Meietamine igapäevakõnepruugis on nii levinud, et sellega tuleb individuaalselt ja teadlikult tegeleda, et mitte langeda ebaadekvaatsete üldistuste lõksu ja minna kaasa romantilise meie-tundega, mille aluste ulatuses võib vähemalt kahelda.

Saan hästi aru, et kontekstis, kus paljudel avalikel organisatsioonidel puudub personalistrateegia (mis ei tähenda, et ülemustel-ametnikel ei ole kujutlusi võimalikest arengutest), võib siinviidatud teksti spetsiifilisus tunduda arusaamatu ja “teoreetiline” (loe: keeruline), siis just nendel põhjustel seda teksti siin jagangi. Ei maksa ju välistada, et on kusagil keegi, kes personaliarenduse küsimustes millelegi sellisele mõtleb.

Kontekstiks:

It has long been understood that a key ingredient in career success is effectively managing workplace relationships. As early as 1936, Dale Carnegie aimed to help his readers develop the skills needed to make friends quickly and easily, thereby increasing their popularity, influence, and earning power (Carnegie, 1936).

Sotsiaalvõrgustiku teooria:

Social network theory identifies informal structures created by the interconnected web of relationships within which we enact our personal and professional lives; these structures provide opportunities and impose constraints (Brass, 2012).

Võrgustikupõhise juhtimise arendamine:

Network-based leadership development helps participants understand the characteristics of effective networks, assess the effectiveness of their own network, and learn strategies to improve (Cullen-Lester et al., 2016). A guiding assumption of these efforts is that developing networking skills enhances individual career success by facilitating the crafting of effective networks, which provide resources including support, sponsorship, and access to relevant information (Cullen-Lester et al., 2016; de Janasz & Forret, 2008; Wolff et al., 2008; Wolff & Moser, 2009).

Uurimisküsimused:

We seek to answer two research questions: (1) Does an emphasis on personal benefits in a “me-focused” (individually framed) or on collective benefits to the team/ organization in a “we-focused” (collectively framed) program impact participants’ discomfort with strategic networking and their motivation to network? (2) Do individual differences in the way participants relate to others (i.e., the extent to which they endorse an individual or a collective self-concept) and, specifically, the (mis)match between self-concept and the framing of the training impact participants’ discomfort with strategic networking and motivation to network?

Koolituste mõjust:

Assessing the effectiveness of network training is important for understanding which techniques best enable participants to achieve their objectives (i.e., developing and utilizing their professional networks effectively) and revealing the mechanisms by which network training results in proximal and distal outcomes. Kirkpatrick Four Levels Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006) for training assessment is a well-established and popular typology for considering different kinds of training outcomes: Reaction refers to participants’ enjoyment of the training program, learning refers to whether participants demonstrated changes in their knowledge, skills, or attitudes, behavior refers to whether participants exhibited changes in their behavior as a result of the training, and results refer to whether measurable, objective business results improved as a result of the training.

Sotsiaalvõrgustike kasulikkusest:

Historically, the benefits of social networks have been conceptualized into two broad categories: (1) individual benefits such as career advancement and the success resulting from connections to resource-rich others or by occupying brokerage positions within work networks (Burt, 1992; Lin, 1999), and (2) collective benefits such as high levels of trust and support among members of the network that result from network properties such as interconnectedness (Coleman, 1988).

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

Clearly, a mismatch between training frame and self-concept was most detrimental for those who exhibited individual self-concepts. […] HRM professionals designing network training programs should consider whether to tailor their training to match participants’ self-concepts. […] As HRM scholars and practitioners, we must understand the possibility that training may decrease motivation and find ways to address it.

Floyd, T. M., Cullen‐Lester, K. L., Lester, H. F., & Grosser, T. J. Emphasizing “me” or “we”: Training framing and self‐concept in network‐based leadership development. Human Resource Management.