What is HRD?

I find myself most in agreement with Jones (1981) definition of HRD which states that “HRD is a systematic expansion of people’s work-related abilities, focused on the attainment of both organization and personal goals”. Unlike many other definitions of HRD, Jones includes a personal element in addition to organizational focus. While HRD is usually located within the context of an organization, it is also composed of people and their motivations to improve. To define HRD without focusing on elements of the individual seems to eliminate a crucial part of this process and as such, potentially skew results and goals. I also like the encompassing nature of Jones definition; he is one of the few to include a philosophical element. HRD is such a broad category of activities, events, and mental frameworks that to list them all would be impossible. On the other hand, to leave such events out would seem incomplete. By engaging in a general philosophy or way of thinking about HRD, one can understand its essence without falling into the trap of trying to list all of its components.

Nadler’s 1970 definition of HRD as “a series of organized activities conducted within a specified time and designed to produce behavioral change” seems the least accurate and logical. While I appreciate that Nadlers’ definition was one of the first, his focus strictly on the psychological ignores important elements such as philosophical, economic, and systems. And while Nadler focuses on behavior change, he fails to clarify the extent or duration of this change. Furthermore, his definition fails to take into account the purpose of the change (such as increase performance) or the organizational process required to make this change. Nadler’s definition fails to “see the big picture” that is necessary for human resource development success.

Trying to list all the components of HRD seems to be a very complicated task. While there are certain elements that overlap in all areas of HRD, I think the exact items vary depending on the organization it is working within. HRD at a university would look very different than HRD at car manufacturing plant because these organizations have different needs, goals, and missions. Regardless of the organization HRD should include organization development and personnel training, but the extent of those elements and how they are deployed should vary by business/agency to be most efficient. The mission of HRD should be the same, but the tactics it uses to accomplish that mission should be flexible and work in conjunction with the host entity.

I agree the most with the core belief that “HRD professionals are advocates of individual/group, work process and organizational integrity”. Those working in HRD have the unique opportunity to see information in its entirety (as opposed to a single department only seeing an issue from their view point) and as such have the responsibility to make decisions that are best for the organization as a whole. Furthermore, they have the opportunity more than others to think “outside the box” and look for solutions to potential problems across a greater continuum of long-term impact. HRD professionals have the blessing and curse for seeing the ripple effect of a single decision and implementing the best course of action to accomplish the mission of the organization.

The field of Human Resource development is an interesting one. As it is still a “young” field, the developments and fresh insights within the study are still emerging. This provides a versatility not found in many fields. More, it welcomes professionals new to the HRD arena (such as myself) to learn about the foundation of human resource development while still allowing new additions to shape its identity. And because HRD contains this flexibility, it can make a successful contribution to virtually any established discipline.