Week 2: 8th -14th May (Activities: 2.1, 2.2 & 2.3)
The term HRD became popular in the 1980s mainly in the US and the UK. This was a time of high employment and labour turnover, when organisations were competing with each other for skilled workers and were keen to understand how to retain and develop employees. It was also a time when innovation in the use of technology and increasing global competition started to be noticed, and there was pressure on organisations to respond quickly to the changes produced by these. To make this rapid response easier, organisations started to move increasingly to flatter structures and project-based working with a marked increase on the outsourcing of work to contractors and agencies. Employees began to work in different ways as new technologies made flexible working and home working much easier and more common. Against this background, new ideas began to develop about how organisations could think strategically about individual and organisational learning and how both individuals and organisations could be helped to learn quickly and continuously in order to develop the new skills demanded by organisational change.
For those employed as trainers, there have been major challenges to face, with a shift from delivering training in specific areas of knowledge to finding a range of ways to support and facilitate learning, often through coaching or mentoring. This sometimes means encouraging individuals to decide for themselves how to learn and even what to learn rather than being told or led by the trainer. In this new world, those who specialise in learning within organisations have to think about how their roles have changed and the competencies they now need. You will explore the shift from training to learning in more depth in Unit 4.
Surprisingly, although much has been written about HRD, there is no agreed definition of what this term means. This is partly because of ambiguity about the boundaries of HRD and the overlap with other fields that prefer to remain independent – a good example of this is the overlap between HRD and organisational development (OD), which you will read about later in this section. It is also partly because of varying practice between different countries. Nonetheless there have been a number of attempts to clarify the purpose of HRD. Hamlin and Stewart (2011) examined the common themes emerging from over 20 different definitions of HRD accumulated over three decades. Based on their analysis they concluded that HRD had the following core purposes (note that the percentages of definitions that included each theme are presented in brackets):
- Developing knowledge, skills and competencies (92%)
- Enhancing human potential and personal growth (83%)
- Improving individual or group effectiveness and performance (79%)
- Improving organisational effectiveness and performance (37%)
- Explicit mention of organisational change and organisational development (12%)
(Adapted from Hamlin and Stewart, 2011, p. 210)
A key thread underlying these themes which differentiates HRD from the traditional training function is the strategic focus on learning as a tool to enhance effectiveness at different levels within the organisation. In line with this, Stewart and McGoldrick (1996, p. 2) argue that ‘HRD is intrinsically associated with the functional world of training and development and bound up with strategy and practice’. It is this focus at the strategic level that, according to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) in the UK, ensures both the continuity and reputation of the HRD function by helping organisations gain competitive advantage within the current changing and fast-paced business environment (CIPD, 2005). This strategic approach is sometimes indicated by the term ‘strategic HRD’ or SHRD (Clardy, 2008).
The term ‘human capital’ (as opposed to human resources) has also been used in some definitions of HRD to stress the strategic focus of the field. The CIPD defines human capital as the collective knowledge, skills and capacity to innovate. The argument is that the word ‘capital’ conveys an investment message, whereas ‘resources’ has stronger associations with costs. Thus, Mayo (2014, p. 30) provides the following definition: ‘HRD is about developing human capital through growing capability which has several components and can be grown by education, training, learning from others’.
In the following activity you will read an exploration of different ways of defining HRD and you will be asked to think about how HRD is practised in an organisation known to you. The article for the activity is based on discussions at the University Forum for Human Resource Development (UFHRD) which is an international forum of practitioners and academics.
Activity 2.1: What is HRD?
The theoretical bases of HRD
The variety of disciplines that HRD draws on adds another challenge to the task of capturing its meaning and to the interpretation of ideas within the field. Two important questions to address here are:
- What are the disciplines that provide the critical foundations of HRD?
- Can HRD blend the core theories from these disciplines to achieve a distinctive theoretical base for the field?
Swanson (2001) argues that the answers to these question should be informed by the definition or purpose of the field and also by the way the areas of knowledge from different disciplines complement each other. He presents a three-legged stool model (see Figure 2.1) in which each field of study contributing to HRD represents a leg and the seat represents the integration of all the contributions from each discipline. The three legs identified by Swanson are psychology, economics and systems theory, which are explained below:
- Psychology: What triggers human behaviour and what mental processes underlie this behaviour? Cognitive, behaviourist and constructivist theories make an important contribution to HRD. You will look at some of these theories later in the unit.
- Economics: How do we manage scarce resources and generate wealth? Scarcity of resources and human capital, which are basic preoccupations of economists, are key contributions to HRD.
- Systems theory: What system elements, interdependencies and dynamic arrangements exist? Systems theory has enabled HRD practitioners and researchers to investigate the whole while also identifying and addressing the individual parts of the system.
Importantly, the contribution of these three disciplines to HRD depends on their integration, rather than on their individual application.
The boundaries of the field of HRD
You have already explored the challenges of defining the purpose and meaning of HRD and you will probably not be surprised that its boundaries are also open to challenge. This is partly because of close links with the fields of HRM and organisational development. Thus, Stewart and McGoldrick (1996, p. 2) argue that ‘HRD is inevitably linked to the wider field of HRM and fundamentally about change, and it covers the whole organisation and addresses the whole person’. The boundaries of HRD are also challenged because HRD practitioners are increasingly involved in work beyond organisations, for example contributing with their expertise in the learning and development activities of communities and the wider nation (Stewart and Sambrook, 2012).
The close relationship between HRM and HRD is partly reflected in the formation of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) from the merger in 1994 of the Institute of Personnel Management and the Institute of Training and Development. Box 2.1 summarises some of the key ways in which HRM and HRD are connected. However, there can be a tendency to regard HRD as a ‘junior partner’ in the relationship between these two fields, partly because HRD professionals in many organisations report to the director of HR. It has been argued that this situation, together with the low regard for traditional training, helps to undermine the credibility and status of HRD professionals within organisations and that a more balanced relationship between these fields should be sought (Hamlin and Stewart, 2011). Defenders of this viewpoint argue that HRD should be considered as an independent profession from HRM, with its own field of expertise and tools to help organisations deliver their strategy (O’Donnell et al., 2006). Based on your own experience, you might consider which stance you agree with.
Box 2.1: The connections between HRM and HRD
Both HRM and HRD emerged initially in the USA and the UK, and then the rest of Europe.
Both experienced a move (whether aspirational or in practice) from operational and reactive to strategic and proactive roles (HRM replacing personnel management and HRD replacing training and development).
Within organisations, HRD is often located within the HR department, while day-to-day HR and HRD operations are now the remit of line managers, and strategic decisions about HRM and HRD may still be carried out by other senior managers within organisations.
Models such as Storey (1992) and Guest (1989) define HRM as the strategic approach to managing and also developing people.
HRM and HRD are both ideal types and both are more widely adopted by academics than practitioners.
- OD applies to changes in the strategy, structure, and/or processes of an entire system, such as an organisation, a single plant of a multi-plant firm, a department or work group, or individual role or job.
- OD is based on the application and transfer of behavioural science knowledge and practice (such as leadership, group dynamics and work design), and is distinguished by its ability to transfer such knowledge and skill so that the system is capable of carrying out more planned change in the future.
- OD is concerned with managing planned change, in a flexible manner that can be revised as new information is gathered.
- OD involves both the creation and the subsequent reinforcement of change by institutionalising change.
- OD is orientated to improving organisational effectiveness by:
- helping members of the organisation to gain the skills and knowledge necessary to solve problems by involving them in the change process, and
- promoting high performance including financial returns, high quality products and services, high productivity, continuous improvement and a high quality of working life.
At first sight, the statements listed above suggest a close overlap between OD and HRD. Hamlin and Stewart (2011) carried out a systematic comparison and concluded that it was reasonable to conceptualise OD as a strand of HRD. Although HRD professionals tend to be comfortable with this view, this is not always the case for those who identify themselves as OD professionals. Grieves and Redman (1999) suggest that this is because OD professionals tend to perceive HRD as being tainted with negative connotations associated with the training function, such as having an operational focus, being reactive and being a sub-facet within HRM. Clearly, if OD is accepted as quite distinct from HRD, this raises difficult questions about the reach of HRD and reduces its remit considerably.
If you want to gain a more in-depth understanding of OD, you can check our Suggested additional resources on this topic.
HRD beyond organisational boundaries
The definition of HRD is further complicated by the fact that HRD practitioners do not only work within organisations. Whether employed by organisations or independent consultants, HRD practitioners’ work extends to supporting individuals in the wider community to prepare for employment and many practitioners also work at national level (Hamlin and Stewart, 2011).
An obvious area of expertise for HRD outside the organisation is the type of education citizens receive in preparation for employment and during employment. A recent survey by the CIPD (2015b) found that over one third of all organisations surveyed (raising to 50% in the manufacturing industry) reported offering some type of training to non-employees, mostly students.
It is also important to note that the particular economic, social and cultural characteristics of different countries will determine the activities and purposes of HRD outside the organisation. For example, there are significant variations in national policies on education and training. This is sometimes referred to as national HRD (NHRD), although this term is not widely used in the UK (Stewart and Sambrook, 2012) where the term national vocational education and training (NVET) is more commonly used. You will read more about NHRD in Unit 5. This international variation adds to the challenge of agreeing a definition and common purpose for HRD that is relevant for all countries (McLean, 2004).
Activity 2.2: HRD in practice
In this activity you will hear some different perspectives on HRD from a range of expert HRD practitioners, consultants and coaches.
Watch Video 2.1: HRD in practice, and make notes on the different perspectives of the speakers. When you have done so, make notes about your own answer to these questions:
- What do you think is the primary purpose of HRD? How can HRD make a real difference?
- What would you say are the key interfaces for HRD, in terms of people and business areas?
This section has explored the many challenges associated with reaching agreement on the definition and scope of HRD. The following quotation offers a summary of the areas considered so far in this unit:
HRD encompasses planned activities, processes and/or interventions designed to have impact upon and enhance organisational and individual learning, to develop human potential, to improve or maximise effectiveness and performance at either the individual, group/team and/or organisational level, and/or to bring about effective, beneficial personal or organisational behaviour change and improvement within, across and/or beyond the boundaries (or borders) of private sector (for profit), public sector/governmental, or third/voluntary sector (not-for-profit) organisations, entities or any other type of personal-based, work-based, community-based, society-based, culture-based, political-based or nation-based host system.
