What are the challenges of conceptualizing and measuring job performance? Rater Bias revealed.

There are various ways to approach the question: What are the challenges of conceptualizing and measuring job performance?

Gatewood & Field (1998) distinguish between four sources of information which can be used to measure job performance:

• Judgemental Data
• Production Data
• H/R Data
• Training Proficiency

Judgemental data constitute subjective evaluations of performance by others – often a person’s immediate boss. By underlying the word “subjective” I identify a very challenging aspect of conceptualizing and measuring job performance.  Judgemental data are often derived from the Performance Appraisal Interview, implying a face-to-face discussion among the employee and his/her supervisor where the results of the job performance evaluation are discussed/ evaluated.

Unfortunately one of the most crucial problems/challenges in the performance measurent/ evaluation are the ones performing the measurements, from now on called the “raters.” L.N. Jewell and Marc Segal in their book Contemporary Industrial/Organizational Psychology state the following problems:

We will start by identifying two categories of rater bias

1)      Task-based rater bias: oversimplification of the appraisal/measurement task

a)      Rater’s strictness: tendency to confine appraisals to the lower end of the evaluation scale

b)      Rater’s Leniency: Tendency to confine appraisals to the upper end of the evaluation scale

c)       Rater’s Central Tendency :Tendency to confine appraisals to the center of the scale (p.216)

The central tendency is considered to be the more common kind of bias. There is a tendency for people to avoid giving evaluations which are either particularly good or particularly bad, and this constitutes the Central Tendency Effect.

2)      Ratee-based rater bias: not a response to the appraisal/measurement task but a response to the specific individuals being evaluated

Before proceeding with naming the rate-based rater bias I would like to make a brief reference to Viswesvaran et al.(1996) that examined the academic literature on job performance and compiled a comprehensive list of the various measures of performance. Further analysis showed that job performance, when rated across the nine dimensions, is dominated by a single factor rather than made up of various components. This General Factor accounts for 60% of the variance in job performance ratings (Viswesvaran et al.,2005), and it indicates that people tend to be good or poor at their job overall. This statement brings us to the Ratee-based rater bias:

a)      Halo error: the tendency to evaluate all of the behaviors or traits of one ratee/ employee in a manner that is consistent with a global impression or evaluation of that person (Jewel & Siegall p.217). Halo error may introduce either a positive or a negative bias into performance appraisal (p217). Halo error is interesting in that the tendency to make this error is predictable but the direction it takes is not! (p217).

Some authors have argued that this general factor we referred to previously is due largely or entirely to halo error (Holzbach, 1978; Landy, Vance & Barnes-Farrell,1982 as cited in Viswesvaran,Schmidt, Deniz ,2005) Is this really the case?

3) Other Sources of Rater Error

Feelings may get involved in the job evaluation procedure. As Jewel & Siegall state it has been stated in a study that: “raters who liked their ratees were found to be more lenient and to exhibit more halo error and less range restriction, than raters, with neutral feelings about the ratees (Tsui & Barry,1986). We cannot be sure though, and I believe that further research is needed to work on this aspect.

“Food” for thought!

Obviously the easier answer to all the previously mentioned errors would be: Let’s use multiple raters in order to reduce subjectivity and all the errors connected to it. But would this be the answer, or would it cause more conflict than expected? Could training the raters in an attempt to enhance objectivity constitute a possible answer? Would the use of Judgemental data always in combination with another kind of data reinforce objectivity? Is there a general Factor in Ratings of Job Performance after all? Lots remain for us to untangle…

Elena Maniatopoulou

References

Jewell L.N. and Siegall Marc, Contemporary Industrial/Organizational Psychology  2^nd ed.West Publishing Co.1990

Return on Learning Interventions: The answer lies on “TRANSFER”

According to Arnold, Cooper et al. (1995), in developing the training intervention it is essential to define the aims and objectives. Blanchard and Thacker (1999) state that there are four different kinds of training objective:

   · Trainee reaction objectives which describe the desired subjective and attitudinal evaluations of training (that is, the outcomes of the ‘happy sheets’ or the standard ‘tick the box’ evaluation form often used at the end of training sessions)

   · Learning objectives describing the type of behaviour which would show that learning has occurred

·  Transfer of training objectives outlining how behavior will be impacted upon by the training

·  Organizational outcome objectives detailing which organizational outcomes will be affected by transfer of learning.

Having identified your learning objectives, the next stage of the systematic training process is to design your learning interventions. Reid (1994) outlines six different approaches but emphasizes that they are not mutually exclusive.

·    Analytical approach – analogous to the systematic approach, training needs are carefully surveyed and analysed and performance gaps identified.

·    Competency/competence approach – addresses and defines knowledge, skills, abilities which underlie performance.

·    Problem-solving approach – focused at the organizational level, problems and issues facing employees are identified and interventions introduced to overcome them.

·    Continuous development – requires self-direction and self-management to learn from everyday experience as well as more formal interventions.

·   Learning organization – an approach which emphasizes the organization as a learning conduit.

·    Strategic HRM – focus on employees as a resource for achieving organizational success, with training as one of the methods of investing in the human resources of the company.

Once a strategy has been chosen, the interventions themselves need to be designed

“What is to be learned?” Goldstein, Ford (2002) address this question.

They include work on identifying:

·    Learning outcomes (Gagné, Briggs, & Wager, 1992, describe a set of categories of learning outcomes: intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, verbal information, attitudes, motor skills)

·    Stages of learning (there’s the idea that lerning involves a series of stages and that different types of learning might be important during each stage) 

·    Expert-novice differences (Ford and Kraiger, 1995, note that the analysis of differences between experts and novices indicates that there are a number of specific mental characteristics demonstrated by experts that are not as well developed in novices: automized skills and procedural knowledge, mental models, metacognition and self-regulation).

The next step is putting learning theory into practice: transfer. Transfer is defined as the degree to which trainees apply the knowledge, skills, behaviours and attitudes gained in training to their jobs (Wexley & Latham, 1991). Georgenson (1982) estimated that only 10 per cent of training expenditures had been shown to result in behavioural changes back in the workplace. 

When it comes to transfer the following three categories are generally used to indicate the degree of transfer which has occurred:

·    Zero transfer, where learning in the training situation has no impact at all on job performance

·    Positive transfer, where changes in behaviour, attitude or outcomes result from participation in the training. For example, levels of customer complaints decrease follow training in customer service

·    Negative transfer, where changes in behaviour, attitude or outcomes are impacted upon negatively by the training. For example, levels of customer complaints increase following training in customer service

Wexley (1984) stated “the existing literature on transfer of training offers little of value to trainers concerned with maximising positive transfer.”

It seems to be the case that individuals must have both the motivation to learn new skills and acquire new knowledge and the motivation to apply new learning on their jobs; low motivation in either area will result in poor performance outcomes from learning interventions... Don’t we need to focus more on training transfer after all? The focus shall not be exclusively on employees’ motivation to learn, the transfer is what makes the difference…

Organizational Career Management vs Career- Self Management: R THEY MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE?

What do we mean by Career Management?

Arnold (1997) defines it as all  “attempts made to influence the career development of one or more people” (this may include various formal/informal activities such as, training and development courses, assessment centres, coaching, mentoring, career counselling etc.)

What is the effect of changes in career management on HR planning?

Career management can be handled as a form of partnership between the organization and the employee. It seems important to underline here  that organizational career management and career self-management are not mutually exclusive; indeed the former may help to promote the latter (Preston & Sturges, 2003). However, it is argued that this balance between organizational and individual responsibility for career management has NOW shifted to a position where the onus for managing the career now rests with the individual (Preston & Sturges 2003).  So, employees are the ones mainly responsible for their continuous improvement through various activities, which will promote their career. Yet, my question is, how will this be achieved, without the appropriate resources? How can employees enrich their knowledge, attend training programs, get career-related information or even labour market information? If the organization is not “near by” to support these efforts, how will employees pursue their career path, or ever be loyal/committed to their employer? So in my point of view HR planning must provide the required resources for career self-management and reward the employees who actually succeed to further their own careers. Employees will definitely appreciate the organization’s guidance but still feel autonomous and free to pursue certain personal goals – always supporting the organization’s best interest.

      

How has HR planning in these areas (employee assignments and opportunities, competencies, employee behaviours, motivation) changed to take into account changes in the concept of careers then?

Organizational career management activities are currently different in that employers have stepped away from the “career for life” perspective and are now more inclined to provide employees with skills and experience which are “transferable” to other work settings.

What may have nowadays changed in terms of organizational career management is the emphasis of its activities, in that many employers claim that they are now offering their staff ‘employability’, rather than a career for life, in other words the acquisition of skills and experience which will enable them to move jobs as and when necessary (Preston & Sturges 2003).

 So, first of all HR planning, shall adopt recruitment and selection (internal and external) strategies that taking under consideration the “employability” tendency in the labour market; potential and existing employees will be attracted to fill in a job vacancy that suits their “ideal” career path and organizations shall select candidates that are aware of the fact that skills and experience are no longer static, they are transferable form one work setting to another instead. When it comes to Training & Development, again the principle of “employability” is of crucial importance. There is a huge debate in this area; is training supposed to fulfil individual learning needs or organizational goals? The ideal would be to have a merge between these two aspects, but in order to keep this in a realistic frame, organizations may not be able to afford training programs that are not directly related to organizational goals!

In terms of performance management, H/R planning shall measure and manage performance not exclusively based upon the organizational goals but also take into account the contextual aspects of each job. Finally in terms of rewards, H/R planning can facilitate the achievement of the desired “employability” by providing facilitators of career self-management. Such “rewards” could motivate more and more employees to self-manage their careers, always supported by their organization.

Even though “employability” implies that at a certain stage, employees will leave the organization, they stand a better chance to stay in the organization that promotes “employability,” and keeps the up to date market wise. Further “employability,” if actually promoted by most organizations, this means more and more qualified employees in the labour market.

There is  definitely a close relationship between the things you do and the things your employer does, and ideally career management should include individual and organizational activities.

How do you maintain the motivation of employees who do not get promoted?

One of the key challenges for managers is to determine what will motivate employees and then to apply appropriate policies. Motivation is concerned with how behavior gets started, is energized, is sustained, is directed, is stopped and what kind of subjective reaction is present in the organism while all this is going on (Jones, 1955). Work Motivation can be defined as a set of energetic forces that originate both within as well as beyond an individual’s being to initiate work-related behavior and to determine its form, direction, intensity and duration (Pinder, 2008)

There is a wide range of theory about what motivates people at work. While theories like Maslow’s & Herzberg’s have been successful in attracting the interest of managers, academics have generally preferred to work with cognitive theories such as the Goal-Setting and Expectancy theories, placing the emphasis on the conditions under which motivation occurs and how motivational decisions are made.

What do HR practitioners do in practice to motivate the employees who did not get promoted? Bonuses are often used when managers retrospectively decide to recognize an employee’s extra efforts, aiming at increasing employee motivation, enhancing engagement and improving performance. Bonuses have an ongoing motivation effect as bonuses have to be re-earned. Employee recognition schemes work also retrospectively, rather than aiming to directly incentivize future efforts. There are different versions such as day-to-day, public and formal/informal schemes. According to the 2009 CIPD reward survey, 31% of all employers use recognition schemes that are more popular among private sector organizations & large employers.

Other remarkable methods to motivate employees are the Horizontal Move (i.e. Australia, Greece, Cyprus), meaning to support the employee to identify other opportunities within the organization, but outside of their department or get people to work on special projects that they would have a particular interest in. Another alternative is the Relationship/Networking (i.e. U.S.) that provides exposure to senior executives & other key people to facilitate learning from others and promoting versatility. Furthermore, there is Detailed Career Mapping (i.e. U.S.) that helps employees to match their long-term professional goals with opportunities within the organization. Specific action steps can be set to properly develop and engage employees to achieve multiple career paths. Finally yet importantly, is the alternative of High Potentials Development Programs (HI-PO) (i.e. Switzerland, U.S.) that includes individual training customized to employees in order to broaden their areas of competencies to be in line with their future career growth.

There are certain key aspects of the motivation process when promotion is not attained. First, effective communication is of essential importance. Unfortunately, 1/10 employees feels fully informed by their supervisor about what is happening at work (CIPD 2009). In fact, a manager who fails to provide explanations for the delivery of the enactment of bad news is likely to lose authority & respect in the eyes of subordinates (Baron, 1993). Managers should try to reduce unpleasant feelings such as job dissatisfaction, frustration, and discomfort. Employees demand information pertaining to the details/rationale for not getting a promotion. Promoting their self-awareness makes them adapt more effectively, since cognitive elements such as perception & anticipation invariably intrude in any serious attempt to understand the situation.

In general, effective communication is interrelated to a healthy psychological contract both having an impact on job satisfaction. By the term “psychological contract”, we refer to an employee’s subjective understanding of promissory-based reciprocal exchanges between him/her and the organization. The crucial point is the interpretation process where the employee attaches meaning to the breach; perceived or actual breach makes no difference. The finding that a fair promotion system is one of the few determinants of motivation in the current HR systems suggests that employers expect equity in decisions related to promotion in order to maintain high motivation levels & career expectations. Cropanzano et al. (2001) concluded that justice matters to people to the extent it serves one out of four interrelated psychological needs i.e. control, belongingness, self-esteem, & meaningful existence.

The main question remains open: are people need-driven, goal-seeking creatures? In work settings, pay, promotion, recognition from one’s superior and a chance to show one’s skill are examples of goals that people may seek to satisfy their existence, relatedness & growth needs. A distinction shall be made here between intrinsic rewards (those provided by the individual – pay, promotion, job security) & extrinsic rewards (those provided by the organization – sense of achievement, a feeling of responsibility, job satisfaction); these two aspects are not mutually exclusive. Promotion acts as an incentive mechanism provided employees value the higher position. When promotion is not attained, it is necessary to establish new career paths in which employees are encouraged to acquire professional knowledge & skills and completely utilize their expertise other than simply pursue advancement in the organization ladder.

There are specific career management interventions that can be applied to support the “not promoted employees.” Firstly, the High Potentials (HI-PO) programming combined with key position analysis, succession planning analysis, labor market analysis. In addition, Assessment & Development Centres, Developmental work assignments and Personal Development Planning (PDP) can be applied. Furthermore, Career – Planning workshops and Career Counseling & Coaching can be utilized together with Mentoring Schemes. All these fall under a career guidance umbrella synonymous with a systematic programme of coordinated information & experiences designed to anticipate & facilitate selected knowledge & skills important to employees’ career management. Unfortunately, when it comes to career management interventions, often individual elements are introduced in isolation from each other; the issue of compatibility is crucial here and evaluation of the intervention shall be addressed.

Apart from the various interventions, we shall emphasize the role of intensive feedback, meaning to provide both formal and informal assessment & feedback to accelerate development. As former UCLA basketball coach John Wooden said: “a coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment.”  The hallmark of good coaching is performance feedback and the ultimate aim is performance not motivation. Unfortunately, increased motivation does not necessary lead to increased performance. Feedback comes under the umbrella of performance management, especially performance appraisal; still evidence is scarce, supporting association of such systems to organization’s productivity.

In conclusion, a framework of motivation that takes into account human cognition, human emotion, individual differences and adjusts career management interventions to these three factors can maintain motivation for those who did not get promoted but potentially will do in the future. We are lacking firm rules of thumb as to where in the cycles of experience related to the motivation to work emotionality resides. However, not getting a promotion very often results in job dissatisfaction; analyzing it in black & white offers a limited means of portraying what it can mean for those who experience it. Therefore, the major psychic challenge for working individuals will be to adjust their expectations about continuous upward mobility & career progress; managers have to support their employees and promote a coaching culture.

From an academic perspective, the recent resurgence of interest in need theories in an attempt to explore motivation on a global scale and the promising concept of goals and its link to emotion & personality provide potential for further research  on our topic question.  From a practical perspective, managers need to find solutions even if they seem to run ahead of theory & research evidence; since they are aware of the detrimental effects on motivation & performance of effort-reward imbalance, their only option is to improve equity in rewards, create flexible accommodated & promised career paths and support employees to gain specific work skills and experiences that are necessary to their career progress.

When it comes to motivation, the road of inquiry is open and it leads beyond the horizon…
(2nd Award - CyHRMA Competition 2010 Elena Maniatopoulou Hadjipanayi)

Evaluation of training

Introducing a new topic, concerning the evaluation of training we should make a reference to the Survey Report from CIPD (March 2005).

As explained, in order to conduct the particular survey and gather all the relevant information, 750 telephone interviews with people in employment (both public 7 private sector but not self-employed) were carried out across Great Britain, The sample was almost equally split between male and female respondents. Furthermore, the data were weighted to ensure more accuracy.

The 750 people who participated in this survey have all participated in a training activity at work in the twelve months before the survey. Some of the key findings of the survey follow:

1) 94% of the respondents believe the training they received had helped them do their job better. (So are we implying here a 94% successful transfer of training material in the job context? Is the perception of doing one’s job better synonymous to actually doing the job better? How do we evaluate the transfer?)

2) The most common forms of training received are training held in a meeting room/classroom and on-the-job training. But on-the-job training(OJT) is by far the most popular method, with a 54% of respondents rating it as their preferred method of learning. (What would be the reasons for this preference if we take under consideration the fact that probably on –the- job training is not conducted by professional trainers but by other colleagues and probably there is also a lot of “noise,” which does not facilitate training? Would the fact that training takes place in the actual work setting play a role in this preference?)

3) There remains inequality in learning provision. Those with higher levels of qualifications are more likely to receive training, as are those in younger age groups. (What are the reasons for this inequality? Who actually needs the most training, young or older employees? Is it a matter of age? Potential? Job design/duties? Would the appropriate approach/decision be based not on already obtained qualifications but on potential to evolve?)

In the question: How successful was the training? (Key finding 1) 50 % think the training received has been very successful, while a further 44% judge it to have been quite successful. Undoubtedly these striking results confirm the importance of training in the workplace and the value that employees place on training and development opportunities. However, we of course cannot help wondering, based upon which criteria their training was successful? Are employees in the position to evaluate the effectiveness of the training, or should this impression be combined with measurement of specific performance criteria, in order to gain validity? Probably one could argue that employees themselves are the most suitable people to evaluate a training programme, but on the other hand without having stated specific criteria, their opinion can be severely challenged.

This leads us to the second topic to discuss: Evaluation. 62% of respondents say that usefulness of the training has been discussed with them. Some respondents report difficulties in the practicalities of evaluation because the impact of training is often not directly measured. We should also state that, where discussions about the success of the training take place 51% take place with respondents’ line managers, 35% hold discussions with someone from the H/R department and 17 % with an external provider. Undoubtedly, when employees discuss their thoughts concerning the evaluation of the training programme with someone from the other interested parties, managers, H/R dpt or the external provider, they can reach more fruitful conclusions. Otherwise any kind of evaluation in my point of view would be rather subjective, and would score low in validity.

Some initial thoughts…

Stereotypes & Stereotyping

 Stereotypes are categories referring to people with some potential advantages for those involved in selection (Dewe et al. 2003). Of course, this is the case if the stereotype is accurate; otherwise potential disadvantages for those involved in selection processes may come up.

Several types of stereotypes exist, some of which are associated with: Gender, Race, Religion, Culture,Ethnicity, Age, Physical Apperance e.t.c.

There is evidence that gender stereotypes of occupational types do exist (Dewe et al. 2003)

An interesting article discussing Gender Stereotypes is: Gender and orientation stereotypes bias source-monitoring attributions by Richard L. Marsh and Gabriel I.Cook and Jason L.Hicks in Memory,2006,14 (2) 148-160 (www.psypress.com/memory).

This article discusses the results of four experiments that were conducted to determine whether gender stereotypes influence source-monitoring decision processes. In all experiments statements that were consistent with a male were more often correctly attributed to male source and less frequently correctly attributed to a female; the reverse was true for items traditionally associated with a female. The remarkable point is that both of these biases were reversed if participants believed the speaker was either a gay male or a lesbian female. All the previously mentioned effects persisted under divided attention during test, suggesting that they are caused by automatic influences.

Another interesting article on the issue of Gender stereotype is Understanding Criterion Choice in Hiring Decisions from a Prescriptive Gender Bias Perspective by Luzadis Rebekka, Wesolowski Mark, Snavely B.Kay from the Journal of Managerial Issues; Winter 2008, Vol.20 Issue 4, p.468-484.

As the author describes in the abstract, the current study investigated the hiring process by manipulating two conditions, job sex-type and candidate sex, in an attempt to better understand the impact of prescriptive gender bias on the process of criterion choice. Decision-makers’ first chose their preferred candidate and, second, provided a post-decision rationale for their choice. The post-decision rationale suggested a subjects’ prescriptive gender bias influenced subjects’ decision justifications. Decision-makers’ post-decision justifications were dependent upon candidate’s gender and job sex-typing. There are serious managerial implications as stated by the authors. Their findings suggest that “managers should be mindful during discussions of candidates in the selection process and should watch for changing criterion justifications, especially when discussing candidates whose demographic characteristics may be incongruent with traditional job sex-typing (p.14)”

“People involved in selection can, in the right circumstances, suppress any unhelpful stereotypes of applicants and base their decisions on job-relevant information (Dewe et al. 2003).” Should we attempt to replace the word “can” by the word “must”? Undoubtedly there are several gaps in the research on this area. Is gender balance in the marketplace what we are aiming at? Or should we simply dismiss gender and focus on other aspects?  Can we do that? The association of gender with certain traits and occupations starts from early childhood and is still present in most societies. But we always seem to focus on the differences among the 2 sexes, still we are all similar in many possible ways. Is the use of/focus on job-relevant information the answer to our selection associates issues?

Food for thought ...

Diversity Training

I would like to state a few points on the issue of diversity training derived from an article named Don’t derail your diversity training  by Jack Conrad  published in Employee Benefit News January 2009 p.15-16).

The previously mentioned article describes seven common traps that we should avoid when conducting diversity training.

7 Traps:

1. Focusing too little on emotions: Any kind of training that does not acknowledge/identify the emotional framework under training issues is considered to be almost useless.

2. Failing to engage white males:  Some diversity trainers do either consciously or subconsciously the mistake to present diversity as something other than white and male, such as women and racial/ethnic minorities.

3. Lacking a compelling business case: Undoubtedly diversity training does not guarantee superior business results. However, managing to attaining and most importantly retaining a diverse workforce can make an organization stronger

4. Not being compliance driven: Unless training efforts are compliance-driven, employees will miss incredible opportunities to explore creative and innovative approaches beyond what they are usually directed to do in the workplace.

5. Focusing on “fixing” white people: The conscious or subconscious approach toward diversity training is the idea of “fixing” white people; however all groups have difficulties understanding other groups and they often try hard to understand the diversity within their own groups.

6. Failing to engage senior management: This is the team that will influence the attitudes and commitment of managers that make the decisions around hiring, training and career development.

7. Conducting reactive, not proactive, initiatives: In most cases organization proceed with diversity training after employees have made complaints about discrimination against them. Being proactive with diversity training and careful with its implementation seems to be the best path to gain a competitive advantage.

Of course this is a narrow aspect of the issue but there are some interesting thoughts included

Organizational climate

The issue of the role of the organizational climate drew my attention. I found a very interesting article named: The Role of National Culture and Organizational climate in safety training effectiveness by Burke, Michael J., Chan-Serafin Suzanne, Salvador Rommel, Smith Alex and Sarpy Sue Ann in the European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 2008,17 (1), 133-152.

Using data from 68 organizations embedded within 14 nations, the authors examine hypotheses concerning the moderating roles of national culture and organizational climate on the transfer of training to the work context.

Hypothesis: As Organizational climate becomes more strategically focused on safety, the safety training – safety performance effect will increase.

Since the authors expected the existence of a positive correlation between the strategic focus of the organizational climate on safety and the effect of safety training on safety performance, the authors expected the same organizational context to be supportive of the transfer of acquired safety knowledge and skills to the job, translating into conditions that make it unlikely for individuals to have accidents/injuries in the future (p.141)

As the results section of the article describes:

The present results suggest that enhancing organizational safety climate will have a positive impact on the transfer of this training to the work setting in terms of reducing accidents and injuries. The latter point is important, as it implies that a positive organizational safety climate can, in some cases, counteract cultural values that possibly underlie the adoption of suboptimal resource practices (p.146).

I found the previously mentioned article quite interesting and I encourage all of you to check it out.

Learning styles

Inspired by the article by Warr P. and Allan C. Learning Strategies & Occupational Training , I decided to do some further research on learning styles mentioned in the article.Undoubtedly, understanding the importance of learning styles is crucial to successful training design, delivery and finally transfer.

As stated in the article, a style tends to be seen as reflecting a generally preferred learning strategy, in effect an aspect of an individual’s personality with interconnected attitudes & motives- Style is generally considered to be less modifiable than a strategy. 

We shall refer to the learning cycle based upon the work of David Kolb (1984), who identified an experiential learning model, which contains four different phases.

The experiential learning model

Kolb named the 1^st phase as concrete experience, and the 2^nd as observation and reflections, during which the learner rethinks through what has happened .Then the 3^rd  phase follows named formulation of abstract concepts and generalizations, and the learner makes connections with his/her general knowledge We end up with the 4^th phase named testing implications of concepts in new situations during which the learn finally incorporate the new knowledge attained in new situations and actively experiment with it. As explained in our SG, the theory claims that adults learn by going around an around this cycle to form a spiral, continually amending their “theory” about how things work.

As explained by Kaye Thorne and David Mackay in Everything you ever needed to know about training  Kolb’s work underpins much of the current research into learning; one example of this constitutes the learning style questionnaire developed by Peter Honey and Alan Mumford. The particular questionnaire identifies four different learning styles, and each style is demonstrated through a series of behaviors and preferred way of learning. The categories as described in the previously mentioned book (p.39) are as follows:

1) Activists:

They enjoy new experiences and opportunities from which they can learn. They enjoy being involved, are happy to be in the limelight and prefer to be active rather than sitting and listening passively.

2) Reflectors:

They prefer to observe, think and assimilate information before starting. They like to review what has already happened, what they have managed to learn. They prefer to reach decisions in their own time and do not like to feel under pressure/stress.

3) Theorists:

They like to explore methodically; they think problems through in a step-by-step logical way and ask various questions. They tend to be detached and analytical in their approach. They like to be intellectually stretched and feel uncomfortable with lateral thinking, preferring models and systems

4) Pragmatists:

They like practical solutions and want to get on and try things. They dislike too much theory. They like to experiment and search out new ideas that they want to try out. They act quickly and confidently, usually are very “down to earth” and respond to problems as a challenge.

I believe that identifying our learning style could be beneficial to all of us, and could constitute a useful tool, a crucial part of our personal development. If any of you wants to go a step further, you could get access to the Honey and Mumford Learning Styles Questionnaire by clicking http://www.peterhoney.com/