acceptance speech, Nobel Prize winner Harold Pinter (2005) acknowledges the fluid constructed reality in which we live and work: âWhen we look into a mirror, ...
eResearch: the open access repository of the research output of Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh This is an author-formatted version of document published as:
Garavan, T.N., O’Donnell, D., McGuire, D. &Watson, S. (2007): “Exploring Perspectives on Human Resource Development: An Introduction”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 9, No. 1, p. 3-11.
Accessed from: http://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/262/
Repository Use Policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit purposes providing that: • • •
The full-text is not changed in any way A full bibliographic reference is made A hyperlink is given to the original metadata page in eResearch
eResearch policies on access and re-use can be viewed on our Policies page: http://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/policies.html
Copyright © and Moral Rights for this article are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners.
http://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk
Issue Overview
_____________________________________________________________________
Exploring Perspectives on Human Resource Development: An Introduction Thomas N. Garavan David O’Donnell David McGuire Sandra Watson The problem and the solution. This issue overview presents a brief justification for adopting a multi-perspectival approach to theory and practice in HRD. It is argued that such an approach has the potential to add both theoretical depth and breadth to HRD discourse as well as contributing to reflective HRD practice. The contributions are then briefly introduced. Keywords:
Human resource development perspectives; theory & practice
(HRD);
Reference as: Garavan, T.N., O’Donnell, D., McGuire, D. &Watson, S. (2007): “Exploring Perspectives on Human Resource Development: An Introduction”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 9, No. 1, p. 3-11.
Human Resource Development (HRD) is now, and will continue to be, a major academic discipline and a key consideration for workplace development in the 21st century. As an academic field, it is generally accepted that it remains segmented, incomplete and lacking both comprehensiveness and coherence. Diverse theories and models offer competing explanations concerning different HRD components. The current theoretical base is challenging for both academics and practitioners who are concerned with defining boundaries and delineating practice. Currently, theoretical explanations can be viewed as falling into four broad general categories: functional,
1
social
constructivist/constructionist,
postmodernist,
and
critical.
Functionalism
remains dominant; social contructivism and social constructionism are emergent as is the postmodernist; and Woodall (2000), for example, laments the limited use of critical theory and critically reflective discourse in exploring and challenging dominant thinking within the field. In both theory and practice issues such as pace of change, globalization, the knowledge economy and technological evolution highlight the central role of learning and development, skills and capabilities, and the value of knowledge for societies, organizations and individuals (Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997; Lepak & Snell, 2003). HRD is addressed in a very broad manner for the purposes of this issue. We focus on multiple perspectives rather than on the learning-performance dichotomy. This polarity dominates the literature; however, within this continuum multiple variations exist which are not always explicitly acknowledged or discussed.
This
issue is premised on the idea that HRD is a multi-perspectival construct. It acknowledges the multidisciplinary nature of HRD (Chalofsky, 2004) and its multiconstituent composition (Hargreaves & Jarvis, 1998; Woodall, Lee & Stewart, 2003). In particular, this issue responds to Holton’s call (2003) to explore alternative and new perspectives on HRD.
Why
Explore
Human
Resource
Development
From
Multiple
Perspectives? Numerous theoretical and empirical contributions assert and highlight the need to both contribute to the development of new theoretical perspectives and to influence practice (Hatcher 1999; Lynham 2002). The HRD field, albeit relatively young, has strong and deep roots in fields such as training and development, performance management, developmental psychology, and organisational change
2
and development (Evarts 1998; Gilley & Eggland 1989; McLagan 1989). Yorks (2005) suggests that we have an opportunity to learn from the experiences of other professional fields and understand how we can talk to both academics and practitioners within the HRD field. He does, however, acknowledge that the gap between theory and practice remains significant and will not ‘go away any time soon’. The following discussion about the value of perspectives from a theory and practice perspective is premised on the idea that both academics and practitioners are confronted with increasingly complex and ‘contextually contingent challenges’ that require academics to think differently and practitioners to adopt different practices.
The Value of Multiple Perspectives for Theory Through examining the role of HRD from multiple perspectives, the focus, composition and emphasis of HRD shifts, providing the possibility of renewing and reinventing the relationships between its principal actors. Dansereau, Yammarino and Kohles (1999) and Morgeson and Hofmann (1999) both argue that through engaging in multilevel research, our ability to choose better lenses, to focus on phenomena and to capture images of people shifting and organizing themselves dynamically through time will be enhanced. Different HRD perspectives can produce diverse individual, organizational, societal and global outcomes. Adopting a multiple perspectives approach recognizes HRD’s moving, complex and contextual nature, resulting in the creation of a menu of intervention options and empowering innovative and critical thinking about its value and potential beneficiaries. Deconstructing or critically reconstructing HRD is a challenging process. Lee (2003) maintains that the practice of HRD is all about agency in a pluralistic, relativistic and interpretative world. Similarly, Harrison (1997) characterizes the development of HRD as a history of nebulous harmonies. She argues that harmony
3
arises only through the resolution of tensions and that the history of HRD is one of continuing frustration in striking a balance between the competing purposes that HRD is supposed to serve. We need to move beyond the dominant neo-positivistic paradigm (Bierma & Fenwick, 2005) to embrace HRD’s full potentiality. In his acceptance speech, Nobel Prize winner Harold Pinter (2005) acknowledges the fluid constructed reality in which we live and work:
“When we look into a mirror, we think the image that confronts us is accurate. But move a millimeter and the image changes. We are actually looking at a never-ending range of reflections. But sometimes, one needs to smash the mirror – for it is on the other side of the mirror that the truth stares at us”.
Acknowledging the complexity of HRD and the need for patterning, dynamic structures and organic linkages, adopting a multi-perspectival approach provides us with ways of envisioning the realities of HRD. It may provide us with the tools to identify individual viewpoints, more critically question underlying assumptions and isolate differences in emphases. Perspectives enhance theory, because they draw upon theory. McGoldrick, Stewart and Watson (2001) argue in favour of attempting to learn lessons from alternative perspectives as a way of enhancing theoretical understanding. Similarly, Mabey (2003) argues that removing the confines of a single lens deepens our understanding and can produce theoretical, methodological and practical HRD benefits. Martoccchio and Baldwin (1997) also recommend that researchers expand their lenses for conducting research in the domain of strategic HRD decision-making.
4
Perspectives add both color and flavor. By promoting diversity of thought, perspectives encourage critical reflection and greater interaction among HRD stakeholders. Bierma and Cseh (2003) argue that it is crucial for HRD to critically assess what is and what is not being studied. In other words, perspectives enable us to identify that which is missing from the discourse. Given the breadth, diversity (McLean and McLean 2001), multidisciplinarity (McGoldrick, Stewart & Watson, 2001) and indefinability of the HRD field (Ruona and Lynham 2004; Lee 2001; Mankin 2001), perspectives facilitate dialogue and discussion by surfacing underlying characteristics and thereby enabling broader and deeper thinking about HRD’s real purposes and functions. Perspectives embrace change. Singular perspectives lead to stasis and an inbred unquestioning of assumptions and methodologies. Examining HRD from a range of perspectives invites flux and creative tensions and consequently reflects the vagaries of societal development, the market and the rapid rates of organizational change. It follows that perspectives may be situated at the intersection of theory and practice and foster questioning, change, creativity and innovation in the HRD field.
The Value of Multiple Perspectives at the Level of Practice Yorks (2005) asserts that ‘practitioners are confronted by the dilemma of traveling through institutional terrains hostile to linking theory and practice’. The world of practice is particularly challenging because practitioners have to think quickly, they may adopt reactive rather than proactive stances, and frequently they have to make their case to influential stakeholders (Sambrook, 2006). Practitioners are increasingly challenged by the dynamics of the changing workplace, including the emergence of knowledge workplaces, changing work values and expectations,
5
rampant globalization, and the need to contribute to learning at organizational, team and individual levels of analysis.
•
Knowledge: The modern workplace is increasingly based on the value of knowledge for competitive advantage. The resource-based view of the firm is based on the idea that internal knowledge embodied within the firm’s human resources is an important source of competitive advantage (Leonard-Barton, 1995; Hendry & Pettigrew, 1990). Bates and Phelan (2002) suggest that the modern workplace is characterized by multiple levels of complexity; employees are required to assimilate new knowledge, think differently and meet the demands of increasingly heavy work loads. HRD practice has a key role to play in assisting firms to manage their knowledge assets. This suggests that practitioners need to think differently and to seek answers through the use of alternative perspectives and theories. Yorks (2005) suggests that these answers are best achieved through the use of a wide range of perspectives and theories.
•
Work Values: Organizational workforces are becoming increasingly diverse. This diversity is reflected in the emergence of greater individuality and openness in values, the desire for meritocracy and the need to tolerate different ways of thinking (Waight, 2005). There is also evidence of greater acceptance of diversity in the workplace on race and sexual orientation (Barrett, Cervero & Johnson-Bailey, 2004; Gedro, Cervero & Johnson-Bailey, 2004; Thomas 2004). This suggests that organizations will need to plan to take advantage of diversity instead of forcing conformity. Likewise, HRD professionals will need to be proactive in helping to create new work environments in which different perspectives can flourish. Noe (2005)
6
suggests that HRD professionals will be instrumental in creating work environments that allow employees of all backgrounds to make substantive contributions. There is also evidence of changes in employer values. Unbundled organizations typically display less loyalty to employees in peripheral units. Some commentators suggest that employees increasingly show little loyalty towards their corporate employers and expect none in return. There is, therefore, evidence that levels of loyalty have declined on both sides of the capital-labor relation (O’Donnell, McGuire & Cross, 2006); along with shifts in other fundamental work values (Garavan, McCarthy & O’Toole, 2003; McGuire, Garavan, Saha & O’Donnell, 2006). •
Learning in Organizations: A rate of organizational learning faster than competitors is now viewed as an important source of sustained competitive advantage. The link between organizational learning and value creation is increasingly referred to as a key aspect of intellectual capital (O’Donnell, 2004; O’Donnell, Porter, McGuire, Garavan, Heffernan & Cleary, 2003) and organizations are increasingly challenged to manage it. In doing so, many are adopting fewer hierarchies, fewer rules, the elimination of barriers to the free exchange of information and know-how and investing in employee learning capabilities. HRD practices are critical in enhancing organizational learning and processes of value creation. These include the communication of strategic
goals,
maintaining
a
focus
on
learning
and
recognizing
organizational learning opportunities in the design of learning interventions. HRD professionals have a key role to play in the value creating learning organization. •
Network Organizations: Network organizations represent an important challenge for HRD professionals. Such organizations have developed in
7
response to advances in technology, the desire for increased workforce flexibility, identified competition (Jarratt and Fayed 2000) and globalization. Network organizations deemphasize managerial status and focus on rotating leadership roles with different managerial skills. Most organizations cannot take it for granted that managers have the capabilities to operate in such organizations. HRD professionals are challenged with finding new ways to address
emerging
skill
requirements,
and
to
design
developmental
experiences so that the organization has the skills it requires at the right time. Thurow (1999) for example, suggests that HRD professionals must think about employees at all levels and the need to develop flexibility and creativity in responding to organizational challenges.
Although not an exhaustive review of emerging workplace trends, this brief discussion suggests that HRD professionals will need to think differently about practice. As their jobs and roles become more complex, they will be challenged to respond to novel and unique problems and to use different lenses in order to find appropriate solutions. Mabey (2003) for example, suggests that by removing the confines of a single lens, our understanding of HRD will increase and produce benefits for both academics and practitioners alike. Multiple perspectives may enable HRD professionals to engage in fruitful and rewarding dialogs on various issues related to HRD practice and facilitate an understanding of how HRD can contribute to helping organizations successfully meet these challenges.
Introducing the Contributions to this Issue It has been argued that there is value in expanding the range of available perspectives on HRD. We believe that the diverse papers presented in this issue have
8
value in explaining the range of perspectives through which it is possible to understand HRD. It offers the potential for fruitful dialog and helps to expand on current theory building efforts. The articles in this issue provide insights concerning the range of theoretical streams through which HRD derives its identity and justifies its value. The articles identify gaps in theory development and outline areas for further research. The first four papers broadly fit within the dominant functionalist-utilitarian tradition. Garavan examines strategic HRD and explores its focus on performance at organizational, job and individual levels. Watson and Maxwell examine the emergent HRD role of line managers and the dilemmas that they face when they are the primary HRD drivers. Hamlin explores evidence-based HRD and identifies how such practices can become commonplace within the HRD field. McGuire, Cross and Murphy focus on HRD branding and image paying particular attention to how the HRD construct and the HRD field itself is perceived by the general public and in the media. The following four papers take a more critical theory and critical postmodernist approach. Trehan examines HRD from a psychodynamic perspective with a critical theoretical flavor. It is argued that critical HRD engages managers and leaders in a process of drawing from critical perspectives to make connections between their learning and work experience so as to understand and change both interpersonal and organizational behavior. Francis, from a discourse perspective, explores the role of HRD in shaping organizational change. Particular emphasis is placed on how inequalities in power at organizational level shape the ability to control the production, distribution and consumption of particular discourses. Lee explores HRD within the wider ‘human’ condition’ in presenting a holistic perspective with a postmodernist flavor. She argues that HRD is about people and people are
9
influenced by wider global politics and global events. Our conception of HRD, therefore, should include consideration of politics, morality and philosophy. O’Donnell, drawing on the Frankfurt School critical tradition, adopts a critical modernist perspective with a slight postmodernist flavor at a very broad global level of analysis, a level rarely addressed in the HRD field. Specifically, he examines the notion of deliberative democracy in a futuristic cosmopolitan world which is viewed as the ultimate goal of human development. The final article by McGuire, Garavan, O’Donnell and Watson summarizes the key issues to emerge from the eight papers presented and discusses some implications of this multi-perspectival analysis for HRD academics and HRD professionals.
References Barrett, I. C., Cervero, R. M. & Johnson-Bailey, J. (2004). The career development of black human resource developers in the United States. Human Resource
Development International, 7(1), 85-100. Bates, R. A. & Phelan, K. C. (2002). Characteristics of a globally competitive workforce, Advances in Developing Human Resources. 4(2), 121-132. Bierma, L. L. & Cseh, M. (2003). Evaluating AHRD research using a feminist research framework. Human Resources Development Quarterly, 14(1), 5-26. Bierma, L. L. & Fenwick, T. J. (2005). Defining critical human resource development. Paper presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development Conference, Estes Park, CO. Chalofsky, N. (2004). Human and organization Studies: The discipline of HRD. In T. M. Egan (Ed.) Academy of Human Resource Development Conference Proceedings.
10
Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J. & Kohles, J. C. (1999). Multiple levels of analysis from a longitudinal perspective: Some implications for theory building.
Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 346-357. Evarts, T.M. (1998). Human resource development as a maturing field of study.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9(4), 385-390. Garavan, T. N., McCarthy, A. & O’Toole, T. (2003). HRD working at the boundaries and interfaces of organizations. Journal of European Industrial Training, 27 (2/3/4), 58-72. Gedro, J. A. Cervero, R. M. & Johnson-Bailey, J. (2004). How lesbians learn to negotiate the heterosexism of corporate America. Human Resource
Development International, 7(2), 181–195. Gilley, J. & Eggland, S. (1989). Principles of Human Resource Development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hargreaves, P. & Jarvis, P. (1998). The Human Resource Development Handbook. London: Kogan Page. Harrison R. (1997). Employee Development. London: Institute of Personnel Management. Hatcher, T.A. (1999). Reorienting the theoretical foundations of human resource development: building a sustainable profession and society. In K. P. Kuchinke (Ed.) Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development Annual
Conference, (pp. 202–208), Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development Hendry, C. & Pettigrew, A. (1990). HRM as an agenda for the 1990s. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 1, 17-25. Holton, E. F. (2003). Beyond incrementalism: What’s the next paradigm for HRD?’
Human Resource Development Review, 2(1), 3-5.
11
Jarratt, D. and Fayed, R. (2001). The impact of market and organisational challenges on marketing strategy decision-making: A qualitative investigation of the business-to-business sector. Journal of Business Research, 51(1), 61-72. Lee, M. (2001). A refusal to define HRD. Human Resource Development
International, 4(3), 327-341. Lee, M. (2003). Human Resource Development in a Complex World. London: Routledge. Leonard-Barton, D. (1995), Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the
Sources of Innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Lepak, D. P. & Snell, S. A. (2003). Managing the Human Resource Architecture for Knowledge-Based Competition. In S. Jackson, M. Hitt, & A. Denisi (Eds.),
Managing Knowledge for Sustained Competitive Advantage: Designing Strategies for Effective Human Resource Management (pp. 127-154). San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass. Lynham, S. A. (2002). The general method of theory building research in applied disciplines. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 221-241. Mabey, C. (2003). Reframing human resource development, Human Resource
Development Review, 2(4), 430-452. Mankin, D. P. (2001). A model for human resource development. Human Resource
Development International. 4(1), 65-85. Martocchio, J. J. & Baldwin, T. T. (1997). The evolution of strategic organisational training. In R. G. Ferris (Eds.) Research in Personnel and Human Resource
Management, 15 (pp. 1-46). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
12
McGuire, D., Garavan, T. N., Saha, S. K. & O’Donnell, D. (2006). The impact of individual vaues on human resource decision-making by line managers.
International Journal of Manpower, 27(3), (in press). McGoldrick, J., Stewart, J. & Watson, S. (2001). Theorising human resource development. Human Resource Development International, 4(3), 343-357. McLagan, P. (1989). Models of Human Resource Development Practice. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press. McLean, G. N. & McLean, L. (2001). If we can’t define HRD in one country, how can we define it in an international context. Human Resource Development
International, 4(3), 313-326. Morgeson, F. P. & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development.
Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 249-265. Noe, R. A. (2005). Employee Training and Development (3rd Edi.). New York: IrwinMcGraw-Hill. O’Donnell, D. (2004). Theory and method on intellectual capital creation: addressing communicative action through relative methodics. Journal of Intellectual
Capital, 5(2), 294-311. O’Donnell, D., Porter, G., McGuire, D., Garavan, T. N., Heffernan, M. & Cleary, P. (2003). Creating intellectual capital: a Habermasian community of practice introduction, Journal of European Industrial Training. 27(2/3/4), 80-88. O’Donnell, D., McGuire, D. & Cross, C. (2006). Critically challenging some assumptions in HRD. International Journal of Training and Development, 10(1), 4-15. Pinter, H. (2005). Art, truth and politics. Lecture delivered to Nobel Foundation, 7th December 2005.
13
Ruona, W. E. A., & Lynham, S. A. (2004). A philosophical framework for thought and practice in human resource development. Human Resource Development
International, 7(2), 151-165. Sambrook, S. (2006). Management development in the NHS: nurses and managers, discourses and identities. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(1), 48-64. Teece D. J., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509-533. Thomas, D. A. (2004). Diversity as strategy. Harvard Business Review, 82(9), 100109. Thurow, L. C. (1999). Building Wealth: The New Rules for Individuals, Companies
and Nations in a Knowledge-Based Economy. New York: Harper Collins. Waight, C. L. (2005). Exploring connections between human resource development and creativity. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(2), 151-159. Woodall, J., Lee, M. & Stewart, J. (2003). New Frontiers in Human Resource
Development. London: Routledge. Woodall, J. (2000). Researching work-based management development in the UK:
The need for clarity. Paper presented at the 1st conference on HRD Research and Practice across Europe, Kingston Business School, London, January 2000. Yorks, L. (2005). Strategic Human Resource Development. New York: South West Publishing Company.
14
