This document discusses conceptual models for human resource development (HRD). It critiques Richard Swanson's model of HRD as a three-legged stool resting on integrity. As an alternative, the author proposes an octopus model to capture the greater complexity of HRD foundations. While acknowledging eight tentacles may still not encompass all influences, an octopus implies initiative, action, and ability to adapt. Additional potential foundations discussed include anthropology, sociology, communications, and characteristics of active learners like curiosity and comfort with ambiguity. The author hopes the discussion moves conceptualization of HRD forward.

1. HCD 660 – Foundations of Human Capital Development
Define HRD
• HRD is “a process of developing and unleashing expertise
for the purpose of improving performance” (Swanson &
Holton, 2009, p. 99).
• HRD is “the systematic and planned practice designed by an
organization to enhance employee knowledge, skills,
abilities, and attitudes” (Van Tiem et al., 2012, p. 325).
Points of Agreement
• Believe in human potential
• Focus on improvement
• links learning and performance
• Finding solutions and solving problems
• Opportunities over challenges
• Systems thinking
• Being on the same page
HRD World-Views

2. • HRD and its environment
• Learner perspective – Adragogy
• Knowles (why, self-directing,
experience, motivated, contextual)
• Organizational perspective
• Global context
• Change isn’t slowing down
HRD and Its
Environment
Human Resource Development
Core Beliefs
1. Organizations are human-made entities that
rely on human expertise to establish and
achieve their goals.
2. Human expertise is developed and maximized
through HRD processes and should be applied
for the long-term and/or short-term benefits of
the sponsoring organization and the individuals
involved.
3. HRD professionals are advocates of
individual/group work process, and
organizational integrity.

3. Reflection…
• Of the three HRD core beliefs presented, which one is
closest to your beliefs and why?
• What is it about HRD that interests you the most?
Threats to Excellent Practice
• Turning the HRD process into
an event
• The rate of change
• Critical characteristics of key
players
How can we turn these threats into
opportunities?
• Turning the HRD process into
an event
• The rate of change
• Critical characteristics of key
players
Human Capital Theory

4. • Human Capital Theory --
emphasizes that human capital--
the composition of employee skills,
knowledge, and abilities--is a
central driver of organizational
performance when the return on
investment exceeds labor costs.
So, why do we
even care
about theory?
• Helps us to explain complex phenomenon in our everyday
life/work.
• Lots of theories….. List some in the chat
Human Capital Development – the sweet spot
Sweet Spot
Human Capital Development – not just books on a shelf
Theory
Theories are constructed in order to

5. explain
predict and
master phenomena
(e.g. relationships, events, or the behavior).
In many instances we are constructing models of
reality.
A theory makes generalizations about
observations and consists of an interrelated,
coherent set of ideas.
Theory
Framework
for Applied
Disciplines
Theory
Framework for
HRD
Human Capital Development – Foundational Theories
Foundational Theories Definition
Psychological
http://richardswanson.com/narratedpres/psych_found_Breeze/in
dex.html

6. Economic
http://richardswanson.com/narratedpres/econfound/index.html
Systems
http://richardswanson.com/narratedpres/sys_theory_Breeze/inde
x.html
http://richardswanson.com/narratedpres/psych_found_Breeze/in
dex.html
http://richardswanson.com/narratedpres/econfound/index.html
http://richardswanson.com/narratedpres/sys_theory_Breeze/inde
x.html
What do you think the main contribution of
PSYCHOLOGICAL theory is to HRD?
Why?
What do you think the main contribution of
ECONOMIC theory is to HRD?
Why?
What do you think the main contribution of
SYSTEMS theory is to HRD?
Why?
Reflection . . .
Human Capital Development – Foundational Theories Defined
Foundational Theories Definition Main Point
Psychological Core human aspects of developing
human resources and the interplay

7. between humans and systems
Connect goals and behaviors among
individuals, groups, processes, and
organizations
Economic Efficient and effective utilizations of
resources to meet production goals
in a competitive environment
HRD can increase profits
Performance (dependent variable)
matters
Systems Complex and dynamic interactions
of environments
Specify inputs, processes, outputs, and
feedback
6-step training (obj., prepare, present,
apply, test, evaluate)
Standard Explanation
General Principles competence, integrity, professional
responsibility, respect for people’s
rights and dignity, concern for others’ welfare, and social
responsibility
General Standards boundaries of competence, maintenance of
expertise, bias in research
and professional judgment, description of professional’s work,
respecting others, nondiscrimination, and exploitative
relationships

8. Research and
Evaluation
Ethical practices in research and evaluation are the foundation
of
credibility.
Advertising and
Other Public
Statements
represent yourself and your credentials accurately, without
exaggeration
or exclusion
Publication Work attend to the ethical treatment of study
participants, provide accurate
identification of individual contributions in published work, and
follow
ethical collection, interpretation, and reporting of data
Privacy and
Confidentiality
protect and secure confidenti al or privileged information
Teaching and
Facilitating
competently designed and developed, meet the requirements of
the
objectives set by the program, and are accurately evaluated.
Resolution of Ethical
Issues and Violations

9. knowledgeable of ethical standards and are aware of possible
ethical
issues in their work
https://www.ahrd.org/page/standards_on_ethics
Which mascot makes the most sense?
Formulating the
Conceptual/Theoretical Framework
The conceptual framework of a study is a
structure that can hold or support a theory of
a research work. It presents the theory which
explains why the problem under study exists.
Thus, the theoretical framework is but a
theory that serves as a basis for conducting
research.
Formulating the
Conceptual/Theoretical
Framework
Purpose:
• Helps the researcher see clearly the
variables of the study;
• Provides researcher with a general
framework for data analysis;

10. • Helps develop research proposal using
descriptive and experimental methods.
Example 1:
Example 2:
Example 3:
Workplace
Preparedness
Generational Theory
Mannheim (1954)
Human Capital Theory
Becker (1994)
RO4RO2
RO1
RO3 RO5
Emotional
Intelligence
Perceived
Workplace

11. PreparednessC
ol
le
ge
S
tu
de
nt
Em
pl
oy
ee
Self-awareness
Self-management
Social awareness
Relationship management
Emotional
Intelligence
Training
Emotional Intelligence Theory
Goleman (2003)
Te
st

12. Co
nt
ro
l
What HCD models/processes/interventions exist?
What is the
difference
between a
model and a
theory?
• A theory is a set of statements that is
developed through a process of continued
abstractions or observations.
• A theory is a generalized statement aimed
at explaining a phenomenon.
• A model is a purposeful representation of
reality.
• A model is often used to describe an
application of a theory for a particular case
through a visual.

13. Performance
Improvement
Models
vPerf. Imp./HPT Model
vPerformance Interventions
vADDIE Model
vAGILE
vSAM (Successive
Approximation Model)
Performance Model (page 45)
ADDIE
Instructional
Systems
Design
Model
AGILE
Manifesto
We are uncovering better ways of
developing software by doing it and
helping others do it.
Through this work we have come to
value:

14. 1. Prioritize individuals and interactions
over processes and tools
2. Working software over comprehensive
documentation
3. Fluidly changing during customer
collaboration
4. Adapting to change over following a
plan.
SAM
Successive
Approximation
Model
(also an
Instructional
Systems Design
Model)
Leaving
ADDIE for
SAM
Performance Improvement Key Terms
• People-Oriented
• Positive and Future-Oriented
• Multidimensional Approaches
• Commitment
• Team-Oriented

15. Where do we start to achieve
Performance Improvement?
When faced with a challenge of performance
improvement in your organization,
What are the
next steps?
Who takes
the lead?
What does it
look like?
Process
Phases of HRD
• Figure 2.5 Process Phases of
Human Resource Development
• Interplay Between the Phases of
the HRD Process
• What is consistent in Phase 1?
Performance
Model

16. Analysis
“Seek first to understand”
– Franklin Covey
• Review
• Observe
• Ask
• Evaluate
• reactively or proactively
Analysis Tools - Mager and Pipe
Flowchart (page 21)
• Identify causes of performance problems
• Decide which problems are worth solving
• Describe solutions
• Decide which solutions are practical and feasible
• ABCD Objectives provide framework for
describing desired outcomes
Analysis Tools – Mager and Pipe Flowchart
Perf.
Imp./HPT
Model:
Performance
Analysis

17. • Vision, mission, goals
Organizational
• 4 W’s (worker, work, workplace, world)
Environmental
• Desired ---- Present
Gap
• Environmental and Individual
• Find the root
Cause
Where does Analysis lead to?
Proper Analysis
leads to…
Intervention
Selection, Design,
and Development
Performance
Intervention
Categories
(page 203)

18. Learning Performance Support
Job
Analysis/Work
Design
Personal
Development
Human
Resource
Development
Organizational
Communication
Organization
Design and
Development
Financial
Systems
Wrapping up
Session 2
• HRD Theory
• Psychological, Economic, and Systems Theories standing on
Ethics
• Goal is Performance

19. • Conceptual/Theoretical Frameworks
• Performance Improvement
• Analysis is step 1
• Leads to Performance Intervention
McLean, G. N. (1998). HRD: Three-legged stool, an octopus,
or a centipede? Human Resource
Development International, 1, 375-377.
HRD: A three-legged stool, an octopus, or a centipede?
Gary N. McLean
As I write this editorial, I am sitting in a hotel room in Dublin,
Ireland, at the conclusion of the twenty-
seventh conference of the International Federation of Training
and Development Organizations. This
afternoon, my wife and I took a tour of the famous St. Patrick’s
Cathedral. There, the tour guide told us
about the origin of the Irish saying, ‘Chancing your arm’. As
the story goes, two families, both members of
St. Patrick’s Cathedral in 1492 (an amazing coincidence for
those of us who are US Americans), were
feuding, which had led to blows and threatened assault by
sword. One family ran to the church and locked
themselves inside for sanctuary. The head of the family came
to his senses and realized how foolish the
feud was. He tried to persuade the other family to enter the
church in peace, but they would have none of
it. So he ordered his family to take their swords and cut a large
rectangle out of the centre of the cathedral
gate door. He then stuck his arm through, recognizing that it

20. would either be cut off with a sword or
accepted in a handshake of reconciliation, as intended. The
reconciliation was accepted. By ‘chancing his
arm’, the feud was ended.
In this editorial, I am going to ‘chance my arm’. My colleague
and friend, Dick Swanson, is well
known, at least in some circles, for his visual model of Human
Resource Development as a three-legged
stool. According to Dick, the three legs that provide the
foundations for HRD—Economics, Psychology
and Systems Theory—rest on a rug of integrity ( Swanson,
1995).
On many occasions, I have suggested to Dick that this is a
simplistic and inadequate model for
portraying the foundations of HRD. This past April, our
department at the University of Minnesota did a
one-day series of presentations by faculty, alumni and current
students. Dick and I were teamed for a
presentation on ‘The Future of HRD”. In that presentation,
Dick again put forward his three-legged model.
I suggested, in response, that a centipede might make a better
model as it suggests almost limitless sources
of input into the complexity that I understand HRD to be. Dick
quickly ‘squashed’ my centipede, arguing
that so many foundations would be unmanageable in developing
and describing a unifying theory for
HRD—though why a unifying theory is needed is not all that
clear to me. Our Asian students, particularly,
were quite taken aback to see these two major professors
disagreeing so openly and publicly. Nevertheless,
they quickly realized that we were having fun and, at the same
time, helping them to see (and us to
remember) that we are still struggling with definitional issues
related to HRD.

21. So I’ve been searching for a new model and would like to offer
for consideration the octopus. I’m
not sure that eight tentacles are enough to represent the
foundations of HRD—but it’s certainly more
manageable than the 100-legged centipede and more
representative of the complexity of HRD than a three-
legged stool. There are other advantages to such a model. An
animate depiction implies initiative,
assertiveness and action, whereas an inanimate object is
passive, lifeless and inactive. An octopus can
protect itself by dispensing a shield of ‘ink’. It is also strong,
crushing its food for nutrients. When a
tentacle is damaged or destroyed, it can regenerate itself, just as
HRD must be constantly re-forming itself
and, indeed, perhaps adding new foundations. Not many years
ago, for example, systems theory would
have been seen as a foundation of HRD, yet it’s difficult to
think of HRD today without systems theory. So
we must also hold out the possibility of other foundations
emerging; chaos theory, for example, may well
be developing as a basic foundation of HRD.
Dick’s response to criticisms of his three-legged stool is to
challenge the critic to suggest
foundations that are missing. That is challenging. I agree with
Dick as to the importance of integrity to the
field but rather than a rug I would put it at the core of the
model—the body of the octopus itself. Further, I
don’t quarrel with any of the three foundations Dick offers. But
I do argue that they are not enough.
What would I add? Dick’s definition of HRD (see Swanson,
1995) includes organization
development (OD). Almost every definition of OD (see
Rothwell et al, 1995, among others) includes the

22. phrase ‘based on the behavioural sciences’. Very few people
would agree that there are only two or three
behavioural sciences. Certainly, with OD’s emphasis on
organizational cultural change, one would have to
include ANTHROPOLOGY as a foundation of HRD. All of the
team building and small group decision-
making activities draw on group dynamics, reflective of the
field of SOCIOLOGY, and SPEECH
COMMUNICATIONS is important in describing communication
systems, an essential component in doing OD.
While perhaps a bigger stretch at the IFTDO conference we
heard arguments for the contributions of
philosophy and literature to HRD ( Cooley, 1998), music (
O’Suilleabhain, 1998), technology (Masie, 1998),
sports (Findlater & O’Leary, 1998), evaluation (Tolbert et al,
1998), and many others.
I can already hear the question, ‘So what are the eight tentacles
that are foundational to HRD?’
And my first response is, ‘I don’t know!’ Not knowing is why
we have continuous scholarship and
learning. Not knowing is why have professional journals and
conferences. Not knowing is why we
continue to be curious and to ask professional questions.
Dalton (1998) reported on the characteristics of six managers
who had been identified from a
group of sixty high potential managers —the only ones to
succeed in accomplishing mutually identified
achievement goals set a year earlier. These managers were
identified as Active Learners. Among their
characteristics were curiosity (always asking questions),
constantly looking for answers (recognizing that

23. there was no ‘one best way’), preferring complexity to
simplicity, and being comfortable with ambiguity.
These also seem to be characteristics needed by successful HRD
professionals.
Is the octopus the right model for HRD? Probably not, but my
argument here has been that it
moves us in the right direction. I hope my arm is grasped and
not cut off so we can continue to dialogue
and create many options for conceptualizing HRD.
Human Resource Development
University of Minnesota
References
Cooley, M. (1998). Managing global diversity and integration:
Skill and competence for the 21st
century. Presented at the 27th annual conference of the
International Federation of Training and
Development Organizations, Dublin, Ireland, 22 July.
Dalton, M. A. (1998). Global human resource development.
Presented at the 27th annual
conference of the International Federation of Training and
Development Organizations, Dublin, Ireland, 23
July.
Findlater, J., & O’Leary , D. (1998). Tutoring coaching skills.
Presented at the 27th annual
conference of the International Federation of Training and
Development Organizations, Dublin, Ireland, 21
July.
Masie , E. (1998). Developing the new workforce: Learning and

24. working in a digital age. Presented
at the 27th annual conference of the International Federation of
Training and Development Organizations,
Dublin, Ireland, 21 July.
O’Suilleabhain , M. (1998). Leadership and teamwork in Irish
traditional music performance.
Presented at the 27th annual conference of the International
Federation of Training and Development
Organizations, Dublin, Ireland, 22 July.
Rothwell, W. J., Sullivan, R., & McLean, G. N. (Eds.) (1995).
Practicing organization
development: A guide for consultants. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer.
Swanson, R. A. (1995). Human resource development:
Performance is the key. Human Resource
development Quarterly, 6, 207-213.
Tolbert, A. S., McLean, G. N., & Myers, R. C. (1998). Creating
the multicultural learning
organization. Presented at the 27th annual conference of the
International Federation of Training and
Development Organizations, Dublin, Ireland, 21 July.