Improving human productivity and their career development opportunities will continue to be a goal of employees and organizations into perpetuity. There is no end in sight for the number of ideas and variety of ways to explore the implementation of ideas to meet human needs throughout the world. Some organizations are exploring the use of technology to facilitate productivity but technology is still guided by the thoughts of the humans who program it. The knowledge that humans have is bounded only by their ability to turn what they think about into applicable tools to use in their worldly endeavors or to sell to their peers. Organizations focus on practical application of theoretical knowledge. If the knowledge cannot be applied, it is useless to employees as they endeavor to provide maximum quality for their organizations. Having knowledge alone has never been enough for an organization to thrive especially in a capitalist society where time is money. The workforce must be adept at figuring out ways to apply all knowledge and training to organizational processes. I would suggest that an extension of the difference between education and training is that organizational learning requires a combination of education, training, knowledge, and skills to succeed. To continue to leverage workforce inter-personnel diversity into every aspect of the organization, organizations should choose appropriate training and development delivery methods using technology and data analysis to support their efforts.


  1. Albrech, S. L. (2011). Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice. Human Resource Management International Digest19(7).
  2. Berggren, E., & Bernshteyn, R. (2007). Organizational transparency drives company performance. Journal of Management Development, 26, 411–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bird, A. (1996). Careers as repositories of knowledge: Considerations of boundaryless careers. In M. B. Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era (pp. 150–168). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cho, Y. J., & Perry, J. L. (2012). Intrinsic motivation and employee attitudes: Role of managerial trustworthiness, goal directedness, and extrinsic reward expectancy. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32(4), 382–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Drucker, P. F. (1999). Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge. California Management Review, 41(2), 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Foster, R. (2010). Resistance, justice, and commitment to change. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(1), 3–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hughes, C. (2016). Diversity intelligence: Integrating diversity intelligence alongside intellectual, emotional, and cultural intelligence for leadership and career development. London, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hughes, C. (Ed.). (2018a). The role of HRD in integrating diversity alongside intellectual, emotional, and cultural intelligences. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 20(3). Google Scholar
  9. Hughes, C. (2018b). Ethical and legal issues in human resource development: Evolving roles and emerging trends. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Huysman, M. (2000). An organizational learning approach to the learning organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(2), 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1995). Formalized HRM structures: Coordinating equal employment opportunity or concealing organizational practices? Academy of Management Journal, 38, 787–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Selznick, P. (1969). Law, society and industrial justice. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations