Definitions of HRD

Professional and Personal Definitions of Human Resource Development

For me, a relative newcomer to the field of human resource development (HRD), a large part of understanding that field is being able to define it, in meaningful terms both professional and personal. By “professional,” I refer to the growing consensus among researchers and practitioners of HRD on defining issues such as its threefold theory basis, the ethical “platform” that underlies (or should underlie) all HRD activity, and the basic components of training and development and organizational development (Swanson & Holton, 2001).

By “personal,” I refer not only to certain, if varying, inescapable levels of subjectivity that creep into all areas of human understanding, but to the prospect of understanding HRD for myself, and perhaps even adding something to the present body of knowledge on the subject. HRD is still a growing discipline or field of study, in its infancy compared to others, and now would be an opportune time for aspiring scholars like me to contribute new insights. Adding to the pool of existing knowledge means personalizing the philosophical approach recommended by most HRD theorists (Swanson & Holton, 2001; Ruona & Lynham, 2004).

A Professional Definition of HRD

For purposes of clarification, it may be helpful to first consider what HRD is not. It is not, first of all, human resource management (HRM). Like many professional domains, HRD and HRM represent distinct yet somewhat overlapping fields of endeavor. As the name implies, HRM is primarily the management of employees and employee activity, once popularly known as personnel management. HRM includes administrative activities such as recruitment, interviewing, hiring, oversight of training programs, and administration of benefits and compensation (Anthony, Kacmar, & Perrewe, 2002). Equally, HRD is not simply some trendy new “warm and fuzzy” approach to training or development.

Rather, HRD involves organization-wide training, learning, and development efforts with the potential to introduce large-scale change to an organization, mainly in the way of verifiable human performance improvements. Consequently, numerous accountability tools are available, with others in process of development, for measuring the impact of HRD on organizational metrics, such as production, retention, job satisfaction and turnover, along with bottom line financial performance measures (Swanson & Holton, 2001).

HRD moreover is said to rest on a theory base consisting of three fields (economics, systems and psychology) proven highly relevant to a wide range of HRD concerns (Swanson & Holton, 2001). These three broad areas work in conjunction, as HRD seeks to enhance and influence human behavior (psychology) in an organizational (systemic) context, for the purpose of ultimately adding (economic) value to human resources for the benefit of the organization. The constant focus on human concerns demands that HRD also maintains a strong emphasis on business and personal ethics (Swanson & Holton, 2001). All these areas of concern require an approach that is as much theoretical and scientific as it is ethical and humanistic.

In practical terms, the core practice of HRD consists of two major areas of activity: training and development, and organizational development. Both have the improvement of human performance through human expertise as their central goal. From these and the aforementioned assumptions on what defines HRD, a more personal definition can be built.

A Personal Definition of HRD

As Ruona and Lynham (2004) have taken pains to point out, professional HRD has everything to do with philosophy, and vice-versa. Even at its most metaphysical levels—ontological, epistemic and axiological—a meaningful personal philosophy has immense practical value, as it ultimately “shapes and directs how we act in the world” (Ruona & Lynham, 2004, p. 154). Furthermore, whereas the holding of personal philosophies or world views (whether implicit ore explicit) marks a feature common to all humanity, those individual philosophies can be shared with and therefore embraced by others, even in business and professional contexts (Ruona & Lynham, 2004).

Paradigms, such as the learning and performance paradigms within HRD, actually reflect ontological assumptions about the nature of reality. Learning theories in turn derive from epistemological assumptions, of the sort that philosophers have debated for centuries. Even the most rigidly scientific methodology has its basis in philosophical assumptions about reality. As Plato remarked with typical insight in the Theaetetus many centuries ago, “Knowledge is true opinion” (as cited in Copi, 1979, p. 158). It follows from all this that a coherent personal philosophy, or at minimum the recognition of philosophy’s importance, marks the logical starting point of any defensible personal definition of HRD.

With philosophical assumptions acknowledged (if not specified), the personal approach could be said to begin at the major points of controversy within HRD research, and is thus where I begin. Much debate surrounds the learning and performance paradigms, for instance, often assumed by its respective advocates to contradict one another (Swanson & Holton, 2001). Whereas learning paradigm defenders are often represented as something like liberal-minded advocates for the common worker, and performance paradigm representatives as calculating economists with no regard for the human element, my view is that no contradiction in fact exists. Broadly conceived, learning in organizational contexts is what links human behavior to enhanced performance. Or simply, performance improvement is the main purpose of learning in HRD. In any case, I agree with Swanson and Holton’s (2001) practically advisable concluding assessment on the matter: “By being both human and performance advocates, HRD stands to gain the most influence in the organizational system” (p. 147).

Individual learning theories also vary widely, from the very basic but empirically valuable stimulus-response behavioral approach, to the constructivist school criticized by some as bordering on sheer subjectivism. Cognitivism, in which the human cognitive or thought-processing mechanisms feature prominently, is what I would deem the most effective school of learning for most professional subjects. The behavioral approach does seem the most suitable for technical and vocational education, however. My favored approach would take into account most of the major learning theories, and incorporate each when most appropriate.

Most definitions of HRD include a thread of common “keyword” elements: human and organizational learning, expertise, behavior, performance, change, training, development. To these I would add a few of my own. First of these is the trait of boldness, or a willingness to confront issues. A training manager or organization development manager will eventually come face-to-face with the reluctance of top management to embrace development efforts in any meaningful way. These managers are typically so engrossed with meeting immediate, bottom line shareholder expectations that they simply cannot see the value of human resource development investments. An effective HRD professional will have the courage to bring the issue to a head, through persistent, even confrontational communication with management.

At the same time, I would revise the standard understanding of HRD to more fully embrace the management demand for accountability. Along these lines, I believe a sound argument could be made for HRD interventions in training, for example, as sound investments with relatively high levels of return on investment (ROI). Yet I would add to the ROI and related metrics approaches a more rhetorical “common sense” approach, in making the argument that the most important aspects of business cannot in fact be directly measured in financial terms. To a fault, managers would all agree that “leadership” is an indispensable necessity of managing a business—yet even more than training, leadership cannot be measured, nor can the presumably considerable financial returns from investing in and implementing quality leadership.

More than anything, I would redefine HRD in terms of tireless communication. A preacher I knew years ago once said in a sermon about the marriage relationship, “The three most important things in a marriage are communication, communication, and communication.” Changing the word “marriage” to “organization” results in a statement that holds just as true. Perhaps, then, I can add my “two cents” to the HRD definition by simply adding more, and more effective, communication to the picture. Thus, to Swanson and Holton’s (2001) useful theoretical depiction of HRD as a three-legged stool, resting on an ethical rug, I would add a can of WD-40 spray lubricant sitting on top of the stool, a symbol of the effective communication that reduces unnecessary frictions and promotes more fluid interactions among organizational interests.

References

Anthony, W. P., Kacmar, M. K., & Perrewe, P. L. (2002). Human resource management: A strategic approach. (4th ed.). Mason, Ohio: South-Western.

Copi, I. M. (1979). Introduction to logic. (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Ruona, W. E. A., & Lynham, S. A. (2004). A philosophical framework for thought and practice in human resource development. Human Resource Development International, 7, 151-164. Retrieved December 4, 2006 from Business Source Complete database.

Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. III. (2001). Foundations of human resource development. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler.