Human Resource Development Human Resource Management: So What Is It?

(1)

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 25, no. 2, Summer 2014 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Human Resource Development ≠

Human Resource Management:

So What Is It?

Jon M. Werner

This editorial describes the ﬁ elds of human resource management (HRM) and human resource development (HRD), including brief histories of both areas. Distinctions between the ﬁ elds are made, as well as overlap between them. Ideas are presented concerning ways that manuscripts submitted to this journal can be best positioned for successful outcomes. A framework from Mankin (2001) is used to depict overlap between organizational strategy and structure, organizational culture, HRM, and HRD. As these topics converge in greater alignment, the need for and centrality of strong HRD principles and practices should increase.

Key Words: human resource management, human resource development, training, workplace learning, organizational strategy, evaluation

Yorks and Barto (2013) wrote that “HRD goes beyond learning per se incor-porating or collaborating with traditional HRM practices and organizational development” (p. 33). While the general public often makes little distinction between human resource development (HRD) and human resource manage-ment (HRM), many have attempted within academic circles to distinguish these terms (e.g., Chalofsky, 2007; Hamlin & Stewart, 2011; Ruona & Gibson, 2004; Swanson & Holton, 2009). An uneasy tension often seems to exist between the two fi elds. Both human resource development (HRD) and human resource management (HRM) are multidisciplinary fi elds, bringing together research and writing from disciplines such as economics, psychology, indus-trial relations, management, education, and adult learning (Campbell, 1971; Kaufman, 2002; McGuire & Jørgensen, 2011; Swanson & Holton, 2009; Willis, 1996). The purpose of this editorial is threefold: (a) to briefl y describe the fi elds of human resource development (HRD) and human resource man-agement (HRM); (b) to clarify what sets them apart, as well as the overlap

(2)

between the ﬁ elds; and (c) to suggest ways that manuscripts submitted to this journal can be best positioned for successful outcomes, whatever the back-ground of the manuscript submitter. My hope is to describe and foster a cli-mate where the growth and development of humans in workplaces is addressed holistically and from multiple perspectives. Expanded coverage of this topic can be found in Werner (in press).

From Training to Human Resource Development (HRD)

An irony of the ﬁ eld of training in the United States is that two of the greatest causes of growth for the profession were World War I and World War II. As one example, the U.S. government ran the Training Within Industry (TWI) service from 1940 to 1945 to address the job training needs of war-related industries (Dinero, 2005). Over 1.6 million U.S. workers were estimated to have completed TWI training programs. A related occurrence was the forming of the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) in 1943. The group, originally called the American Society for Training Directors, was formed by a small group of trainers who worked in the petrochemical industry (ASTD, 2011). This group grew and expanded, and in the 1980s, ASTD for-mally approved the use of the term human resource development to indicate that the ﬁ eld included more than classroom training (Nadler & Nadler, 1989).

In the 1980s, McLagan (1989) presented a wheel illustration, in which HRD was depicted with three primary parts: training and development, career development, and organization development. Training and development included both classroom training as well as coaching. Career development was presented as the approach to prepare workers for future jobs and respon-sibilities, and organization development was the approach to address issues of organizational structure and change. This served as a primary delineation of major HRD domains for over two decades.

In 2004, Bernthal and colleagues presented an expanded HRD wheel (Bernthal et al., 2004; Davis, Naughton, & Rothwell, 2004). In this depic-tion of workplace learning and performance, HRD was expanded. The three main areas from McLagan—training and development, career development, and organizational development—were all incorporated within this expanded wheel. Primarily, ﬁ ner distinctions are made in the expanded wheel, especially concerning various aspects of training and development.

The 2004 expanded learning and performance wheel included two other sets of spokes, namely one set for traditional human resource management disciplines, and a second set for other organizational disciplines (Davis et al., 2004). The HR disciplines include: staffi ng and job design, compensation and benefi ts, information systems, labor and employment relations, and rewards and recognition. The other organizational disciplines include operations/ production, distribution, marketing/public relations, customer services, fi nance, legal, and research and development. All three sets of spokes (HRD,

(3)

HRM, and other) are meant to revolve around business strategy at the hub, as supported by technology. What is noteworthy for this discussion is that HRD is seen as parallel or alongside HR and other organizational disciplines in promoting workplace learning and performance. The core elements of HRM overlap highly between that given by Davis et al. (2004) and the SHRM/HRCI deﬁ nition presented below.

Recently, Arneson, Rothwell, and Naughton (2013) presented a modiﬁ ed set of training and development competencies. The 10 areas are:

• performance improvement, • instructional design, • training delivery, • learning technologies, • evaluating learning impact, • managing learning programs, • integrated talent management, • coaching,

• knowledge management, and

• change management (see also Rothwell, Arneson, & Naughton, 2013). Most of these are modiﬁ cations of the competencies presented in Bernthal et al. (2004).

From Personnel Management to HR Management (HRM)

In the United States, personnel administration sprang up in the 1900s, pri-marily in large organizations (Kaufman, 2008). With the surge in union mem-bership in the 1930s and 1940s, labor relations grew as a related fi eld. In some manufacturing settings, labor relations staff dealt with the unionized workers, while personnel staff handled the nonunion workers. Authors such as Kaufman have documented the signifi cant impact that labor relations had on the fi eld of personnel administration, or personnel management (Kaufman, 2002). In 1948, a small group of personnel administrators founded the American Society for Personnel Administration (ASPA). This group changed its name to the Society for Human Resource Management in 1989. According to its website, “SHRM is committed to advancing the human resource profes-sion to ensure that HR is an essential and effective partner in developing and executing organizational strategy” (About SHRM, 2014).

SHRM has led an effort to increase the credibility and professionalism of individuals working in human resource management, in conjunction with an organization called the Human Resource Certiﬁ cation Institute (HRCI). HRCI offers various certiﬁ cations, with the largest and most common one being the Professional in Human Resources, or PHR. In the PHR “body of knowledge,” HRM is broken down into six main topic areas—business management and

(4)

strategy, workforce planning and employment, human resource development, compensation and benefi ts, employee and labor relations, and risk manage-ment (HR Certifi cation, 2014). The greatest number of questions on the PHR exam has to do with workforce planning and employment (24%), with 18% pertaining to HRD. It can be seen that SHRM, and most current HR profes-sionals, would view HRD as one central element—among others—that defi nes the fi eld of HRM. To state it more bluntly, the dominant view in HRM is that HRD is a subset within the larger fi eld of human resource management. If there were a “big four” in terms of critical HRM functions, most in the fi eld would list staffi ng, training and development, compensating, and appraising employee performance.

In terms of the SHRM/HRCI body of knowledge, HRD includes training, coaching, performance management, and organization development. There is clearly overlap with HRD definitions of human resource development (described earlier); however, there remains a tension here as to both what HRD is and what the proper relationship is to the practice of human resource management.

Commonalities Across the Fields of HRD and HRM

Even in this brief survey of the fi elds of HRD and HRM, it should be evident that both areas have applied backgrounds. Both fi elds have strong links to “people initiatives” within business and the military. Further, neither fi eld fea-tures strong or well-defi ned theoretical underpinnings. In reviewing 50 years of publications for the U.S.-based journal Human Resource Management, Hayton, Piperopoulos and Welbourne (2011) presented the following domi-nant HRM themes by time period:

• 1961–1971: Practice focused • 1971–1982: Theory development • 1983–1999: Strategic HRM • 2000–2010: Globalization

Although exceptions occurred across the decades, this bridge journal for HRM academic and practitioner audiences experienced an increase in the number of both empirical and theory-based articles published over time. Within this journal, and by extrapolation to research on HRM topics in gen-eral, growing trends include greater use of theory and empirical research and greater focus on strategic issues, as well as on international and global issues (Hayton et al., 2011).

As for HRD, Yorks (2005) depicts the HRD ﬁ eld as undergoing a similar progression. Yorks discusses the early roots of HRD from adult education, behaviorism, and organization development, and then presents ways that HRD has become increasingly linked to both strategy and theory. Yorks (2005)

(5)

closes his work by discussing the impacts of technology, globalization, and the challenges of maintaining a strategic focus on workforce issues. Other HRD researchers have made similar points (Jacobs & Park, 2009; Van Woerkom & Poell, 2010).

Implied in this path from a primary focus on practice toward a greater focus on theory, strategy, and global/international issues is the notion that both HRD and HRM have been criticized for their relative lack of theory, lack of strategy, and lack of particular concern or interest in international and global issues (e.g., Grieves, 2003; McLean & McLean, 2001; Wright & Boswell, 2002; Yawson, 2013). Indeed, while both leading professional orga-nizations (ASTD and SHRM) currently address the importance of strategic issues, a viewer of the websites of either organization might wonder where, in fact, this emphasis on the strategic can be found. Both fi elds continue to address defi nitional and existential issues concerning what defi nes them as a fi eld and discipline (Chalofsky, 2007; Hamlin & Stewart, 2011; Kaufman, 2008; Keegan & Boselie, 2006; Lee, 2001; Mankin, 2001; Willis, 2011). While progress is evident, both fi elds are still in process in terms of becom-ing more theoretically and empirically grounded (Kozlowski & Salas, 2010; Wright & Boswell, 2002).

Contributions Across the Fields of HRD and HRM

Both HRD and HRM have been heavily infl uenced by myriad psychological theories, as well as psychologists writing on topics such as training and devel-opment, career develdevel-opment, and organization development. A good portion of this infl uence comes from the subfi eld of industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology. One of the more prestigious annals in psychology is the Annual

Review of Psychology, and the ﬁ rst chapter devoted to personnel training and

development was written by Campbell in 1971. This has led to periodic updates over the years (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Two early research-based books on the topic of training and development were by industrial psycholo-gists: Goldstein (1974; Goldstein & Ford, 2002) and Wexley and Latham (2002). The title of Goldstein’s 1974 volume is instructive: Training: Program

Development and Evaluation. A hallmark of I/O psychology is measurement and

evaluation, and this is evident in this seminal work, as well as in much of the future writing and research that has followed.

Kirkpatrick (1967; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick; 2007) created the most enduring evaluation framework in training and development, namely, that good evaluation will look at trainee reactions, learning, and behavior change, as well as tangible results or outcomes. A positive impact of Kirkpatrick’s four levels has been the ongoing challenge to move beyond “Did you like the training?” forms of evaluation, toward measures that capture changes in learning, behavior, and measurable outcomes. The heavy emphasis on training transfer (i.e., is there meaningful change in workplace behavior after

(6)

training?) can be seen as a logical follow-up to Kirkpatrick’s approach to evaluation. In short, the calls for strong (or at least appropriate) research design, as well as strengthening the quality and rigor of empirical research have been contributions to both ﬁ elds, often driven by researchers with a psychological/measurement focus (Kraiger, McLinden, & Casper, 2004). The relatively modest level of high-quality, rigorous evaluation has been an ongoing concern (Kozlowski & Salas, 2010; Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger, & Smith-Jentsch, 2012).

With its primary emphasis on workplace learning and performance, HRD scholars have often emphasized topics such as adult learning, lifelong learning, and the impact of individual differences on learning and workplace performance outcomes (e.g., Bennett & Bierema, 2010; Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2011; McGuire & Jørgensen, 2011; Watkins, Marsick, & Kim, 2011; Yorks, 2005). This has clearly enriched the broader study of workplace issues, including HRM (Crouse, Doyle, & Young, 2011). While both HRD and HRM researchers have addressed diversity issues, HRD authors frequently address broader aspects of diversity, as well as their implications, for example, Marques (2010) and Schmidt, Githens, Rocco, and Kormanik (2012). Short and Bing (2003) presented 12 core principles to guide the HRD profession, including “striving to create humane workplaces,” “developing a sense of social responsibility,” “embracing globalization,” and “fostering lifelong learn-ing.” In reviewing this list, Willis (2011) wrote:

Clearly, we did not view our mission then as merely to “add economic value,” but rather to aim higher than that. We meant to invest ourselves heavily in creating long-term, healthy blends of originality and autonomy, social responsibility, and macro/microeconomic viability in our societal institutions and communities. (p. 237)

Prospects for the Future

Prospects are encouraging for continued positive commingling between the two ﬁ elds. First, the two primary academic groups, that is, the Academy of Human Resource Development and the Academy of Management, are strong and growing, both in numbers and in visibility. In the past, most of the “best” HRM research could be found in outlets such as the Journal of Applied

Psychology or Personnel Psychology. For HRD, Human Resource Development Quarterly began publication in 1990. Since then, Human Resource Development Review, Human Resource Development International, and the European Journal of Training & Development have appeared as sources for scholarly HRD research.

In addition, the journal Advances in Developing Human Resources has grown as a bridge journal between HRD academics and practitioners, in much the same manner that the journal Human Resource Management has served as a link between academics and HRM practitioners.

(7)

Further, there are now three journals in particular that connect scholars from various ﬁ elds with topics pertaining to learning and education, namely, the Academy of Management Learning & Education, the Journal of Management

Education, and Management Learning. Such journals have made remarkable

strides in promoting the notion that pedagogical, or learning-related, research is worth conducting with the same rigor and standards as other, more disci-pline-speciﬁ c forms of research. This bodes well for a growing rapprochement between HRD and HRM scholars wishing to pursue common topics and inter-ests across the two ﬁ elds.

Ideally, more efforts will bring together HRD and HRM perspectives and approaches in the future. As Welbourne (2011, p. 659) wrote, the essence of HRM is “creating opportunities for people at work to be successful.” A good portion of those opportunities will include HRD efforts or initiatives. Included within such efforts is a need to create stronger linkages between scholarship and practice (Ruona & Gilley, 2009; Short, 2006).

Conclusions and Insights for Authors Submitting to HRDQ

Yorks has written that:

The fundamental purpose of HRD is to contribute to both long-term strategic performance and more immediate performance improvement through ensuring that organizational members have access to resources for developing their capacity for performance and for making meaning of their experience in the context of the organization’s strategic needs and the requirements of their jobs. (2005, pp. 20–21)

This statement concerning the purpose of HRD ﬁ ts many aspects of HRM as well. Furthermore, Yorks (2005) mentions the importance of HRM systems being attuned to strategic HRD. In an effort to further delineate how HRM and HRD might work together to address “people issues” at work, a framework by Mankin (2001) is presented. Mankin (2001) highlights the HRD compo-nents discussed earlier, that is, training and development, career development, and organization development. He then brings in Ogbanna’s (1994) depic-tion of the need to link organizadepic-tional strategy/structure, culture, and human resource management. Mankin (2001) describes overlaps among the three topics. The central overlap—the intersection of organizational strategy/struc-ture, culstrategy/struc-ture, and HRM—is the emphasis on HRD, that is, individual learning and knowledge (see Figure 1).

This view of HRM as broader than HRD is consistent with the discus-sion presented above from both HRD and HRM sources. Topics such as staff-ing, compensation, and employee relations/communications are generally viewed as HRM topics that do not directly overlap with HRD. It is hoped that employee actions and behaviors are inﬂ uenced by both HRM practices

(8)

(e.g., stafﬁ ng, appraisal, rewards) and HRD practices (e.g., training and career development). HRD can be viewed as the center point or core, that is, that place where strategy, culture, and HRM overlap. The hope is that as the three “circles” converge in greater alignment, the degree of overlap increases, and thus the need for and centrality of strong HRD principles and practices increases (Alagaraja, 2013). While all organizational leaders (and HRM sionals) will care about individual and organizational learning, HRD profes-sionals will have these areas as their particular focus or raison d’être.

Although differences of perspective and emphasis will continue, the future will hopefully bring a closer alignment between the two ﬁ elds, with commonality in maintaining a dual focus on the performance and well-being of individuals in organizations, while still maintaining a strategic focus on organizational survival and growth (Van Woerkom & Poell, 2010). When individuals from HRD and HRM backgrounds dialogue and work together, let us hope that the common view is (to change the phrase from Oscar Wilde, 1887), “We have really everything in common with one another nowadays—

including language.”

The HRDQ editorial team seeks high-quality submissions, and this includes manuscripts submitted from individuals with backgrounds in HRD, HRM, and other ﬁ elds. Yet a fair number of manuscripts get submitted to

Figure 1. A Model of HRD, HRM, Strategy, and Culture (adapted from Mankin 2001)

Strategy & Structure HRM Culture HRD Learning & Knowledge

(9)

HRDQ that do not demonstrate clear connections to core HRD topics and

issues. Some questions that prospective authors should consider are:

• Is there a focus in this manuscript on workplace learning and performance? • Is there a link to one or more of the ASTD competencies (Arneson et al.,

2013)?

• Has this manuscript been linked to relevant HRD research (especially from AHRD-sponsored journals)?

As an editorial team, we welcome a broad range of topics for submissions, and this includes topics with an HRM or organizational behavior emphasis. However, it is critical that authors demonstrate strong linkages to HRD. For example, a study of the relationship between organizational commitment and work attitudes, per se, is not likely to move forward in the HRDQ review process. Similarly, studies focusing primarily on HRM topics such as stafﬁ ng, compensation, or labor relations are not likely to be seen as prime candi-dates for this journal. However, manuscripts with a clear HRD focus are much more likely to be viewed as relevant. “Bridge topics” that are studied by both HRM and HRD researchers include subjects such as training and develop-ment, coaching, performance managedevelop-ment, and diversity management. Yet even with topics such as these, links to relevant HRD sources and scholars should be included.

In Volume 24 of HRDQ, Cho and Egan (2013), as well as Li, Gray, and Lockwood (2013) presented innovative studies of workplace learning. Dachner, Saxten, Noe, and Keeton (2013) described a novel approach to needs assessment in a rapidly changing environment. Hamlin and Hatton (2013) summarized efforts to develop a taxonomy of managerial behaviors. Alagaraja and Egan (2013) studied linkages between lean strategy and HRD. These ﬁ ve articles were all nominated by the HRDQ editorial board for the Richard A. Swanson Research Excellence Award for the outstanding arti-cle in HRDQ in 2013, and all serve as strong examples of well-done HRD research.

It is hoped that HRDQ, as well as other AHRD-sponsored journals, will be at the forefront concerning research that advances “people issues at work,” and that this will move forward from an HRD perspective. As just two ques-tions for future research, following Mankin (2001), do organizaques-tions with greater alignment between strategy/structure, culture, and HRM practices also have higher levels of HRD practices? If so, does this impact important individual and organizational outcomes? Ultimately, there is likely to be a strong focus on learning in HRD-focused research, but this must be consid-ered within the larger context of organizational issues (Mankin, 2001; Yorks & Barto, 2013). Fundamental concerns as to the impact on both individual and organizational outcomes remain (Short & Bing, 2003; Willis, 2011). As researchers with HRD, HRM, and other perspectives, may we move forward

(10)

together in addressing these vital issues and concerns for employees, manag-ers, and organizations.

Articles in This Issue

My editorial colleagues and I are delighted to present two invited feature arti-cles in celebration of the 25th anniversary of HRDQ along with three refereed articles. The ﬁ rst feature article, “Appreciating Organization Development: A Comparative Essay on Divergent Perspectives,” coauthored by Drs. Thomas G. Cummings and Chailin Cummings, acknowledges some important chal-lenges in understanding the nature and consequences of organization devel-opment. The authors examine, clarify, and compare four divergent perspectives on organization development and discuss solutions that may enable a more integrative path forward. The second feature article, “What Do We Really Know About Employee Engagement?” by Dr. Alan Saks and Dr. Jamie Gruman examines the current shortcomings in the engagement litera-ture regarding meaning, measurement, and theory. They conclude by suggest-ing that scholars need to assess and address these shortcomsuggest-ings to advance the study of engagement and offer a number of propositions as a basis for moving toward the development of a more complete and integrated theory of employee engagement. Following these two invited feature articles, the remaining three empirical contributions are focused on the topic of engage-ment. De Clerq, Bouckenooghe, Raja, and Matsyborska examine the relation-ship between servant leaderrelation-ship and work engagement and how this relationship may be moderated by leader–follower social capital. Sarti’s research explores the role of job resources in determining employees’ engage-ment at work within the long-term care setting in Italy. Finally, Shuck, Twyford, Reio, and Shuck examine the relationship between HRD practices and employee engagement to turnover intentions. We sincerely hope that you enjoy this anniversary issue and are inspired to contribute to the future research agendas outlined by our contributing authors on organization devel-opment and employee engagement.

References

About SHRM, Mission and History (2014). Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/about/history /Pages/default.aspx

Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Beneﬁ ts of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474.

Alagaraja, M. (2013). Mobilizing organizational alignment through strategic human resource development. Human Resource Development International, 16, 74–93.

Alagaraja, M., & Egan, T. (2013). The strategic value of HRD in lean strategy implementation.

Human Resource Development Quarterly, 24, 1–27.

American Society for Training and Development (ASTD). (2011). ASTD 2011 annual report. Retrieved from http://www.astd.org/~/media/Files/About%20ASTD/2011%20annual%20 report.pdf

(11)

Arneson, J., Rothwell, W., & Naughton, J. (2013). Training and development competencies redeﬁ ned to create competitive advantage. T&D, 67(1), 42–47.

Bennett, E. E., & Bierema, L. L. (2010). The ecology of virtual human resource development.

Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12, 632–647.

Bernthal, P. R., Colteryahn, K., Davis, P., Naughton, J., Rothwell, W. J., & Wellins, R. (2004).

Mapping the future: Shaping new workplace learning and performance competencies. Alexandria,

VA: ASTD Press.

Campbell, J. P. (1971). Personnel training and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 22, 565–602.

Chalofsky, N. (2007). The seminal foundation of the discipline of HRD: People, learning, and organizations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18, 431–442.

Cho, Y., & Egan, T. (2013). Organizational support for action learning in South Korean organi-zations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 24, 185–213.

Crouse, P., Doyle, W., & Young, J. D. (2011). Workplace learning strategies, barriers, facilitators and outcomes: A qualitative study among human resource management practitioners. Human

Resource Development International, 14, 39–55.

Dachner, A. M., Saxton, B. M., Noe, R. A., & Keeton, K. E. (2013). To inﬁ nity and beyond: Using a narrative approach to identify training needs for unknown and dynamic situations.

Human Resource Development Quarterly, 24, 239–267.

Davis, P., Naughton, J., & Rothwell, W. J. (2004). New roles and competencies for the profes-sion. T&D, 58(4), 26–36.

Dinero, D. (2005). Training within industry: The foundation of lean. Portland, OR: Productivity Press. Goldstein, I. L. (1974). Training: Program development and evaluation. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, K. (2002). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and

evaluation (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Grieves, J. (2003). Strategic human resource development. London, England: Sage.

Hamlin, R. G., & Hatton, A. (2013). Toward a British taxonomy of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 24, 365–406.

Hamlin, B., & Stewart, J. (2011). What is HRD? A deﬁ nitional review and synthesis of the HRD domain. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35, 199–220.

Hayton, J. C., Piperopoulos, P., & Welbourne, T. M. (2011). Celebrating 50 years: 50 years of knowledge sharing: Learning from a ﬁ eld moving forward. Human Resource Management, 50, 697–714.

HR Certiﬁ cation (2014). Retrieved from http://www.hrci.org/our-programs/our-hr-certiﬁ cations /phr

Jacobs, R. L., & Park, Y. (2009). A proposed conceptual framework of workplace learning: Implications for theory development and research in human resource development. Human

Resource Development Review, 8, 133–150.

Kaufman, B. E. (2002). The role of economics and industrial relations in the development of the ﬁ eld of personnel/human resource management. Management Decision, 40, 962–979. Kaufman, B. E. (2008). Managing the human factor: The early years of human resource management

in American industry. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Keegan, A., & Boselie, P. (2006). The lack of impact of dissensus inspired analysis on developments in the ﬁ eld of human resource management. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1491–1511.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1967). Evaluation. In R. L. Craig & L. R. Bittel (Eds.) Training and development

handbook (pp. 87–112). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2007). Implementing the four levels: A practical guide for

effective evaluation of training programs. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., III, & Swanson, R. A. (2011). The adult learner: The deﬁ nitive classic

in adult education and human resource development (7th ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Salas, E. (Eds.) (2010). Learning, training, and development in organizations. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

(12)

Kraiger, K., McLinden, D., & Casper, W. J. (2004). Collaborative planning for training impact.

Human Resource Management, 43, 337–351.

Lee, M. (2001). A refusal to define HRD. Human Resource Development International, 4, 327–341.

Li, L., Gray, D. E., & Lockwood, A. J. (2013). Learning about managing the business in the hospitality industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 24, 525–559.

Mankin, D. P. (2001). A model for human resource development. Human Resource Development

International, 4, 65–85.

Marques, J. F. (2010). Colorful window dressing: A critical review of workplace diversity in three major American corporations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21, 435–446.

McGuire, D., & Jørgensen, K. M. (2011). Human resource development: Theory & practice. London: Sage.

McLagan, P. A. (1989). Models for HRD practice. Training & Development Journal, 41(9), 49–59. McLean, G. N., & McLean, L. (2001). If we can’t deﬁ ne HRD in one country, how can we deﬁ ne

it in an international context? Human Resource Development International, 4, 313–326. Nadler, L., & Nadler, Z. (1989). Developing human resources. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ogbanna, E. (1994, March). Integrating strategy, culture and human resource management: A case

study of the UK food retailing sector. Paper presented at the Ninth Workshop on Strategic

Human Resource Management, St. Gallen, Switzerland.

Rothwell, W. J., Arneson, J., & Naughton, J. (2013). ASTD competency study: The training &

development profession redeﬁ ned. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.

Ruona, W. E. A., & Gibson, S. K. (2004). The making of twenty-ﬁ rst-century HR: An analysis of the convergence of HRM, HRD, and OD. Human Resource Management, 43, 49–66.

Ruona, W. E. A., & Gilley, J. W. (2009). Practitioners in applied professions: A model applied to human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11, 438–453. Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of training

and development in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 74–101. Schmidt, S. W., Githens, R. P., Rocco, T. S., & Kormanik, M. B. (2012). Lesbians, gays, bisexuals,

and transgendered people and human resource development: An examination of the literature in adult education and human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 11, 326–348.

Short, D. C. (2006). Closing the gap between research and practice in HRD. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 17, 343–350.

Short, D. C., & Bing, J. W. (Eds.). (2003). Shaping the future of human resource development.

Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(3), 242–351.

Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2009). Foundations of human resource development (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Van Woerkom, M., & Poell, R. (Eds.) (2010). Workplace learning: Concepts, measurement, and

application. New York, NY: Routledge.

Watkins, K. E., Marsick, V., & Kim, Y. S. (2011). The impact of lifelong learning on organiza-tions. In D. N. Aspin et al. (Eds.), International handbook of lifelong learning (2nd ed.). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 859–873.

Welbourne, T. M. (2011). Editor-in-chief ’s note: The next 50 years of Human Resource

Management: Moving forward faster and together. Human Resource Management, 50,

695–696.

Werner, J. M. (in press). Human resource management and HRD: Connecting the dots, or ships passing in the night? In R. F. Poell, T. S. Rocco, & G. L. Roth (Eds.), The Routledge companion

to human resource development. London, England: Routledge.

Wexley, K. N., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Developing and training human resources in organizations (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Wilde, O. (1887). The Canterville ghost. London, England: John W. Luce.

Willis, V. J. (1996). Human resource development as evolutionary system: From pyramid build-ing to space walkbuild-ing and beyond. New Directions For Adult & Continubuild-ing Education, 72, 31–39.

(13)

Willis, V. J. (2011). Seven-league boots and HRD. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22, 235–238.

Wright, P. M., & Boswell, W. R. (2002). Desegregating HRM: A review and synthesis of micro and macro human resource management research. Journal of Management, 28, 247–276. Yawson, R. M. (2013). Systems theory and thinking as a foundational theory in human resource

development—a myth or reality? Human Resource Development Review, 12, 53–85. Yorks, L. (2005). Strategic human resource development. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western. Yorks, L., & Barto, J. (2013). Invited reaction: The strategic value of HRD in lean strategy

imple-mentation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 24, 29–33.

Jon M. Werner is Professor of Management at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. Corresponding author: