Hello,

I'm new to the forum, so might be overlooking information already posted on this topic elsewhere. (If you can direct me to existing materials, that would be greatly appreciated.)

My question has to do with the inclusion of the concept of Possible Selves (as addressed in depth in New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education issues around 2005-2007) in organizational training departments and as part of career tracking.

What I'm focusing on right now is the ROI aspect of this concept. If an organization has to create a "holding environment" in which individuals are nourished to develop their Possible Self (theoretically to be in alignment with organizational objectives), then would the efficacy of such a move be best served by Kirkpatrick's level 3 and 4 measures?

Any thoughts or guidance?

Thank you,

Jason

As I understand the "Possible Selves" concept and application, it has tremendous application for training but only on a technique basis. Specifically, we know that transfer of training is much more likely if attendees identify how they personally will use/benefit from the training (for instance, having people identify personal goals or objectives they want to get out of the training). That said, that is a very superficial application of the "Possible Selves" concept.

From a company's perspective, I'm not sure I see why they'd make that investment? It would run counter to where training has gone the past two decades (more to a "free agent learner" model where individuals have to own their own development).

Given how I think organizations would be most likely to use elements of this concept, evaluation would take place at probably level II (what people learn). As for ROI (effectively level V), I think that would be incredibly difficult to measure in this case. Ultimately, it would probably be faster and cheaper for organizations to simply hire more wisely.