Extended Reading
Guerra-López, I., & Leigh, H. N. (2009). Are performance improvement
professionals measurably improving performance? what PIJ and PIQ have to say
about the current use of evaluation and measurement in the field of performance
improvement. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 22(2), 97-110.
In their study,
Guerra-Lopez and Leigh look at the state of evaluation in contemporary
performance improvement literature to examine to thoroughness and attention
given to evaluation by performance improvement professionals. Based off of
their findings, they argue that evaluation – despite being critical to the
field – is underrepresented in two of the field’s most prominent academic
journals: Performance Improvement
Quarterly and Performance Improvement.
Their analysis – intended for practitioners and researchers alike – analyses articles
published in these two journals to evaluate how often topics surrounding
performance improvement evaluation are mentioned and written about at length.
Simply put, their findings support their theory that evaluation is not being
taken as seriously as it should be in the literature.
The claims discussed
in this work shed light on a critical aspect of work being done in the field:
evaluation. Despite human performance technologists being aware of evaluation
and its merits, the depth of evaluation necessary to appropriately measure an
intervention’s success is not always being performed. The absence of this
discussion in the literature – as made apparent by the authors – demonstrates not
only a professional unawareness, but an altogether disregard for one of the
most prominent ways human performance technology professionals can understand
their shortcomings and, perhaps more importantly, sell their interventions to
those they work with. By not producing measureable results and discussing those
results in the literature, the field loses both credibility and sustainability.
Missing from their
discussion was much mention of practice. While the literature is, ideally,
indicative of this, little mention of direct work being completed is mentioned.
Speaking directly with professionals and examining evaluative tools that are
being used by those professionals would provide a much more direct examination
of the evaluation issue being discussed. This is done second-handedly by
examining the literature itself, and, with the depth of literature available,
this may be logistically inappropriate, but it would provide the authors with a
much more direct source of information.