Based on the assertion that prevalent generic models of HRD are not able to adequately account for the variety of human resource development (HRD)arrangements, strategies, and processes in organizations, this article proposes that a contingency framework can lead to a more differentiated and realistic understanding of HRD in actual practice. Several groups of contingency factors are advanced, and their potential influence illustrated with reference to an empirical investigation of 29 U.S. organizations. The resulting set of propositions invite future empirical verification with the goal of exploring more closely the context-dependent nature of human resource development and to advance the empirical knowledge base of our field.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baldwin, T. T., & Danielson, C. C. (2002). Invited reaction: Linking learning with financial performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(1), 23-29.
2.
Bartlett, K. R., Lawler, J. J., Bae, J., Chen, S., & Wan, D. (2002). Differences in international human resource development among indigenous firms and multinational affiliates in East and Southeast Asia. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(4), 383-406.
3.
Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., & Ulrich, D. (2001). The HR scorecard: Linking people, strategy, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.
4.
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital. New York: Columbia University Press.
5.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238-256.
6.
Clardy, A. (2003). The legal framework of human resource development: Overview, mandates, strictures, and financial implications. Human Resource Development Review, 2(1), 26-53.
7.
Collis, D. J., & Montgomery, C. A. (1995, July-August). Competing on resources: Strategy for the 1990s. Harvard Business Review, 73(4), 118-128.
8.
Deming, W. E. (1991). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
DeVogel, S. H. (1992). Ethical decision making in organization development: Current theory and practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
10.
Donaldson, L. (1996). For positivist organization theory: Proving the hard core. London: Sage.
11.
Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1985). Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 514-539.
12.
Dubin, R. (1976). Theory building in applied areas. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 17-39). Chicago: Rand McNally.
13.
Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Towards a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 9-41.
14.
Gilley, J. W., & Maycunich, A. (1998). Strategically integrated HRD: Partnering to maximize organizational performance. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
15.
Gioia, D. A., & Corley, K. G. (2002). Being good versus looking good: Business school rankings and the Circean transformation from substance to image. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(1), 107-120.
16.
Greiner, L. E. (1998, May-June). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review, 76(3), 55-67.
17.
Kuchinke, K. P. (2002). Institutional and curricular characteristics of leading graduate HRD programs in the U.S. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(2), 127-144.
18.
Kuchinke, K. P. (2003). Contingent HRD: A status study of arrangements, services, and processes in multiple organizational settings. In T. Egan (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Conference (pp. 50-57). Bowling Green, OH: Academy of Human Resource Development.
19.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Towards a theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 31-48.
20.
Marion, R. (2002). Leadership in education: Organizational theory for the practitioner. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
21.
McLagan, P. A. (1989). Systems model 2000: Matching systems theory to future HRD issues. In D. B. Gradous (Ed.), Systems theory applied to human resource development (pp. 61-60). Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
22.
Merton, P. K. (1949). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.
23.
Noe, R. A. (2002). Employee training and development (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
24.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H., Jr. (1984). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best run companies. New York: Warner Books.
25.
Pfeffer, J. (1994) Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the work force. Boston: Harvard Business School.
26.
Scott, W. R., & Meyer, J. W. (1991). The rise of training programs in firms and agencies: An institutional perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 297-326.
27.
Simon, H. (1957). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations. New York: Macmillan.
28.
Snell, S. A., Lepak, D. P., & Youndt, M. A. (1999). Managing the architecture of intellectual capital: Implications for strategic human resource management. Research in Personnel & Human Resources Management, 4, S175-S193.
29.
Swanson, R. A. (1995). Human resource development: Performance is the key. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6(2), 207-213.
30.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F., III. (2001). Foundations of human resource development. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
31.
Ulrich, D. (1997). Human resource champions: The next agenda for adding value and delivering results. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
32.
Van Buren, M. E. (2001). State of the industry report 2002. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
33.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and science of systematic change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
