Training & Development

1)
Training objectives are one of the most important parts of training program. While some people think of training objective as a waste of valuable time. The counterargument here is that resources are always limited and the training objectives actually lead the design of training. It provides the clear guidelines and develops the training program in less time because objectives focus specifically on needs. It helps in adhering to a plan.

1. 2. 3. 4.

Trainer Trainee Designer Evaluator

Trainer The training objective is also beneficial to trainer because it helps the trainer to measure the progress of trainees and make the required adjustments. Also, trainer comes in a position to establish a relationship between objectives and particular segments of training.

Trainee The training objective is beneficial to the trainee because it helps in reducing the anxiety of the trainee up to some extent. Not knowing anything or going to a place which is unknown creates anxiety that can negatively affect learning. Therefore, it is important to keep the participants aware of the happenings, rather than keeping it surprise.

Designer The training objective is beneficial to the training designer because if the designer is aware what is to be achieved in the end then hell buy the training package according to that only. The training designer would then look for the training methods, training equipments, and training content accordingly to achieve those objectives. Furthermore, planning always helps in dealing effectively in an unexpected situation. Consider an example; the objective of one training program is to deal effectively with customers to increase the sales.

Evaluator It becomes easy for the training evaluator to measure the progress of the trainees because the objectives define the expected performance of trainees. Training objective is an important to tool to judge the performance of participants.

Principles of learning,
also referred to as laws of learning, which seem generally applicable to the learning process. These principles have been discovered, tested, and used in practical situations. They provide additional insight into what makes people learn most effectively. Edward Thorndike developed the first three "Laws of learning:" readiness, exercise, and effect. Since Thorndike set down his basic three laws in the early part of the twentieth century, five additional principles have been added: primacy, recency, intensity, freedom and requirement. The majority of these principles are widely applied in aerospace instruction, and some in many other fields, as outlined below:

Contents
1 Readiness

2 Exercise 3 Effect 4 Primacy 5 Recency 6 Intensity 7 Freedom 8 Requirement 9 Laws of Learning Applied to Learning Games 10 See also 11 External links 12 References 13 Further reading

[edit] Readiness
Readiness implies a degree of single-mindedness and eagerness. Individuals learn best when they are physically, mentally, and emotionally ready to learn, and they do not learn well if they see no reason for learning. Getting students ready to learn, creating interest by showing the value of the subject matter, and providing continuous mental or physical challenge, is usually the instructors responsibility.

[edit] Exercise
The principle of exercise states that those things most often repeated are best remembered. It is the basis of drill and practice. It has been proven that students learn best and retain information longer when they have meaningful practice and repetition. The key here is that the practice must be meaningful. It is clear that practice leads to improvement only when it is followed by positive feedback.

[edit] Effect
Enjoying the water - Learning backstroke photo by Tom@HK The principle of effect is based on the emotional reaction of the student. It has a direct relationship to motivation. The principle of effect is that learning is strengthened when accompanied by a pleasant or satisfying feeling, and that learning is weakened when associated with an unpleasant feeling. The student will strive to continue doing what provides a pleasant effect to continue learning..

[edit] Primacy
Primacy, the state of being first, often creates a strong, almost unshakable, impression. Things learned first create a strong impression in the mind that is difficult to erase. For the instructor, this means that what is taught must be right the first time. For the student, it means that learning must be right. If, for example, a student learns a faulty technique, the instructor will have a difficult task correcting bad habits and reteaching correct ones.

[edit] Recency
The principle of recency states that things most recently learned are best remembered. Conversely, the further a student is removed time-wise from a new fact or understanding, the more difficult it is to remember. For example, it is fairly easy to recall a telephone number dialed a few minutes ago, but it is usually impossible to recall a new number dialed last week. The closer the training or learning time

is to the time of actual need to apply the training, the more apt the learner will be to perform successfully.

[edit] Intensity
The more intense the material taught, the more likely it will be retained. A sharp, clear, vivid, dramatic, or exciting learning experience teaches more than a routine or boring experience. The principle of intensity implies that a student will learn more from the real thing than from a substitute. For example, a student can get more understanding and appreciation of a movie by watching it than by reading the script. Likewise, a student is likely to gain greater understanding of tasks by performing them rather than merely reading about them. The more immediate and dramatic the learning is to a real situation, the more impressive the learning is upon the student. Real world applications that integrate procedures and tasks that students are capable of learning will make a vivid impression on them.

[edit] Freedom
The principle of freedom states that things freely learned are best learned. Conversely, the further a student is coerced, the more difficult is for him to learn, assimilate and implement what is learned. Compulsion and coercion are antithetical to personal growth. The greater the freedom enjoyed by individuals within a society, the greater the intellectual and moral advancement enjoyed by society as a whole.

[edit] Requirement
The law of requirement states that "we must have something to obtain or do something." It can be an ability, skill, instrument or anything that may help us to learn or gain something. A starting point or root is needed; for example, if you want to draw a person, you need to have the materials with which to draw, and you must know how to draw a point, a line, a figure and so on until you reach your goal, which is to draw a person.

3)Training & Development

Organization Development
A long-term effort, led and supported by top management, to improve an organization's visioning, empowerment, learning, and problem-solving processes, through an ongoing, collaborative management of organizations culture with special emphasis on the culture of intact work teams and other team configurations utilizing the consultant

facilitator role and the theory and technology of applied behavioral science, including action research.

Primary Distinguishing Characteristics Of OD

Focuses on culture and processes Encourages collaboration between organizational leaders and members in managing culture and processes Teams of all kinds are particularly important for task accomplishments Focuses primarily on the human and social side of the organization. Organisation Development and future requirement The major decisions
Instead of grasping for the latest technique, I suggest instead that organizations should go through a formal decision-making process that has four major components: Levels, goals and strategies Measurement system Sequence of steps Implementation and organizational change The levels of organizational change Perhaps the most difficult decision to make is at what "level" to start. There are four levels of organizational change: shaping and anticipating the future (level 1) defining what business(es) to be in and their "core competencies (level 2) reengineering processes (level 3) incrementally improving processes (level 4) First let's describe these levels, and then under what circumstances a business should use them. Level 1- shaping and anticipating the future At this level, organizations start out with few assumptions about the business itself, what it is "good" at, and what the future will be like. Management generates alternate "scenarios" of the future, defines opportunities based on these possible futures, assesses its strengths and weaknesses in these scenarios changes its mission, measurement system etc. More information on this is in the next article, "Moving from the Future to your Strategy." Level 2 - defining what business(es) to be in and their "Core Competencies

Many attempts at strategic planning start at this level, either assuming that 1) the future will be like the past or at least predictable; 2) the future is embodied in the CEO's "vision for the future"; or 3) management doesn't know where else to start; 4) management is too afraid to start at level 1 because of the changes needed to really meet future requirements; or 5) the only mandate they have is to refine what mission already exists. Level 3 - Reengineering (Structurally Changing) Your Processes Either as an aftermath or consequence of level one or two work or as an independent action, level three work focuses on fundamentally changing how work is accomplished. Rather than focus on modest improvements, reengineering focuses on making major structural changes to everyday with the goal of substantially improving productivity, efficiency, quality or customer satisfaction. To read more about level 3 organizational changes, please see "A Tale of Three Villages." Level 4 - Incrementally Changing your Processes Level 4 organizational changes are focusing in making many small changes to existing work processes. Oftentimes organizations put in considerable effort into getting every employee focused on making these small changes, often with considerable effect. Unfortunately, making improvements on how a buggy whip for horse-drawn carriages is made will rarely come up with the idea that buggy whips are no longer necessary because cars have been invented. To read more about level 4 organizational changes and how it compares to level 3, please see "A Tale of Three Villages." One organization we consulted with has had a more positive experience with the incremental approach. We trained an internal facilitator, helped them deliver training in a just-in-time fashion, and had them focus on specific technical problems. The teams management formed reduced initial quality defects by 48%. The disadvantages of such an incremental approach include avoiding structural, system-wide problems, and assumes existing processes need modest improvement. In addition, using incremental approaches can be frustrating to employees and management if (pick a buzzword) does not catch on in the organization. As a result of these disadvantages, many organizations experience a high risk of failure in the long run

Organisational Development & Management of Change 1latest research in the area of Organisation Development:

the future
Some have argued for a convergence of HRM, HRD and OD (Ruona & Gibson, 2004) or at least for a strong partnership. Ultimately they are all striving to make organisations more effective through people. Burke (2004) identifies five models, two of which he sees as potential futures for OD: 1. The traditional model: OD a subfunction of HR 2. The independent model: freestanding OD not reporting in to HR but possibly administration, strategy or operations 3. The decentralised model: OD practitioners in business units reporting to unit head with perhaps a presence at HQ 4. The integrated model: OD integrated into all aspects of HR with change as a primary responsibility 5. The strategy model: OD as an integral part of the strategicplanning function reporting to the CEO Burke argues that while the strategy model would put OD where it belongs in the organisation, that is, integral to possibilities of systemwide change, he believes OD professionals would require new business knowledge and skills as well as incorporating the bottom line into their values. Indeed this lack of business knowledge is also a frequent criticism of HR professionals. He therefore believes that the integrated model provides a practical way to strengthen and renew both functions and to spur new thinking and creative action for the future.

New leadership styles

With this shift from top down, planned, linear change requiring hierarchical command and control, there has been an ongoing quest for a postmodern leadership style that is able to engage multiple internal and external stakeholders, co create vision and values, build social capital and still lead organisations through change and uncertainty. From hero to servant, centralised to distributed, charismatic to engaging, there has been a real shift in emphasis to emotional intelligence, authenticity and sustainability as well as a new focus on followership. The growth

of strategic alliances and cross sector partnerships has demanded that leaders be able to work collaboratively across boundaries and cultures, facilitate multiple stakeholder groups and draw on this diversity to enable new ways of working.

Drawing on the new sciences

Finally there have been milestones in OD thinking through learning from the new sciences. Wheatley in her book Leadership and the new sciences (2006) suggests that it is time to realise that we will never cope with this new world using our old maps. OD has always drawn on a broad range of disciplines: psychology; sociology; cultural anthropology and political science but it has also absorbed metaphors and theory from quantum physics; biological and evolutionary sciences; design science; social movement theory, chaos theory and complexity science. The recognition that people do not always behave rationally has been an important transition from the machine metaphor of organisations where behaviour is uniform, unemotional and apolitical. Relationships between people cocreate the future but are seen as unpredictable, often driven by power, vested interest and coalitions. Some important lessons have been drawn from observing complex adaptive systems. Plsek (2003) describes certain key properties of complex adaptive systems: relationships are central to understanding the system and the value and innovation comes from the interaction between agents they can be described by structures, processes and cultural patterns which are closely intertwined actions are based on internalized simple rule sets and mental models which set up patterns of beliefs and behaviours attractor patterns encourage some behaviours over others.

OD Today
Where then does that leave OD today? The world of classical OD felt more predictable, boundaries between organisations and sectors were clear and largely impermeable as was the boundary between the customer and supplier, the links

between cause and effect were more transparent and leaders believed in tried and tested formulas for business success. Globalisation, crosscultural and crosssector alliances and partnerships, the digital and networked age, deregulation, opensourcing, outsourcing, supplychaining, customer involvement have led to a complex network of interconnections and cross boundary relationships that have challenged the way organisations operate and in some cases their core purpose.