The problem I currently have with this view is the whole definition of being able to do. If we view ‘doing’ as an act within generalised contexts or conditions like driving a car on a straight smooth empty road, then I see a problem which presents itself in what kirkpatrick identified as L3 – would the person ‘be able’ to apply this ability ‘to do’ back in the workplace? However if we decide to view ‘doing’ as holistically and realistically as possie, then it will include the context or conditions of doing which means we then address a much larger learning objective, a capability you might say… now the doing is not just about a specific ‘to do’ but something of a ‘meta-do’ i.e. Being able (do) to do. The ‘being able’ refers to the context and conditions and the ‘to do’ refers to the act. The ‘being able’ I can maybe call coping-ability and the ‘to do’ I can call task-ability. The two together I consider as ‘capability’.

We now have a choice on how to define the context or conditions. With this view, the supposedly non-training solutions are actually those things that will alter the conditions or context to make them more easier for the ‘to-do’ and reduce the ‘coping’ in order to achieve the expected performance…

My point is if we already considered the all the tangible and possible aspects of the real and actual current context and conditions of action as part of the capability (being able to do) requirements, then is the question whether the performance gap is training or non-training even relevant at all?

The organisation

For the organisation, the context of conditions can never be perfect. There will always be people who can cope with it and perform and those who can’t and they don’t perform or they leave.

The questions I think we need to ask are:

1. Is the organisation aware of these conditons or context of work and what it means?
2. Are the development interventions addressing this context or ignoring them?
3. Do we know the type of talent that will thrive under the context and conditions we have and are we attracting them?
4. Do we know know the type of capabilities (coping and task abilities) required to perform under the work context and conditons and do our development program address these?

Engagement and Motivation

Human beings adapt, we have the natural ability to adapt to any situation within reason. The only two requirements are that

1. We want to (engagement and motivation)
2. We can (capability)

There are many reasons why a person might not want to adapt, but two addressed by a capability development program are:

1. Had the wrong idea of what was required ‘to do’
2. Don’t know how to do (capability- context/conditions and task)

The risk with having very challenging context or conditons of work that emphasize coping-ability over ‘to do’ ability is that you will have to pay a high price (not necessarily financial) to retain talent who are able to perform under those conditons and even then it will only delay the inevitable

If we so decide that we want to attract a different type of talent or If you want to get same or higher performance without paying a premium then a revision of conditions and context are important considerations. However from a capability development perspective, this just means that the development interventions after this would need to now address a different context or conditions or work…

One last point, a holistic addressing of conditions and context would inevitably deal with the people related aspects of those conditions e.g. The manager capability development will address the manager’s part of defining the context and conditions of work for their team… Etc

Fundamentally the view here is that learning professionals should no longer look at learning as a medication to treat a symptom but as holistic treatment to enable and support the cultivation of a healthy lifestyle…

Some of ideas might be taking some complicated issues and over simplifying them, this was done intentionally.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:Decho,Suriya Wong,Thailand