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

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. 486

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 4 (2009) 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 countrys 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 persons 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&Ds 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 487

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 4 (2009) 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 individuals 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, 488

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 4 (2009) 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
Individual Development (T&D) Organisational Development (Change Management)

HRD
Career Planning & Development

Performance Improvement (PM)

Figure 2: Purposes of HRD

Economic benefits Social benefits Ethics Regulatory Requirement Increase productivity Learning organisation Organisational Development

Behavioural change Performance improvement Individual Development Performance improvement Motivation Career Development Systems New technology Development

HRD

Improve quality Improve productivity

Performance Improvement

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 countrys 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 countrys 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).

489

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 4 (2009) 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 dIvoire (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 countrys 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 countrys 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 490

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 4 (2009) 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 countrys development (McLean and McLean, 2001).
Figure 3: Intended Beneficiary and Purposes of HRD
Economic & national development Social & community development To benefit the academics

External HRD Internal Individual Development Performance Improvement Organisational development Teams and groups development Improve HRD process

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 countrys 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 organizations 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 governments political influence and also the countrys economic stance are seen to shape how HRD is being practiced, as summarised in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Influences on National HRD
Intended beneficiaries Countrys economy Intended audiences

HRD
Government & Culture National legislation Scope of activities

491

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 4 (2009) 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. 492

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 4 (2009) 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] [2] Blake, R. R. (1995) Memories of HRD. Training and Development, pp. 22-28 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 Chalofsky, N. (1992) A unifying definition for the human resource development profession. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3: pp.175 Desimone, R.L., Werner, J.M. and Harris, D.M.(2002) Human Resource Development. (3rd ed) Orlando, Harcourt College Publishers Dilworth, L. (2003) Searching for the future of HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5 (3): pp. 241-244 Garavan, T. N. (1995a) Stakeholders and strategic human resource development. Journal of European Industrial Training, 19 (10): pp. 11-16 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 Gilley, J.W., Eggland, S.A. and Gilley, A.M. (2002) Principles of Human Resource Development. (2nd ed) Cambridge, Perseus Publishing Gourlay, S. (2001) Knowledge management and HRD. Human Resource Development International, 4 (1): pp. 27-46. 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 Harbison, F. and Myers, C. A. (1964) Education, manpower and economic growth: Strategies of human resource development. New York: McGraw-Hill Harrison, R. (2000) Employee Development. (2nd ed) London, Institute of Personnel and Development Harrison, R. and Kessels, J. (2004) Human Resource Development in a Knowledge Economy: An Organisational View. New York: Palgrave MacMillan Haslinda Abdullah (2006) Human development practices in manufacturing firms in Malaysia, Unpublished PhD thesis. 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. 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 Lee, M. (2001) A refusal to define HRD. Human Resource Development International, 4 (3): pp. 327-341 Lee, M. (2003) HRD in a Complex World. London: Routledge Manpower Services Commission (1981) in Wilson, J. P. (1999) Human resource development. Learning and training for individuals and organizations. London, Kogan Page 493

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

[8] [9] [10]

[11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

[16] [17] [18] [19]

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 4 (2009) [20] [21] [22] Marquardt, M. J. and Engel, D. (1993) Global Human Resource Development. London: Prentice-Hall Marsick, V. and Watkins, K. (1994). The learning organization: An integrative vision for HRD. Human Resource Quarterly, 5: pp. 353-360 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. McGoldrick, J., Stewart, J. and Watson, S.. (2002) Understanding Human Resource Development: A research-based approach. London, Routledge McLagan, P. (1989) Models for HRD Practice. Alexandria, VA: ASTD 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 Megginson, D., Matthews, J.J. and Banfield, P. (2000) Human Resource Development. (2nd ed) London, Kogan Page Metcalfe, B. D., & Rees, C. J. (2005) Theorizing advances in international human resource development. Human Resource Development International, 8(4): pp. 449-465 Nadler, L. and Nadler, Z. (1989) Developing Human Resources. San Francisco, California, Jossey-Bass Nadler, L. and Wiggs, G. D.. (1986) Managing Human Resource Development. A practical guide. San Francisco, California, Jossey-Bass Inc 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 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 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 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 Peterson, L. (1997) International HRD: What we know and what we dont know. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8(1): pp63-79 Rao, T.V. (1996) Human Resources Development: Experiences, Interventions and Strategies, New Delhi: Sage 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 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 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 Stewart, J. and McGoldrick, J. (eds) (1996) Human Resource Development: Perspectives, Strategies and Practice. London: Prentice Hall 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 Swanson, R. A. and Holton, III, E. F. (2001) Foundations of Human Resource Development. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc. Swanson, R.A. (1995) Performance is the key. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6 (2): pp. 207-220 494

[23] [24] [25]

[26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

[34] [35] [36]

[37] [38]

[39] [40] [41] [42]

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 4 (2009) [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] Wang, X., & McLean, G. N. (2007) The dilemma of defining international human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 6(1): pp. 96-108 Watkins, K.E. (1991) Many voices: Defining human resource development from different disciplines. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(4): pp. 241-255 Weinberger, L.A. (1998) Commonly held theories of human resource development. Human Resource Development International, 1 (1): pp. 75-93 Wilson, J. P. (1999) Human resource development. Learning and training for individuals and organizations. London, Kogan Page Yan, B. & McLean, G. N. (1998) Human resource development in the Peoples 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 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

[48]

495