Q2: Evaluation processes for training are often centered around a few general responses on Likert-type scales to relatively routine questions that ask about enjoyment, engagement, usefulness, and other surface aspects of training. Thinking about genuine learning, are these types of methods appropriate for really assessing learning? If not, what are some other ways we could assess whether or not training was really effective?

Q3: Career development is a potentially powerful tool for addressing possible future needs. However, choosing individuals to engage in these developmental programs is complex. If you were charged with choosing between two candidates to enter a development program - one who is relatively new, but with very strong demonstrated performance, and one with significant time on the job, but only relatively stable and "satisfactory" performance - who would you choose? Why? (You can think about a current or past job in answering this.)