Introduction to employees

As usual, Noe did not provide any “earth shattering” thoughts concerning the considerations of training in regards to federal regulations and individual rights.  I, truly, did not spend much time within those chapters, since many of the considerations discussed can be accessed at any time the need arises.  However, Grugulis did invoke multiple discussion-worthy ideas.  The most applicable idea was the disscussion regarding the difference between manager and leader.  She cites examples of managers’ wide breadth of responsibility (from front-line “jr” manager to someone who is in complete control of all decisions) but I was able to apply my personal experience with management and leadership to the disparities.  First, I do believe that it is contingent on the organization, to define the role and effectivness of manager.  In organizations that I have been associated, there has been an emphasis on entrepreneurial leadership, meaning it was desirable to take a sense of ownership in all decisions regarding: staffing, scheduling, budgeting, and training.  These organizations uphold what Grugulis refers to as a relationship of high trust.  The manager is entrusted with organizational resources and the assumption is that the manager will utilize these resources in a way that will maximize the organizational goals, not necessarily the mangers.  However, I also belive and have experienced the political aspect of management that Grugulis mentions.  Multiple managers that I have worked beside have abused the trust organizations provide to further their careers,  rather than further the organization’s goals.  These managers have done exactly what Grugulis cites: setting other managers up for failure so the former manager did not “look bad” in the organization’s eyes, and thus remain in a position of favor.  Unfortunately, in these circumstances, the managers’ abuse of power/trust detracts from what their purpose, as manager, should be.  Managers should work to develop their subordinates for advancement while developing their own careers. I agree with Grugulis when she says that it would benefit America to work toward Sweden’s model of service sector jobs since it would increase the focus on development, rather than superficial job requirements.  It seems that this method would have the potential to promote intrinsic motivation in workers since they would feel an investment by organizations in their skills and development as workers.  This motivation could serve to promote these employees to seek further personal development and autonomy.

It was helpful to have the Hansen article first to provide background for Taut & Brauns.  I can take personal experiences from Starbucks and apply the implications (Specifically) to them.  While I am beginning to see that we would benefit more from recognizing a “systems model” of evaluation.  When evaluations are conducted, currently, we do not focus on the effects that findings have on the rest of the company/system.  While we do have “benchmarks” by which to measure success/failure, they are not adequately used to actually evaluate.  Noone seems to be able to explain why factors are included.  With that said, it begins to move into some of the implications that Taut & Brauns discuss.  Mainly, we suffer from the “power structure” implication.  Many of the “higher ups” see changes in evaluation/recommendation as threatening to their established power position.  Knowledge is a commodity within our company, and unfortunately, isn’t shared as freely as is implied through our training models.  Again, I feel that this is because those with the knowledge, feel the power associated with knowing something that those “beneath” them do not know and thus do not benefit from being “in the loop.”  One benefit that we do realize is the lack of another implication that the article discusses, in previous negative experiences.  We have the benefit of many new workers that do not have previous knowledge (sometimes that very knowledge that the “powerful ones” withold) concerning processes and do not hold preconcieved notions.  This serves to allow an avenue for introducing new evaluation methods and serve to potentially increase effectiveness.  In all, I feel that our organization needs to revisit its evaluation method with respect to the potential implications.

I have always envisioned “evaluation” as a portion of the ADDIE model, never as an element to its own.  Thereby, when I read about evaluation as a profession, and its evolution from an element into a main focus, I’m “enlightened.”  This is another “graduate moment” for me when I realize that each element that I am used to utilizing is now a field into itself.  As I have mentioned before in papers, I feel that evaluation is the most important element of any program.  Continual evaluation, to me, is the most beneficial employment of the tool.  In work with Starbucks, we utilize continual evaluation to monitor training programs.  We set employees on training paths with checkpoints along the way and assess its progress.  Our article talks about how evaluation has taken a turn from the backseat of programs to the focal point.  I see this evidenced in my job as a manger and implementer of programs.  As I read more about evaluation, I continue to gain a better prespective of what is required to produce an effective training program.

Buch and Bartley’s piece on “Learning Style and training delivery mode preference” resonates with me, as of recently.  I have begun to pursue another faction of my job, classroom facilitator.  In my move, I would like to draw on the principles that they utilize in their article.  I relate better, the accomodator in me, to concrete relations between learning styles and deliver modes.  As a common theme among all the readings, the delivery mode will produce a higher level of “learning” when modeled after the prefered learning style of your audience.  In my personal example, I could propose a learning-inventory be administered initially, and adapt my delivery method based on the results.  Then  I could perform my own, informal, study similarly to Blevins and Barnes.  I could prepare a questionare/quiz to be administered to the students of different preparedness.  I would be interested to see the results differ when I utilize different methods of delivery.  In my organization, we have a prescribed lesson plan AND literal step-by-step instruction on how to deliver the information.  Thereby, deviating from the prescribed lesson plan, I would be a innovator in that respect.  In line with Noe’s descriptions of different delivery methods and on E-learning, we do utilize various methods.  For higher level instruction (manager and up) we utilize classroom instruction.  Minimal discussion takes place in the classroom, rejecting the suggested findings of Blevins and Barnes.  I, however, agree with their findings by even drawing on my personal experiences in classrooms.  I observe more interaction and more involvement in the process of learning when the format is heavy discussion.  Conversely, while it may satisfy a portion of the audience, when a majority of the time is lecture and “self-reflection,” less involvement is observed.  I can see a few parallels that I identify as benefical between Noe’s chapters and my work.  We utilize e-learning, but not to its fullest potential.  The way described in the chapters, “learner control” is a key point/benefit.  In our modules, there is minimal control.  The modules are timed and specific periods are alloted for completion.  In my opinion, this defeats the purpose of arranging e-learning.  Flexibility is a great benefit to e-learning, when used appropriately.  In summation, I would draw more from the findings of Buch and Bartley when designing my delivery method for my future classes.  I feel I can grasp those concepts more firmly and they seem to mesh more fluidly into an assessment.

As before, I read this book with my job in mind.  To this end, there are already implications of this discussion on transfer to my role.  I’m struggling with how to better equip my current employees while revamping the training material to better fit our new hires.  For our industry, a stimulus generalization approach works best.  We provide the employees with training on recipes for drinks, role play scenarios for customer service, and information on Starbuck’s mission and values.  We then expect employees to utilize the general principles we have provided them to apply their training to many different situations, all to provide excellent customer service.  By emphasizing the far transfer, we seek to provide the employees with the skills to draw upon when situations arise that they may not have been explicitly equipped to handle.  I agree more with this view because it better creates employees who take ownership in their learning because they are forced to apply principles, rather than exact “scripts.”  And within any organization, it is more beneficial to have employees who own their positions.  We also provide many opportunities to use their learned methods.  As the chapter discusses, this way of having trainees function in certain scenarios (work projects, etc..) increases retention and transfer as well.  I am already using these methods and will continue to adapt.

I found striking similarity in Noe’s discussion on the methods of practice and the shortcomings of Kramden Computers’ “training” efforts, to the challenges I am currently facing at work.  As Noe suggests, the methods of practice influence the transfer of training stronger than an absence of method toward transfer.  At Starbucks, I have encountered an absence of methodology when it comes to training new/existing employees.  Had I not been exposed to this information, I would have taken our training methods at face value and considered them the “best practice.”  However, when reading the Darrah chapter on Kramden’s problems and how Noe talks about his “best practices” such as the benefits of whole and part practice, I can see that with management at Starbucks, we should utilize both.  We, however, focus more on whole practice concerning management practices when the best method would be to take both methods into account.  It is difficult for a new manager to process all of the information that they are presented with upon hire and be expected to effectively apply the practices when in position.  I also agree with Noe’s suggestion on pre-practice descriptions.  I will start to brief the new candidates on what to expect in training and how we will supply feedback, another element missing with our current methods.  Frequent feedback is crucial if we are to expect our employees to modify their behavior/actions to produce the results we are looking for.  Taking an example from Darrah’s two chapters, however, we will need to also solicit feedback from our employees when developing training plans.  As was evident with the Kramden Computer’s floor team, a lack of knowledge concerning the employees’ actual needs can manifest problems within the organization itself.  As with Kramden, the instructors were not effective in their training efforts because they were not addressing the employees true needs.  Their lack of knowledge about the realities of the production floor versus their perceived nature directly attributed to the dissention among production floor workers and ultimately their resistance to training.  The companies’ history of “control by ignorance” was a powerful deterrant to the instructors audience.  In my organization, I will seek to fufill my learners needs by taking an inventory of their perceived needs prior to formulating a training plan.  I hope to not mimick Kramden’s initial state.

An interesting reading to compare a needs assessment (including person analysis, relating to soft skills) to the downplay of “soft skills.”  In conjunction with my organizational development class, the critique of the ever popular “soft skills,”  truly makes sense.  I am in complete harmony with the subjectivity of the “skills” such as loyalty, ambition, etc.  In my present work, I typically find myself seeking applicants that display motivation and a certain level of drive.  However, after reflection following the article, I see that I have to re-assess my personal bias toward those that may be exhibiting behaviour that might be suitable for the position, but that I subconsiously attribute to the wrong gender.  I have not had the occasion to evaluate my own criteria I hold applicants to until I realized that I do have preferences that might not be gounded in an objective view. 

Also applicable to my current work, I took note of the needs assessment section as necessary for our current turnaround as company.  As Starbucks struggles in the market, I have taken the lead in my own store to conduct a needs assessment to determine if we need to conduct a training session, address organizational objectives, or recruit a different demographic.  I have begun to draw up a rough draft of how I will conduct the analysis discussed in Noe, Org. analysis, task analysis, and person.  I think I’ll find it most informational when I address our personel.  I have spoken to multiple employees who have expressed concern over numerous “policy.”  I am going to investigate if “policy” is indeed “policy” or if it a grand-fathered method of doing things.  I have found that most “policies” are this way. 

In the next upcoming weeks, I’m going to assess our protocol at the store level and carry it further into what the baristas’ thoughts are on training and it’s need.

I am already enthralled in the content of this course. I am immediately surprised by the parallel thought process I am experiencing while reading the articles. To begin with the Darrah reading’s look into the skill requirement transition taking place, and ending with the chapter on development, encompased the core value I hold for training. As a manager for a fairly large corporation, I routinely abide by presrcibed processes. However, I’m beginning to take a step backward and re-evaluate our standard for training. The areas that struck me as most impressive was a few of the “case studies” within the chapters.

First, I identified deeply with the Marriott’s solution to retaining employees and encouraging their upward aspirations. In my role, I have never had this idea expressed explicitly however, I feel an inert drive to encourage employees as I would want to be encouraged, and offset their shortcomings with appropriate praise for success. This method of treating even the lowest paid of an orgainzation would encourage those looking to devote their careers to one’s company. With a stronger possibility for promotion and personal development, I feel potential employees would rightly seek employement.

Secondly, taking the focus from training for the sake of training and placing it on training as a means of employee development, both professionally and personally, would contribute to any organization’s “bottom line.”  As we know from the reading, a post 9/11 economy is anything but bountiful and any training needs, in some form, to relate to profits for true company support. Thereby, using an investment in employees total development will be seen as a powerful recruitment tool (obtaining employees) and an even more powerful tool for retaining valuable and innovative employees. I agree with the notion that employees become more innovative when they are the focus of training. I can see this as a version of the “hierarchy of needs.” Except, this hierarchy is one of professional needs, whereby, and employee does not begin to think in innovative ways until their desire to do such is both supported and recognized. An employee feels a basic need to complete their job, especially when we are talking about knowledge workers. These workers can utilize their ability to any of one’s competitors, therefore, they must be encouraged to stay. Personal growth alongside professional growth provides a level of investment in an employee that can not go unrequited. As Darrah talks about, the specific “skilling” of an employees role is variable, I agree that specific situations require differing levels of rigidness and flexibility. Therefore, it is even more important to ensure that trainers have experienced the “other side” and have been required to work from the role of the trainee to better grasp institutional needs.