Fundametals of HRD.pdf

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282670712
Fundamentals of Human Resource Development
Chapter · June 2011
CITATIONS
2
READS
42,240
1 author:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Diversity Training View project
Articles on Women-only Training in An Post View project
Thomas N. Garavan
University College Cork
242 PUBLICATIONS 8,269 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas N. Garavan on 09 October 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Fundamentals of Human Resource
Development
McGuire_Prelims I.indd 1 9/16/2011 1:14:20 PM

The SAGE Library in Business and Management brings together first-class
reference collections containing the most influential and field-defining articles,
both classical and contemporary, in a number of key areas of research and inquiry
in business and management.
Each multivolume set represents a collection of the essential published works
collated from the foremost publications in the field by an editor or editorial team
of renowned international stature. They include a full introduction, presenting
a rationale for the selection and mapping out the discipline’s past, present and
likely future.
This series is designed to be a ‘gold standard’ for university libraries throughout
the world with a programme or interest in business and management studies.
Dr. David McGuire is a lecturer in Human Resource Development at Queen
Margaret University, Edinburgh. He has worked as a lecturer in Galway Mayo
Institute of Technology and Napier University, Edinburgh, as well as a visiting
Fulbright scholar at Oakland University, Michigan. He is Assistant National Expert
for Ireland on the European Commission funded BENE (Business Education
Network of Europe) project and received the Early Career Scholar Award from
the Academy of Human Resource Development in February 2008.
Prof. Thomas N. Garavan is a professor at the Kemmy Business School,
University of Limerick. He has authored or co-authored 14 books and 100
refereed journal papers and book chapters and is currently Editor-in-Chief of
Journal of European and Industrial Training and Associate Editor of Human
Resource Development International. He is a member of the editorial board of
Human Resource Development Review, Advances of Developing Human Resources,
and Human Resource Development Quarterly and a board member of both the
Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) and the University Forum
for Human Resource Development (UFHRD).
Dr. Larry M. Dooley is Associate Professor of Human Resource Development
(HRD) in the Department of Educational Administration and Human Resource
Development (EAHRD) at Texas A & M University. He is Past-President of the
Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) additionally he serves
as Treasurer and member of the board of the Academy of Human Resource
Development Foundation. He has keynoted 5 major international conferences,
co-authored two books and multiple book chapters as well as over 50 articles
appearing in journal and other sources. He serves as Associate Editor of the
International Journals of Management Education and is past-Chair of the Board of
Directors for Human Resource Development International.
McGuire_Prelims I.indd ii
McGuire_Prelims I.indd ii 9/20/2011 4:14:45 PM
9/20/2011 4:14:45 PM

SAGE Library in Business and Management
Fundamentals of
Human Resource
Development
VOLUME I
The Theoretical Foundations of HRD
Edited by
Dr. David McGuire, Prof. Thomas N.
Garavan and Dr. Larry M. Dooley

© Introduction and editorial arrangement by Dr. David McGuire,
Prof. Thomas N. Garavan and Dr. Larry M. Dooley 2012
First published 2012
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or
private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this publication
may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or by
any means, only with the prior permission in writing of the
publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction, in
accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright
Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside
those terms should be sent to the publishers.
Every effort has been made to trace and acknowledge all the
copyright owners of the material reprinted herein. However,
if any copyright owners have not been located and contacted
at the time of publication, the publishers will be pleased to
make the necessary arrangements at the first opportunity.
SAGE Publications Ltd
1 Oliver’s Yard
55 City Road
London EC1Y 1SP
SAGE Publications Inc.
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd
B 1/I 1, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
Mathura Road
New Delhi 110 044
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd
33 Pekin Street #02-01
Far East Square
Singapore 048763
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-1-4462-0156-5 (set of four volumes)
Library of Congress Control Number: 2011925067
Typeset by Mukesh Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Pondicherry, India
Printed on paper from sustainable resources
Printed and bound in XXXXX by [complete as you wish]

Contents
Appendix of Sources xiii
Editors’ Introduction Dr. David McGuire, Prof. Thomas N. Garavan
and Dr. Larry M. Dooley xxiii
Volume I: The Theoretical Foundations of HRD
Part 1: The Nature of HRD
1.
Defining HRD: An Examination of the Underlying Principles
of HRD
1. Models for HRD Practice 3
Patricia A. McLagan
2. Economics and Human Resource Development:
A Rejoinder 19
Greg G. Wang and Richard A. Swanson
3. Commonly Held Theories of Human Resource
Development 25
Lisa A. Weinberger
4. A Refusal to Define HRD 43
Monica Lee
5. Exploring Human Resource Development:
A Levels of Analysis Approach 59
Thomas N. Garavan, David McGuire and David O’Donnell
6. Shining a Torch on Metaphor in HRD 81
Darren C. Short
Part 2: Learning
2. Theories of Learning
7. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation 95
Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger
8. Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier 101
Etienne C. Wenger and William M. Synder
9. Experiential Learning 113
David A. Kolb
10. Contextual Factors Influencing Informal Learning in a Workplace
Setting: The Case of “Reinventing Itself Company” 129
Andrea D. Ellinger
11. How Groups Learn: The Role of Communication Patterns,
Cue Recognition, Context Facility, and Cultural Intelligence 155
Joyce Silberstang and Manuel London

vi Contents
3. Adult Learning
12. The Adult Learners: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education
and Human Resource Development 177
Malcolm S. Knowles, Elwood F. Holton and Richard A. Swanson
13. Toward Development of a Generalized Instrument to
Measure Andragogy 185
Elwood F. Holton III, Lynda Swanson Wilson and Reid A. Bates
14. Updating Our Knowledge of Adult Learning 209
Sharan B. Merriam
15. Toward a Holistic Theory of Knowledge and Adult Learning 219
Baiyin Yang
4. Organisational Learning and the Learning Organisation
16. Excerpts from On Organizational Learning 241
Chris Argyris
17. The Fifth Discipline 255
Peter Senge
18. The Construct of the Learning Organization: Dimensions,
Measurement, and Validation 263
Baiyin Yang, Karen E. Watkins and Victoria J. Marsick
19. The Relationship between the Learning Organization
Concept and Firms’ Financial Performance:
An Empirical Assessment 287
Andrea D. Ellinger, Alexander E. Ellinger, Baiyin Yang and
Shelly W. Howton
20. Disciplines of Organizational Learning: Contributions and
Critiques 303
Mark Easterby-Smith
21. Towards an Architecture of Organization-led Learning 331
Noreen Heraty
5. Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital
22. A Model of Knowledge-Sharing Motivation 361
Marylène Gagné
23. Knowledge Sharing: A Review and Directions for Future
Research 385
Sheng Wang and Raymond A. Noe
24. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation 423
Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi
25. Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective 433
John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid
26. The Tacit Dimension 461
Michael Polanyi
McGuire_Prelims I.indd vi
McGuire_Prelims I.indd vi 9/20/2011 4:15:14 PM
9/20/2011 4:15:14 PM

Contents vii
6. Strategic HRD
27. Exploring Strategic Maturity in HRD: Rhetoric, Aspiration
or Reality 469
Martin McCracken and Mary Wallace
28. A Strategic Perspective on Human Resource Development 493
Thomas N. Garavan
29. Desperately Seeking Alignment: Reflections of Senior
Line Managers and HRD Executives 513
Valerie Anderson
30. Toward a Political Economy Model for Comparative Analysis
of the Role of Strategic Human Resource Development Leadership 531
Lyle Yorks
31. Creating and Sustaining a Strategic Partnership:
A Model for Human Resource Development 551
Shari L. Peterson
Volume II: HRD in the Organisation
Part 3: Training and Development
7. Training and Development
32. A Review and Critique of Research on Training and
Organizational-level Outcomes 3
Phyllis Tharenou, Alan M. Saks and Celia Moore
33. Development of a Generalized Learning Transfer
System Inventory 41
Elwood F. Holton III, Reid A. Bates and Wendy E.A. Ruona
34. Influences of Individual and Situational Characteristics
on Measures of Training Effectiveness 67
John E. Mathieu, Scott I. Tannenbaum and Eduardo Salas
35. Investigation of the Factors That Influence Employees’ Participation
in Development Activities 87
Raymond A. Noe and Steffanie L. Wilk
36. Transfer of Training: A Review and Directions for Future
Research 111
Timothy T. Baldwin and J. Kevin Ford
8. Evaluation
37. Behaviorally Anchored Competencies: Evaluation Tool
for Training via Distance 119
Kim E. Dooley, James R. Lindner, Larry M. Dooley
and Meera Alagaraja
38. In Search of the Holy Grail: Return on Investment Evaluation
in Human Resource Development 137
Darlene Russ-Eft and Hallie Preskill

viii Contents
39. Great Ideas Revisited: Techniques for Evaluating Training
Programs and Revisiting Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Model 151
Donald Kirkpatrick
��
40. How to Measure the Return on Your HR Investment:
Using ROI to Demonstrate Your Business Impact 163
Jack Phillips and Patti Phillips
41. Training Evaluation: Knowing More Than Is Practiced 175
Greg G. Wang and Diane Wilcox
Part 4: Career Development
9. Career Development
42. Advances in Career Theory and Research: A Critical Review and
Agenda for Future Exploration 189
Sherry E. Sullivan and Yehuda Baruch
43. Strategic Talent Management: A Review and Research
Agenda 225
David G. Collings and Kamel Mellahi
44. Executive Coaching: A Review and Agenda for
Future Research 247
Daniel C. Feldman and Melenie J. Lankau
45. What Influences Continuous Employee Development
Decisions? 271
Christina M. Garofano and Eduardo Salas
46. Career Development: Load-Bearing Wall or Window Dressing?
Exploring Definitions, Theories, and Prospects for HRD-Related
Theory Building 311
Toby Marshall Egan, Matthew G. Upton and Susan A. Lynham
47. Models, Definitions, and Outcome Variables of Action Learning:
A Synthesis with Implications for HRD 339
Everon C. Chenhall and Thomas J. Chermack
10. Management and Leadership Development
48. Behavioural Indicators of Ineffective Managerial Coaching:
A Cross-National Study 363
Andrea D. Ellinger, Robert G. Hamlin and Rona S. Beattie
49. It’s All Action, It’s All Learning: Action Learning in SMEs 383
Jean Clarke, Richard Thorpe, Lisa Anderson and Jeff Gold
50. Emotional Intelligence: Issues in Paradigm Building 401
Daniel Goleman
51. Emotional Labour in Corporate Change Programmes: The Effects of
Organizational Feeling Rules on Middle Managers 415
Sharon Turnbull
52. Toward Universalistic Models of Managerial Leader Effectiveness:
A Comparative Study of Recent British and American Derived
Models of Leadership 437
Robert G. Hamlin

Contents ix
Volume III: HRD, Change and Globalisation
Part 5: Organisation Development
11. Organisational Commitment and Organisational Culture
53. The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance
and Normative Commitment to the Organization 3
Natalie J. Allen and John P
. Meyer
54. Organizational Culture 23
Edgar H. Schein
12. Organisational Performance
55. The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices
on Turnover, Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance 45
Mark A. Huselid
56. The Foundations of Performance Improvement and Implications
for Practice 83
Richard A. Swanson
57. Key Characteristics of Effective and Ineffective Developmental
Interactions 105
Erik R. Eddy, Caroline P
. D’Abate, Scott I. Tannenbaum,
Susan Givens-Skeaton and Greg Robinson
13. Human and Social Capital
58. The Age of Human Capital 131
Gary S. Becker
59. The Evolution of Capital Theory: A Critique of
a Theory of Social Capital and Implications for HRD 137
Julia Storberg
60. Social Network Analysis in Human Resource Development:
A New Methodology 169
John-Paul Hatala
61. Linking Mentoring and Social Capital: Implications for Career and
Organization Development 195
Sarah A. Hezlett and Sharon K. Gibson
Part 6: HRD in the Global Context
14. National and International HRD
62. If We Can’t Define HRD in One Country, How Can We Define
It in an International Context? 223
Gary N. McLean and Laird McLean
63. The Concept of Culture in International and Comparative
HRD Research: Methodological Problems and
Possible Solutions 237
Alexander Ardichvili and K. Peter Kuchinke
McGuire_Prelims I.indd ix
McGuire_Prelims I.indd ix 9/20/2011 4:16:23 PM
9/20/2011 4:16:23 PM

Contents
64. Theorizing Advances in International Human Resource
Development 259
Beverly Dawn Metcalfe and Christopher J. Rees
65. Does It Matter Where to Conduct Training? Accounting for
Cultural Factors 279
Baiyin Yang, Yingchun Wang and Anne Wang Drewry
Volume IV: HRD: Moving the Discipline Forward
Part 7: Identity and Diversity
15. Diversity and HRD
66. Resisting HRD’s Resistance to Diversity 3
Laura L. Bierema
67. How Lesbians Learn to Negotiate the Heterosexism of
Corporate America 17
Julie A. Gedro, Ronald M. Cervero and Juanita Johnson-Bailey
68. Evaluating AHRD Research Using a Feminist Research Framework 33
Laura L. Bierema and Maria Cseh
69. Where to Now? Race and Ethnicity in Workplace Learning and
Development Research: 1980–2005 55
Ann K. Brooks and Tamara Clunis
Part 8: Researching HRD
16. Theory-Building and HRD
70. The General Method of Theory-Building Research
in Applied Disciplines 79
Susan A. Lynham
71. Challenges and Choices for Theoretical Research in Human
Resource Development 101
Richard J. Torraco
72. An Impressionistic Framework for Theorizing about
Human Resource Development 119
Jamie L. Callahan and Tiffany Dunne de Dávila
73. Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines
and Examples 139
Richard J. Torraco
74. Case Study Research and Theory Building 151
Larry M. Dooley
17. Critical Theory and HRD
75. Critically Challenging Some Assumptions in HRD 169
David O’Donnell, David McGuire and Christine Cross
76. Toward a Critical HRD in Theory and Practice 187
Tara J. Fenwick

Contents xi
77. A “Critical” Time for HRD? 205
Sally Sambrook
Part 9: Conclusion
18. Reflections on the Field and the Future of HRD
78. Who Is Not Sleeping with Whom? What’s Not Being Talked
about in HRD? 221
Kiran Trehan
79. The Making of Twenty-First-Century HR: An Analysis of the
Convergence of HRM, HRD, and OD 239
Wendy E.A. Ruona and Sharon K. Gibson
80. Human Development as a Central Goal for Human
Resource Development 265
K. Peter Kuchinke
81. A Code of Ethics and Integrity for HRD Research and Practice 277
Tim Hatcher and Steven R. Aragon

Appendix of Sources
1. ‘Models for HRD Practice’, Patricia A. McLagan
Training Development Journal, 49(9) (1989): 49–59.
Copyright 1989. Reproduced with permission of American Society for
Training and Development (VA) in the format Textbook via Copyright
Clearance Center.
2. ‘Economics and Human Resource Development: A Rejoinder’,
Greg G. Wang and Richard A. Swanson
Human Resource Development Review, 7(3) (2008): 358–362.
Published by SAGE Publications, Inc. Reprinted with permission.
3. ‘Commonly Held Theories of Human Resource Development’,
Lisa A. Weinberger
Human Resource Development International, 1(1) (1998): 75–93.
© Routledge. Reprinted by permission of Taylor Francis Group,
http://www.informaworld.com via Copyright Clearance Center’s
Rightslink service.
4. ‘A Refusal to Define HRD’, Monica Lee
Reprinted by permission of Taylor Francis Group,
Rightslink service.
5. ‘Exploring Human Resource Development: A Levels of Analysis Approach’,
Thomas N. Garavan, David McGuire and David O’Donnell
6. ‘Shining a Torch on Metaphor in HRD’, Darren C. Short
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 3(3) (2001): 297–308.
7. ‘Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation’,
Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation
(Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 91–100.
© Cambridge University Press 1991, reproduced with permission.
8. ‘Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier’,
Etienne C. Wenger and William M. Synder
Harvard Business Review, 78(1) (2000): 139–145.
Published by Harvard Business School Publishing. Reprinted with
permission.

9. ‘Experiential Learning’, David A. Kolb
Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development
(First Edition) (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 26–38.
© 1984. Reprinted by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
10. ‘Contextual Factors Influencing Informal Learning in a Workplace Setting:
The Case of “Reinventing Itself Company”’, Andrea D. Ellinger
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(3) (2005): 389–415.
Copyright © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Reprinted with permission from
John Wiley and Sons via Copyright Clearance Center’s Rightslink service.
11. ‘How Groups Learn: The Role of Communication Patterns, Cue Recognition,
Context Facility, and Cultural Intelligence’,
Joyce Silberstang and Manuel London
12. ‘The Adult Learners: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human
Resource Development’, Malcolm S. Knowles, Elwood F. Holton and
Richard A. Swanson
The Adult Learners: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human
Resource Development (Six Edition) (Butterworth: Heinemann, 2005),
pp. 61–69.
Reprinted with permission from Elsevier Limited.
13. ‘Toward Development of a Generalized Instrument to Measure Andragogy’,
Elwood F. Holton III, Lynda Swanson Wilson and Reid A. Bates
© Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Reprinted with permission from John Wiley
and Sons via Copyright Clearance Center’s Rightslink service.
14. ‘Updating Our Knowledge of Adult Learning’, Sharan B. Merriam
The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 16(3)
(1996): 136–143.
Copyright © 1996 The Alliance for Continuing Medical Education, the
Society of Medical College Directors of Continuing Medical Education,
and the Council on CME, Association for Hospital Medical Education.
All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission from John Wiley and Sons
via Copyright Clearance Center’s Rightslink service.
15. ‘Toward a Holistic Theory of Knowledge and Adult Learning’, Baiyin Yang
16. ‘Excerpts from On Organizational Learning’, Chris Argyris
On Organizational Learning, (Second Edition) (Oxford: Wiley
Blackwell, 1999), pp. 67–71 and 56-60.
Reproduced with permission of John Wiley Sons Ltd.
xiv Appendix of Sources

17. ‘The Fifth Discipline’, Peter Senge
The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization
(New York: Doubleday Dell, 1990), pp. 5–13.
Copyright © 1990, 2006 by Peter M. Senge. Published by Random House
Business Books. Reprinted by permission of The Random House Group Ltd
and Doubleday, a division of Random House, Inc.
18. ‘The Construct of the Learning Organization: Dimensions, Measurement,
and Validation’, Baiyin Yang, Karen E. Watkins and Victoria J. Marsick
19. ‘The Relationship between the Learning Organization Concept
and Firms’ Financial Performance: An Empirical Assessment’,
Andrea D. Ellinger, Alexander E. Ellinger, Baiyin Yang and Shelly W. Howton
20. ‘Disciplines of Organizational Learning: Contributions and Critiques’,
Mark Easterby-Smith
Human Relations, 50(9) (1997): 1085–1113.
Published by SAGE Publications Ltd. Reprinted with permission.
21. ‘Towards an Architecture of Organization-led Learning’, Noreen Heraty
Human Resource Management Review, 14(2004): 449–472.
© 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission
from Elsevier via Copyright Clearance Center’s Rightslink service.
22. ‘A Model of Knowledge-Sharing Motivation’, Marylène Gagné
Human Resource Management, 48(4) (2009): 571–589.
© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Reprinted with permission from John Wiley
23. ‘Knowledge Sharing: A Review and Directions for Future Research’,
Sheng Wang and Raymond A. Noe
Human Resource Management Review, 20(2010): 115–131.
24. ‘The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the
Dynamics of Innovation’, Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi
The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the
Dynamics of Innovation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 62–70.
© 1995 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Reprinted with permission from
Oxford University Press.
Appendix of Sources xv

25. ‘Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective’,
John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid
Organization Science, 12(2) (2001): 198–213.
Copyright (2001), the Institute for Operations Research and the
Management Sciences (INFORMS), 7240 Parkway Drive, Suite 300,
Hanover, MD 21076 USA. Reprinted by permission from Institute for
Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS).
26. ‘The Tacit Dimension’, Michael Polanyi
The Tacit Dimension (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966), pp. 15–25.
Copyright © 1966 by Michael Polanyi. Used by permission of Doubleday, a
division of Random House, Inc., and Taylor Francis Books UK.
27. ‘Exploring Strategic Maturity in HRD: Rhetoric, Aspiration or Reality’,
Martin McCracken and Mary Wallace
Journal of European Industrial Training, 24(8) (2000): 425–437.
© MCB University Press. Reprinted with permission from Emerald Group
Publishing Limited all rights reserved via Copyright Clearance Center’s
Rightslink service.
28. ‘A Strategic Perspective on Human Resource Development’,
Thomas N. Garavan
29. ‘Desperately Seeking Alignment: Reflections of Senior Line Managers
and HRD Executives’, Valerie Anderson
© 2009 Taylor Francis. Reprinted by permission of Taylor Francis
Group, http://www.informaworld.com via Copyright Clearance
Center’s Rightslink service.
30. ‘Toward a Political Economy Model for Comparative Analysis of the Role of
Strategic Human Resource Development Leadership’, Lyle Yorks
31. ‘Creating and Sustaining a Strategic Partnership: A Model for Human
Resource Development’, Shari L. Peterson
Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(2) (2008): 83–97.
©2008 University of Phoenix. Reprinted with permission from John Wiley
32. ‘A Review and Critique of Research on Training and Organizational-level
Outcomes’, Phyllis Tharenou, Alan M. Saks and Celia Moore
Human Resource Management Review, 17 (2007): 251–273.
xvi Appendix of Sources

33. ‘Development of a Generalized Learning Transfer System Inventory’,
Elwood F. Holton III, Reid A. Bates and Wendy E.A. Ruona
© Jossey-Bass, a Wiley company. Reprinted with permission from
34. ‘Influences of Individual and Situational Characteristics on Measures of
Training Effectiveness’,
John E. Mathieu, Scott I. Tannenbaum and Eduardo Salas
Academy of Management Journal, 35(4) (1992): 828–847.
Copyright 1992. Reproduced with permission of Academy of Management
(NY) in the format Textbook via Copyright Clearance Center.
35. ‘Investigation of the Factors That Influence Employees’ Participation
in Development Activities’, Raymond A. Noe and Steffanie L. Wilk
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2) (1993): 291–302.
Copyright © 1993 by the American Psychological Association. Reproduced
with permission from American Psychological Association via Copyright
Clearance Center’s Rightslink service.
36. ‘Transfer of Training: A Review and Directions for Future Research’,
Timothy T. Baldwin and J. Kevin Ford
Personnel Psychology, 41 (1988): 63–105.
Copyright © 1988 Personnel Psychology, Inc. Reprinted with permission
from John Wiley and Sons via Copyright Clearance Center’s Rightslink
service.
37. ‘Behaviorally Anchored Competencies: Evaluation Tool for Training via
Distance’, Kim E. Dooley, James R. Lindner, Larry M. Dooley and
Meera Alagaraja
© 2004 Taylor Francis Ltd. Reprinted by permission of Taylor Francis
Ltd, http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals via Copyright Clearance Center’s
Rightslink service.
38. ‘In Search of the Holy Grail: Return on Investment Evaluation
in Human Resource Development’, Darlene Russ-Eft and Hallie Preskill
39. ‘Great Ideas Revisited: Techniques for Evaluating Training Programs
and Revisiting Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Model’, Donald Kirkpatrick
Training Development, 50(1) (1996): 54–59.
Copyright 1996. Reproduced with permission of American Society for
Training and Development (VA) in the format Textbook via Copyright
Clearance Center.
40. ‘How to Measure the Return on Your HR Investment: Using ROI to
Demonstrate Your Business Impact’, Jack Phillips and Patti Phillips
Strategic HR Review, 1(4) (2002): 1–9.
Published by Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Reprinted with permission.
Appendix of Sources xvii

41. ‘Training Evaluation: Knowing More Than Is Practiced’, Greg G. Wang and
Diane Wilcox
42. ‘Advances in Career Theory and Research: A Critical Review and Agenda for
Future Exploration’, Sherry E. Sullivan and Yehuda Baruch
Journal of Management, 35(6) (2009): 1542–1571.
43. ‘Strategic Talent Management: A Review and Research Agenda’,
David G. Collings and Kamel Mellahi
Human Resource Management Review, 19 (2009): 304–313.
© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission from
Elsevier via Copyright Clearance Center’s Rightslink service.
44. ‘Executive Coaching: A Review and Agenda for Future Research’,
Daniel C. Feldman and Melenie J. Lankau
Journal of Management, 31(6) (2005): 829–848.
45. ‘What Influences Continuous Employee Development Decisions?’,
Christina M. Garofano and Eduardo Salas
Human Resource Management Review, 15(4) (2005): 281–304.
46. ‘Career Development: Load-Bearing Wall or Window Dressing? Exploring
Definitions, Theories, and Prospects for HRD-Related Theory Building’,
Toby Marshall Egan, Matthew G. Upton and Susan A. Lynham
47. ‘Models, Definitions, and Outcome Variables of Action Learning:
A Synthesis with Implications for HRD’, Everon C. Chenhall
and Thomas J. Chermack
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited all rights reserved. Reprinted
with permission from Emerald Group Publishing Limited via Copyright
48. ‘Behavioural Indicators of Ineffective Managerial Coaching: A Cross-
National Study’, Andrea D. Ellinger, Robert G. Hamlin and Rona S. Beattie
xviii Appendix of Sources

49. ‘It’s All Action, It’s All Learning: Action Learning in SMEs’,
Jean Clarke, Richard Thorpe, Lisa Anderson and Jeff Gold
50. ‘Emotional Intelligence: Issues in Paradigm Building’, Daniel Goleman
Cary Cherniss and Daniel Goleman (eds), The emotionally intelligent
workplace: How to select for, measure, and improve emotional intelligence
in individuals, groups, and organizations (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,
2001), pp. 13–26.
Reproduced with permission of John Wiley Sons, Inc.
51. ‘Emotional Labour in Corporate Change Programmes: The Effects of
Organizational Feeling Rules on Middle Managers’, Sharon Turnbull
© Routledge. Reprinted by permission of Taylor Francis Group,
Rightslink service.
52. ‘Toward Universalistic Models of Managerial Leader Effectiveness:
A Comparative Study of Recent British and American Derived Models of
Leadership’, Robert G. Hamlin
© 2005 Taylor Francis Group Ltd. Reprinted by permission of
Taylor Francis Group, http://www.informaworld.com via Copyright
53. ‘The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and
Normative Commitment to the Organization’, Natalie J. Allen
and John P
. Meyer
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (formerly Journal of
Occupational Psychology), 63(1) (1990): 1–18.
Copyright © 1990 The British Psychological Society. Reproduced with
permission of John Wiley Sons Ltd.
54. ‘Organizational Culture’, Edgar H. Schein
American Psychologist, 45(2) (1990): 109–119.
Copyright © 1990 by the American Psychological Association. Reproduced
with permission from American Psychological Association via Copyright
55. ‘The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover,
Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance’, Mark A. Huselid
Academy of Management Journal, 38(3) (1995): 635–672.
Copyright 1995. Reproduced with permission of Academy of Management
(NY) in the format Textbook via Copyright Clearance Center.
Appendix of Sources xix

56. ‘The Foundations of Performance Improvement and Implications for
Practice’, Richard A. Swanson
57. ‘Key Characteristics of Effective and Ineffective Developmental
Interactions’, Erik R. Eddy, Caroline P
. D’Abate, Scott I. Tannenbaum,
Susan Givens-Skeaton and Greg Robinson
© Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Reprinted with permission from
58. ‘The Age of Human Capital’, Gary S. Becker
Education in the Twenty-First Century (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press,
2002), pp. 3–8.
Copyright © 2002 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior
University. Reprinted with the permission of Hoover Institution Press.
59. ‘The Evolution of Capital Theory: A Critique of a Theory of Social Capital
and Implications for HRD’, Julia Storberg
60. ‘Social Network Analysis in Human Resource Development: A New
Methodology’, John-Paul Hatala
61. ‘Linking Mentoring and Social Capital: Implications for Career and
Organization Development’, Sarah A. Hezlett and Sharon K. Gibson
62. ‘If We Can’t Define HRD in One Country, How Can We Define
It in an International Context?’, Gary N. McLean and Laird McLean
© 2001 Taylor Francis Ltd. Reprinted by permission of
63. ‘The Concept of Culture in International and Comparative HRD
Research: Methodological Problems and Possible Solutions’,
Alexander Ardichvili and K. Peter Kuchinke
64. ‘Theorizing Advances in International Human Resource Development’,
Beverly Dawn Metcalfe and Christopher J. Rees
Group, http://www.informaworld.com via Copyright Clearance Center’s
Rightslink service.
xx Appendix of Sources

65. ‘Does It Matter Where to Conduct Training? Accounting for Cultural Factors’,
Baiyin Yang, Yingchun Wang and Anne Wang Drewry
Human Resource Management Review, 19(4) (2009): 324–333.
66. ‘Resisting HRD’s Resistance to Diversity’, Laura L. Bierema
67. ‘How Lesbians Learn to Negotiate the Heterosexism of Corporate
America’, Julie A. Gedro, Ronald M. Cervero and Juanita Johnson-Bailey
© 2004 Taylor Francis Ltd. Reprinted by permission of
68. ‘Evaluating AHRD Research Using a Feminist Research Framework’,
Laura L. Bierema and Maria Cseh
Copyright © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Reprinted with permission
from John Wiley and Sons via Copyright Clearance Center’s Rightslink
service.
69. ‘Where to Now? Race and Ethnicity in Workplace Learning and
Development Research: 1980–2005’, Ann K. Brooks and Tamara Clunis
© Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Reprinted with permission from John Wiley and
Sons via Copyright Clearance Center’s Rightslink service.
70. ‘The General Method of Theory-Building Research in Applied Disciplines’,
Susan A. Lynham
71. ‘Challenges and Choices for Theoretical Research in Human
Resource Development’, Richard J. Torraco
72. ‘An Impressionistic Framework for Theorizing about Human Resource
Development’, Jamie L. Callahan and Tiffany Dunne de Dávila
73. ‘Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples’,
Richard J. Torraco
Appendix of Sources xxi

74. ‘Case Study Research and Theory Building’, Larry M. Dooley
75. ‘Critically Challenging Some Assumptions in HRD’, David O’Donnell,
David McGuire and Christine Cross
International Journal of Training and Development, 10(1) (2006): 4–16.
© 2006 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing
Ltd. Reprinted with permission from John Wiley and Sons via Copyright
76. ‘Toward a Critical HRD in Theory and Practice’, Tara J. Fenwick
Adult Education Quarterly, 54(3) (2004): 193–209.
77. ‘A “Critical” Time for HRD?’, Sally Sambrook
Journal of European Industrial Training, 28(8–9) (2004): 611–624.
78. ‘Who Is Not Sleeping with Whom? What’s Not Being Talked about in
HRD?’, Kiran Trehan
79. ‘The Making of Twenty-First-Century HR: An Analysis of the Convergence
of HRM, HRD, and OD’, Wendy E.A. Ruona and Sharon K. Gibson
Human Resource Management, 43(1) (2004): 49–66.
© 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Reprinted with permission from
80. ‘Human Development as a Central Goal of Human Resource Development’,
K. Peter Kuchinke
Group, http://www.informaworld.com via Copyright Clearance Center’s
Rightslink service.
81. ‘A Code of Ethics and Integrity for HRD Research and Practice’,
Tim Hatcher and Steven R. Aragon
© Jossey-Bass Publishers. Reprinted with permission from
xxii Appendix of Sources

Editors’ Introduction: Exploring the
Contested Terrain of HRD: A Review and
Research Agenda
Dr. David McGuire, Prof. Thomas N. Garavan
and Dr. Larry M. Dooley
Introduction
The scholarship of Human Resource Development (HRD) is generally

recognised as a field in its own right. With a growing number of undergradu-
ate and postgraduate programmes dedicated to the study of HRD in some of
the most prestigious education and business schools around the world, the
value of HRD to the development of individuals and organisations is increas-
ingly being acknowledged. The growth of the field of HRD owes much to
the publication of high-quality research in academic journals pointing to the
value and effectiveness of HRD interventions. Journals such as the Journal
of European Industrial Training (JEIT) founded in 1975 and the International
Journal of Training and Development founded in 1997 served as important
forums for the development and dissemination of literature on training and
development. Since the late 1980s, a number of specialist HRD publications
began to emerge to mark the distinctive contribution of HRD to individuals
and organisations. In 1988 Human Resource Development Quarterly (HRDQ)
was launched, which journal has established itself as one of the leading aca-
demic journals in the field. HRDQ was joined by three other academic jour-
nals within the field: Human Resource Development International (HRDI) in
1997; Advances in Developing Human Resource (ADHR) in 1998 and Human
Resource Development Review (HRDR) in 2001. This set of journals addresses
both scholarship and practice in HRD. It is important to note that other jour-
nals have greatly helped the development and growth of the field including
(but not exclusive to): Education and Training; Adult Education Quarterly; New
Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development; Academy of
Management Learning and Education and Management Learning.

xxiv Editor’s Introduction
With the arrival of the Academy of Human Resource Development in the
US, (established in 1993) and the University Forum for HRD (UFHRD) in
the UK (established in 1990), scholars and practitioners began to find
a home to debate and refine ideas and concepts in the field of HRD. With a
combined membership of 1500 members across more than 40 countries,
both organisations have performed a vital role in shaping and advancing the
theory and practice of HRD. The growth of HRD in the last two decades has
led to the establishment of an AHRD Asian Chapter and moves are afoot to
establish a new AHRD chapter in the Middle East and North Africa.
The time is therefore right to launch a collection of key articles and pres-
ent an account of the ‘state of the art’ in HRD to map out where the disci-
pline is going, and to identify the key debates and issues that concern HRD
scholars and practitioners. Human Resource Development has attracted the
interest of researchers and practitioners largely as a result of the transfor-
mation of training and development, the emergence of HRM, major changes
in the world of work and the emergence of new models of HRD.
HRD is a high profile activity in many organisations. It is increasingly
recognised as playing a pivotal role in the growth of people and organisa-
tions and as a source of competitive advantage (McGuire and Jorgensen,
2011). A variety of stakeholders have an interest in ensuring that HRD makes
a contribution to individuals, organisations and society. They include govern-
ments and professional agencies, Universities, consulting firms, business
schools, employer and trade union bodies and individuals. There is a large
amount of academic analyses and practitioner commentary seeking to under-
stand HRD and achieve a deeper theoretical understanding and more reflec-
tive practice of HRD in organisations (Mankin, 2001). By its nature, the field
of HRD is open to external influences and new ideas, and while many com-
mentators have welcomed the progressive nature of the field, some have
argued that this openness has led to a somewhat fragmented and expansionary
research agenda.
It is a field characterised by different and contrasting disciplinary bases
and there is significant contestation of terrain. As a field HRD has roots in
psychology, systems theory, economics, education, philosophy, sociology and
human relations (Swanson, 1995; McLean, 1998). The tentacles of HRD
stretch widely to bring new perspectives, approaches and methodologies
towards developing people, organisations and communities. Swanson and
Holton (2001: 2) identified what they see as the core foundational tenets of
HRD, namely ‘a strong belief in learning and development as avenues to indi-
vidual growth; a belief that organisations can be improved through learning
and development activities; a commitment to people and human potential; a
deep desire to see people grow as individuals and a passion for learning’.
Different theoretical assumptions underlie different avenues of HRD
research. Within these avenues, researchers have tended to remain commit-
ted to particular ontological approaches (Morgan, 2000). The limited dialogue

Editor’s Introduction xxv
between academics and practitioners has also hindered the development of
the field. Short (2006) argues that the field of HRD has much to offer organi-
sations, but has done a poor job in maintaining an ongoing relationship with
business and other sectors, and needs to improve the dissemination of its
research findings. Similarly, Mankin (2009) argues that the field of HRD
needs to move beyond debates surrounding definition and breadth towards
demonstrating how HRD can contribute positively to organisational change.
In this regard, Ruona et al. (2003) argued that one of the key challenges for
HRD has been to prove a positive contribution to strategic goals and the
organisations’ bottom-line.
In this article we outline some initial insights into the development and
scope of HRD as an academic discipline. We proceed by first identifying the
academic traditions underlying HRD research. A series of traditions stemming
from the individual social sciences focused on psychology, sociology, educa-
tion, careers, to more recent literature on organisations, international, com-
parative and cross-cultural research has shaped the field. We then consider
definitions of HRD, and include considerations of individual, organisational
and national perspectives on definition. We consider the contestation within
the field of HRD, and focus on four areas where differences in perspective
exist: learning versus performance; levels of analysis; discourse tensions and
questions of agency versus institution. We conclude by considering some impli-
cations for both the extension of research on HRD and the development of an
integrated multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary HRD research agenda.
Traditions in HRD Research
The contemporary study of HRD stems from several traditions: there are
two sets of academic literatures concerning HRD. These literatures which we
label the education and business perspectives posit different answers to what
the HRD is about, and are underpinned by different disciplinary bases.
The Education Perspective
HRD has strong roots in education. With strong representation within schools
of education in the US, the field of HRD has been mainly concerned with
individual development; that is, with helping a person develop skills and
abilities. The individual is viewed as a key driver of development. The edu-
cation perspective assumes that individuals experience considerable owner-
ship of and control over their development. Employers and organisations
are assumed to have relatively limited influence. Therefore, this perspec-
tive largely ignores the issue of contestation by championing the notion of

individual agency.

xxvi Editor’s Introduction
The education perspective has a strong reliance on psychological princi-
ples. According to Swanson (1999), psychology forms an important founda-
tion of HRD in that it provides an understanding of how learning takes place
and how individuals behave. The workplace provides a context where indi-
viduals choose to learn, choose to perform and choose to develop. An under-
standing of these choices and the factors affecting such choices is crucial to
effectively deploying HRD interventions. Given the socially constructed nature
of reality and organisations and the importance of the subjective, psychology
offers HRD an important insight into the drivers of behaviour, how individuals
process information and how relationships are formed and developed.
A particular contribution within the education perspective is that of
Knowles et al. (2005). They advance the case for andragogy (or adult learn-
ing) as being the key to understanding HRD. Adult learning theory provides
the tools for HRD professionals to enable employees towards achieving higher
levels of learning. Adult learning is based upon several core principles, namely,
that adults have a purposive engagement towards learning; that adults have
a fully developed self-concept and are responsible for their own decisions;
that experience plays a crucial role in adult learning and development; that
adults approach learning when they need to know something to solve a prob-
lem or deal with a real-life situation; that adults engage with learning to the
extent to which they view it as helpful to their needs and that internal drives
are important motivators in adult learning (Knowles et al., 2005). The educa-
tion perspective draws on an eclectic mix of largely separate psychological,
social psychological and sociological theories. These separate theoretical
approaches have largely enjoyed a comfortable co-existence with each other.
The Business Perspective
Within the business perspective, the literature on HRD is particularly theorised
and written in business schools, primarily from an organisational viewpoint
with a strong focus on managerial decision making. It essentially argues that
HRD should be managed by the organisation to ensure the optimum use of
human resources for the purpose of achieving competitive advantage. The
development of human resources must be considered in the context of organi-
sations’ strategic choices (Garavan, 2007). Strategic HRD emphasises a variety
of organisational processes such as talent development, employee develop-
ment, workforce planning, and seeks to normalise the organisations’ assump-
tions of control. It is the organisation rather than individuals that shape the
development agenda. A variety of commentators have argued that organisa-
tions have appropriated the individual’s development (Wang and Wang, 2004;
Martin and Beaumont, 1999).
The disciplinary bases of the business perspective are largely derived from
strategic management and economics. Particular theoretical perspectives

Editor’s Introduction xxvii
include the theory of the firm and the resource-based view of the firm (Boxall
and Purcell, 2008). This perspective emphasises that HRD interventions must
add value to organisations and brings with it a need to understand the fun-
damentals of economics and the process by which return on investments is
achieved. Swanson (2008) argues that the economic foundation of HRD
looks at concepts such as resource allocation, process efficiency, optimal
returns and cost–benefit analysis. He cites significant research evidence to
show that HRD yields above normal returns in both the short and the long
term (Bassi and McMurrer, 2007; Wang and Holton, 2005; Warsh, 2007).
Systems theory similarly emphasises a business perspective. This theory
requires organisations to examine how inputs, processes, outputs and feed-
back mechanisms work within a concrete coherent structure. HRD must be
considered insofar as it contributes to a more efficient and effective operation
of the organisational system. Ruona (2009) argues that such systemic inquiry
provides three key benefits: (a) information: knowledge and data about

systems (b) capabilities: the potential to act and (c) direction: guidance for a
field’s activities and development. In this regard, she argues that the systems
theory provides an insight into the structure and behaviour of systems,
enabling analysis and modelling and a deeper understanding of how change
processes work.
These theories consider the contribution of HRD from the standpoint of a
single organisation. Organisations seek to be profitable and effective; there-
fore, it is argued that they will give less consideration to the priorities of indi-
viduals (Kuchinke, 1998; McGuire et al., 2005). Strategic perspectives have
difficulty in recognising the diverse interests of multiple parties and accom-
modating individual perspectives on HRD (Garavan, 2007). Consequently, it
is apparent that one of the struggles that HRD faces is in reconciling business
and educational tensions and working out how such perspectives can co-exist
and align to produce mutually beneficial outcomes.
Definitions of HRD
Let us now consider how HRD is defined. Defining HRD has become a

preoccupation within the field for at least the last 20 years. Because HRD
has long existed within a binary between serving the interests of employees
and organisations (and more recently embracing community and societal
aspects), it has been difficult to arrive at a formulation of words that

summarise and articulate well the multiple aims and purposes of the field.
For their part, McLean and McLean (2001) argue that ambiguity (and deal-
ing with ambiguity) is a core element of life and as such, they are not con-
cerned with the lack of a clear consensual definition of HRD. Similarly, Lee
(2001) sees value in not defining HRD for fear it may limit the dynamic and

xxviii Editor’s Introduction
evolving nature of the field. Accordingly, the field of HRD has developed
amorphic properties and a willingness to claim ideas and theories that help
to further individual and organisational effectiveness.
What has been central to the debate of defining HRD has been to identify
the key purposes and drivers of the field. Hamlin and Stewart (2011) identified
four core purposes of HRD, namely, to improve individual and group

effectiveness; to improve organisational effectiveness and performance; to
develop knowledge, skills and competencies and to enhance human potential
and personal growth. Kuchinke (2010) summarises such purposes by stating
that a core guiding value of HRD is that of ‘human flourishing’ and this should
be embedded as a professional responsibility for HRD professionals. The idea
of flourishing embraces ideas of nurturing, care, investment, attention and
hopeful expectation, and identifies innate value in the capabilities and raw
talent of people.
At the individual level, HRD works at enhancing individual knowledge,
skills, self-confidence and career potential. It aims to equip employees with
the necessary tools needed to self-actualise in organisations and in their
careers. The notion of employability is critical to HRD at the individual level.
As Swart et al. (2005) point out, the notion of a job for life is now an outdated
and unsustainable proposition – requiring the development of a range of skills
suited to a variety of employment contexts. Thus, the employability agenda
has firmly taken hold in organisations – with companies now recognising a
mutual gains agenda – namely, the need to support employee ambitions in
order to achieve organisational goals. When supporting employees on the job,
mentoring, coaching and employee counselling represent powerful HRD
interventions for building constructive relationships and providing employees
with important psychosocial support. D’Abate et al. (2003) argue that foster-
ing developmental relationships is crucial to improving employee socialisa-
tion, fostering career plans and improving employee skills. Such views
highlight the increasing focus on a relational, rather than skills-based, view of
career development. Lombardozzi and Casey (2008) argue that increasing
attention is focusing on helping individuals approach new situations, inter-
pret new information, learn about themselves and act effectively through
relationships with other groups and individuals.
At the organisational level, the focus of HRD is on leveraging the knowl-
edge and skills of employees towards achieving organisational value and
ensuring alignment with the external environment. HRD at the organisa-
tional level is targeted at helping organisations foster dynamic capabilities
and competitive advantage with the goal of out-learning the competition and
staying ahead of the game. As Boud and Garrick (1999: 48) put it, an organ-
isation’s wealth lies within the heads of its employees and ‘walks out of the
office building every day’. With this realisation, increasing attention has
focused on gaining tacit insights, recognising the importance of managing
and sharing knowledge and harnessing the value of insights, ideas and

Editor’s Introduction xxix

intuitions. As McGuire et al. (2007) point out, there exists interdependence
between individual and organisational development, and the value of HRD
lies in working within this complex interplay to deliver cost-effective efficient
outcomes capable of sustaining organisational growth. However, such views
differ from Harrison (2009: 8) who sees HRD ‘as an organisational process to
aid collective progress through the collaborative, expert and ethical simulation
and facilitation of learning and knowledge that support business goals,
develop individual potential and respect and build on diversity.’
In recent times, several attempts have been made at the organisational
level to separate definitions of HRD and strategic HRD. For some, strategic
HRD represents a distinct component of HRD linked to the creation of core
capabilities and change readiness. These authors see strategic HRD as a dis-
tinct set of practices targeted at achieving internal and external alignment
and promoting organisational learning (Garavan, 2007; McCracken and
Wallace, 2000). For others including Gold et al. (2009), HRD is inherently
strategic and it is neither useful nor helpful to distinguish between HRD
and strategic HRD.
More recent conceptualisations have extended the employee-organisational
binary to looking at the beneficial effects HRD can have on community and
society. Trehan (2004: 25) discusses the notion of ‘non-employee HRD’ as per-
taining to the influence organisations exert on external environments and the
development of knowledge and skills beyond the company walls. Harvey
(2011) maintains that previous HRD studies have focused primarily on the
organisational sphere with little attention being placed on community settings
and specific societal groups. Zidan (2001) argues that HRD can bring true
economic benefits at a societal level through a process of economic develop-
ment and leveraging the skills and talents of individuals. Even the earliest
definition of HRD by Harbison and Myers (1964) acknowledges the impor-
tance of HRD in modernisation and preparing adults for participation in society
as a whole. Consequently, it can be argued that HRD at the community/societal
level includes actors such as professional associations, educational institutions,
government departments, community groups and voluntary organisations.
Such bodies help foster learning and development across society through
advancing knowledge and skill levels amongst individuals, communities and
economic regions.
Dimensions of the Contested Terrain of HRD
We now consider a number of tensions that currently characterise the field of
HRD. Four particular sets of tensions are discussed in this section: learning
versus performance; tensions arising from differences in levels of analysis;
tensions related to different discourses and questions of agency versus insti-
tutions in the context of HRD.

xxx Editor’s Introduction
The Learning and Performance Paradigms
A central tension found in the HRD literature concerns whether it should
be orientated towards performance or towards learning (Kuchinke, 1998;
Swanson and Holton, 2009). Various commentators have described this
dualism as something of a distraction. However, there is no doubt that it
permeates the literature that underpins a number of other tensions that we
discuss in this article. The origins of the learning paradigm can be traced to
the writings of Watkins (1995: 2) who defined it this way:
HRD is the field of study and practice responsible for the fostering of a long
term work related capacity at the individual, groups and organisational
levels of organisations.
Watkins (1995) essentially considered the primary purpose of HRD as con-
cerned with enhancing the individual to learn, to facilitate team learning
and help organisations to develop a learning culture. The learning paradigm
articulates a number of theoretical assumptions that address the value of
learning, the purposes and outcomes of HRD. A number of these assump-
tions emphasise that learning is inherently good for people; people should
be valued for their intrinsic value rather than just as resources, and that the
primary purpose of HRD is concerned with the development of individuals
(Ruona, 2000; Bierema, 1997).
The performance paradigm of HRD is in the ascendancy in recent years
with the emergence of strategic HRD and HRM literatures – it is also the
dominant paradigm in organisations. Swanson and Holton (2009) define
the emergence of this contrasting paradigm as concerned with using HRD to
enhance the capabilities of individual and organisational performance.
Performance therefore emerges as the primary purpose of HRD. Boxall
(2007) has argued that in the short term the objectives of organisations are
to develop and manage people as effectively as possible in order to deliver
a return on investment. Longer term investments on people development
are designed to build competitive advantage.
A variety of commentaries have argued that the psychological contract
may represent a mechanism through which both paradigms are aligned
either in the short or long term (Fulmer and Gibbs, 1998; Baruch, 2003).
Individuals and organisations may incorporate both paradigms in a con-
tract where areas of difference are resolved. Both paradigms are indeed
reflective of the research traditions within HRD in that the learning para-
digm is reflective of the education research tradition in HRD, whereas
the performance paradigm is reflective of the business research tradition
and the emphasis on business performance and strategic alignment. The
performance paradigm has arisen out of the reality that to gain legiti-
macy in organisations HRD must engage with core performance outcomes

Editor’s Introduction xxxi
(Walton, 1999; Yorks, 2005). However, the learning paradigm advocates
would argue that HRD must advance a humanistic perspective, one that
values people for their uniqueness, and develops ‘the resources of the
human’ (Russ Eft, 2000). As O’Donnell et al. (2006) argue, HRD should in
practice embrace a form of mutual gains agenda, in order to enhance the
employer–employee relationship.
Tensions between Different Levels of Analysis
The notion of levels of analysis is central to the study of HRD (Garavan
et al., 2004). It is not only important to the design of empirical research, but
it also has significance when making decisions on the appropriateness of the
utilisation of alternative theoretical perspectives and the suitability of differ-
ent theoretical conceptualisations of HRD. Levels of analysis are typically con-
ceptualised in terms of individual, team, organisation/firm, industry/sector,
country/nation, region and society. The level at which research questions are
articulatedandanalysesconductedisthekeyfactorthatdeterminesthelevelof
analysis rather than the level at which the data is collected. Different levels
of analysis propose different conceptualisations, purposes and roles for HRD.
One particular observation in the HRD context is the dominance of the indi-
vidual and the firm as the levels of analysis either alone or in combination.
Research undertaken at the individual level of analysis in HRD has pre-
dominantly been psychological in nature. It has typically focused on issues
such as the behaviour of learners, individual characteristics such as self effi-
cacy, self esteem, motivation to learn, and motivation to transfer learning,
learning orientation, demographic differences and learner behaviour under
different learning conditions (Ackerman, 1987; Parker et al., 1997). This
type of research has been a constant in the HRD field from the 1960s
onwards, and has proved valuable in explaining both voluntary and manda-
tory participation in training and development activities, the effectiveness of
transfer of learning to the workplace and performance outcomes of training.
There is less research in HRD that examines team level constructs such as
group dynamics, learning processes in teams and communities of practice.
Organisation or firm level research focuses on a distinctly different
research agenda. The popularity of the resource-based view of the firm in
strategic management has also influenced HRD research. The organisation
or firm level of analysis is interested in understanding HRD in different
organisational contexts. It has emphasised the importance of HRD in enhanc-
ing a variety of strategic goals (Tharenou et al., 2007). This research has
found it difficult to account for a major share of the variance in organisation
performance. This arises due to major gaps in the usage of dynamic research
designs that investigate a multiplicity of performance and explanatory vari-
ables. There are major gaps in the literature at the organisation or firm level

xxxii Editor’s Introduction
in our understanding of HRD strategy, the influence of institutional environ-
ments unique to firms or organisations, the role of stakeholders in HRD, the
importance of organisational learning cultures and the relationship between
HRD and HRM (O’Donnell et al., 2006).
There is limited research in HRD that focuses on industry/sector levels of
analysis. This is to be expected, given the complexity of the task. Research at
the industry or sector levels will focus on HRD in specific industries or sectors.
These studies typically require longitudinal designs. We have significant gaps
in our understanding how industry or sector characteristics influence invest-
ment in HRD, adoption of HRD strategies, commitment to HRD and industry
or sectoral outcomes. Research at the country or national level has begun to
emerge in the HRD literature (McLean and McLean, 2001). The primary
research preoccupation at this level will focus on understanding how country
factors such as culture, legislation, the education system and infrastructure
are important in shaping our understanding of HRD. A variety of authors
have utilised (Hofstede, 1984) cultural dimensions in shaping HRD practices
and the value placed on HRD (Dirani, 2006).
With some notable exceptions, research at the regional level of analysis
is almost non existent in the HRD context (Ahn and McLean, 2006). Research
at the regional level of analysis would significantly enhance our understand-
ing of how common institutions and regulations at a regional level influence
HRD. Additionally, how relevant are levels of social and political integration
within a region? One could contrast the EU with NAFTA, for example.
Examples of questions as yet unanswered at the regional level include what
influence particular generic factors at a regional level have on the impor-
tance attached to HRD, the intensity of investment in HRD and the out-
comes that are derived from HRD.
Research at the societal level is emergent in HRD. Global level research
challenges the field to investigate the contribution of HRD to worldwide
issues such as CSR, world hunger and poverty, inequality in society and the
management of HRD activities using global rule sets (McGuire, 2010;
Garavan et al., 2010; Marquardt and Berger, 2003; Wang and Swanson,
2008). Issues of concern at this level include the emergence of global HRD
practices, the influence of developmental agencies, global standards of
ethics and corporate social responsibility, the emergence of virtual commu-
nities and the networked society.
In summary, the various levels of analyses specify different and potentially
different and conflicting research and practice agendas. There is a skewed
distribution with regard to the levels actually used in HRD research. Few
studies utilise multilevel approaches and until recently there was very little
interest in societal level outcomes of HRD. HRD will increasingly be required
to justify its role and impact in society. As a discipline, it needs to define its
levels of analysis more precisely in conducting research. This will help attract
specialists from other fields and facilitate interdisciplinary research.

Editor’s Introduction xxxiii
Tensions Arising from Different Discourses
Recently, HRD has engaged with the notion that it is possible to identify dif-
ferent discourses within the academic discipline. A discourse is viewed as
a connected set of concept, terms and statements that condition how HRD
is talked and written about (Alvesson and Deetz, 2000). Four particular

discourses are observable in the HRD literature: functionalist, interpretative,
dialogical and critical. Each discourse constructs HRD in different ways. For
functionalists, the underlying purpose of HRD is to enhance the performance
of individuals and organisations (Grieves, 2003). It adopts narrow notions
of performance and emphasises formal approaches to HRD. Demonstrating
that HRD can make a contribution to organisation performance represents
a research holy grail in research terms; however, the functionalist paradigm
that the contribution of HRD can be evaluated in objective terms.
In contrast to a functionalist HRD discourse, an interpretive discourse
views HRD as socially constructed, co-created and evolving (Lynham, 2000).
Emphasis is placed on understanding context, and inter-subjective under-
standing. HRD is understood as occurring through a combination of a
number of different interests in an organisation. It highlights the roles of
social actors, and how meaning is mediated through language and symbols
(Weick, 1995). An interpretivist discourse contrasts with a functionalist in
terms of its research agenda. The focus is less on outcomes and more appro-
priately on making sense of context and how HRD can be considered tacit,
symbolic and emergent.
A related discourse to interpretive HRD is that of dialogic HRD discourse
which places emphasis on understanding HRD through conversation and
multivoicedness (Keegan and Boselie, 2006; Ardichvili and Kuchinke, 2002).
HRD is not only viewed as a set of strategies to enhance personal and organ-
isational effectiveness, but as a set of socio-culturally situated practices
designed to give meaning to work and careers. When individuals participate
in HRD, such activities help to fuel identity by providing specific vocabulary
and an interpretive framework through which the self can be defined
(Moorhouse and Cunningham, 2010). Such identities can be multiple, shift-
ing and they can co-exist. Individuals may construe HRD as both a liberating
and a limiting process.
Critical HRD discourse analyses HRD as a device that may be used by
organisations to obscure the ideological nature of development by present-
ing it as neutral, apolitical and beneficial to all (Trehan et al., 2006; Grugulis,
1989). A critical HRD discourse challenges the traditional assumptions of
HRD, in that it questions the purposes that individuals in organisations
articulate for implementing HRD. It would argue that HRD should be used
as a strategy to challenge the culture and structures of the organisation
(Anderson, 2004; Sambrook, 2004). For instance, Bierema (2000) argues
that HRD can be viewed as a negative concept, concerned with inhumane

xxxiv Editor’s Introduction
capitalisation and the cult of the performativity. Such a discourse envisages
that it is possible to open up the organisation to learn from its members and
overcome organisational suppression and subjugation.
These various discourses highlight a variety of possibilities that both
researchers and practitioners should consider in the context of HRD. They
also highlight a significant area of contestation, in terms of understanding
the purposes of HRD and the nature of its outcomes. HRD to date is dominated
by a functionalist discourse. Critical discourses have recently become popu-
lar in the literature; however, dialogical and interpretivist discourses remain
relatively uncommon and underrepresented in the HRD field. Consideration
of a variety of discourses can lead to a further opening up of HRD as an

academic discipline.
The Agency versus Institutions Tension
Given the centrality of the individual that is the primary focus of the learning
paradigm, in a significant amount of the literature in HRD some commenta-
tors have argued that there has been to a certain degree a denial of the role
of institutions (Knowles et al., 2005; Joy-Matthews et al., 2004). Concepts
such as self directed learning, personal development planning, self managed
learning and learning orientation place an emphasis on ‘free agency’ and a
de-emphasis on the importance of organisations in shaping such activities.
Woodall (2006) highlighted the importance of studying context and the deficit
in this respect in the HRD literature. The agency–institution tension is signifi-
cant to HRD research because it suggests that individuals and institutions are
opposites. The agency view clearly envisages that individuals are self directed,
proactive and possess characteristics such as the power to change institutions.
In contrast, the institution perspective argues that the thinking and actions of
individuals are situated in institutional contexts that provide norms, rules and
definitions that both constrain and enable action (Chow, 2004).
A variety of perspectives can be found in the literature on the relationship
between agency and institutions. Objective determinism argues that agency
is predicted by the context in which it is embedded, whereas a phenomeno-
logical approach emphasises the ‘agentive, subjective, social construction of
reality by agents’ (Berger and Luckmann, 1966). In the HRD literature, we
find an interesting mix of the agent–institution tension. In the organisational
focused HRD literature, while it is evident that there is a greater respect for
individual agency in determining an individual’s development trajectory and
investments in development, it is clear that there is a need to engage with the
notion that such free agency will likely be significantly constrained by a vari-
ety of institutional factors. Organisations are frequently less able to provide
development opportunities for individuals, and there are significantly higher
levels of unpredictability in organisations due to the global downturn, the

Editor’s Introduction xxxv
emergence of the knowledge economy, global networking and new forms of
employment relationships (Kalleberg, 2009). The learning-focused HRD

literature has to a significant degree neglected institutional type analysis.
Directions for Future HRD Research
In this section we focus, on the discussion of a number of contemporary
issues that will shape future HRD research. These are the role of networks
and social capital, work life-family issue, international, comparative and
cross cultural research, the influence of social context, social responsibility
and green HRD and the influence of globalism.
Role of Networks and Social Capital
HRD will increasingly engage with networks and social capital as important
sources of learning. A variety of researchers have explored social network
analysis in the context of HRD (Gubbins and Garavan, 2009; McCallum and
O’Connell, 2009). Researchers have highlighted the emergence of develop-
mental networks (Higgins and Kram, 2001), which provide sources of learn-
ing, social support and other resources and extend beyond the boundaries
of the organisation (Chandler and Kram, 2010). Social network analysis can
enhance our understanding of how extraorganisational networks facilitate
learning (Cohen and Prusak, 2001; Garavan and McCarthy, 2008).
The research on the use of technology as a tool for learning is still in its
infancy (van Raaij and Schepers, 2008). Advances in technology clearly bring
new opportunities for learning and new methods to learn. Research is required
to identify ways in which technology can build social capital and facilitate learn-
ing. Current learning practices using networks and social capital take a ‘small
pieces, loosely joined’ approach that combines discrete but complementary
tools and web services (blogs, wikis and other social software) to create pur-
poseful learning communities. This also promotes the idea of a personal learn-
ing environment (PLE) – a customisable learner-centred environment that is
comprised of various services that are useful to an individual’s learning. It
enables an individual to access information at his discretion (Ibarra and
Deshpande, 2007). The ownership of the content has moved from a top-down
management owned philosophy to one that is bottom-up and learner-driven.
Whereas the development of learning content was once very expensive and
time extensive, now the learners themselves can create their own learning using
development tools that are in fact, free. Research using both work-based and
social networks is fast becoming the norm. Where once surveys were sent via
mail or company sponsored email, they are now posted on Facebook® or sent
as a self-developed instrument using Survey Monkey® (Kirkby et al., 2011).

xxxvi Editor’s Introduction
Work-Life-Family Issues
Striking a balance between the workplace and family demands is a critical
issue for the field of Human Resource Development (HRD). An inability to
effectively balance workplace/family demands can have a detrimental impact
on individual and organisational performance (Greenhaus and Foley, 2007).
The inability to constructively manage workplace and family demands can
result in lower employee commitment, job satisfaction and overall higher
organisational turnover. This critical issue has been exponentially growing
over the past number of years, due to expectations for increased productiv-
ity and work hours. Moreover, much of this increased demand for additional
work hours is driven by increased debt and consumerism, and therefore, may
not improve for successive generations (Bailyn, 2006). This new workplace
dynamic places an increased strain on both individuals and organisations to
effectively plan for and deal with conflicts that can arise when demands of
home interfere with workplace responsibilities.
It is imperative for HRD scholars to understand the challenges associated
with work/family balance and their implications for individual and organisa-
tional performance. There are strong reasons to consider employees’ per-
sonal lives when designing learning events. These include issues of learning
engagement, opportunities to participate in learning and the quality of learn-
ing outcomes (Collinson and Ford, 2011). Organisational constructs, both
formal and informal, can play a significant role in how well individuals are
able to achieve a level of balance between their home and work domain. Just
as the definition of work/family balance is constantly evolving, so should the
body of literature surrounding the subject. Technology, telecommuting and
other non-traditional work structures, coupled with traditional gender roles’
shifting significantly mean that men and women both face new and unique
challenges associated with their day to day work. These challenges can create
unique tensions, which in turn could result in organisations performing at
lower levels than they would have otherwise (Lyness and Judiesch, 2008).
International, Comparative and Cross-Cultural HRD Research
International, comparative and cross-cultural HRD research is a growing
area of interest within the HRD literature. This is particularly the case with
International HRD (IHRD) and its focus on understanding HRD in the con-
text of multinational corporations (MNC). The growing importance of the
MNC and the focus on complex global strategic decision making has resulted
in attention focusing on the relationship between IHRD and business per-
formance. This has given rise to a strategic perspective on HRD. The IHRD
stream represents the most significant gap in the literature. A number of
unanswered questions include the following: How do MNCs develop their

Editor’s Introduction xxxvii
workforces in order to secure competitive advantage?; How can HRD be of
value in helping the expatriation process and international assignments?;
What factors explain the diffusion of HRD practices throughout the subsid-
iaries of the MNC?; Where are IHRD activities located within the MNC and
what discretion do subsidiaries have in terms of the implementation of HRD
practices?; What type of structural arrangement is best suited to IHRD in the
MNC?; What factors shape how MNCs develop their leadership populations?;
How do IHRD practices change to adapt to labour market requirements and
changes in the MNCs’ competitive strategy, and changes in the local environ-
ment?; What are the IHRD issues that emerge in the context of international
joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions?
There is much to be learned about the dynamics of IHRD in MNCs. It is
likely that there may not be a uniform implementation of IHRD within
MNCs. However, the scope for research within this strand is considerable.
A small number of cross-country studies that compare HRD practices have
been published. The comparative strand of research typically focuses on
national systems characteristics and how they influence organisation-level
HRD practices. These studies focus on single-country descriptions or com-
pare a number of countries. The work undertaken by Cho and McLean (2009)
and Ardichvili and Kuchinke (2002) represents examples of both approaches.
The majority of comparative studies tend to be descriptive and do not focus
on explaining the importance of these differences in the outcomes for indi-
vidual organisations or societies. There is a lack of a comparative framework
that can capture the diversity and complexity of IHRD structures, processes,
policies and outcomes across nations or countries. A review of the IHRD lit-
erature suggests a number of dimensions that may be relevant. These include
the reliance on internal versus external labour markets, the question of
whether performance or welfare is emphasised in the workplace, the link-
ages among governments, employers and trade unions and the extent of
regulation of the employment relationship. Specific questions that can be
investigated in the context of comparative HRD are the following: How do
we distinguish between national culture and national institutions?; What
level of analysis is appropriate for the conduct of cross-national compari-
sons?; Should studies focus on the level of the state, the level of the firm or
the individual level?; What are the gaps between policy and practice in dif-
ferent national contexts and what factors explain these gaps?; How do we
ensure equivalence in terms of function, concept, category and variable, uni-
formity of data collection methods and time frames?; What are the main
determinants of IHRD policies and practices in a cross-national context?;
How can we test the convergence-divergence theses in the field of IHRD?
Effective comparative studies of HRD need to engage with a multiplicity of
factors including national culture, national institutions, the industry sector
and business environment. Different configurations of these variables will
impact firm-level and individual-level characteristics and outcomes. It is likely

xxxviii Editor’s Introduction
that there will be a complex interplay between actual HRD policies and prac-
tices and the surrounding national factors and organisational factors. It should
however be acknowledged that while comparative IHRD research is essential
for the credibility of the field, it essentially is very difficult to undertake.
The literature has developed different frameworks to analyse how different
national cultures can influence IHRD. The cross-cultural perspective has gener-
ally focused attention on the cultural distinctiveness of practices, beliefs and
values shared by a country. It assumes that culture and values act as boundar-
ies that allow interaction and socialisation within them. Cross-cultural per-
spectives assume that societies or countries will vary in the types of institutions
and approaches to HRD, and those variations reflect different traditions,
values, attitudes and experiences. Culture is typically measured through vari-
ous value dimensions. Examples of such value dimensions are suggested by
Hofstede (1980), Schwartz (1994) and Trompenaars Hampden-Turner
(1998). This approach is not, however, without criticism and it is acknowl-
edged that culture is highly elusive, difficult to operationalise and measure.
A number of important questions are suggested for IHRD by these cultural
frameworks: How do cultural values explain the importance that is attached
to HRD, the content of training practices and the types of training methods
that are utilised?; What impact does culture have on individual learning styles?
Do HRD specialists need to approach the design and delivery of training differ-
ently to account for cultural differences?; How does culture influence the way
in which individuals assess HRD outcomes?; Is it possible that some cultures
have short versus long-term orientations in assessing the value of HRD?; Is
HRD more culture bound than other HRM practices?; Given that many devel-
opment practices focus on interpersonal relationships, it is likely that they will
be more embedded in the local culture; it is likely that culture will influence
the way HRD is conducted. Given that many development processes are rela-
tional-based, the extent and type of feedback may be influenced by the nature
of the culture. In this context, individualist cultures may be more amenable to
direct feedback, whereas in collectivist cultures, the emphasis may be on more
indirect and informal feedback processes. Culture will likely influence what is
discussed in developmental activities. It is possible that individualist cultures
will show a preference for discussing potential and performance issues,
whereas in collectivist cultures, these issues are less likely to be considered.
Influence of Social Contexts
There is a great need to understand HRD in its social context. We appear to
have forgotten that HRD is a system of interdependent parts that interact
to produce a set of outcomes. The social embeddedness of HRD has to a
degree, been lost in the debates that surround the notion that HRD can be
designed and implemented by individual firms independent of their context.

Editor’s Introduction xxxix
There is a need to understand HRD in its wider context, including global,
national, social and employment contexts. Bae and Rowley (2004) high-
light the need to understand the context of HRD in order to understand its

outcomes. This context extends beyond corporate borders. Other commenta-
tors such as Deb (2007) highlight that the concept of HRD plays a major role
in a nation’s economic and cultural growth. It is necessary, as a result, to take
a broad based approach, one that acknowledges issues of social development
and quality of working life. HRD is considered essential in promoting social
development, and the well being of people.
HRD forms part of a larger human development process (Kuchinke, 2010).
It contributes to the development of individuals and the society in which they
live. Dimensions of social context recently highlighted in the HRD literatures
include the rural-urban divide, the impact of HIV/AIDS, the role of HRD in the
elimination of poverty and inequality and the role of HRD in the development
of social infrastructure, the family, health and social security (Razvi and Roth,
2010; Sydhagen and Cunningham, 2007). Academic journals in the HRD field
increasingly require authors to acknowledge and explain the context in which
they have conducted their studies. To effectively capture context, HRD schol-
ars will need to utilise innovative, phenomenological research designs. These
are best suited to capturing the embeddedness of HRD in its social context.
Social Responsibility and Green HRD
ThereisaneedforHRDscholarsandpractitionerstoincorporatesocialrespon-
sibility and green issues into conceptions or notions of HRD. Organisations
increasingly use HRD interventions as a strategy to develop employee aware-
ness of environmental and green issues (Garavan et al., 2010). Environmental
training programmes are an important component of the green awareness
issue. Fernandez, Junquera and Ordiz (2003) argue that an environmental
approach requires increased employee awareness. Employees also need ‘inte-
grating training’ in order for them to demonstrate an emotional involvement
with organisations’ environmental and green objectives. There is, however, a
paucity of research that demonstrates a relationship between investment in
HRD and the level of environmental development of an organisation.
Many environmental problems ultimately stem from cultural and struc-
tural factors that can be addressed using HRD interventions (McGuire,
2010). A particular cultural source of environmental problems is the idea
that nature consists of a vast storehouse of resources that all individuals are
entitled to (Renwick and Robertson, 2008). HRD interventions that chal-
lenge key assumptions underlying this notion can help change this idealistic
view of nature. A particular structural problem concerns the pursuit of profits
at any cost. HRD may have a role to play in helping managers to think

differently about the profit motive and the impact of a company’s actions on

xl Editor’s Introduction
the environment. HRD scholars should now assume the responsibility to
address these issues, rather than deferring them to the next generation.
Corporate social responsibility purports that an organisation has the

obligation to act in a way to benefit society at large. Additionally, corporate
social responsibility is intended to show that the actions of a company have a
positive impact through its activities on the environment, its employees and the
communities it serves. In other words, are our employees, shareholders, cus-
tomers and community better served because of what we do and who we are as
a company or firm? (Garavan et al., 2010). Therefore, as individuals who create
and consume research, are we acting responsibly to have a positive impact on
the world we live in? Is this really a question researchers must ask themselves
and address in the publication of their research or is it better served for other
groups to ask as our research is put into practice?
Should future researchers in HRD promote a Green HRD? According to
the United Nations Environment Programme, Green HRD should provide
leadership and encourage partnership in caring for the environment by
inspiring, informing and enabling nations and peoples to improve their
quality of life without compromising that of future generations. There has
been much talk of defining one’s ‘carbon footprint’ as a way to critically
analyse the impact on the environment of one’s actions. Should HRD
researchers change the way we report research results to ensure they speak
to a more Green HRD or should we just ensure that our mission statements
indicate we promote a more Green HRD?
The Influence of Globalisation
Stewart and Rigg (2011) argue that globalisation represents a significant
component of the external context of HRD. They conceptualise globalisation
as both an input and an output, and emphasise both the convergent and
divergent consequences of the concept. Scullion and Collings (2011) high-
light some of the practice implications of globalisation for the development
of human resources. Specific practice challenges include the development
of highly diverse employee groups, the development of talent for new and
emerging markets and the development of knowledge workers.
A particular dimension of globalisation highlighted in the literature con-
cerns the knowledge economy. Powell and Snellman (2004) argue that the
knowledge economy creates unpredictability in work roles, the longevity of
knowledge and skill obsolescence. There is a growing need for MNCs in par-
ticular to develop employees to take on more complex and diverse roles. The
development of a global mindset is another significant challenge. Employees
need to see themselves as ‘citizens of the world’ with a broad and deep set of
values (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2002). HRD research has to date focused
on issues of globalisation in a somewhat fragmented way. There is a strong

Editor’s Introduction xli
need to enhance our understanding of how globalisation processes impact
HRD in MNCs. More rigorous research designs need to be devised that

operationalise global variables. Qualitative research designs are an essential
tool in studying the processes by which HRD evolves, diffuses and institu-
tionalises in a global context.
HRD cannot ignore the influence of globalisation in how HRD is researched
and the practices utilised by HRD professionals. As the world has become
flatter, we have become a world of one people. The creation of such entities
as the EU, the WTO, the G8 and the International Criminal Court had laid
claim to the fact we are quickly becoming a world based on alliances and not
one of country-specific borders. This global realignment has brought a shift
of global power that our research cannot ignore (Friedman, 2005).
Multidisciplinary and Interdisciplinary Opportunities
for HRD Research
The imperatives of global economy highlight that HRD researchers need to
become more effective in generating, disseminating and transferring knowl-
edge. There is a need to promote both multidisciplinary and interdisciplin-
ary research. Specific issues that arise in this context include clarifying
how research scholars define HRD, the use of innovative methodologies to
research HRD and the broadening of research agendas within HRD.
Developing Definitions of HRD that Promote Multidisciplinary
and Interdisciplinary Conversations
A significant starting point that should facilitate both interdisciplinary and
multidisciplinary research concerns agreement on a definition of HRD. The
issue of a definition of HRD represents an area of significant controversy
within the field that has persisted for some time. The inescapable conclusion
one must draw is that not only is the term HRD poorly defined, but also that
its meaning is frequently taken for granted. Different stakeholders view the
term from their own perspective and use it for their own purposes. Research
perspectives and traditions tend to fashion their own definitions. These pro-
cesses are not conducive to interdisciplinary debate. The comments of Abbott
(2004) are instructive in the context of definitions. He argues that research-
ers have a tendency to select methodologically a definition associated with
a particular research tradition of paradigm rather than free themselves from
the constraints of tradition.
As we examine ways to develop definitions of HRD that will promote

multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary conversations, we need to consider
that we have a common knowledge base but multiple areas of contextual

Fundametals of HRD.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Fundametals of HRD.pdf

Similar to Fundametals of HRD.pdf (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Fundametals of HRD.pdf