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 most radical form this view would define HRD as being solely concerned with employees’ rather than organisational satisfaction. Garavan et al. (2000) more moderately suggest that the learning perspective defines HRD as ‘responsible for fostering the long-term, work related learning capacity at an individual, group and organisational level’(p.66). The findings of the research undertaken by Robertson and O’Malley Hammersley reinforce this view. They carried out a two-year qualitative study compromised of eighteen semi-structured interviews to demonstrate that continuous professional learning was important to professional workers (Garavan et al.,p.71). In this view learning does not have to directly correlate with organisational strategy. Therefore HRD can also be defined through its ability to change an organisations culture due to continuous learning programmes and encouragement of self-directed learning.
Through this Garavan et al. also observe the emergence of an ‘employability perspective.’ Gafee and Scase (1992), argue that organisations who invest in the development of the ‘generic transferable skills’ of their workers, thus improving employability, will be rewarded with increased loyalty and commitment (Garavan et al. 2000). Thus HRD works directly alongside the employee and the organisation, adding direction and purpose to non-strategic learning. The effectiveness of HRD at this level would, initially be seen through saving costs (reducing absenteeism, decreasing employee turnover) rather than through actual profits.
The ‘learning perspective’ also advocates the role of the learning organisation, which Burgoyne attempts to define, ‘a learning organisation continually transforms itself in a process reciprocally linked to the development of all its members’ (Garavan et al.2000,p.92). Garavan (2000) cites the research of Sambrook and Stewart who conclude that in a learning organisation the role of HRD cannot merely include education and training, but must also co-ordinate, support and facilitate any learning that is implemented.
The learning perspective incorporates the human resource developer’s roles of researcher/evaluator and leader/change agent, as defined by Watkins. She supports the role of researcher/evaluator through reference to Goldstein. He suggests that the HRD practitioner must assess training needs and outcomes, whilst also evaluating which organisational changes can be specifically attributed to training. The practitioner must assess individual qualities and their impact on training (Watkins,1991,p.250). Thus, individual skills and capabilities shape the training processes that are implemented.
Watkins’ view of the HR developer as leader/change agent incorporates Senge’s vision of the learning organisation. Thus the HR developer must support and facilitate all types of learning and learning methods at every level of the organisation. Although Senge’s conception my be a visionary one, his theory of the importance of ‘personal mastery’ is a hopeful vision. The role of the human resource developer to enhance the individual’s ‘capacity to articulate a personal vision, to continually learn what one must to enact it, and to seek a high level of mastery or proficiency,’(p.252) stimulates my interest in this area of study.
Clearly such a perspective contradicts any view which defines HRD in a solely strategic sense. One must also question that whilst it exists as an ideal, would a learning organisation achieve a market advantage over a firm which implemented strategic HRD? Garavan et al (2000) acknowledge that such a question has yet to be adequately answered (p.67). I would also suggest that one should consider the time scale in answering such a question; a learning organisation’s achievement of market advantage would only be demonstrated over a longer period of time, strategic HRD tends to produce more immediate results.
Feminist Perspective:
One of the main aims of feminist writings is to find a place for female discourse within an ideology that has been created by men; an ideology that defines women as deficit and insufficiency. Garavan et al.(2000) select the paper by Lineham and Walsh to demonstrate that female career aspirations have been developed along a ‘linear male model of career regression’. The paper aims to present the ‘unique perspectives and experiences’ of female managers and through a series of interviews explored the ‘covert and overt barriers,’ that women perceive as impeding their career progression. They conclude by determining a model of female international managerial career moves (All quotations Garavan et al.,2000,p.79). Hughes reinforces the findings of Lineham and Walsh through her suggestion that feminist perspectives on HRD aim to draw new pictures that include both men and women. Thus in the context of defining HRD, it does not aim to reinforce existing beliefs, but bring about a transformation of attitudes.
The term HRD suggests ‘a gender-neutral reality where all ‘resources’ are perceived to be treated equally’ (Hughes,2000,p.52). Therefore, she goes on to suggest that gender relations in this context have become embedded and have thus received little attention. Hughes focuses on the position of ‘the trainer herself’(p.52) to demonstrate the unique perspectives different genders have on an apparently gender-neutral term, such as HRD. Hughes quotes Gilligan’s research into the learning methods of men and women, concluding that women prefer ‘more co-operative ways of working and learning’(p.53). This is reinforced by the rationale of Baxter Magolda, which suggests that ‘women are more open to incorporating the perspectives of others into their own. Those used by men appear to be more individualistic’(p.54). Such a perspective is vital in the study of HRD, as within a definition of the term, one must consider the requirement of the practitioner not merely to supply training and development, but to provide learning in its most accessible and useful form for the individual. If the ‘dominant discourses of formal learning’ (Hughes,2000,p.56) are male, one must consider the needs of the female learner.
Hughes concludes with a series of suggestions for future research: the gendering of learning styles and ways of knowing; consideration of feminist methodologies for analysing learning; acknowledgement of informal, self-directed learning and the implications of critical pedagogic practice in the corporate classroom(p.60). One could suggest that any definition of HRD would include all of the considerations above within its practices. Such an analysis has vast implications for the HRD practitioner: the need to consider learning needs and skills at an individual level. Within a critical definition of HRD the observation of gender, race and class is of absolute importance.
Conclusion:
In their most extreme forms, the economic and learning perspectives lie in direct contradiction. Seemingly, with practitioners favouring one and academics the other. Yet Watkins’ article introduces the role of the practitioner into the learning organisation and it becomes just as vital as within a strategic organisation. In both cases HRD does encompass training, education, learning and development, however the focus differs. I believe the economic view depersonalises the human resource reducing it (sic) to a level of human capital with little recognition or responsibility for individual needs and thus, narrowing the scope of HRD. I find the learning perspective, although at times idealistic, far more stimulating and encouraging. The individual is as important as the group or the organisation and they are cultivated equally. I also feel that it should be possible to integrate a form of strategic HRD into this perspective: whereby learning needs are strategically assessed, yet time is allowed for informal learning and this is credited within the company. For example, the case study of the London Borough of Lewisham,(Megginson et al. 1999,p.34-42) which developed the ‘Action for Better Lewisham Employees’(ABLE) programme. This encouraged employee enrolment for any courses they wished to pursue, whilst tracking their progress to assess the importance of the initiative. Such a conception, I believe, would serve to create an adaptable and creative working environment and employee; an indispensable definition of the role of HRD.
Through offering the feminist perspective, I aimed to challenge, specifically the ‘truths’ of the economic perspective, and emphasise the importance of HRD as a means to account for individuality and difference: racial, gender, class or otherwise. I sought to demonstrate that HRD is so hard to define because new perspectives and theories constantly emerge, initiating new ideas that previously had not been highlighted.
My initial objective was to demonstrate a more integrated perspective on the definition of HRD drawing from many attitudes, I would now have to question whether this is entirely possible, when the term constantly seeks to elude any definitive meaning. There are so many perspectives on the topic that I haven’t analysed, but are interesting: a look at some of the masculinity literature on the topic e.g. WP Murphy, ‘Are men second rate in HRD?’; I would also liked to have discussed the impact of these perspectives on national HRD policy and decision making and account for the fact that the definition of HRD has social implications for those organisations which, like Lewisham, have a social conscience that defines their HRD practices. In my view, human resource development can only advance and be enhanced, both as a practice and an area of study, by such a multitude of definitions.
References
Beatty and Schneier (1997), ‘New HR Roles to Impact Organizational Performance: From “Partners” to “Players”, Human Resource Management Vol. 63 no.1 p.29-37
Garavan, Ginnigle and Morley (2000), ‘Contemporary HRD research: a triarchy of theoretical perspectives and their prescriptions for HRD,’ Journal of European Industrial Training Vol.24 no.2-4 p.65-93
Garavan, Heraty and Barnicle (1999), ‘Human resource development literature: current issues, priorities and dilemmas,’ Journal of European Industrial Training Vol. 23 no.4/5 p.169-179
Garrick (1999), Informal Learning in the Workplace: unmasking human resource development, (London, Routledge)
Hughes (2000), ‘Painting new (feminist) pictures of human resource development (and) identifying research issues for political change,’ Management Learning Vol.31 no.1 p.51-65
Megginson, Banfield and Joy-Matthews (1999), Human Resource Development, (London, Kogan Page)
Watkins (1991) ‘Many Voices: defining human resource development from different disciplines,’ Adult Education Quarterly Vol. 41 no. 4 p.241-255