Discussion: Views Of Human Resource Development In The Textb

Discussion 1views Of Human Resource Developmentin The Textbook Two Ma

DISCUSSION 1 Views of Human Resource Development In the textbook, two main views of human resource development are examined. Discuss the similarities and differences between the views of performance-based and developmental HRD. Answer the following question: Which view do you believe is more relevant to your organization, and why? Discussion 2 There are three types of knowledge discussed in the textbook: explicit, implicit, and tacit. Describe the three types of knowledge. Give an example of each of the three types of knowledge based on your position in your organization. Which of the three types of knowledge is the most difficult for a trainer to teach?

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Human Resource Development (HRD) is a vital aspect of organizational growth and efficiency. Different perspectives exist regarding its approach and focus, notably the performance-based and developmental views. Additionally, the types of knowledge—explicit, implicit, and tacit—play significant roles in training and organizational learning. This paper discusses these perspectives, compares their similarities and differences, and reflects on their relevance to organizations. It also explores the three types of knowledge with examples from organizational contexts and identifies which is most challenging for trainers to teach.

Views of Human Resource Development: Performance-Based and Developmental

Human Resource Development, as examined in educational and organizational literature, predominantly encompasses two perspectives: performance-based HRD and developmental HRD. These views often overlap but also exhibit distinct characteristics, objectives, and methodologies.

The performance-based view of HRD emphasizes enhancing employee performance and productivity to meet organizational goals. It is primarily pragmatic, focusing on skill acquisition, efficiency, and immediate application to job tasks. In this approach, HRD initiatives such as training programs are designed to close performance gaps, often using needs analysis and competency frameworks to align individual capabilities with organizational demands (Noe, 2017). For example, performance appraisals and targeted training modules are classic instruments in this paradigm.

Conversely, the developmental view looks beyond immediate performance improvements to foster continual personal growth, adaptability, and long-term organizational health. This perspective emphasizes learning as a holistic process that contributes to employee self-actualization and career development. Developmental HRD seeks to cultivate critical thinking, leadership skills, and a learning culture, often through mentorship, coaching, and experiential learning (Swanson & Holton, 2009). The focus is on nurturing employees’ potential over time, which can indirectly enhance performance but prioritizes broader organizational resilience and innovation.

Similarities

Both views recognize the importance of learning and growth within organizations and aim to improve organizational effectiveness. They are aligned in their commitment to employee development and acknowledge that skilled and motivated employees are crucial for organizational success. Moreover, both employ training as a key tool for achieving their goals.

Differences

The primary difference lies in scope and emphasis. Performance-based HRD is narrowly focused on immediate task-related skills and efficiency, aiming for quick performance improvements. Developmental HRD takes a broader perspective, emphasizing personal growth, adaptability, and long-term organizational sustainability. While performance-based HRD is often driven by specific performance metrics, developmental HRD centers on intrinsic motivation, lifelong learning, and organizational culture.

Relevance to My Organization

In my organization, the developmental HRD view appears more relevant due to the nature of our strategic focus on innovation, leadership growth, and adaptability in a rapidly changing market. While performance improvement remains essential, fostering a learning culture that encourages continuous development aligns more closely with our long-term goals of sustaining competitive advantage, nurturing future leaders, and building resilience against market shifts. Emphasizing developmental HRD strategies supports not only individual growth but also organizational agility, which is crucial in today’s dynamic environment.

Types of Knowledge: Explicit, Implicit, and Tacit

Knowledge within organizations can be categorized into three distinct types: explicit, implicit, and tacit, each presenting unique characteristics and challenges in transfer and teaching.

Explicit Knowledge

Explicit knowledge is formal, codified, and easily articulated. It can be documented in manuals, procedures, databases, and instructional materials. For example, a standard operating procedure (SOP) for manufacturing or a company policy document is explicit knowledge. In my organization, explicit knowledge includes compliance regulations or product specifications that are systematically recorded and readily shared through training sessions or manuals.

Implicit Knowledge

Implicit knowledge is not formally documented but can be articulated upon reflection. It is often derived from experience and situational judgment. For example, knowing how to handle difficult customer interactions based on past experiences, but without specific written procedures, constitutes implicit knowledge. In my role, implicit knowledge includes how to navigate complex stakeholder relationships—something learned through experience rather than formal guidance.

Tacit Knowledge

Tacit knowledge resides deeply within personal understanding and is difficult to articulate. It encompasses skills, intuitions, and insights gained through hands-on experience. An exemplar would be a master craftsman's craftsmanship or an executive’s intuition in strategic decision-making. Tacit knowledge is highly individualistic and often transmitted through mentorship and observation rather than explicit instruction. In my context, tacit knowledge involves nuanced negotiation skills or leadership charisma that cannot be fully taught through manuals.

Most Challenging Knowledge to Teach

Tacit knowledge is generally the most difficult for trainers to teach due to its subconscious and deeply personal nature. Unlike explicit knowledge, which can be codified and transmitted through documents, and implicit knowledge, which can sometimes be articulated with reflection, tacit knowledge relies on experiential learning. Effective transfer requires close mentorship, shadowing, and ongoing practice, making it labor-intensive and inherently challenging to standardize (Polanyi, 1966).

Conclusion

The contrasting perspectives of performance-based and developmental HRD serve different organizational needs, with the former focusing on immediate performance and the latter on long-term growth. In my organization, a balance that emphasizes developmental HRD aligns with our strategic ambitions for innovation and resilience. Understanding the types of knowledge—explicit, implicit, and tacit—is critical for effective training and organizational learning. While explicit knowledge is easiest to teach, tacit knowledge remains elusive but invaluable, demanding experiential and relational transfer methods. Successfully integrating these knowledge types and HRD approaches fosters a robust, adaptable, and skilled organizational workforce.

References

• Noe, R. A. (2017). Employee Training & Development. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2009). Foundations of Human Resource Development. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
• Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. University of Chicago Press.
• Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Addison-Wesley.
• Boud, D., & Nayak, N. (2019). Reflection in learning and professional development. Routledge.
• Hedlund, L., & Hägglund, S. (2000). From explicit to tacit knowledge–and back again. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 162-168.
• Martensson, M. (2000). A Critical Review of Knowledge Management: Are we Missing the Point? Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(3), 177-183.
• Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. Oxford University Press.
• Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to Transfer of Best Practice. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 27-43.
• Reychav, A., & Te'eni, D. (2009). The knowledge transfer problem in organizations: Are tacit and explicit knowledge equally difficult to share? Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.