Roles and Competencies of HRD and WLP Practitioners: A Case study of
Korean HRD Practitioners
Ji Hoon Song
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park
For taking competitive advantages of Korean business organizations in this
dynamic global market system, this research might be the foundational study to
develop Korean HRD practitioners’ competency model. The main purpose of this
study is to examine the current and future core-competencies including primary
roles and key expertise of HRD practitioners. American Society of Training and
Development (ASTD) study in 2004 was adapted as a principal conceptual
framework. Following major four results were identified; (a) the role of business
partner was perceived as future important required role by HRD practitioners,
(b) delivering learning intervention and measuring the results were perceived the
primary areas of expertise currently and in the future; (c) in terms of basic
competencies, the personal competencies were perceived more importantly rather
than business-related and interpersonal competencies; and (d) significant
differences were not found on the different perceptions between HRD and HRM
practitioners for the four WLP roles.
Key Words: Human Resource Development (HRD); Workplace Learning and Performance
(WLP), Roles and Competencies
In the current era of fierce economic struggle, human capital is the dominant competitive
weapon of organizations. The extent of knowledge and education of the workforce will be a
priority over such external and physical resources formerly relied on, such as cash, capital, or
even technology. With a growing awareness of the importance of human capital, educational
competency of the workforce will be the determining factor in national prosperity and market
competitiveness (Drucker, 1993, 2000; Thurow, 2000; Toffler, 1990). To cope with
competitive business conditions in today's advanced technological, globalized, and turbulent
capitalistic environment, an organization’s workforce must think like explorers seeking to
discover the uncertain shape of our future through a disorienting mist (Thurow, Jurica, &
Donker, 2004).
As human resource has been accentuated as an essential element, so has the realm of
Human Resource Development (HRD). In today’s competitive global economic conditions,
HRD is the critical medium that can link human resources and organizational survival
(Dubois & Rothwell, 2004; Rothwell, 1996). In response to the concern and momentousness
over HR related fields, and as the vital momentum of organizational performance has been
continuously emphasized, continuative efforts and research have been conducted to identify
fundamental and practical questions. What should be the key assignments of HRD as a
business partner to organizations? What should be the HRD core competencies for the
effective performance of an organization, considering various external and internal work
environments and the shift of social trends, including changes in the economy and technology
which can influence human resource performance?
In 1999, the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) started to use
1
the term Workplace Learning and Performance as a substitution for that of Training and
Development, stating that “WLP is the integrated use of learning and other intervention for
the purpose of improving…WLP creates positive, progressive change within organizations by
balancing human, ethical, technological, and operational considerations” (Rothwell & Sredl ,
2000, p.3). This replacement of terminology is sufficient to explicate magnification of
responsibilities and scope of HRD practitioners. Human resource development, therefore,
should accompany organizational change, which depends on economic and social trends, and
as a consequence, HRD roles and competencies should be revised following the movement of
circumstance.
Problem Statement
On the one hand, in an age of turbulence and with the pressure of continual changes under the
globalizing organization environment (Ulrich et al., 1997), the evolution of people, revolution
of technology, and transformation of the organizational system is a complicated matter and
rarely, if ever, moves at the same rate and in the same direction (Swanson, 1995; Swanson &
Holton 2001). The best standard competencies and roles may not able to exist continuously.
Even if we have a powerful competency model on our hands, there are obvious reasons why
HRD professionals and major Human Resource societies such as ASTD are paying careful
consideration to the HRD competency study. Today’s competency models may be outmoded
tomorrow, and may need to be replaced by completely different models of competencies and
roles.
On the other hand, the Korean HRD has not yet established its own definition for
HRD. More seriously, the definition and concept of HRD has been directly imported with few
attempts to indigenize (McLean & McLean, 2000) and, as a consequence, HRD practitioners
in Korea perform their roles without a proper competency model (Park, 1997). Business
strategies which include HRD strategies should vary according to cultural and social contexts.
The word ‘chaebol,’ used across the board in Korea (Gong, 1999), represents a significantly
different organization culture and systematic structure from other countries. The same
consequence can be considered at the portion of competency of HRD professions, even if we
have great respect and appreciation of previous competency studies, the most acceptable HRD
competency model in the United States may not be applicable to Korean HRD competency
requirements. A uniquely Korean HRD competency model, in accordance with the Korean
environment, is the most urgent assignment (Huh, 1993; Yoo, 1997) of Korean business if it is
to be released from serious economic crisis (Yoo, 1998 & 2000).
Research Purpose and Questions
This research takes account of two foundational purposes: (1) to identify current core
competencies of Korean HRD practitioners; and (2) to discover the most necessary
competencies for HRD practitioners of Korea in the near future. Based on those profound
research purposes, the following three main research questions were developed:
1. What are the appreciated role requirements of Korean HRD practitioners currently
and in the future?
2. What are the appreciated core competencies of Korean HRD practitioners currently
and in the future?
3. What are the appreciated priorities of areas of expertise of Korean HRD practitioners
2
currently and in the future?
4. What are the different perceptions between HRD and HRM practitioners for the major
required roles of WLP?
Significance of Study
This study is significant both theoretically and practically. First, the research findings might
be influential to develop theoretically essential competency model regarding various human
resource-related factors for Korean HRD practitioners. On the other hand, based on given
results from collected data from HRD-related field specialists in Korea business organizations,
and given findings might be utilized in the HRD fields both practically and effectively.
Furthermore, two previous studies have been conducted in 1994 by Yang and in 1999 by Yoo
similarly (with different research conceptual frameworks). Comparing research findings of
each study might be constructive for the better understanding the stream of HRD trends in
Korea.
Given consequences will contribute to HRD fields in at least three key guide
directions: (a) understanding the flowchart of HRD competency trends identifying previous,
current, and future core roles and competencies, (b) providing a prognosticative index for
HRD practitioners’ competencies and roles to prepare the future generation, based on
exhaustive analysis of previous HRD competency studies, and (c) identifying the most
suitable competency model for Korean HRD practitioners that will ensure the survival of
Korean HRD.
Overview of Trend Shifting to WLP
The meanings and concepts in HRD have evolved along with the changing needs of economic
society and business trends. The major changes in HRD trends include shifting from Training
and Development (T&D) (Pinto & Walker, 1978) to Human Resource Development (HRD)
(McLagan, 1989) and from Human Performance Technology (HPT) (Stolovitic & Keeps,
1992) to Human Performance Improvement (HPI) (Rothwell, Hohne, & King, 2000).
Recently, all these previous HRD-related concepts have been applied to Workplace Learning
and Performance (WLP) (Rothwell, Sanders, & Soper, 1999; Rothwell & Sredl, 2000),
depending on the changing needs of competitive economic circumstance. The shift of the
focus from training to learning and performance in the workplace extends to the roles and
competencies of HRD professionals who need to provide optimal solutions and directions not
limited to simple training interventions for the survival of the organizations. To emphasize
this conceptual shifting, ASTD (1994) stated that “the emphasis in business on high
performance work will shift training content away from isolated skill-building and
information transfer to performance improvement and support” (p.S31). McLagan (1997)
stressed the shift of HRD roles from training to learning and performance, identifying the 11
roles and 74 outputs of HRD practitioners. This growing attention to and effort in human
performance improvement in the workplace have been attributed to the new paradigm
transition to WLP.
3
Methodology and Approach
In order to gain the primary data of roles and competencies of HRD practitioners in Korea, the
research sample were defined among the overall HRD practitioners. Quantitative study is the
primary methodology of this research. Data collection was performed via web-based survey
questionnaires. The questionnaire for this study was a version based on the one used in the
original 2004 ASTD study, and was modified and translated into Korean. Prior to formal
distribution, the survey was validated, pilot tested, and re-modified for the final version of the
survey instrument. Participating in the process of validating were two Korean practitioners
and one university professor, all of whom have doctoral degrees in the WLP field in the U.S.
The target population for this study consisted of Korean HRD professionals in one of the
following fields: training and developing, organization development, management
development, career development, and human resource management. A total of 128 Korean
WLP practitioners responded to the survey. Among the total respondents, 62.7% were male
and 27.3% were female. Almost half of them (50.7%) were in the 30-39 age range, while
28.0% were in the 20-29 range, with the remaining 21.3% in the 40-49 range. The
respondents’ length of experience in a professional occupation was evenly distributed: 21.6%
reported having less than one year of experience; 31.1%, one to three years; 21.6%, three to
five years; and 25.6%, more than 5 years. Respondents were asked to response the current
importance and future importance of the four major roles using the Likert 5-point scale with 1
= “not important” and 5 = “extremely important”. In order to analyze the collected data to
answer the research questions, descriptive statistics was mainly utilized and paired t-test was
conducted to compare the current importance and future importance. The research questions
were identified based on comparison of means.
Results
The mean between current perception of importance and future importance for all four major
roles showed significant differences at the p<.001 level. There was little variance in mean
values between current and future importance, which ranged from a minimum of 0.41 to a
maximum of 0.70. As a result of the paired t-test between future and current importance,
learning specialist (d=0.70) was recognized the most significant role, followed by business
partner (d=0.65), project manager (d=0.45), and professional specialist (d=0.41), in orders
(see Table 1). At this point, the rank orders between business partner and project manager
were switched in terms of current and future importance levels, and the importance of
learning strategist has no changes in ranking.
Table 1
Paired T-test Results between Current and Future Importance of the Four Roles
Current Roles
Future Importance
Roles
M
SD
M
SD
d**
t
Learning Strategist
3.75(1)
0.93
4.45(1)
0.75
0.70
9.21
Business Partner
3.63(3)
0.98
4.28(2)
0.79
0.65
9.97
Professional Specialist 3.61(4)
1.00
4.02(4)
0.92
0.41
5.84
Project Manager
3.73(2)
0.90
4.18(3)
0.83
0.45
6.45
Note. The number in parentheses is the rank, **d = Future importance – Current importance
4
p
.000
.000
.000
.000
The comparison on current and future importance responses for basic three competency
domains allows us to compare the changes of perception on WLP practitioners’ basic
competency domains. Table 2 shows that the certain changes insides domains were found,
however, the rank orders of overall perception on importance was not identified in terms of
current importance and future importance at the three types of competency domains: (a)
business/management domain (CM=3.65, FM=4.05); (b) interpersonal (CM=3.67, FM=4.11);
and (c) person (CM=3.74, FM=4.18). Among the sub-competencies, some of competencies
rank order has been changed, for example, the item of leveraging diversity, which was
perceived as 9th (M=3.62, SD=0.66) at the current importance, was changed to the second
(M=4.18, SD=0.53) highly ranked important competency by respondents.
Table 2
Mean Comparisons on Current and Future Importance of Competency Domains
Competency Domains
Competencies
Business/Management (CM =3.65, FM =4.05) Analyzing Needs and Proposing Solutions
Applying Business Acumen
Driving Results
Planning and Implementing Assignments
Thinking Strategically
Interpsersonal (CM =3.67, FM =4.11)
Building Trust
Communicating Effectively
Influcing Stakeholders
Leveraging Diversity
Networking and Partnering
Personal (CM =3.74, FM =4.18)
Demonstrating Adaptability
Modeling Personal Development
Current Importance
Mean
SD
3.78 (1) 0.76
3.56(12) 0.74
3.71(5)
0.53
3.56(12) 0.76
3.63(8)
0.60
3.69(6)
0.62
3.67(7)
0.80
3.61(10) 0.47
3.62(9)
0.66
3.78(1)
0.49
3.75(3)
0.50
3.72(4)
0.60
Future Importance
Mean
SD
4.17(3)
0.57
4.05(9)
0.58
4.07(8)
0.48
3.84(12) 0.72
4.12(7)
0.47
4.17(3)
0.53
4.02(11) 0.70
4.03(10) 0.45
4.18(2)
0.53
4.14(6)
0.44
4.21(1)
0.42
4.15(5)
0.54
Note. The number in parentheses is the rank; CM means “Current Importance Mean”, and FM means
“Future Importance Mean”.
According to the 2004 ASTD competency study, in this research, the author assessed
the importance perception of nine areas of expertise of WLP practitioners in Korea, the results
was shown as Table 3.
Table 3
Mean Comparison between Current and Future Importance for Nine Areas of Expertise
Areas of Expertise (AOEs)
Career Planning and Talent Management
Coaching
Delivering Training
Designing Learning
Facilitating Organizational Change
Improving Human Performance
Managing Organizational Knowledge
Managing the Learning Function
Measuring and Evaluating
Current Importance
Mean
SD
3.62(7)
0.62
3.69(3)
0.65
3.82(1)
0.69
3.63(6)
0.69
3.69(4)
0.73
3.58(8)
0.7
3.58(8)
0.76
3.68(5)
0.72
3.77(2)
0.67
Note. The number in parentheses is the rank.
5
Future Importance
Mean
SD
4.09(3)
0.49
4.05(4)
0.52
4.11(1)
0.62
3.92(9)
0.62
4.05(5)
0.58
3.93(8)
0.6
3.99(7)
0.63
4.03(6)
0.64
4.06(3)
0.63
The descriptive analysis on comparison between the current and future perceived
importance addresses that the most importantly perceived expertise area was delivering
training (M=3.82, SD=0.69; M=4.11, SD=0.62) for both current and future importance. The
results, furthermore, identified that little differences between current importance and future
importance was perceived by WLP practitioners expect for two areas of expertise, which are
career planning and talent management (7th rank as M=3.62, SD=0.62 in current to 3rd rank as
M=4.09, SD=0.49 in the future importance), and designing learning (6th rank as M=3.63,
SD=0.69 in current to 9th rank as M=3.92, SD=0.62 in the future importance).
In addition, for the better understanding the differences, based on demographic
variables (HRD position and HRM position), t-test was conducted. The results were shown at
the table 4. The results represent that there is little significant differences (p>.05) for the
perceived WLP practitioners’ role importance by HRD practitioners and HRM practitioners
on both current and future importance.
Table 4
The Results of T-test of Perception of HRD and HRM Practitioners’ Roles in WLP
Current Importance
Group A*
Group B**
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Learning Strategist
3.81
0.87
3.76
0.83
Business Partner
3.81
0.89
3.53
1.12
Project Manager
3.67
1.03
3.88
0.78
Professional Specialist 3.72
0.91
3.88
0.70
Roles
P
.85
.28
.44
.51
Future Importance
Group A*
Group B**
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
4.48
0.66
4.41
0.62
4.41
0.62
4.18
1.07
4.12
0.86
4.35
0.70
4.22
0.75
4.35
0.70
P
.69
.25
.31
.53
Note. * is HRD-related jobs and ** is HRM-related jobs
Conclusion
Korean WLP practitioners are perceived the role of business partner will be more important in
the future (M=3.63, SD=0.98, p<.01 as the 3rd) rank than it is currently (M=4.28, SD=0.79,
p<.01 as the 2nd rank) based on the paired t-test results. The changes might be inferred that the
WLP practitioners’ roles have been expanded beyond only roles of learning and instruction in
terms of task responsibilities and required competencies. This trend, furthermore, represents
that the HRD trends in Korean business organizations has been more related to business
strategies of overall organization. Additionally, the Korean HRD focus is given to the learning
transformation and performance currently and in the future. To support this interpretation, the
results of assessing the priority of expertise areas represents that two areas of expertise,
delivering training (M=3.82, SD=0.69 as the 1st rank currently, and M=4.11, SD=0.62 as the
1st rank in the future importance) and measuring /evaluating (M=3.77, SD=0.67 as the 2nd rank
currently, and M=4.06, SD=0.63 as the 3rd rank in the future importance), were perceived as
the most important areas of expertise which should be masterly achieved currently and in the
future. Based on those data analysis, the author assumes the following two major trends in
Korea business organizations: (a) HRD practitioners take the role of strategic business partner
in the near future and (b) the focus of HRD is more effective learning transformation and
measuring the results of learning intervention regarding the performance. Finally, the
differences between the job positions, HRD and HRM practitioners, were not found
significantly based on the results of t-test (p>.05) for the major four roles. This result might be
inferred like that, in the WLP situation, the distinguish differences of the task perceptions,
between Human Resource Development (HRD) practitioners and Human Resource
Management (HRM) Practitioners, has been reduced in terms of their task-responsibility and
required competencies.
6
Implication and Further Research
The results of this research provide several positive impacts on the WLP practice in Korea
business organizations. According to the results, the roles and required expertise areas have
been expanded into the understanding and application of business acumen as strategic
business partner for the performance improvement. Constantly, the HRD practitioners need to
be acquired business oriented perception for their learning and instructional-related roles. In
accordance with this results, Korean business would consider and redefine the mission and
visions of HRD practices based on the understanding the trends-shifting. In practically, based
on the examination of overall questionnaire factor analysis, the more achievable and
applicable inventory for assessing the competencies of Korean HRD practitioners could be
developed. Secondly, based on the current research further research might be conducted on
the theme of HRD practitioners’ value perception to verify the reasons of their responses for
the competency requirement. The value-perception assessment of HRD practitioners might be
functional to recognize their internal concept and cognitive perception on their affirmative,
continuance, and normative responsibility for the WLP practices.
Limitations
There are, at least, two major limitations of the current research. On the one hand, the
research sample might not be represented the whole HRD population in terms of quantity of
number. The number of Korean HRD practitioners’ population might not be easy (Ryu, 1994)
to be confirmed for the reason of that the areas of HRD could be various meaning how far we
consider the task-areas of HRD might be different in cases. On the other hand, the conceptual
framework and survey questionnaire were adapted the foreign national-level research, 2004
ASTD competency study for WLP practitioners, thus, some of questionnaire items might not
be appropriated for apply to the Korean business organizations on account of cultural
differences, diverse dominant organization structures, and overall dissimilarities on the HRD
definitions.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr. Judith A. Kolb and Dr. William J. Rothwell at the Pennsylvania
State University for their contributions and guidance to conceptualizing the research and for
their endless supportive encouragement.
Author
Ji Hoon Song (M.S.) is a Doctoral student in Workforce Education and Development
Program (WF ED) at the Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 301 Keller Building,
University Park, PA 16803-1303. Email: jus205@psu.edu Phone: 949-533-5102. Fax: 814863-7532.
Reference
Bernthal, P. R., Colteryahn, K., Davis, P., Naughton, J. Rothwell, W. J., & Wellins R. (2004)
Mapping the future: New workplace learning and performance competencies.
Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
7
Dubois, D. D. & Rothwell, W. J. (2004) Competency-based human resource management.
Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Pub.
Drucker, P. F. (1999) Beyond the information revolution. The Atlantic Monthly, 284 (4): 4757.
Drucker, P. F. (2000) Knowledge work. Executive Excellence, 17 (4): 11-12
Gong, B. H. (1999) The Cheabols: Myth and reality. Business Korea, October. 38-38
Huh U. N. (1993) Saneup yoyook yogooboonsuk, Seoul, Korea: Bakyongsa.
McLagan, P. A. (1989) Models for HRD practice: The models. Washington, DC: American
Society for Training and Development.
McLagan, P. A. (1997) Competencies: The next generation. Training & Development, 51(5):
40-47.
McLean, G. N. & McLean, L. D. (2000) If we can’t define HRD in one country, how can we
define it in an international context? Defining HRD: The Debate So Far, Economic
and Social Research Seminar Series. Kingston, UK: Kingston Business School,
Kingston University.
Park, J. I. (1997) Analysis of organizational factors for developing performance oriented
company education system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Sejong University,
Seoul, Korea.
Pinto, P. R., & Walker, J. W. (1978) A study of professional training and development roles &
competencies. Washington, DC: American Society for Training and Development.
Rothwell, W. J. (1996) ASTD models for human performance improvement. Alexandria, VA:
American Society for Training and Development.
Rothwell, W. J., & Sredl, H. J. (2000) The ASTD Reference Guide to Workplace Learning and
Performance: Present and Future roles and competencies (3rd ed.). Amherst, MA:
HRD Press, Inc.
Rothwell, W. J., Hohne, C. K., & King, S. B. (2000) Human Performance Improvement:
Building practitioner competence. Huston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.
Rothwell, W. J., Sanders, E. T., & Soper, J. G. (1999) ASTD Models for Workplace Learning
and Performance: Roles, competencies, and outputs. Alexandria, VA: American
Society for Training and Development.
Ryu J. H. (1994) A study on the methods for role-performance improvement of HRD staffs.
Unpublished master dissertation, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea.
Stolovitic, H. D., & Keeps, E. J. (Ed.). (1992) Handbook of human performance technology:
A comprehensive guide for analyzing and solving performance problems in
organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Swanson, R. A. (1995) Performance is the key. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
6(2): 207-213.
Swanson, R. A. & Holton, E. F. (2001) Foundation of human resource development. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Thurow L. (2000) Economic forces, Executive Excellence, 17(4), 20
Thurow, L., Jurica E., & Donker A (2004) Exploring global paths, Optimize, 24-30.
Toffler, A. (1990). Toffler's next shock. World monitor. Boston, 3 (11), 34
Ulrich D., Losey, M. R., & Lake, G. (1997) Tomorrow's HR management : 48 Thought
Leaders Call for Change. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Yang, J. C. (1994) Perceived competencies needed by HRD managers in Korea. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Yoo, P. J. (1999) Korean human resource development (HRD) practitioners’ perception of
expertise level and importance of workplace learning and performance (WLP)
competencies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park.
8
Yoo, Y. M. (1997) Kiroe sun hankook kieupkyoyoog. Seoul, Korea: Eltech
Yoo, Y. M. (1998) Hankook kieupkyoyoog eui kyungjaengryuk kanghwa bangan. Seoul,
Korea: Eltech.
Yoo, Y. M. (2000) Dead business education and living digital learning. Seoul: Han Earn.
You, S. W. (1993) Perceptions of Korean human resource development practitioners toward
selected roles and competency standard. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Maryland.
9