BUSI 644 Week 2 Discussion Board Forum 1 Example

Discussion Board Forum 1

BUSI 644 Human Resources Development, Discussion Board Forum 1 (thread and 2 replies)

Thread by [Student Name]

The forum prompt, the accounting firm and the two classmates' threads are composites standing in for the course's own; the textbook, Scripture and research cited are real, and the requirements follow Liberty's public course guide for BUSI 644.

Thread

A partner at a composite eight-person accounting firm, where I handle operations, wants to buy a $6,000 online training package for the cloud accounting software our clients use. The vendor promises that staff will "master" the system in ten hours. Before we buy, I would apply the needs assessment process Werner and DeSimone (2017) describe in chapter 4, because the package answers a question we have not yet asked: what exactly do our people need to learn, and is training the answer?

Organizational analysis comes first. Our goal for the year is to move fifteen small-business clients from desktop to cloud bookkeeping, which would free about ten hours a month of manual data entry. If that goal is real, training is worth doing; if the partners have not agreed on it, no course will produce the change, because staff will keep doing work the old way for clients who stay on desktop systems. That goal gives training a purpose. The analysis would also check resources and climate: the busy season runs from February to April, so training in March would compete with deadlines and probably be skimmed.

Task analysis would identify what staff actually do in the software. For us, the critical tasks are setting up bank feeds, reconciling accounts and producing month-end reports, not the payroll and inventory modules that fill half the vendor's course. Person analysis would then test who already performs those tasks well. Two of our staff have used the software for years; three have never opened it. A short skills check, reconciling one sample account in the software, would show the gap more reliably than asking people to rate themselves, since self-ratings tend to be generous.

Salas et al. (2012) argue that training analysis is the step organizations most often skip and that it determines whether training addresses real gaps. Put together, the three analyses suggest a different and cheaper purchase: a short, task-focused course for the three new users, scheduled in May, with the two experienced staff serving as in-house coaches. A needs assessment can be the cheapest training decision a firm makes, because it can cancel the expensive one.

Proverbs urges the reader to seek understanding even at the cost of everything one has (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016, Proverbs 4:7). In HRD terms, understanding the need comes before spending on the solution. I am curious whether classmates' organizations conduct needs assessments formally or rely on managers' requests for training, and whether anyone has seen a needs assessment stop a purchase.

Reply to Denise

Denise, your thread proposed redesigning the scanner training at your distribution center for employees over fifty, many of whom have struggled with the new handheld devices. I agree with your plan to use the adult learning principles in chapter 3. Werner and DeSimone (2017) summarize Knowles's andragogy in a handful of assumptions: adults direct their own learning, draw on a store of experience, want to see why a topic matters before investing effort in it and engage most when the material solves problems they face at work. Your idea of starting each session with the errors employees actually make on the floor fits all of those principles.

I would add one design element: practice with feedback spread across several short sessions instead of one long class. Across the organizational training studies combined by Arthur et al. (2003), effects were medium to large overall, and they varied with how well the delivery method suited the kind of skill involved. Handheld scanner skills are procedural, so they benefit most from repeated hands-on practice. Short sessions also respect the fatigue that comes at the end of a warehouse shift, when much training is scheduled. Pairing each older employee with a coworker who is comfortable with the device for the first week back on the floor would add the support that helps new skills last.

You might also invite the most experienced employees to help shape the training, since they know which tasks cause trouble. That respects what adult learners bring and may reduce the frustration you described. How many sessions could your schedule allow?

Reply to Kevin

Kevin, your thread recommended surveying the new customer service hires at your bank to identify each person's learning style, visual, auditory or kinesthetic, and then delivering training in each person's preferred format. Your goal of reaching every learner is a good one, and I understand the appeal, since many of us were taught about learning styles in school. The evidence, however, does not support the approach. Pashler et al. (2008) reviewed the research on what they called the meshing hypothesis, the idea that people learn best when instruction matches their preferred style. Their verdict was blunt: studies with the design needed to test matching were scarce, and the few that existed did not find that matched instruction helped, so style assessments had no adequate evidence behind them.

That does not mean every learner is the same. Werner and DeSimone (2017) emphasize individual differences such as ability, motivation and prior experience, which do affect learning. The practical alternative is to match the method to the content: demonstrations and role plays for handling an upset customer, written job aids for policy details and practice in the system for transactions. Every new hire, whatever their preference, learns a role play better by doing it, and every new hire learns a policy better with a printed aid on the desk.

Dropping the survey would also save time in a short onboarding schedule, and it would avoid labeling new hires in ways that might limit what trainers expect of them. Would your training team be open to piloting a content-matched design with one class of new hires and comparing their quiz and call-quality results with the previous class?

References

Arthur, W., Jr., Bennett, W., Jr., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 234-245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.234

English Standard Version Bible. (2016). Crossway. (Original work published 2001)

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x

Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of training and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(2), 74-101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436661

Werner, J. M., & DeSimone, R. L. (2017). Human resource development (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.