Whether the change be internal or external, something has to happen for other things to happen because all systems are open. A pretty generic answer, but that's the basics & I don't like to make things complicated... like Avril.
Chapter 12 Reflection
So, I have to say that one of my favorite definitions that this chapter gives us in from Blake & Mouton (1969) where they said, "Organization development emphasizes the "O" in every sense of the word." I chuckled because my first thought was the movie Office Space. If you've seen it, I need not explain any more.
Organizational Development is a systematic effort to becoming more efficient and effective. In doing so, however, the organization this is usually a long term goal, includes being adaptable, diagnosing problems, among many others. With only those few key terms, it is obvious how this fits into HRD - Goals, adaptability, problems, etc. An organization is made up by its human resources, therefore, without developing HR, an organization can not develop. it is also said that it will unleash human expertise. What about flexpertise? Shouldn't it unleash this as well?!
To be honest, I can't really see any unique aspects of OD in HRD. I feel like it is constantly the ADDIE model over & over, sometimes using different terms. Hopefully we can go through this in class, because I'm not seeing the difference.
The role of the OD consultant is to bring problems or areas in need of change (to be more positive) to the forefront. From there, the consultant provides ideas & suggestions for change & improvement through a well thought out plan based on the analysis. From there, the organization has the option to go with it, or decline it, but as a consultant he/she basically offers educated suggestions.
Again, these phases are basically the ADDIE model, and it seems redundant to go through this again. Analysis is needed so the problem can be found & addressed. From there diagnosis is done, which allows suggestions to be made for potential solutions to the problem. Returning to the collected data for information usually happens. Once a solution and diagnosis option is chosen, then designing the actual plan to be implementing takes place. After every I is dotted & T is crossed, the plan is rolled out & implemented. After the plan has been brought to action, it needs to be assessed & evaluated. The institution needs to reflect on it & make necessary adjustments and use the information from the evaluation to make any further changes. It's a system, so the act of this change effort should certainly affect future inputs & processes. All the steps follow one after the other & one can not be completed if a prior step is not.
I feel like doesn't really manage the systems much as it changes the system. Swanson talks about the taxonomy of performance in this chapter & clearly states that OD is found in the upper tier of that, the upper tier known as "Changing the system". The only way that I see OD managing the system is through providing common goals to be achieved and directing the work of systems within the organization.
Cheers!
Organizational Development is a systematic effort to becoming more efficient and effective. In doing so, however, the organization this is usually a long term goal, includes being adaptable, diagnosing problems, among many others. With only those few key terms, it is obvious how this fits into HRD - Goals, adaptability, problems, etc. An organization is made up by its human resources, therefore, without developing HR, an organization can not develop. it is also said that it will unleash human expertise. What about flexpertise? Shouldn't it unleash this as well?!
To be honest, I can't really see any unique aspects of OD in HRD. I feel like it is constantly the ADDIE model over & over, sometimes using different terms. Hopefully we can go through this in class, because I'm not seeing the difference.
The role of the OD consultant is to bring problems or areas in need of change (to be more positive) to the forefront. From there, the consultant provides ideas & suggestions for change & improvement through a well thought out plan based on the analysis. From there, the organization has the option to go with it, or decline it, but as a consultant he/she basically offers educated suggestions.
Again, these phases are basically the ADDIE model, and it seems redundant to go through this again. Analysis is needed so the problem can be found & addressed. From there diagnosis is done, which allows suggestions to be made for potential solutions to the problem. Returning to the collected data for information usually happens. Once a solution and diagnosis option is chosen, then designing the actual plan to be implementing takes place. After every I is dotted & T is crossed, the plan is rolled out & implemented. After the plan has been brought to action, it needs to be assessed & evaluated. The institution needs to reflect on it & make necessary adjustments and use the information from the evaluation to make any further changes. It's a system, so the act of this change effort should certainly affect future inputs & processes. All the steps follow one after the other & one can not be completed if a prior step is not.
I feel like doesn't really manage the systems much as it changes the system. Swanson talks about the taxonomy of performance in this chapter & clearly states that OD is found in the upper tier of that, the upper tier known as "Changing the system". The only way that I see OD managing the system is through providing common goals to be achieved and directing the work of systems within the organization.
Cheers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)