HOLLY BAYLISS/

What is Human Resource Development?

Introduction:

My initial thoughts when challenged by this question were so varied and almost contradictory that I decided to use this scope to approach the proposition from different perspectives.  I intend to define human resource development (HRD) through an analysis of its practices and function within the organisation, rather than on a national scale, whilst also considering the role of the HRD practitioner. As I will demonstrate, my standpoint on the definition of HRD draws from many schools of thought and ultimately, I aim to present a more integrated point of view. The theoretical approaches that I perceive to be both stimulating and challenging in their definitions of HRD, include the ‘economic perspective,’ the ‘learning perspective’ and thirdly, the critical grand narrative of feminism.  My aim is to challenge some of the absolute ‘truths’ as presented by these perspectives and thus, demonstrate a recognition of the extensive definitions and implications of HRD.

Economic Perspective:

Garrick (1998) notes that HRD is inextricably linked to market economics, ‘knowledge is prized in so far as it can generate a market advantage,’(p.5) thus HRD becomes ‘highly performance based’(p.6).  Such a perspective leads many to suggest that HRD should be viewed as part of the wider field of human resource management.  Garavan, Gunnigle and Morley (2000) suggest that in fact, it led to the emergence of strategic HRD, in which practices are linked to organisational priorities.  Garrick supports this view through reference to other theoretical approaches, which aim to design a culture through the use of terms such as ‘team work, self-direction, empowered workers and non-hierarchical work arrangements,’(p.3) yet only create a discourse that eclipses the actualities of the practitioners day-to-day life.  Development, training and education ‘must’ now be judged by their ability to increase an organisation’s competitive advantage (Beatty and Schneier, 1997 cited in Garavan et al, 2000).  Within this definition of HRD, resources are highlighted above humans.  HRD is defined as processes aiding the contribution of the individual, rather than the development of individual capabilities that do not directly increase organisational profits.

 

Garavan et al. note that viewing human resources as a source of competitive advantage has led to a current theory of ‘organisational capabilities,’ ‘the term capabilities…is used to refer to a behavioural pattern, conducted by several people in an organisational context.’(p.73) They cite the research of Dalton (1996) which emphasised the role of capabilities as a critical source of competitive advantage.  Similarly to Garrick’s statement the focus of defining HRD lies in the organisational rather than the individual role.  Yet, HRD becomes proactive in creating these capabilities, rather than the more reactive role in Garrick’s definition.  

Beatty and Schneier (1997) refer to the role of the practitioners as a moving from ‘partners’ to ‘players.’  Through supporting business strategy the practitioner becomes a player and thus, must ‘score’ by ‘making things happen for the customers- rather than merely being part of the team’(p.29).  Watkins (1991) defines the role of the HRD professional in this context as the ‘competent performer’ and ‘developer of human capital.’  Both roles place emphasis on formal rather than informal learning, whilst neglecting to focus on the individual.  Training is integrated and strategic; management requirements are placed above learning needs.  Watkins supports this statement through reference to Argyris’ (1988) research, in which he describes an incident whereby top management time scale demands were placed above learning needs.  Watkins also quotes Carnevale, Gainer and Villet’s (1990) learning method of instructional systems design (whereby training moved away from ‘providing a patchwork of unconnected training courses’)(p.245) to demonstrate the failure of this perspective to recognise informal, incidental learning.  I agree with Watkins’ (humanist) criticism of such a view: the absence of any reference to the individual or consideration for human needs.

Join now!

Both views agree that HRD is defined by its ability to achieve competitive advantage. However, neither perspective allows for the acquirement of ‘non-process specific’ (Garavan, Heraty and Barnicle,1999) knowledge and the benefits of HRD as the creator of a new cultural environment.  Generating organisational and environmental change are not seen as important; the short-term implications are privileged over long-term possibilities.  The vision of a ‘learning organisation’ is dismissed in favour of the Positivists’ evidence of economic gain.  

Learning Perspective:

Garrick and Garavan acquiesce that academics rather than practitioners more eagerly pursue the ‘learning perspective’.  In its ...

This is a preview of the whole essay