Human resource development (HRD) has been variously defined. Swanson and Holton (2009) have, for example, defined HRD “as a process of developing and unleashing expertise for the purpose of improving individual, team, work process, and organizational system performance” (p.4). They elaborate further saying that this definition is not concerned with who does the actual work of HRD, or at what level within an organization the work is done. Other definitions of HRD are reviewed in Swanson and Holton (2009), as well as in Garavan and Carbery (2012). These definitions generally view HRD as something done within organizations in order to improve organizational performance, and there is little concern with societal and global issues expressed in most HRD definitions (Garavan and Carbery, 2012). Accordingly, HRD interventions include training and staff development activities and organization development activities.

These definitions are extended somewhat by the concept of strategic human resource development (SHRD). Gilley and Maycunich Gilley (2003) state that HRD which is strategically integrated will create a results-based philosophy of human resource activities in organizations, transforming organizations from using activity-based to results-based HRD programming. Therefore, according to the authors every employee will be aligned with the strategy of the organization in everything they do; furthermore, human resource activities and initiatives are not confined to just one department (for example the training section), but are the responsibility of every employee, supervisor, manager and executive. Such joint responsibility for the outcomes or results of HRD programs will result in organizational transformation (Gilley and Maycunich Gilley, 2003). The authors provide a model for conceptualizing six transformational roles which will lead to strategic integration of HRD programs so that results-based HRD can be achieved.

Using a different approach to conceptualizing SHRD, Gibb (2011) provides a review of how HRD can be used in support of strategy. According to Gibb (2011) SHRD activities depend on how strategy itself is framed and contextualized. For example, a first way of framing SHRD is around the process and associated products of strategic planning. Four possible types of HRD interventions are possible in support of strategy development: “strategic thinking (to assist with creating a vision for an organization), strategic definition (to define and elaborate the value proposition), strategic alignment (business model), and strategic enactment (projects and programs)” (Gibb, 2011 p. 316).

A second way of framing SHRD interventions in support of organizational strategy would be what Gibb (2011) refers to as “five C’s” (p. 316), with each “C” coming from a different management era, complete with corresponding definitions and practices. These five C’s are: controlling, coordinating, competing, constructing, and changing (Gibb, 2011). Each of these eras has certain practices which contribute to organizational performance in some manner, and furthermore, Gibb (2011) points out that change and learning are central features of these five C’s. It is noteworthy that learning and change are also featured as two of three pillars of SHRD by Gilley and Maycunich Gilley (2003) in their conceptualization of SHRD.

A third way of framing SHRD  would be to think of HRD activities and programs supporting “cost, innovation, execution, relationship, channel and brand concerns organizations have” (Gibb, 2011 p 317). HRD practices that “improve work practices, create protected space, expand and deepen capabilities, inspire trust and loyalty, enhance knowledge and communication and promote ideas and identity” (Gibb, 2011 p. 317) would help organizations to “respectively, optimise value chain, exploit R&D, refine business processes, leverage networks, and alliances, develop market access and manage customers” (Gibb, 2011 p. 317). As a result of these varying ways to frame HRD in a strategic context, Gibb (2011) says SHRD is applicable to a wide range of organizational contexts, including organizations whose strategies focus on cost optimization, innovation, execution, relationships, communication channels, and brands.

Despite these conceptualizations of SHRD which appear to offer organizations various benefits, some scholars have criticised SHRD on several grounds. Garavan and Carbery (2012) summarize four criticisms. First, there is an assumption that HRD professionals are important stakeholders in an organization. Garavan and Carbery (2012) point out that this is not the case in all organizations. Secondly, SHRD conceptualizations are situated within a Taylorist managerialist perspective that “emphasizes organizational needs and de-emphasizes employee needs” (Garavan  and Carbery, 2012 p. 25). Thirdly, SHRD is conceptualized “in a vertical way rather than as a multi-dimensional” (Garavan  and Carbery, 2012 p. 25) concept. Finally, Garavan  and Carbery (2012) point out that some early models of SHRD did not include consideration of what line managers, executives, and other stakeholders had as roles and responsibilities. However subsequent models did provide more elaboration about what these stakeholders did within SHRD programs (Garavan  and Carbery, 2012).

A further criticism is pointed out by Gibb (2011), namely that research has not demonstrated a link between SHRD activities and organization performance. As a result of this lack, Gibb (2011) points out that SHRD activities are often seen as costs to the organization with no hard proof available regarding what benefit is to be derived from these activities. This lack of empirical evidence increases the chances that SHRD programs will be cut during times of financial restraint, according to Gibb (2011). Put another way, the author says “the knowledge bases and disciplines that underpin research and practice in employment and SHRD are just not secure enough to influence strategizing substantially” (Gibb, 2011 p 320). The challenge for HRD professionals, therefore, is to acticulate carefully how HRD interventions can provide strategic value to organizations.

In future posts more recent research is reviewed which demonstrates that SHRD initiatives focusing on sustainability, in particular environmental sustainability, can provide benefits to organizations. It is possible to demonstrate direct links to an organization’s bottom line from SHRD and environmental sustainability efforts implemented in organizations.

References:

Garavan, T. & Carbery, R. (2012). Strategic human resource development. In J. Wilson (Ed.)        International Human Resource Development (pp. 23-44). Philadelphia, PA. Kogan Page.

Gibb, S. (2011). Human Resource Development – Foundations, Processes, Contexts (3^rd Ed.).       New York, NY: Palgrave.

Gilley, J.W. & Maycunich Gilley, A. (2003). Strategically integrated HRD (2^nd Ed.).          Cambridge, MA: Perseus.

Swanson, R.A. & Holton III, E.F. (2009). Foundations of Human Resource Development (2^nd      Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.