History of HRD in India 

It was 25 years ago that our country witnessed the emergence of a new HRD culture in our country with Prof Udai Pareek and Prof T.V.Rao heading the movement. What started as a "Review Exercise of the Performance Appraisal System" for L&T by two consultants, Prof Udai Pareek and Prof T.V. Rao from the Indian Institute Of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA), resulted in the development of a new function - The HRD Function.  In the early seventies, this company, in association with IIMA the reviewed all aspects of its operations. In 1974, the consultants studied the organisation and prepared a new integrated system called Human Resource Development ( HRD) System. This was probably the first of its kind in India. The new system clearly established the linkages between the various personnel related aspects such as performance appraisal, employee counselling, potential appraisal training, etc. Prof Pareek and Prof Rao presented an approach paper to the top management on the new ideas and this was accepted. The Company wanted the implementation also to be done by the consultants, as it was not sure that enough expertise was available on the human process within the organisation. The consultants, however felt that L&T managers had enough competence and insisted that an internal team undertake this task. Thus, the work was undertaken by an internal team with the help of the consultants and this was very satisfying.  Based on the recommendations of the approach paper, a very high level role was created at the Board level to give a greater thrust to the new system. A separate HRD Department was created. A high level internal team headed by a General Manager, monitored the progress of implementation of the new system initially, which was subsequently handed over to the HRD Department. The HRD system has since then been reviewed from time to time and improvements made, retaining the basic philosophy. The original consultancy reports of Dr. Udai Pareek and Dr. T.V.Rao have sown the seeds for this new function and new profession. This pioneering work of Dr. Rao and Dr. Pareek lead later top the establishment of HRD Departments in the State Bank Of India and its Associates, and Bharat Earth Movers Limited in Bangalore in 1976 and 1978.  The first HRD workshop to discuss HRD concepts and issues was held at IIMA in 1979. Several chapters of the book which was later published by Oxford & IBH as "Designing and Managing Human Resource Systems" were distributed in this workshop. This workshop was the beginning of spreading the HRD message.  In subsequent years beginning 1980 a series of workshops were held to develop HRD Facilitators, both at IIMA and in the Indian Society for Applied Behavioural Sciences (ISABS). IIMA workshops focussed in the conceptual parts and ISABS on experiental part. As HRD started growing Larsen &

Toubro instituted a HRD Chair Professorship at XLRI, Jamshedpur. Dr. T.V.Rao moved to XLRI as L&T Professor in 1983 to set up the Centre for HRD.  Subsequently, a National Seminar was organised in Bombay during February 1985 jointly by XLRI Centre for HRD and the HRD Department of Larsen & Toubro. The National HRD Network was conceived during this seminar. The first HRD Newsletter was started consequent to this seminar by the Centre for HRD for XLRI and was sponsored by L&T. the National HRD Network took shape and became a large body with about 20 chapters in the subsequent five year period.  The National HRD Network was nurtured by IIMA and XLRI on the one hand and by the corporate sector on the other. The National HRD Network later gave birth to the Academy of Human Resources Development. This is the first family tree of HRD in India.

European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)

486

Definitions of HRD: Key Concepts from a National and

International Context

Haslinda Abdullah

Associate Professor, Faculty of Economics & Management

Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Selangor, Malaysia

E-mail: hba@putra.upm.edu.my; drhaslinda@gmail.com

Tel: +03-89467638

Abstract

Numerous attempts to define human resource development (HRD) by academics,

researchers and practitioners are proving that this concept is confusing and elusive. The

purpose of this paper is to analyse definitions of HRD on the basis of key concepts of

evolving HRD, HRD from a national context and international HRD. This paper is based

on data and information gathered through a review of targeted literature on HRD. Providing

a single definition of HRD may not be feasible or practical. It is suggested that HRD be

defined at three levels, namely: general (macro-level), national (micro-level) and

international (global level).

Introduction

Numerous attempts to define human resource development (HRD) by academics, researchers and

practitioners have led to confusion in the literature, illustrating the elusive nature of this concept. This

suggests that a distinctive conceptual or theoretical definition of HRD has not yet been established, and

this issue has hence become a subject of constant debate and discourse (Weinberger, 1998; McLean &

McLean, 2001; Wang & McLean, 2007). The process of defining HRD is made still more difficult by

the evolving nature of HRD; for example, the term HRD started out as simply “training”, and then

evolved into “training and development” (T&D), and then into HRD. However, McGoldrick et al

(2002) suggest that the process of defining HRD is thwarted by the lack of boundaries and parameters

and the lack of depth of empirical evidence of some conceptual aspects of HRD, such as strategic

HRD, learning organization and knowledge management. Confusion also arises over the “purpose”, the

“location” and the “intended beneficiary” of HRD. This is further complicated by attempts to define

HRD from an international or global perspective (McLean & McLean, 2001; Wang & McLean, 2007).

The emerging field of national HRD (NHRD) have also been explored and debated and has had notable

influence on the definition of HRD.

A single definition for HRD has been suggested by Watkins (1991), which focuses on learning,

whilst Swanson (1995) focuses on performance. However, disagreement arises, with some authors

arguing that it is not possible or feasible to provide a single definition of this concept (Ruona, 2000;

Lee, 2001; Dilworth, 2003). This lack of agreement has been further aggravated by the epistemological

and ontological perspectives of individual stakeholders, commentators and scholars in the field of HRD

(Swanson et al, 2000). There is still the issue of trying to differentiate HRD and T&D, clarify the

relationship between HRD and Human Resource Management (HRM) and identify the scope of HRD

activities.

In reviewing the literature surrounding the meaning and understanding of HRD, a number of

dimensions can be seen to be influencing the evolving and complicated nature of HRD. This paper

does not attempt to present all the emerging dimensions but rather to discuss various characteristics

that have greatly influenced HRD or what are seen to be the most significant dimensions in HRD. European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)

487

Therefore, the aim of this paper is to examine and understand the definition of HRD from various

perspectives, starting by differentiating T&D and HRD, before going on to discuss the general

purposes and functions of HRD, the intended beneficiaries of HRD, the framework of HRD from a

country’s perspective, and the attempt to define international HRD (IHRD).

Defining T&D and HRD

The definition of HRD has attracted a great deal of discourse as writers have tried to differentiate HRD

from T&D (McGoldrick et al, 2002; Garavan et al, 1999; Harrison, 2000). The Manpower Services

Commission (1982:62) provided separate and lengthy definitions for training and development.

First, training was defined as a “planned process to modify attitude, knowledge or skills

through learning experiences to achieve effective performance in an activity or range of activities. Its

purpose, in the work situation, is to develop the abilities of the individual and to satisfy the current and

future needs of the organisation”.

A second, separate definition was given for development, which was defined as “the growth or

realisation of a person’s ability through conscious or unconscious learning, which usually includes

elements of planned study and experience supported by coaching and counselling” (Wilson, 1999).

By contrast, Nadler and Nadler (1989:4) provided a shorter and simpler definition of training

and development in which training was defined as “learning provided by employers related to the

present job” and development was defined as “learning for growth of the individual but not related to

a specific present or future job”.

Defining T&D has been quite straightforward, as writers have separated the meanings of

training and development and created a separate definition for each word. However, defining HRD has

not been so straightforward, and the issue is continuously being debated by writers and researchers. For

example, Blake (1995) claimed that the field of HRD “defies definition and boundaries”. Weinberger

(1998) argued that there seems to be no consensus, despite the fact that numerous efforts have been

made to define HRD. On the other hand, Lee (2001) contested that some writers refused to define HRD

and it could not be defined sufficiently. However, it is still important to analyse and differentiate HRD

from T&D. The first definition of HRD was offered by Harbison and Myers (1964) as “…the process

of increasing the knowledge, the skills and the capacities of all the people in a society. In economic

terms, it could be described as the accumulation of human capital and its effective investment in the

development of an economy. In political terms, HRD prepares people for adult participation in the

political process, particularly as citizens in a democracy. From the social and cultural points of view,

the development of human resources helps people lead fuller and richer lives, less bound to tradition.

In short, the processes of HRD unlock the door to modernization”. However, this definition is very

broad in perspective, as it defines HRD in relation to culture, the economy and social and political

contexts rather than individuals and organizations. Hence, Nadler and Nadler (1970) defined HRD as

“…a series of organised activities conducted within a specified time and designed to produce

behavioural change” and the latest definition is that HRD is “a set of systematic and planned activities

designed by an organisation to provide its members with the opportunities to learn necessary skills to

meet current and future job demands”.

From these definitions, commonalities can be seen in the theoretical concepts and purposes of

HRD and T&D, in that they both provide human resources with learning and education to improve

performance. This view is supported by Nadler and Nadler (1989), who agree that HRD and T&D are

capable of bringing about improved performance, whilst Weinberger (1998) contends that the

evolution of HRD and T&D has brought forward two continuing themes of learning and performance

improvement. However, writers such as Desimone et al (2000), Harrison (2000), and Stead and Lee

(1996) argue that HRD and T&D are different in terms of their roles and strategies. T&D’s role has

been claimed to extend far beyond training, to encompass coaching, counselling and the selection of

human resources (Nadler & Nadler, 1989). It has been argued that HRD is a strategic and business European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)

488

approach to training and development of human resources in an organisation for performance and

organisational improvement (Garavan, 1995a; Harrison, 2000).

HRD and T&D may be similar in their concepts and purposes, but HRD is different in that it

has roles that extend far beyond training and development (Stead and Lee, 1996). HRD is a

strategically orientated organisational process for managing the development of human resources and

is strategically associated with employees’ T&D and overall business success (Harrison, 2000).

Therefore, in short, HRD is an extension of T&D, which includes a strategic dimension, whereas T&D

is a role in implementing HRD. Having clarified the difference between T&D and HRD, this leads to a

discussion of the key concepts underlying HRD.

General Purposes and Functions of HRD

Behind the theoretical debates concerning the nature of HRD, there is a set argument pertaining to the

purpose of HRD. The purposes of HRD are said to influence the nature and extent of HRD activities

being implemented (McLean and McLean, 2001). Holton (2000) proposes that the purposes of HRD

are centred on learning and performance perspectives, both benefiting the individual and the interests

of shareholders. In a wider perspective, Hatcher (2000) argues that the purposes centre on economic

benefits, social benefits and the ethics of HRD. These points indirectly suggest that a reconciliation of

the purposes of HRD centrally focus on training, development and learning within organisations for

individual development to achieve business strategies and for the development of organisational

competence (Gourlay, 2001). In general, the purpose of HRD, extracted from the definitions above, is

to enhance individual performance and improve organisational effectiveness and productivity (see, for

example, McLagan, 1989; Chalofsky, 1992; Stewart & McGoldrick, 1996).

However, some definitions have very specific purposes, from behavioural change (Nadler,

1970; Chalofsky & Lincoln, 1983; Megginson et al, 2000) to developing a learning climate or learning

organisation (Marquardt & Engel, 1993; Marsick & Watkins, 1994: see Table1). Moreover, in

consonance with globalisation and new technology, the purpose of HRD is to meet regulatory

requirements, improving quality and training for implementing new technology (Parker & Coleman,

1999; Rothwell & Kolb, 1999).

Conversely, the purpose of HRD could also be seen from the perspective of the activities or key

functions in HRD. The main key functions of HRD are individual development, organisational

development, career development and performance improvement. In analysing the various definitions

of HRD, most writers and researchers have indicated that the primary focus of HRD is individual

development (see for example, Nadler, 1970; McLagan, 1983) or organisational development (Nadler

& Wiggs, 1986; Swanson, 1987). However, some researchers have argued that individual and

organisational development are connected and interrelated. From this perspective, employees are

expected to be provided with T&D or learning activities to improve performance, which leads to

organisational effectiveness (see, for example, Chaflofsky, 1992; Swanson, 1995; Stewart &

McGoldrick, 1996). On the contrary, it has been argued that when T&D is provided, other than for

organisational effectiveness, it helps to develop key competencies, which enable individuals to

improve their current job performance and enhance future performance for career development (Gilley

& Eggland, 1989; Marsick & Watkins, 1994; Desimone, et al, 2002: see Table 1). Hence, it has been

argued that the purpose of HRD is to develop an individual’s career progression, rather than to

encourage individual and organisational development (Marsick & Watkins, 1994; Desimone et al,

2002; Gilley et al, 2002).

Nevertheless, another key purpose of HRD drawn out from the various definitions is

performance improvement. It has been claimed that performance forms one of the four key functions of

HRD, as it is an important extension of HRD theory (see, for example, Smith, 1990; Chalofsky, 1992;

Marquardt & Engel, 1993; Swanson, 1995; Desimone et al, 2002; Gilley et al, 2002). Hence, individual

development, organisational development, career development and performance development are the

four main functions of HRD and can be described as interrelated functions within HRD. However, European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)

489

some researchers hold contrasting viewpoints on these four functions (see, for example, Nadler, 1970;

Craig, 1976; Chalofsky & Lincoln, 1983). In summary, the purposes of HRD can be easily illustrated

as depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Interrelated Functions of HRD

Performance

Improvement

(PM)

Individual

Development

(T&D)

Organisational

Development

(Change

Management)

Career

Planning &

Development

HRD

Figure 2: Purposes of HRD

Improve quality

Improve productivity

Organisational

Development

Individual

Development

Regulatory

Requirement

Systems

Development

Economic benefits

Social benefits

Ethics

New technology

Behavioural change

Performance improvement

Increase productivity

Learning organisation

HRD

Career

Development

Performance

Improvement

Performance improvement

Motivation

Therefore, it is clear from the various positions of different writers and researchers that there is

no consensus regarding the conceptual and theoretical purpose and functions of HRD. The purposes of

HRD could be said to be changing and evolving in accordance with organisational strategies and goals.

Moreover, the concepts and purposes of HRD are suggested to be in consonance with the individual

country’s requirements and structure (McLean & McLean, 2001).

Theoretical Framework of HRD by Country

The theoretical framework of HRD can be viewed from a general context, as discussed above, or from

a more specific context, such as a national context. Indeed, it has been reported that the theoretical

framework of HRD varies from one country to another due to economic influences, political factors,

government legislation and the country’s value system (McLean and McLean, 2001). These influences

are particularly influential in shaping the development of human resources (Lee, 2003; Harrison &

Kessels, 2004). The theoretical and conceptual framework of HRD varies by country according to three

dimensions, namely the scope of activities within HRD, the intended audience for development and the

national purposes of HRD (McLean and McLean, 2001). European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)

490

Scope of HRD Activities

Most countries equate HRD with T&D and the main focus is on activities related to training. This

viewpoint is seen in countries such as Russia (Ardishvilli, 1998), Germany (Kuchinke, 1998) and

Korea (Park, 1998; McLean and McLean, 2001). On the other hand, in other countries, the scope of

HRD is seen to be very broad, encompassing activities related to the possibility of developing human

resources’ physical, emotional, spiritual and intellectual improvement as well as improving their

technical and productive skills (Busaya and Na Chiangmai, 1998 in Thailand; Osman-Gani, 2000 in

Singapore; and Rao, 1996 in India). These countries’ HRD activities may seem to be at the extreme of

the spectrum, but most countries seemed to be more focused on activities related to learning,

performance improvement, behavioural and attitudinal change as well as changing organisational

culture: see, for example, McGoldrick and Stewart (1996) in the UK; Streumer (1998) in the

Netherlands; Yan and McLean (1998) in China. The scope of HRD activities in some countries seems

to have followed the US definition of HRD, which was discussed earlier in this section. These

countries have primarily included T&D, organization and career development in their HRD functions

(see, for example, Wallace, 1998, in Canada) as well as focusing on activities related to social

development: (see, for example, Sechaud 1998 on France and Busaya and Na Chiangmai 1998 on

Thailand). Nevertheless, some countries such as Germany (Kuchinke, 1998) and Korea (Park, 1998) do

not define HRD at all, and others, such as Cote d’Ivoire (Hansen, 1998) and Taiwan (Kuo and

McLean, 1999) think of HRD as human resource and personnel functions (McLean and McLean,

2001). The focus on HRD activities among these countries varies in accordance to the individual

country’s perception and acknowledgment of HRD, which may change with the evolution of

knowledge and the influence of globalisation.

Intended Beneficiaries and Purposes of HRD

The intended beneficiaries for which HRD activities are developed and the purposes of HRD are

derived by analysing the national context of the definitions of HRD. Within this dimension, most of the

countries investigated have focused mainly on developing the individual and the organisation through

T&D and career development activities for individuals and organizational development initiatives for

the organization as the targeted recipients of HRD activities (see for example, Yan and McLean, 1998

in China; McLagan, 1998 in America; Short, 1998 in Australia and Wallace, 1998 in Canada cited in

McLean and McLean, 2001). However, even though their intended beneficiaries may be similar, the

purposes of HRD are varied. For instance, the primary purpose of HRD in Australia is to improve

organisational effectiveness and individual performance (Short, 1998), whilst HRD activities in

countries such as Singapore, France and Taiwan aim to benefit the nation rather than the individual or

the organisation (Osman-Gani, 1998; Sechaud, 1998; and Kuo and McLean, 1999). Interestingly,

Thailand, the UK, Russia and India have other purposes for HRD. For instance, HRD activities in

Thailand are to benefit the community (Busaya and Na Chiangmai, 1998), whereas they are primarily

to benefit academics in the UK (McGoldrick and Stewart, 1996), to benefit groups in Russia

(Ardishvilli, 1998) and finally, to improve the HRD process in India (Rao, 1998; McLean and McLean,

2001). This suggests that each country has its own unique purposes for HRD. Indeed, the driving

forces for HRD in an individual country may be associated with the main purposes of HRD from the

internal environment (organisation) and from the external environment (national requirements). This is

usefully summarised in Figure 3.

Following the above premise, the theoretical and conceptual contexts of HRD are heavily influenced

by the country’s economy, government and legislation. For instance, Russia and China are countries in

transition from a planned economy to a free-market economy, as a result of which they are facing

competitive challenges in the global economy. HRD in these countries is mainly in response to their

economic perspectives (Ardishvilli, 1998; Kuo and McLean, 1998). On the other hand, France is a

country where the government plays a significant role in HRD and is involved in HRD policy setting

and implementation (Sechaud, 1998). The same applies to Singapore, a developing country in the European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)

491

South East Asia region - its HRD is heavily influenced and supported by the Government to enhance

its economic and national development (Osman-Gani, 2000). The above propositions suggest that

differences in the countries’ definitions are at least partly due to their form or economic growth, and

these definitions may change according to the country’s development (McLean and McLean, 2001).

Figure 3: Intended Beneficiary and Purposes of HRD

External

HRD

Internal • Individual Development

• Performance Improvement

• Organisational development

• Teams’ and groups’ development

• Improve HRD process

• Economic & national development

• Social & community development

• To benefit the academics

Influences on National HRD

In general, given the various theoretical concepts of national HRD discussed above, there seem to be

various dimensions that influence the conceptual theory of HRD. From a more general perspective, the

conceptual theory of HRD is seen to have been influenced by the purpose and scope of activities within

HRD, whilst from the national perspective, HRD is shaped by each individual country’s value system,

as well as the point of the life-cycle of HRD in the particular country. The notion of company status

(such as local or multinational) or size may have some degree of influence on the organization’s

culture and value system as well as the perceptions and theoretical concepts of HRD. Therefore, the

influences on HRD practice, such as the intended audiences and beneficiaries, scope of activities,

national legislation, the government’s political influence and also the country’s economic stance are

seen to shape how HRD is being practiced, as summarised in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Influences on National HRD

Country’s

economy

Government

& Culture

National

legislation

Scope

of

activities

Intended

audiences

Intended

beneficiaries

HRD European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)

492

Defining Global or International HRD

Defining global or international HRD (IHRD) can be very difficult, as HRD has evolved differently in

different countries. This can be seen from the array of individual countries’ definitions above. A

number of attempts to define IHRD have been made. As early as 1991, Peng, Peterson & Shyi offered

a definition of IHRD that focuses only on organizations, ignoring the elements of culture or country.

Then in 1997, Peterson defined IHRD, subdividing it into three categories: first, HRD in a culture other

than the US; second, intercultural or transnational HRD between two or more countries; and third,

general cross-cultural HRD or HRD in an international joint venture. Wang & McLean (2007) argue

that these definitions are still US-centric and consider HRD only in business organizations, excluding

other relevant dimensions related to globalisation and internationalisation. McLean and McLean (2001)

propose the following global definition of HRD:

“…any process or activity that, either initially or over the long term, has the potential to

develop adults’ work-based knowledge, expertise, productivity and satisfaction, whether for

personal or group or team gain, or for the benefit of an organisation, community, nation or

ultimately, the whole of humanity” (pp.322).

However, Metcalfe and Rees (2005) later proposed that IHRD should be divided into three

categories, as suggested by Peterson (1997), but their definition focuses on global HRD, comparative

HRDD and national HRD:

IHRD is a broad term that concerns processes that address the formulation and practice of

HRD systems, practices and policies at the global, societal and organization level. It can

concern itself with how governments and international organizations develop and nurture

international managers and how they develop global HRD systems; it can incorporate

comparative analyses of HRD approaches across nations and also how societies develop

national HRD policies (p.455).

The latest definition of IHRD, put forward by Wang & McLean (2007), is broader in context,

encompassing individual, organizational, cultural, economic, community, social, political and crossnational dimensions. This definition takes into account the countries’ economic, political and legal

influences in defining IHRD. However, McLean and McLean (2001) claim that a single definition of

HRD for the global context might not be possible, as the work environment is constantly changing and

evolving. Moreover, as discussed earlier, the purposes, theoretical concepts and influences of HRD

vary between countries in consonance with their internal (organisational) and external (national)

environments. Indeed, Ruona (2000) suggests that the pursuit of a single global definition of HRD is

‘not a worthy cause’, as it will never achieve consensus. Nevertheless, as this is the first global

definition of HRD, McLean and McLean (2001) intend it to serve as a starting point for researchers to

further discuss HRD from a global perspective, which may provide new insights into global HRD.

Conclusion

Globalisation and internationalisation undoubtedly have a significant impact on the business and

economic activity of any organisation at both the national and the international level, thus impacting on

the field of HRD (Yaw, McGovern & Budhwar, 2000). The definition of HRD has been a challenge

and a subject of continuous discourse among scholars and practitioners. By reviewing the literature on

HRD, this article has demonstrated the importance of defining or understanding HRD at three levels:

the general perspective (macro-level), the national perspective (micro-level) and the international level

(global arena). From a general perspective, key concepts such as the history, purposes and functions of

HRD are incorporated. At the national level, the intended beneficiaries of HRD, the scope of activities

and other influences such as culture, political and economic factors and legislation form a basis from

which to define HRD. In the broader international arena, an extension from the national level to

encompass dimensions of international relationships and the benefits of HRD to the community and the

society serve as foundations for the definition of IHRD. European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)

493

This article does not set out to agree or disagree with any of the definitions prescribed, but

rather to present a review of the literature on the numerous definitions of HRD from different

perspectives. Extensive efforts have been made to define HRD at the three levels, but a single

definition of HRD is neither practical nor feasible, given the complexity and evolving nature of HRD.

However, it is hoped that this complexity will challenge and motivate scholars and researchers to

continuously investigate the field of HRD.

References

[1] Blake, R. R. (1995) Memories of HRD. Training and Development, pp. 22-28

[2] Busaya and Na Chiangmai, (1998) in McLean, G. N. and McLean, L. (2001) If we can't define

HRD in one country, how can we define it in an international context?. Human Resource

Development International, 4 (3): pp. 313-326

[3] Chalofsky, N. (1992) A unifying definition for the human resource development profession.

Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3: pp.175

[4] Desimone, R.L., Werner, J.M. and Harris, D.M.(2002) Human Resource Development. (3

rd

ed)

Orlando, Harcourt College Publishers

[5] Dilworth, L. (2003) Searching for the future of HRD. Advances in Developing Human

Resources, 5 (3): pp. 241-244

[6] Garavan, T. N. (1995a) Stakeholders and strategic human resource development. Journal of

European Industrial Training, 19 (10): pp. 11-16

[7] Garavan, T.N., Heraty, N., and Barnicle, B. (1999) Human resource development literature:

Current issues, priorities and dilemmas. Journal of European Industrial Training, 23 (4-5): pp.

169-179

[8] Gilley, J.W., Eggland, S.A. and Gilley, A.M. (2002) Principles of Human Resource

Development. (2

nd

ed) Cambridge, Perseus Publishing

[9] Gourlay, S. (2001) Knowledge management and HRD. Human Resource Development

International, 4 (1): pp. 27-46.

[10] Harada, K. (1999) The changing Japanese human resource development system. Two models

that enhance prediction and reflection of dynamic changes. Human Resource Development

International, 2 (4): pp. 255-368

[11] Harbison, F. and Myers, C. A. (1964) Education, manpower and economic growth: Strategies

of human resource development. New York: McGraw-Hill

[12] Harrison, R. (2000) Employee Development. (2

nd

ed) London, Institute of Personnel and

Development

[13] Harrison, R. and Kessels, J. (2004) Human Resource Development in a Knowledge Economy:

An Organisational View. New York: Palgrave MacMillan

[14] Haslinda Abdullah (2006) Human development practices in manufacturing firms in Malaysia,

Unpublished PhD thesis.

[15] Hatcher, T. (2000) A study of the influence of the theoretical foundations of human resource

development on research and practice. Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource

Development, North Carolina.

[16] Holton, III, E.F. (2000) Clarifying and defining the performance paradigm of human resource

development. Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development. North Carolina

[17] Lee, M. (2001) A refusal to define HRD. Human Resource Development International, 4 (3):

pp. 327-341

[18] Lee, M. (2003) HRD in a Complex World. London: Routledge

[19] Manpower Services Commission (1981) in Wilson, J. P. (1999) Human resource development.

Learning and training for individuals and organizations. London, Kogan Page European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)

494

[20] Marquardt, M. J. and Engel, D. (1993) Global Human Resource Development. London:

Prentice-Hall

[21] Marsick, V. and Watkins, K. (1994). The learning organization: An integrative vision for HRD.

Human Resource Quarterly, 5: pp. 353-360

[22] McGoldrick, J. and Stewart, J. (1996) The HRM-HRD nexus in Stewart, J. and McGoldrick, J.

(eds) Human Resource Development: Perspectives, Strategies and Practice. London: Prentice

Hall.

[23] McGoldrick, J., Stewart, J. and Watson, S.. (2002) Understanding Human Resource

Development: A research-based approach. London, Routledge

[24] McLagan, P. (1989) Models for HRD Practice. Alexandria, VA: ASTD

[25] McLean, G. N. and McLean, L. (2001) If we can't define HRD in one country, how can we

define it in an international context?. Human Resource Development International, 4 (3): pp.

313-326

[26] Megginson, D., Matthews, J.J. and Banfield, P. (2000) Human Resource Development. (2

nd

ed)

London, Kogan Page

[27] Metcalfe, B. D., & Rees, C. J. (2005) Theorizing advances in international human resource

development. Human Resource Development International, 8(4): pp. 449-465

[28] Nadler, L. and Nadler, Z. (1989) Developing Human Resources. San Francisco, California,

Jossey-Bass

[29] Nadler, L. and Wiggs, G. D.. (1986) Managing Human Resource Development. A practical

guide. San Francisco, California, Jossey-Bass Inc

[30] Osman_Gani, A. (1999) International technology transfer for competitive advantage: A

conceptual analysis of the role of HRD. Competitiveness Review, 9 (1): pp. 9-18

[31] Osman-Gani, A.A.M. and Tan, W.L (2000) Training and development in Singapore.

International Journal of Training and Development, 4 (4): pp. 305-323

[32] Parker, S. C. and Coleman, J. (1999) Training in the UK: Does national ownership matter?

International Journal of Training and Development, 3 (4): pp. 278-291

[33] Peng, T.K., Peterson, M.F., & Shyi, Y. (1991) Quantitative methods in cross-national

management research: Trend and equivalence issues. Journal of Organisational Behaviour,

12(2): pp.87-107

[34] Peterson, L. (1997) International HRD: What we know and what we don’t know. Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 8(1): pp63-79

[35] Rao, T.V. (1996) Human Resources Development: Experiences, Interventions and Strategies,

New Delhi: Sage

[36] Rothwell, W.J. and Kolb, J.A. (1999) Major workforce and workplace trends influencing the

training and development field in the USA. International Journal of Training and

Development, 3: pp. 44-53

[37] Ruona, W.E.A. (2000) Core beliefs in human resource development: A journal for the

professional and its professionals. Advances in Developing Human Resources, (7): pp. 1-28

[38] Stead, V. and Lee, M. (1996) Inter-cultural perspectives on HRD in Stewart, J. and

McGoldrick, J. (eds) Human Resource Development: Perspectives, Strategies and Practice.

London: Prentice Hall

[39] Stewart, J. and McGoldrick, J. (eds) (1996) Human Resource Development: Perspectives,

Strategies and Practice. London: Prentice Hall

[40] Streumer, J., Van Der Klink, V. and Van De Brink, K. (1999) The future of HRD. International

Journal of Lifelong Education, 18 (4): pp. 259-274

[41] Swanson, R. A. and Holton, III, E. F. (2001) Foundations of Human Resource Development.

San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.

[42] Swanson, R.A. (1995) Performance is the key. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6 (2):

pp. 207-220 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 (2009)

495

[43] Wang, X., & McLean, G. N. (2007) The dilemma of defining international human resource

development. Human Resource Development Review, 6(1): pp. 96-108

[44] Watkins, K.E. (1991) Many voices: Defining human resource development from different

disciplines. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(4): pp. 241-255

[45] Weinberger, L.A. (1998) Commonly held theories of human resource development. Human

Resource Development International, 1 (1): pp. 75-93

[46] Wilson, J. P. (1999) Human resource development. Learning and training for individuals and

organizations. London, Kogan Page

[47] Yan, B. & McLean, G. N. (1998) Human resource development in the People’s Republic of

China in Dilworth, R.L and Willis, V.J. (eds) Human Resource Development Cutting Edge:

The outstanding 1997 Conference Paper. Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource

Development and International Society for Performance Improvement, pp. 82-90

[48] Yaw, A.D., McGovern, I., & Budhwar, P. 2000) Complementaries or competition: The

development of human resources in South East Asia growth triangle – Indonesia, Malaysia and

Singapore. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(2): pp.314-355