Critical Human Resource Development: A Levels Of Analysis Approach
Working Paper
McGuire, David; Garavan, Thomas N.
Introduction
For many years, critical approaches in the field of HRD have been condemned for being overly
theoretical, lacking practical application in the workplace and more focused on “problematizing” rather
than solving workplace issues (Valentin 2006; Fenwick 2004). Successive contributions to the
literature on critical HRD have stressed the need to create socially responsive workplaces and end
exploitative organisational practices without indicating how this should be achieved. Moreover, much
of the discussion refuses to acknowledge the multiple interests, messy organisational realities and
interlocking relationships that need to be addressed in embracing utopian critical ideals (Fenwick
2004). Progress in advancing critical HRD research therefore demands a multi-level approach that
identifies the needs and goals of primary parties, clarifies their ontological positions and recognises
barriers and obstacles that suppress the attainment of such needs and goals.
Bierema (2008: 539) defines critical HRD as a concept which “confronts the concept of a performative
HRD practice arguing for a critical and socially conscious HRD that problematizes its precepts by
challenging the commodification of employees, involving multiple stakeholders, contesting the nature
of power relations, pursuing wide-ranging goals (not just profit), and providing alternative, nonoppressive, holistic models for cultivating development in work context. Within this context, Sambrook
(2009) sees a key attribute of critical HRD as engaging in a search for “truth” about HRD, a search
which highlights both the tensions and contradictions within HRD. Clarifying and recognising such
tensions and gaps has the potential to enrich the development of the field and foster a set of
professional practices that move beyond a narrow instrumental set of organisational interests.
This paper sets out to provide a framework for examining critical HRD literature from multiple levels of
analysis. It begins by examining the function of criticism and critical theory. It then proceeds by
examining critical HRD from an individual, organisational and community/societal perspective. In so
doing, it proposes a framework, that it is hoped will shed light on the complex systems of oppression
that exist and will aid new thinking and developments in the area of critical HRD.
The Function of Criticism and Critical Theory
While many commentators have argued that critical theory is strong on critique but weak on practical
application, the purpose of this section is to examine the value and function of criticism and the
purposes which critical theory in particular serve. The starting point for any such analysis derives from
an acknowledgement that society and the institutions within it are unequal, creating imbalances of
power and differential access to resources. As Eagleton (2005) points out, the historical basis of
criticism (and modern European criticism in particular) was born of a struggle against the absolutist
state. He argues that in the 17th and 18th centuries, the European bourgeoisie began to carve out a
distinct, discursive space, one of rational judgment and enlightenment as a counterpoint to the
repressive regimes in existence at that time. Jumping forward to the 1960s, Eagleton argues that the
traditional legitimising role of universities and academia began to unravel and a “politics of
knowledge” came into being, questioning fixed hierarchies, received traditions and covert
understandings. He identifies “theory” as being essential to legitimisation of social and intellectual
practices and thus critical theory occupies an important space in questioning dominant social relations
and develop more democratic, participatory and subject-centred societal approaches.
For his part, Billig (2000) sees the use of the word “critical” in academic discourse as indicating either
a new paradigm/discipline/theory which includes a social analysis, particularly social inequality or the
propagation of a theory/theories which oppose existing paradigms on the basis that such paradigms
fail to address social inequalities. Such thinking nudges us towards accepting that a consequence of
power inequalities is privilege (McIntosh 2002) where members of the dominant group gain access to
an invisible package of unearned assets through which they gain unwarranted advantage. Critical
approaches are essential to challenging and changing privilege systems and fostering equality and
equity in organisations.
Critical theory has been defined by Alvesson and Wilmott (1996:13) as “seeking to highlight, nurture
and promote the potential of human consciousness to reflect critically upon such oppressive
practices, and thereby facilitate the extension of domains of autonomy and responsibility.” Adopting a
radical transformative view, Marcuse (1964: 227) sees critical theory as “striving to define the
irrational character of the established rationality and to define the tendencies which cause this
rationality to generate its own transformation.” For her part, Antonacopoulou (1999) synthesises the
key purposes of critical theory as providing voice for the repressed and marginalised, making clear
the underlying assumptions and values, examining the use of power and control, and liberating
employees from inequities and sacrifices made in the name of efficiency, effectiveness, and
profitability.
Critical HRD has emerged within the field over the last decade as a counter-point to the performative,
technicist, objective and supposedly value-free orientation of much of the research that typifies the
field. Sambrook (2004) argues that as an emerging field, HRD can be characterised by ontological
uncertainty and methodological hegemony with an overemphasis on positivistic research and a lack of
emphasis to date on interpretative and innovative approaches. Armitage (2010) sees critical HRD as
rooted in practices that support and uphold human dignity and individual freedom. Fenwick (2005)
sees the purpose of critical HRD as reform of both workplace organisations and development
practices directed towards individuals and groups. In this regard, she argues that critical HRD needs
to view organisations as contested terrains of relations and knowledge where tensions are concealed
through illusions of homogenous identities, alignment between workers and management interests
and false naturalisation of issues such as globalisation, competition and performativity.
Individual Level of Analysis
The individual level of analysis focuses on issues of subjugation and domination examining how
power structures affect and condition individual expectations, feelings of self-efficacy, self-esteem and
developmental goals. Critical HRD approaches at the individual level of analysis focus on reclaiming
the “human” of “human resource development” by liberating and freeing individuals from exploitative
working practices and environments. By placing emphasis on the social construction of experience
and individual discourse, critical HRD approaches focuses light on historical and social contexts and
the power relations produced through these contexts (Zou and Trueba 2002). At the individual level,
three strands are prominent in the literature in helping liberate and emancipate individual voice: action
learning, critical reflection and transformative learning theory.
Action learning is an informal and experiential learning approach which adopts an inquiry process
towards solving an organisational problem (Fenwick 2003). In his approach to action learning, Revans
(1982) believed that too much emphasis was being placed on formal programmed knowledge with
insufficient attention being devoted to questioning and reflecting upon one’s experience. Lawless and
McQue (2008: 327) see the value of action learning as providing a safe place for individuals to
rehearse and practice questioning, reflect on actions and become “tempered radicals” who unite to
promote valued social and organisational outcomes. Wilmott (1997) sees the value of action learning
as a mechanism for operationalising and applying the comparatively abstract ideas of critical theory.
In this way, he argues that this process will help prepare managers for responsible citizenship and
personally and socially rewarding lives and careers. Indeed Horkheimer (1995) in defining critical
theory argues that it can only be considered successful if it produces revolutionary change.
Critical reflection has been advanced as one mechanism for raising the consciousness of employees.
Rigg and Trehan (2008) identify the benefits of critical reflection as improving the depth and relevance
of learning; supporting the emergence of self-insight and growth and offering the potential for learning
and change. In this way, Reynolds (1998: 198) argues that critical reflection “encourages people in
questioning and confronting the social and political forces which provide the context for their work and
in questioning claims regarding the way things should be done.” Transformative learning theory is a
critical contribution to the process of critical reflection helping adults clarify and confirm their
assumptions and worldviews so that they can engage in meaningful problem-solving and decisionmaking. Mezirow (1991: 14) describes transformative learning as:
The process of becoming critically aware of how our presuppositions have come to
constrain the way we perceive, understand and feel about the world, of
reformulating these assumptions to permit a more inclusive, discriminating,
permeable and integrative perspective; and of making decisions or otherwise
acting on these new understandings
As Brookfield and Holst (2011) put it, transformative learning theory involves both objective reframing,
which looks at critical reflection in narrative or task-oriented problem-solving and subjective reframing,
which considers the process of self-reflection about one’s own experience, economic and political
systems, the workplace, feelings and the way one learns. So, in essence, transformative learning
involves both an inward and outward focus, encouraging individuals to undergo a “defamiliarisation”
process, questioning familiar patterns of behaviour, before embracing change and a reordered life
(Greene 1995; Bamber and Hankin 2011).
Employing a critical pedagogy in management education can help individuals challenge the
instrumentalist managerialist orthodoxy and promote the implementation of humanistic, ethical,
empowering and emancipatory practices (Armitage 2010). He argues that a critical pedagogy can
help learners advance an alternative way of thinking and an awareness and understanding of the
socio-historical-political context from whence contemporary management practices have been
derived. For her part, Harris (2010) sees the purpose of a critical pedagogy as one of elucidating and
rectifying some of the social, economic and political imbalances that exist in society through
broadening learning from solely the cognitive sphere towards promoting emotional, spiritual and
imaginative expression and response from learners. She argues that such experiences help students
open new vistas for learning and moves learning beyond one-dimensional, iron-cage thinking.
However, Moore (2005) cautions that university lecturers and professors employing a critical
pedagogy need to prepare carefully for the disorientation and unexpected consequences that might
occur from adopting this learning approach.
Organisational Level of Analysis
At the organisational level of analysis, critical HRD focuses on how organisational policies and
practices produce hegemonic power structures which inhibit opportunities for employee autonomy,
self-actualisation and clarification of genuine needs and wants (Alvesson and Wilmott 1992). Critical
approaches to HRD render as problematic the “resource” aspect of HRD as suppressing employee
voice. Critical approaches view organisations as a reflection of production and domination processes,
with mainstream HRD is viewed as a subtle latently strategic means of engendering employee
performance (McGuire et al. 2007). In 1986, Watson defined the purposes of HR practices as:
Concerned with assisting those who run organisations to meet their purposes
through the obtaining of the work efforts of human beings, the exploitation of those
efforts and the dispensing with of those efforts which are no longer required.
Concern may be shown with human welfare, justice or satisfactions, but only
insofar as this is necessary for controlling interests to be met and, then, always at
least cost.
The organisation has long been recognised as an oppressive, exclusive and self-serving system
which works against societal values of justice, community, sustainability and human development
(Fenwick 2003; Alvesson and Wilmott 1992). Trehan and Rigg (2011) argue that there is increasing
concern about the wider consequences of HRD work. They suggest that there may be a dichotomy in
how HRD academics see their word (in benign terms of enabling, empowering and developing
potential) in contrast to the alternative perception that HRD is perpetuating an organisational agenda
and exists to develop organisational capacity and capability with serious human and environmental
consequences.
Within HRD, there has been considerable reluctance to deal with issues of diversity. Bierema (2010)
argues that while HRD has espoused diversity as a value and claims to take a leadership role in
diversity management and intervention, the reality she posits is that diversity is too threatening to the
prevailing performance-based frameworks that favour patriarchial management structures and
profitability. A cursory study of diversity shows that the field is replete with concepts indicating the
marginalisation and double-marginalisation of minority groups. Such concepts include the glass
ceiling (Hymowitz and Schellhardt 1986); sticky floor (Shambaugh 2007); glass cliff (Ryan et al.
2007); Lucite ceiling (Henriques 1991) and lavender ceiling (Hill 2009; Gedro 2010). To this end,
McIntosh (2002) recognises white and male privilege as a distinct phenomenon advantaging in an
unearned capacity dominant masculine and white voices, whilst marginalising and silencing women
and minority groups.
At an organisational level, the field of HRD has been criticised for being dominated by a performance
and learning orientation (Bierema 2008; Callahan 2007; Elliot and Turnbull 2002; Sambrook 2004). To
counter these aspirations and create fairer, more liberated workplaces, Fenwick (2004) identifies a
three-fold mission for critical HRD at an organisational level – namely organisational transformation
through the pursuit of justice, equity and employee participation. Workplace democracy has thus been
heralded a key goal in delivering fairness and justice at an organisational level. Hatcher (2004) argues
that organisations are having a colonising effect on our lives, dominated by an economic and
consumer ideology which promotes managerialist performative ideals and develops compliant
subservient employees, while disregarding democratic and social justice values. In particular, Hatcher
is concerned that the values of equality, development of human potential and promotion of health and
well-being have become secondary to the overriding profit motif.
Community/Societal Level of Analysis
The community/societal level of analysis examines the social and historical conditions by which
certain social groups enjoy privileges and special access to resources. Critical HRD approaches at
the community/social level focus on the importance of “development” as a mechanism for addressing
inequalities and injustice. Zidan (2001) acknowledges that HRD has a significant role to play in
improving levels of human and social capital in society and in doing so, engendering economic growth
and community development.
Four manifestations of critical HRD approaches at the societal level are critical race theory, social
justice theory, critical international relations theory and eco-justice theory. Critical race theory views
issues of race, class and gender as inextricably bound by economic, social and political power
structures (Byrd 2007; Taylor 2004). As such, critical race theory provides a socially constructed
mechanism for individuals from minority racial backgrounds to discuss their experiences and examine
how race issues affect their daily lives. It emerged from critical legal studies in the mid-1970s and
addresses issues such as affirmative action, race-conscious districting, campus speech codes, and
disproportionate conviction and sentencing of minorities in the criminal justice system (Okafor 2010).
Social justice has long been a neglected area of study in HRD. Bierema and Cseh (2003) argue that
HRD focuses little on areas of social justice with organisational “undiscussables” including gender and
equality issues. For her part, Cunningham (2004: 236) argues that social justice needs to be as
important as economic advancement in society. She argues that both HRD and adult education have
important roots in democratic social change, not simply “tooling up workers”. She maintains that HRD
has a responsibility to develop society as whole, not just protected privileged interests.
Critical international relations theory seeks to examine the relationships that exist between and across
nations and highlight tensions that exist in creating global democracies. As Linklater (2001) points out,
the early foundations of critical international relations theory were built upon Marx’s vision of humanity
as comprising of a universal society of free and equal producers. As such, critical international
relations theory sets out to address the power structures that make global inequality a persistent
reality and aims to bring about the emancipation of weaker nations from the overarching power
yielded by the developed world.
Eco-justice theory not only recognises the subjugation of people, but also the subjugation of land,
resources and eco-systems (Gruenewald 2003). Central to eco-justice theory is also a realisation that
social inequalities and power imbalances lie at the heart of environmental degradation, pollution and
overpopulation (Bullard 1993). In propagating this theory, Bowers (2001) recognises the rapid decline
in natural eco-systems, alongside the globalisation of the western consumer lifestyle. He argues that
these forces have contributed to the destructive and hegemonic face of science, which has
sometimes contributed to the environmental crisis and advocates a restoration of the balance
between monetarised and non-monetarised aspects of living, so that ecological sustainability can be
restored. He advances the need to reconstitute and adapt our current lifestyles so that the
environment and eco-system can be protected for future generations.
Conclusion
Critical HRD research focuses attention on the real outcomes of HRD practices as they affect
individuals, organisations and society. Examining critical HRD from different levels of analysis allows
a clearer identification of the outcomes and impacts of HRD interventions. The preceding discussion
has emphasised the value of critical HRD in liberating employees from dominant oppressive
discourses through recognising inequalities, differential power and privilege structures and
authoritarian control systems.
Drawing upon the historical traditions of critical theory, critical HRD sees its role as dismantling
organisational architecture that constrains and limits individual development and liberating individuals
from ideologically constrained ways of both thinking and acting. It campaigns for the inclusion of
discourses which enhance the human experience in organisations and society and works to make
discussible the “undiscussibles”. It looks to academics and researchers to move beyond a narrow
positivistic paradigm towards embracing more interpretative and innovative approaches and to move
beyond solely performative criteria in evaluating the benefits derived from HRD interventions.
Finally, critical HRD is playing an important role in changing how HRD sees itself and identifying
whom it serves. It is helping restore greater balance to HRD research and ensuring that HRD does
not serve a single master, but remains a field of opportunity and possibility. In this way, critical HRD is
bringing clarity to the field and helping it secure a sustainable future.
References
Alvesson, M. & Wilmott, H. (1992). On the Idea of Emancipation in Management and Organization
Studies. Academy of Management Review, 17(3), 432-464.
Alvesson, M. & Wilmott, H. (1996). Making Sense of Management. London: Sage.
Armitage, A. (2010). From Sentimentalism towards a Critical HRD Pedagogy. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 34(8/9), 735-752.
Bamber, P. & Hankin, L. (2011). Transformative Learning through Service Learning: No Passport
Required. Education and Training, 53(2/3), p. 10-23.
Bierema, L.L. (2010). Resisting HRD’s Resistance to Diversity. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 34(6), 565-576.
Bierema, L.L. (2008). Critical Human Resource Development Education: A Review of the Literature
and Recommendations for Teaching. Proceedings of the Annual Academy of Human Resource
Development Conference, Panama City, Florida, 538-545.
Bierema, L.L. & Cseh, M. (2003). Evaluating AHRD research using a feminist research framework.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(1), 5-26.
Billig, M. (2000). Towards a Critique of the Critical, Discourse and Society, 11(3), 291-292.
Bowers, C.A. (2001). Educating for Eco-Justice and Community. Athens, GA: University of Georgia
Press.
Brookfield, S.D. & Holst, J.D. (2011). Radicalizing Learning: Adult Education for a Just World. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bullard, R. (1993). Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots. Boston: South
End Press.
Byrd, M.Y. (2007). Theorizing African American Women’s Leadership: Expanding the Conversation
on Power and Influence within Predominantly White Organizations. Proceedings of the Annual
Academy of Human Resource Development Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana, 315-322.
Callahan, J.L. (2007). Gazing into the Crystal Ball: Critical HRD as a Future of Research in the Field.
Human Resource Development International, 10(1), 77-82.
Cunningham, P. (2004). Critical Pedagogy and Implications for Human Resource Development.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(2), 226-240.
Eagleton, T. (2005). The Function of Criticism. London: Verso.
Elliott, C. and Turnbull, S. (2002). Critical thinking in HRD: a panel led discussion. Proceedings of the
Annual Academy of Human Resource Development Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, 971-3.
Fenwick, T. (2005). Conceptions of Critical HRD: Dilemmas for Theory and Practice. Human
Resource Development International, 8(2), 225-238.
Fenwick, T. (2004). Towards a Critical HRD in Theory and Practice. Adult Education Quarterly, 54(3),
193-209.
Fenwick, T. (2003). Emancipatory Potential of Action Learning: A Critical Analysis. Journal of
Organisational Change Management, 16(6), 619-632.
Gedro, J. (2010). The Lavender Ceiling Atop the Global Closet: Human Resource Development and
Lesbian Expatriates. Presented at the AHRD Conference in the Americas. Knoxville, Tennessee:
February 24-28.
Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the Imagination. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Gruenewald, D.A. (2003). The Best of Both Worlds: A Critical Pedagogy of Place. Educational
Researcher, 32(4), 3-12.
Harris, C.E. (2010). Emotions “Out of the Closet” and into the Graduate Classroom. Journal of
Educational Administration. 48(5), 659-667.
Hatcher, T. (2004). On Democracy and the Workplace: HRD’s Battle with DDD (Democratic Deficit
Disorder), Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(2), 125-130.
Henriques, D.B. (1991). Piercing Wall Street’s Lucite Ceiling. New York Times, August 11th 1991.
Hill, R. (2009). Incorporating queers: Blowback, backlash, and other forms of resistance to workplace
diversity initiatives that support sexual minorities. In T. Rocco, J. Gedro, & M. Kormanik (Eds.),
Sexual Minority Issues in HRD: Raising awareness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Horkheimer, M. 1995. Critical Theory: Selected Essays. New York: Continuum.
Hymowitz, C. & Schellhardt, T. (1986). The Glass Ceiling: Why Women Can't Seem to Break the
Invisible Barrier that Blocks them from the Top Jobs. Wall Street Journal, March 24 1986.
Lawless, A. & McQue, L. (2008). Becoming a Community of Critically Reflective HR Practitioners:
Challenges and Opportunities within an MA Partnership Programme. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 32(5), 323-335.
Linklater, A. (2001). The Changing Contours of Critical International Relations Theory. In R.W. Jones
(ed). Critical Theory and World Politics, Colorado: Lynne Rienner.
Marcuse, H. (1964). One Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society.
New York: Beacon Press.
McGuire, D., Garavan, T.N., O’Donnell, D. & Watson, S. (2007). Metaperspectives and HRD: Lessons
for Research and Practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(1), 120-140.
McIntosh, P. (2002): "White privilege and male privilege: a personal account of coming to see
correspondences through work in women's studies", in Harvey, C., Allard, M. (Eds),Understanding
and Managing Diversity: Readings, Cases, and Exercises, 2nd ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moore, J. (2005). Is Higher Education Ready for Transformative Learning? A Question Explored in the
Study of Sustainability. Journal of Transformative Education, 3(1), 76-91.
Revans, R.W. (1982). The Origin and Growth of Action Learning. London: Chartwell Bratt.
Reynolds, M. (1998). Reflection and Critical Reflection in Management Learning. Management
Learning, 29(2), 183-200.
Rigg, C. & Trehan, K. (2008). Critical Reflection in the Workplace: Is it just too difficult? Journal of
European Industrial Training, 32(5), 374-384.
Ryan, M.K., Haslam, A.S. and Postmes, T. (2007). Reactions to the Glass Cliff: Gender Differences in
the Explanations of the Precariousness of Women’s Leadership Positions. Journal of
Organisational Change Management, 20(2), 182-197.
Sambrook, S. (2004). A Critical Time for HRD. Journal of European Industrial Training, 28(8/9), 611624.
Sambrook, S. (2009). Critical HRD: A Concept Analysis. Personnel Review, 38(1), 61-73.
Shambaugh, R. (2007). Its not a Glass Ceiling: It’s a Sticky Floor. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Taylor, C. R. (2004). An inquiry into the experiences of the African American women principal: Critical
race theory and black feminist perspectives. ProQuest Dissertations, UMI No. 3164796.
Trehan, K. & Rigg, C. (2011). Theorising Critical HRD: A Paradox of Intricacy and Discrepancy.
Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(3), 276-291.
Valentin, C. (2006). Researching Human Resource Development: Emergence of a Critical Approach
to HRD Enquiry. International Journal of Training and Development, 10(1), 17-29.
Watson, T.J. (1986). Management, Organization and Employment Strategy: New Directions in Theory
and Practice. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Willmott, H. (1997). Critical Management Learning. In J. Burgoyne, and M. Reynolds, (Eds),
Management Learning, London: Sage.
Zidan, S.S. (2001). The Role of HRD in Economic Development. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 12(4), 437 – 43.
Zou, Y. & Trueba, E.T. (2002). Ethnography and Schools: Qualitative Approaches to the Study of
Education. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.