Fluent Essays

Review the scholar-practitioner article assigned below and reflect on what you have read so far in Session 1. What are the key takeaways from your article? How do you view the scholar-practitioner conversation as relevant to your current or future role in the workplace?  Refer to slide 21 in Session 1.pdf to give your peers a 4-1-1 summary of what you read. Requirements: A minimum of two full paragraphs and a 250-word count.  Use sources in your response to support your content. Include APA citations where appropriate. Please refer to the attached documents. http://adh.sagepub.com/ Human Resources Advances in Developing http://adh.sagepub.com/content/11/4/536 The online version of this article can be found at: DOI: 10.1177/1523422309344389 August 2009 2009 11: 536 originally published online 19Advances in Developing Human Resources Martin B. Kormanik and Thomas J. Shindell Possibilities, and Next Steps Perspectives on HRD Scholar-Practitioners: Current Issues, Strategic Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: Academy of Human Resource Development can be found at:Advances in Developing Human ResourcesAdditional services and information for http://adh.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts: http://adh.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions: http://adh.sagepub.com/content/11/4/536.refs.htmlCitations: at AHRD on August 18, 2014adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from at AHRD on August 18, 2014adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com/ http://adh.sagepub.com/content/11/4/536 http://www.sagepublications.com http://www.ahrd.org http://adh.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts http://adh.sagepub.com/subscriptions http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav http://adh.sagepub.com/content/11/4/536.refs.html http://adh.sagepub.com/ http://adh.sagepub.com/ What is This? - Aug 19, 2009 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Sep 18, 2009Version of Record >> at AHRD on August 18, 2014adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from at AHRD on August 18, 2014adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com/content/11/4/536.full.pdf http://adh.sagepub.com/content/early/2009/08/19/1523422309344389.full.pdf http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml http://adh.sagepub.com/ http://adh.sagepub.com/ Perspectives on HRD Scholar-Practitioners: Current Issues, Strategic Possibilities, and Next Steps Martin B. Kormanik and Thomas J. Shindell Abstract Authored from the perspective of two scholar-practitioners, this article attempts to further explore scholar-practitioners in HRD by presenting and then attempting to answer four questions. First, why should HRD as a field care about scholar- practitioners? Second, what are the current issues and challenges faced by HRD scholar-practitioners? Third, what can the future hold for HRD scholar-practitioners in terms of strategic possibilities? Fourth, what are some concrete, tactical next steps that HRD scholar-practitioners and the field of HRD should consider? Keywords scholar-practitioner, HRD, challenges, future In closing this issue of Advances in Developing Human Resources, some perspective taking is in order. As two professionals in the field of human resource development (HRD) who have earned doctoral degrees, taught both undergraduate and graduate HRD courses, served as consultants from both an external and internal perspective, and chaired or served on several committees in both practitioner and academic professional associations, we are in a unique position to discuss and explore the realities experienced by scholar-practitioners in the field of HRD. As HRD scholar- practitioners, we think it is appropriate to examine several questions related to scholar-practitioners in the field and discipline of HRD. Specifically, this article explores four questions: Advances in Developing Human Resources 11(4) 536 –547 © The Author(s) 2009 Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1523422309344389 http://adhr.sagepub.com at AHRD on August 18, 2014adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com/ Kormanik, Shindell 537 1. Why should HRD as a field care about scholar-practitioners? 2. What are the current issues and challenges faced by scholar-practitioners? 3. What can the future hold for scholar-practitioners in terms of strategic possibilities? 4. What are some concrete, tactical next steps that scholar-practitioners and the field of HRD should consider? Reasons the HRD Field Should Care We care about scholar-practitioners and think the field of HRD should also care about scholar-practitioners for several reasons. First, scholar-practitioners know and truly understand the value of research to guide and inform practice, as well as the value of evidence-based decision making within organizations. We seek out and desire to utilize current theory, research, and models of best practice to use in our collaboration with clients and coworkers. Second, scholar-practitioners are well versed in the dilemmas, challenges, and issues related to skillful and effective HRD practice in organizations (Holton, 2004; Keefer & Yap, 2007; Lombardozzi, 2007). We have literally “been there” as consul- tants wanting to have a client use a well-researched model of leadership rather than the latest fad in management. We have advocated that valid, contextual, organiza- tion-specific data be used in framing and addressing specific problems and issues. We have searched for relevant literature to help inform a specific issue or challenge only to find a grand theory or model devoid of any practical implementation specif- ics or real-world guidelines for application. We have seen the damage left in the wake of poor, unethical, or uniformed HRD practice. HRD scholar-practitioners who use research, data, and scholarly resources to inform and guide their work are in a prime position, from our perspective, to advance the credibility and impact of the practice-based field of HRD. We care deeply about the quality of practice and the impact our practitioner coworkers and colleagues have. We desire to see effective and expert practice so that all parties—client organizations, colleagues, and the field prosper and grow from positive example rather than costly, ill-informed methods. Finally, the HRD field should care because of the potential for scholar-practitio- ners to fill the research–practice gap. We have witnessed an unfortunate lack of meaningful communication between academics in the field of HRD (e.g., research- ers, scholars, theorists) and practitioners of HRD (e.g., trainers, OD consultants, executive coaches). We have experienced bias and professional discrimination from academics who have discounted our concerns for concrete and explicit application and guidelines requested by practitioners, and from practitioners who have dis- counted our advocacy for the use of sound research and theory in practice (or at the very least evidence-based decisions to guide professional practice). At the same time we have witnessed academics and practitioners talking “at” each other rather than “to” each other. On the other hand, we have also experienced powerful, fruitful col- laborations between scholars, practitioners, and scholar-practitioners. Because we want to see the academic discipline and professional practice of HRD grow and at AHRD on August 18, 2014adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com/ 538 Advances in Developing Human Resources 11(4) develop and because we also view scholar-practitioners as a key leverage point to bridge, mediate, and support the achievement of both of these goals, the field of HRD should care deeply about the potential role of scholar-practitioners in advancing the field of HRD. We assume that everyone in the field of HRD wants to see the field grow in acceptance, stature, and prestige—to become a mature, respected field (Bing, Kehrhahn, & Short, 2003; Swanson, 2001). Any actions and mechanisms or groups of participants useful in promoting that agenda should be supported. Because we assume that scholar-practitioners are in a unique position to advance the field of HRD, the field should care. Other disciplines that enjoy much greater recognition and prestige have more closely integrated the academic and scholarly side and the applied and practitioner side of their profession. Disciplines such as medicine and engineering come to mind as examples. For the field of HRD to continue to grow and develop, the integration of the academic and the applied must occur. This does not mean that everyone in the field should become a scholar-practitio- ner. We are not advocating that scholars and practitioners should become scholar- practitioners. Quite the contrary, all three roles are needed for the integration. HRD scholar-practitioners can play a pivotal role in this integration and again, the field should care. Current Issues and Challenges Although there are many issues and challenges faced by scholar-practitioners in all fields, we focus on issues and challenges currently occurring in the field of HRD. Scholars and practitioners may face similar challenges, but that is not the focus of this article. In our construction of the perceived differences between scholars and practitioners, the central issue is not a gap. Rather, it is the “invisible wall” (see Figure 1) that conceptually, practically, and attitudinally separates many scholars and practitioners. This wall is all too often used as an excuse and rationalization to avoid communicating and collaborating in effective and meaningful ways to everyone’s advantage. Some examples of the wall in action include scholars discounting or ignoring the professional experience of practitioners, scholars ignoring or minimiz- ing the practical application needs of practitioners, and scholars assuming that academic work for its own sake devoid of clear and meaningful practical application will advance our practice-based field in an effective manner. Equally, practitioners do their part to erect the wall when they ignore the empirically based perspective and wisdom of a scholar attempting to help with a practical issue, when practitioners assume that collecting data is a “waste of time,” when practitioners assume that theory or research is too generalizable and therefore not applicable to their particular circumstance, when practitioners discount the value and power of a sound theory or model because it is an “ivory tower perspective,” and when practitioners take actions in organizations that are not grounded in a sound theory, model, or contextually appropriate data. at AHRD on August 18, 2014adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com/ Kormanik, Shindell 539 One could reasonably argue that the invisible wall is merely the result of poor attitudes and individual character defects on both sides. Some would even argue there is an inherent competition between scholars and practitioners in the “market- place for ideas” (Cascio, 2007, p. 1009). There are actually however some systemic factors that support the existence of the wall as well. One systemic factor is the dif- ference in worldviews held by scholars and practitioners; a difference reinforced in the educational pedagogy (Raelin, 2007; Wren, Halbesleben, & Buckley, 2007). Scholars could be characterized as those individuals whose focus and purpose is to create, integrate, synthesize, and disseminate new knowledge and information. Practitioners could be characterized as those individuals whose focus and purpose is to identify, develop, deliver, and evaluate effective solutions and strategies for addressing challenges and problems faced by individuals, groups, and organizations. Indeed, scholars and practitioners come from two different worlds (Latham, 2007). These differences in worldviews are only reinforced by the reward and evaluation systems each group encounters. Scholar evaluation criteria may include the quality and quantity of their research, teaching, professional service, and grants procured. For many, tenure may be the ultimate prize. Practitioner criteria include quality, timeliness, and impact of their initiatives and solutions, often by a combination of objective and subjective data. In evaluating a practitioner, the question often asked is what difference was made by the actions of the practitioner. Continued employment, a promotion, or another lucrative contract may be the ultimate prize. The issue raised is that different reward systems are in place that shape the behavior and focus of scholars and practi- tioners (Short, 2006a; Swanson, 1997; Yorks, 2005). There is no systemic incentive currently in place to support tearing down the invisible wall. Figure 1. The Invisible Wall. T H E W A L L Scholars Practitioners World view – to create new knowledge World view – to provide effective solutions Reward and evaluation – tenure based on research, grants, and teaching Reward and evaluation – retention, promotion or new contract based on impact of work Professional home - AHRD Professional home - ASTD Note the lack of identity or support for scholar-practitioners at AHRD on August 18, 2014adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com/ 540 Advances in Developing Human Resources 11(4) Some of the consequences of the invisible wall separating scholars and practitio- ners include the development of separate academic and practitioner organizations in the same field. The Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) supports and is the professional home for scholars in the field of HRD, especially in the United States and Europe. The American Society for Training & Development (ASTD) supports and is the largest professional home for practitioners in the field of workplace learning and performance in the United States and Europe. In a prac- tice-based field, one might expect a close collaboration between these organizations. Unfortunately, it does not appear that such a relationship currently exists. Neither does a recognized, formal network for scholar-practitioners in HRD. There is a lack of meaningful dialogue bridging research and practice at each organization’s annual conferences (Graham & Kormanik, 2004). HRD as a field is still currently polarized and there is minimal opportunity to formally recognize any individuals who truly have a strong interest in both scholarship and practice. Being unable to identify and systematically support scholar-practitioners may be one of the greatest negative impacts of the invisible wall. Finally, there are a host of other challenges and issues faced by HRD scholar- practitioners (as well as scholars and practitioners) that transcend ideas and attitudes and emerge from real-world experience. Some examples include the lack of the fol- lowing: • Alignment between the research issues of interest to scholars with the needs or current challenges faced by practitioners. Furthermore, a practi- tioner may be facing an issue or challenge for which no theory, model, or research exists. Dealing with psychologically impaired or chemically dependent executives, organizational politics, organizational lying, and sabotage are some examples of issues faced on a routine basis by practi- tioners that do not appear to have meaningful coverage in the current research literature. • Application guidance for practitioners provided in scholarly articles (Berger, Kehrhahn, & Summerville, 2004; Cohen, 2007; Keefer & Yap, 2007; Miner, 2003) because there is minimal incentive for academics to include them (or worse, they are actually discouraged). Some AHRD jour- nals may ask that practical implications be included in a manuscript submission, yet all too often the treatment is cursory and lacking depth. • Access to organizational sites for research purposes. Organizations may be reluctant to sponsor research for many reasons, including fear of the research results, an inability to guarantee individual and organi zational con- fidentiality, or simply concern that the inquiry may raise workforce expectations that there will be an organizational response to issues raised in the process. • Appreciation experienced by practitioners in the United States from their organizational leaders who see minimal value or contribution to the at AHRD on August 18, 2014adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com/ Kormanik, Shindell 541 organization’s bottom-line by research or evidence-based practice (Berger et al., 2004; Holton, 2004; Yorks, 2005). Attempting to be a scholar-prac- titioner in this circumstance is extremely difficult and not aligned with many other countries and cultures (e.g., parts of Europe, Asia, and Australia) who are already supportive of research-based or evidence- based practice. • Resources for both practitioners and scholars. The cost and time needed to collect and analyze relevant contextual data is a resource many organizational leaders are unwilling or unable to provide for a variety of reasons. Funding research efforts can be very challenging as well. Strategic Possibilities What can the future hold for scholar-practitioners in terms of strategic possibilities? We want to be very clear. We have great hope and see many promising possibilities for scholar-practitioners in HRD. The AHRD has been very welcoming to scholar-practi- tioners in recent years. One very exciting development is the increased presence of the AHRD Scholar-Practitioner Special Interest Group (formerly the Scholar-Practitioner Committee). This group has sponsored a scholar-practitioner track at the annual AHRD International Conference, and initiated the effort to integrate the scholar- practitioner category into all conference tracks. Concurrently, the ASTD has sponsored and awarded a variety of research-to-practice and best practices awards. These awards were developed by the ASTD Research-to-Practice Committee that is composed of both scholars and practitioners. The ASTD sponsors the Certification in Workplace Learning & Performance (WLP), a national certification in the practice of HRD based on a model developed from a collaborative partnership of scholars and practitioners. Both organizations’ activities are exactly the types of efforts that we anticipate will support the advancement of the field of HRD as well as the role of HRD scholar- practitioners. Hopefully, this is only the beginning. If the professional discipline of HRD were truly able to integrate both its academic and applied dimensions, then we can envision a future for HRD and its scholar-practi- tioners that would include the following strategic possibilities: • Recognition of scholars by practitioners and vice versa. With increased recognition of scholar-practitioners and an increase in the value of research- or data-based decision making in organizations, one could expect that the view of scholars and practitioners by each other would shift. Hopefully, this shift would be in a positive direction of increasing respect for each other, and for increasing respect of the contribution each can bring to a mutually beneficial table. Again, partnerships, collabora- tions, and alliances could result in an increase in prestige, recognition, interdependence, and integration of both scholars and practitioners in HRD. at AHRD on August 18, 2014adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com/ 542 Advances in Developing Human Resources 11(4) • Recognition of the role of scholar-practitioners as a bridge, translator, inter- preter, or catalyst. Although the actual metaphor may vary, acknowledging the linking or uniting role that scholar-practitioners can play between schol- ars and practitioners is another strategic possibility that can have a tremendous impact on professional associations, academic preparation pro- grams, certification programs, and professional practice in the field of HRD. Imagine the possibilities of being able to seamlessly transition between the worlds of academia and practice—to have a skillful appreciation and voice for both worlds. • Collaborations and partnerships. We envision a future for HRD where scholar-practitioners facilitate and promote collaborations between differ- ent organizations to address real-world or practice-based issues or concerns. These collaborations could be based on joint research. The relationships might also be based on “relational scholarship of integration” (Bartunek, 2007, p. 1323). These collaborations can and should include an academic component. Some models of such collaborations from the field of informa- tion technology include Sematech or MCC. These consortia or partnerships include both universities and several for-profit organizations (often mar- ketplace competitors) banding together for their common interests. Establishing a similar consortium in the realm of HRD could have substan- tial impact. • National or international certification. The ASTD is well on the way to national certification of HRD and WLP practitioners. This is a good thing. It is not, however, the same thing as a certification for scholar-practitioners. Certification of HRD scholar-practitioners could be tied to two key compo- nents. One component could be built on what the ASTD has already accomplished as the practitioner portion of certification. The second com- ponent could be a scholarly certification possibly led by the AHRD. With a prerequisite of an advanced degree (i.e., master’s or doctorate), the AHRD could administer a certification exam of scholarship that emphasizes an understanding of research and theory in HRD. We can even envision the ASTD and AHRD collaborating to issue joint certifications of scholar- practitioners. Such a certification could go a long way in increasing the professionalism and credibility of the field. Given that HRD is multidisci- plinary, certi fication of scholar-practitioners could also involve more than these two organizations. The Organization Development (OD) Network, the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI), the Academy of Management, Society for Industrial & Organizational Psychology, and others could be strategic partners in an alliance to promote scholar-practitioners in the field of HRD. The impact that a systemic col- laboration of this nature could have on the field is going to be substantial. • Create a scholar-practitioner journal. Although there are several journals for scholars in HRD and one specifically for practitioners in HRD, there is no journal for scholar-practitioners in HRD. Some argue that this is the intent of the ADHR. Unfortunately, the printed worlds for scholars and at AHRD on August 18, 2014adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com/ Kormanik, Shindell 543 practitioners are separate (Cohen, 2007; Rynes, Giluk, & Brown, 2007; Tyler 2008). We can envision a journal that is scholarly and rigorous as well as practical and applied. Contributions could be solicited and wel- comed from HRD scholars, practitioners, and scholar-practitioners. The key focus of this journal could be linking theory and research and practice, as well as explicitly discussing and guiding the nature of research-based or evidence-based practice in HRD. • Recognition of the art and science of HRD. No matter the role—scholar, practitioner, scholar-practitioner—there exists both an artful component and a scientific component of one’s work. As scholar-practitioners con- tinue to play an ever-increasing role in the field, we envision a clearer articulation of the scientific component of HRD, along with a greater appreciation and acknowledgement of the artistic component of HRD. Our interactions with other scholar-practitioners continue to highlight the need to acknowledge and promote both perspectives, as they are integral to one’s capability. Those in the field of HRD need an awareness and appreciation of science, along with a creative, innovative side for identify- ing opportunities and solutions to be truly effective. • Recognition of research as a key to sustainability. As the professional rec- ognition and stature of HRD scholar-practitioners increases, it seems quite possible for scholar-practitioners to influence the organizations they encounter to embrace research-based solutions and interventions as appro- priate for long-term growth and development. This could greatly diminish the “fad of the month” syndrome often encountered in HRD workplace initiatives. Furthermore, this recognition could lend support to scholars and practitioners partnering in the conduct of research or its application in the workplace, potentially working to erode the invisible wall. If we have the opportunity to think about these possibilities, then it is also important to consider the ideal future for being HRD scholar-practitioners. Using the medical field as a mental model of the integration and mutual respect for both scholars and practitioners, we can clearly see a future for HRD scholar-practitioners. Currently, most who participate in the medical field have a strong regard for the research and scholarly domains needed to guide practice and improve patient outcomes, as well as the practice domain needed to identify new areas for research and provide feedback on patient outcomes. Evidence-based practice is the norm. Scholarship (i.e., medical research) improves practice (i.e., patient care) and vice versa—practice informs scholarship. When speaking with a medical professional, one asks what area of practice or what role in the medical arts someone plays. Rarely is a medical professional asked, “Are you a medical scholar or medical practitioner?” Rather, medical professionals are asked if they are a nurse, doctor, therapist, technician, specialist, researcher, teacher, or some combination of the above. Furthermore, those outside the medical field understand that although a medical professional can have at AHRD on August 18, 2014adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com/ 544 Advances in Developing Human Resources 11(4) one area of main activity, scholarship and practice are truly linked in the profession. We often hear nurses and therapists say that they have “mandatory continuing education” to complete, or we marvel at doctors who stay “on top of the latest research.” Even the popular media (e.g., network television, cable, Internet Web sites, blogosphere) helps disseminate the latest research results to the public at large, immediately influencing practice. The clear interplay and interdependence among scholars (medical researchers), practitioners (doctors and nurses providing direct patient care), and scholar-practitioners (doctors who both conduct research and work directly in providing patient care) is a state in the medical field we think is worthy of consideration in the field of HRD. We hope that over time we can realize the ideal future where all can be considered professionals in HRD, regardless of chosen role. Although our chosen role may be different, we foresee a professional domain where we all share relevant information, help improve the field, use research to guide practice, and partner to test new theo- ries or to evaluate the effectiveness of practice. We see an ideal state without an invisible wall between scholars and practitioners. Our vision is that, like the medical field, we are all focused on assisting the client, whether the client may be student or industry, individual or group, first-line supervisor or researcher. We see those whose chosen emphasis is scholarship or research collaborating with those whose chosen emphasis is practice working together to each assist the other. Much the way in which medical researchers partner with medical practitioners to test a new drug, protocol, or therapy, we envision an ideal where the same spirit of collaboration, equality, mutual respect, and mutual support for shared outcomes is what HRD pro- fessionals are known for and the way our field would ideally be defined—truly integrating theory and practice and the work of both scholars and practitioners. Specifically, how could our field improve and change if HRD professionals collabo- rated on research, testing theory, improving practice, and sharing knowledge? It could have tremendous impact if we all exhibited to some degree the same shared behaviors of intellectual curiosity, collaborative learning, collaborative evaluation, and relevant information sharing regardless of one’s chosen role in HRD? How would our students and clients benefit from a group of HRD professionals who share relevant research, practice, and outcome information to the betterment of all? Just as medical science has advanced, so too can the field of HRD. Next Steps If the future is full of possibilities, what can scholar-practitioners and the field of HRD do to move forward? What are some concrete, tactical next steps that scholar- practitioners and the field of HRD should consider? First, HRD scholar-practitioners must define themselves professionally. We need a shared definition of who we are that we recognize and that is also recognized, legitimized, and supported by our pro- fessional colleagues and peers—both scholar and practi tioner. Short (2006b) provided a helpful starting point, proposing that at AHRD on August 18, 2014adh.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://adh.sagepub.com/ Kormanik, Shindell 545 HRD scholar-practitioners operate as a bridge between HRD research and HRD practice to improve the understanding and practice of HRD. They … HCD 660 – Foundations of Human Capital Development What’s important? • Use the syllabus calendar as a checklist • Read the Session Overview page every week • Set Canvas Notifications • Make sure you “check” Due Date, Course Content, Announcements, Grading, Submission Comment, Discussions, and Conversations • Assignments due on Saturdays by midnight • Please use Grammarly • No late work accepted unless approved by the instructor • Academic Honesty… don’t cheat! • Plagiarism… plagiarism is cheating! • Email me…I respond like Jimmy John’s When it comes to Human Capital Development, 1. I just heard the term recently. Sounds interesting. I thought I’d take a class to learn more. 2. I have professional experience in the area of HCD and want to know more about why things work. 3. I am well versed in HCD and practice the foundational concepts in my current job. 4. Or… What is Human Capital Development? Human Capital Development • Human Capital is . . . • What people KNOW • How people INTERACT • How COMMITTED people are to the organization, and • The WORK people do … that drive an organization toward achieving strategic objectives. Simply stated . . . Human Capital Development– the collective knowledge, skills, and abilities of an organization that drive business growth and economic development. The Mission and Motto of Human Capital Development Mission of the HCD programs: We academically prepare professionals to improve performance in organizations through the talents of people. Motto: Work Hard, Have Fun, Make a Difference! Human Capital Development… who started this? Gary Becker • 1992 Nobel prize winner in economics • Credited with developing human capital theory which is a branch of human resource development • Education and training are the most important investments in human capital. Theodore W. Schultz Address to American Economic Association in 1961 about ROI in human capital “the most distinctive feature of our economic system is the growth in human capital” Schultz, T. W. Investment in Human Capital … who started this? Where does HCD fit it? •What terms or areas of business come to mind when you think about HCD? •Let’s take a look at some models… Human Resource Development 1984 ASTD (American Society of Training and Development) Strategic Wheel 2011 Model 2013 ASTD Competency Model™ 2014 ATD Competency Model™ ATD Competency Model https://www.td.org/certification/atd-competency-model 2020 Talent Development Capability Model ATD Talent Development Capability Model https://www.td.org/certification/atd-competency-model Performance Model Human Capital Development summarized • improves productivity by improving employees’ accomplishments. • a systematic and comprehensive approach to improving job performance. • holistic and cause-conscious. Human Capital Development… • Think about the labels you use to describe your professional self • What are the titles? Roles of the HCD Professional • Grounds practice in research and theory • Champions research and theory in the workplace • Conducts and disseminates research and partners with academic researchers • Acts as a bridge between research and practice in seeking further development of the field of HRD The Role of a Scholar-Practitioner The 411! (4 What’s, 1 So what? 1 Now what?) • What’s the summary? 1. Present research (AHRD) & practice (ATD) 2. Champion of research and theory in the workplace 3. Write articles “from practice” vs “about practice” 4. Jeff Foxworthy – i.e. cite research to support recommendations • So what? • Act as a communication bridge between • Now what? • Value research and theory and adopt evidence-based practices Short, D. C., & Shindell, T. J. (2009). Defining HRD Scholar-Practitioners. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(4), 472-485. doi:10.1177/1523422309342225 Scholar-Practitioner Journal Articles Wrapping up Session 1 • USM HCD Mission • Improve performance through talents of people • Know how HCD fits into HRD • Improving individual, group, and organizational effectiveness • What we do affects the bottom-line • We strive to be Scholar-Practitioners • Linking theory to practice