The paper 'Different Learning Styles and Needs of HRD - South Australian Public Service Agencies" is a good example of a management case study. The contemporary discourse of human resource development (HRD) revolves around the specialist assistance afforded employees in order to achieve different enjoyment from their labor. The HRD discourse extols the principles of encouraging employees to identify ways in which they can enhance their careers and other crucial features of their working life (Bell 2008). The concept of HRD has been faced with increasing multigenerational issues that specialists have to consider critically in order to maintain a viable working environment characterized by intergenerational coherence and competition. As the twenty-first century progresses, the contemporary institution employs a human resource that comprises of three more generations that work and interact more relevantly.
The simultaneous presence of a multigenerational workforce in the contemporary organization is largely due to the improved longevity and the renewed tendency by people to work more beyond the traditional retirement age. This phenomenon has caused human resource specialists to redesign development programs and functions to fit with the varied needs and expectations of the generational diversity (Delcampo, Haggerty, Haney, & Ashley 2011). Recognition of generational similarities is a vital factor for an HRD specialist for help in guiding attraction, retention, and support for members of the multigenerational workforce.
This implies that an HDR design must be informed by vital drivers that move each generation at work while addressing the intergenerational needs and concerns (Pollitt 2006). The HRD program must seek to help create a supportive working environment and create a management strategy that enhances awareness that each generation perceives work differently and desires different motivational features.
This report entails an identification of the vital generational working groups in the contemporary Australian organization which follows with a one-year feasible plan.
Bell, EE 2008, Multigenerational workplace performance: generational similarities and differences in employee perception of the work environment, ProQuest, New York, NY.
Cassidy, C & Kreitner, R 2009, Supervision: setting people up for success, Cengage Learning, London, UK.
Daft, RL., & Marcic, D 2008, Understanding management, Cengage Learning, London, UK.
Delcampo, RG., Haggerty, LA., Haney, MJ., Knippel, LA 2011, Managing the multi-generational workforce: from the GI generation to millennials, Gower Publishing Ltd, London, UK.
Humphrey, WS & Over, JW 2010, Leadership, teamwork, and trust: building a competitive software capability, Addison-Wesley Professional, New York, NY.
Mathis, RL & Jackson, JH 2010, Human resource management, 13th edn, Cengage Learning.
Pollitt, D 2006, Diversity in the workplace, Emerald Group Publishing, Netherlands.
Raffel, JA., Leisink, P & Middlebrooks, AE 2009, Public sector leadership: international challenges and perspectives, Edward Elgar Publishing, London, UK.
van Tiem, D., Moseley, JL., & Dessinger, JC 2012, Fundamentals of performance improvement: a guide to improving people, process, and performance, 3rd edn. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Villwock, M 2007, “Gen Xers” and “Boomers”: representation of an intergenerational relationship in Douglas Coupland’s “Generation X”, GRIN Verlag, Germany.
Wang, VCX & King, KP 2009, Fundamentals of human performance and training, IAP, New York, NY.
Werner, JM & Desimone, EL 2011, Human resource development, 6th edn, Cengage Learning, London, UK.