Do you think HR should focus on "training" or "development" ?

No one seems to have addressed the second part of the original question: how to improve the "development" role played by HR.

I would suggest that HR conduct needs assessments and (after enlisting top management support) embark on remedial steps to close the existing gaps between current and desired KSAs in the organization. Training is the most obvious of the many development options, which also include on the job coaching, job rotation, temporary assignments, staff meeting roles, task force assignment, formal education, guided reading, acting as a teacher, professional counseling, mentorship and outside volunteer activities.

Each quarter, HR should report the steps taken and outcome results for maintaining and enhancing the skills and competencies needed for company success. Every organization is a human entity and only HR has total overall responsibility for the core component, the people.

This is one of those "it depends" questions. It depends on what the needs of the company is at the time the question is asked. I look at training as an immediate need. Does an employee need to be trained to perform in their current or soon to be moved to job. Development is a longer term issue. What does an employee need to fill the longer term needs of the company and their career.

Both are important to the long term viability and success of the company.

Development, because I view training as part of that. From the beginning, I think we should be engaging in an interactive process with the employees on development.

Employees have the ultimate responsibility to develop themselves, but employers typically drive the job related training and future opportunities part.

While training merely imparts skills and gives practice, development is a much broader concept that involves growth. One can graduate trained from a school with no conscience, an unformed philosophy of life and no career plan. That requires "development."

The first three prior posters who recognized the superior importance of long-term development over short-term training had it right. Even college graduates frequently need some retraining for practical businses applications; but all trained personnel need development, and schools have never been able to do that. Development still remains the mutual responsibility of the employer and the employee.

Be sure and place the most effective focus on training and education. Keep in mind that training and education are not a one time event - they must be a common event for every person in a company including executive management.

Here are some general thoughts: Training is for skills, Development is for the individual. HR should have a framework that focus on both. Training is an element of overall Development. Employees (individual wants/needs), their peers (team wants/needs), and managers (organizational wants/needs) should work with HR (facilitators) to define/execute a program.

Some really interesting posts!! As many have already stated, I believe training (particularly skills training) is an element of an overall development program. In my experience, the most successful approach has been a partnership between the individual employee, HR and others. The individual has the ultimate responsibility for their own development but they can use HR, mentors, coaches, colleagues and others to assist them in their on-going development.

Whether HR "has their act together" or not, the individual still retains the primary responsibility for their own development. Therefore, if HR is a reasonable resource, use them. If not, find somebody else and leverage all the resources available to you.

So many things to address here..

First, to your question, Steve. I look at this as part of the larger mix of "talent management." Training gets you the skills you need to be successful today, development gets you to where you need to be for tomorrow. That's my take, anyway.

Does HR belong in those areas? You bet. I see our profession, especially as it develops, more engaged in seeing the future of the business and preparing the talent to meet the needs of our strategy, both short and long term. L&D is how we get there, with some augmentation from talent acquisition of course. These are important tools in getting our business ready for the future. (It also implies that the HR professional can read a business plan and interpret the needs of the organization, but that's another question.)

Second, to the comments. I won't dismiss John's comments out of hand, though I do disagree with his broad generalizations. Yes, there are plenty of HR people who are living in the past, are barely competent, and are struggling to keep their heads above water every day. I would argue that is true of any profession, though. There are bad HR people, bad accountants, bad operations managers, bad waiters, bad piano teachers, and bad doctors. That's not news.

I would argue, though, that there are great ones as well. Otherwise we wouldn't know the different, right? To defame an entire profession based on having worked with bad individuals is, I think, akin to refusing to get your oil changed because all mechanics are crooks.

If your HR experience is that bad, I would look at the talent level in the overall organization and ask if every other function is running smoothly. If no, perhaps the organization is dysfunctional at its core. If so, I would suggest maybe that HR team isn't quite as bad as you think.

All I can say is that in this increasingly regulated business world in the U.S. today with more regulations coming down the pike, I would not want to be in the HR business. I have to think the complexity is driving them crazy, particularly with respect to actually being able to make an independent decision other than a negative one ("That person does not exactly meet the qualifications I was given for this role by the hiring manager.").

Some really interesting posts!! As many have already stated, I believe training (particularly skills training) is an element of an overall development program. In my experience, the most successful approach has been a partnership between the individual employee, HR and others. The individual has the ultimate responsibility for their own development but they can use HR, mentors, coaches, colleagues and others to assist them in their on-going development.

Whether HR "has their act together" or not, the individual still retains the primary responsibility for their own development. Therefore, if HR is a reasonable resource, use them. If not, find somebody else and leverage all the resources available to you.

@ Kimberly
If you read my comments, you'll see that I just asked the question, what constitutes an Expert, I suggested that it's a word, like professionalism, which I find overused, I wasn't suggesting that anyone on this board isn't an expert, I just asked a simple question and it's a fair question.
It might be your opinion that I'm generalizing, but it's my opinion that I'm not, I appreciate that you might feel differently, and if that's the case, please feel free to prove me wrong, I'm happy to listen to what you and everyone has to say. You have the chance to give me examples of how my thinking might be incorrect, but you chose to tell me that my generalizations are without merit, this I find interesting given that I'm sharing what I experience, nothing more. Please remember, this is my profession as well and I'm not very happy about what I'm saying.
With regard to my clients, they are very happy with the work that I do and that's why they continue to ask me to come back to work with them.
My thinking is anything but archaic, it's on the money quite frankly, but again, feel free to provide me with a different insight. I have never marketed myself on this board or any other board, and I'm not bashing anyone, I'm sharing a point of view that you seem to have issue with, and that's great, I want you and anyone else to suggest otherwise, I believe that's the concept of a discussion board.
By the way, this just isn't me who thinks this way, although in this particular moment , I made these comments, I've spoken to many individuals that deal with HR in multiple industries, they have similar feelings, I wish it were different.
Now, all that being said, if you were offended by my remarks, I'll gladly apologize to you, I don't have any problem doing that, I certainly wouldn't want anyone to be upset at me. But here's something that's interesting to me Kimberly, instead of telling me why I might be a crazy in my thinking you responded the way most individuals in HR respond, your wrong, that's not true.
When I made my comments I'd like to think that anyone that read them didn't believe that I meant the entire industry, that would be ludicrous, I however, did mean the majority, so perhaps this is my fault for not being clear.

Yes it must:
In my opinion specially in devloping country like Nepal where majority work force are tranfer from an agriculture sector to manufacturing sector.
It give greater feed back based on expectations which will come out in the trainning interactio session will be guide line for development on IR,Labor Productivity & engagement for common goal.

It depends.
In a horizontal process orientated organisation, HR to me has a fundamental part in resource development because resources in this type of organisations are not strictly embedded in hierachical structures.

In rather traditional hierachical environments although that HR should have the responsability of resource development, this function usually is taken on by the direct responsible which usually would be a kind of manager not related to HR. So in this case HR is usually too far away from the resource so the best HR can do, besides administering the contracts, is provide training offers.

Do I like the latter? No.

My experience is that training and development are two different concepts that are often used interchangeably. How the concepts are used brings about the debate. Although the concepts differ they are intertwined and must complement each other for either the individual or organization to benefit.

Training is to introduce and build basic abilities, skills, and knowledge (ASK) for the respective intervention. Development is using the ASK while performing the job. With the exception of very basic ASK, application of training outside of the classroom results in a decrease in employee performance while developing the ASK on the job-this is known as the "J" curve. When the individual does not receive the time and support to develop ASK the performance intervention will FAIL.

Although the performance intervention is usually analyzed, designed, developed, implemented, and evaluated by a department or division not within operations, the supervisor and/or management must fully participate in all of the phases of training AND development after the training session ends.

Years of studies by organizations such as DDI, SHRM, ASTD, and ISPI clearly show that these change initiations (training is to bring about change) fail because of management follow through.

I'm not sure that this should be an "either/or" dilemma. Unfortunately, many organizations combine their training and development function into their HR departments, yet many HR folks have little or no experience in training OR development. In fact, many HR folks have little or no experience in the industry in which they are working. They are experts in HR functions but may have little to no experience in the actual industry itself. Thus, I am in favor of having a separate training and development department with skilled and experienced training professionals who possess the skills, knowledge and background to actually get the results in training and can enhance the development of their people. In this way, the HR department can provide input for the training department into what training needs to be accomplished and can offer direction in the development of the individuals in the organization.

http://www.examiner.com/workplace-issues-in-national/training-education-or-de...

Training is task related - and very linear focused. Example: How to create an invoice. Education is the great creative enabler - and very broad based. Example: How creating an invoice impacts the various business segments and the customer. Training and Education should be the key focus areas. Development is just another vague term like Cloud computing. Why not enable the person to have a part in their development? Why not train and educate and allow the person to suggest development path? H/R too often uses models for development. It doesn't work that way..

when I read HR I interpret that, in hopefulness, as human capital management.

I view training and development as two separate, but related, functions. I view training as the process of teaching someone something by introducing new information for the purposes of gaining new knowledge, new skills and abilities. I view development as the process that refines the new knowledge, skills and abilities that the person was just trained on. Development should include coaching, mentoring, feedback, etc. to reinforce the behaviors that were learned during the training session.

Training.

Let the folks who do the work to drive the business (management) develop the individual to the level needed to achieve business goals.

I totally agree with your assessment. So many times over my career (consultant, employee, Management) have I seen companies acquire resources with the emphasis on career development only to fail to spend the time or money on the development of said resource. As we look across multiple industries, we can equate some of the overall failures to non-development of their employee-base to align with Business Initiative and Key performance indicators.

When you hire or retain a resource, you need to work quarterly with them to ensure that all are on the same page and marching towards the common company goal.

The question is, "Is HR Development and Training aligned with Organizational Strategy?"
In the past Organizational Development, then Organizational Effectiveness and now the language being used is Organizational Optimization. People development within most organization is focused on how can we best optimize all resources that will have a positive Impact On Business (IOB). Most organizations are working on developing a culture that will achieve positive business results. A major driver seems to be quality and continuous improvement in order to stay competitive and keep customers satisfied. Internal OJT and "culture-type" training/education/development seem to be a very high priority.

Frank offers an interesting "shift" on the original topic that I believe is well worthy of discussion.

It has long been a frustration of mine that many (if not most) organizations do not invest the time and energy in fitting Human Resources (including Training & Development) into the strategic planning of the company. There is a business plan, a budget contained therein and perhaps a strategic plan, none of which seem to comprehend human development in any aligned way. Except for job related, specific technical training, development is fragmented, individually focused and not aligned with the corporate mission, vision or goals unless by happy coincidence.

There's produce/service, market place numbers, development plans and they are usually aligned, at least loosely. HR is almost an afterthought in the process, as a means to help ensure the organization has enough "bodies" to execute the plan.

Below is a link to a white paper we published some time ago on this very subject.

http://www.glowan.com/about_us/whitepapers/Talent-Management-White-Paper.pdf

HR has a job to do and most do it very well. What they don't do well is improve the Attitudes of employees. Companies are looking now at new ways to help in this area. An example of something very new is the Belief Re-Alignment Method implemented with the HelpingUSucceed.com website using Cloud Technology available 24/7. Employees have the opportunity in the privacy of their home to remove negative attitudes and replace with positive beliefs and measure the progress until one is 100%. Removing the baggage that a new employee brings to the jobs or picks up on the job can mean empowering individuals to perform at their best. The result give harmony to the work floor and to an age old problem of HRs.

I would advise HR to take a step back and look at this at systemic level. Put ourselves in the shoes of the staff and ask the following questions:
What are my job roles and responsibility?
What competencies do I require to fullfil my job responsibilities?
How do I describe them to understand my competency needs better?
How can I plan my competency development needs and manage my training better?
How can I better plan for my career development needs?

Next, initiate a competency framework development initiative to establish an organisational or unit level competency framework. The frameework should enable a more objective and consistent answer to the above questions.

Thereafter, skill level can be assessed and skill gaps and corresponding development needs can be developed, be it technical skill training or skill development through coaching, mentoring or other approaches.

Hello John:
Looks like you have had some rough experience with Training and Developemnt. In this space all I can tell you is both are necessary and both work, if used appropriately. Just consider the fact that you went to school then college and then perhaps an advanced degree. At each step you were being trained for the larger goal of being developed in to the susccessful professional you are today.

How could anyone conceive "development" without training ?

Neither - T&D should be stripped away from HR altogether. HR people are much better focusing on benefits and administration. Frankly, many don't get T&D and don't care. Training & developing people (and maybe even hiring) should be an entirely separate department and should report directly into operations or sales or the CEO, etc.

In my experience, HR and training are distinct depts. I refer mostly to Blue Chips organisations. I'm sure smaller companies combine the two.

As several have noticed, this is not an either/or question. Training is important, for sure, but it's table stakes - a minimum requirement.

Development is ultimately far more important, both for the organization, and for individuals. And, it's a rich, robust, diverse endeavor embracing knowledge, capabilities, techniques - all involving genuine learning.

Too many in HR cannot distinguish between training and education, to everyone's loss.

@Steve, you are at talking about the exception to the rule, most HR departments' don't have their act together, I seen it with the many organizations I deal with and hear it from many individual operators and experience it in many of the professional boards I'm connected to.
The same issue is true int he learning field, I can site many examples, or you can just look at the yearly statistics for proof. Even on this board you'll find conversations that address the shortcomings of the profession.

I'm not certain what constitutes a Focus Expert, I find that word misused a great deal, just like professional, but then perhaps that just me. The real proof in the pudding is how HR departments function, relative to the systems and processes they have in place, and typically I find this to be the most significant issue.

@ Steve
I'm sorry that you take notice with my answer, but frankly, it's very true, HR doesn't have their act together and as a result will become the target of outsourcing. You know some pretty phenomenal people, me too, but they are very much the minority.
I can't even begin to tell you how many conversations I have with so called HR professionals who don't have the slightest idea of what's going on. Just check many of the discussion boards, pick anyone, let's take SHRM for example.
I can't even count how many times someone has posted an absolutely ridiculous question. I can't begin to tell you how many times people have complained about HR recruiting processes, it's mind boggling.
I've been in the HR/Learning Business a long time and have had the pleasure of working with Fortune 100 companies. Of all the people I've met in my career, only a handful stick out in my mind as individuals who are competent and understand the discipline. What's really sad is seeing individuals practicing their discipline based on what we were doing 10-15 years ago.
You mentioned the Focus Experts, who anointed the group and how do you know they are experts, is it because they signed up to be a part of this board.
HR is in need of a very serious overhaul if it expects to survive as a discipline. If I asked you to quantify your contributions to the organizations goals could you provide me with concrete quantitative date, or will it be nothing more than anecdotal.

I think HR should focus on getting their act together and leave the development to someone else. The concept or idea of training is seriously old school Who doesn't understand that training is an event and development is career long.

At the end of the day it really doesn't matter, neither training or development are implemented with any real success. So, at the end of the day, the question is quite irrelevant.