The
Problem
and
the
Solution(s). HRD is marked by considerable effort to identify the "one right answer" in defining H RD and its foundational theories I prefer multiple answers to questions, affirming the importance of ambiguity and recognizing the multiplicity of theories, constructs, missions, beliefs, values, and ideals that affect HRD The dialogue itself is important
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Camp, R.C. (1989). Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performanceMilwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.
2.
Deming, W.E. (1986). Out of the crisisCambndge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
3.
McLean, G.N. (1998). HRD: A three-legged stool, an octopus, or a centipede?Human Resource Development International , 1(4), 375-377.
4.
Ruona, W.E.A. (1999). An investigation into core beliefs underlying the profession of human resource developmentSt. Paul, MN: Human Resource Development Research Center, University of Minnesota.
5.
Swanson, R.A. (1992). Valuing diversity without performance is a ticket to mediocrityHuman Resource Development Quarterly , 3(4), 319-321.
6.
Swanson, R.A. (1995). Human resource development: Performance is the keyHuman Resource Development Quarterly , 6(2), 207-213.
7.
Swanson, R.A. (1999). HRD theory, real or imagined?Human Resource Development International, 2(1), 2-5.
8.
Tillich, P. (1963). Systematic theology, volume 3: Life and the spirit, history and the Kingdom of GodChicago: University of Chicago Press.
