Means vs ends: theorizing a definition of human resource development
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the extant human resource development (HRD) definition research literature and theorizes a new definition of HRD.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors adopted keyword and content analyses to examine selected 32 HRD definitions in relation to different organizational and sociopolitical contexts base on theory development criteria and methodology for definition research.
Findings
From a theoretical perspective, the extant definitions were mostly empirical descriptions of HRD practice with conceptualization being absent. From a context perspective, the definitions were based on HRD phenomena indigenous to the western world, especially the USA and Western Europe. They can hardly explain HRD phenomena in a non-western context. The glaring gaps lead to theorizing a new definition by focusing on the hard core of HRD in defining and criterial attributes. The defining attribute of HRD is its host-system-dependence, and the criterial attributes are its shaping and skilling mechanisms.
Research limitations/implications
This study unveils that HRD is a means to support the ends defined by the corresponding host system, and not an end in itself. This definition is applicable to different sociopolitical, cultural, and organizational contexts. It provides clear criteria and boundaries to gauge the relevance of HRD research and shows the unique identity of HRD, thus offering new directions to expand the landscape of HRD research.
Practical implications
The new definition can help human resources practitioners better understand the role and mechanism of HRD that the worldwide practitioners can resonate in various sociocultural and political contexts. Communicating the definition and goals of HRD will enhance internal clients’ understanding and appreciation of the value of HRD.
Originality/value
This study fills important research gaps in HRD definition research. It is the first HRD definition derived through a rigorous theory development process. The new definition connects the HRD research niche to the general human resource literature and lead to new HRD research.
Keywords
Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate the participants in a FOCUS Session at the 2015 Conference of Academy of Human Resource Development in St Louis, MO, particularly the thought provoking discussions with, and critiques and feedback from Andrea Ellinger, Bob Hamlin, Rob Poell, Tonette Rocco, and Gene Roth. The authors are especially indebted to written comments by Bob Hamlin, Peter Kuchinke, Monica Lee, Gene Roth, and Jessica Li for their critiques and feedback, as well as subsequent e-mail discussions on an earlier version of this manuscript. The study also benefitted from classroom discussions with 2012 and 2013 doctoral cohorts in the class of HRD6350 Contemporary Issues in HRD at the University of Texas at Tyler. Thanks also go to three anonymous reviewers and Associate Editor Dr Robert Wapshott who offered helpful comments. Madison Bolton, a student assistant helped compile the HRD definitions used in the study. Due to restrictions on manuscript length, a complete list of HRD definitions and corresponding codes was not included. Interested readers may e-mail a request to the first author for a copy.
Citation
Wang, G.G., Werner, J.M., Sun, J.Y., Gilley, A. and Gilley, J.W. (2017), "Means vs ends: theorizing a definition of human resource development", Personnel Review, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 1165-1181. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2015-0306
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2017, Emerald Publishing Limited