If you search for “human performance” on the internet, a plethora of topics arise (as often happens with indiscriminate web surfing). For a large portion of the population, this diversity of responses is both overwhelming and interesting. Human performance (HP) can mean variously: human resources, management, athletics, dieting, cognition, social interaction, health and wellness, activity in the workplace, job behavior, training, improving actions, enhancing social processes, and many other definitions. It incorporates improvement, technology, strategy, and more.
And yet, in the face of this wealth of opportunity, we “human-based” professionals often scratch out tiny definitions, carving minute niches in which to work. Like ten children with only nine marbles, we often squabble amongst our professional disciplines about who “owns” human performance and we staunchly defend our turf— and there are always fewer professional marbles than there are professionals.
HP includes all these elements and more but are there real differences between these different faces of HP? To be successful and relevant HP must span a range and include the small elements of improving individual actions as well as the broad strokes such as athletic enhancement and generation of automation that supports improved system performance.