The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

What is HRD?
What is HRD? A definitional
review and synthesis of the HRD
domain
199
Bob Hamlin
Wolverhampton Business School, University of Wolverhampton, Received 9 February 2010
Wolverhampton, UK, and Revised 28 June 2010
Accepted 22 December 2010
Jim Stewart
Leeds Business School, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK

Abstract
Purpose – The aim of the paper is to present the findings of a definitional review and comparative
study of HRD definitions. It also reports the results of comparing and contrasting a synthesis of the
“intended purposes” and “processes” constituting these definitions against various definitions and
conceptualisations of organisational development (OD) and coaching.
Design/methodology/approach – A targeted literature review was conducted to identify and
collate a comprehensive range of HRD, OD, and coaching definitions/conceptualisations. These were
then subjected to forms of content and thematic analysis in search of similarities and differences.
Findings – The literature review has revealed many “contradictions”, “confusions” and
“controversies” concerning the identity of HRD. Results from the definitional review suggest two or
more of four synthesised “core purposes” of HRD are embedded explicitly or implicitly within the
respective HRD definitions examined. Furthermore, these HRD “core purposes” and “processes” are
virtually the same as those associated with OD and coaching
Research limitations/implications – The definitions used in the study were limited to those that
define HRD practice at the individual, group and organisational level, and are based on conventional
and predominantly western conceptualisations. A challenge and dilemma arising from our findings
bring into question the notion of HRD, OD, and coaching as unique and distinct fields of study and
practice. Rather, the evidence implies there may be a compelling logic for these three fields to converge
into a unified disciplinary domain concerned with “people and organisation development”.
Originality/value – The paper is particularly relevant for scholars interested in HRD theorising
and/or developing HRD theories on the basis of empirical evidence. This is because they need to know
whether the foci of their studies lie inside or outside the boundaries between HRD and other related
domains. It may also be of interest to practitioners who wish to identify themselves as HRD
professionals, as opposed to OD or coaching professionals.
Keywords Human resource development, Coaching, Business development
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The main impetus for this paper stemmed from various questions raised by
participants attending the University Forum for Human Resource Development
(UFHRD) Workshop on “Theorising HRD” held on 18 November 2008 in Leeds, UK. Journal of European Industrial
Concerns were expressed about the lack of clarity regarding what human resource Training
Vol. 35 No. 3, 2011
pp. 199-220
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
The authors have drawn heavily from the work of Hamlin et al. (2008, 2009) for parts of this 0309-0590
paper. DOI 10.1108/03090591111120377
JEIT development (HRD) is and where its boundaries lie. It was thought the absence of a
35,3 common understanding of the identity of HRD was a potential “obstacle” for theorising
and researching this field of study and practice. In our view, this could be particularly
problematic for those engaged in developing HRD-related categories, concepts and
theories on the basis of empirical evidence derived from empirical research. All
academic research requires effective design and, as part of that as Flick (2007) argues
200 in respect of qualitative research, it must have a clear focus. We suggest clarity is
desirable regarding where the boundaries lie between specific “professional” domains
when “theorising” or “building theory” in a particular disciplinary field. The starting
point for such research should be a clear focus of the domain’s identity, for which there
should be substantial consensus and acceptance. As yet there is no such consensus
within the HRD domain. The paper seeks to address this perceived shortcoming by
examining how HRD has been defined over the past 40 years or more, with three aims
in mind. The first is to bring greater clarity, or at least a greater awareness as to what
appears to be commonly understood by the term HRD, by reviewing a selected range of
definitions offered by various writers. The second aim is to identify the similarities and
differences existing between a synthesis of the varied “intended purposes” and
“processes” of HRD, and those of other professional domains concerned with the
development of people and organisations. The third aim is to highlight what we
perceive to be dilemmas and challenges for HRD scholars and practitioners, arising
from where the boundaries of “HRD” appear to lie relative to the boundaries of these
other closely related domains of study and practice.

Problem statement
In her editorial to the Human Resource Development International special issue on
defining HRD, Professor Jean Woodall wondered whether readers would be
preoccupied with defining HRD in five or ten years time (Woodall, 2001). She also
wondered whether HRD would even still exist by then, or be transformed into some
other field of study and practice. It is now ten years since she expressed these thoughts,
and no doubt all readers will be pleased to see that HRD still does exist. However, in
light of the questions raised at the aforementioned UFHRD workshop on theorising
HRD, we suggest some further “preoccupation” with defining HRD is warranted.
Furthermore, as will be discussed later, there is still uncertainty as to whether HRD
will continue to exist as a separate and unique field of study and practice, particularly
bearing in mind the current comparative lack of external recognition by people from
other “professional” fields. In the absence of a general consensus or near consensus on
what HRD is and is not, HRD will remain an equivocal and contested field.
Consequently, some of its major core components might become vulnerable to being
claimed by and absorbed into other “professions”.

Arguments for and against defining HRD

Since the mid-1960s HRD has been conceptualised and defined in many different ways,
both in the US and Europe. As McGoldrick et al. (2001) observe, the process of defining
HRD by academics, researchers and practitioners is proving to be frustrating due to the
lack of clear boundaries and parameters, elusive due to a lack of depth of empirical
evidence for some conceptual aspects, and confusing due to confusion over the
philosophy, purpose, location and language of HRD. As an academic field, HRD remains
“segmented, incomplete, lacking comprehensiveness and coherence, with diverse What is HRD?
theories and models offering competing explanations” (Garavan et al., 2007, p. 3).
Consequently, it appears to be open to differing and ambiguous interpretations.
However, some writers welcome and support this, and even claim it is essential. For
example, Mankin (2001) contends that academics and practitioners should embrace HRD
as an ambiguous concept because it is this that makes HRD “distinctive”. McLean and
McLean (2001), drawing upon McLean (2000), argue that because ambiguity is an 201
essential component of life it must inevitably impact upon and be an integral aspect of
HRD itself. Consequently, when they were developing their own conceptualisation of
HRD, they did not attempt to remove ambiguity from the definition because, as they
explain, it would have been futile and something that could not happen. Bearing in mind
HRD is a relatively new and still evolving field, an argument can be made for leaving it
wholly open to ambiguous interpretation. Lee (2001) argues there is a strong case on
philosophical, theoretical and practical grounds for not defining HRD, as follows.
Philosophical grounds. The proffering of definitions tends to represent HRD as a
thing of being rather than a process of becoming. She contends this necessarily
misrepresents the continuing changing reality of what HRD actually is.
Theoretical grounds. The defining of HRD is problematic because of the different
understandings, meanings and usages of the word “development” and of “human
resource”. For example, from her research Lee (1997, 2001) found the concept of
“development” being used by HRD professionals in four different ways:
(1) Development as maturation: whereby individuals, groups and organisations are
perceived as capable of being completely understood and developed through a
pre-determined, stage-like and inevitable progression of learning based on the
findings of sufficient expert “social deterministic” analysis;
(2) Development as shaping: wherein people are seen as tools that can be shaped to
fit the organisation.
(3) Development as a voyage: wherein people perceive development as a lifelong
personal journey upon uncharted internal paths in which the individual
constructs their own version of reality (within and beyond their organisational
context), and each person is the sole owner and clear driving force behind the
identification and implementation of the development process.
(4) Development as emergent: whereby the development of group-as-organisation
is seen as no different from that of any social system in which development
tends to emerge in a messy and discontinuous way, with no single sub-system
or actor consistently triggering and driving the process.

Lee suggests that when individuals talk about their own development they normally
think of it as a voyage of learning and discovery, whereas when senior managers talk
of organisational development they normally think of it as a shaping process. In
contrast, social theorists and many HRD academic researchers normally adopt a
maturational or emergent perspective, depending on their preferred methodological
paradigm. In light of these very different interpretations of the meaning of
“development” and “human resource”, Lee suggests neither of these two terms can be
talked about as “unitary” concepts.
Practical grounds. Lee’s practical reason for refusing to define HRD is based on the
perceived degree of variation in practice across the globe, which in her view makes the
JEIT notion of producing a generally acceptable (generic/universalistic) definition of HRD an
35,3 unrealistic idea and an unrealisable goal.
Despite Lee’s (2001) cogent arguments against the defining of HRD, there have been
well over 20 definitions of HRD offered since the 1960s (see Hamlin et al., 2008;
Weinberger, 1998). Additionally, in recent years there have been various calls for
movement towards some level of consensual definition in order to continue to build and
202 develop the field (Kuchinke, 2000; Ruona, 2000; Wang and McLean, 2007). These calls
are important and need to be responded to, not least because HRD is an applied field
which most “professional” practitioners operating within it perceive as an occupational
domain similar to related professional fields such as “education”, “human resource
management” and “management”. But, as Bing et al. (2003, p. 348) observe from a US
perspective, HRD faces a major challenge because “as yet few outside of HRD may
consider HRD to be a profession”. In most countries a profession is defined as an
occupation or field of practice – usually full time – involving academic training,
formal qualifications and membership of a professional regulatory body that confers
professional status upon its members. Additionally, Friedson (2001, p. 127) tells us, an
essential element of professionalism is “specialised work that is grounded in a body of
theoretically based, discretionary knowledge and skill that is given special status”.
Typically, professional status is defined by several key criteria such as:
.
significant barriers to entry;
.
a shared common body of knowledge rather than proprietary systems;
.
formal qualifications at university level;
.
regulatory bodies with the power to admit, discipline and meaningfully sanction
members;
. an enforceable code of ethics; and
.
some form of state-sanctioned licensing or regulation for certain professions, or
parts of professions (see Bullock and Trombley, 1999; Perks, 1993; Roberts and
Dietrich, 1999).
In the UK there are two regulatory bodies to which HRD professionals can belong,
namely the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and the Institute
of Training and Organizational Learning (ITOL). But neither of these institutes have
gained (or to our knowledge are striving to gain) state-sanctioned licensing or
regulatory powers as exist in professions such as medicine, dentistry, nursing,
psychotherapy, pharmacy, law, architecture, and some areas of engineering. Hence,
HRD within the UK national context does not yet meet all of the key criteria commonly
associated with top professions. However, for several decades it has been operating as
a professional field of research and practice, and possesses many of the characteristics
of other recognised professions.
To provide some form of differentiation from other related fields, there has been a
strong drive to define HRD by professional and qualification awarding bodies
concerned with the domain, both in the UK and in other countries. But as Lee (2001)
observes, in general the HRD-related definitions and occupational standards produced
by such bodies have been based predominately on what is seen as “best practice”
rather than having been theoretically derived (from “best evidence”). For example, in
the UK, the respective “definitions” and “occupational standards” produced by the
CIPD and ITOL are UK ethnocentric, and do not fully embrace or encapsulate the
complete field of knowledge and professional activity that is HRD in the UK, or as What is HRD?
taught on a wide range of HRD-related postgraduate degree programmes at various
universities. Nor do they embrace much of what is understood to be HRD in other
countries. Yet for HRD to have meaning as a discrete field of study and practice, and
possibly as an emergent unique discipline and genuine profession, it requires an
identity that is globally recognised and accepted. Within the context of the medical
profession, Fournier (2000, p. 71) suggests “at the core of the professional project is the 203
constitution of disciplinary knowledge as representing or mirroring a ‘naturally’
isolated and self-contained referent object in the world”. So, in the absence of an
identified body of HRD “core disciplinary knowledge”, the domain cannot be
considered to be a genuine professional field of research, nor as an emergent discipline.
Furthermore, those engaged in practice can have no valid claim to full professional
status or regard themselves as part of a genuine profession.
For these reasons we consider it important for both HRD scholars and HRD
practitioners that an answer is found to the question “what is HRD?” As Gold et al. (2003)
argue, sooner or later HRD will need to determine the core elements of its base of
disciplinary knowledge, and there will need to be some agreement about what the HRD
field actually is and where the boundaries lie relative to other fields. However, they
suggest this does not mean any kind of closure or unification of knowledge because, like
all other professions, “HRD should be characterised by diversity, creativity and debate
about the meanings and practices that constitute its field” (Gold et al., 2003, p. 452). To
arrive at such agreement it is important to recognise the multidisciplinary nature of
HRD, which McGoldrick et al. (2001, p. 347) claim “makes precise definition difficult”. Yet
these writers argue that although HRD probably has no single identify, if the “metaphor
of the hologram” is utilised, the intrinsic confusions and contradictions of conceptual,
theoretical and empirical identities of HRD resulting from competing ontological,
epistemological and axiological assumptions can be reconciled and satisfactorily
understood. In this connection, Ruona and Lynham (2004) provide a useful
“philosophical framework” into which HRD knowledge generation, conceptualising,
and theory building, can be placed for a better understanding of the various
“contradictions” and “confusions” about the identity of HRD, and their “connectedness”.
Additionally, Swanson (2007a) provides an equally useful “holistic theory framework” to
help scholars and practitioners create and critique emergent theory in the field of HRD.

Research aim and questions

In light of the aforementioned multiple conceptualisations, and the perceived
“contradictions”, “confusions” and “connectedness”, the purpose of the current study is
to interrogate the HRD-related literature with the aim of addressing the following
research questions:
RQ1. What is the current state of definitional understanding of the HRD domain?
RQ2. How do the “intended purposes” and “processes” of HRD compare with those of
the closely related domains of organisational development (OD) and coaching?

Method
The authors adopted a post-positivist ontology (Ponterotto, 2005) and assumed a
realist epistemology and methodology (Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Madill et al., 2000).
JEIT The data used were purposefully drawn from previously published research that has
35,3 synthesised the HRD, OD and coaching literature on definitions; literature that has
described professional practice in these fields; and also other related textbook
literature. Articles were obtained from academic journals including:
.
Advances in Developing Human Resources;
.
Human Resource Development International;
204 .
Human Resource Development Review;
.
Human Resource Development Quarterly;
.
International Journal of Evidence-Based Coaching and Mentoring; and
.
Journal of European Industrial Training.

A range of HRD definitions offered by various writers from the mid-1960s through to
the mid-2000s were selected and reviewed. The “intended purposes” and “processes” of
the selected definitions were compared to identify similarities and differences. The
research methods employed were content and thematic analysis using forms of open
coding (Flick, 2002; Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Based on the thematic groupings so
identified, a synthesised set of “core purposes” perceived to be held in common across
the examined HRD definitions were deduced. These and the HRD definitions were then
compared and contrasted against a range of definitional conceptualisations of OD and
coaching, with the aim of searching for similarities and differences using the same
qualitative analytic methods.

Ensuring trustworthiness
Forms of “investigator” and “realist” triangulation were used that involved multiple
researchers analysing the data (Easterby-Smith et al., 1991; Madill et al., 2000). Author
1 and author 2 carried out independent analyses of the HRD definitions to identify
similarities and differences. Their respective results were then compared and
contrasted to arrive at a mutual confirmation of where their interpretations converged
and diverged (Knafl and Breitmayer, 1991). Where discrepancies arose, these were
resolved through critical examination and discussion.

Results
This section outlines the findings that emerged from addressing the two research
questions.
Addressing research question 1. What is the current state of definitional understanding
of the HRD domain?
We provide first an overview of HRD definitions offered by various writers since the
1960s, and then present the results of a comparative definitional review that searched
for commonalities across the intended purposes and processes constituting the various
definitions

Overview of the selected HRD conceptualisations and definitions

A total of 24 conceptualisations/definitions of HRD were used for the study, as set out in
Table I. The term HRD was first coined in the 1960s by Harbison and Myers (1964) from
a perspective based on “development economics” and “human capital” theories. And as
 What is HRD?
Authors Selected range of HRD definitions

Individual and group learning

1 Harbison and HRD is “the process of increasing the knowledge, the skills, and the
Myers (1964) capacities of all the people in a society
2 Nadler (1970) HRD is “a series of organised activities conducted within a specified time and
designed to produce behavioural change” 205
3 Jones (1981) HRD is “a systematic expansion of people’s work-related abilities,
focused on the attainment of both organisation and personal goals”
4 Chalofsky and The discipline of HRD “is the study of how individuals and groups in
Lincoln (1983) organisation change through learning”
5 Nadler and Wiggs HRD is “a comprehensive learning system for the release of the
(1986) organisation’s human potentials – a system that includes both
vicarious (classroom, mediated, simulated) learning experiences and
experiential, on-the-job experiences that are keyed to the organisation’s
reasons for survival”
6 Smith (1988) HRD consists of “programs and activities, direct and indirect, instructional
and/or individual that positively affect the development of the
individuals and the productivity of and profit of the organisation”
7 Nadler and Nadler HRD is “organised learning experiences provided for employees within a
(1989) specified period of time to bring about the possibility of performance
improvement and/or personal growth”
8 Gilley and Egglund HRD is about “the advancement of knowledge, skills and competencies, and
(1989) the improved behaviour of people within the organisation for both their
personal and professional use”
9 Smith (1990) HRD is the process of determining the optimum methods of developing
and improving the human resources of an organisation and the
systematic improvement of the performance and productivity
of employees through training, education and development and
leadership for the mutual attainment of organisational and
personal goals”
10 Garavan (1991) HRD is “the strategic management of training, development and of
management/professional education interventions, so as to achieve the
objectives of the organisation while at the same time ensuring the
full utilisation of the knowledge in detail and skills of individual
employees. It is concerned with the management of employees learning for
the long-term, keeping in mind the explicit corporate and business strategies”
11 Ruona and The purpose of HRD “is to enhance learning, human potential and
Lynham (1999) high performance in work related systems”
12 McLean and HRD is “any process or activity that, either initially or over the long term, has
McLean (2001) the potential to develop adults” work-based knowledge, expertise,
productivity and satisfaction, whether for personal or group/team gain,
or for the benefit of an organisation, community, nation or, ultimately, the
whole of humanity
13 Harrison and HRD as an organisational process “comprises the skilful planning and Table I.
Kessels (2004) facilitation of a variety of formal and informal learning and knowledge A selected range of
processes and experiences, primarily but not exclusively in the workplace, in human resource
order that organisational progress and individual potential can be development (HRD)
enhanced through the competence, adaptability, collaboration and definitions offered by
knowledge-creating activity of all who work for the organisation” various authors since the
(continued) 1960s
JEIT
Authors Selected range of HRD definitions
35,3
14 Yorks (2005) HRD is defined as “both an organisational role and a field of professional
practice. The fundamental purpose of HRD is to contribute to both long-
term strategic performance and more immediate performance
improvement through ensuring that organisational members have access
206 to resources for developing their capacity for performance and for
making meaning of their experience in the context of the
organisation’s strategic needs and the requirements of their jobs”
15 Werner and HRD can be defined as “a set of systematic and planned activities designed
DeSimone (2006) by an organisation to provide its members with the opportunities to
learn necessary skills to meet current and future job demands”

Individual, group and organisational learning and organisational change and development
16 Swanson (1987) HRD is “a process of improving an organisation’s performance
through the capabilities of its personnel. HRD includes activities dealing with
work design, aptitude, expertise and motivation”
17 McLagan and HRD is “the integrated use of training and development, career
Suhadolnik (1989) development, and organisational development to improve individual and
organisational effectiveness”
18 Watkins (1989) HRD is “the field of study and practice responsible for the fostering of a
long-term, work-related learning capacity at the individual, group
and organisational level of organisations. As such, it includes, but is not
limited to, training, career development and organisational development”
19 Meggisson et al. HRD is “an integrated and holistic approach to changing work related
(1993) behaviour, using a range of learning techniques and strategies”
20 Rothwell and Strategic HRD is “the process of changing an organisation,
Kasanas (1994) stakeholders outside it, groups inside it, and people employed by
it through planned learning so they possess the knowledge and skills
needed in the future”
21 Swanson (1995) HRD is “a process of developing and unleashing human expertise
through organisation development and personnel training and development
for the purpose of improving performance”
22 Stewart (1999) HRD “encompasses activities and processes which are intended to have
impact on organisational and individual learning” and “is constituted
by planned interventions in organisational and individual learning processes”
23 Watkins (2000) The aims of HRD are “to bring learning and change into an
organisational context”
24 Hamlin (2004) HRD “encompasses planned activities and processes designed to enhance
organisational and individual learning, develop human potential, maximise
organisational effectiveness and performance, and help bring about
effective and beneficial change within and beyond the boundaries of
organisations”
Table I. Note: “Intended purposes” and “processes” typed in bold and italic type face

Wang (2008) reminds us, their conceptualisation of HRD was for the purpose of
pioneering the measurement of economic and human development status in different
societies, rather than to define a field of study and practice called HRD. The first
definition created from a “human resources” perspective was that of Nadler (1970), who
identified “behavioural change” as the intended purpose of HRD activities. We have What is HRD?
found this notion of “behavioural change” embedded either explicitly or implicitly in all
of the subsequent definitions we have examined. A total of 13 of the definitions listed in
Table I (no. 3-15) appear to conceptualise HRD as a “process” in workplace settings that
facilitate individual and group learning relating primarily to employee jobs, work and in
some definitions to careers. Furthermore, the “intended purpose” of HRD is to improve
performance and effectiveness at the individual and/or group level, in order to achieve 207
organisational and/or personal goals. For example, Jones (1981) conceptualises HRD as:
“a systematic expansion of people’s work-related abilities, focused on the attainment of
both organisation and personal goals”; whilst Nadler and Nadler (1989) define HRD as:
“organised learning experiences provided for employees within a specified period of time
to bring about the possibility of performance improvement and personal growth”.
Similarly, and more recently, other writers define the “intended purpose” as to:
enhance learning, human potential and high performance in work-related systems (Ruona
and Lynham, 1999); develop adults’ work-based knowledge, expertise, productivity and
satisfaction, whether for personal or group/team gain, or for the benefit of an organisation,
community, nation or, ultimately, the whole of humanity (McLean and McLean, 2001); and
provide (an organisation’s) members with the opportunities to learn necessary skills to
meet current and future job demands (Werner and DeSimone, 2006).
In contrast, the other nine definitions examined (no. 16-24) additionally state
explicitly or implicitly that the intended purpose of HRD is also to bring about
organisational learning, change and development. For example, McLagan and
Suhadolnik (1989) describe HRD as: “the integrated use of training and development,
career development and organisational development to improve individual and
organisational effectiveness”. This is implied in Swanson’s (1987) first definition, but is
more explicit with the inclusion of organisational development in his second definition
(Swanson, 1995). The notion that a key purpose of HRD is to bring about
organisational change is also made explicit by Rothwell and Kasanas (1994), Watkins
(2000), and Hamlin (2004), and implicitly by Watkins (1989), Meggisson et al. (1993),
and Stewart (1999). This notion is strongly supported by Vince (2003, p. 559) who
argues practitioners need to think about HRD “less as people development and more as
an approach that supports the impact people can have on organising”, and that HRD
needs to “take a lead in creating the designs and developments for future business”.
Any HRD intervention concerned with facilitating planned “organisational change” is
a strategic issue, as reflected in the definition of strategic human resource development
(SHRD) offered by Rothwell and Kasanas (1994) and the writings of Walton (1999).
From Grieves’ (2003, p. 104) perspective SHRD has its roots in organisational
development (OD), but is different in so far as it “promotes a more enlightened, ethical
and skills-focused change management that puts human resources back where they
belong – at the top of the change agenda”. We conclude from our reading of the works
of these authors, that SHRD is in essence a “strategic approach” to HRD, and is not a
sub-field inside or a separate field outside the HRD domain.
The vast majority of definitions examined (n ¼ 20) suggest HRD focuses
exclusively on work-related systems within organisations. This contrasts sharply
with the societal focus in Harbison and Myers’ (1964) definition. However, the
definitions offered by Hamlin (2004) and Harrison and Kessels (2004) respectively, refer
to HRD taking place both inside and outside the boundaries of organisations. This can
JEIT also be inferred from Stewart’s (1999) definition. Overall we perceive most definitions
35,3 to suggest HRD is primarily a workplace process conducted mainly within private
(for-profit) sector companies, public sector organisations including the military, and
third (voluntary and not-for-profit) sector organisations including religious bodies.
However, some HRD professionals operate within communities and in society at large.
For example, various agencies in the UK involved with deprived communities and
208 social inclusion issues, provide HRD-related services to help individuals and networks
learn how to create and set up viable and sustainable social enterprises. Thereby, they
are enabled to become more self-sufficient and less reliant on government funding (see
Newis and Hamlin, 2005). Then again, there are many independent HRD consultants
who, as part of their professional practice, act as “mentors”, “coaches” or “life coaches”
to private individuals in society who need professional help regarding their “career
development”, or other “life changing” issues that are affecting them. As Torraco
(2005) claims, the influence of HRD has expanded beyond its traditional realm – the
industrial and corporate workplace. Indeed, many HRD professionals now have
“system-wide responsibility for facilitating strategic change and large-scale projects
that cut across organisations and into the community”, and are “active in the non-profit
and independent sectors helping to resolve conflicts and facilitate agreements among
diverse groups and community agencies” (Torraco, 2005, p. 251).
Another recent development affecting the identity of HRD is how it is perceived and
conceptualised at a national level, with governments of many if not most countries
adopting national policies that relate to “vocational education and training”,
“workforce development”, and other issues such as “life-long learning”. In their
exploration of a range of HRD definitions used in a worldwide context, McLean and
McLean (2001) revealed a wide variation in the scope of activities considered to be
HRD, and the intended beneficiaries could either be the individual, the organisation, or
the nation. These findings are reinforced by the results of Cho and McLean’s (2004)
study of how HRD is being used as national policy in various countries. These
researchers have demonstrated that the concept of HRD at national level differs from
one country to another, and they conclude that HRD is a much broader concept with
much greater impact than has been acknowledged in much of the HRD literature.
Although McLean and McLean (2001) found differences in the national culture,
economy, and government legislation were reflected in the HRD definitions they had
collected, they still felt able to synthesise a global definition capturing many of the
elements of the HRD conceptualisations they had examined (see Table I). However,
although globally oriented, comprehensive, and broadly cited Wang and McLean
(2007) claim there are areas of HRD activity that McLean and McLean’s global
definition does not touch, such as trans-national activity. Furthermore, they suggest
certain terms used in the definition are somewhat ambiguous, problematic and
troublesome. For example, what specifically is meant by the somewhat ambiguous
terms community and national? Why is HRD constrained to the development of adults
when child labour is a fact of life in many if not most parts of the world, as reported in
Budhwani et al. (2004). Additionally, why should HRD be limited to work-based
development when in many countries “productivity”, “equality and diversity” in the
labour force and workplace, as well as “vocational education” and “health and safety”
are perceived at national level to be integral aspects of HRD? (see McLean et al., 2003;
McLean, 2004).
 A further recent development affecting the identity of HRD is the impact of What is HRD?
economic globalisation and the emergence of trans-national corporations. These have
led to various authors offering definitions of international human resource
development (IHRD) (see Yaw et al., 2000). The US-based IHRD definitions created
through the general lens proposed by Peng et al. (1991), including that offered by
Peterson (1997), have two main drawbacks. These are, as Wang and McLean (2007)
note, they have been conceptualised solely from a US ethnocentric perspective by 209
considering only HRD activities in non-US cultures to be international HRD, and by
considering HRD only in business organisational settings. In contrast, Metcalfe and
Rees (2005) have conceptualised IHRD from a more multi-national perspective, having
defined it as:
A broad term that concerns process that addresses the formulation and practice of HRD
systems, practices, and policies at the global, societal, and organisational level. It can concern
itself with how governments and international organisations 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).
However, Wang and McLean (2007, p. 1004) question whether a definition for IHRD
can be created when:
.
“the stage of development of HRD varies widely in maturity from country to
country”;
.
“there is a broad range of willingness to accommodate cultural and national
differences”; and
.
“too many countries are so ethnocentric” as demonstrated by various studies of
national human resource development (NHRD) in a variety of transitioning
societies in the developing world (see Lynham et al., 2006).

NHRD has been conceptualised as “the concept of HRD used as national policy” (Cho and
McLean, 2004). This is because, as McLean (2004) and various other researchers have
discovered, at the national level HRD is concerned not only with employment and
preparation with employment issues, but also with “health, culture, safety, community
and a host of other considerations that have not typically been perceived as manpower
planning or human capital investment” (McLean, 2004, p. 269). However, based on his
review of literature on “development economics”, “human development reports” (HDRs)
and the “human development index” (HDI), and on his brief review of key terms used in
five NHRD models, Wang (2008) concludes that NHRD is, in essence, HRD national
policy studies. Consequently, he suggests it should not be thought of as a new paradigm.
According to Swanson (2007a, b), and also Wang and Swanson (2008), the focused
attention on “national” and “international” HRD research represents problems in both
HRD identity and research methodology. They consider the creation of a separate
identity and definition for NHRD (and by inference IHRD) complicates the process of
theorising HRD. Furthermore, arguing from a methodological paradigm based on
“realist” “objectivist” and “positivist” or “post-positivist” ontological/epistemological
assumptions, they criticise the NHRD literature because of what they perceive to be
serious theoretical concerns and limitations of the research methods and processes
deployed by NHRD researchers. Their criticisms are robustly rebutted by McLean
JEIT (2007) and McLean et al. (2008), who present cogent and compelling counter-arguments
35,3 in support of IHRD and NHRD research and theory building. As they explain in
fulsome detail, there is an ongoing need to explore sub-facets of HRD such as NHRD
and IHRD. This is because research has produced compelling evidence that national
culture does influence how HRD is understood and practiced in different countries.
Furthermore, the nature of the research questions that have been posed by NHRD
210 researchers requires the adoption of methodological paradigms based on “relativist”,
“subjectivist” “hermeneutic”, and “dialectic” ontological/epistemological assumptions,
rather than traditional “scientific” research paradigms typically used by most HRD
researchers. Whichever of these two controversial arguments hold sway, we deduce
that NHRD and IHRD lie inside and not outside the HRD domain.

Definitional review
The HRD definitions discussed above, and listed in Table I, were subjected to a
comparative analysis in search of commonalities. The content and thematic analyses
revealed the “intended purposes” of each definition (typed in bold) were similar to
those of many of the other definitions examined. Furthermore, they could be grouped
thematically into four distinct categories. Synthesised statements of purpose reflecting
the “intended purposes” of all the definitions in each thematic category were created, as
follows:
.
“improving individual or group effectiveness and performance”;
.
“improving organisational effectiveness and performance”;
.
“developing knowledge, skills and competencies”; and
.
“enhancing human potential and personal growth” respectively (see
Table II).

Each of these synthesised statements of purpose could be regarded as one of four “core
purposes” of HRD. The “intended purposes” of every definition analysed were found to be
related to at least two of the four synthesised “core purposes”, as indicated in Table II. Of
the 24 definitions, the “intended purposes” of 79.17 per cent (n ¼ 22) relate to “knowledge,
skills and competence” issues, 83.33 per cent (n ¼ 20) to “potential and personal growth”
issues, 79.17 per cent (n ¼ 19) to “individual or group effectiveness/performance” issues,
and 37.50 per cent (n ¼ 9) to “organisational effectiveness/performance” issues.
Addressing research question 2. How do the “intended purposes” and “processes” of
HRD compare with those of the closely related domains of “OD” and “coaching”?
We compared and contrasted the HRD definitions and the four synthesised “core
purposes” of HRD against various “composite conceptualisations” of OD and variants
of coaching:
.
Organisation development is: any systematic process or activity which increases
organisational functioning, effectiveness and performance through the
development of an organisation’s capability to solve problems and
bring about beneficial change and renewal in its structures, systems,
and culture, and which helps and assists people in organisations to improve
their day to day organisational lives and well being, and enhances both
individual, group, and organisational learning and development.
 What is HRD?
Core purpose Core purpose
HRD Improving individual Improving Core purpose Core purpose
Definitions or group organisational Developing Enhancing human
from effectiveness and effectiveness and knowledge, skills potential and
Table I performance performance and competencies personal growth

1 x x 211
2 x x
3 x x x
4 x x
5 x
6 x x
7 x x
8 x x x
9 x x x
10 x x x
11 x x x
12 x x x
13 x x x
14 x x x
15 x x
16 x x x x
17 x x x x
18 x x x x
19 x x x
20 x x x x Table II.
21 x x x Relationship between the
22 x x x x “intended purposes” of
23 x x x the HRD definitions and
24 x x x x the four synthesised “core
Number 19 9 22 20 purposes” of HRD

.
Coaching is: a helping and facilitative process that enables individuals,
groups/teams and organisations to acquire new skills, to improve
existing skills, competence and performance, and to enhance their
personal effectiveness or personal development or personal growth.
.
Executive coaching is: a process that primarily (but not exclusively) takes place
within a one-to-one helping and facilitative relationship between a coach and an
executive (or a manager) that enables the executive (or a manager) to
achieve personal-, job- or organisation-related goals with an intention
to improve organisational performance.
.
Business coaching is: a collaborative process that helps businesses,
owner/managers and employees achieve their personal and business
related goals to ensure long-term success.
.
Life coaching is: a helping and facilitative process – usually within a one-to-one
relationship between a coach and a coachee – which brings about an
enhancement in the quality of life and personal growth of the coachee,
and possibly a life-changing experience.
JEIT These OD/coaching “composite conceptualisations” were obtained from Hamlin et al.’s
35,3 (2008, 2009) definitional study of 29 OD definitions and 36 coaching definitions, which
they had selected from targeted academic and practitioner literatures. The “intended
purposes” and “processes” contained within the description of each of these
conceptualisations have been highlighted in bold and italic type face respectively. As
can be seen, the “intended purposes” relating to the OD conceptualisation are explicitly
212 or implicitly the same or similar to one or more of the four synthesised “core purposes”
of HRD. And the OD “processes” are the same as those indicated in various HRD
definitions. The comparison against the four variants of coaching reveals very high
degrees of overlap and commonality, which mirror the previous findings of Hamlin
et al. (2009). The “process” common to all four variants of coaching is that of providing
help to individuals and organisations through some form of facilitation activity or
intervention. The “intended purposes” common to all four coaching variants include
helping individuals to “improve their performance”, and to “enhance their personal
effectiveness, personal development and personal growth”. The only notable difference
between the coaching variants is the additional explicitly stated intention within the
composite conceptualisation of “executive coaching” that relates to helping
individuals, groups and/or organisations to “acquire new skills” and to “improve
existing skills/competencies”. As can be seen, there are high degrees of sameness and
similarity between the “intended purposes” of coaching and the “core purposes” of
HRD, even to the point of being perceived as near identical.

Discussion
The key discovery of the study is that HRD has four “core purposes”, and that two or
more of these are explicitly or implicitly embedded in the “intended purpose” of every
HRD definition analysed. Furthermore, despite the many “contradictions” and
“confusions” about the identity of HRD, the extent of the commonalities between the
multiple conceptualisations is high. This suggests the development of one (or a few
connected) clear and concise over-arching definition(s) of HRD that work everywhere,
as called for by Swanson (2007b), might be possible.
To support the creation of such consensual definitions, Wang and Swanson (2008)
have called for a unifying theory of HRD that will deal with all development issues
(which by implication means issues at both the individual, organisational, sectoral,
national, trans-national and global level). To develop such unifying theory through
“positivist” or “post-positivist” etic research would require the selection of HRD
definitions derived in one ethnocentric context, which would then be deductively tested
in many other ethnocentric contexts. However, McLean et al. (2008) argue individual
country differences will, for the foreseeable future, deny this as a possibility. Even so,
we suggest the emergence of a “unified perspective” of the identity of the HRD domain
might still be possible using research designs based on Berry’s (1989) derived-etic
approach to applied research, as has been applied in the field of psychology. In
derived-etic studies the same phenomenon is explored in more than one specific context
or cultural setting. A multiple cross-case comparative study is then carried out using
the results of these previous emic case studies. If common features begin to emerge
then the comparison is possible. Without assuming universality, the combined
emic-etic approach provides the possibility of drawing conclusions about derived etics
and universals by including progressively more and more specific contexts and
cultural settings. However, the search is not for uniform universal constructions or What is HRD?
conceptualisations (i.e. those that apply exactly the same across all cultures). Rather,
the search is for variform universal definitions that have the same generic functional
significance and share common elements, but are slightly moderated by the cultural
environment (see Carl and Javidan, 2001). The current debate and dialectic between the
various opponents and proponents of NHRD and IHRD theorising and research will
likely continue until, that is, more empirical evidence is obtained that can provide 213
better insights and understandings about how HRD is conceptualised and practised
around the world. For the purpose of provoking further thought, discussion, and
progression towards generating one (or a few) conceptualisation(s) upon which there
can be substantial general consensus, Wang and McLean (2007) have produced what
appears to be an “all-embracing”, “catch-all”, but “non-definitive” statement of IHRD
(also known as cross-national HRD, trans-national HRD and global HRD) as follows:
IHRD is: a field of study and practice that focuses on for profit, not-for-profit, and/or
governmental entities and individuals cooperating in some form across national borders. The
purpose of this intervention is systematically to tap existing human potential and
intentionally shape work-based, community-based, society-based, culture-based, and
politically based expertise through multiple means for the purpose of improving
cross-national relationships collaboratively across all involved entities through greater
mutual understanding, improved individual and organisational performance, improved
standards of living and quality of life, reduced conflict between entities and individuals, and
any other criteria that would be deemed useful by the involved entities. International HRD is
aspirational rather than realised and serves as a challenge for continuous efforts at
improvement (Wang and McLean, 2007, p. 105).
In the hope that eventually an overarching definition of HRD can be created that
attracts variform universal acceptance, coupled with the aim of provoking further
thought on the matter, we similarly offer an “all-embracing”, “catch-all”, “composite”
but “non-definitive” statement of HRD, as follows:
HRD encompasses planned activities, processes and/or interventions designed to have impact
upon and enhance organisational and individual learning, to develop human potential, to
improve or maximise effectiveness and performance at either the individual, group/team
and/or organisational level, and/or to bring about effective, beneficial personal or
organisational behaviour change and improvement within, across and/or beyond the
boundaries (or borders) of private sector (for profit), public sector/governmental, or
third/voluntary sector (not-for-profit) organisations, entities or any other type of
personal-based, work-based, community-based, society-based, culture-based, political-based
or nation-based host system.
Also to provoke thought, we suggest a tentative conclusion that could be drawn from
the findings of our study is that HRD is, in essence, any process or activity that helps or
enables individuals, groups, organisations or host systems to learn, develop and
change behaviour for the purpose of improving or enhancing their competence,
effectiveness, performance and growth. Even if a concise overarching
conceptualisation such as this can be created to form a definition that is globally
recognised and accepted within the HRD domain, it may not receive outside
recognition and acceptance because of perceived challenges and dilemmas currently
confronting the HRD “profession”. These are discussed in the following section.
JEIT Challenges and dilemmas for the HRD “profession”
35,3 Virtually all of the HRD definitions discussed in this paper describe activities,
processes and interventions that are designed to help facilitate individual, group
and/or organisational learning and development. Consequently, it is not surprising to
note the explicit inclusion of “organisation development” and “career development”
alongside “training and development” in the definitions offered by several writers (see
214 McLagan and Suhadolnik, 1989; Swanson, 1995), and also their implicit inclusion in
various other definitions. Furthermore, for several decades, much of the HRD-related
literature has been focused on “organisational change and development” and “career
development”, including “mentoring” and “coaching” issues. Whereas most HRD
professionals would contend that these are integral components of HRD theory,
research and practice, other professional practitioners concerned with “people and
organisation development”, such as those who identify themselves as “OD
professionals” and “executive coaches”, would not recognise nor agree with this
contention. Grieves and Redman (1999) write about HRD living in the shadow of OD,
whilst Wang and McLean (2007) suggest few OD professionals see organisation
development as part of HRD. Regarding practitioners in the emergent “coaching
industry”, Hamlin et al. (2008) claim many if not most “professional” coaches, executive
coaches and business coaches do not and will not think of themselves as HRD
professionals. This is because they tend to think of HRD either in terms of traditional
training and development, which historically has been a comparatively low level
activity in many organisations, or as a branch of adult education and adult learning, or
as a minor component or sub-facet of the human resource/personnel management
function which, in many organisations, is held in low regard by many practicing
managers. Such identification as an HRD professional would likely be particularly
unacceptable to those “professional” coaches with backgrounds in, for example,
“business management,” “consulting psychology”, and “psychiatry”. In light of this
type of thinking, antipathy towards any identification or affiliation with the HRD field
is something to be expected.
A further challenge for HRD is the fact that the recently emergent “coaching
industry”, which is still very young but expanding rapidly around the globe, is
considered by some writers as having reached a level of maturation sufficient for it to
move towards becoming a genuine coaching profession with an established identity,
clear boundaries, and a shared common body of empirically tested knowledge (Grant
and Cavanagh, 2004). These writers claim that no existing profession holds a corner on
the market of coaching knowledge. Additionally, Grant (2001) suggests that coaching
is distinctively different to and separate from other forms of professional learning
facilitation and performance enhancement, such as mentoring and training. This view
is supported by Clegg et al. (2003) who claim “business coaching” differs from
traditional business (and management) training and consulting, and by Lawton-Smith
and Cox (2007) who argue coaching should not be just a new more fashionable and
acceptable name for training (and hence a component of HRD). These latter authors
suggest the coaching process should be separated from the learning techniques used
for training, and that coaching should deliver a unique contribution and an additional
output to complement training.
However, as this study has demonstrated, there is very little difference between the
“intended purposes” and “processes” of coaching and those of HRD and OD. Thus, as
Hamlin et al. (2009) have also concluded, “coaching” in general and the variants of What is HRD?
“executive”, “business” and “life” coaching, could all be seen to a greater or lesser
extent, as strands of HRD. Indeed, the emergent field of “professional coaching” could
be conceptualised as a core component of HRD. This finding poses a dilemma not only
for HRD professionals, but also for those who identify themselves as OD and coaching
professionals. As Chalofsky (2004) has observed, the currently established field of HRD
rests on three constructs: people, learning, and organisations. It can readily be seen and 215
argued just by glancing at the “composite conceptualisations” in the list above that
both the OD and coaching domains similarly rest upon these constructs. Therefore, if
“professional” coaches and researchers within the emergent “coaching industry”
support a move towards the creation of a coaching profession as called for by Grant
and Cavanagh (2004), and if the fast growing HRD role of “executive coach” (Plunkett
and Egan, 2004) continues to expand, together with the current rapid expansion of a
concomitant body of coaching-related research as reported in the HRD literature,
significant problems of differentiation will inevitably arise.

Limitations of the study

We acknowledge two limitations of this study. First, we have not included in our
definitional review every HRD definition that has been published, and we have
restricted our selection to those definitions that explicitly relate to HRD practice at the
individual, group and organisational level. Second, our selection has been based on our
acceptance of the conventional and predominantly western conceptualisations of HRD.

Conclusions and implications

The four synthesised “core purposes” of HRD identified by the study may provide
those interested in HRD theorising and theory building with a clear focus for their
theoretical or empirical research designs. Furthermore, our posited “all-embracing”,
“catch-all”, “composite” but “non-definitive” statement of HRD may be of some help
when deciding whether or not the research is located inside or outside the boundaries
of the HRD domain.
The high degrees of overlap between the definitions and conceptualisations of HRD,
OD and coaching could prove to be a serious challenge for all three existing and
emergent fields of study and practice. And the challenge is likely to increase if each
field strives seriously to establish its own clear identify, clear boundaries, and unique
common body of empirically tested knowledge that is sharply differentiated from any
related field. Consequently, we support Hamlin et al.’s (2009) suggestion that the three
domains might wish to consider the possibility of collectively moving towards the
creation of a new all-embracing field of study and practice. And perhaps consider
aspiring to becoming eventually a genuine profession with its own unique yet eclectic
body of “general knowledge” to which all “developers” who identify themselves as
HRD, OD or coaching professionals would wish to belong. Perhaps the time is right for
this sort of evolutionary development, because although historically the HRD and OD
domains have evolved and developed as distinctive fields in their own right, a recent
analysis of their respective evolutionary paths has indicated a clear and strong
convergence (Ruona and Gibson, 2004). The fact that this finding is supported in part
by our study, and by that of Hamlin et al. (2009), suggests a dialogue needs to be
opened between the respective domains aimed at collaborating and cross-fertilising
JEIT ideas around the theory-practice issues of HRD, OD and coaching. We envision the
35,3 dialogue might include an in-depth examination and reflection upon the apparent
current trajectories of development as “silo” fields of professional practice, and upon
the possibility of convergence into a “single unified” field. This might ultimately lead
to recognition across all three domains of the need to consider creating a “new”
integrated profession and discipline that embraces all aspects of people and
216 organisation development. Should this transpire, a label other than the term HRD may
be needed to designate the “new” domain. In the meantime, we suggest those currently
engaged in HRD theorising and theory building should be clear about whether OD and
coaching are inside or outside the focus of the particular HRD identity lens they are
using.

References
Berry, J.W. (1989), “Imposed etics-emics-derived etics: the operationalization of a compelling
idea”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 721-35.
Bing, J.W., Kehrhahn, M. and Short, D.C. (2003), “Challenges to the field of human resource
development”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 342-51.
Budhwani, N., Wee, B. and McLean, G.N. (2004), “Should child labor be eliminated? An HRD
perspective”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 107-16.
Bullock, A. and Trombley, S. (1999), The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought,
Harper-Collins, London.
Carl, D.E. and Javidan, M. (2001), “Universality of charismatic leadership: a multi-nation study”,
Academy of Management Proceedings, 2001 IM:B1.
Chalofsky, N. (2004), “Human and organization studies: the discipline of HRD”, in Marshall, T.
and Morris, M.L. (Eds), 2004 AHRD Conference Proceedings, Academy of Human
Resource Development, Bowling Green, OH, pp. 422-7.
Chalofsky, N. and Lincoln, C. (1983), Up the HRD Ladder, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Cho, E. and McLean, G.N. (2004), “What we discovered about NHRD and what it means for
HRD”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 382-93.
Clegg, S., Rhodes, C. and Kornberger, M. (2003), “An overview of the business coaching industry
in Australia”, OVAL research working paper 03-11, The Australian Centre for
Organizational, Vocational and Adult Learning, Sydney.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (1991), Management Research: An Introduction,
Sage, London.
Flick, U. (2002), An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., Sage, London.
Flick, U. (2007), Designing Qualitative Research, Sage, London.
Fournier, V. (2000), “Boundary work and the (un)making of the professions”, in Malin, N. (Ed.),
Professionalism, Boundaries and the Workplace, Routledge, London, pp. 67-86.
Friedson, E. (2001), Professionalism, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Garavan, T. (1991), “Strategic human resource development”, Journal of European Industrial
Training, Vol. 15, pp. 17-30.
Garavan, T.N., O’Donnell, D., McGuire, D. and Watson, S. (2007), “Exploring perspectives on
human resource development: an introduction”, Advances in Developing Human
Resources, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 3-10.
Gilley, J.W. and Egglund, S.A. (1989), Principles of Human Resource Development,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Gold, J., Rodgers, H. and Smith, V. (2003), “What is the future for the human resource What is HRD?
development professional? A UK perspective”, Human Resource Development
International, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 437-56.
Grant, A.M. (2001), Towards a Psychology of Coaching, Coaching Psychology Unit, School of
Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, available at: www.psych.su.oz.au/psychcoach/
Coaching_review_AMG2001.pdf
Grant, A.M. and Cavanagh, M.J. (2004), “Toward a profession of coaching: sixty-five years of 217
progress and challenges for the future”, International Journal of Evidence-Based Coaching
and Mentoring, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Grieves, J. (2003), Strategic Human Resource Development, Sage, London.
Grieves, J. and Redman, T. (1999), “Living in the shadow of OD: HRD and the search for identity”,
Human Resource Development International, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 81-103.
Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994), “Competing paradigms in qualitative research”, in Denzin,
N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, London, pp. 105-17.
Hamlin, R.G. (2004), “Toward evidence-based HRD through HRD professional partnership
research”, Inaugural Professorial Lecture, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton.
Hamlin, R.G., Ellinger, A.D. and Beattie, R.S. (2008), “The emergent ‘coaching industry’:
a wake-up call for HRD professionals”, Human Resource Development International,
Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 287-305.
Hamlin, R.G., Ellinger, A.D. and Beattie, R.S. (2009), “Toward a profession of coaching?
A definitional examination of ‘coaching,’ ‘organization development,’ and ‘human resource
development’”, International Journal of Evidence-based Coaching and Mentoring, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 13-38.
Harbison, F.H. and Myers, C.A. (1964), Education, Manpower and Economic Growth: Strategies
of Human Resource Development, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Harrison, R. and Kessels, J. (2004), Human Resource Development in a Knowledge Economy:
An Organizational View, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Jones, J. (1981), The 1981 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators, University Associates,
San Diego, CA.
Knafl, K.A. and Breitmayer, B.J. (1991), “Triangulation in qualitative research: issues of
conceptual clarity and purpose”, in Morse, J.M. (Ed.), Qualitative Nursing Research:
A Contemporary Dialogue, Sage, London, pp. 226-39.
Kuchinke, K.P. (2000), “Debates over the nature of HRD: an instrumental theory perspective”,
Human Resource Development International, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 279-85.
Lawton-Smith, C. and Cox, E. (2007), “Coaching: is it just a new name for training?”, International
Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, pp. 1-9, Special Issue, Summer.
Lee, M. (1997), “The developmental approach: a critical reconsideration”, in Burgoyne, J. and
Reynolds, M. (Eds), Management Learning, Sage, London, pp. 199-214.
Lee, M. (2001), “A refusal to define HRD”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 4
No. 3, pp. 327-41.
Lynham, S.A., Paprock, K.G. and Cunningham, P.W. (Eds) (2006), “National human resource
development in transitioning societies in the developing world”, Advances in Developing
Human Resources, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-135.
McGoldrick, J., Stewart, J. and Watson, S. (2001), “Theorizing human resource development”,
Human Resource Development International, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 343-56.
JEIT McLagan, P. and Suhadolnik, D. (1989), Models for HRD Practice: The Research Report,
American Society for Training and Development, Alexandria, VA.
35,3
McLean, G.N. (2000), “It depends”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 3-11.
McLean, G.N. (2004), “National human resource development: what in the world is it?”, Advances
in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 270-5.
218 McLean, G.N. (2007), “Déjà vu, all over again”, Human Resource Development International,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 459-63.
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, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 313-26.
McLean, G.N., Bartlett, K.R. and Cho, E. (2003), “Human resource development as national policy:
Republic of Korea and New Zealand”, Pacific-Asian Education, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 41-59.
McLean, G.N., Lynham, S.A., Azevedo, R.E., Lawrence, J.E.S. and Nafukho, F.M. (2008),
“A response to Wang and Swanson’s article on national HRD and theory development”,
Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 241-58.
Madill, A., Jordon, A. and Shirley, C. (2000), “Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis:
realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies”, British Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 91, pp. 1-20.
Mankin, D.P. (2001), “A model for human resource development”, Human Resource Development
International, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 65-85.
Meggisson, D., Joy-Matthews, J. and Banfield, P. (1993), Human Resource Development, Kogan
Page, London.
Metcalfe, B.D. and Rees, C.J. (2005), “Theorizing advances in international human resource
development”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 449-65.
Nadler, L. (1970), Developing Human Resources, Gulf, Houston, TX.
Nadler, L. and Nadler, Z. (1989), Developing Human Resources: Concepts and a Model, 3rd ed.,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Nadler, L. and Wiggs, C. (1986), Managing Human Resource Development: A Practical Guide,
Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
Newis, C. and Hamlin, R.G. (2005), “Towards a social enterprise mindset: an action research
driven, grounded theory led study of social enterprise in the context of the voluntary and
community sector”, paper presented at UFHRD 6th International Conference on HRD
Research and Practice across Europe, University of Leeds, Leeds, May.
Peng, T.K., Peterson, M.F. and Shyi, Y. (1991), “Quantitative methods in cross-national
management research: trend and equivalence issues”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 87-107.
Perks, R.W. (1993), Accounting and Society, Chapman & Hall, London.
Peterson, L. (1997), “International HRD: what we know and what we don’t know”, Human
Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 63-79.
Plunkett, B.L. and Egan, T.M. (2004), “Application of psychology-based theoretical approaches to
executive coaching: a summary and exploration of potential utility”, in Marshall, T. and
Morris, M.L. (Eds), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development,
Academy of Human Resource Development, Bowling Green, OH, pp. 557-65.
Ponterotto, J.G. (2005), “Qualitative research in counseling psychology: a primer on research What is HRD?
paradigms and philosophy of science”, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 2,
pp. 126-36.
Roberts, J. and Dietrich, M. (1999), “Conceptualizing professionalism: why economics needs
sociology”, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, October.
Rothwell, W.J. and Kasanas, H.C. (1994), Human Resource Development: A Strategic Approach,
HRD Press, Amerst, MA. 219
Ruona, W.E.A. (2000), “Core beliefs in human resource development: a journey for the profession
and its professionals”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 1-27.
Ruona, W.E.A. and Gibson, S.K. (2004), “The making of twenty-first-century HR: an analysis of
the convergence of HRM, HRD, and OD”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 43 No. 1,
pp. 49-66.
Ruona, W.E.A. and Lynham, S. (1999), “Toward a philosophical framework of thought and
practice”, in Kuchinke, K.P. (Ed.), AHRD Conference Proceedings, Baton Academy of
Human Resource Development, Baton Rouge, OH, pp. 206-15.
Ruona, W.E.A. and Lynham, S. (2004), “A philosophical framework for thought and practice in
human resource development”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 151-64.
Smith, R. (1988), Human Resource Development: An Overview, Office of Educational Research
and Improvement, Washington, DC.
Smith, D. (1990), The Dictionary for Human Resource Development, ASTD Press, Alexandria,
VA.
Stewart, J.D. (1999), Employee Development Practice, FT Pitman Publishing, London.
Swanson, R.A. (1987), Human Resource Development Definition: University of Minnesota,
Training and Development Research Center, St Paul, MN.
Swanson, R.A. (1995), “Performance is key”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 6
No. 2, pp. 207-13.
Swanson, R.A. (2007a), “Theory framework for applied disciplines: boundaries, contributing,
core, useful, novel, and irrelevant components”, Human Resource Development Review,
Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 321-39.
Swanson, R.A. (2007b), “Defining intergalactic human resource development (IHRD)”, Human
Resource Development International, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 455-7.
Torraco, R.J. (2005), “Human resource development transcends disciplinary boundaries”, Human
Resource Development Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 251-3.
Vince, R. (2003), “The future practice of HRD”, Human Resource Development International,
Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 559-63.
Walton, J. (1999), Strategic Human Resource Development, FT Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Wang, G.G. (2008), “National HRD: a new paradigm or reinvention of the wheel?”, Journal of
European Industrial Training, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 303-16.
Wang, G.G. and Swanson, R.A. (2008), “The idea of national HRD: an analysis based on
economics and theory development methodology”, Human Resource Development Review,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 79-106.
Wang, X. and McLean, G.N. (2007), “The dilemma of defining international human resource
development”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 96-108.
Watkins, K. (1989), “Business and industry”, in Merriam, S. and Cunningham, P. (Eds), Handbook
of Adult and Continuing Education, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 422-30.
JEIT Watkins, K. (2000), “Aims, roles and structures for human resource development”, Advances in
Developing Human Resources: Philosophical Foundations of Human Resource Development
35,3 Practice, Vol. 17, pp. 54-9.
Weinberger, L. (1998), “Commonly held theories of human resource development”, Human
Resource Development International, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 75-93.
Werner, J.M. and DeSimone, R.L. (2006), Human Resource Development, 4th ed., Thomson
220 South-Western, Mason, OH.
Woodall, J. (2001), “HRDI special issue: defining HRD”, Human Resource Development
International, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 287-90.
Yaw, A.D., McGovern, I. and Budhwar, P. (2000), “Complementarities or competition: the
development of human resources in South-East Asian growth triangle – Indonesia,
Malaysia and Singapore”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 314-35.
Yorks, L. (2005), Strategic Human Resource Development, Thomson South-Western, Mason, OH.

Further reading
Cho, E. and McLean, G.N. (2000), “What we discovered about NHRD and what it means for
HRD”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 382-93.
Swanson, R.A. (2001), “Human resource development and its underlying theory”, Human
Resource Development International, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 299-312.

About the authors

Bob Hamlin is Emeritus Professor and Chair of Human Resource Development at the University
of Wolverhampton. His research interests are focused mainly on “managerial/leadership
effectiveness” and “managerial coaching/mentoring effectiveness” within public, private and
third sector organisations in the UK and various other countries including Egypt, France,
Germany, Mexico and Romania. Most of his research has been carried out in collaborative
partnership with HRD practitioners and/or other HRD scholars. He has contributed various
chapters to numerous HRD-related books, and is author of Universalistic Models of Managerial
and Leadership Effectiveness: A Cumulative and Multiple Cross-Case Empirical Study of Effective
and Ineffective Managerial Behaviour, VDM Verlag Dr Muller, and is co-editor of Organizational
Change and Development: A Reflective Guide for Managers, Trainers and Developers, FT
Prentice Hall. Bob serves on the Board of Directors and Editorial Board of Human Resource
Development International, and is an editorial board member of Human Resource Development
Quarterly and the International Journal of Evidence-based Coaching and Mentoring.
Jim Stewart is Running Stream Professor in Human Resource Development. Jim designed and
developed the Doctorate in Business Administration at Leeds Business School. He is an
internationally renowned researcher and writer who has authored and co-edited 13 books and
conducted research projects on HRD and talent management funded by the UK Government, the
European Union, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Chartered Institute of Personal
Development and many employers in the private and public sectors. Jim is Chair of the
University Forum for HRD, an international network of universities, and holds three appointed
national roles with the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Jim Stewart is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: j.d.stewart@leedsmet.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints