value priorities of human resource development professionals

Value Priorities of HumanResource DevelopmentProfessionals

Reid Bates, Hsin-Chih Chen

This descriptive exploratory study sought to assess the values priorities ofindividuals and groups across various HRD occupational specialties. Findingsshowed that, in general, respondents felt the most important guides to thepractice of HRD should be those emphasizing performance-related outcomes.However, results also showed meaningful variation in top-priority valuesacross individuals and significant differences in the comparative importanceof six values across education level, degree of involvement in organizationalpractice, nationality, and occupational and stakeholder groups. Findingssuggested that HRD professionals operate from a structured set of values andthat the relative importance of those values may vary according to thesettings and challenges faced in practice.

Human resource development (HRD) is a field of theory and practice focusedon the development of human resource and organizational systems, their ratio-nal and optimal use, and the establishment of an enabling environment inwhich these systems are maximally effective in their results. As such, it includesa complex range of activities and interventions (training, education, coaching,counseling, career development, job and work system design, process improve-ment, organizational development, strategic planning, and so on) that are usedin numerous ways to achieve a variety of outcomes. Consequently, HRD drawson several scientific disciplines, among them economics, psychology, sociol-ogy, adult learning, anthropology, ethics, systems, management and leadership,human resource management, and industrial engineering, as well as organiza-tional behavior, development, and change. The field of HRD also encompassesa range of philosophical orientations, all of which have profound implicationsfor how HRD is carried out. This repertoire of philosophy, theory, and practiceis necessarily dynamic because, as Watkins (1998) has pointed out, the ongo-ing changes in economic and social needs, and work system processes, culture,

345HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 16, no. 3, Fall 2005Copyright © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

346 Bates, Chen

and structure, continue to challenge, expand, and modify the range of HRDactivities and outcomes.

The downside to this complexity, particularly for a professional field asyoung as HRD, is identity. For example, there is an ongoing debate in the lit-erature about how to define HRD, what the appropriate outcomes of HRDinterventions should be, and which underlying theories and philosophies areappropriate for guiding practice and research. In effect, what is happening isthat vocal proponents from various perspectives are using different descriptiveand explanatory language to describe what HRD should be with little effort toreach some consensus among themselves or understand the views of the largerpopulation of HRD professionals.

Virtually no research has been directed at unveiling or understanding thefoundation from which diverse HRD perspectives, modes of practice, and phi-losophy have emerged. One potentially fertile area of study involves examina-tion of the values that HRD professionals believe should guide research andpractice. It is our position that to more fully interpret the discourse surroundingcompeting definitions, philosophies, and practices some understanding must begained about the values that guide and are ultimately used to evaluate HRD activ-ities. This study represents one of the first efforts to describe and explore thevalues and value priorities of human resource development professionals.

Importance of Studying Values

Values refer to generalized and organized conceptions of what people view asdesirable and undesirable relative to person-environment interactions andinterpersonal relations (Kluckhohn, 1956). Put differently, values represent “abroad tendency to prefer certain states of affairs over others” (Hofstede, 1980,p. 19) and, in effect, describe how an individual feels the world should workor how he or she would like it to work. The content and structure of valuesrepresent “an enduring organization of beliefs concerning preferable modes ofconduct or end-states of existence along a continuum of relative importance”(Rokeach, 1973, p. 5).

According to value-belief theory (Rokeach and Ball-Rokeach, 1989;Schwartz and Bilsky, 1990) values are important for understanding individualbehavior and worldviews because they are a part of everyone’s psychologicalcharacter, tend to be global in scope, transcend specific situations, and arehierarchically organized to become part of a relatively enduring system. Thesequalities enable values to influence behavior and suggest at least two impor-tant reasons for their study. First, the hierarchical structure of values gives indi-viduals an ordered framework for making decisions about behavior. Forexample, applied in a work context, values reflect the relative importance aperson places on the desired outcomes of the work he or she does (Elizur,1984). Thus it is important to study values because of the insights affordedinto work-related decision making and behavior.

Second, values play an important role in evaluative processes by consti-tuting a structure against which one’s own actions and the actions of others canbe judged, praised, or criticized (Smith, 1969). The study of values is there-fore a means of understanding the priorities individuals apply for assessingwhat is “good,” ethical, or effective behavior.

These two factors have led to considerable interest in work-related values.Work values are seen as that subset of values that are related to and expressedin the workplace. The organizational behavior literature contains manydescriptive studies examining work values and value profiles and patterns.Some of this research has examined national and cross-national work value dif-ferences (Bae and Chung, 1997; Ronen, 1994; Zanders, 1992). Other researchhas examined the value profiles of particular occupational groups (Shapira andGriffith, 1990; Zanders and Harding, 1995), professional fields (Ennisand Chen, 1993, 1995; Hayden, 1988; Jackson, 2001; Schwartz, 1992), aswell as age and gender groups (DeVaus and McAllister, 1991; Rowe andSnizek, 1995). Findings from this research have furnished evidence of differ-ences in value patterns both within and across national boundaries and havepointed to substantial variation across professional fields, age, and gendergroups. In addition, this research suggests that values can influence variousdimensions of work-related behavior, including job performance, absenteeism,and safety behavior ( Judge and Bretz, 1992; Shapira and Griffith, 1990;Vora, 1993). Values have also been shown to influence a variety of importantwork-related cognitive and affective factors such as work motivation, jobsatisfaction, and organizational commitment (Putti, Aryee, and Liang, 1989).

We interpret these data to suggest that the study of values related to theorganizational practice of HRD can yield important insights into the diverseviews within the field about what HRD is and should be. It may also lead toimportant insights into what drives HRD professionals and others who have avested interest in HRD outcomes as they make decisions and judgments aboutHRD activities.

Perspectives on HRD

The literature suggests there are at least three more or less distinct paradigmsdescribing the role and function of HRD in work systems: the learning paradigm,the performance paradigm, and the meaning-of-work paradigm. Although noneof these paradigms has been fully defined and articulated in the literature, theyreflect three broad yet relatively distinct orientations to HRD. The learningparadigm emphasizes change through learning and sees HRD as “the field ofstudy and practice responsible for fostering long-term, work-related learningcapacity at the individual, group and organizational levels in organizations”(Watkins, 1989, p. 427). There are two key dimensions of the learning per-spective. On the one hand, this paradigm sees that the real value of learning liesin its ability to contribute to individual development. Individual development

Value Priorities of Human Resource Development Professionals 347

348 Bates, Chen

in turn is framed to include not simply the accumulation of knowledge or skillsbut the development of cognitive schemes and ways of thinking that canenlighten and transform personal experience (Barrie and Pace, 1998). On theother hand, this paradigm also recognizes a need to move to a broader, moretransformative definition of workplace learning that allows learning to be a crit-ical part of organizational culture (Watkins and Marsick, 1993). This is linkedto interest in learning organization strategies—strategies for developing learn-ing systems in organizations—that facilitate an organization’s ability to contin-uously expand the capacity to create a future and change in response to newrealities (Senge, 1990). HRD’s role is thus to weave a continuous and enhancedcapacity to learn, adapt, and change into individual experience and organiza-tional culture.

The performance paradigm “holds that the purpose of HRD is toadvance the mission of the performance system that sponsors the HRDefforts by improving the capabilities of the individuals working in the sys-tem and improving the system in which they perform their work” (Swansonand Holton, 2001, p. 137). Advocates of this paradigm focus HRD’s effortson achieving the core performance outcomes that organizations wish toachieve by facilitating individual and system performance improvement.This pragmatic approach sees no legitimate role or goals for the HRD func-tion beyond the boundaries of the organizational work system. Rather, itemphasizes that HRD goals and activities have value only to the extent theycontribute directly to the mission and goals of the sponsoring organization(Torraco and Swanson, 1995).

The meaning-of-work paradigm emphasizes a holistic approach to humandevelopment and the development of organizations reflected in two funda-mental elements. First, it recognizes the need to develop the whole person(Dirkx, 1996); stresses development that will enable individuals to realize theirfull potential meaningfully; and is concerned with issues surrounding mean-ing of work, how individuals experience work, and how they make meaningout of that experience (Dirkx and Deems, 1996).

Second, this paradigm sees work as having a transcendent element that goesbeyond individual and organizational boundaries. This view is grounded in thenotion of interconnectedness, a systems perspective that sees the world as a com-plex of parts braided together into a unified whole (Capra, 1996). Because of this,HRD is seen as a normative activity that has responsibility beyond issues of workobjectives, tasks, structure, productivity, or performance—to a concern for thehealth and humanness of our organizations, society, and the world as a whole(Hatcher, 2000; Hawley, 1993). This perspective finds expression in a develop-ing discourse in the HRD literature surrounding issues of social responsibility(Hatcher, 1998, 2000), sustainable human development (Bates, 2004), andHRD’s responsibility for leading organizations to embrace these goals and realizethem as core outcomes of effective work systems.

Little has been done to empirically define these various perspectives orunderstand the extent to which they are held by HRD professionals at large.The intent of our research was to begin this journey.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

The underlying premise of this research is that the professional practice of HRDis based on normative, socially constructed values about how and toward whatgoals human resources should be developed. The fundamental theoreticalframework for the study is value-belief theory. Value-belief theory (Kluckhohnand Strodbeck, 1961) posits that individual values emerge from the interac-tion of a variety of forces and, as was noted earlier, are capable of guiding deci-sions about appropriate outcomes, influencing behavioral intentions, andproviding a framework for evaluating behavior. Thus, studying professionalHRD values can potentially produce insight into the decision making andbehavior of individuals and the degree to which various professional activitiesand work outcomes are viewed as legitimate, acceptable, and effective.

The identification and classification of HRD values in this study was basedon an extensive content analysis of the HRD research and literature, anapproach consistent with other value research (Schwartz, 1992; Shye, Elizur,and Hoffman, 1994). Our review and synthesis of the literature describingthese three broad approaches to HRD (see Bates and Chen, 2004; Bates, Chen,and Hatcher, 2002) led to the identification of two basic value facets, onerelated to the outcomes of the HRD process and the other addressing the locusof HRD influence (Figure 1).

Facet A: HRD Outcomes. The literature suggests that the outcomes attain-able from the HRD process can, in general, be described along three dimen-sions. Meaning-of-work outcomes emphasize the creation of work systems thatare capable of fulfilling important cognitive, emotional, and social needs ofindividuals and contributing to long-term societal and human development.


Facet AHRD Outcomes

Fac

et B

Loc

us

of I

nfl

uen

ce

Meaning in Work

EnablingMeaningful

Work

Building SociallyResponsible

Organizations

Individual

Organization

Providing IndividualLearning Experiences

Building LearningSystems

Learning

Improving Individual JobPerformance

ImprovingOrganizational Performance

Performance

Figure 1. HRD Value Matrix and Value Constructs

350 Bates, Chen

Learning outcomes emphasize an increase in the short-term and long-termwork-related learning capacity of individuals, groups, and organizationsthrough developing and applying learning-based interventions for the purposeof optimizing human and organizational growth and effectiveness (Chalofsky,1992; Watkins, 1989). Outcomes in the performance domain focus on thoseelements of work behavior or activity that directly advance the mission of thework system in which the behaviors or activities are embedded.

Facet B: Locus of Influence. The second broad facet, locus of influence,refers to the point in work systems where the HRD process is applied. Thisinvolves two general classifications: individual influence and organization influ-ence. The former reflects HRD processes directed at meeting the needs of indi-viduals performing in a work system. The latter refers to HRD processesdirected at meeting the design, structure, management, and process needs ofa work system.

A Six-Value Matrix. The matrix formed by these two facets yielded a setof six value constructs. The six that emerged were enabling meaningful work,building socially responsible organizations, providing individual learning expe-riences, building learning systems, improving individual job performance, andimproving organizational performance. Exploratory factor analysis of data col-lected with measures of these constructs showed an exceptionally clean andinterpretable six-factor structure that was highly consistent with the hypothe-sized framework (Bates and Chen, 2004). The facets and values are shownin matrix form in Figure 1. Table 1 presents the scale definitions along withsample items.

Problem Statement and Research Questions

Although at least three distinct paradigms on the role and function of HRD inwork systems are evident in the literature, little research has been done to dis-cover or understand the foundation from which these perspectives andapproaches have emerged. In addition, the extent to which these paradigmsare embraced by HRD professionals is unclear. We believe that to more fullyinterpret the discourse surrounding competing definitions, practices, and viewsabout HRD, some understanding must be gained about the values that guideHRD practice. Although studies of values, value structures, and value orienta-tions have been done in a number of other professional fields (Ennis and Chen,1993, 1995; Hayden, 1988; Jackson, 2001; Schwartz, 1992), no empiricalresearch has been directed at measuring or understanding the content andnature of HRD-related values. Therefore, the purpose of our research was todescribe and explore the values and value priorities of HRD professionals. Thisresearch is important to the extent it can furnish insight into the beliefs thatguide HRD activity and inform the evaluation of that activity.

In general, previous value research has used value structure, value pro-file, value hierarchy, and value priority as relatively interchangeable conceptsto represent the hierarchical pattern of values. In studying value hierarchies,

a number of researchers have used individual Likert-type ratings aggregatedto the group level to compare values across groups (Ennis and Chen, 1995;Hofstede, 1980). Other research has taken value ratings and ranked them(say, high to low) in order to examine qualitative differences in value prior-ities (Oliver, 1999; Schwartz, 1992). Both approaches were used in this


Table 1. Value Scale Names, Definitions, and Sample Items

Scale Definition Sample Items

Enabling meaningfulwork (six items)

Building sociallyresponsible organizations(five items)

Providing individuallearning experiences(six items)

Building learningsystems (six items)

Improving individual jobperformance (six items)

Improving organizationalperformance (six items)

The extent to which helpingindividuals create work thatis personally meaningfulshould be important as aguide to the practice of HRD

The extent to whichbuilding organizations thatare socially responsible andthat contribute meaningfullyto the larger social goodshould be an importantguide to the practice of HRD

The extent to which givingindividuals learningexperiences that build work-related expertise should beimportant as a guide to thepractice of HRD

The extent to whichtransforming organizationsinto continuous learningsystems should be importantas a guide to HRD practice

The extent to whichimproving the jobperformance of individualsshould be important as aguide to the practice of HRD

The extent to whichfocusing HRD activities onmeeting organizationalperformance goals should beimportant as a guide to HRDpractice

• HRD activities should helpindividuals create work thatenergizes their inner spirit.

• HRD activities shouldenable individuals to creatework that is personallymeaningful.

• HRD activities shouldrecognize a responsibility forhuman and organizationaldevelopment that goesbeyond organizational goals.

• HRD should work to buildsocially responsibleorganizations.

• HRD’s primary functionshould be to increase workskills through learning.

• HRD’s primary functionshould be to offer learningexperiences for individuals.

• HRD activities should focuson building learningsystems in organizations.

• HRD’s goal should be totransform organizations intocontinuous learning systems.

• HRD activities shouldenable individuals toimprove job-relatedperformance.

• HRD’s primary focus shouldbe improving the jobperformance of individuals.

• Without question,improving organizationalperformance should be thecentral task of HRD.

• HRD activities should focuson meeting organizationalperformance goals.

352 Bates, Chen

study. Aggregated data drawn from ratings were used to examine the valuestructures of HRD occupational and managerial groups. Ranked data werealso examined in an effort to measure and compare differences in individ-ual value priorities. Three broad research questions guided this descriptiveexploratory study:

• What correlations exist among the value variables and between thevalue variables and various individual variables, including gender, educationlevel, age, nationality, years of experience in the field of HRD, and percentageof time currently spent in the organizational practice of HRD?

• What are the value priorities of the HRD occupational groups examinedin this study?

• What significant differences exist across occupational roles in theperceived importance of the value variables?

Method

The research method used in this study is described in the following para-graphs.

Population and Sample. The population of interest for this study wasHRD professionals employed in an academic, research, or organizationalcontext. In selecting a sample for the study, we aimed to obtain as broad asample as possible that would enable us to examine value priorities andassess the extent to which those values differed across groups. Because wedid not have a comprehensive listing of all HRD professionals from whichto select a sample, we relied on a nonprobability, purposive samplingapproach. Respondents for this study were identified through their affilia-tion with HRD professional organizations, among them the Academy forHuman Resource Development, regional chapters of the American Societyfor Training and Development, the International Society for PerformanceImprovement, and others. These organizations were contacted by theresearchers, who explained the purpose of the research and asked if an invi-tation to participate in this study could be placed on that organization’s Website, in its newsletter, or sent out to members over its listserv. The invitationcontained a brief description of the study, an invitation to participate, anddirections for accessing an online survey. A four-digit code that permittedentry to the survey Web site was also included in an attempt to establishsome control over access to the survey. Participation was voluntary andanonymous.

This sampling method presented some limitations. First, there were lim-its on the extent to which the population from which the sample was drawn(the accessible population) was consistent with the target population. Forexample, it is fair to assume that the accessible population might not havebeen fully representative of the target population. It was also possible that

others who were not part of the target population could have responded tothe questionnaire. In addition, because the responses were totally anony-mous it was not possible to do any follow-up with respondents to see howthey might have differed from nonrespondents or to address other samplingissues. Although these limitations raise questions about the degree to whichthe sample may be biased or accurately reflects the population of interest, wefelt that our approach adequately served the exploratory objectives of thisresearch.

Of the four hundred individuals who responded to the online survey,65 percent were female and 35 percent were male. In terms of age, approx-imately 25 percent of the respondents were thirty-five or younger, 51 per-cent were between thirty-five and fifty, 22 percent were fifty-one to sixty-five,and 2 percent were sixty-six or older. About 7 percent of the respondentsreported having at least an associate’s degree, 29 percent a bachelor’s degree,45 percent a master’s, and about 19 percent a doctorate (Ed.D. or Ph.D.).Forty-nine percent of respondents reported spending half or more of theirtime in active HRD practice in an organization (as opposed to research,teaching, administration, and so on). About 3 percent of respondents classi-fied their current occupation as student; 18 percent as manager; 20 percentas HRD or HRM manager; 8 percent as training director; 11 percent as HRDspecialist (instructional designer, materials developer, evaluator, and soforth); 6 percent as trainer; 19 percent as consultant; 8 percent as professor,educator, or academician; and 8 percent as other (for example, director ofOD and training, director of education, HR coordinator). About 15 percentreported working in a manufacturing organization; 5 percent in research anddevelopment; 6 percent in engineering or construction; 33 percent in pro-fessional services; 17 percent in health, social, or human service; 16 percentin education; and about 8 percent in retail sales, military, religious, and artorganizations combined. Approximately 59 percent of the individuals in thesample reported their nationality as American; the remaining 41 percent rep-resented a variety of nationalities, most notably Australian (20 percent),British (6 percent), and South African (2.5 percent), with lesser percentagesrepresenting a long list of other nationalities (among them Argentinian,Egyptian, German, Kenyan, Taiwanese).

Instrument. The instrument used in this study was an online survey.Thirty-five items on the survey were used to measure six value variables. Eachvariable contained five or more items, with scale reliability ranging from 0.81to 0.90. Respondents were asked to rate each item on the extent to which theybelieved that it should be an important guide to the practice of humanresource development. A seven-point Likert-type scale was used, ranging from1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The survey also included itemsdesigned to collect various individual data: sex, age, education level, occupa-tion, nationality, years of work experience in HRD profession, and percentageof time currently spent in organizational practice.


354 Bates, Chen

Results

The results of our analysis are organized by research question and describedbelow.

Question One: Correlations. Pearson’s product moment correlation coef-ficient was used to examine the interrelationship among the value variables.Results indicated that most value ratings were significantly associated with oneanother. The strongest correlations were between the values that fell under thesame HRD outcome facet. Thus, significant correlations were found betweenthe two meaning-in-work values (building socially responsible organizationsand enabling meaningful work, r � 0.64), the two performance values(improving organizational performance and improving individual job perfor-mance, r � 0.62), and the two learning values (building learning systems andproviding individual learning experiences, r � 0.59). These findings lend somesupport to the logical validity of the matrix framework upon which the valueconstructs were based (Table 2).

Data also showed moderate correlation between the learning values and theperformance values (providing individual learning experiences and improvingindividual job performance, r � 0.36; providing individual learning experiencesand improving organizational performance, r � 0.27; building learning sys-tems and improving individual job performance, r � 0.39; building learningsystems and improving organizational performance, r � 0.52) and between thelearning values and the meaning-in-work values (providing individual learningexperiences and enabling meaningful work, r � 0.37; providing individuallearning experiences and building socially responsible organizations, r � 0.26;building learning systems and enabling meaningful work, r � 0.39; buildinglearning systems and building socially responsible organizations, r � 0.38). Ingeneral, these findings indicated that individuals who rated learning-relatedvalues high also tended to rate performance and meaning-in-work values high.On the other hand, rating of meaning-in-work values showed little associationwith rating of performance values. For example, respondents’ ratings of build-ing socially responsible organizations were not associated with either improvingorganizational performance or improving individual job performance. Althoughrating of enabling meaningful work did show a weak correlation with improv-ing organizational performance (r � 0.12, p � .05), they were not correlatedwith the other performance value (improving individual job performance).

Correlation analysis was also used to examine the association betweeninvolvement in organizational practice and the value ratings made by individ-uals in the HRD occupational groupings (HRD or HRM manager, trainingdirector, HRD specialist, trainer, and consultant). Involvement in organizationalpractice was measured by a single open-ended item that asked respondents toestimate the “percentage of time you currently spend in organizational prac-tice (as opposed to research, teaching, administration, etc.)”. Estimates rangedfrom 0 percent to 100 percent with a mean of 55.45 percent. Results showed

Tab

le 2

.C

orre

lati

ons,

Mea

ns,

Sta

nd

ard

Dev

iati

ons,

an

d S

cale

Rel

iabi

liti

es

NM

ean

SD�

BSR

OIO

PPI

LEII

JPEM

WBL

S

BSR

O39

64.

821.

18.9

0—

IOP

390

6.02

0.85

.89

.08

—PI

LE38

95.

440.

85.8

50.

26*

0.27

*—

IIJP

388

6.23

0.66

.86

0.03

0.62

*0.

36*

—E

MW

387

4.94

0.99

.87

0.64

*0.

050.

37*

0.12

*—

BLS

394

5.68

0.81

.81

0.38

*0.

52*

0.59

*0.

39*

0.39

*—

Gen

dera

378

——

—0.

070.

000.

060.

010.

040.

03A

geb

398

——

—�

0.07

0.05

0.06

0.04

�0.

040.

00E

duca

tion

b38

5—

——

0.05

0.09

*0.

040.

15*

0.09

*0.

13*

Nat

iona

litya

380

——

—0.

32*

0.24

0.28

*0.

220.

30*

0.28

*Pe

rcen

tage

HR

D p

ract

icec

380

55.4

533

.82

—�

.13*

0.16

*�

0.11

*0.

04�

0.13

*0.

01Ye

ars

HR

D e

xper

ienc

e38

611

.55

8.25

—�

0.10

0.11

*�

0.02

�0.

04�

0.03

0.04

Not

es:

BSR

O�

build

ing

soci

ally

re

spon

sibl

e or

gani

zati

ons;

IO

P�

impr

ovin

g or

gani

zati

onal

pe

rfor

man

ce;

PILE

�pr

ovid

ing

indi

vidu

al

lear

ning

ex

peri

ence

s;II

JP�

impr

ovin

g in

divi

dual

job

perf

orm

ance

; EM

W�

enab

ling

mea

ning

ful w

ork;

and

BLS

�bu

ildin

g le

arni

ng s

yste

ms.

a Eta

is u

sed

as t

he in

dex

of c

orre

lati

on.

b Ken

dall

� (t

au)-

b is

use

d as

the

inde

x of

cor

rela

tion

.c V

alue

cor

rela

tion

s ar

e ba

sed

on d

ata

draw

n fr

om t

he H

RD

-rel

ated

occ

upat

iona

l gr

oups

onl

y (H

RD

or

HR

M m

anag

er,

trai

ning

dir

ecto

r, H

RD

spe

cial

ist,

tra

iner

, or

cons

ulta

nt).

*p�

.05.

356 Bates, Chen

weak negative correlation between involvement in organizational practice andrating of building socially responsible organizations (r � �0.13), enablingmeaningful work (r � �0.13), and providing individual learning experiences(r � �0.11), and a weak positive correlation with improving organizationalperformance (r � 0.16). In short, respondents who spent relatively more timeengaged in organizational practice tended to rate building socially responsibleorganizations, enabling meaningful work, and providing individual learningexperiences lower and improving organizational performance higher thanthose less actively involved in organizational practice.

Years of HRD experience was measured by a single open-ended item ask-ing respondents to estimate how many years they had worked in the HRD pro-fession. This variable was correlated with rating of improving organizationalperformance (r � 0.11).

Examination of the correlation data along gender lines (male or female),age (three groups: younger than thirty-five, thirty-five to fifty, and fifty-one orolder), and education level (four groups: associate’s degree, bachelor’s, mas-ter’s, and doctorate) involved the use of two correlation statistics, eta andKendall tau-b. The former was used to identify correlations between nominaland interval data (values and gender and nationality), and the latter was usedto examine the correlation between the value rating and age and education(that is, correlation between ordinal and interval data). Results indicated nosignificant association between the value importance rating and either genderor age. Education level was weakly associated with improving organizationalperformance (r � 0.09), improving individual job performance (r � 0.15),enabling meaningful work (r � 0.09), and building learning systems (r �0.13). Four values were moderately correlated with nationality: buildingsocially responsible organizations (r � 0.32), providing individual learn-ing experiences (r � 0.28), enabling meaningful work (r � 0.30), and buildinglearning systems (r � 0.28).

Follow-Up Analyses. Because of the exploratory nature of this study, wefelt it appropriate to more thoroughly explore the relationships suggested bythe correlation results. Although these relationships were not included as partof the original research questions, identifying significant differences in valueorientation would be important in terms of suggesting possible future researchdirections. For this reason, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) wasused test for significant differences in value rating by education level andinvolvement in organizational practice. The MANOVA procedure is useful forhandling multiple dependent variables while controlling for overall type I error(Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black, 1998). In this analysis, two separateMANOVA analyses were run. The first examined the extent to which signifi-cant differences in value rating appeared among respondents with differingeducation levels. Results showed a significant main effect for education level(Wilks’ lambda � 0.89, F � 2.46, p � .05; Table 3). Univariate tests ofbetween-subject effects indicated significant differences for four of the sixvalues: building learning systems, building socially responsible organizations,

enabling meaningful work, and improving individual job performance(Table 4). Post hoc comparisons showed that both the bachelor’s-degreegroup and the master’s-degree group rated building learning systems lower(M � 5.61 and 5.65, respectively) than the doctorate group (M � 6.03). Thebachelor’s-degree group also rated building socially responsible organizationsand enabling meaningful work significantly lower (M � 4.67 and 4.74, respec-tively) than the doctoral-degree group (M � 5.20 and 5.30). Finally, theassociate’s-degree group rated improving individual job performance lowerthan did the doctoral-degree group (M � 5.96 versus 6.39).

Another question raised by the correlation analysis was whether the val-ues of HRD professionals differed regarding how actively engaged they were indaily practice of HRD. To further test this question, data from the HRD


Table 3. MANOVA Summary Table: Main Effect of Education Level

Degrees of Freedom Statistical Power

Between Within Significance EffectTest Name Value F Group Group of F Size Power

Pillai’s criterion 0.13 2.46 3 339 .001 0.04 0.99Wilks’ lambda 0.89 2.47 3 339 .001 0.04 0.99Hotelling’s trace 0.13 2.48 3 339 .001 0.04 0.99

Table 4. Univariate Comparisons by Education Level

Education Level Means

Overall Associate’s Bachelor’s Master’s Doctorate Significance

Building learning 5.71 5.70 5.61 5.65 6.03 .01systems

Building socially 4.84 5.01 4.67 4.75 5.20 .01responsibleorganizations

Enabling 4.97 5.12 4.74 4.95 5.30 .01meaningfulwork

Improving 6.24 5.96 6.15 6.28 6.39 .01individualjob performance

Improving 6.04 5.74 6.03 6.03 6.18 .18organizationalperformance

Providing 5.43 5.53 5.46 5.31 5.61 .11individuallearningexperience

Note: Bachelor’s � B.A. or B.S., master’s � M.A. or M.S., and doctorate � Ph.D. or Ed.D.

358 Bates, Chen

occupational groups were blocked and dummy coded into a “low-practice”group (those who spent 35 percent or less in organizational practice) and a“high-practice” group (80 percent or more in organizational practice). Thesecut-off points were consistent with the 33rd and 66th percentiles of respon-dents for the organizational practice variable. This blocking treatment wasdone to make the MANOVA test more efficient by accentuating the possibleeffect size. In short, this analysis compared HRD professionals representing thebottom one-third and the top one-third in terms of time currently spent inorganizational practice. Results indicated a significant main effect for percent-age of time currently spent in organizational practice (Wilks’ lambda � 0.94,F � 2.61, p �.05; Table 5). Univariate tests of between-subject effects showedthat the low- and high-practice groups differed on three of the six values:building socially responsible organizations, enabling meaningful work, andproviding individual learning experiences (Table 6). Specifically, the low-practice group rated building socially responsible organizations and enablingmeaningful work significantly higher than did the high-practice group(M � 5.05 compared with 4.59 and M � 5.14 versus 4.81, respectively). Thelow-practice group also viewed providing individual learning experiences as

Table 5. MANOVA Summary Table: Main Effectof Organizational Practice


Between Within Significance Effect Test Name Value F Group Group of F Size Power


Table 6. Univariate Comparisons by Organizational Practice

Value Means by Level of Organizational Practice

Overall Low Practice High Practice Significance

Building learning systems 5.69 5.72 5.66 .54Building socially responsible 4.84 5.05 4.59 .01

organizationsEnabling meaningful work 4.92 5.13 4.81 .01Improving individual job 6.23 6.21 6.26 .50

performanceImproving organizational 6.03 6.96 6.10 .20

performanceProviding individual learning 5.40 5.51 5.28 .05

experience

significantly more important (M � 5.53 compared with 5.28). These data indi-cated that HRD practitioners who are less actively engaged in organizationalpractice rated the two meaning-in-work values and providing individual learn-ing experiences higher in importance than did those more actively engaged.

In terms of individual characteristics, a final question of interest waswhether the values of HRD professionals differed by nationality of respondent.Although twenty-eight nationality groups were represented, the sample size inmany of these groups was far too small to allow efficient testing of group dif-ferences. Therefore another blocking treatment was done to enhance the effi-ciency of the MANOVA test. To broadly explore the question of value differencesacross nationalities, respondents were divided into two blocks: those reportingtheir nationality as American (n � 210) and those reporting other nationality(n � 145). Results indicated a significant main effect for nationality (Wilks’lambda � 0.95, F � 2.88, p � .05;] Table 7). Univariate tests of between-sub-ject effects showed that respondents who reported their nationality as Ameri-can rated two of the values (building socially responsible organizations andenabling meaningful work) significantly lower (M � 4.68 compared with 5.04,F � 7.93; M � 4.82 versus 5.16, F � 10.71 respectively) than did respondentsreporting other nationality (Table 8). Thus, the data suggest that American


Table 7. MANOVA Summary Table: Main Effect of Nationality




Table 8. Univariate Comparisons by Nationality

Nationality Means

Overall American All Others Significance

Building learning systems 5.70 5.65 5.77 .16Building socially responsible 4.83 4.68 5.04 .01

organizationsEnabling meaningful work 4.96 4.82 5.16 .01Improving individual job 6.24 6.28 6.17 .08

performanceImproving organizational 6.02 6.01 5.98 .36

performanceProviding individual learning 5.44 5.40 5.48 .38

experience

360 Bates, Chen

respondents viewed the meaning-in-work values as significantly less importantas a guide to HRD practice than did respondents of other nationalities.

Question Two: Value Priorities of HRD Occupational Groups. Data werecollected about the occupational roles of respondents in order to compare val-ues and value priorities across the groups in these roles. Examination of thedata set as a whole indicated that the mean value ratings ranked high to lowin this order: improving individual job performance (M � 6.23), improvingorganizational performance (M � 6.02), building learning systems (M � 5.68),providing individual learning experiences (M � 5.44), enabling meaningfulwork (M � 4.94), and building socially responsible organizations (M � 4.82;Table 9). Thus the mean value ratings tended to fall into three distinct groupsor tiers. In the first, performance-related values received the highest impor-tance rating, with improving individual job performance receiving the highestoverall mean. The learning-related values occupied the second tier, followedby the meaning-in-work values.

Examination of the mean value ratings across occupational groups showeda relatively consistent priority pattern. Nine of the ten occupational groupsrated the one of the performance-related values most important. Within thesenine groups, seven ranked improving individual performance improvementvalue ahead of improving organizational performance. Improving organiza-tional performance ranked first among upper-level managers and HRD or HRMmanagers.

The data also revealed some interesting exceptions to this general trend.First, although improving individual job performance ranked as most impor-tant value for the trainers group, they rated improving organizational perfor-mance a distant fourth. This ranking pattern is consistent with what may betrainers’ general focus on provision of learning experiences intended toimprove individual performance rather than performance at higher levels ofanalysis. Students and academics also rated improving individual job perfor-mance as most important, and for these groups building learning systems wasmore important than improving organizational performance. Finally, the rank-ing of values for each of the non-HRD managerial groups showed differing toppriority. Low-level managers ranked improving individual job performancehighest, midlevel managers ranked providing individual learning experi-ences highest, and upper-level managers saw improving organizational per-formance as most important. This suggests the presence of some meaningfulvariation in values and expectations regarding the role and function of HRDon the basis of managerial perspective.

Table 10 lists the values and for each one shows the number and percent-age of respondents who rated that value highest in importance as a guide forthe practice of HRD. For more than 70 percent of the individuals, one of thetwo performance-related values emerged as the most important, with nearly42 percent of respondents reporting improving individual job performance asthe most important value guiding practice. About 19 percent of the ratings

Tab

le 9

.V

alu

e M

ean

s an

d R

anks

for

Occ

up

atio

nal

Gro

up

s

Occ

upat

iona

l Gro

up M

eans

and

Val

ue R

ank

Low

Mid

dle

Upp

erH

RTr

aini

ngH

RD

Ove

rall,

Stud

ent,

Aca

dem

ic,

Man

agem

ent,

Man

agem

ent,

Man

agem

ent,

Man

agem

ent,

Dir

ecto

r,sp

ecia

list,

Trai

ner,

Con

sulta

nt,

Ran

k-M

Ran

k-M

Ran

k-M

Ran

k-M

Ran

k-M

Ran

k-M

Ran

k-M

Ran

k-M

Ran

k-M

Ran

k-M

Ran

k-M

IIJP

1-6.

231-

6.51

1-6.

271-

6.43

2-6.

232-

6.30

1-6.

121-

6.17

1-6.

421-

6.14

1-6.

19IO

P2-

6.02

3-6.

203-

6.01

2-6.

283-

5.92

1-6.

461-

6.12

2-6.

062-

6.07

3-5.

432-

5.96

BLS

3-5.

682-

6.28

2-6.

043-

5.74

4-5.

563-

5.98

3-5.

683-

5.59

3-5.

574-

5.36

3-5.

69PI

LE4-

5.44

5-5.

704-

5.76

4-5.

491-

6.43

4-5.

474-

5.46

4-5.

404-

5.43

2-5.

644-

5.12

EM

W5-

4.94

6-5.

425-

5.49

5-4.

405-

5.03

5-5.

325-

4.84

5-4.

765-

4.83

5-4.

895-

4.92

BSR

O6-

4.82

4-6.

146-

5.32

6-4.

366-

4.82

6-5.

056-

4.65

6-4.

536-

4.69

6-4.

776-

4.89

Not

e:BL

S �

build

ing

lear

ning

sys

tem

s; B

SRO

�bu

ildin

g so

cial

ly r

espo

nsib

le o

rgan

izat

ions

; E

MW

�en

ablin

g m

eani

ngfu

l w

ork;

IIJ

P �

impr

ovin

g in

divi

dual

job

perf

orm

ance

; IO

P �

impr

ovin

g or

gani

zati

onal

per

form

ance

; and

PIL

E �

prov

idin

g in

divi

dual

lear

ning

exp

erie

nces

.

362 Bates, Chen

showed one of the two learning-related values as most important, and approx-imately 10 percent indicated one of the meaning-in-work values as the mostimportant guide to practice. Although this individual-level analysis generallyreflects the pattern of data aggregated to the group level, the findings alsodemonstrate that the value priorities of individual HRD professionals can varyconsiderably. Not only did each of the six values receive multiple top-importance ratings; only about 40 percent of the individuals in this samplewere in agreement about any one specific value as what should be most impor-tant in guiding the HRD process.

Question Three: Value Differences Across Occupational Groups. InitialMANOVA tests for significant differences in value ratings across the ten occu-pational groups showed a significant main effect (Table 11). However, exami-nation of univariate tests showed no significant differences between the tengroups. Data indicated that the power for the separate univariate tests was low,probably because the sample sizes—and consequently the effect sizes—for theseparate groups were not sufficient to show significant differences. In an effortto overcome this limitation and further investigate group differences in valueratings, the ten categories of occupational groups were blocked according to

Table 10. Top Value Ranking Across Individuals

Number and Percentage of Individuals Rating Each Value the Highest

Value Na Percentageof Total

Improving individual job performance 177 41.75Improving organizational performance 129 30.42Providing individual learning experiences 25 5.90Building learning systems 52 12.26Enabling meaningful work 18 4.25Building socially responsible organizations 23 5.42Totalb 424 100

aN � number of individuals rating this value highest of the six values (includes ties).bTotal exceeds sample size because top values with equal ratings (ties) are counted more than once.

Table 11. MANOVA Summary Table: Main Effectof Occupational Group




similarity in occupational perspective to form three larger groups (Table 12):the academic group, which included respondents who described their currentoccupation as student, professor, educator, or academician; the managementgroup, including all respondents who described their current occupation asupper, middle, lower-level, or HRD or HRM manager; and the practitionergroup, comprising training directors, HRD specialists, trainers, and consultants.

With value ratings as the dependent variable, results (Tables 11 and 12) indi-cated a significant main effect for group membership (Wilks’ lambda � 0.90,F � 3.10, p � .05). Univariate tests for between-subject effects showed the groupsdiffered significantly in their rating of four of the six value variables (buildinglearning systems, building socially responsible organizations, enabling meaning-ful work, and providing individual learning experiences). Post hoc comparisonsshowed that the academic group rated building learning systems (M � 6.10),building socially responsible organizations (M � 5.52), and enabling meaningfulwork (M � 5.45) higher than did either the management group (M � 5.71, 4.73,and 4.93 respectively) or the practitioner group (M � 5.60, 4.75, and 4.86respectively). The academic group also rated providing individual learning expe-riences (M � 5.74) higher than did the practitioner group (M � 5.34). Thesefindings point to substantial differences in the relative importance that these broadgroups placed on various HRD values.

Discussion

This study represents an initial attempt to measure and describe the value pri-orities of HRD professionals and to examine differences in value ratings acrossHRD-related occupational groups. Several important conclusions can be drawn


Table 12. Univariate Comparisons by Occupational Group

Occupational Group Means

Academic Management PractitionerOverall Group Group Group Significance

Building learning systems 5.69 6.10 5.71 5.60 .01Building socially responsible 4.82 5.52 4.73 4.75 .01

organizationsEnabling meaningful work 4.95 5.45 4.93 4.86 .01Improving individual job 6.23 6.29 6.22 6.24 .80

performanceImproving organizational 6.04 6.02 6.15 5.94 .09

performanceProviding individual learning 5.44 5.74 5.46 5.34 .05

experience

Note: Academic group � student or academician (professor, educator); management group � lower-level management, middle management, upper management, or HRD or HRM management; andpractitioner group � training director, HRD specialist (instructional designer, materials developer,evaluator, and the like), trainer, or consultant.

364 Bates, Chen

from this research. First, the findings suggest that there may be a good deal ofagreement about the relative importance of the values that should guide HRDpractice. Results showed that the largest percentage of respondents believedthe practice of HRD should be guided largely by performance-focused values,and to a lesser degree by learning and meaning-in-work values. By far thehighest-rated values across the individuals and occupational and stakeholdergroups studied were improving individual job performance and improvingorganizational performance. Building learning systems and providing individ-ual learning experiences were viewed as relatively less important, followed bybuilding socially responsible organizations and enabling meaningful work. Ingeneral, these findings reinforce what many see as a movement toward moreperformance or outcome-driven HRD. It also suggests that what has been calledan “evolution of consciousness” (McLagan, 2003) toward more holistic think-ing, long-term concern for the outcomes of organizational activity, and socialresponsibility has made only modest inroads among HRD professionals.

Still, despite the consistency of this general value pattern favoring perfor-mance values, the results also indicated meaningful variation in top-priorityvalues across individuals and significant differences in the comparative impor-tance of values across individual difference variables including education level,involvement in organizational practice, nationality, and across occupationaland stakeholder groups. For example, only about 40 percent of the individualratings were in agreement about one specific value as what should be guidingthe HRD process. Individuals who were more highly educated and relativelyless challenged by the day-to-day demands of organizational practice placedmore importance on creating socially responsive organizations and meaning-ful work than did individuals with less education or those more active in orga-nizational practice. Differences in nationality were also consistent withsignificant variation in the relative importance of the meaning-in-work values.Trainers appeared to be far less concerned with improving organizationalperformance as a guiding value for practice than did HRD or HRM managersor training directors. Midlevel managers saw provision of individual learningexperiences as the most important driver for HRD practice, while upper-levelmanagers favored improvement of organizational performance.

Finally, the results offer general support for the conceptual frameworkupon which the HRD value constructs and measures were based. Strong cor-relations emerged among the value variables, particularly between values thatfell under same HRD outcome facet. These findings support the logical valid-ity of the HRD value matrix framework and suggest that the scales affordedmeaningful measure of the values represented in the matrix.

In general, these findings are consistent with value theory to the extentthat (1) individual HRD professionals appear to operate from a structured setof values that can be described and measured and (2) the structure and rela-tive importance of HRD values varies with the setting and challenges individ-uals face in expressing those values.

This research lays the foundation for future values-related research thatcould significantly contribute to the field of HRD. By defining a value spacefor HRD, it is now possible to locate singular entities (a country, group, orga-nization, or individual) in this space to compare and more fully understandbeliefs about preferable modes of conduct and outcomes from HRD. Certainlyone important piece of research would be to extend this study across a broaderand more representative sample of HRD professionals. However, the analysiscould also be extended to other stakeholders in the HRD process. For exam-ple, questions about how top management, line managers and supervisors,individual employees, trade unions, customers, and so on respond to andinterpret these values; how consistent their values are with those of HRD pro-fessionals; and how this relates to the status and perceived role and organiza-tional worth of HRD represent important future research questions. It wouldbe important, for instance, to understand the degree to which HRD values ofpractitioners are consonant with those of upper-management functions andwhether this consonance is associated with a larger strategic role in the orga-nization. Research could also be directed at profiling HRD values in differentkinds of organizations (private for-profit, public, nongovernmental) as a meansof comparing and understanding the differences in HRD orientation.

In addition, the differences in value ratings between U.S. respondents andthose from other nationalities suggested there may be significant cross-culturaldifferences in HRD values and value priorities. This finding is consistent withresearch indicating that national differences are important factors determininghow individual HRD professionals from various countries and cultures definegoals and evaluate practice (Hillion and McLean, 1997). The literature aboundswith cross-national profiles of general values, and these value measures openthe possibility of doing the same for work-related HRD values. Future researchdirected at investigating the values and roles of HRD in organizational settingsin other countries and cultures could yield important insights into the actionsthat individuals undertake in the HRD process as well as the beliefs and atti-tudes that HRD professionals and stakeholders have about the development ofhuman resources. It may also point to a link among HRD values, national cul-ture, level of economic development, or point in the developmental life cycleof a country (McLean and McLean, 2001). Another important but perhapslong-term research issue addresses value change, the change in value profiles,and changes in the relative position of particular values for country, group, ororganization over time. This should be tied to theory and explanatory researchaimed at understanding the determinants of these changes and their conse-quences for HRD and its sponsoring organization.

It is perhaps true that HRD has “not done a very good job of working toidentify who we are, what we stand for, and what we can [or more importantlyshould] do for those we serve” (Ruona, 2000). If HRD is to make headwayin determining what the driving goals of our practice should be or howwe should define ourselves as a field of research and practice, then some


366 Bates, Chen

understanding of fundamental values driving individual HRD scholarship,research, and practice must be reached. This research represents an initialattempt to empirically explore and describe the values that HRD professionalsbelieve should guide the HRD process. Even though espoused values can dif-fer from values in use (Posner, Kouzes, and Schmidt, 1985), we believe thatthis kind of research can help to more fully illuminate the worldview fromwhich individual HRD professionals operate and the standards framingresearch and practice.

References

Bae, K., & Chung, C. (1997). Cultural values and work attitudes of Korean industrial workersin comparison with those of the United States and Japan. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology,30 (4), 80–96.

Barrie, J., & Pace, R. W. (1998). Learning for organizational effectiveness: Philosophy of edu-cation and human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9 (1),39–54.

Bates, R. A. (2004). Human resource development objectives. In M. J. Marquardt (Ed.), Encyclo-pedia of life support systems (EOLSS): Human resources and their development. Developed underthe auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization(UNESCO). Oxford, UK: EOLSS. Retrieved from http://www.eolss.net.

Bates, R. A., & Chen, H. C. (2004). Human resource development value orientations: A constructvalidation study. Human Resource Development International, 7 (3), 351–370.

Bates, R. A., Chen, H. C., & Hatcher, T. (2002). Value priorities of HRD scholars and practitioners.International Journal of Training and Development, 6 (4), 229–239.

Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: AnchorBooks.

Chalofsky, N. (1992). A unifying definition for the human resource development profession.Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3, 175–182.

DeVaus, D., & McAllister, I. (1991). Gender and work orientation: Values and satisfaction inWestern Europe. Work and Occupations, 18 (1), 72–93.

Dirkx, J. M. (1996). Human resource development as adult education: Fostering the educativeworkplace. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, no. 72 (pp. 41–47). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Dirkx, J. M., & Deems, T. A. (1996). Towards an ecology of soul in work: Implications for humanresource development. In E. F. Holton III (Ed.), Academy of Human Resource Development 1996conference proceedings (pp. 276–283). Oak Brook, IL: Academy of Human Resource Development.

Elizur, D. (1984). Facets of work values: A structural analysis of work outcomes. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 69, 379–389.

Ennis C. D., & Chen, A. (1993). Domain specifications and content representativeness of therevised value orientation inventory. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64 (4), 436–446.

Ennis, C. D., & Chen, A. (1995). Teachers’ value orientations in urban and rural school settings.Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66 (1), 41–50.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis(5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hatcher, T. (1998). The role of human resource development in corporate social responsiveness.In R. J. Torraco (Ed.), Academy of Human Resource Development 1998 conference proceedings(pp. 816–823). Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development.

Hatcher, T. (2000). The social responsibility performance outcomes model. In K. P. Kuchinke(Ed.), Academy of Human Resource Development 2000 conference proceedings. Oak Brook, IL:Academy of Human Resource Development.

Hatcher, T., & Brooks, A. K. (2000). Social responsibility of human resource development: Howour definitions and worldviews impact our leadership role. In K. P. Kuchinke (ed.), Academyof Human Resource Development 2000 conference proceedings (pp. 7–13). Baton Rouge, LA:Academy of Human Resource Development.

Hawley, J. (1993). Reawakening the spirit in work. New York: Simon & Schuster.Hayden, F. G. (1988). Values, beliefs, and attitudes in a sociotechnical setting. Journal of Economic

Issues, 22 (2), 415–426.Hillion, B., & McLean, G. N. (1997). The status of human resource development in French

companies. In R. J. Torraco (Ed.), Academy of Human Resource Development 1997 conferenceproceedings (pp. 694–701). Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Jackson, T. (2001). Cultural values and management ethics: A 10 nation study. Human Relation,54 (10), 1267–1302.

Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1992). Effects of work values on job decisions. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 77, 261–271.

Kluckhohn, C. (1956). Toward a comparison of value-emphases in different cultures. In L. D.White (ed.), The state of the social sciences (pp. 116–132). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kluckhohn, C., & Strodbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. New York:HarperCollins.

McLagan, P. (2003). New organizational forces affecting learning transfer: Designing forimpact. In E. F. Holton III & T. T. Baldwin (Eds.), Improving learning transfer in organiza-tions (pp. 39–56). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McLean, G. N., & McLean, L. D. (2001). If we can’t define HRD in one country, how can wedefine it in an international context? Human Resource Development International, 4 (3), 313–326.

Oliver, B. L. (1999). Comparing corporate managers’ personal values over three decades,1967–1995. Journal of Business Ethics, 20, 147–161.

Posner, B. Z., Kouzes, J. M., & Schmidt, W. H. (1985). Shared values make a difference: Anempirical test of corporate culture. Human Resource management, 24 (3), 293–309.

Putti, J. M., Aryee, S., and Liang, T. K. (1989). Work values and organizational commitment: Astudy in the Asian context. Human Relations, 42, 275–288.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.Rokeach, M., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1989). Stability and change in American value priorities

1968–1981. American Psychologist, 44, 775–784.Ronen, S. (1994). An underlying structure of motivational need taxonomies: A cross-cultural

confirmation. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrialand organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 241–269). Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologists Press.

Rowe, R., & Snizek, W. E. (1995). Gender differences in work values: Perpetuating the myth.Work and Occupations, 22 (2), 215–229.

Ruona, W.E.A. (2000). Core beliefs in human resource development: A journal for the professionand its professionals. In W.E.A. Ruona & G. Roth (Eds.), Philosophical foundation of humanresource development practice (pp. 1–27). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advancesin empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a psychological structure of human values. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878–891.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.Shapira, Z., and Griffith, T. L. (1990). Comparing the work values of engineers with managers,

production, and clerical workers: A multivariate analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11,281–292.

Shye, S., Elizur, D., & Hoffman, M. (1994). Introduction to facet theory: Content design and intrin-sic data analysis in behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


368 Bates, Chen

Smith, D. (1969). Social psychology and human values, Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Swanson, R. A., and Holton, E. F. III (2001). Foundations of human resource development. San

Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Torraco, R. J., & Swanson, R. A. (1995). The strategic roles of human resource development.

Journal of the Human Resource Planning Society, 18 (4), 10–21.Vora, G. (1993). Relationship between work values and performance in an engineering plant: A

study. Abhigyan, pp. 80–87.Watkins, K. E. (1989). Five metaphors: Alternative theories for human resource development.

In D. G. Gradous (Ed.), Systems theory applied to human resource development (pp. 167–184).Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.

Watkins, K. E. (1998). Foundations for HRD in a knowledge era. In B. R. Stewart & H. C. Hall(Eds.), Beyond tradition: Preparing HRD educators for tomorrow’s workforce (pp. 55–70).Columbia, MO: University Council for Workforce and Human Resource Education.

Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art andscience of systemic change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Zanders, H. (1992). Divergence and convergence in work related values in Europe. In J.J.J. VanDijck & A.A.L.G. Wentink (Eds.), Transnational business in Europe: Economic and socialperspectives (pp. 27–38). Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Zanders, H., & Harding, S. (1995). Changing work values in Europe and North America:Continents and occupations compared. In R. De Moor (Ed.), Values in western societies(pp. 195–216). Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Reid Bates is associate professor of human resource and leadership development in theSchool of Human Resource Education and Workforce Development at Louisiana StateUniversity.

Hsin-Chih Chen is a postdoctoral researcher in human resource, leadership, andworkforce development at Louisiana State University.

For bulk reprints of this article, please call (201) 748-8789.

value priorities of human resource development professionals

Documents