new microsoft office word document
TRANSCRIPT
History of HRD in India
It was 25 years ago that our country witnessed the emergence of a new HRD culture in our country with Prof Udai Pareek and Prof T.V.Rao heading the movement. What started as a "Review Exercise of the Performance Appraisal System" for L&T by two consultants, Prof Udai Pareek and Prof T.V. Rao from the Indian Institute Of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA), resulted in the development of a new function - The HRD Function. In the early seventies, this company, in association with IIMA the reviewed all aspects of its operations. In 1974, the consultants studied the organisation and prepared a new integrated system called Human Resource Development ( HRD) System. This was probably the first of its kind in India. The new system clearly established the linkages between the various personnel related aspects such as performance appraisal, employee counselling, potential appraisal training, etc. Prof Pareek and Prof Rao presented an approach paper to the top management on the new ideas and this was accepted. The Company wanted the implementation also to be done by the consultants, as it was not sure that enough expertise was available on the human process within the organisation. The consultants, however felt that L&T managers had enough competence and insisted that an internal team undertake this task. Thus, the work was undertaken by an internal team with the help of the consultants and this was very satisfying. Based on the recommendations of the approach paper, a very high level role was created at the Board level to give a greater thrust to the new system. A separate HRD Department was created. A high level internal team headed by a General Manager, monitored the progress of implementation of the new system initially, which was subsequently handed over to the HRD Department. The HRD system has since then been reviewed from time to time and improvements made, retaining the basic philosophy. The original consultancy reports of Dr. Udai Pareek and Dr. T.V.Rao have sown the seeds for this new function and new profession. This pioneering work of Dr. Rao and Dr. Pareek lead later top the establishment of HRD Departments in the State Bank Of India and its Associates, and Bharat Earth Movers Limited in Bangalore in 1976 and 1978. The first HRD workshop to discuss HRD concepts and issues was held at IIMA in 1979. Several chapters of the book which was later published by Oxford & IBH as "Designing and Managing Human Resource Systems" were distributed in this workshop. This workshop was the beginning of spreading the HRD message. In subsequent years beginning 1980 a series of workshops were held to develop HRD Facilitators, both at IIMA and in the Indian Society for Applied Behavioural Sciences (ISABS). IIMA workshops focussed in the conceptual parts and ISABS on experiental part. As HRD started growing Larsen &
Toubro instituted a HRD Chair Professorship at XLRI, Jamshedpur. Dr. T.V.Rao moved to XLRI as L&T Professor in 1983 to set up the Centre for HRD. Subsequently, a National Seminar was organised in Bombay during February 1985 jointly by XLRI Centre for HRD and the HRD Department of Larsen & Toubro. The National HRD Network was conceived during this seminar. The first HRD Newsletter was started consequent to this seminar by the Centre for HRD for XLRI and was sponsored by L&T. the National HRD Network took shape and became a large body with about 20 chapters in the subsequent five year period. The National HRD Network was nurtured by IIMA and XLRI on the one hand and by the corporate sector on the other. The National HRD Network later gave birth to the Academy of Human Resources Development. This is the first family tree of HRD in India.
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)
486
Definitions of HRD: Key Concepts from a National and
International Context
Haslinda Abdullah
Associate Professor, Faculty of Economics & Management
Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Selangor, Malaysia
E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
Tel: +03-89467638
Abstract
Numerous attempts to define human resource development (HRD) by academics,
researchers and practitioners are proving that this concept is confusing and elusive. The
purpose of this paper is to analyse definitions of HRD on the basis of key concepts of
evolving HRD, HRD from a national context and international HRD. This paper is based
on data and information gathered through a review of targeted literature on HRD. Providing
a single definition of HRD may not be feasible or practical. It is suggested that HRD be
defined at three levels, namely: general (macro-level), national (micro-level) and
international (global level).
Introduction
Numerous attempts to define human resource development (HRD) by academics, researchers and
practitioners have led to confusion in the literature, illustrating the elusive nature of this concept. This
suggests that a distinctive conceptual or theoretical definition of HRD has not yet been established, and
this issue has hence become a subject of constant debate and discourse (Weinberger, 1998; McLean &
McLean, 2001; Wang & McLean, 2007). The process of defining HRD is made still more difficult by
the evolving nature of HRD; for example, the term HRD started out as simply “training”, and then
evolved into “training and development” (T&D), and then into HRD. However, McGoldrick et al
(2002) suggest that the process of defining HRD is thwarted by the lack of boundaries and parameters
and the lack of depth of empirical evidence of some conceptual aspects of HRD, such as strategic
HRD, learning organization and knowledge management. Confusion also arises over the “purpose”, the
“location” and the “intended beneficiary” of HRD. This is further complicated by attempts to define
HRD from an international or global perspective (McLean & McLean, 2001; Wang & McLean, 2007).
The emerging field of national HRD (NHRD) have also been explored and debated and has had notable
influence on the definition of HRD.
A single definition for HRD has been suggested by Watkins (1991), which focuses on learning,
whilst Swanson (1995) focuses on performance. However, disagreement arises, with some authors
arguing that it is not possible or feasible to provide a single definition of this concept (Ruona, 2000;
Lee, 2001; Dilworth, 2003). This lack of agreement has been further aggravated by the epistemological
and ontological perspectives of individual stakeholders, commentators and scholars in the field of HRD
(Swanson et al, 2000). There is still the issue of trying to differentiate HRD and T&D, clarify the
relationship between HRD and Human Resource Management (HRM) and identify the scope of HRD
activities.
In reviewing the literature surrounding the meaning and understanding of HRD, a number of
dimensions can be seen to be influencing the evolving and complicated nature of HRD. This paper
does not attempt to present all the emerging dimensions but rather to discuss various characteristics
that have greatly influenced HRD or what are seen to be the most significant dimensions in HRD. European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)
487
Therefore, the aim of this paper is to examine and understand the definition of HRD from various
perspectives, starting by differentiating T&D and HRD, before going on to discuss the general
purposes and functions of HRD, the intended beneficiaries of HRD, the framework of HRD from a
country’s perspective, and the attempt to define international HRD (IHRD).
Defining T&D and HRD
The definition of HRD has attracted a great deal of discourse as writers have tried to differentiate HRD
from T&D (McGoldrick et al, 2002; Garavan et al, 1999; Harrison, 2000). The Manpower Services
Commission (1982:62) provided separate and lengthy definitions for training and development.
First, training was defined as a “planned process to modify attitude, knowledge or skills
through learning experiences to achieve effective performance in an activity or range of activities. Its
purpose, in the work situation, is to develop the abilities of the individual and to satisfy the current and
future needs of the organisation”.
A second, separate definition was given for development, which was defined as “the growth or
realisation of a person’s ability through conscious or unconscious learning, which usually includes
elements of planned study and experience supported by coaching and counselling” (Wilson, 1999).
By contrast, Nadler and Nadler (1989:4) provided a shorter and simpler definition of training
and development in which training was defined as “learning provided by employers related to the
present job” and development was defined as “learning for growth of the individual but not related to
a specific present or future job”.
Defining T&D has been quite straightforward, as writers have separated the meanings of
training and development and created a separate definition for each word. However, defining HRD has
not been so straightforward, and the issue is continuously being debated by writers and researchers. For
example, Blake (1995) claimed that the field of HRD “defies definition and boundaries”. Weinberger
(1998) argued that there seems to be no consensus, despite the fact that numerous efforts have been
made to define HRD. On the other hand, Lee (2001) contested that some writers refused to define HRD
and it could not be defined sufficiently. However, it is still important to analyse and differentiate HRD
from T&D. The first definition of HRD was offered by Harbison and Myers (1964) as “…the process
of increasing the knowledge, the skills and the capacities of all the people in a society. In economic
terms, it could be described as the accumulation of human capital and its effective investment in the
development of an economy. In political terms, HRD prepares people for adult participation in the
political process, particularly as citizens in a democracy. From the social and cultural points of view,
the development of human resources helps people lead fuller and richer lives, less bound to tradition.
In short, the processes of HRD unlock the door to modernization”. However, this definition is very
broad in perspective, as it defines HRD in relation to culture, the economy and social and political
contexts rather than individuals and organizations. Hence, Nadler and Nadler (1970) defined HRD as
“…a series of organised activities conducted within a specified time and designed to produce
behavioural change” and the latest definition is that HRD is “a set of systematic and planned activities
designed by an organisation to provide its members with the opportunities to learn necessary skills to
meet current and future job demands”.
From these definitions, commonalities can be seen in the theoretical concepts and purposes of
HRD and T&D, in that they both provide human resources with learning and education to improve
performance. This view is supported by Nadler and Nadler (1989), who agree that HRD and T&D are
capable of bringing about improved performance, whilst Weinberger (1998) contends that the
evolution of HRD and T&D has brought forward two continuing themes of learning and performance
improvement. However, writers such as Desimone et al (2000), Harrison (2000), and Stead and Lee
(1996) argue that HRD and T&D are different in terms of their roles and strategies. T&D’s role has
been claimed to extend far beyond training, to encompass coaching, counselling and the selection of
human resources (Nadler & Nadler, 1989). It has been argued that HRD is a strategic and business European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)
488
approach to training and development of human resources in an organisation for performance and
organisational improvement (Garavan, 1995a; Harrison, 2000).
HRD and T&D may be similar in their concepts and purposes, but HRD is different in that it
has roles that extend far beyond training and development (Stead and Lee, 1996). HRD is a
strategically orientated organisational process for managing the development of human resources and
is strategically associated with employees’ T&D and overall business success (Harrison, 2000).
Therefore, in short, HRD is an extension of T&D, which includes a strategic dimension, whereas T&D
is a role in implementing HRD. Having clarified the difference between T&D and HRD, this leads to a
discussion of the key concepts underlying HRD.
General Purposes and Functions of HRD
Behind the theoretical debates concerning the nature of HRD, there is a set argument pertaining to the
purpose of HRD. The purposes of HRD are said to influence the nature and extent of HRD activities
being implemented (McLean and McLean, 2001). Holton (2000) proposes that the purposes of HRD
are centred on learning and performance perspectives, both benefiting the individual and the interests
of shareholders. In a wider perspective, Hatcher (2000) argues that the purposes centre on economic
benefits, social benefits and the ethics of HRD. These points indirectly suggest that a reconciliation of
the purposes of HRD centrally focus on training, development and learning within organisations for
individual development to achieve business strategies and for the development of organisational
competence (Gourlay, 2001). In general, the purpose of HRD, extracted from the definitions above, is
to enhance individual performance and improve organisational effectiveness and productivity (see, for
example, McLagan, 1989; Chalofsky, 1992; Stewart & McGoldrick, 1996).
However, some definitions have very specific purposes, from behavioural change (Nadler,
1970; Chalofsky & Lincoln, 1983; Megginson et al, 2000) to developing a learning climate or learning
organisation (Marquardt & Engel, 1993; Marsick & Watkins, 1994: see Table1). Moreover, in
consonance with globalisation and new technology, the purpose of HRD is to meet regulatory
requirements, improving quality and training for implementing new technology (Parker & Coleman,
1999; Rothwell & Kolb, 1999).
Conversely, the purpose of HRD could also be seen from the perspective of the activities or key
functions in HRD. The main key functions of HRD are individual development, organisational
development, career development and performance improvement. In analysing the various definitions
of HRD, most writers and researchers have indicated that the primary focus of HRD is individual
development (see for example, Nadler, 1970; McLagan, 1983) or organisational development (Nadler
& Wiggs, 1986; Swanson, 1987). However, some researchers have argued that individual and
organisational development are connected and interrelated. From this perspective, employees are
expected to be provided with T&D or learning activities to improve performance, which leads to
organisational effectiveness (see, for example, Chaflofsky, 1992; Swanson, 1995; Stewart &
McGoldrick, 1996). On the contrary, it has been argued that when T&D is provided, other than for
organisational effectiveness, it helps to develop key competencies, which enable individuals to
improve their current job performance and enhance future performance for career development (Gilley
& Eggland, 1989; Marsick & Watkins, 1994; Desimone, et al, 2002: see Table 1). Hence, it has been
argued that the purpose of HRD is to develop an individual’s career progression, rather than to
encourage individual and organisational development (Marsick & Watkins, 1994; Desimone et al,
2002; Gilley et al, 2002).
Nevertheless, another key purpose of HRD drawn out from the various definitions is
performance improvement. It has been claimed that performance forms one of the four key functions of
HRD, as it is an important extension of HRD theory (see, for example, Smith, 1990; Chalofsky, 1992;
Marquardt & Engel, 1993; Swanson, 1995; Desimone et al, 2002; Gilley et al, 2002). Hence, individual
development, organisational development, career development and performance development are the
four main functions of HRD and can be described as interrelated functions within HRD. However, European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)
489
some researchers hold contrasting viewpoints on these four functions (see, for example, Nadler, 1970;
Craig, 1976; Chalofsky & Lincoln, 1983). In summary, the purposes of HRD can be easily illustrated
as depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Interrelated Functions of HRD
Performance
Improvement
(PM)
Individual
Development
(T&D)
Organisational
Development
(Change
Management)
Career
Planning &
Development
HRD
Figure 2: Purposes of HRD
Improve quality
Improve productivity
Organisational
Development
Individual
Development
Regulatory
Requirement
Systems
Development
Economic benefits
Social benefits
Ethics
New technology
Behavioural change
Performance improvement
Increase productivity
Learning organisation
HRD
Career
Development
Performance
Improvement
Performance improvement
Motivation
Therefore, it is clear from the various positions of different writers and researchers that there is
no consensus regarding the conceptual and theoretical purpose and functions of HRD. The purposes of
HRD could be said to be changing and evolving in accordance with organisational strategies and goals.
Moreover, the concepts and purposes of HRD are suggested to be in consonance with the individual
country’s requirements and structure (McLean & McLean, 2001).
Theoretical Framework of HRD by Country
The theoretical framework of HRD can be viewed from a general context, as discussed above, or from
a more specific context, such as a national context. Indeed, it has been reported that the theoretical
framework of HRD varies from one country to another due to economic influences, political factors,
government legislation and the country’s value system (McLean and McLean, 2001). These influences
are particularly influential in shaping the development of human resources (Lee, 2003; Harrison &
Kessels, 2004). The theoretical and conceptual framework of HRD varies by country according to three
dimensions, namely the scope of activities within HRD, the intended audience for development and the
national purposes of HRD (McLean and McLean, 2001). European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)
490
Scope of HRD Activities
Most countries equate HRD with T&D and the main focus is on activities related to training. This
viewpoint is seen in countries such as Russia (Ardishvilli, 1998), Germany (Kuchinke, 1998) and
Korea (Park, 1998; McLean and McLean, 2001). On the other hand, in other countries, the scope of
HRD is seen to be very broad, encompassing activities related to the possibility of developing human
resources’ physical, emotional, spiritual and intellectual improvement as well as improving their
technical and productive skills (Busaya and Na Chiangmai, 1998 in Thailand; Osman-Gani, 2000 in
Singapore; and Rao, 1996 in India). These countries’ HRD activities may seem to be at the extreme of
the spectrum, but most countries seemed to be more focused on activities related to learning,
performance improvement, behavioural and attitudinal change as well as changing organisational
culture: see, for example, McGoldrick and Stewart (1996) in the UK; Streumer (1998) in the
Netherlands; Yan and McLean (1998) in China. The scope of HRD activities in some countries seems
to have followed the US definition of HRD, which was discussed earlier in this section. These
countries have primarily included T&D, organization and career development in their HRD functions
(see, for example, Wallace, 1998, in Canada) as well as focusing on activities related to social
development: (see, for example, Sechaud 1998 on France and Busaya and Na Chiangmai 1998 on
Thailand). Nevertheless, some countries such as Germany (Kuchinke, 1998) and Korea (Park, 1998) do
not define HRD at all, and others, such as Cote d’Ivoire (Hansen, 1998) and Taiwan (Kuo and
McLean, 1999) think of HRD as human resource and personnel functions (McLean and McLean,
2001). The focus on HRD activities among these countries varies in accordance to the individual
country’s perception and acknowledgment of HRD, which may change with the evolution of
knowledge and the influence of globalisation.
Intended Beneficiaries and Purposes of HRD
The intended beneficiaries for which HRD activities are developed and the purposes of HRD are
derived by analysing the national context of the definitions of HRD. Within this dimension, most of the
countries investigated have focused mainly on developing the individual and the organisation through
T&D and career development activities for individuals and organizational development initiatives for
the organization as the targeted recipients of HRD activities (see for example, Yan and McLean, 1998
in China; McLagan, 1998 in America; Short, 1998 in Australia and Wallace, 1998 in Canada cited in
McLean and McLean, 2001). However, even though their intended beneficiaries may be similar, the
purposes of HRD are varied. For instance, the primary purpose of HRD in Australia is to improve
organisational effectiveness and individual performance (Short, 1998), whilst HRD activities in
countries such as Singapore, France and Taiwan aim to benefit the nation rather than the individual or
the organisation (Osman-Gani, 1998; Sechaud, 1998; and Kuo and McLean, 1999). Interestingly,
Thailand, the UK, Russia and India have other purposes for HRD. For instance, HRD activities in
Thailand are to benefit the community (Busaya and Na Chiangmai, 1998), whereas they are primarily
to benefit academics in the UK (McGoldrick and Stewart, 1996), to benefit groups in Russia
(Ardishvilli, 1998) and finally, to improve the HRD process in India (Rao, 1998; McLean and McLean,
2001). This suggests that each country has its own unique purposes for HRD. Indeed, the driving
forces for HRD in an individual country may be associated with the main purposes of HRD from the
internal environment (organisation) and from the external environment (national requirements). This is
usefully summarised in Figure 3.
Following the above premise, the theoretical and conceptual contexts of HRD are heavily influenced
by the country’s economy, government and legislation. For instance, Russia and China are countries in
transition from a planned economy to a free-market economy, as a result of which they are facing
competitive challenges in the global economy. HRD in these countries is mainly in response to their
economic perspectives (Ardishvilli, 1998; Kuo and McLean, 1998). On the other hand, France is a
country where the government plays a significant role in HRD and is involved in HRD policy setting
and implementation (Sechaud, 1998). The same applies to Singapore, a developing country in the European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)
491
South East Asia region - its HRD is heavily influenced and supported by the Government to enhance
its economic and national development (Osman-Gani, 2000). The above propositions suggest that
differences in the countries’ definitions are at least partly due to their form or economic growth, and
these definitions may change according to the country’s development (McLean and McLean, 2001).
Figure 3: Intended Beneficiary and Purposes of HRD
External
HRD
Internal • Individual Development
• Performance Improvement
• Organisational development
• Teams’ and groups’ development
• Improve HRD process
• Economic & national development
• Social & community development
• To benefit the academics
Influences on National HRD
In general, given the various theoretical concepts of national HRD discussed above, there seem to be
various dimensions that influence the conceptual theory of HRD. From a more general perspective, the
conceptual theory of HRD is seen to have been influenced by the purpose and scope of activities within
HRD, whilst from the national perspective, HRD is shaped by each individual country’s value system,
as well as the point of the life-cycle of HRD in the particular country. The notion of company status
(such as local or multinational) or size may have some degree of influence on the organization’s
culture and value system as well as the perceptions and theoretical concepts of HRD. Therefore, the
influences on HRD practice, such as the intended audiences and beneficiaries, scope of activities,
national legislation, the government’s political influence and also the country’s economic stance are
seen to shape how HRD is being practiced, as summarised in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Influences on National HRD
Country’s
economy
Government
& Culture
National
legislation
Scope
of
activities
Intended
audiences
Intended
beneficiaries
HRD European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)
492
Defining Global or International HRD
Defining global or international HRD (IHRD) can be very difficult, as HRD has evolved differently in
different countries. This can be seen from the array of individual countries’ definitions above. A
number of attempts to define IHRD have been made. As early as 1991, Peng, Peterson & Shyi offered
a definition of IHRD that focuses only on organizations, ignoring the elements of culture or country.
Then in 1997, Peterson defined IHRD, subdividing it into three categories: first, HRD in a culture other
than the US; second, intercultural or transnational HRD between two or more countries; and third,
general cross-cultural HRD or HRD in an international joint venture. Wang & McLean (2007) argue
that these definitions are still US-centric and consider HRD only in business organizations, excluding
other relevant dimensions related to globalisation and internationalisation. McLean and McLean (2001)
propose the following global definition of HRD:
“…any process or activity that, either initially or over the long term, has the potential to
develop adults’ work-based knowledge, expertise, productivity and satisfaction, whether for
personal or group or team gain, or for the benefit of an organisation, community, nation or
ultimately, the whole of humanity” (pp.322).
However, Metcalfe and Rees (2005) later proposed that IHRD should be divided into three
categories, as suggested by Peterson (1997), but their definition focuses on global HRD, comparative
HRDD and national HRD:
IHRD is a broad term that concerns processes that address the formulation and practice of
HRD systems, practices and policies at the global, societal and organization level. It can
concern itself with how governments and international organizations develop and nurture
international managers and how they develop global HRD systems; it can incorporate
comparative analyses of HRD approaches across nations and also how societies develop
national HRD policies (p.455).
The latest definition of IHRD, put forward by Wang & McLean (2007), is broader in context,
encompassing individual, organizational, cultural, economic, community, social, political and crossnational dimensions. This definition takes into account the countries’ economic, political and legal
influences in defining IHRD. However, McLean and McLean (2001) claim that a single definition of
HRD for the global context might not be possible, as the work environment is constantly changing and
evolving. Moreover, as discussed earlier, the purposes, theoretical concepts and influences of HRD
vary between countries in consonance with their internal (organisational) and external (national)
environments. Indeed, Ruona (2000) suggests that the pursuit of a single global definition of HRD is
‘not a worthy cause’, as it will never achieve consensus. Nevertheless, as this is the first global
definition of HRD, McLean and McLean (2001) intend it to serve as a starting point for researchers to
further discuss HRD from a global perspective, which may provide new insights into global HRD.
Conclusion
Globalisation and internationalisation undoubtedly have a significant impact on the business and
economic activity of any organisation at both the national and the international level, thus impacting on
the field of HRD (Yaw, McGovern & Budhwar, 2000). The definition of HRD has been a challenge
and a subject of continuous discourse among scholars and practitioners. By reviewing the literature on
HRD, this article has demonstrated the importance of defining or understanding HRD at three levels:
the general perspective (macro-level), the national perspective (micro-level) and the international level
(global arena). From a general perspective, key concepts such as the history, purposes and functions of
HRD are incorporated. At the national level, the intended beneficiaries of HRD, the scope of activities
and other influences such as culture, political and economic factors and legislation form a basis from
which to define HRD. In the broader international arena, an extension from the national level to
encompass dimensions of international relationships and the benefits of HRD to the community and the
society serve as foundations for the definition of IHRD. European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)
493
This article does not set out to agree or disagree with any of the definitions prescribed, but
rather to present a review of the literature on the numerous definitions of HRD from different
perspectives. Extensive efforts have been made to define HRD at the three levels, but a single
definition of HRD is neither practical nor feasible, given the complexity and evolving nature of HRD.
However, it is hoped that this complexity will challenge and motivate scholars and researchers to
continuously investigate the field of HRD.
References
[1] Blake, R. R. (1995) Memories of HRD. Training and Development, pp. 22-28
[2] Busaya and Na Chiangmai, (1998) in McLean, G. N. and McLean, L. (2001) If we can't define
HRD in one country, how can we define it in an international context?. Human Resource
Development International, 4 (3): pp. 313-326
[3] Chalofsky, N. (1992) A unifying definition for the human resource development profession.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3: pp.175
[4] Desimone, R.L., Werner, J.M. and Harris, D.M.(2002) Human Resource Development. (3
rd
ed)
Orlando, Harcourt College Publishers
[5] Dilworth, L. (2003) Searching for the future of HRD. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 5 (3): pp. 241-244
[6] Garavan, T. N. (1995a) Stakeholders and strategic human resource development. Journal of
European Industrial Training, 19 (10): pp. 11-16
[7] Garavan, T.N., Heraty, N., and Barnicle, B. (1999) Human resource development literature:
Current issues, priorities and dilemmas. Journal of European Industrial Training, 23 (4-5): pp.
169-179
[8] Gilley, J.W., Eggland, S.A. and Gilley, A.M. (2002) Principles of Human Resource
Development. (2
nd
ed) Cambridge, Perseus Publishing
[9] Gourlay, S. (2001) Knowledge management and HRD. Human Resource Development
International, 4 (1): pp. 27-46.
[10] Harada, K. (1999) The changing Japanese human resource development system. Two models
that enhance prediction and reflection of dynamic changes. Human Resource Development
International, 2 (4): pp. 255-368
[11] Harbison, F. and Myers, C. A. (1964) Education, manpower and economic growth: Strategies
of human resource development. New York: McGraw-Hill
[12] Harrison, R. (2000) Employee Development. (2
nd
ed) London, Institute of Personnel and
Development
[13] Harrison, R. and Kessels, J. (2004) Human Resource Development in a Knowledge Economy:
An Organisational View. New York: Palgrave MacMillan
[14] Haslinda Abdullah (2006) Human development practices in manufacturing firms in Malaysia,
Unpublished PhD thesis.
[15] Hatcher, T. (2000) A study of the influence of the theoretical foundations of human resource
development on research and practice. Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource
Development, North Carolina.
[16] Holton, III, E.F. (2000) Clarifying and defining the performance paradigm of human resource
development. Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development. North Carolina
[17] Lee, M. (2001) A refusal to define HRD. Human Resource Development International, 4 (3):
pp. 327-341
[18] Lee, M. (2003) HRD in a Complex World. London: Routledge
[19] Manpower Services Commission (1981) in Wilson, J. P. (1999) Human resource development.
Learning and training for individuals and organizations. London, Kogan Page European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)
494
[20] Marquardt, M. J. and Engel, D. (1993) Global Human Resource Development. London:
Prentice-Hall
[21] Marsick, V. and Watkins, K. (1994). The learning organization: An integrative vision for HRD.
Human Resource Quarterly, 5: pp. 353-360
[22] McGoldrick, J. and Stewart, J. (1996) The HRM-HRD nexus in Stewart, J. and McGoldrick, J.
(eds) Human Resource Development: Perspectives, Strategies and Practice. London: Prentice
Hall.
[23] McGoldrick, J., Stewart, J. and Watson, S.. (2002) Understanding Human Resource
Development: A research-based approach. London, Routledge
[24] McLagan, P. (1989) Models for HRD Practice. Alexandria, VA: ASTD
[25] McLean, G. N. and McLean, L. (2001) If we can't define HRD in one country, how can we
define it in an international context?. Human Resource Development International, 4 (3): pp.
313-326
[26] Megginson, D., Matthews, J.J. and Banfield, P. (2000) Human Resource Development. (2
nd
ed)
London, Kogan Page
[27] Metcalfe, B. D., & Rees, C. J. (2005) Theorizing advances in international human resource
development. Human Resource Development International, 8(4): pp. 449-465
[28] Nadler, L. and Nadler, Z. (1989) Developing Human Resources. San Francisco, California,
Jossey-Bass
[29] Nadler, L. and Wiggs, G. D.. (1986) Managing Human Resource Development. A practical
guide. San Francisco, California, Jossey-Bass Inc
[30] Osman_Gani, A. (1999) International technology transfer for competitive advantage: A
conceptual analysis of the role of HRD. Competitiveness Review, 9 (1): pp. 9-18
[31] Osman-Gani, A.A.M. and Tan, W.L (2000) Training and development in Singapore.
International Journal of Training and Development, 4 (4): pp. 305-323
[32] Parker, S. C. and Coleman, J. (1999) Training in the UK: Does national ownership matter?
International Journal of Training and Development, 3 (4): pp. 278-291
[33] Peng, T.K., Peterson, M.F., & Shyi, Y. (1991) Quantitative methods in cross-national
management research: Trend and equivalence issues. Journal of Organisational Behaviour,
12(2): pp.87-107
[34] Peterson, L. (1997) International HRD: What we know and what we don’t know. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 8(1): pp63-79
[35] Rao, T.V. (1996) Human Resources Development: Experiences, Interventions and Strategies,
New Delhi: Sage
[36] Rothwell, W.J. and Kolb, J.A. (1999) Major workforce and workplace trends influencing the
training and development field in the USA. International Journal of Training and
Development, 3: pp. 44-53
[37] Ruona, W.E.A. (2000) Core beliefs in human resource development: A journal for the
professional and its professionals. Advances in Developing Human Resources, (7): pp. 1-28
[38] Stead, V. and Lee, M. (1996) Inter-cultural perspectives on HRD in Stewart, J. and
McGoldrick, J. (eds) Human Resource Development: Perspectives, Strategies and Practice.
London: Prentice Hall
[39] Stewart, J. and McGoldrick, J. (eds) (1996) Human Resource Development: Perspectives,
Strategies and Practice. London: Prentice Hall
[40] Streumer, J., Van Der Klink, V. and Van De Brink, K. (1999) The future of HRD. International
Journal of Lifelong Education, 18 (4): pp. 259-274
[41] Swanson, R. A. and Holton, III, E. F. (2001) Foundations of Human Resource Development.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.
[42] Swanson, R.A. (1995) Performance is the key. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6 (2):
pp. 207-220 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)
495
[43] Wang, X., & McLean, G. N. (2007) The dilemma of defining international human resource
development. Human Resource Development Review, 6(1): pp. 96-108
[44] Watkins, K.E. (1991) Many voices: Defining human resource development from different
disciplines. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(4): pp. 241-255
[45] Weinberger, L.A. (1998) Commonly held theories of human resource development. Human
Resource Development International, 1 (1): pp. 75-93
[46] Wilson, J. P. (1999) Human resource development. Learning and training for individuals and
organizations. London, Kogan Page
[47] Yan, B. & McLean, G. N. (1998) Human resource development in the People’s Republic of
China in Dilworth, R.L and Willis, V.J. (eds) Human Resource Development Cutting Edge:
The outstanding 1997 Conference Paper. Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource
Development and International Society for Performance Improvement, pp. 82-90
[48] Yaw, A.D., McGovern, I., & Budhwar, P. 2000) Complementaries or competition: The
development of human resources in South East Asia growth triangle – Indonesia, Malaysia and
Singapore. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(2): pp.314-355