HRD Individual Essay Human resource development (HRD) professionals are tasked with the challenge to create a competitive advantage for organisations through investment in human capital. It is therefore imperative for HRD professionals to employ initiatives that improve the motivation, knowledge and skills of employees which are difficult for competitors to replicate (Hagen, 2012; Kim, 2014). Coaching in the workplace is becoming a widely used intervention to help organisations achieve these goals (Cox, Bachkirova & Clutterbuck, 2014; Ellinger, Ellinger, Bachrach, Wang & Elmadag Bas, 2011; Ellinger, Ellinger & Keller, 2003; Goldman, Wesner & Karnchanomai, 2013; Hagen & Peterson, 2014; Hui, Sue-Chan & Wood, 2013; Kim, 2014; Ladyshewsky, 2010). However, there is disagreement as to whether coaching sits in the realm of HRD or as a separate business function (Egan & Hamlin, 2014). This is due to coaching being a relatively new intervention which lacks a defined framework, definitive boundaries and the level of research found in an established industry (Egan & Hamlin, 2014). While it is a generally accepted view in academic research that implementation of such a program will result in improvements in performance on both an individual and organisational level, who is responsible for this program and how it should be implemented is widely debated (Hamlin, Ellinger & Beattie, 2008; Hamlin & Stewart, 2011). This review will focus on how managerial coaching fits into the realm of HRD through analysing the effect on not only performance levels but other important HRD concepts and goals such as the learning and meaning of work paradigms as defined by Bates and Chen (2004, 2005). Prior to understanding the link between HRD and managerial coaching, it is imperative to grasp relevant concepts. Human resource development is training and development and organisation development initiatives with the intended outcome being enhancement of performance for both the individual and the organisation (Hamlin & Stewart, 2011; McGraw & Peretz, 2011; Young Sung & Choi, 2014). Although there are multiple definitions in the literature, consistently coaching is defined as intentionally guiding the individual, group or organisation to achieve performance improvements as well as growth and development on a personal level (Baker, 2010; Beattie, Kim, Hagen, Egan, Ellinger & Hamlin, 2014; Goldman et al. 2013; Hamlin & Stewart, 2011; Rock & Donde, 2008; Rowold, 2008). On the surface, the definitions of coaching and HRD both focus on the same outcome so obviously must be linked. The analysis of the two concepts is however not so straight forward. Managerial coaching is facilitated by a manager or supervisor within the organisation (Ellinger et al. 2011; Hagen, 2012; Hagen & Aguilar, 2012; Kim, 2014; Kim, Egan & Moon, 2014). Performance is usually aligned with productivity and relates to how effectively an employee carries out their specific role in the organisation (Ellin ...

1. HRD Individual Essay
Human resource development (HRD) professionals are tasked
with the challenge to create a competitive advantage for
organisations through investment in human capital. It is
therefore imperative for HRD professionals to employ
initiatives that improve the motivation, knowledge and skills of
employees which are difficult for competitors to replicate
(Hagen, 2012; Kim, 2014). Coaching in the workplace is
becoming a widely used intervention to help organisations
achieve these goals (Cox, Bachkirova & Clutterbuck, 2014;
Ellinger, Ellinger, Bachrach, Wang & Elmadag Bas, 2011;
Ellinger, Ellinger & Keller, 2003; Goldman, Wesner &
Karnchanomai, 2013; Hagen & Peterson, 2014; Hui, Sue-Chan
& Wood, 2013; Kim, 2014; Ladyshewsky, 2010). However,
there is disagreement as to whether coaching sits in the realm of
HRD or as a separate business function (Egan & Hamlin, 2014).
This is due to coaching being a relatively new intervention
which lacks a defined framework, definitive boundaries and the
level of research found in an established industry (Egan &
Hamlin, 2014). While it is a generally accepted view in
academic research that implementation of such a program will
result in improvements in performance on both an individual
and organisational level, who is responsible for this program
and how it should be implemented is widely debated (Hamlin,
Ellinger & Beattie, 2008; Hamlin & Stewart, 2011). This review
will focus on how managerial coaching fits into the realm of
HRD through analysing the effect on not only performance
levels but other important HRD concepts and goals such as the
learning and meaning of work paradigms as defined by Bates
and Chen (2004, 2005).
Prior to understanding the link between HRD and managerial
coaching, it is imperative to grasp relevant concepts. Human

2. resource development is training and development and
organisation development initiatives with the intended outcome
being enhancement of performance for both the individual and
the organisation (Hamlin & Stewart, 2011; McGraw & Peretz,
2011; Young Sung & Choi, 2014). Although there are multiple
definitions in the literature, consistently coaching is defined as
intentionally guiding the individual, group or organisation to
achieve performance improvements as well as growth and
development on a personal level (Baker, 2010; Beattie, Kim,
Hagen, Egan, Ellinger & Hamlin, 2014; Goldman et al. 2013;
Hamlin & Stewart, 2011; Rock & Donde, 2008; Rowold, 2008).
On the surface, the definitions of coaching and HRD both focus
on the same outcome so obviously must be linked. The analysis
of the two concepts is however not so straight forward.
Managerial coaching is facilitated by a manager or supervisor
within the organisation (Ellinger et al. 2011; Hagen, 2012;
Hagen & Aguilar, 2012; Kim, 2014; Kim, Egan & Moon, 2014).
Performance is usually aligned with productivity and relates to
how effectively an employee carries out their specific role in
the organisation (Ellinger et al., 2011; Kim, 2014). Bates and
Chen (2004, 2005) also discussed how HRD is responsible for
individual, team and organisational learning and that life-long
learning should be part of the culture of the organisation. They
expressed this responsibility as the learning paradigm (Bates &
Chen, 2004, 2005). Finally the third dimension outlined by
Bates and Chen (2004, 2005) is the meaning of work paradigm.
They explained this as the requirement to develop the whole
person as well as how a person experiences work, as well as
how HRD is linked to the wellbeing of organisations,
community, society and the entire world (Bates & Chen, 2004,
2005). There are contrasting arguments as to which paradigms
are most important in the practice of HRD. Hurt, Lynham and
McLean (2014) found a total of 18 paradigms within the
literature. This makes it difficult for academics and
practitioners to agree on the purpose of HRD (Hurt et al., 2014;
Ghosh, Kim, Kim & Callahan, 2014).

3. The literature argues that managerial coaching will have a
positive effect on individual performance (Agarwal et al., 2009;
Baker, 2010; Ellinger et al., 2011; Ellinger et al., 2003; Hagen
& Aguilar, 2012; Kim et al., 2014; Swart & Harcup, 2012). As
HRD practitioners are responsible for employee training plans,
they must decide if coaching will be a better alternative to
traditional group training methods. Research conducted by Kim
et al. (2014) found that coaching interventions resulted in a rise
in employee productivity of 167%, substantially greater than
improvements made as a result of in-class training initiatives.
However Baker (2010) demonstrated that coaching is a tool to
develop performance rather than a method of training. Hagen
(2012) along with Hagen and Aguilar (2012) suggested that
performance improvements can be attributed to the coach
challenging, discussing and providing direction to employees.
This in turn creates a more knowledgeable and empowered
employee, motivated to contribute discretionary behaviour to
the organisation. Coaching interventions also provide greater
clarity of position requirements for an employee (Kim, 2014).
This leads to improvement in their performance objectives.
Coaching links to successful employee results through an entire
performance management program (Hagen, 2012). The study by
Kim (2014) also found that managerial coaching used in
combination with performance management techniques and 360
degree feedback system, yielded that greatest result in
productivity. As coaching is a developmental tool, consistently
used each week, it ensures employee’s have a clear
understanding of their progress in comparison to yearly
performance appraisals (McCarthy & Milner, 2013). There is
however, confusion in the literature as to the difference between
performance appraisals and performance management. Hui et al.
2013 linked coaching with performance appraisal where
Ladyshewsky (2010) demonstrated that coaching lies within a
performance management system and a performance appraisal is
a review based on a quantifiable set of criteria.
There are many individual behavioural factors that contribute to

4. the coaching experience. Therefore not all studies have
produced improvement in performance. Rowold (2008) found
that coaching did increase job satisfaction but not performance.
Ellinger et al. (2011) found that coaching was most successful
in situations of low coaching rather than high coaching. They
suggested that rather than use coaching as a developmental tool
for all employees, selection should focus on employees who
show poor levels of performance or those that are most likely to
be promoted. However, when implementing such a strategy
HRD must find other avenues to support employees who don’t
fit into either of these categories. If employees feel unsupported
by management they could experience decreased job
satisfaction, low motivation levels and higher turnover
intentions leading to a negative effect on productivity and
performance. It is also imperative to look at how coaching
affects performance of the manager in the coaching relationship.
A manager can spend a great deal of time coaching their
employees, especially if they have many direct reports (Rock &
Donde, 2008). This may result in their own performance levels
being negatively affected due to being able to satisfactorily
complete the remainder of their workload. This was
demonstrated by Kim (2014) who stated that managers did not
have the required resources to complete all areas of their
responsibilities as well as coaching interventions.
Kim et al. (2014) demonstrated that managerial coaching
improves the financial performance of an organisation through
productivity increases. Many believed that improvements made
to individual performance will flow through to increase
organisational performance (Hagen, 2012; Hagen & Aguilar,
2012). Therefore it is suggested that new managers should be
appointed based on coaching behaviours as well as traditional
promotion attributes such as technical knowledge, organisation
and communication skills (Ellinger et al, 2011; Hagen &
Aguilar, 2012; Kim, 2014). This is vital as managers are
becoming increasingly responsible for implementing coaching
initiatives (Ellinger et al, 2011). Kim (2014) also found that

5. employees who have been coached feel more supported and
display greater commitment behaviours to the organisation. The
increased level of commitment will result in improvement to the
organisation’s overall results. Rock and Donde (2008) agree;
although they argued that higher organisation commitment
reduces an employee’s turnover intentions. Rather than
attributing improved financial performance to higher
productivity, they believe that lower overhead costs following
reduced turnover is the source of improved organisational
performance. For managerial coaching initiatives to be
successful; they must be linked to business strategy (Agarwal,
Angst & Magni, 2009; Gibb & Wallace, 2014). Agarwal, Angst
and Magni (2009) found that if the strategic goals of the
organisation do not value coaching; managers will view
coaching as a barrier rather than an important intervention in
fostering employee growth. This is where HRD practitioners
need to champion the coaching intervention and provide a clear
link with the strategic goals of the organisation. The champion
should have experience in a coaching relationship and have a
coaching qualification (McCarthy & Milner, 2013).
Ladyshewsky (2010) suggested that contemporary organisations
have been focussing on short term bottom line results. Although
coaching is an intervention that has a specific goal and
timeframe, an organisation focussed on short term results is at
odds with managerial coaching. Ladyshewsky (2010) and
Hagen (2012) both argued that organisations must shift focus
back to developing relationships, they will then benefit from
long term improvements to organisational performance.
Learning is a primary goal in coaching interventions.
Performance will only improve once effective learning has
taken place (Ellinger et al. 2011; Hagen, 2012). Wang (2013)
found that tacit knowledge is effectively passed on through the
coaching process. Kim (2014) agreed; however reported that
both tacit and explicit knowledge is passed down the
organisation hierarchy through the use of coaching. A benefit of
this type of work relationship is that institutional history will

6. not be lost as those employees at retiring age will have passed
their knowledge onto the next generation. As the learning
paradigm describes, a HRD professional’s role is to improve
learning on both the individual and organisational level.
Therefore an effective coaching program can achieve this goal.
It is widely established that coaching will not have the desired
effect unless the culture of the organisation accepts it as an
effective intervention in the learning process (Gray, Ekinci &
Goregaokar, 2011). Coaching can support life-long learning in
an organisation (Ellinger et al. 2003). When coaching is
integrated into the culture of the organisation and that
organisation supports life-long learning, everyone is either
acting as a coach, being coached or for middle management,
performing both roles (Agarwal et al. 2009; McCarthy &
Milner, 2013). In contrast to this view, Baker (2010) believed
that such a culture of coaching could over extend the
employee’s learning function resulting in negative performance
and suggested use of the 360 degree feedback system is most
beneficial to the employee. Beattie et al (2014) suggested that
more studies are needed that focus of how the role of coach can
improve a manager’s own learning. Cox et al. (2014)
demonstrated how theory related to learning for HRD
practitioners can relate to coaching. In contrast, Swart and
Harcup (2012) suggested that the current body of research does
not provide evidence as to how coaching affects organisational
learning.
Contemporary employees are increasingly seeking meaning
from their role in the workplace. Goldman et al. (2013) found
that performing the role of coach improved an individual’s
belief in their own abilities and developed the coach
concurrently with the coachee. They state that coaching “clearly
provides emotional, functional and developmental value to those
so engaged” (Goldman et al. 2013: 85). This is due to the fact
that as the subject matter can be confronting, it requires
someone to have a high level of emotional understanding as
well as being aware of their own strengths and weaknesses

7. (Day, 2010). According to Kim (2014) managerial coaching can
meet the meaning of work paradigm by providing employees
with the opportunity to look at their job on a deeper level which
results in higher levels of self-improvement and awareness. On
a larger scale, managers have been able to transfer the skills
learnt during coaching interventions to their outside home life.
This includes assisting with managing issues associated with
raising children, broader community activities and even in
retirement (Rock & Donde, 2014). However, due to
overextended workloads, some find it difficult to schedule
coaching activities (Egan & Hamlin, 2014; Goldman et al. 2013;
Kim, 2014; Ladyshewsky, 2010). In this instance coaching
would not provide meaning. McLean, Yang, Kuo, Tolbert and
Larkin (2005) agreed that managerial coaching results in
increased levels of stress for managers rather than providing
meaning to their work. Also, if coaching is provided selectively
to poor performers or high performers, those in the middle band
may view their work as being less meaningful. Ellinger et al.
(2011) found specific coaching activities unnecessary all
together, instead they suggested that businesses strive to foster
an organisational culture which values many coaching
behaviours such as teamwork, trust and an environment where
knowledge is shared among employees.
Not all literature supports the contention that managerial
coaching improves performance. As highlighted previously,
many argue that coaching needs to move to a genuine profession
through the development of values and boundaries, and further
empirically tested studies to provide valuable information for
HRD practitioners (Egan & Hamlin, 2014; Hamlin, Ellinger &
Beattie, 2008; Hamlin & Stewart, 2011). This movement is
further stressed as many coaching professionals do not associate
themselves with HRD (Hamlin et al. 2008; Hamlin & Stewart,
2011). Hui, Sue-Chan and Wood (2013) argue that the existing
body of research doesn’t effectively link theory to demonstrate
how and why coaching is successful. Kim (2014) agreed,
reporting that the lack of theories or models proves that there is

8. no certain outcome from the use of coaching. The success of
coaching is dependent on how capable the manager is in
providing value to the employee (Baker, 2010). Managers are
often not interested in developing employees through coaching
initiatives. This is due to a number of factors. These include the
manager lacking skills, fear of extra competition for
management positions, not being rewarded extrinsically for
coaching activities or too many direct reports (Kim, 2014;
Ladyshewsky, 2010; McLean et al. 2005).
In conclusion, it has been established that the responsibility of
managerial coaching initiatives clearly sits within the realm of
the HRD practitioner. As movement towards a genuine coaching
profession gains momentum, HRD professionals should look to
empirically tested literature as well as providing a clear link
between managerial coaching initiatives and the organisation’s
strategic goals (Agarwal, Angst & Magni, 2009; Gibb &
Wallace, 2014). It is the responsibility of HRD conduct a
thorough analysis to ensure it is the most effective development
tool as well as champion coaching initiatives. HRD practitioners
should open communication channels and both listen and act on
feedback received in relation to the program. This will assist
both those being coach and the coaches develop, learn, find
meaning to their work and improve both individual and
organisation performance levels. Managerial coaching should be
used in conjunction with performance management initiatives to
ensure role clarity and employees feel supported by
management (Kim, 2014). Coaching is a successful HRD
intervention when implemented in the right situations. It can
improve performance, meaning of work and assist an
organisation moving towards lifelong learning as well as
provide alternatives to managing situations an employee or
manager may face externally to the organisation (Cox et al.
2014; Rock & Donde, 2008). However the industry would
benefit from more research of the effects of coaching on the
other paradigms found in HRD literature. It is for these reasons
that HRD practitioners should look towards developing a greater

9. understanding of managerial coaching and an overall drive for a
genuine coaching profession (Egan & Hamlin, 2014).
References
Agarwal, R., Angst, C.M. & Magni, M. 2009. The performance
effects of coaching: A multilevel analysis using hierarchical
linear modelling. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 20: 2110-2134
Baker, N. 2010. Employee feedback technologies in the human
performance system. Human Resource Development
International, 13: 477-485
Bates, R. & Chen, H-C. 2005. Value priorities of human
resource development professionals. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 16: 345-368
Beattie, R.S., Kim, S., Hagen, M.S., Egan, T.M., Ellinger, A.D.
& Hamlin, R.G. 2014. Managerial coaching: A review of the
empirical literature and development of a model to guide future
practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16: 184-
201
Cox, E., Bachkirova, T. & Clutterbuck, D. 2014. Theoretical
traditions and coaching genres: Mapping the territory. Advances
in Developing Human Resources, 16: 139-160
Day, A. 2010. Coaching at relational depth: A case study.
Journal of Management Development, 29: 864-876
Egan, T. & Hamlin, R.G. 2014. Coaching, HRD, and relational

10. richness: Putting the pieces together. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 16: 242-257
Ellinger, A.D., Ellinger, A.E., Bachrach, D.G., Wang, Y-L. &
Elmadag Bas, A.B. 2011. Organisational investments in social
capital, managerial coaching, and employee work-related
performance. Management Learning, 42: 67-85
Ellinger, A.D., Ellinger, A.E. & Keller, S.B. 2003. Supervisory
coaching behaviour, employee satisfaction, and warehouse
employee performance: A dyadic perspective in the distribution
industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14: 435-458
Ghosh, R., Kim, M., Kim, S. & Callahan, J.L. 2014. Examining
the dominant, emerging and waning themes featured in select
HRD publications. Is it time to redefine HRD? European Journal
of Training and Development, 38: 302-3
Gibb, S. & Wallace, M. 2014. Soul mates or odd couples?
Alignment theory and HRD. European Journal of Training and
Development, 38: 286 – 301
Goldman, E., Wesner, M. & Karnchanomai, O. 2013. Reciprocal
peer coaching: a critical contributor to implementing individual
leadership plans. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 24:
63-87
Gray, D.E., Ekinci, Y. & Goregaokar, H. 2011. Coaching SME
managers: Business development or personal therapy? A mixed
methods study. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 22: 863-882
Hagen, M. S. 2012. Managerial coaching: A review of the
literature. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 24(4): 17-39
Hagen, M.S. & Peterson, S.L. 2014. Coaching scales: A review

11. of the literature and comparative analysis. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 16: 222-241
Hagen, M. & Aguilar, M.G. 2012. The impact of managerial
coaching on learning outcomes within the team context: An
analysis. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23: 222-241
Hamlin, R.G., Ellinger, A.D. & Beattie, R.S. 2008. The
emergent ‘coaching industry’: A wake up call for HRD
professionals. Human Resource Development International, 11:
287-305
Hamlin, B. & Stewart, J. 2011. What is HRD? A definitional
review and synthesis of the HRD domain. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 35: 199-220
Holton III, E.F. 2002. Theoretical assumptions underlying the
performance paradigm of human resource development. Human
Resource Development International, 5: 199-215
Hui, R.T., Sue-Chan, C. & Wood R.E. 2013. The contrasting
effects of coaching style on task performance: The mediating
roles of subjective task complexity and self-set goal. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 24: 429-458
Hurt, A.C., Lynham, S.A. & McLean, G.N. 2014. Investigating
the HRD cube and explicating extant paradigms of HRD.
European Journal of Training and Development, 38: 323-346
Kim, S. 2014. Assessing the influence of managerial coaching
on employee outcomes. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 25: 59-85
Kim, S., Egan, T.M. & Moon, M.J. 2014. Managerial coaching
efficacy, work related attitudes and performance in public
organisations: A comparative international study. Review of

12. Public Personnel Administration, 34: 237-262
Ladyshewsky, R.K. 2010. The manager as coach as a driver of
organisational development. Leadership and Organisation
Development Journal, 31: 292-306
McCarthy, G. & Milner, J. 2013. Managerial coaching:
challenges, opportunities and training. Journal of Management
Development, 32: 768-779
McLean, G.N., Yang, B., Kuo, M-H.C., Tolbert, A.S. & Larkin,
C. 2005. Development and initial validation of an instrument
measuring managerial coaching skill. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 16: 157-178
McGraw, P. & Peretz, M. 2011. HRD practices in local private
sector companies and MNC subsidiaries in Australia, 1996-
2009. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 22: 2539-2557
Rock, D. & Donde, R. 2008. Driving organisational change with
internal coaching programs: part one. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 40: 10-18
Rowold, J. 2008. Multiple effects of human resource
development interventions. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 32: 32-44
Swart, J. & Harcup, J. 2012. ‘If I learn do we learn? The link
between executive coaching and organisational learning.
Management Learning, 44: 337-354
Wang, Y-L. 2013. R&D employees’ innovative behaviours in
Taiwan: HRM and managerial coaching as moderators. Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 51: 491-515

13. Young Sung, S. & Choi, J.N. 2014. Multiple dimensions of
human resource development and organisational performance.
Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 35: 851-870
1
Assessment and Feedback Details
Assessment Task
Due Date
%
SILOs Assessed
Individual Essay (2500 words)
Monday 24th April 5:00 pm
30
ILO 1,2,3,4
Submission Details
Essays are due Monday April 24 by 5:00 pm. Essays will be
submitted in LMS via Turnitin. Further details of the
submission process will be provided in lectures.
Grading Criteria and Feedback
The essay will help you to build your writing and critical
thinking skills, and should reflect the principles of scholarly
work. This requires a critical analysis of relevant concepts and
the presentation of an argument. The presentation of a list of
facts, which are not analysed or evaluated, will not normally
attain a pass grade. You should support your contention with
relevant academic literature on HRD. You must include
references to a minimum of 20 academic, peer-reviewed journal
articles.
The essay assignment is approximately 2500 words (not
including title page, references, or ancillary materials) and is
worth 30 marks.

14. Grading criteria for this assessment is contained in the Rubric
below.
All reference material must be appropriately cited in the text of
your essay. Include a separate reference section that includes
the full citation information. Follow the style guidelines for the
Academy of Management Journal. Note that Wikipedia and
similar websites are NOT acceptable sources of information for
this assignment.
Your essay must be typed and have standard margins on all
sides. Double spacing or 1.5 line spacing are preferred.
It is essential that your essay is written in a neat, professional,
and engaging manner. Check your writing for accuracy in
spelling, grammar and punctuation. Convey your ideas in a
clear, concise manner, and use appropriate transitions between
ideas and sections. The analysis of the identified HRD
challenges, assessment of HRD aspects performed well and
recommendations to improve HRD and its impact on both
individual and organisational performance must be informed by
the academic research literature. La Trobe University has many
resources to help you develop your writing skills. Please see
the Subject coordinator or your tutor if you need help.
Description of Task
Select an organisation of your choice. Ideally, you should
select an organisation where you currently work or have worked
in the past, or an organisation that you would like to work for in
the future.
Drawing on your understanding of the industry, the
organisation, and the HRD challenges you have experienced or
identified and key HRD theoretical frameworks, examine the
HRD process in your selected organisation.
In your answer, consider:
· What are the key challenges of using HRD in the organisation?
· What aspects of HRD are done well in the organisation?
· What recommendations would you give to the organisation to
improve HRD and its impact on both individual and

15. organisational performance?