See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228196057

Exploring Perspectives on Human Resource Development: An Introduction

Article  in  Advances in Developing Human Resources · January 2007

DOI: 10.1177/1523422306294342

CITATIONS READS

46 1,831

4 authors, including:

Thomas N. Garavan David Mcguire

218 PUBLICATIONS   6,804 CITATIONS   

Glasgow Caledonian University
72 PUBLICATIONS   2,201 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Human resource development in small service sector firms View project

Diversity Training View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas N. Garavan on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

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 (HRD);

perspectives; theory & practice

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 multi-

constituent 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: Irwin-

McGraw-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), 100-

109.

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

View publication stats