Theories of HRD1

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [INFLIBNET India Order]On: 16 September 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 924316426]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Human Resource Development InternationalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713701210

Commonly held theories of human resource developmentLisa A. Weinbergera

a University of Minnesota,

To cite this Article Weinberger, Lisa A.(1998) 'Commonly held theories of human resource development', Human ResourceDevelopment International, 1: 1, 75 — 93To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13678869800000009URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678869800000009

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713701210

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678869800000009

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Commonly held theories of human resource development

Lisa A. Weinberger* University of Minnesota

Abstract: Due to the interdisciplinary nature of human resource development (HRD), there has been little agreement as to the underlying definition and primary theories that form the basis for the field. In order t o reach some understanding, this paper will outline niany of the current US American definitions now held in the HRD profession. Commonly held themes will be removed from those definitions and the theories underlying those themes will be examined. Each theory is reviewed and then tested with the first step of Patterson's (1986) criteria for assessing the validity of a theory. This revie\\. of the definitions and test of the underlying theories will give the field a primary interdisciplinary foundation to begin to work from and to d o additional research.

Keywords: learning theory, systems theory, performance improvement, economic theory, Human Resource Development

Introduction

HRD is a vast area of practice and knowledge. Since H R D is an interdisciplinary field, there are many areas of study that it has borrowed from. This interdisciplinary nature contributes to the lack of distinctiileness of HRD, and the bodies of knowledge that influence H R D tend to he highly interrelated (Jacobs 1990).

The research for this paper began with an in-depth literature search (focused on US American literature) on the variety of definitions for HRD. These definitions serve as indicators as to how the field has groivn and matured. Each definition is based on one or more underlyi~lg themes. From these themes, the theoretical domains that underpin H R D can be identified. The underpinning theoretical domains have been limited to those that appear most frequently in the series of definitions. Then, within each of these theories, the first step of Patterson's (1986) criteria for the soundness of a theory has been applied.

The author has attempted to uncover the many different definitions of HRD; however, some may have been missed. Hopefully, thc definitions that have been uncovered and consolidated represent the comn~onlp held themes in

The author is employed by Micron Electronics, Inc., as a Senior Training Specialist. The views expressed in this article arc solely those of the author, and d o not neccs- sarily represent thosc held by Micron Electronics Inc.

HRDl 1:l (1998), pp. 75-93 O Routledge 1367-8868

Downloaded By: [INFLIBNET India Order] At: 15:05 16 September 2010

76 Articles

the field today, from a US American perspective. As L. Nadler stated in 1992, 'there is still no universally accepted definition of HRD' (p. 104). Until H R D obtains a generally accepted definition it will be very difficult to get common agreement on the body of knowledge that H R D draws from.

HRD definitions

The H R D definitions begin in 1970 (see Table 1). At that time, L. Nadler (1970) defined H R D as 'a series of organized activities conducted within a specified time and designed to produce behavioral change' (p. 3). Nadler's key focus here was to change the behaviour of organizational members. Craig (1976) refined the definition hr ther by focusing on the goal of developing human potential through lifelong learning. In 1981, Jones introduced the concept of systematic expansion of people's work through attainment of organizational and personal goals (p. 188). The previous definitions had only learning and psychology as underlying theories, Jones had now introduced the systems concept.

McLagan (1983) entered the national scene in her Models for Excellence. The primary focus of her definition was training and developn~ent. But in 1989, her Models fop. HRD Practice shared a reworked definition including not only training and development, but career development and organization development as well.

Chalofsky and Lincoln (1983) defined the discipline of H R D as 'the study of how individuals and groups in organizations change through learning' (p. 20). Chalofsky modified the definition in 1992, presenting the following revised definition as a 'unifying definition' of HRD: 'HRD is the study and practice of increasing the learning capacity of individuals, groups, collectives and organizations through the development and application of learning- based interventions for the purpose of optimizing human and organizational growth and effectiveness' (p. 179). The common theme throughout each of Chalofsky's definitions is adult learning theory.

The late 1980s continued to see a lot of definitions surface for HRD. In the following decades, L. Nadler modified his original 1970 work several times and published this definition in 1989: 'HRD is organized learning experiences provided by employees within a specified period of time to bring about the possibility of performance improvement and/or personal growth' (p. 6). Nadler, like Chalofsky, built his definition around adult learning as the key theory. Another important change with Nadler's more recent definition was the mention of performance improvement. I t was not until the late 1980s that H R D began to see performance improvement as an underlying component of the H R D definition.

Swanson first advocated a performance orientation to the profession in 1975. The University of Minnesota, via Swanson in 1987, published their -


TABLE 1 Human Resource Development Definition Summary

A rrthor Definition Key Components Underlying Theories

L. Nadler, 1970

Craig, 1976

Jones, 1981

Chalofsky & Lincoln, 1983

L. Nadler & Wiggs, 1986

Swanson, 1987

Jacobs, 1988

H R D is a series of organized activities conducted within a specified time and designed t o produce behavioural change (p.3).

H R D focus on the central goal of developing human potential in every aspect of lifelong learning.

H R D is a systematic expansion of people's work-related abilities, focused on the attainment of both organization and personal goals (p.188).

Training and development is identifying, assessing and - through planned learning- helping develop the key competencies which enable individuals t o perform current or future jobs (p. 25).

Discipline of H R D is the study of how indi\iduals and groups in organizations change through learning.

H R D is a comprehensive learning system for the release of the organization's human potentials-a system that includes both vicarious (classroom, mediated, simulated) learning experiences and experiential, on-the-job experiences that are keyed t o the organization's reason for sunrival (p. 5).

HRD is a process of improving an organization's performance through the capabilities of it's personnel. H R D includes activities dealing with work design, aptitude, expertise and motivation.

Human performance technology is the development of human performance systems, and the management of the resulting systems, using a systems approach to achieve organizational and individual goals.

Behavioural change Adult learning

Human performance

Performance, organizational & personal goals

Training & de\relopment

Adult learning

Formal and informal adult learning

Performance

Organizational performance

Organizational and individual

Performance

Psychological

Philosophical Psychological

Philosophical System Psychological Economic

Psychological theory


System theory Economic theory Psychological theory

Economic theory Psychological theory Philosophy theory System theory

Unifting systems theory


TABLE 1 continued

Author Definition IGy Components Underlying Theories

R. Smith, 1988 H R D consists of programs and activities, direct and indirect, Training & instructional and/or individual that positively affect the de\relopment development of the individual and the productivity and profit of the organization Organizational ( P 1). performance

McLagan, 1989 HRD is the integrated use of training and development, career Training & development and organizational development to improve individual development and organizational effectiveness (p. 7). Career development

Organizational development

Watkins, 1989 H R D is the field of study and practice responsible for the fostering Learning capacity of a long-term, work-related learning capacity at the individual, Training Pc group and organizational level of organizations. As such, it includes development - but is not limited to-training, career development and Career development organizational development (p. 427). Organizational

development

Gilley & Eggland, H R D is organized learning activities arranged within at1 organization Learning activities 1989 to improve performance and or personal growth for the purpose of Performance

improving the job, the individual and or the organization (p. 5). improvement

L. Nadler & Z. Nadler, H R D is organized learning experiences provided by employees Learning 1989 within a specified period of time t o bring about the possibility of Performance

performance improvement and/or personal gro\vth (p. 6 ) . impro\lement

Economic theory System theory Psychological theory

Psychological theory System theory Economic theory

Psychological theory System theory Economic theory Performance

itnprovement

Psychological theory Spstcm theory Economic theory Performance

improvement

Performance improven~ent



TABLE 1 continued

D. Smith, 1990 H R D is the process of determining the optimum methods of developing and improving the human resources of an organization and the systematic improvement of the performance and productivity of employees through training, education and development and leadership for the mutual attainment of organizational and personal goals (p. 16).

Chalofsky, 1992 H R D is the study and practice of increasing the learning capacity of individuals, groups, collectives and organizations through the development and application o f learning-based interventions for the purpose of optimizing human and organizational growth and effectiveness (p. 179).

Marquardt & Engel, H R D skills include developing a learning climate, designing training 1993 programs, transmitting information and experience, assessing results,

providing career counseling, creating organizational change and adapting learning materials.

Marsick & Watkins, H R D as a combination of training, career development, and 1994 organizational development offers the theoretical integration needed

to envision a learning organization, but it must also be positioned t o act strategically throughout the organization (p. 355).

Swanson, 1995 H R D is a process of developing and or unleashing human expertise through organization development and personnel training and development for the purpose of improving performance (p. 208).

Performance improvement

Learning capacity Performance

improvement

Learning climate Performance

improvement

Training & development

Career development Organizational

development Lxarning organization

Training & development

Organizational development

Performance improvement at the organization, process and individual levels.


System theory Psychological theory Economic theory

System theory Psychological theory Human performance

Psychological theory Human Performance

Human performance Organizational

performance System theory Economic theory Psychological theory


System theory Economic theory Psychological theory


80 Articles

faculty definition of HRD. This definition stated that 'HRD is a process of improving an organization's performance through the capabilities of its personnel. HRD i~lcludes activities dealing with work design, aptitude, expertise and motivation'. Similar to other HRD definitions, this also went through some slight modifications, and Swanson published a revised model in his 1995 'Performance is the key' article. The new University of Minnesota faculty definition has been revised to: 'HRD is a process of developing and/or unleashing human expertisc through organization development and personnel training and developn~ent for the purpose of improving performance' (p. 208). Again within this definition, performance improvement is a key result. It is interesting to note that the other components of training and development, which McLagan introduced in 1983 and then revised with the addition of organizational development in 1989, are still incorporated in the University of Minnesota definition.

Another key individual within the HRD definition arena was Watkins. Between 1989 and 1994 her definition of HRD changed from 'learning capacity' to a 'learning organization'. In addition, she is thc only one to make mention of HRD being positioned strategically throughout the organization.

There were adchtional contributors of definitions of HRD: Jacobs (1988), Gilley and Eggland (1989), R. Smith (1988), D. Smith (1990) and Marquarde and Engel (1993). Both Gilley and Eggland, and Marquardt and Engel, are concerned with learning and the learning climate. R. Smith, D. Smith and Jacobs emphasize performance improvement.

The review of these definitions, and their evolution, has brought fonvard two continuing themes: learning and performance improvement. Chalofsky (Chalofsky and Lincoln 1983) said that HRD has borrowed from several overlapping disciplines. He listed those disciplines as psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, counselling, education, management science and behavioural science. McLagan (1989) has listed a similar set of disciplines as the applied fields where HRD draws its theories from. She added organizational behaviour; split psychology into both industrial and individual; included communication, sociology, general systems science and the humanities. Jacobs (1990) included in his definition, education, systems, economics, psychological behaviour and organizational behaviour as the five major theoretical bodies that have had the most influence in the field.

Drawing conclusions from this information and the definitions themselves, the following are the key underlying theories associated with HRD:

Learning: adult learning - organizational learning - learning organizations Performance improvement Systems theory Economic theory Psychological theory - with the emphasis on learning

In the balance of this paper, each underlying theory will be examined for two


Weinberger: Commonly held theories of HRD 81

perspectives: (1) its role in HRD, and (2) as applied against Patterson's (1986) first criteria for assessing a theory. Patterson's criteria for assessing a theory are the synthesized works of several authors. This model was selected based on: (1) its similarity to other authors' criteria for assessing a good theory, and (2) its previous use by Jacobs (1989) in evaluating the theory of human performance technology.

The October 1989 edition of The Academy of Management Review included a special forum on theory building. Within this forum, Whetten stated that the four building blocks of theory development are answering: what (comprehensiveness and parsimony), how and why. In addition, Bacharach highlighted falsifiability and utility as criteria for evaluating organizational theories. The framework of these criteria he provides for evaluating includes most of the components of Patterson's (1986) model. Patterson's theory assessment model consists of eight specific criteria against which Patterson proposed the theories in psychotherapy and counselling be assessed. Many of these theories have also contributed to HRD. Patterson's key components are:

\

1 Importance 2 Preciseness and clarity 3 Parsimony and simplicity 4 Comprehensiveness 5 Operationality 6 Empirical validity or verification 7 Fruitfulness 8 Practicality

Step 1 of Patterson's criteria stipulates that: (1) the significance of the theory is articulated; (2) the relevance of the theory is identified to life or real behaviour; (3) identification of formal criteria that the theory must meet and against which it must be evaluated, and (4) acceptance of the theory against criteria by professionals and through literature review. Each of these components needs to be satisfied to meet the first step of Patterson's criteria.

HRD theoretical domains

There is a great deal of overlap and interdependence with the theoretical domains that have been indicated. The following will examine each one independently, citing some of the areas of overlap. Many of the current US American writings include systems thinking as part of learning, organizational performance and economic theory (Dixon 1992; Rummler and Brache 1988; Senge 1990; and Vaill 1996). For organizational and individual performance,


82 Articles

learning is involved at both levels and, if successful, could lead to economic benefits. Learning is deep in the psychological parameters.

Learning theory

Based on the US American literature search, it can easily be concluded that learning should be included as part of the psychological component. Learning theory arises primarily from psychological theory. Passmore (1997) defined psychology as the 'science of behavior and mental processes of humans and animals' (p. 210). He listed several perspcctives that guide psychological inquiry: biological, evolutionary, behavioural, cognitive, humanistic and psychodynamic. The intention here is to look only into the roles of learning (behavioural), cognitive perspective and humanistic perspective in this analysis.

Huberty and Kramlinger (1990) outlined the three approaches to learning as: (1) behaviourism, (2) humanism and (3) cognitivism. Behaviourism is based on the premise that learning occurs primarily through the reinforcement of desired responses. This point of view sees learning as a series of connections between stimuli and responses. Many well-known names have dominated this perspective including Watson, Guthrie, Thorndike and Skinner to name but a few (Hergenhahn and Olson 1992).

The Gestalt view (cognitivism) is concerned with the holistic cognitions an individual has about his or her world and the way they determine his or her perceptions. Field theory is another name for cognitivism. This view is based on learning occurring primarily through exposure to information that is presented logically. Werthmeier, Kohier, Kofia and Rogers are some key contributors in this area (Hergenhahn and Olson 1992).

These two views of learning appear to be almost diametrically opposed; therefore, a combination of the two was envisioned by Tolman on purposive behaviourism, by Bandura for observational learning and by Norman for an information processing approach (Hergenhahn and Olson 1992). Gagne (1962) proposed synthesized learning principles to make a difference on learning. Other scholars in the area of synthesizing learning principles are Watkins and Marsick (1992), Marsick and Watkins (1994) in the learning organization, and Jacobs and Jones (1995) for structured on-the-job training.

Adult learning theory is the hrthest from behaviourism. Key contributors in this arena are Knowles (1980), Knowles and Associates (1984), Rogers (1969) and Maslow (1970). Adult learning theory argues that the learner 'becomes the focus in determining what needs to be learned, how to learn it and what specific goals should constitute success in the learning process' (VanWart et al. 1993: 138). The emphasis from these humanists was on the importance of goal-setting by the learners.

With all the various foundations of learning to be found within psychology, one would expect to see a variety of definitions of learning in the field today. Hergenhahn and Olson (1992) modified Kimbles's 1961 definition of



learning to make it more widely accepted, rewriting it as: 'Learning is a relatively permanent change in behavior or in behavioral potentiality that results from experience and cannot be attributed to temporary body states such as those induced by illness or fatigue' (p. 7). Vaill(1996) defined learning as 'the changes a person makes in himself or herself that increase the know-why and/or the know-what and/or the know-how the person possesses with respect to a given subject' (p. 21). Senge (1990) said that through learning we recreate ourselves, as individuals we are able to do something we could never do, we extend our capacity to create, to be a part of the process of life

( P 14). Learning is a process by which behaviour is modified (Megginson e t al.

1993). Experience is the basic process which leads to a person learning. Malcolm Knowles (1990) surmises that adults learn best when they can invest their experience in the learning effort. Rogers (1969) stated that 'the most usehl learning is learning the process of learning, a continuous openness to experience and incorporation into oneself of the process of change' (p. 163).

Organizational learning

Learning is a journey not a destination (Laird 1978). The field of HRD should not only be concerned with individual learning, but also with organizational learning, and the concept of the learning organization. Organizational learning refers to learning at the system level rather than at the individual level (Dixon 1992). Argyris and Schon (1978) state that 'there is no organizational learning without individual learning and that individual learning is a necessary but insufficient condition for organizational learning' (p. 20). Argryis (1990) describes two levels of learning that occur in organizations. The first is single-loop learning which results from the organization considering the consequences of its actions when the consequences do not match the desired outcome. This discrepancy enables the organization to modify the actions it takes. The second level is double-loop learning which occurs when an organization's reaction to a discrepancy is to examine and possibly modify the theories-in-use upon which the action is based. Double-loop learning, though rare, allows the organization to improve its capacity to learn.

Learning organization

Marsick and Watkins (1994) have defined the learning organization as 'one that learns continuously and can transform itself. The learning organization is a sustainable vision for the development of the human in organizations' (p. 354). Watkins and Marsick (1992) believe that the learning organization is an integrating vision for the field of human resource development. 'Human resource developers who are systematically and developmentally increasing


84 Articles

the learning capacity of the organization are creating learning organizations' (p. 117). The learning organization links individual learning with organizational learning.

Similar to the concept of individual learning, the organization has learned when it has developed better systems, unlearned old ways of thinking and changed its mental models (Watkins and Marsick 1992). Senge (1990) and -Argyris and Schon (1978) emphasize learning which is a shift of mind, redesigning our mental models. It is this kind of learning which is at the heart of Senge's learning organization.

The learning organization has also been defined as 'an organization which facilitates the learning of all its members and continuously transforms itself' (Pedlar, Boydell and Burgoyne, cited in Hawkins 1991: 179). Brooks (1992) references a study conducted in a Fortune 500 company; through this study, it was determined that the understanding of how individual development and learning contribute to organizational transformation seems to have important implications for intentional transformation efforts in organizations. The tran- sition in the field today is going from an emphasis on individual learning (training) to one of organizational learning. Any individual learning that takes place needs to keep the organization's strategic objectives in mind.

Dixon (1992) believes that HRD professionals need to design new learning processes rather than expand only the old models, to reframe learning to meet the new challenges. Therefore, learning, organizational learning and the learning organization all include theories of adult learning, whether as individuals or groups.

Applying Patterson's (1986) first criteria for assessing the soundness of theory shows that learning theory is important to the HRD profession. The significance and relevance of learning theory to real behaviour is more than evident in the literature and it is overwhelming, and learning can easily be shown as a fundamental premise for HRD. In addition, learning or improving organizational and individual learning is a common practitioners' role in HRD. Consequently, learning theory is key to HRD and based on research will fall into a component of psychological theory which is extremely important to the profession.

Theory of performance improvement

Several authors emphasized that learning needs to be tied to the organization's strategic objectives, as a method for improving performance (Rummler and Brache 1995; Swanson 1995). The theme of performance or performance improvement also kept emerging from the HRD definitions as a fundamental theory of HRD from a US American perspective.

There are several scholars who have written about a theory of performance, beginning with Gilbert in 1978, who wrote extensively about human competence. Gilbert defined human competence as a 'function of worthy



performance' (p. 18), and proposed four 'leisurely theorems' in his writings: (1) human competence is a hnction of worthy performance; (2) that human competence is inversely proportional to the potential for improving performance (p. 30); (3) that for any accomplishment, a deficiency in performance always has, as its immediate cause, a deficiency in behaviour (p. 76); and (4) human accomplishments can be viewed at several levels of generality (p. 112).

There are six performance factors that can be manipulated to enhance individual, group and organization performance (modified by Rosenberg 1996):

1 consequences, incentives and rewards; 2 data and information, the feedback and standards of performance; 3 resources, tools and environmental support; 4 individual capacity, the capabilities of an individual's performance; 5 motives and expectations, internal views the employees hold; and 6 skills and knowledge.

Gilbert (1978) designed what he called the 'behaviour engineering model' (p. 88). He suggested that this model could serve as an analytic tool for identifying performance problems and their causes.

Though presented as a theory of human competence and not of performance improvement, human competence is a hnction of performance. Gilbert proposed that the costs of improving human performance be viewed as investments in human capital (economic theory), which yield returns valued by both organizations and individuals in terms of their performance potential. Gilbert's model can be applied as a theory of performance improvement to HRD.

Rummler and Brache (1988, 1995) utilized Gilbert's behaviour engineering model as a foundation for the human performance system. The human performance system applied only to the individual level in Rummler and Brache's model. This system consisted of six components:

1 Performance specifications: standards, output. 2 Task support: the resources that are available. 3 Consequences: those that are aligned to support the desired performance. 4 Feedback: d o the performers receive information about their performance? 5 Skills/knowledge: d o the performers have the skills/knowledge to perform? 6 Individual capacity: are performers physically, mentally and emotionally

able t o perform?

Rummler and Brache theorize that evaluating performance based on the three-level framework of organizational, process and job/performer is actually a unifying theory of performance improvement (p. 216). The human performance system is an example of the individual level of evaluation.


86 Articles

Gilbert (1988) believes that performance by itself is not competence. He defined performance as the ratio of the exemplar's performance to typical performance. This results in a potential for improving performance, a measure of competence.

D. A. Nadler and Gerstein (1992) propose the concept of a high- performance work system. They defined this as

an organizational architecture that brings together work, people, technology, and information in a manner that optimizes the congruence or 'fit' among them in order to produce high in terms of the effective responses to customer requirements and other environmental demands and opportunities [p. 1181.

The authors characterized these high-performance work systems as:

1 a way of thinking about organizations; 2 a set of principles for designing organizations; 3 a process for applying these design principles; and 4 a variety of specific organizational design features.

The high-performance work system was recognized as a third theory of performance improvement that can be applied in the HRD field.

Organizational improvement strategy based on employee involvement is proposed by Lawler (1986). Lawler states that when employees are involved, (a) they are motivated to perform, (b) they have a higher commitment to the organization, and consequently, (c) the quality of their work improves. This employee involvement is a component of high-involvement management which is a core principle that can be viewed as another theory of performance.

An additional theory of performance is that of human performance technology (HPT). This is defined as 'the process of improving an organization's performance through the abilities of personnel' (Swanson 1992). Jacobs coined the phrase human performance technology and roots it deep in systems theory. Consequently, this theory of performance will be reviewed in the systems component.

Swanson (1995) emphasizes performance as the key to HRD, believing that performance occurs and should be assessed at three levels: the organizational level, the process level and the individual level. This performance is affected by five factors (goals, environment, motivation, expertise and capacity) upon which Swanson proposes a matrix of enabling questions for diagnosis of the disconnects from performance. Like the model proposed by Rummler and Brache (1995), Swanson's matrix can also be looked at as a theory of performance improvement and can be applied by the practitioner in the field of HRD.

Swanson (1995) envisions the three theories of HRD as systems,



psychology and economics as a three-legged stool and sees performance as a component of each. Instead of the three-legged stool Swanson suggests, a fourth leg needs to be added, the all-encompassing component of performance. The performance component viewed this way can be shown as the theory which ties together the other three underlying theories of HRD. Because performance improvement is important to HRD and successhl performance leads to economic benefits, is based on a systems perspective of an organization and is rooted in the psychological/learning domains, it should be viewed as an underlying theory of HRD.

By again applying Patterson's (1986) step 1 criteria to these various theories related to performance improvement, agreement in the US American literature

\ Theoretical Foundations

/ Performance I ~erfor'mance \ \

'erformance - \ A

stem \ \

Economic Psychology

FIGURE 1 Adapted from R. A. Swanson (1995). The Theory of Performance needs to be added to Swanson's model for an additional theoretical foundation of HRD. Performance is a key ingredient in Economic, System and Psychological theory and ties them all together as an additional foundation theory of HRD.


88 Articles

shows that performance (individual and organizational) is extremely important, and this importance is emphasized in the reviewed definitions of HRD. The concept of performance is significant and relevant; however, the literature search has revealed that there is not one single theory of performance. The role of performance as espoused by Rummler and Brache (1995), Gilbert, D. A. Nadler and Swanson, serves as an introduction to what could be described as a theory of performance for HRD and, similar to learning, this role of performance is key to the HRD practitioner as well.

Systems theory

The next field of underlying theory for HRD is systems theory. Much of the literature speaks of the importance of a systems view of the organization and processes within (Dixon 1992; Jacobs 1989; Knowles 1985; Passmore 1997; Rummler and Brache 1995; Senge 1990; Sleezer 1993; Swanson 1994; Vaill 1996). The previous two theories of learning as a part of psychology and performance improvement can also be viewed from a systems perspective. Learning does not occur in and of itself, it is rather a component of the learning resources in an organizational system (Knowles 1985). Learning has inputs, processes and outputs. Consequently, with the acceptance of the systems approach, the HRD professional needs to be less concerned with planning, scheduling and instructing and more concerned with managing the system (Knowles 1985).

Von Bertalanffy (1968) studied general systems theory and applied it in many different contexts, and Berrien (1968) and Katz and Kahn (1966) used systems theory as applied to organizations. Jacobs (1989) proposes that systems theory be the unifylng theory for HRD in his chapter on 'Systems theory applied to human resource development'.

Jacobs (1988) proposes a domain of human performance technology (HPT) and defined the theory: 'HPT is the development of human performance systems and the management of the resulting syseems, using a systems approach to achieve organizational and individual goals'. This is an example of another link to performance improvement within the systems concept. Jacobs (1989) !ays additional groundwork on system theory and applies seven of the eight of Patterson's (1986) criteria for assessing a theory.

Economic theory

The final theory underlying HRD is economic theory. The bottom line for any HRD intervention is providing financial benefits to the organization. The basic model is: performance value less costs = benefits to the organization (Swanson and Gradous 1988). Swanson and Gradous present this practical model for forecasting HRD's financial benefits.

One of the key components for economic theory that can be applied to



HRD is human capital theory. Becker (1975) states that 'investments in human capital are activities that influence h ture monetary and psychic income by increasing the resources in people' (p. 9). These investments take many forms, but all improve skills, knowledge or health. The concept of human capital is that people possess skills, experience and knowledge, and therefore have economic value to organizations. These skills, knowledge and experience represent capital because they enhance productivity (Snell and Dean 1992), a key focus for the practice of HRD.

Therefore, it need not be argued that economic theory is a foundation of HRD. As Pfeffer (1994) surmises, the competitive advantage of an organization is through its people. An investment in the human capital. There are several investments one can make in human capital, however; on-the-job training illustrates the effect of human capital on earnings, employment and other economic values (Becker 1975; Jacobs and Jones 1995). Additionally, schooling, productive wage increases and other knowledge are all cited by Becker as forms of investments in human capital. The rate of return on one's investment in human capital is important for an HRD professional to calculate. Mosier (1990), Swanson and Gradous (1988) and Swanson (1992) all have models to do this calculation.

The importance criteria for Patterson's (1986) model can be applied here as well. Most organizations are in the business for economic gain, therefore resources, such as people, are a form of cost to the organization. Investments in this resource, developing the human capital, needs to demonstrate a financial benefit to the organization. All of this is tied to economics. So economic theory, specifically human capital, is certainly significant and relevant. Investment in people is viewed as an economic cost, the HRD profession needs t o ensure that it is a beneficial one to the organization.

Conclusion

The field of HRD is inter-disciplinary in nature, on that point there is no disagreement. What is not agreed upon is a uni@ing definition of the theories that underpin this field. It is not suggested that psychology with a learning emphasis, systems, economics and performance are the only fields that impact HRD, simply that they are primary. As many authors have pointed out, HRD also draws from the fields of philosophy, communication theory, sociology and humanities, to name a few.

This analysis has shown the breadth of HRD with the definitions of the field and how these definitions have changed with the increased knowledge of adult learning, systems theory, and the importance of economics and performance to HRD. This analysis is limited in its usage of primarily US American scholars. Through a better understanding of the background from which HRD emerged, researchers and practitioners can now focus on the primary theories


90 Articles

underlying the field of HRD and move forward with an agreed-upon foun- dational base for additional research. To hrther these theories, additional research is also needed to compare these results with the multitude of literature in the European journals and determine if the proposed underlying theories can be the universal theories underpinning HRD.

Address for correspondence

Micron Electronics, Inc. 2359 Walnut Street Building 2, Entrance 8 Roseville, MN 55 1 13 USA

References

Argyris, C . (1990) Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Orgnnizational ,!.earning, Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bacharach, S. B. (1989) 'Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation', The Academy of Management Review 14(4): 496-5 15.

Becker, G. S. (1975) Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education, 2nd edn, New York: Columbia University Press.

Berrien, F. K. (1968) General and Social Systems, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Bertalanffy, L. V. (1968) 'General systems theory - a critical review', in W. Buckley (ed.) Modern Systems Research for the Behavioural Scientist, Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Brooks, A. K. (1992) 'Building learning organizations: the individual-culture inter- action', Human Resource Development Quarterly 3(4): 323-35.

Chalofsky, N. (1989) 'What is HRD?', in D. Gradous (ed.) Systevfis Theory Applied to Human Resource Development, fourth in the Theory-to-Practice Monograph series, Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press, pp. 12-19.

Chalofsky, N. (1992) 'A unifying definition for the human resource development

profession', Human Resource Development Quarterly 3(2): 175-82. Chalofsky, N. and Lincoln, C. (1983) Up the HRD Ladder, Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley. Craig, R. (ed.) (1976) Training and Development Handbook, 2nd edn, New York:

McGraw-Hill. Dixon, N. M. (1992) 'Organizational learning: a review of the literature with irnplica-

tions for H R D professionals', Human Resource Development Quarterly 3( 1 ): 29-49.



Gagne, R. M. (1962) 'Military training and principles of learning', American

Psychologist 17(2): 83-9 1. Gilbert, T . F. (1978) Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance, New

York: McGraw-Hill. Gilbert, T . F. (1988) 'Measuring the potential for performance improvement',

Training 25(7): 49-52. Gilley, J. and Eggland, S. (1989) Principles of Human Resource Development, Reading,

MA: Addison-Wesley. Hawkins, P. (1991) 'The spiritual dimensions of the learning organization',

Management Education and Development 22(3): 1 72-87. Hergenhahn, B. R. and Olson, M. H . (1992) An Introduction t o Theories of Learning,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Huberty, T. and Kramlinger, T. (1990) 'Behaviorism versus humanism', Training and Development 44( 12): 4 1-5.

Jacobs, R. (1988) 'A proposed domain of human performance technology:

implications for theory and practice', Performance and Instruction l (2) : 2-12. Jacobs, R. (1989) 'Systems theory applied t o human resource development', in

D. Gradous (ed.) Systems Theory Applied to Human Resource Development, fourth in the Theory-to-Practice Monograph series, Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press, pp. 27-60.

Jacobs, R. (1990) 'Human rcsource development as an interdisciplinary body of knowledge', Human Resource Development Quavterly 1 ( 1 ): 65-71.

Jacobs, R. and Jones, M. (1995) Structrrred On-the-Job Traininn: Developing Expertise in the Workplace, San Francisco: Herrett-Koehler.

Joncs, J . (1981) 'The organizational universe', in J . Jones and J. Pfeiffer (eds) The 1981 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators, San Diego, CA: University

Associates.

Katz, D. and Kahn, R. L. (1966) The Social Psychology of Orpantzations, New York: Wiley.

Kimble, G. A. (1961) Hilgard and Marquis' Conditioning and Learning, 2nd edn, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenticc-Hall.

Knowles, M. S. (1980) The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagony to Andrapogy, 2nd edn, New York: Cambridge Books.

Knowles, M. S. (1985) 'Shifting t o an H R D systems approach', Training and Development Journal 39(5): 24-5.

Knowles, M. S. (1990) The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species, 4th edn, Houston: Gulf.

Knowles, M. S. and Associates (1984) Andragcgy in Action: Applying Modern

Principles of Adrtlt learn in^, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Laird, D. (1978) Approaches t o Training and Development, Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.

Lawler, E. E. (1986) H$h-Involvement Management: Participative Strategies for Improving Organizational Performance, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


92 Articles

Marquardt, M. J. and Engel, D. W. (1993) 'HRD competencies for a shrinking

world', Training and Development 47(5): 59-65.

Marsick, V. and Watkins, K. (1994) 'The learning organization: an integrative vision for HRD', Human Resource Development Quarterly 5(4): 353-60.

Maslow, A. H . (1970) Motivation and Personality, 2nd edn, New York: HarperCollins.

McLagan, P. (1983) Models for Excellence, Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press. McLagan, P. (1989) Models for HRD Practice, Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press. Megginson, D., Joy-Matthews, J. and Banfield, P. (1993) Human Resource

Development, London: AMED. Mosier, N. R. (1990) 'Financial analysis: the methods and their application t o

employee training', Human Resource Development Quarterly l(1): 45-63. Nadler, D. A. and Gerstein, M. S. (1992) 'Designing high-performance work systems:

organizing people, work, technology, and information', in D. A. Nadler, M. S.

Gerstein, R. B. Shaw and Associates (eds) Oganizational Architecture: Designs for Changing Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 1 10-32.

Nadler, L. (1970) Developing Human Resources, Houston: Gulf. Nadler, L. (1992) 'HRD - where has it been, where is it going?' Studies in Continaiszg

Education 14(2): 104-14. Nadler, L. and Nadler, Z. (1989) Developing Human Resources: Concepts and a Model,

3rd edn, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nadler, L. and Wiggs, G. (1986) Managing Human Resouvce Development: A

Practical Guide, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Passmore, D. L. (1997) 'Ways of seeing: disciplinary bases of research in HRD', in

R Swanson and E. Holton (eds) Human Resource Development Research

Handbook, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, pp. 199-2 14.

Patterson, C. (1986) Theories of Counseling and P~ychotherfipy, 4th edn, New York: Harper & Row, pp. xix-xxii.

Pfeffer, J. (1994) Competitive Advantage throirgh People: Uuleashing the Power of the Workforce, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Rogers, C. R (1969) A Freedom to Learn, Columbus, O H : Charles E. Merrill. Rosenberg, M. J. (1996) 'Human performance technology', in R. L. Craig (ed.) The

ASTD Training and Development Handbook: A Guide to Human Resource Development, 4th edn, New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 370-93.

Rummler, G. A. and Brache, A. B. (1988) 'The systems view of human performance', Training 25(9): 45-53.

Rummler, G. A. and Brache, A. G. (1995) Improving Perfo~inance: How to Manage the White Space on the Organizational Chart, 2nd edn, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Senge, P. M. (1990) The FiPh Discipline: The Art and lJractice of the Learning Organization, New York: Doubleday.

Sleezer, C. M. (1993) 'Training needs assessment at work: a dynamic process', Human Resource Development Quarterly 4(3): 247-64.



Smith, D. (1990) The Dictionary for Human Resource Development, Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.

Smith, R. (1988) Human Resource Development: An Overview, Office of Educational

Research and Improvement, Washington, DC.

Snell, S. A. and Dean, J. W. Jr (1992) 'Integrated manufacturing and human resource management: a human capital perspective', Academy of Management Journal

35(3): 467-504. Swanson, R. A. (1987) Human Resource Development Definition, St Paul: University

of Minnesota, Training and Development Research Center. Swanson, R. A. (1992) 'Demonstrating financial benefits t o clients', in H. Stolovitch

and E. Keeps (eds) Handbook of Human Performance Technology, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 602-1 8.

Swanson, R A. (1994) Analysis for Improving Performance: Tools for Diagnosing Organizationsand Documenting Workplace Expertise, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Swanson, R. A. (1995) 'Performance is the key', Human Resource Development Quarterly 6(2): 207-13.

Swanson, R A. and Gradous, D. B. (1988) Forecasting Financial Benefits of Human

Resource Development, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Swanson, R. A. and Sawzin, S. (1975) Industrial Training Research Project, Bowling Green, O H : Bowling Green State University.

Vaill, P. B. ( 1996) Learning as a Way of Being: Strategies in a World of Permanent White Water, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

VanWart, M., Cayer, N. and Cook, S. (1993) Handbook of Training and Development for the Public Sector, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Watkins, K. (1989) 'Business and industry', in S. Merriam and P. Cunningham (eds) Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp.

422-30. Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1992) 'Building the learning organization: a new role

for human resource developers', Studies in Continuing Education 14(2): 115-29.

Whetten, D. A. (1989) 'What constitutes a theoretical contribution?', The Academy of Management Review 14(4): 490-5.


Theories of HRD1

Documents

Transcript of Theories of HRD1