Reflection Paper 1Reflection Paper 2Reflection Paper.docx

Reflection Paper 1
Reflection Paper 2
Reflection Paper 3
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
Twenty-first-century HR is emerging to uniquely combine
activities and -processes of human re-
source management (HRM), human resource development
(HRD), and organization develop-
m.ent (OD)—three fields that "grew up" distinct from each
other. Contributing strategically to
organizations demands that HRM, HRD, and OD coordinate,
partner, and think innovatively
about how they relate and how what they do impacts people and
organizations. An analysis of
the evolutions of these fields helps to explain why the
distinctions between them continue to
blur and how the similarities among them provide the necessary
synergy for HR to be a truly val-

ued organizational partner. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Introduction
It has hecome a common refrain to hear
the many challenges Facing organizations
today. These include glohalization, the
pressure For speed and innovation, the
transition to a service economy with its ex-
traordinary emphasis on customers, the
pressure For Financial perFormance, the im-
pact oF technology and e-husiness, and
changing workForce demographics. While
this list is hy no means comprehensive, it
provides the context that is propelling pro-
Found change in modern organizations.
Perhaps the change that has most im-
pacted organizations in the past decade has
heen the growing realization that people
are an organization's primary source oF
competitive advantage. It is now widely ac-
cepted that an organization's "...success is
determined hy decisions employees make
and hehaviors in which they engage"
(Mello, 2002, p. 4). It has never heen more
important For organizations to Foster and tap
the strategic potential oF people. Managing
people as an organization's primary asset
has inspired HR to hecome increasingly
more eFFective at developing programs and
policies that leverage talent to align with or-
ganizational competencies and at executing
organizational strategy.

MacDonald (2003) states that "creating
the next generation work environment—
highly collahorative and capahle oF not just
Fostering, hut also encouraging, the instant,
seamless movement oF ideas and expertise—
Correspondence to: Wendy E. A. Ruona, Assistant Professor,
Department of Oceupational Studies, 213
Rivers Crossing, 850 College Station Road, Athens, CA 30602,
Tel: (706) 542-4474, Fax: (706) 542-
4054, E-mail: [email protected]; Sharon K. Cibson, Assistant
Professor, Organization Learning and De-
velopment, Mail #MOH 217, 1000 LaSalle Avenue,
Minneapolis, MN 55403, Tel: (651) 962-4387, fax:
(651) 962-4169, E-mail: [email protected]
Human Resource Management, Spring 2004, Vol. 43, No. 1, Pp.
49-66
© 2004 Wiley Periodicals, inc. Published online in Wiiey
InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20002
50 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2004
will present both intellectual and technical
challenges for us as professionals" (p. 262).
HR faces these challenges as it contemplates
organizational strategy and workforce impli-
cations. It also, however, must reflect on
these challenges as they relate to HR itself.
The HR function and its processes have
changed as a direct result of these organiza-
tional dynamics. The next-generation HR is
emerging as a field that uniquely combines
activities and processes that have traditionally

heen associated with human resource man-
agement (HRM), human resource develop-
ment (HRD), and organization development
(OD)—three fields that "grew up" distinct
from each other and, in many cases, separate
in their theories and practices (Grieves &
Redman, 1999; Sammut, 2001).
Today's requirement to contribute strate-
gically to organizations demands that HRM,
HRD, and OD coordinate, partner, and inno-
vatively think about how they relate and how
what they do impacts people in organizations.
An analysis of the evolutions of these three
fields helps to explain why the distinctions
among the three areas continue to blur and
how the similarities among them provide the
necessary synergy for HR to be a truly valued
organizational partner. The purpose of this
article is to contextualize the emergence of
twenty-first-century HR (as a meta-profes-
sion, if you will, that can accommodate mul-
tiple fields under its umbrella) in a historical
and comparative context. To do this, the evo-
lutions of HRM, HRD, and OD are traced
from their formal and distinctive beginnings
in the early-to-mid-1900s through the dawn
of the twenty-first century where we see great
convergence. Implications for HR and its pro-
fessionals are then explored.
Methodology and Conceptual Framework
Our approach for this historical analysis en-
tailed tracing patterns of events, forces, and
ways of thinking that impacted the develop-

ment of HRM, HRD, and OD, and conduct-
ing a critical analysis of their origins and con-
sequences (Marius, 1995). We then sought a
descriptive frame to assist us in organizing the
reporting of our findings, which was aligned
with prior literature on HR evolutions in the
field. In conducting a historical review of
HRM in American industry, Lawrence (1985)
found that there was no generally recognized
framework for describing the development of
HRM in the United States. After reviewing a
number of current HR texts and articles, we
selected Brockbank's (1999) model, entitled
Dimensions of Competitive Advantage for HR
Activities (see Figure 1), to organize our find-
ings, as this framework was designed specifi-
cally for HR, incorporated the concept of in-
creasing competitive advantage that is
predominant in the field today, and, most im-
portantly, enabled us to express these trends
on a historical continuum.
Brockbank's (1999) framework charac-
terizes professional HR practices along two
sets of dimensions: (a) operational or strate-
gic and (h) reactive or proactive. In addition,
Brockbank reconfigured the matrix pre-
sented in Figure 1 to create a timeline of in-
creasing competitive advantage along which
we can further understand and assess the
progress of HR (see Figure 2).
Although we found our historical analysis
to best align with the progression of Brock-
bank's framework, the distinction made be-

tween operational and strategic levels of HR
is also congruent with other models that are
extensively used in the HR field. In Ulrich's
(1997) four-factor HR roles model, which has
received considerable attention in the litera-
ture, the administrative expert and employee
champion roles have a day-to-day/operational
focus and are, therefore, aligned with Brock-
bank's operational (reactive and proactive)
quadrants. Similarly, the strategic partner and
Strategic
Operational
Support
strategy
Implement
the basics
Reactive
Create
future, strategic
alternatives
Improve
the basics
Proactive
• Slightfy adapted from llrockhan
Figure 1. Brockbank's (1999) Dimensions of Competitive

Advantage.*
The Making of Twenty-First-Century HR 51
Operationally Operationally Strategically Strategically
Reactive Proactive
Figure 2. Continuum of Competitive Advantage.*
change agent roles, as defined by Ulrich
(1997), have a future/strategic focus and most
closely align with the strategically reactive and
proactive quadrants. Brockbank further ar-
gues that combining the dimensions of strate-
gic/operational and reactive/proactive (e.g.,
being proactive may look different when it is
done in operational ways versus strategic
ways) can help the HR field organize its think-
ing about the past, present, and future. We
suggest that Brockbank's framework is also
useful in thinking about the related disci-
plines of HRD and OD and, overlaid against
an analysis of HRM, provides us with unique
insights into the forces and trends that are af-
fecting all three fields.
Brockbank (1999) describes the activities
that take place in the various quadrants as fol-
lows. Operational activities are generally rou-
tine and focus on things that must be done for
the organization to operate on a daily basis.
Strategic activities are those that are organiza-
tionally comprehensive, planned, integrate

multiple facets, and are considered high, long-
term "value-added" in terms of their contribu-
tion to business success. Reactive activities
are in response to a need of the organization,
while proactive activities involve the creation
of operational improvements or strategic al-
ternatives. Brockbank demonstrates that
HRM's focus has evolved over time—pro-
gressing along a continuum from opera-
tionally reactive to operationally proactive to
strategically reactive to strategically proactive.
In that progression, he argues, HRM has pro-
vided increasingly higher value to organiza-
tions and, thereby, has increased its contribu-
tion to organizations' competitive advantage.
This does not imply, however, that various
practices within all four quadrants are still not
necessary and, in many contexts, quite valued.
Evolutions of HRM, HRD, and OD
The following section traces the evolutions of
HRM, HRD, and OD as three distinctive
Reactive Proactive
• Slightly adapted from Brockhank (t</</9)
fields to unfold their unique, yet strikingly
similar, histories and to explore the trends
currently affecting each field. To do this, an
extensive literature review of over 50 articles
and chapters was done to briefly and suc-
cinctly chronicle each field by focusing on
dominant trends in each field during the
past 50-plus years. Brockbank's (1999) analy-
sis began to unfold the history/trends of HRM

(which he called HR). This analysis expands
upon that chronicle, and also adds analyses of
both HRD and OD for an even more holistic
view of what we observe to be the emergence
of a more integrated twenty-first-century HR.
Although there remains considerable dis-
pute as to whether OD is a distinctive profes-
sion in its own right (Church, 2001; Grieves
& Redman, 1999; Weidner & Kulick, 1999),
the evolution and practices of HRD and OD
as two distinctive emerging fields were inves-
tigated separately for this article. This was
done for a few reasons. First, each of these
fields has a distinctive history that must be
analyzed separately to fully understand its
unique lineages. Second, it is only relatively
recently (vvdthin the last 15-20 years) that
these two fields have often been operational-
ized together in practice. As this analysis will
show, there is ample evidence that OD did,
and continues to, emerge as a distinctive pro-
fession, has not yet been subsumed by its
close relatives (such as HRM or HRD), and,
in fact, has been a critical contributor to the
strategic advancement of the family of prac-
tices that comprise strategically proactive
philosophy and action in organizations today.
Since the evolutions of HRM, HRD, and
OD did not necessarily occur during the
same time spans, we focused on the opera-
tional definitions of each of Brockbank's
(1999) quadrants and provide our interpreta-
tion of the time span during which each field
was characterized by these dimensions. The

activities that characterize each field during
each phase are also summarized and pre-
sented in Figure 3.
X
Operationally Reactive
• Basic personnel functions L
of managing people 1
(staffing, compensation, 1
compliance, labor 1
relations) 1
•Administrative
• Regulatory
(EEO/Affirmative Action,
Safety/OSHA, etc.)
Operationally Proactive
J • Improve the efficiency of
HR practices and the
workforce (reengineering
and process
centralization)
• Manage latror costs
• HRM metrics
• Employee satisfaction.

involvement, and
organizational climate
Strategically Reactive
• Support strategy
execution through people
J and culture
1 • Emphasis on results
1 • HR technology systems to
1 automate "routine"
1 processes
• High-performance work
systems
• Change management and
OD
Strategically Proactive
1
1 • Contribute to
organization's core
competence
J • Design and manage HR
1 systems as strategic
1 assets
1 •Create strategic
1 alternatives
• Culture change to support
radical innovation

Operationally Reactive Operationally Proactive Strategically
Reactive Strategically Proactive
' Job and task analysis
• Instructional systems
design
'Job-focused training
• Instructor-driven delivery
• Needs assessment
• Individual performance
improvement with a focus
on factors outside of
training
•Alternative methods for
training deiivery (e.g.,
computer-based)
• Evaluation
• Systemic models and
methods for whole system |
performance
improvement and
performance consulting
• Multiskilllng
•Cross-training
•Constnjctivist learning
approaches
• Performance support
systems

• Ensuring knowledgeable,
agile, reflective workforce
and workplace
•Organizational learning
and leaming organization
• Self-directed learning and
development {coaching,
Informal learning, etc..)
• Knowledge management
Operationaiiy Reactive Operationaily Proactive Strategically
Reactive Strategically Proactive
' Personal development
• Interpersonal relations
'Group dynamics and team |
building
' Process consultation
• Sociotechnical
approaches
• Market-driven and
"packaged" solutions to
accelerate change
• Assessments to
demonstrate intervention
effectiveness
• Strategic, long-term, and

multiple-level change
•Alignment of strategy,
design, and management
• Flattened organizational
designs and collaborative
approaches
• Organizational
transformation
• Whole systems change
• "Inter" focus
•Visioning, scenario
planning. Future Search
• Transorganizational OD
21st-Centurv HR
• Centraiity of people
• Focus on whole
systems and
integrated solutions
• Strategic alignment
and impact
• Capacity for change
Figure 3. The Evolutions of HRM, HRD, and OD: Toward a
Twenty-First-Century HR.
Operationally Reactive

During the First World War and in the follow-
ing decade, the U.S. workforce experienced
major changes. The shift from craft to massed
lahor, concentrated immigration and, in large
part, the organizing efforts of the union move-
ment produced the need for a "personnel"
function to manage these lahor issues. Wage
controls and the lahor demands of World War
II created additional pressure on organizations
and, after the war, an entire union-manage-
ment system was estahlished in response to the
labor movement's continued strength (Freed-
man, 1990; Lawrence, 1985). By the 1960s,
organizations had also recognized the need to
establish specialized employee relations pro-
grams for their nonunion workforce. In addi-
tion, a significant increase in government reg-
ulations affecting the employment relationship
required organizations to develop policies and
procedures to ensure regulatory compliance
(Dyer & Holder, 1988; Freedman, 1990).
Meanwhile, the organization itself hecame in-
creasingly important in the day-to-day lives of
U.S. workers. These kinds of dynamics led to
the formal estahlishment and growth of what
we currently call HR.
The State of HRM (Reginnings-Mid-1980s).
Since its inception as a separate function es-
tahlished to manage labor issues, person-
nel's role has grown to include the hasic ad-
ministrative activities associated with people
management in organizations (Brockhank,
1999). The role of personnel during this pe-

riod focused on the transactional compo-
nents of the various functions—including
henefits, employment/recruitment, compen-
sation, EEO/affirmative action, safety and
OSHA compliance, lahor relations, and
training and development. The performance
The Making of Twenty-First-Cenlury HR • 53
of these functions was technical in nature.
Employment planning was concerned with
forecasting work. Lahor relations focused on
administering collective bargaining agree-
ments. Selection, training, performance ap-
praisal, and compensation emphasized indi-
vidual jobs and descriptions (Beaumont,
1992). These functions were viewed as "dis-
associated programs and practices" (Dyer &
Holder, 1988, p. 1-14) and were not seen as
part of a broader HR strategy.
The State of HRD (Beginnings-Late 1970s).
Training has literally existed throughout all
recorded history of the human race. It has pro-
gressed through key phases such as appren-
ticeship and craft guilds, the emergence of cor-
poration schools in the early 1900s, the focus
of (and government funding for) vocational ed-
ucation and military training in the United
States, through today's modern-day manage-
ment (Miller, 1996; Swanson & Torraco,
1994). It was during the industrial era that
training became a central feature in modern
organizations with organizations focusing on

the "basics" of creating and integrating com-
ponents of the instructional process and adult
learning into a coherent system (Clark, 1999).
The term human resource development (HRD)
was defined by Leonard Nadler (1970) as "a
series of organized activities conducted within
a specific time and designed to produce be-
havioral change" (p. 3). Throughout this pe-
riod the terms training, training and develop-
ment, and HRD were used almost
interchangeably and focused exclusively on or-
ganized learning experiences.
By the early 1980s, training departments
in organizations had become quite common,
as organizations wanted workers trained more
efficiently and cost-effectively. Training during
this era was predominantly based on perceived
and short-term organizational needs. Task
analysis was common, and training was closely
linked to a person's job. Training in organiza-
tions was instructor-driven and -led, and firmly
entrenched in behaviorism, which emphasized
behavioral changes resulting from learning.
Training was also beginning to be channeled
toward management and supervisors to sup-
port their central role in the environment out-
side of the classroom (Harris, 2000).
The State of OD (Beginnings—Mid- to Late
1970s). The field of OD was founded on the
strong humanistic values of its early founders,
who aimed to improve the conditions of peo-
ple's lives in organizations hy applying behav-
ioral science knowledge and interventions (see
Cummings & Worley, 2001; French & Bell,

2000; Sanzgiri & Gottlieb, 1992, for reviews of
these early contributors and foundational
ideas). These early founders were steeped in
the T-group movement, which focused heavily
on group dynamics, and the survey research
and feedback movement. These movements
utilized methods that also ultimately fed the de-
velopment of action research, a methodology
that is now central to many processes in OD.
However, early OD interventions can be
categorized as primarily focusing on individ-
uals and interpersonal relations. OD was es-
tahlished as a social philosophy that empha-
sized a long-term orientation, the applied
behavioral sciences, external and process-
oriented consultation, change managed from
the top, a strong emphasis on action re-
search, and a focus on creating change in
collaboration with managers (Sanzgiri &
Gottlieb, 1992). Burke (1995) states that "in
the mid-1970s, OD was still associated with
T-groups, participative management and
consensus. Theory Y, and self-actualization
... the 'soft' human, touchy-feely kinds of ac-
tivities" (p. 8). OD during this time was prac-
ticed predominantly hy external consultants
who worked with top-level managers.
Operationally Reactive Period Analysis. During
this evolutionary phase, all three fields were
focused on those activities that needed to be
accomplished for the organization to effec-
tively operate on a daily basis and were in re-
sponse to needs identified by the organization.
Skills required of these professionals to per-

form these activities were both technical and
interpersonal. HRM's engagement in transac-
tional and administrative activities was di-
rectly in response to the organizing efforts of
the labor unions and the pressure of increased
government regulation. HRD professionals
were predominantly engaged in training activ-
ities based on short-term organizational needs
and designed to elicit behavioral change
linked to a person's job. Similarly, OD was fo-
During this
evolutionary
phase, all three
fields were
focused on those
activities that
needed to he
accomplished
for the
organization to
effectively
operate on a
daily hasis and
were in
respotise to
needs identified
hy the
organiza tion.
In the 1980s,
factors such as

deregulation
and imports
introduced new
competitive
pressures on
organizations,
triggering a
shift in
priorities
toward internal
business
issues...
cused on individuals and interpersonal rela-
tionships—the hasic activities associated with
human relations in organizations. These activ-
ities contrihuted to the organization's ahility to
respond to employee needs during this period.
Operationally Proactive
In the 1980s, factors such as deregulation
and imports introduced new competitive
pressures on organizations, triggering a shift
in priorities toward internal husiness issues
(Beaumont, 1992; Dyer & Holder, 1988).
Organizations during this era were greatly in-
fluenced hy glohal competition and total
quality management (TQM; Freedman,
1990). Workforce unionization levels, partic-
ularly in the private sector, hegan to decline
and the United States saw relative growth in
the service, white-collar employment sector.
The recession of 1991-1992, along with
recognition of the high costs of the hierar-
chical structure of many companies, resulted

in a reduction of staff functions and a strong
focus on hecoming more flexihle, responsive,
and productive (Brockhank, 1999).
The State of HRM (Late 1980s~Early 1990s).
This time period was characterized hy a shift
from the administrative and transactional
focus of the personnel department to a focus
on improving the efficiency of HR practices.
Activities included outsourcing, reengineer-
ing of HRM processes, transferring the re-
sponsihility for employee transactions to the
line managers as well as employees, and the
centralization of transaction processing
through the estahlishment of HR service
centers (Brockhank, 1999). Efficiency was
also stressed in terms of HRM's practices
with the workforce. The emphasis was on
providing flexihle and innovative alternatives
to manage lahor costs while increasing the
efficiency and productivity of employees.
These included practices such as purchasing
of services, restructuring, downsizing, uti-
lization of contingent lahor, and incentive-
hased compensation. HRM was increasingly
involved with personnel reductions and reor-
ganizations (Freedman, 1990). Metrics were
developed to measure the productivity of the
various HR functional areas (Brockhank,
1999), and HR professionals were expected
to assess the cost implications of their work.
There was also an increase in practices de-
signed to enhance the organization's knowl-
edge of internal employee satisfaction and
organizational climate (Beaumont, 1992;

Brockhank, 1999) as well as to strengthen
employees' involvement in the organization.
The State of HRD (Late 1970s-Late 1980s).
During this period, we saw an increasing con-
vergence hetween training and OD. Trainers
hecame interested in training methods emerg-
ing out of OD and they discovered that their
hehaviorist philosophy (with its focus on the
environment outside of training) was congru-
ent with OD professionals who were applying
interventions to increasingly complex levels of
organizational systems (Miller, 1996). New
methodologies for individual performance im-
provement hegan to emerge (Gilhert, 1978),
and there was increasing focus on how to en-
hance an individual's environment and foster
those factors that support a person applying
newly learned skills on the joh.
The pragmatism that was affecting HRM
and OD also spurred developments in train-
ing around needs assessment, task analysis,
evaluation, and return-on-investment. Com-
petency-hased learning came into vogue as a
way to focus on critical components of the
joh and reduce unnecessary training. Behav-
ioral modeling hecame even more popular in
the 1980s and continues to he a mainstay of
many training designs (Miller, 1996).
Trainees also hegan to receive training via
computers as instructional designers worked
to leverage technology to create designs that
were interactive and learner-centered as well
as more time- and cost-efflcient.

The State of OD (Mid- to Late 1970s-Mid- to
Late 1980s). In the late 1970s, a new pragma-
tism emerged in OD (Sanzgiri & Gotdieh,
1992). First was the rise of sociotechnical and
technostructural approaches that had heen a
vital part of early OD. These approaches were
extended and operationalized to expand OD's
focus further heyond individual-level joh de-
sign (Tichy, 1983). This resulted in larger-
scale and longer-term projects and shifted at-
tention heyond the individual and workgroups
The Making of Twenty-First-Centur)' HR • 55
to the larger work context. By the mid-1980s,
an analysis showed that OD texthooks dedi-
cated almost two-thirds of their diagnostic
chapters to organizational-level issues rather
than those at the individual and group levels
(Brown & Covey, 1987).
It is also evident during this period that
there were "market pressures to make the
field more tools- and technology-driven and
more responsive to pragmatic needs of the
corporate world" (Sanzgiri & Gottlieh, 1992,
p. 61). Emphasis was placed on accelerating
phases of change and, as a result, there was a
marked increase in packaged and prescriptive
solutions, tools, and techniques. The OD
consultant began to change from a nondirec-
tive, process-oriented practitioner to an au-
thoritative specialist (Burke, 1995) as the
tension hetween the humanistic concerns

that founded OD and the "hottom line" grew.
There was also increased pressure for OD to
demonstrate its effectiveness and a surge in
publications, assessments, and tools to im-
prove the link between OD interventions and
organizational results.
Operationally Proactive Period Analysis. Con-
tinuous improvement, efficiency, and cost-ef-
fectiveness characterized the activities of all
three fields during this operationally proactive
stage. HRM's activities were focused on im-
proving the efficiency of HRM practices
through outsourcing, reengineering, transfer-
ring of transactional work to line managers,
and developing HR metrics to measure pro-
ductivity. HRD began to look at new method-
ologies for individual performance improve-
ment and focused on enhancing an
individual's environment in order to support
the application of newly learned behavior (i.e.,
improved on-the-job performance). OD
shifted their focus to the larger work context
and responded to increased pressure to facili-
tate faster change processes and link OD ini-
tiatives with business results. Each field,
while still operational in focus, was actively
engaged in enhancing and measuring its ac-
tivities and determining the most cost-effec-
tive methods of operation. While all three
fields continued to emphasize technical ex-
pertise (the "basics" of the respective work), it
was apparent that a broader business perspec-
tive was increasingly necessary and that HR
professionals needed to assess the cost and ef-

fectiveness of various HR decisions.
Strategically Reactive
During this period, many organizations rec-
ognized that human capital was central to
competitive advantage. Organizations faced
many challenges including increased global-
ization, the impact of technology, the need to
simultaneously manage costs and growth,
the rapid pace of change, and the need to re-
focus employee activities on the customer
(Ulrich, 1997). As a result, the strategic
management of people and how they work
emerged as essential to sustained competi-
tive advantage (Pfeffer, 1995). Although con-
tinuing to look for ways to provide the "ba-
sics" more efficiently, professionals during
this period emphasized "supporting the exe-
cution of tactics that drive long-term strate-
gies and developing the cultural and techni-
cal capabilities necessary for long-term
success" (Brockbank, 1999, p. 342).
The State of HRM (Early 1990s-Current).
HRM's primary role was to add value by
aligning its people strategies in support of
the organization's business strategies. This
included working to establish a desired cul-
ture that would support competitive advan-
tage and designing HR practices (such as
competency assessment, diversity initiatives,
work-life balance, and total reward systems)
that would foster this culture. HRM also
began a foray into change management and
organization development activities in sup-

port of the implementation of the strategic
direction (Brockbank, 1999).
The continued development of HR tech-
nology allowed line managers to actively han-
dle more of the tasks related to recruitment,
salary administration, and succession plan-
ning (Patel, 2002), thus freeing up HRM's
time to assume more strategic roles and to
work toward garnering a "seat at the table."
For instance, much research was conducted
on establishing the empirical link between
HR strategies, systems, practices, and busi-
ness financial performance (Becker & Cer-
hart, 1996; Becker & Huselid, 1998; De-
... many
organizations
recognized that
human capital
was central to
competitive
advantage.
The
developments
of the 1980s
led to what can
now he viewed
as a hit of an
identity

laney & Huselid, 1996; Huselid, 1995). This
further supported the importance of HRM's
business partner role and emphasized the po-
tential of high-performance work systems as
an inimitable strategic asset in organizations.
Competencies in business knowledge, deliv-
ery of HR, and management of change were
identified as key to HRM's success (Uirich,
Brockbank, Yeung, & Lake, 1995).
The State of HRD (Late 1980s-Current). The
developments of the 1980s led to what can
now he viewed as a hit of an identity crisis and,
perhaps, a splintering within training/HRD.
The term HRD had been throwrt about for
nearly 15 years, hut in the 1980s, over 11 al-
ternative definitions were forwarded in the lit-
erature (see Weinberger, 1998). The capstone
definition that has "stuck" through today re-
sulted from McLagan's (1989) landmark study
of HRD practice during the 1980s and defined
HRD as "the integrated use of training and de-
velopment, career development, and organiza-
tion development to improve individual and or-
ganizational effectiveness" (p. 7). Phillips
(1999) refers to this shift toward effectiveness
and performance improvement as an extremely
critical one—in paradigm, processes, prac-
tices, and procedures. During the early-to-
mid-1990s, the literature on performance con-
sulting (Robinson & Robinson, 1995) and
performance improvement burgeoned, while
the field of human performance technology
(Stolovich & Keeps, 1992) gained a growing
presence. Individual-level performance im-
provement models alone became insufficient

while new, more systemic models of perfor-
mance improvement emerged (Rummler &
Brache, 1995; Swanson, 1994).
Meanwhile, outsourcing of more tradi-
tional forms of training (i.e., the basics) be-
came increasingly prevalent while organiza-
tions asked internal HRD professionals to act
as brokers of learning services and focus on
strategic alignment and more systemic inter-
ventions. This enhanced strategic focus led to
innovations in multisldlling and cross-train-
ing, cross-cultural and global training, and an
increased emphasis on "soft" skills training
(group dynamics, interpersonal relations, and
systems thinking). There were also major in-
novations within training and instructional
design—including more constructivist ap-
proaches to designing learning environments,
hypertext and hypermedia, and uses of tech-
nologies for e-learning (McNeil, 2002).
Rapid prototyping response and delivery sys-
tems were developed to meet organizations'
demands for more efficiently designed and
just-in-time training. HRD and instructional
systems design (ISD) professionals involved
in this kind of work were increasingly becom-
ing involved in utilizing technology for job
supports, integrated performance support,
and expert systems (Sleight, 1993).
The State of OD (Mid-1980s-Current).
Beckhard's work during the 1960s on strate-
gic change and open systems planning pro-
duced the need for a strategic perspective

from OD (Gummings & Worley, 2001) and
ushered in an increasingly "holistic and open
systems view of organizations" (Swanson &
Holton, 2001). Gentral to these models is
the assumption that strategic and systemic
change involves alignment with strategy, de-
sign, and management at multiple levels of
the organization (including culture) and
comprehensive change processes (including
reward systems, management structures,
process interventions, and information sys-
tems). This approach emphasized improving
an organization's fit between its technical,
political, and cultural systems. During this
period, OD professionals were also helping
to facilitate the development and implemen-
tation of strategy wdth their clients. Weidner
& Kulick (1999) characterized the talk of
many OD professionals as "if it's not strate-
gic, if it's not long-term, if it's not working at
the levels of a system, then it's not organiza-
tion development" (p. 347). During the
1980s, OD professionals were pivotal in
heightening attention around organizational
culture. They identified culture as critically
important in dealing with increasingly large
and more complex change as well as a pri-
mary mechanism through which strategic de-
sign was carried out (Sashkin & Burke,
1990). OD professionals also became in-
volved in assisting organizations in coping
with the alignment of multiple cultures as a
consequence of mergers/acquisitions and/or
significant reorganizations.

More traditional interventions such as
conflict management and team huilding were
recast to he aligned with strategic imperatives
resulting from either planned or emergent
strategy or new organizational forms that
tended toward flattened hierarchies and col-
lahorative approaches. In addition, OD pro-
fessionals were instrumental in the TQM
movement that swept the United States dur-
ing the 1980s, especially in their contrihu-
tions around decentralized management of
change and self-regulating or self-managed
work teams and quality circles. OD profes-
sionals were encouraged to he more strategic
and to more effectively relate OD skills to the
changing competitive context of the organiza-
tion and its memhers (Jelinek & Litterer,
1988). As a result, OD professionals were in-
creasingly internal to the organization (Sam-
mut, 2001) and supplemented traditional
skills with more emphasis on husiness liter-
acy, competitive strategy, flnance, marketing,
information systems, and process design.
Strategically Reactive Period Analysis. During
this period, we see an increasing emphasis on
the strategic alignment and positioning of each
of the three emerging professions. This is not
surprising given the clear shift toward a re-
source-hased view of the organization (Barney,
2001; Wright, Dunford, & Snell, 2001) and
important innovations of the day such as Pra-
halad & Hamel's (1990) ideas on the roots of

the core competence of organizations. Each
field turned its attention to aligning its inter-
ventions to strategy. In most cases, this was re-
active in the sense that the strategy was often
delivered to HRM, HRD, and OD for these
professions to "react to." Business literacy,
change management, and strategic thinking
were identified as the competencies needed for
these professions to efî ectively align their in-
terventions with organizational requirements.
We also see during this period that each field
had to hecome more systematic in what they
do to accomplish their goals. This included a
clear emphasis on demonstrating the effective-
ness and impact of interventions. Most impor-
tantly, each field had to adopt a more systemic
view of the organization and incorporate this
view as a hasic assumption underlying their in-
terventions.
Strategically Proactive
The rate of change for organizations contin-
ues to rapidly accelerate. Societal and demo-
graphic changes are fostering glohalization,
greater diversity, and the increased impact of
science and technology on our work and per-
sonal lives. A major shift in geopolitics has
caused networks and alliances to hurgeon
and has also created uncertainty (Mello,
2002; Patel, 2002). These dynamics demand
that organizations continue to innovate, find
ways to reduce costs, and he more flexihle in
developing practices that create competitive
advantage (Brockhank, 1999).

The State of HRM (Late 1990s-Current). This
new role for HRM involves creating future
strategic alternatives for the organization.
HRM must develop distinctive people prac-
tices to create core competencies that translate
into husiness strategies and help to differenti-
ate an organization's products and services
(Cappelli &: Crocker-Hefter, 1996). The motto
for the new HRM role is "helping to set the
agenda" (Bates, 2002). Brockhank (1999) sug-
gests that HRM can evidence this strategically
proactive role hy (a) enhancing the innovation
capacity of the firm; (h) heing involved in each
phase of the merger and acquisition process;
and (c) linking internal human capahilities
with the requirements of the external market.
HRM must design and manage its systems as
strategic assets, focus on the development of
strategic competencies, and utilize a systems
perspective as it works to develop strategic al-
ternatives and new husiness opportunities
(Becker, Huselid, Pickus, & Spratt, 1997). In
order to he a driver of strategy, HRM must he
engaged in creating institutional change ca-
pacity, identifying social trends impacting fu-
ture husiness opportunities, and huilding orga-
nizational cultures that can accomplish radical
innovation (Brockhank, 1999).
The State of HRD (Mid-1990s-Current). The
strategically proactive HRD roles of the next
decade and heyond revolve around ensuring a
knowledgeahle, competent, agile, and reflec-
tive workforce that utilizes learning to capital-
ize on emerging opportunities (Torraco &
Swanson, 1995). In response, HRD has heen

During this
period, we see
an increasing
emphasis on
the strategic
alignment and
positioning of
each of the
three emerging
professions.
It is clear
that what is
beginning to
characterize
this period is
HRM, HRD,
and OD
needing to he
extremely
attuned and
responsive to
the external
climate and
markets of an
organization.
an important contributor in the development
of concepts around organizational learning
(Dixon, 1994), and various powerful models
for creating a learning organization have

emerged (Marquardt, 1995; Senge, 1990;
Watkins & Marsick, 1993). It is possible that
this focus on organizational learning has the
potential to be the hallmark of a strategically
proactive HRD that features generative learn-
ing as central in creating future strategic al-
ternatives. Other prominent trends in this
same vein include emerging foci on self-di-
rected learning, informal learning (Marsick &
Watkins, 1990), personalized individual learn-
ing and development plans, and coaching.
There has also been increased attention
on HRD implications for knowledge manage-
ment systems designed to capture, store, and
share learning as well as on an expanded no-
tion of the corporate university (CU; Phillips,
1999). The CU of the future, though, is con-
ceptualized as a process, not a place, where
all levels of employees, customers, and sup-
pliers participate in a variety of learning expe-
riences to improve performance and enhance
organizational impact (Phillips, 1999). Fi-
nally, Walton (1999) focuses on how HRD
can play a role in creating synergy among and
between subsystems of an organization as
well as between organizations in globalization
strategies (including global sourcing, train-
ing, team building, mentoring, career devel-
opment, learning systems, and culture-work).
The State of OD (Mid-1990s-Current). In
OD, we see an increased focus on organiza-
tional transformation or second-order change,
which Levy & Merry (1986) define as a
"multi-dimensional, multi-level, qualitative,

discontinuous, radical organizational change
involving a paradigmatic shift" (p. 5). This
focus on facilitating massive and sometimes
revolutionary change is a departure from OD's
traditional evolutionary and incremental ap-
proaches. The need for this kind of change
has also ignited the emergence of multiple
methodologies for (a) whole systems change
and interventions (Dannemiller Tyson Associ-
ates, 2000; Weisbord, 1992) as well as (b) vi-
sioning, future search (Weisbord, 1992), and
scenario planning (Van der Heijden, 1997),
which are designed to help organizations look
to the future in a more agile way and learn and
act differently as a result.
There are increased calls for OD to be in-
creasingly "inter"—that is, working in be-
tween persons, organizations, and cultures
(Burke, 1997)—and this "inter-focus" has
spurred a renewed emphasis on diversity, es-
pecially across cultural boundaries as well as
occupational communities (Schein, 1997).
Transorganizational development has also
begun to emerge as OD professionals develop
methodologies aimed at helping organizations
develop collective and collaborative strategies
with other organizations (Cummings & Wor-
ley, 2001). In addition, organizational learn-
ing is increasingly emphasized as OD focuses
on collective learning and organizational
growth. Schein (1997) speculates that we'll
see "even more blending of systems thinking,
cognitive psychology, and organization devel-
opment approaches under one label, probably

the 'learning' label" (p. 17) and predicts that
"OD as a distinctive field of interventions
based on behavioral science concepts with a
humanistic overtone will increasingly become
blended with the broader field of organiza-
tional learning and will develop broader con-
cepts and methods" (p. 18).
Strategically Proactive Period Analysis. The
shape of this period is emerging even while
this article is written. It is clear that what is be-
ginning to characterize this period is HRM,
HRD, and OD needing to be extremely at-
tuned and responsive to the external climate
and markets of an organization. Rather than
simply reacting to the external climate along
with organizational stakeholders, these emerg-
ing professions will need to be out scouting it
and anticipating future trends. In addition, the
emphasis for a strategically proactive role must
be on integrated, systemic interventions that
develop and leverage an adaptable, agile work-
force. The key to an agile workforce seems to
be a genuine focus on learning at the individ-
ual, group, and organizational levels and the
development of holistic organizational systems
that translate learning into unique and strate-
gic core organizational competencies.
All of these trends suggest the need for
HR professionals to have an expanded base
of knowledge in business and the ability to
The Making of Twenty-First-Century HR • 59

integrate HR knowledge to create business
alternatives. They must demonstrate mastery
not only of their specialized (HRM, HRD,
and OD) practices, but, most importantly,
how they fit together. They must also possess
broader business knowledge and skills in-
cluding a working knowledge of other busi-
ness units, a fundamental understanding of
an organization's core business, its environ-
ment and competition, value creation, and
strategy (Magretta, 2002).
An Analysis of These Evolutions:
Convergence toward Collective Futures
It is clear that HRM, HRD, and OD have
"grown up" as distinctive fields in their own
right, and yet it is vitally important to under-
stand this growth in context and not under-
estimate the similarities and interdependen-
cies that have emerged between the fields
during the past 40-plus years. A "snapshot"
look at these evolutions is provided in Figure
3 to summarize the historical review pre-
sented in this article and highlight the
changing nature of work in each field during
the past 50-plus years. The unfolding of key
trends in HRM, HRD, and OD provided in
this article draws out four major themes that
indicate a clear convergence and the birth of
a new twenty-first-century HR:
• Increased centrality of people to or-
ganizational success;

• Focus on whole systems and inte-
grated solutions;
• Strategic alignment and impact; and
• Capacity for change.
These areas of convergence are de-
scribed below.
Increased Centrality of People to
Organizational Success
Undoubtedly the most powerful force affect-
ing these three fields is the increased cen-
trality of people to organizational success
(Brockbank, 1999). The emergence of re-
source-based views of organizations (Barney,
2001; Wright et al., 2001) has placed in-
creasing importance on the intellectual and
social capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998)
underlying an organization's core competen-
cies. This has been a key force driving the de-
mand for and growth of HRM, HRD, and
OD. Organizational leaders are finally tuning
into the idea that people are vitally important
in the execution of their strategic intent.
Focus on Whole Systems and Integrated
Solution

s
It is clear that these three fields have become
increasingly systemic during their evolutions.
Each has recognized the need for a systems
perspective and responded with increasingly
comprehensive, integrated, coordinated, and
dynamic approaches. By definition, this has
almost required that HRM, HRD, and OD in-
tegrate their efforts. This enhanced systems
perspective is also the most viable explanation
as to why the distinctions between these fields
seem to be blurring and the "new" HR has
emerged. Given the pull toward a strategically
proactive role, the challenge for HRM, HRD,
and OD is to continue to develop innovative
systems that
create a synergistic effect rather than de-
velop a set of independent best practices ...
where independent sub-functions (of the or-
ganization) are viewed as interrelated com-
ponents of a highly interdependent system.
The interrelatedness of these systems com-
ponents makes the advantage difficult, if

not impossible, for competitors to identify
and copy. (Barney & Wright, 2001, p. 40)
Strategic Alignment and Impact
Organizational leaders began evaluating the
contributions of HRM, HRD, and OD during
the late 1970s, and continued that call
throughout the 1980s and early 1990s as they
emphasized strategic alignment. The focus is
now on producing real strategic impact—that
is, processes and interventions that are aligned
with both planned and emergent strategy and
that provide clear, concrete, and qualifiable
value. Indeed, in most cases, the results must
be quantifiable. Each field has had to tackle
the challenge of creating metrics that effec-
tively demonstrate their contributions. Most of
/t is clear that
HRM, HRD,
and OD have
"groxvn up" as
distinctive
fields in their

own right, and
yet it is vitally
important to
understand this
growth in
context and not
underestimate
the similarities
and interde-
pendencies that
have emerged
hetween ihe
fields during
the past 40-plus
years.
There is great
synergy hetween
these fields and
it must he
tapped even

more strongly
as we aim to
significantly
contribute to
organizational
strategy and
results.
the actual responsihility for those indicators
is shared hetween HRM, HRD, and OD in
many organizations today. Twenty-first cen-
tury HR has hecome more integrated hy its
measurement efforts, and it is expected that
the importance of these efforts will only in-
crease in the coming years. This is all heing
driven hy increased pressure to work on is-
sues that are most important to the husi-
ness and to provide organizational leaders
with understandahle information that helps
them to make hetter and more strategic de-
cisions ahout the workforce. Ultimately, we
must work together to enhance HR's capac-
ity to contrihute to organizational and fi-
nancial performance.

Ca-pacityfor Change
It is also clear from this analysis that there
has heen an increased focus on enhancing
an organization's capacity for change. Today's
organizations must thrive in complex and un-
predictahle environments and must he ex-
tremely agile. This demands the develop-
ment and implementation of structures and
processes that facilitate incremental, and, in
many cases, transformational change. It has
also meant an increasing focus on organiza-
tional culture as a central factor that facili-
tates or inhihits an organization's capacity for
change. Change and culture simply cannot
he effectively addressed hy solutions pro-
posed from HRM, HRD, and OD that are
not integrating their hest contrihutions in
new and innovative ways.
Implications for HR of the Twenty-First
Century
One of the important lessons gained from
this analysis of the evolutions of HRM,

HRD, and OD is that these fields must con-
sider how they are interrelated and how, to-
gether, they comprise the HR of the twenty-
first century. This section outlines key
implications for the fields, organizations,
and individual practitioners. It also surfaces
several themes that threaten the future via-
hility of twenty-first-century HR that
should he managed as we move forward as a
united force.
Implications for the Professions
It is simply no longer viahle to insist that
these three fields are as distinct as they once
were. Indeed, Brockhank & Ulrich (2003)
found in their study of HR competencies
that "HR professionals in high-performing
firms actively translate (husiness) knowledge
in contrihuting to strategic decision making,
developing competitive cultures, making
change happen, and creating market-driven
connectivity" (p. 6). Their findings affirm our
analysis of the historical evolutions of these
fields. There is great synergy hetween these

fields and it must he tapped even more
strongly as we aim to significantly contrihute
to organizational strategy and results.
For us, this leaves little question ahout
how the future will unfold and places a great
onus on each of the fields to unite under a
common umhrella. The term human re-
sources or HR has commonly heen associ-
ated with the field of HRM; however, it
could he redefined to serve as a unifier for
professionals in HRM, HRD, and OD while
also encouraging the growth and profession-
alization of each of the three fields. Or per-
haps this new hyhrid will need to he called
something else altogether? Many organiza-
tions are currently struggling with identify-
ing a new term for this function—one that
helps them to "rehrand" and more accu-
rately depict their role and responsihilities.
We're hearing terms such as talent, people,
and workforce instead of the term human.
However, none of those terms reflect the
kind of process and system work that many
in the fields of HRM, HRD, and OD do

(e.g., performance consultants, organization
development consultants, and strategists).
While much of that work certainly involves
people, the organizational systems are the
primary foci. And, perhaps we'd he hetter off
naming our contrihutions more explicitly hy
using the terms leadership, catalysts, or -part-
ners'? There's no easy answer to this; how-
ever, we predict that there will he a new
term that emerges during the next ten years
to hetter depict and unify these fields.
Creating the necessary synergy hetween
HRM, HRD, and OD vidll he challenging.
Especially in light of the current societal
context of increased professionalization and
specialization (Leicht & Fennell, 2001) that
is being driven by the sheer quantity and
quality of what must be known within each
of the three fields to even achieve "the ba-

sics" today. It is not wise for the fields to en-
tirely blur into each other. However, the sim-
ilarities and differences between them must
be consciously explored and made more
transparent. Each field must become more
conscious of its essential defining qualities,
get clearer about its unique contributions
around people in organizations, and identify
specific areas in which synergy between
HRM, HRD, and OD is necessary. We must
continue to define and distinguish the more-
specialized fields while also creating interde-
pendence, synergy, and pliable boundaries.
How do these fields make this shift? In
this endeavor, we must view these fields as
the communities that comprise them—and
then foster change within them. Professional
associations, for instance, can play an ex-
tremely powerful role. Our associations, both
practitioner and academic, must soften their
boundaries and rethink their purposes and
the structures/processes that support them.
We need more conversation across the fields.
We need more professional special interest

groups that attract each other to our profes-
sional associations. We need to stop dis-
counting the work that we each do or lightly
assuming that "those HRM (or HRD or OD)
people don't know what is needed." Our divi-
siveness is hurting all of us in the organiza-
tions in which we work—and could be our
downfall should we not bind together. We
need to lay out the welcome mat for each
other and create synergies in ways that are
yet to be explored.
In academe, we need programs that
more effectively integrate the fields—espe-
cially since HRD and OD are often housed
outside of more traditional business schools.
Each field can more clearly identify the spe-
cializations inherent in their disciplines,
while together working to define a generalist
role that encompasses the strategic, sys-
temic, change, culture, and business part-
nership attributes that are generalizable for
all three fields. We also need researchers
who inquire into the people and organiza-

tional challenges that organizations face
rather than "claiming them" as uniquely ad-
dressed by HRM, HRD, or OD. We need to
be publishing in each other's journals and
magazines, and tapping each other's insights
more. We need to loosen our tight rein on
"turf and proprietary areas of knowledge
and join together to create a knowledge base
that will best serve the needs of both the
people and the organizations that twenty-
first-century HR is committed to serving.
Implications for HR in Organizations
Organizations are facing unprecedented
challenges. They are increasingly forced to
limit their costs, maximize their returns, and
act strategically in an extremely complex,
global society. Organizations need integrated
and innovative solutions. The potential im-
pact of HR is maximized by a more formally
integrated HRM, HRD, and OD.
We need to tear down whatever walls
have been built between these three fields.

In many organizations today, these three
fields are separated by function, structure,
and, often, reporting relationships. This
does little to foster integrated solutions and,
in our observation, confuses people who
work in the organization. Who are they to
call for what? When HRM, HRD, and OD
are each playing a strategically reactive or
proactive role, it will likely look quite similar
to the layperson who is, in the end, our mu-
tual client. It also fosters duplication of ef-
forts and, most importantly, it inhibits the
development of genuinely integrated peo-
ple/system solutions that are desperately
needed in organizations.
This transition will require an enlight-
ened organizational leadership that is capa-
ble of bringing together these three fields.
These leaders must embody and exhibit
strategically proactive HR. They must be flu-
ent in the core contributions of each field.
They must foster cross-fertilization of con-
cepts and competencies, while also nourish-
ing the uniqueness of each. While the struc-

ture and process of twenty-first-century HR
will be customized to the unique context of
the organization, the message that "HR's all
on the same team" must be resounding!
Organizations
need integrated
and innovative
solutions. The
potential
impact of HR is
maximized hy a
more formally
integrated
HRM, HRD,
and OD.
Our review of
the evolutions
of these three
fields indicates

that achieve-
ment of the
true strategic
partner role to
which HR
aspires requires
the integration
of the expertise
of all three
professions and
that, without
this partner-
ship, this role
will continue to
remain elusive.
Implications for Practitioners
The competencies listed by each field for its
modern professionals are strikingly similar.
An effective professional in HRM, HRD, and
OD is now asked to master the basics as effi-
ciently as possible while also becoming busi-
ness-sawy, strategic, systemic, and adept at
designing systems for change and more agile

cultures. Each of the most recent compe-
tency studies in the three fields emphasizes
these areas quite prominently (see Brock-
bank & Uirich, 2003, for HRM; Rothwell,
1999, for HRD; and Sullivan, Rothwell, &
Worley, 2001, for OD). It is important to
note that the primary competencies for OD
and HRD are (and have always heen) funda-
mentally related to facilitating and managing
culture and change, which is one of the most
emphasized competencies in the recent
study of HR competencies (Brockbank & Ui-
rich, 2003). One could argue (and more than
a few have!) that HRM has needed to in-
creasingly tap the foundational theories and
practices that OD has spawned in order to
fulfill its strategic mandate.
We predict that those professionals in-
volved in the necessary basics of each field
(those activities that fall into the operationally
reactive and proactive quadrants in Figure 1)
will continue to be quite specialized, while
those professionals striving towards strategi-
cally reactive and proactive roles will continue

to converge in their competencies and contri-
butions. If this is true, then the challenge re-
mains for those working in the strategically re-
active and proactive roles who will continue to
face a paradox of specialization paired with
synergy and interdependence.
These trends suggest the need for HR
professionals to have a strong, working
knowledge of the organization—a fundamen-
tal understanding of an organization's core
husiness, environment and competition,
value propositions, strategy, and various
business units (Magretta, 2002). They must
have the ahility to integrate HR knowledge to
shape and create business alternatives. They
must demonstrate the necessary systemic
view through their mastery of not only their
specialized (HRM, HRD, and OD) practices
but, most importantly, how they all fit to-
gether. We're going to have to let go of our
traditional notion and reverence for the idea
of "expert" and instead understand that to
"...manage the HR function effectively and

also be a trusted advisor to top management,
however, you need depth and breadth—you
need to become a deep generalist" (Gandossy
& Sobel, 2003, p. 288). This will require that
HR professionals have some knowledge in
each of the areas within HR that are not
their specialties. They must integrate the
best that we each know on culture and
change management. Our review of the evo-
lutions of these three fields indicates that
achievement of the true strategic partner
role to which HR aspires requires the inte-
gration of the expertise of all three profes-
sions and that, without this partnership, this
role will continue to remain elusive.
Potential Divergence?
We see at least three areas that threaten to pull
these fields further apart in the future. These
must each be managed to ensure the future vi-
ahility of HR. First, the emphasis of HRM in
terms of being strategically proactive may be
more external than that of HRD and OD in
terms of impacting future business opportuni-

ties. According to the most recent Human Re-
source Competency Study, HR professionals
from high-performing companies were inte-
grally involved in "strategically connecting the
firm to its external environment" and in creat-
ing "structures and processes to enable the or-
ganizational parts to complement each other
in quickly and collaboratively responding to
key opportunities and threats in the market en-
vironment" (Brockbank & Uirich, 2003, p. 4).
While all three fields seem to be attuned to the
criticality of people in organizations, HRM has
begun to talk in their literature ahout HRM as
a strategic core competency of the organiza-
tion with a distinctively external (versus inter-
nal) focus that includes proactively monitoring
and shaping the organization's responses to the
external environment. We see much less ex-
ploration and developed notions of this in
HRD and OD.
Second, there is a significant amount of
HRM literature that explores what types of
configurations work best as related to environ-

ment, market strategy, culture, structure, and
HR practices in terms of organizational effec-
tiveness measures (see, for example, Delery &
Doty, 1996; Ketchen, Thomas, & Snow, 1993;
Meyer, Tsui, & Hinings, 1993; Miller, 1987;
Miller & Mintzberg, 1984). OD and HRD
have much to contrihute here, yet neither has
produced a significant major focus in this area.
Third, it is important to note that there is
some upheaval in OD about the loss of the
humanistic value base that has rooted it for so
many years (Church, Burke, & Eynde, 1994).
Although there are many professionals in OD
who categorize themselves as strong pragma-
tists and are deeply concerned with strategic
alignment and interventions, a review of the
competency list endorsed by the Organization
Development Network (Sullivan et al., 2001)
reveals very little emphasis on strategic align-
ment or concerns of the business. There

seems to be a palatable resistance by some
leaders in the field to accept the kinds of
strategic roles and responsibilities that HRM
and HRD are increasingly embracing. Should
the field of OD retrench too strongly into the
humanism that roots it, this may be a unique
characteristic that differentiates OD profes-
sionals from those who identify vWth HRM
and HRD. This may result in a distinct splin-
tering of the OD field, with those profession-
als who adopt a strategically proactive role
finding a home in a new twenty-Brst-century
HR that welcomes diversity and invites syn-
ergy among all those who foster the strategic
contribution of people in organizations.
Conclusion
The purpose of this article was to situate the
evolutions of HRM, HRD, and OD in a his-
torical and comparative context. To do this,
the evolutions were traced from their begin-
nings in the early to mid-1900s through the
dawn of the twenty-first century.

We analyze the past to learn from it. Our
histories provide us with great clues of what
is to come. Our histories have led us to this
moment that demands a more strategic HR.
We believe that it is only through synergistic
and unified partnerships that the develop-
ment of twenty-first-century HR will be fos-
tered and that all three fields will continue to
grow and achieve their full potential. In the
words of Ulrich (1998), if this partnership is
achieved, there will be no further need to
ask, "Should we do away with HR?" (p. 124),
as the strategic impact of HR will be assured.
We assert that the whole is greater than the
sum of its parts—and that our "parts" must
continue to be nurtured to maximize the
whole. HRM, HRD, and OD should be en-
couraged to thrive in their individuality, but
not at the great cost of diminishing the
whole of HR's value to organizations.
WENDY E. A. RUONA is an assistant professor of human
resource development (HRD)
at the University of Georgia. Her research interests include

performance systems,
foundations of HR, and strategic HR. She was recently awarded
the Outstanding As-
sistant Professor Award by the University Council for
Workforce and Human Resource
Education and has also been awarded the Richard A. Swanson
Research Excellence
Award. She is the associate editor-in-chief of Advances in
Developing Human Resources
and serves on the board of directors for the Academy of Human
Resource Develop-
ment. She completed her PhD in HRD at the University of
Minnesota in 1999.
SHARON K. GIBSON is an assistant professor of organization
learning and development
at the University of St. Thomas. She is also an instructor for the
division of executive
and professional development in the College of Business. She
received her PhD in
adult education from the University of Minnesota, and holds an
MSW and graduate
certificate in labor and industrial relations from the University
of Michigan. Her re-
search interests focus on mentoring, strategic HR,

phenomenological methodology,
and adult learning. She has over 20 years of business, nonprofit,
and consulting expe-
rience, and has held various management positions in the human
resources field.
REFERENCES
Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based 'theories' of
competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective
on the resource-based view. Journal of Manage-
ment, 27, 643-650.
Barney, J. B., & Wright, P. M. (2001). On becoming
a strategic partner: The role of buman re-
sources in gaining competitive advantage.
Human Resource Management, 37, 31-46.
Bates, S. (2002, July). Facing tbe future. HR Maga-
zine, pp. 26—32.

Beaumont, P. B. (1992). Tbe US buman resource
management literature: A review. In G. Sala-
man, S. Cameron, H. Hamblin, P. lies, C.
Mabey, & K. Tbompson (Eds.), Human re-
source strategies (pp. 20-37). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Becker, B. E., & Cerbart, B. (1996). Tbe impact of
buman resource management on organizational
performance: Progress and prospects. Academy
of Management Journal, 19, 779-801.
Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (1998). Higb per-
formance work systems and firm performance:
A syntbesis of researcb and managerial implica-
tions. Researcb in Personnel and Human Re-
source Management, 16, 53-101.
Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., Pickus, P. S., &
Spratt, M. F. (1997). HR as a source of sbare-
bolder value: Researcb and recommendations.
Human Resource Management, 36, 39—47.
Brockbank, W. (1999). If HR were really strategi-
cally proactive: Present and future directions in

HR's contribution to competitive advantage.
Human Resource Management, 38, 337-352.
Brockbank, W., & Ulricb, D. (2003). Tbe new HR
agenda: 2002 buman resource competency
study (Executive Summary). Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Business Scbool.
Retrieved November 22, 2003, from bttp://
w e b u s e r . b u s . u m i c b . e d u / P r o g r a m s / b r c s /
HRCS2002ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Brown, L. D., & Covey, J. C. (1987). Development
organizations and organization development: An
annual series featuring advances in tbeory,
metbodology and researcb. In R. W. Woodman
& W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Researcb in organiza-
tional cbange and development (Vol. 1, pp.
59-87). New York: JAI Press.
Burke, W. W. (1995). Organization development:
Tben, now and tomorrow. Organization Devel-
opment Journal, 13(4), 7-17.
Burke, W. W (1997). Tbe new agenda for organiza-
tion development. Organization Dynamics,

26(1), 6-20.
Cappelb, P., & Crocker-Hefter, A. (1996). Distinc-
tive buman resources are firms' core competen-
cies. Organizational Dynamics, 24(3), 7-22.
Cburcb, A. (2001). Tbe professionalization of or-
ganization development: Tbe next step in an
evolving field. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pas-
more (Eds.), Researcb in organizational cbange
and development (Vol. 13, pp. 1-42). Amster-
dam: JAI Press.
Cburcb, A. H., Burke, W. W, & Eynde, D. F. V.
(1994). Values, motives, and interventions of
organization development practitioners. Group
and Organization Management, 19(1), 5-50.
Clark, D. (1999). A time capsule of training and
learning. Retrieved January 20, 2004, from
bttp://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/brd/bistory/
bistory.btml
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2001). Organiza-
tion development and cbange (7tb ed.). Cincin-

nati, OH: Soutb-Westem College Publisbing.
Dannemiller Tyson Associates. (2000). Wbole-scale
cbange: Unleasbing tbe magic in organizations.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koebler.
Delaney, J. T, & Huselid, M. A. (1996). Tbe impact
of buman resource management practices on
perceptions of organizational performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 39,
949-969.
Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theo-
rizing in strategic buman resource manage-
ment: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and
configurational performance predictions. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 39, 802-835.
Dixon, N. M. (1994). Tbe organizational learning
cycle: How we can learn collectively. San Diego:
University Associates.
Dyer, L., & Holder, G. W. (1988). A strategic per-
spective of buman resource management. In L.
Dyer & G. W. Holder (Eds.), Human resource

management: Evolving roles and responsibili-
ties (pp. 1-1-1-46). Wasbington, DC: Tbe Bu-
reau of National Affairs Inc.
Freedman, A. (1990). Tbe cbanging buman re-
sources function (Report No. 950). New York:
Tbe Conference Board Inc.
Frencb, W. L., & Bell, J. C. H. (2000). A bistory of
organization development. In W. L. Frencb, J.
C. H. Bell, & R. A. Zawacki (Eds.), Organiza-
tion development and transformation: Manag-
ing effective change (5th ed,, pp. 20—42).
Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Gandossy, R., & Sobel, A. (2003). The HR head as
trusted CEO advisor: Six strategies for becom-
ing a valued partner to senior management. In
M. Effron, R. Gandossy, & M. Goldsmith
(Eds.), Human resources in the 21st century

(pp. 287-294). New York: Wiley.
Gilbert, T. F. (1978). Human competence: Engi-
neering worthy performance. New York: Mc-
Graw-Hill.
Grieves, J., & Redman, T. (1999). Living in the
shadow of OD: HRD and the search for iden-
tity. Human Resource Development Interna-
tional, 2(2), 81-103.
Harris, H. (2000). Defining the future of reliving the
past? Unions, employers, and the challenges of
workplace learning (Information Series #380
and ERIG #: ED440292). Golumbus, OH:
ERIG Glearinghouse on Adult, Gareer, and Vo-
cational Education.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human re-
source management practices on turnover, pro-
ductivity, and corporate financial performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635—672.
Jelinek, M., & Litterer, J. A. (1988). Why OD must
become more strategic. In W. A. Pasmore & R.

W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organization
change and development (Vol. 2, pp. 136—162).
Greenwich, GT: JAI Press.
Ketchen, D. J., Thomas, J. B., & Snow, G. S. (1993).
Organizational configurations and perfor-
mance: A comparison of theoretical ap-
proaches. Academy of Management Journal,
36, 1278-1313.
Lawrence, P. R. (1985). The history of human re-
source management in American industry. In R.
E. Walton & P. R. Lawrence (Eds.), HRM
trends and challenges (pp. 15—34). Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Leicht, K. T, & Fennell, M. L. (2001). Professional
work: A sociological approach. Maiden, MA:
Blackwell.
Levy, A., & Merry, U. (1986). Organizational trans-
formation. New York: Praeger.
MacDonald, J. R. (2003). Profession at a crossroads.
In M. Effron, R. Gandossy, & M. Goldsmith

(Eds.), Human resources in the 21st century
(pp. 259-264). New York: Wiley.
Magretta, J. (2002). What management is: How it
works and why it's everyone's business. New
York: The Free Press.
Marius, R. (1995). A short guide to writing about
history (2nd. ed.). New York: Harper GoUins
Gollege Publishers.
Marquardt, M. J. (1995). Building the learning or-
ganization: A systems approach to quantum im-
provement and global success. New York: Mc-
Graw-Hill.
Marsick, V. A., & Watkins, K. E. (1990). Informal
and incidental learning in the workplace. Lon-
don: Routledge.
McLagan, P. (1989). Models for HRD practice.
Training and Development, 43(9), 49-59.
McNeil, S. (2002). A hypertext history of instruc-
tional design. Retrieved January 20, 2004,

from http://www.coe.uh.edu/courses/cuin6373/
idhistory/
Mello, J. A. (2002). Strategic human resource man-
agement. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Gol-
lege Publishing.
Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, G. R. (1993).
Gonfigurational approaches to organizational
analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36,
1175-1195.
Miller, D. (1987). The genesis of configurations.
Academy of Management Review, 12, 686—701.
Miller, D., & Mintzberg, H. (1984). The case for
configuration. In D. Miller & P. H. Friesen
(Eds.), Organizations: A quantum view (pp.
10-30). Englewood Gliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Miller, V. A. (1996). The history of training. In R.
L. Graig (Ed.), The ASTD training & develop-
ment handbook: A guide to human resource
development (4th ed., pp. 3-18). New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Nadler, L. (1970). Developing human resources.
Houston: Gulf.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital,
intellectual capital, and the organizational ad-
vantage. Academy of Management Review,
23(2), 242-266.
Patel, D. (2002). SHRM workplace forecast: A
strategic outlook 2002-2003. Alexandria, VA:
Society for Human Resource Management.
Pfeffer, J. (1995). Producing sustainable competitive
advantage through the effective management of
people. Academy of Management Executive,
9(1), 55-72.
Phillips, J. J. (1999). HRD trends worldwide. Hous-
ton, TX: Gulf.
Prahalad, G. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core com-
petence of the corporation. Harvard Business
Review, 68(3), 79-92.

Robinson, D. G., & Robinson, J.C. (1995). Perfor-
mance consulting: Moving beyond training. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Rothwell, W. J. (1999). ASTD models for human per-
formance improvement: Roles, competencies,
and outputs (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASTD.
Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1995). Improving
performance: How to manage the white space
in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sammut, A.C. (2001). HR & OD : Highlighting the
need to establish a clear definition of OD. Or-
ganization Development Journal, 19(2), 9-18.
Sanzgiri, J., & Gottlieb, J. Z. (1992). Philosophies
and pragmatic influences on the practice of or-
ganization development 1950-2000. Organiza-
tion Dynamics, 21(2), 57-69.

Sashkin, M., & Burke, W. W. (1990). Organization
development in the 198O's. In F. Massarik
(Ed.), Advances in organization development
(Vol. 1, pp. 315-349). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Schein, E.H. (1997). Organization development and
the organization of the future. Organization De-
velopment Journal, 15(2), 11-19.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and
practice of the learning organization. New York:
Doubleday/Gurrency.
Sleight, D.A. (1993). A developmental history of train-
ing in the United States and Europe. Retrieved
January 20, 2004, from http://www.msu.edu/
-sleightd/trainhst.html
Stolovich, H. D., & Keeps, E. J. (1992). What is
human performance technology. In H. D.
Stolovich & E. J. Keeps (Eds.), Handbook of
human performance technology (pp. 3-13).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sullivan, R., Rothwell, W. J., & Worley, C. G.

(2001). Twentieth edition of the organization
change and development competency effort.
Retrieved November 22, 2003, from http://
www.odnetwork.org/odcompetencies/index.html?
PHPSESSID=63bcfe7fd93548ee41a55bdlb317
6063
Swanson, R. A. (1994). Analysis for improving per-
formance: Tools for diagnosing organizations
and documenting workplace expertise. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2001). Foundations
of human resource development. San Fran-
cisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Swanson, R. A. & Torraco, R. J. (1994). History of
technical training. In L. A. Kelly (Ed.), ASTD
technical and skills training handbook (pp.
1-47). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tichy, N. (1983). Managing strategic change. New
York: Wiley.
Torraco, R. A., & Swanson, R. A. (1995). The strate-

gic roles of human resource development.
Human Resource Planning, 18(4), 10-21.
Ulrich, D. (1997). Human resource champions.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Ulrich, D. (1998). A new mandate for human re-
sources. Harvard Business Review, 76(1),
125-134.
Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W, Yeung, A. K., & Lake,
D. G. (1995). Human resource competencies:
An empirical assessment. Human Resource
Management, 34, 473-495.
Van der Heijden, K. (1997). Scenarios: The art of
strategic conversation. New York: Wiley.
Walton, J. (1999). Strategic human resource de-
velopment. Essex, UK: Prentice Hall.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting
the learning organization: Lessons in the art
and science of systematic change. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Weidner, C. K., & Kulick, O. A. (1999). The pro-
fessionalization of organization development:
A status report and look to the future. In R.
W. Woodman & W A. Pasmore (Eds.), Re-
search in organizational change and develop-
ment (Vol. 12, pp. 319-371). Amsterdam: JAI
Press.
Weinberger, L. (1998). Gommonly held theories of
human resource development. Human Re-
source Development International, 1(1),
75-93.
Weisbord, M. R. (1992). Discovering common
ground. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., & Snell, S. A.
(2001). Human resources and the resource
based view of the firm. Journal of Manage-
ment, 27, 701-721.

Talent Management:
Trends that Will Shape the Future
Fredric D.Frank,Craig R.Taylor,TalentKeepers
|alent management prac-
tices have developed and
adapted throughout the
years in response to
many changes in the workplace,
from the industrial revolution and
ihe rise of labor unions, to affir-
mative action, globalization, and
outsourcing, to name just a few.

The !990s ended with a call-to-
arms to fight "the war for talent."
While the war for talent clearly
iias cooled in the early stages of
ihe 21st century, dampened by
economic doldrums and concerns
with global security, the real battle
to attract, develop, motivate, and
retain talent is going to heat up
considerably. A looming demo-
grapbic time bomb will make talent
management a top priority for
organizations. Tbis article covers

a number of the trends that have
shaped our current practices as
well as those that will contribute
to future strategies.
HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 33
Forma! talent management practices have a
relatively short history but rapid rise as a profe.s-
sion. The Human Resource Planning Society
(HRPS). now in its third decade of service to the
human resource and broader business executive
community, has been committed to improving
organizational performance through the applica-
tion of strategic human resource management
practices, including talent management. HRPS
was preceded by the American Society for
Personnel Administration, founded in 1948. by 28
individuals to provide professional development

for an emerging profession in transition. Today,
renamed the Society for Human Resource
Management (SHRM). that organization has
over 175.000 members (SHRM. 2003).
Talent as a driving foree behind HR"s contri-
butions to organizational success is underscored
by a recent Human Resource Planning article
entitled "The 21st Century Human Resources
Function." Its bold subtitle. "Its the ^ ^ ^ ^ _
Talent, Stupid!.'" further reinforces
the central role of talent in the evolu-
tion of HR"s impact with organizations
they support (Buckingham &
Vosburgh. 2001).
Regardless of an employer's size
or industry, during the last 50 years
waves of change have swept over
organizations. Some of these
changes, such as affirmative action
and related legislation in the United
States or privatization practices in
China, have had a broad and sweep-
ing impaet. forever affecting values,

beliefs, and practices. Others, such as
the movement from traditional train-
ing models to web-based e-learning,
are still in a formative phase and the
full impact on talent management has
yet to be seen.
In a slow or down economy, an intense talent
shortage may be difficult to visualize, yet what
we know about economic cycles and demograph-
ic trends forces us to confront a not-too-distant
future that includes a labor/talent deficit in sup-
ply/demand.
One thing is for sure: Evolutionary, and in
some cases revolutionary, changes are already
underway that will affect permanently how we
approach talent management. Workplaces every-
where are facing an increasingly complex and
ever-changing landscape in their efforts to
acquire, retain, motivate, and develop the talent
The future empha-
sis is likely to shift

from purely individ-
ually oriented
learning, toward
making teams
(often virtual and
sometimes global)
more effective in
working with each
other to meet
common goals.
needed to keep their organizations operating
efficiently and competitively. Talent management
strategists must prepare for what is likely to be a
roller coaster ride.

Recruiting for Talent
Recruiting has undergone major changes.
Historically, recruiting was driven by various
communication channels, including classified ads.
college placement offices, and internal job-post-
ing systems. But the biggest limitation of these
traditional tactics is that, by definition, they are
bound to that channel's geographic distribution.
market, and circulation. Another limitation has
been time—the time to write the ad. place it in
selected media, wait for inquiries, schedule inter-
views or other screening practices, and so on. As
pressure mounts to reduce job vacancy periods
and shorten time-to-productivity measures, time
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ has become the enemy. Technology
has eome to the rescue. The internet
has offered a way to attack time, cost,
and reach simultaneously.
Web recruiting is exploding. In an
effort to find any possible advantage,
both employers and job seekers are

logging on in record numbers.
Monster.com, with 36 percent ofthe
worldwide web career market, is the
largest by far of the plethora of
online career websites. In the third
quarter of 2003. Monster had 16.7
million unique visitors who stayed
an average of 15.6 minutes. By
September 2003, there were 30.7
million active resumes in the Monster
system, up from 19.6 million just a
year earlier (Monster. 2003).
No one would argue that Monster,
Hot Jobs, Career Builder, and the
others are adding value on both sides of the
employment equation by broadening the reach
and accelerating the speed of linking jobs and
applicants. And when you add to the mix other
online screening and analysis tools, including
resume analysis programs, and sophisticated
online pre-employment assessments, the world
of recruiting has changed dramatically.

As all of these tools become more sophisticated.
recruiting in the future may become more deper-
sonalized on the one hand, with large volumes of
applicants being screened by algorithms rather
than judgment, and more personal on the other.
3 4 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING
through the wide use of web phones for immedi-
ate interviews and the greater use of synchronous
video conferencing.
Training and Developing Talent
Learning and performance improvement have
always heen an integral part of talent manage-
ment. Employee training has a long history of
ensuring an organization has a skilled, motivated,
and competent workforce. From orientation pro-
grams and technical training classes experienced
early in one's career, to leadership development
and executive coaching, training and development
is deeply woven into the fabric of talent manage-

ment practices.
During the last 20 years, workplace learning
strategies continued to rely heavily on traditional,
instructor-led, small-group programs in classroom
settings. Even today, while estimates vary, class-
room training still accounts for as much as 72
percent of all workplace learning in the United
States. 77 percent in Europe, 80 percent in Asia,
and 92 percent in Latin America (Sugrue, 2003).
But this period also saw the emergenee of tech-
nology-assisted learning, beginning with basic
computer-based training initiatives to more
advanced interactive video discs and CD-ROMS,
to today's widely used web-based c-learning tools
delivered on everything from notebook computers
to wireless PDAs.
Workplace learning and performance received
a boost in 1990 with the publication of Peter
Senge's The Fifth Discipline. Learning was being
recast and positioned as a key strategic element in
an organization's success, and mueh more than a
tactic aimed at improving job performance. Senge
described a learning organization as one "where

people continually expand their capacity to create
the results they truly desire, where new and
expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured,
where collective aspiration is set free, and where
people are continually learning to see the whole
together" (Senge, 1990).
Achieving this vision proved difficult. With
traditional models of structured, classroom learn-
ing still the norm, learning remained as much
dependent on the skills ofthe facilitator as it did
on the power and value of the content.
Instructional designers and courseware develop-
ers worked hard to create new, interesting, and
engaging methods to motivate and teach, but
achieving the vision of a learning organization
may depend more on the organization itself than
on learning strategies. "'If we are to be effective,
our views and theories of organization must
change," said Pat MeLagan, CEO of McLagan
International. The metamorphosis is from closed
rational systems focused on structure to dynamic
models inspired by new views ofthe universe
that emphasize process and participation

(Galagan. 2003). The future emphasis is likely to
shift from purely individually oriented learning,
toward making teams (often virtual and sometimes
global) more effective in working with each other
to meet common goals. As learning technology
and learning infrastructure continue to grow more
sophisticated, the learning organization may finally
be in reach.
While some barriers to the aggressive growth
of e-leaming remain (bandwidth issues, tor exam-
ple), technology's impact on training will continue
to deepen. ASTD's annual State ofthe Industry
Report shows significant growth in the applica-
tion of learning technologies around the globe, ln
2003. 15 percent of U.S. organizations employed
technology-assisted learning, but that falls short
ofthe global leader, Japan, which reported 20
percent (Sugrue, 2003). IDC. a global IT market
and intelligence firm that tracks e-learning. fore-
casts the worldwide e-learning market will have
grown from $6.6 billion in 2002 to S23.7 billion
in 2006. The report's authors believe web-based
learning will "become the game-changer" in the
future of learning (IDC, 2003).

As we move into the 21st century, traditional
models of workplace learning will change as dra-
matically as any part of the talent management
equation. The dialogue in e-learning circles today
is less about which dimension of the movement,
such as the deveiopment of technical standards or
the quality of content, will most fuel rapid adop-
tion, but more about the synergy of these forces
and how they will build greater momentum
(Taylor, 2002). In a world where job performance
is systematically monitored by a sophisticated
learning management system, short, targeted per-
formance-based lessons can be delivered in real
time and exactly when needed in order to address
specific tasks and skill weaknesses. Unlike in the
past when learning largely took place in settings
away from the actual job. workplace learning will
become more and more integrated into the daily
work flow. Learning technology will facilitate the
combination of improved workplace performance
metrics with compelling, interactive content ulti-
mately to make working and learning a seamless
experience.

m
HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 35
Treating Talent Fairly
Treating talent fairly in all respects is critical
for motivating and retaining employees. Over the
last 30 years in the United States, perhaps no other
area in talent management has received as much
attention and scrutiny as affirmative action.
Looking back 50 years ago, such protections were
rarely afforded employees. For example, there was
no Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the
term "glass ceiling" had not yet been coined.
Affirmative action can be traced far back to
the early days of U.S. history, specifically, to the
14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution,
the Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871. and the
Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 (Jenkins.
1999). A major milestone in the history of affir-
mative action was the passing of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964. It made discrimination illegal in
employment, public accommodations, and pro-
grams financed by the federal government. Added
to this, in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson
issued Executive Order 11246. which authorized
the U.S. Department of Labor to take
"affirmative" action to make sure that
ethnic minorities were treated equally
in terms of employment. The latter
order stimulated programs intended to
resolve bias against ethnic minorities
and women in such areas as hiring,
job promotion, and education (Pollard
&O"Hare, 1999).
Employment litigation is tending
to increase worldwide, such as in Japan (Human
Resources International Report, 2001). Workers'
rights have been enhanced in Europe with the
strengthening of already powerful labor unions
as a result of within-country negotiations as well
as European Union representation.
Race-based discrimination seems to be a
worldwide phenomenon (International Labour

Organization Global Report, 2003). Of course,
issues revolving around fair treatment of employ-
ees are not restricted to racial considerations. Sex
discrimination and sexual harassment in the
workplace have become more widely discussed
concerns around the world during the 1990s, part-
ly because the globalization of business and the
push of regional economic alliances, such as the
European Union, have driven the need for com-
mon standards {HRI. 2003). In the late 1980s the
term "'glass ceiling" was coined in the United
States to describe the invisible artificial barriers
As the economy
improves, there are
indications that
employees will be
leaving in droves.
created by attitudinal and organizational preju-
dices barring women from top executive jobs

(International Labour Organization, 1998). Glass
ceilings certainly are not limited to the United
States. In Europe (Catalyst. 2002) and in Japan
(PBI Asian HR eNewsletter. 2003), the glass ceil-
ing may be a bigger problem than in the United
States. Organizations like the International
Labour Organization are pushing international
standards to prevent sex discrimination and
harassment (HRI, 2003). And in the aftermath of
September 11, discrimination complaints escalated
around religious and national original discrimina-
tion, particular against Muslims and people of
Arab descent.
Legislation has been enacted with regard to
the disabled and on the basis of age as well. For
example, the ADA, enacted in 1992. was a major
milestone in the protection of workers' rights. But
legislation in the United States has not been the
complete answer. To a large extent, employees
have been disappointed by the rulings of the U.S.
Supreme Court when it comes to the ADA. In
fact, claims filed with the Equal
Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) under the ADA
have dropped significantly between
the 1995 high and 2003 (EEOC,
2003). Disability discrimination has
triggered protection in other parts of
the world which in tum has led to
positive steps by employers. For
example, Japan's mandated require-
ment for quotas on the employment of the disabled
has led most companies represented in Japan to
create programs specifically for the recruitment
and training of the disabled. From a worldwide
perspective, progress in employing the disabled
has, however, been disappointing (HRI. 2002).
Protection based upon age appears to be a global
trend (Employment Discrimination Report, 2000;
Cheung. 2000); as is the case with the disabled.
considerable discrimination continues to exist on
a global scale.
Some conflicting factors will make the future
somewhat difficult to predict in terms of protec-
tion of employees. While courts will need to
reconcile national statutes, and many countries

will move in the direction of western-style
employment protections, some countries, feeling
the pressure to attract more multinationals and
foreign investment, will likely ease up on their
employment laws.
36 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING
Other trends may be part of the future:
1. Laws relating to sex discrimination, and partic-
ularly sexual orientation, will be widespread.
2. Worldwide, laws will be enacted to provide
equal treatment regardless of weight and
height.
3. At least in the United States, virtually the only
group not protected will be white male
Caucasians under 40 years of age.
4. Given widespread labor shortages, solid man-
agerial talent will be scarce, and will result in

breaking through the glass ceiling.
Additionally (because of labor shortages), race
gender, and age-based discrimination in the
workplace will occur much less often.
For practical reasons alone, we can be opti-
mistic that organizations will continue to strive to
treat talent fairly in the years to come. Regardless
of whether this results from simple enlightened
self-interest or some level of social conscience, as
an end result organizations will want to be known
as a place where talent is valued and grown.
Retaining Talent
Perhaps no talent management issue will have
greater importance in the years to come than
employee retention. Historically, employee reten-
tion has not been the issue it is today. In fact.
U.S. median job tenure did not change much
from the 1950s to the end ofthe 1990s
(Yakoboski. 1999).
While the last few years of a down economy
might suggest that turnover has not been a prob-

lem, this has not been the case. From September
2002 through August 2003. a period best charac-
terized as a downswing in the economy, annual
turnover for the United States as a whole, across
all jobs, was 19.2 percent (U. S. Department of
Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2003). This is
true globally as well: for example, Latin
American employers had a difficult time retaining
workers during the slow economy of 2002
(Watson Wyatt. 2002).
Today, a confluence of forces makes the reten-
tion problem critically important. The two major
forces are the down economy of the last few
years and labor and talent shortages. A trouble-
some outct)me ofthe downswing in the economy
and the associated layoffs is that employee com-
mitment and loyalty have been weakened. "It
appears every man. woman and child is ready to
quit their current job at the first opportunity"
(Sullivan, 2003). In terms of labor shortages.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects a labor
shortage of 10 million workers in 2008 (U.S.
Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

20()3). The National Association of Manufacturers.
The Manut^acturing Institute, and Deloitte &
Touche. in their white paper, "Keeping America
Competitive" (2003). project serious shortages in
the manufacturing sector. As The New York Times
reports in its October 12. 2003. issue, "conditions
in the late 90"s may have been a reflection of job
markets to come. And they are coming very
quickly" (Brock. 2003).
A major reason is that the big baby-boom
generation is starting to retire. According to
childstats.gov. in 1964 the percentage of children
in the population under the age of 18 was 36 per-
cent. By 1999. that number dropped to 26 percent
ofthe population and will continue to fall until at
least 2020. At the other end ofthe population
curve, as boomers age. the share of the population
aged 65 or older is projected to increase from 12
percent in 2000 to about 20 percent in 2030 (U.S.
Census). "There simply aren't enough workers
behind the boomers in the labor supply pipeline
to fill their jobs" (Brock. 2003). And it will be
here soon, if not already. By 2005. the impact of
the shortage will be in full swing (Kaihia, 2003).

The impact will be felt globally as well. Labor
shortages in every industrial country will hamper
economic growth (Hewitt. 2{X)2). On a global
scale, "the major social crises ofthe twenty-first
century will be the byproduct of labor shortages"
(Hewitt, 2(X}1). Germany, in particular, will feel
the impact of labor shortages. "Unless Germany
negotiates a new social contract, it will face an
era of fiscal crisis amid widespread labor short-
ages and slower economic growth"(Jackson,
2003). The shortage of skilled workers will be
even more pronounced. And globalization ofthe
workforce is leading to a greater need to compete
effectively against competitors in the battle for
talent (Grantham. 2()()3: Patel. 2002).
As the economy improves, there are indications
that employees will be leaving in droves. A 2003
Society for Human Resource Management and
Wall Street Journal Job Recovery Study indicates
83 percent of employees surveyed said it was
likely they would actively seek new employment
once the job market and economy improved. This
is buttressed by the Conference Board survey

Reflection Paper 1Reflection Paper 2Reflection Paper.docx

Reflection Paper 1Reflection Paper 2Reflection Paper.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Reflection Paper 1Reflection Paper 2Reflection Paper.docx

Similar to Reflection Paper 1Reflection Paper 2Reflection Paper.docx (20)

More from sodhi3

More from sodhi3 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Reflection Paper 1Reflection Paper 2Reflection Paper.docx