Human resource development (HRD) has become powerfully influenced by a dominant rationality in which masculine characteristics of assertiveness, objectivity, control, and performance are privileged without question, resulting in inequitable practices and social systems such as sexism, racism, and capitalism. The humanistic roots of the field of HRD have been co-opted into serving organizations at the expense of workers and other stakeholders. The current frameworks used to understand and apply practices within the field are not sufficient to reclaim the HRD voice of organizational conscience.
The Solution
This article defines critical human resource development (CHRD) and offers a framework for envisioning the field that restructures the “holy trinity” of HRD known as Training & Development, Career Development, and Organization Development. We make a case for why a CHRD is needed and provide an overview of key, and contested, issues of practice for HRD (and CHRD) professionals—relating, learning, changing, and organizing.
The Stakeholders
Scholars and practitioners invested in exploring a new framework of CHRD.
BieremaL. L. (1997). The development of the individual leads to more productive workplaces. In RowdenR. (Ed.), Workplace learning: Debating five critical questions of theory and practice (New Directions in Adult and Continuing Education, No. 72, pp. 21-30). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3.
BieremaL. L. (2000). Moving beyond performance paradigms in workplace development. In WilsonA.HayesE. (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 278-293). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4.
BieremaL. L. (2009). Critiquing HRD’s dominant masculine rationality and evaluating its impact. Human Resource Development Review, 8, 68-96.
5.
BieremaL. L. (2010a). Implementing a critical approach to organization development. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
6.
BieremaL. L. (2010b). Resisting HRD’s resistance to diversity. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34, 565-576.
7.
BieremaL. L.CsehM. (2003). Evaluating AHRD research using a feminist research framework. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14, 5-26.
8.
BieremaL. L.D’AbundoM. L. (2004). HRD with a conscience: Practicing socially responsible HRD. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 23, 443-458.
9.
BurkeW. W. (1992). Organization development: A process of learning and changing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
10.
ButlerJ. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
CallahanJ. L. (2007). Gazing into the crystal ball: Critical HRD as a future of research in the field. Human Resource Development International, 10, 77-82.
12.
CallahanJ. L. (2010). [Review of the book A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying organizations, by C. Grey]. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 7, 319-321.
13.
CallahanJ. L. (2013). “Space, the final frontier”? Social movements as non-traditional organizing spaces for applying HRD. Human Resource Development International, 16, 298-312.
14.
CallahanJ. L.Dunne de DavilaT. (2004). An impressionistic framework for theorizing about human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 3(1), 75-95.
15.
CardenL.CallahanJ. L. (2007). Creating leaders or loyalists: Conflicting identities in a leadership development programme. Human Resource Development International, 10, 169-186.
16.
CerveroR.WilsonA. (2005). Working the planning table: Negotiating democratically for adult, continuing and workplace education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
17.
ChapmanD.StanigarJ. (2014, June6). The popular face of HRD: The YouTube versus the academic perspective. Paper presented at the 15th International Conference on HRD Research and Practice Across Europe, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK.
18.
ClarksonM. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 24, 92-117.
19.
CovaleskiM. A.DirsmithM. W.HeianJ. B.SamuelS. (1998). The calculated and the avowed: Techniques of discipline and struggles over identity in big six public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 293-327.
20.
EliasJ.MerriamS. B. (2005). Philosophical foundations of adult education. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
21.
ElliottC.TurnbullS. (2003). Reconciling autonomy and community: The paradoxical role of HRD. Human Resource Development International, 6, 457-474.
22.
ErdalD. (2011). Beyond the corporation: Humanity working. London, England: The Bodley Head.
23.
FenwickT. J. (2004). Towards a critical HRD in theory and practice. Adult Education Quarterly, 54, 193-210.
24.
FenwickT. J. (2005). Conceptions of critical HRD: Dilemmas for theory and practice. Human Resource Development International, 8, 225-238.
25.
FenwickT. J. (2011). Developing who, for what? Notes of caution in rethinking a global HRD: A response to Kuchinke. Human Resource Development International, 14, 83-89.
26.
FenwickT. J.BieremaL. L. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: Issues for HRD engagement. International Journal of Training and Development, 12, 24-35.
27.
FletcherC.BodenR.KentJ.TinsonJ. (2007). Performing women: The gendered dimensions of the UK new research economy. Gender, Work & Organization, 14, 433-453.
28.
FreemanR. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
29.
GourlayS. (2001). Knowledge management and HRD. Human Resource Development International, 4, 27-46.
30.
GreyC. (2009). A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
31.
HoltonE. F.III. (1999). An integrated model of performance: Bounding the theory and practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 1, 26-46.
32.
HonerS. M.HuntT. C. (1978). Invitation to philosophy: Issues and options (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
33.
KnowlesM. S.HoltonE. F.SwansonR. A. (1998). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. (5th ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf.
34.
KortenD. C. (1996, February). When corporations rule the world. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Human Resource Development Conference, Minneapolis, MN.
35.
LeeM. (2001). A refusal to define HRD. Human Resource Development International, 4, 327-342.
36.
LewinK. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
37.
LyotardJ. F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
38.
MarsickV. J. (1997). Reflections on developing a code of integrity in HRD. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8, 91-94.
39.
McGuireD. (2011). Foundations of human resource development. In McGuireD.JorgensenK. M. (Eds.), Human resource development: Theory and practice (pp. 1-11). London, England: SAGE.
40.
McLaganP. (1989). Models for HRD practice. Training & Development Journal, 43(9), 49-59.
41.
MerriamS. B.KimY. S. (2011). Non-western perspectives on learning and knowing. In MerriamS. B.GraceA. P. (Eds.), The Jossey-Bass reader on contemporary issues in adult education (pp. 378-389). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
42.
PorrasJ. I.BradfordD. L. (2004). A historical view of the future of OD: An interview with Jerry Porras. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40, 392-402.
RuddickS. (1996). Reason’s femininity: A case for connected knowing. In GoldbergerN.TaruleJ.ClinchyB.BelenkyM. (Eds.), Knowledge, difference and power: Essays inspired by women’s ways of knowing (pp. 248-273). New York, NY: Basic Books.
45.
RuonaW. E. A. (2000). Core beliefs in human resource development: A journey for the profession and its professionals. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 1-27.
46.
RuonaW. E. A. (2014, June6). Exploring human resource development: Ideology, identity, & culture. Keynote address at the 15th International Conference on HRD Research and Practice Across Europe, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK..
47.
SambrookS. (2000). Talking of HRD. Human Resource Development International, 3, 159-178.
48.
SlotteV.TynjäläP.HytönenT. (2004). How do HRD practitioners describe learning at work?Human Resource Development International, 7, 481-499.
49.
SwansonR. A. (1995). Human resource development: Performance is the key. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6, 207-213.
50.
SwansonR. A.HoltonE. F. (2001). Foundations of human resource development. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
51.
TrehanK. (2004). Who is not sleeping with whom? What’s not being talked about in HRD?Journal of European Industrial Training, 28, 23-38.
52.
WhiteheadA. (1998). Disrupted selves: Resistance and identity work in the managerial arena. Gender and Education, 10, 199-215.
53.
WirtenbergJ.AbramsA.OttC. (2004). Assessing the field of organization development. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40, 465-479.
