1
Human Resource Development Values:
A Comparative Study of HRD Practitioners and Customers
Scott T. McClure, Ph.D.
Bates and Chen (2004), state that no empirical evidence has been directed at measuring
HRD values from the perspective of HRD customers. The purpose of this study was to
identify perceptions of values between HRD practitioners and customers.The population
for this study included 10 organizational contacts that represented 103 HRD customers in
St. Louis, Missouri. A limited version [items 1-38] of the Bates and Chen (2004)
questionnaire was used to collect data. Respondents’ identity was not tracked.
The questionnaire included six value scales: Enabling Meaningful Work, Building
Socially Responsible Organizations, Providing Individuals with Learning Experiences,
Building Learning Systems, Improving Individual Job Performance, and Improving
Organizational Performance. Item ratings were on a seven-point Likert scale (1 =
Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree).
The four independent variables (i.e., gender, age, level in the organization and company
size) were not helpful in providing explanations as to why a respondent would have low
or high levels of agreement for HRD values. The highest rated pair was “Improving
Organizational Performance and Improving Individual Job Performance,” followed by
“Building Learning Systems and Providing Individuals with Learning Experiences.” The
lowest rated pair was “Building Socially Responsible Organizations and “Enabling
Meaningful Work.”
Introduction
This study compares the perceptions of HRD values between HRD practitioners and their
customers. The ‘customers’ are those who typically take advantage of HRD services: individual
contributors, managers and senior managers employed by the organizations included in the study.
HRD practitioners have traditionally used different descriptions and definitions for what HRD
practitioners should be doing. Hence, examining the values held by HRD practitioners (i.e., what
practitioners do based on their preferences for how they believe HRD should work) and their
customers may help to clarify what is truly important (Bates & Chen, 2004).
Although there is little consensus on the nature of the Human Resource Development
(HRD) field, we can use a broad definition of HRD for purposes of discussion. The researcher
selected a description by Gilley and Maycunich (2000), who suggest that the purpose of HRD
should be to promote an individual’s personal growth, lifelong learning, and expertise, and the
organization’s productivity, profits, survival, and effectiveness.
In addition to a lack of consensus, Ruona et al. (2003) identified five primary challenges
facing HRD. First, they argue that HRD needs to adopt a more high-profile presence in
organizations and be recognized for its contribution to the bottom line. They maintain that HRD
is poorly represented and suffers from inadequate resources fuelling its undervalued status in
organizations. Second, they argue that there is a strong need for the profession to demonstrate
return on investment. They posit that this inability to evaluate training effectiveness is inhibiting
the growth of HRD in organizations and the profession in general. Third, HRD needs to identify
Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, Community and Extension Education,
Lindenwood University, St. Charles, MO, September 21-23, 2011
2
its core competencies and competitive advantage. This will allow the profession to define and
differentiate itself and create its own unique identity. Fourth, they maintain that there exists a
need to rigorously define the communities served by HRD and examine the role of HRD in the
broader community. Finally, they suggest that HRD needs to move towards professionalization
and embrace standards of practice and a certification policy. They insist that a failure to move in
this direction will result in a loss of identity with the profession and future failure to attract
intelligent, skilled personnel to the field.
Practitioners do not agree on how to define the field, what is most important for them to
do each day, or what HRD customers want them to do. The process of defining HRD by
academicians, researchers, and practitioners has proven to be frustrating, elusive, and confusing.
This suggests that HRD has not established a distinctive conceptual or theoretical identity (Bates,
Chen, & Hatcher, 2002; McCarthy, Caravan, & O’Toole, 2003). Thus, if HRD scholars and
practitioners cannot come to grips with what HRD is or how it should function in the
organization, customers will have an even more difficult time determining HRD values.
Therefore, it is important to identify perceptions of mutually held values between HRD
practitioners and customers. Further, it is important to understand which HRD values are
supported by customers and if these are viewed by them as being associated with the business
goals of the organization.
Process & Findings
The population for this study included 10 organizational contacts (i.e., peers of the
researcher) providing access to HRD customers (i.e., study participants) in the St. Louis,
Missouri area. The contacts distributed the researcher’s questionnaire to customers within the
contact’s organization and requested that the customers complete the questionnaire. Consulting
firms and academic institutions were omitted from the study as they did not represent day-to-day
organizational HRD customers.
Instrument
The primary instrument for this study was a limited version of the Bates and Chen (2004)
questionnaire. This instrument was selected because it is the only published, peer-reviewed tool
used to measure HRD practitioner values. The questionnaire included all of the 38 items in
Section A, which comprise six scales plus a series of demographic items (gender, age, job within
the organization, and population of the organization) from Section C. As with the original study,
item ratings used a seven-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree).
Section B measured the effectiveness of the internal HRD function, which was tangential to the
focus of the current study. Instead, the limited version was used to ensure higher response rates
since the participants (i.e., HRD customers) had much less interest in evaluating the HRD
function than the original sample of HRD practitioners.
Findings
Of the 103 respondents, there were more women than men; “63 vs. 40.” Ages ranged
from “25 or younger” to “66 or over.” Most were either senior managers or middle level
managers. The types of organizations most frequently reported were professional services and
manufacturing. The number of employees in the organization ranged from “under 50” to “Over
10,000.”
Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, Community and Extension Education,
Lindenwood University, St. Charles, MO, September 21-23, 2011
3
Respondents rated Improving Organizational Performance and Improving Individual Job
Performance highest, Building Learning Systems and Providing Individuals with Learning
Experiences second, and Building Socially Responsible Organizations and Enabling Meaningful
Work last. These three pairs could be described, from the HRD customer’s perspective of
importance, as “performance,” “learning,” and “greater good.” Respondents view learning as
means to an end.
Swanson and Holton (2001) report consistent findings with these results. They explain
that HRD is a process for developing and unleashing human expertise through OD and training
and development to improve performance. In addition, Russ-Eft and Preskill (2001) state that
HRD practitioners must demonstrate how what they do correlates with the productivity and
welfare of the company. Knowles, Holton, and Swanson (1998) say that it is the increase in
performance from HRD that justifies its existence. Further, Clardy (2008) states that HRD
should focus attention on the relationship between ‘learning’ and resource maximization,
productivity enhancement and the leveraging of learning and development to enhance the core
capabilities of the organization. Therefore, HRD should be concerned with maintaining and/or
improving performance at the organizational, process, and individual levels.
Pfeffer (1994) had findings that are inconsistent with these results. He believes that in
HRD, in leadership and management development, organization development, the consulting
process, and the whole training field, the most critical component is the personal, human element.
In addition, Nadler and Nadler (1989) take a stronger view of adult learning by stating that, HRD
is based in learning. De Simone et al. (2002) suggests that most HRD scholars acknowledge
HRD as study and practice related to workplace development of individuals, careers, and
organizations.
A possible reason for differences is the long-standing “learning vs. performance” debate
among HRD practitioners and scholars. Swanson and Holton (1997), state that most HRD
practice has moved to performance-based learning. The key change when moving from
individual learning to performance-based learning is that the focus is on performance
improvement, though it is still performance improvement as a result of learning. The primary
intervention continues to be learning, but the interventions are also focused on the organization
to maximize the likelihood that learning will improve performance. An alternative view, based
on three years of research, is proposed by Henschke (1999) in the Proceedings of the AHRD
Conference. As a result of his research, Henschke states that performance is a byword in the
lexicon of HRD. Further, he notes that Watkins and Marsick (1993) make a strong argument for
learning as a key ingredient in HRD. In his conclusions, Henschke (1999) states that his research
contributes to the insight that performance and learning are not mutually exclusive terms as had
been implied or espoused in some of the literature cited in his research, and some quarters of the
HRD field. This, Henschke states, contributes to the idea that the two terms are both
complementary parts of a comprehensive whole perspective that gives direction to and drives the
HRD field. In addition, he points out that his research could provide for the HRD field a much
richer, fuller, and deeper understanding of the meaning and importance of HRD as a worthwhile
scientific endeavor. Henschke concludes that those who have found themselves on either side of
this discussion up to now may be able to join forces and unite their energies in a new way.
Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, Community and Extension Education,
Lindenwood University, St. Charles, MO, September 21-23, 2011
4
Conclusions
In conclusion, the vast majority of HRD research has historically been focused on the
perspectives of HRD scholars and practitioners. The results of this study offer a fresh perspective
of HRD customers who appear to value individual and organizational performance as the
primary outcome of HRD, as did HRD practitioners in the Bates and Chen (2004) study. In
addition, while customers have an appreciation for HRD functions, they see individual learning
as a means to an end. That end is individual and organizational performance. The results of this
study may help HRD practitioners, scholars and customers gain a common understanding and
values of the HRD field. It is hoped that these results will also mitigate some of the confusion
surrounding what HRD is. The results of this study imply that HRD customers would likely
expect that the HRD/OD industry specifically include performance-based metrics as a method of
evaluating the effectiveness of the HRD function.
Recommendations for Additional Research
This study reinforces much of the seminal HRD literature regarding learning and
performance, yet it also indicates the need for additional research. This may include the
perspectives of a broader HRD customer-base. The four independent variables (i.e., gender, age,
level in the organization and company size) were not helpful in providing any possible
explanations as to why a respondent would have low or high levels of agreement for HRD values.
This suggests that other independent variables may be needed; job title, tenure, department, etc.
Enhancements to future studies might also include more industries. Since different organizations
can view HRD differently, additional research could include more cultural diversity among
organizations. And, adding international organizations would further enhance the depth of the
study.
References
Bates, R., & Chen, H. S. (2004). Human resource development value orientations: A construct
validity study. Human Resource Development International, 7(3), 351–370.
Bates, R. A., Chen, H. S., & Hatcher, T. (2002). Value priorities of HRD scholars and
practitioners. International Journal of Training and development, 6(4), 229-239.
Clardy, A. (2008). The strategic role of human resource development in managing core
competencies. Human Resource Development International, 11(2), 183–97.
De Simone, R. L., Werner, J. M., & Harris, D. W. (2002). Human Resource Development, 3rd
Ed. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt.
Gilley, J. W., & Maycunich, A. (2000). Organizational learning, performance and change: An
introduction to strategic human resource development. New York, NY: Perseus
Publishing.
Henschke, J. A. (1999). Historical antecedents shaping the terms of performance and learning
and their relationship in human resource development: An exploratory study. Proceedings
of the Academy of Human Resource Development Conference, 611-619.
McCarthy, A., Caravan, T., & O’Toole, T. (2003). HRD: Working at the boundaries and
interfaces of organizations. Journal of European Industrial Training, 27, 2-4.
Nadler, L., & Nadler. Z. (1989). Developing human resources. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, Community and Extension Education,
Lindenwood University, St. Charles, MO, September 21-23, 2011
5
Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the
workforce. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Ruona, W. E. A., Lynham, S.A., & Chermack, T.J. (2003). Insights on emerging trends and the
future of human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(3),
272-282.
Russ-Eft, D., & Preskill, H. (2001). Evaluation in organizations: A systematic approach to
enhancing learning, performance, and change. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Press.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F., III. (2001). Foundations of human resource development. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F., III. (Eds.). (1997). Human resource development research
handbook: Linking research and practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art
and science of systemic change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Scott McClure Ph.D., Graduate Adjunct Instructor, Department of Management, Webster
University, 314-852-3939, stmcclure@charter.net
Presented at the Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and
Community Education, Lindenwood University, St. Charles, MO, September 21-23, 2011.
Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, Community and Extension Education,
Lindenwood University, St. Charles, MO, September 21-23, 2011