Human Resources

| January 30, 2017

I need someone to complete this for me by tonight at 8pm EST. Please do not respond if you cannot finish by the deadline.

2 replies of 250–300 words each. Must:

– Include an analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of the topic.

– Include the textbook for the course.

– Include at least 1 additional scholarly resource.

– Include Bible references.

– Include an assessment/analysis of your Christian worldview as it relates to the topic.

– Include both in-text citations and references in APA format.

– Utilize correct English, grammar, spelling, and punctuation.

– Include clear topic sentences for each paragraph, supporting sentences, and a conclusion sentence/paragraph.


Werner, J., & DeSimone, R. (2012). Human resource development (6th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson-Southwestern. ISBN: 9780538480994.

Alison M. Digges

Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Framework

According to Werner and DeSimone (2012), “If the HRD department cannot demonstrate effectiveness, it may not be taken seriously within an organization” (p. 203). HRD evaluations are therefore necessary to ensure organizational effectiveness is maintained. Asadullah, Peretti, Ghulam Ali, and Bourgain (2015) found that, “the firms which are larger and provide training of longer duration to their employees, use more sophisticated training evaluation practices” (p. 445) and thus are able to increase the effectiveness of their training more actively. One of the most influential evaluation models is Kirkpatrick’s evaluation framework. This evaluation framework incorporates four distinct levels of criteria used to evaluate HRD programs, including: 1) reaction, 2) learning, 3) behavior, and 4) results (p. 206).


The first level of Kirkpatrick’s evaluation framework is reaction. This level analyzes the general reaction of the trainees towards the training program. Negative reactions allow organizations to reevaluate how training is conducted. Positive reactions on the other hand allow organizations to promote their training programs to other possible trainees within the organization. Reactions help organizations ensure overall effectiveness in terms of trainee satisfaction and perceived learning. These positive reactions are an area of data specifically that I have experienced on my own that has increased effectiveness in a training program that I designed. After being promoted into a new role within my organization I reformatted the orientation class. It was so successful that employees who were hired previous to the reformatting began asking if they could re-take the class!


The second level of Kirkpatrick’s evaluation framework is learning. This level analyzes the transfer of learning experienced by the trainees involved in the training program. More specifically, it evaluates how learning objectives were met or unmet during the training based on the learning experience by the trainees. This level incorporates the use of tests or quizzes to evaluate trainee knowledge prior to learning and following learning so that knowledge obtained during training can be accurately measured. This level might also be conducted over various periods of time. Often a short-term analysis will be conducted where knowledge is measured directly after training or a day after training. Then long-term analyses will be conducted after one week, one month, or even one year to understand how long this knowledge is typically retained. One way that I have personally utilized this evaluation of learning is through the use of pre-tests and post-tests in the safety and security section of my orientation program. This allows my team to evaluate actual learned knowledge, opposed to just evaluating common sense.


The third level of Kirkpatrick’s evaluation framework is behavior. This level analyzes the second step in the transfer of training. Not only does transfer of training evaluate knowledge acquired and retained, but also knowledge applied on the job. Knowledge can be obtained and retained without being applied but the application of the knowledge is the purpose of both acquiring and retaining said knowledge. Without the application, or behavior, the training is for naught. Khalid, Rehman, and Ashraf (2012) state that, “There is the need to know what trainees learn during training so as to reproduce it on job, in form of better performance” (p. 275). Long-term evaluation is something that I personally have used in the past by incorporating direct knowledge from orientation into thirty-day and ninety-day evaluations of employee performance. This long-term evaluation has allowed me to analyze the long-term effectiveness of my training program and assess whether it is the best option for our high turnover industry.


The fourth and final level of Kirkpatrick’s evaluation framework is results. This level analyzes the result of training on the overall organizational effectiveness of the company. If the training does not increase the effectiveness of the organization it is going to be hard to convince the organization that this training is beneficial. My organization receives quarterly audits from an outsourced organization that evaluates the operations of the entire organization. This evaluation allows me to analyze exactly how training has impacted the organizational effectiveness of the organization. This evaluation helps me prove to my organization that our training programs are effective and useful.

A discussion on training evaluation can easily be addressed in a Christian context. Galatians 6:3-4 states, “For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor” (English Standard Version). Testing our work before God is the ultimate test of effectiveness.


Asadullah, M. A., Peretti, J. M., Ghulam Ali, A., & Bourgain, M. (2015). Firm size, ownership, training duration and training evaluation practices. European Journal of Training and Development, 39(5), 429-455. Retrieved from

Khalid, M. M., Rehman, C. A., & Ashraf, M. (2012). Exploring the link between kirkpatrick (KP) and context, input, process and product (CIPP) training evaluation models, and its effect on training evaluation in public organizations of pakistan. African Journal of Business Management, 6(1), 274-279. Retrieved from

The English Standard Version Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Werner, J. M., DeSimone, R. L. (2012). Human Resource Development (6th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western, Cengage Learning.

Christina Curry

Organizational socialization is an essential process for newly hired employees joining an organization. This process is used by many organizations to help integrate new employees into the company by helping them understand their new job role, explaining what is expected of them, and allowing them to begin to establish relationships with their co workers (Werner & DeSimone, 2012). Many companies have come to the realization that they must use strategic strategies and techniques in their organizational socialization programs, in order to successfully facilitate new employees into the organization and retain them. “Successful socialization of new members is critical to both individuals and organizations, especially since the new employee’s satisfaction, performance, and commitment to the organization are at stake” (Werner & DeSimone, 2012, p. 256). Therefore, there are many reasons why an organization should carefully consider and plan an effective organizational socialization program for new employees.

Daniel Feldman developed a 3-stage model of organizational socialization, which includes the anticipatory socialization stage, the encounter stage, and the change and acquisition stage (Werner & DeSimone, 2012). The anticipatory socialization stage is the beginning stage, where the individual is gathering information about what it would be like to work at a specific organization (Werner & DeSimone, 2012). The encounter stage starts when the individual becomes an employee, and begins to discover what the culture of the organization and work environment are really like (Werner & DeSimone, 2012). While the change and acquisition stage, occurs when the employee has learned how to perform the job successfully and work satisfactorily within the work group (Werner & DeSimone, 2012). This model builds a framework that is useful for organizations to design an effective organizational socialization process.

My experience with the onboarding or organizational socialization process would not necessarily be to the same degree as the experience outlined in Feldman’s 3-stage model. Over the last 20 years, I have worked for a number of different companies. While looking back over the years at the various jobs that I have held, it is my opinion that many of these companies didn’t have an effective organizational socialization program. Most companies only provided a brief orientation and then mainly minimal on-the-job training. Cable, Gino, & Staats (2013) state that “by encouraging new employees to apply their personal strengths to the job, companies can help their new hires become more connected with their colleagues, more engaged in their work and more likely to stay” (p.23). As research has shown, it can be very beneficial for new employees to receive a more customized socialization into the organization to ultimately be successful (Cable, Gino, & Staats, 2013).


Cable, D. M., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. (2013). Reinventing employee onboarding. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54(3), 23-28. Retrieved from

Werner, J., & DeSimone, R. (2012).Human resource development (6th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson-Southwestern.

Get a 30 % discount on an order above $ 50
Use the following coupon code:
Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code: COCONUTOrder Now
Positive SSL