Human resource development (HRD) research and theories often do not adequately capture the holistic and self-directed nature of human beings at work. Likewise, HRD practice can fall short when applying an instrumental stance toward individuals as resources instead of building on the innate strengths and intrinsic areas of interest.
The Solution
The concept of human agency is explored in this article in contrast to narrow and instrumental understandings of the person to propose an ethically and pragmatically more adequate notion for HRD research and practice. Exploring essential elements of human and moral agency affords a view of how individuals might understand themselves in the context of work and opens up the opportunity to build HRD theory and practice based on a holistic understanding of persons.
The Stakeholders
This article has relevance for future practitioners and researchers in university-based HRD programs, for HRD scholars seeking to advance the art and science of the field, and for HRD managers and professionals responsible for the learning and education system and processes in organizations and other work settings.
AguilarJ.BuckareffA. (Eds.). (2010). Causing human action: New perspectives on the causal theory of acting. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
AlkireS. (2002a). Dimensions of human development. World Development, 30, 181-205.
3.
AlkireS. (2002b). Valuing freedoms: Sen’s capability approach and poverty reduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
4.
AlvessonM.SandbergJ. (2013). Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 128-152.
5.
ArdichviliA. (2011). Sustainability of nations, communities, organizations and individuals: The role of HRD. Human Resource Development International, 14, 371-374.
6.
ArdichviliA.JondleD. (2009). Ethical business cultures: A literature review and implications for HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 8, 223-244.
7.
AshforthB. E.KreinerG. E. (1999). “How can you do it?”: Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24, 413-434.
8.
AzevedoR. (2013). What can references tell us about the fields contributing to HRD? In ChapmanD. (Ed.). Proceedings of the 2013 Academy of Human Resource Development Conference of the Americas (Section 33, Paper 0325). Minneapolis, MN: Academy of Human Resource Development.
9.
BennisW. G.O’TooleJ. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 85(5), 96-104.
10.
BishopJ., (1989). Natural agency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
BowieN. E. (1998). A Kantian theory of capitalism. Ruffin Series in Business Ethics, 1, 37-60.
12.
DeetzS. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonialization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany: State University of New York.
13.
EisenhardtK. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14, 57-74.
14.
ElliottC.TurnbullS. (Eds.). (2005). Critical thinking in human resource development (Routledge Studies in Human Resource Development). London, England: Routledge.
15.
FenwickT. (2011). Developing who, for what? Notes of caution in rethinking global H(R)D: A response to Kuchinke. Human Resource Development International, 14, 83-89.
16.
FinnisJ. (1993). Natural law and natural rights. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
17.
FriedmanM. (1970, September13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, p. SM 17.
18.
GhoshalS. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4, 75-91.
19.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
20.
KantI. (1990). Foundation of the metaphysics of morals. New York: Macmillan. (Original work published 1785)
21.
KuchinkeK. P. (2007). Birds of a feather? The critique of the North American business school and its implications for educating HRD practitioners. Human Resource Development Review, 6, 111-126.
22.
KuchinkeK. P. (2010). Human flourishing as a central value for human resource development. Human Resource Development International, 13, 575-585.
23.
KuchinkeK. P.ArdichviliA.BorchertM.CornachioneE.CsehM.KangH.Zav’jalovaE. (2011). Work meaning among mid-level professional employees: A study of the importance of work centrality and extrinsic and intrinsic work goals in eight countries. Asian Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 49, 264-284.
24.
MayoE. (1949). Hawthorne and the Western Electric Company: The social problems of an industrial civilization. London, England: Routledge.
25.
MintzbergH. (2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
26.
NordW. R.FoxS. (1999). The individual in organizational studies: The great disappearing act? In CleggS. R.HardyC. (Eds.), Studying organizations: Theory & method (pp. 142-168). London, England: Sage.
27.
RawlsJ. (1970). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
RestJ. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York, NY: Praeger.
29.
RogakL. (2012). Impatient optimist: Bill Gates in his own words. New York, NY: Agate.
30.
SambrookS. (2012). Human and resource development is hard. Human Resource Development International, 15, 135-140.
31.
SwansonR. A.HoltonE. F.III. (2009). Foundations of human resource development (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
32.
TrevinoL. K.WeaverG. R.ReynoldsS. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32, 951-990.
33.
WahbaM. A.BridwellL. G. (1976). Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need hierarchy theory. Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 212-240.
34.
WheatleyM. J. (2012). So far from home: Lost and found in our brave new world. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
35.
WrzesniewskiA.DuttonJ. (2001). Crafting a job: Employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179-201.
