Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for Human Resource Development Review can be found at: Email Alerts: http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://hrd.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/12/2/117.refs.html
450868
garajaHuman Resource Development Review
HRD12210.1177/1534484312450868Ala
Human Resource Development Review 12(2) 117143 2012 SAGE Publications Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1534484312450868 hrd.sagepub.com
Abstract A systematic review of literature on the relationship of human resources (HR) and organizational performance (OP) revealed a dearth of contribution from human resource development (HRD) in establishing the linkage.This linkage, which refers to the significant relationship between HRD and OP, is an important topic relevant to research and practice. The review utilized OP as the dependent variable to survey the state of human resource literature and thus, includes contributions from human resource management (HRM).The literature review revealed similarities and differences in the conceptualization of OP as a dependent variable between the two fields. On further analysis, the similarities and differences reveal convergence in specific areas of inquiry as well as emphasize the underlying differences in the philosophical assumptions of HRD and HRM. The independent contributions of HRD and HRM in establishing the HROP linkage also reflect the utilization of diverse research designs, methods of data collection, analysis, and findings. Both fields have focused on strategic contributions for improving organizational performance and are very much connected in practice. Much of the separation therefore, appears to be academic where competing views highlight a tension that exists in theory, research and what we know about effective HRD or HRM in practice. Keywords human resource development, human resource management, organizational performance
Introduction
Senior executives consistently profess the importance of human resources (HR) in enhancing organizational performance (OP). The HR function, as a significant con1
Corresponding Author: Meera Alagaraja, Workforce & Human Resource Education Program, Department of Leadership, Foundations & Human Resource Education, University of Louisville, KY 40292, USA. Email: meera.alagaraja@louisville.edu
Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at DE LA SALLE UNIV LIBRARY on July 9, 2013
118
tributor in the development and management of people in organizations, is most often perceived as adding less value in comparison to other critical and essential business interests. HR departments are often underrepresented at the highest levels of the organization, where key business- and people-related decisions are made (Becker & Huselid, 2009). Strategic business priorities involving operations, processes, products, and services remain critical issues for senior leadership (Becker & Huselid, 2009). Not surprisingly, the vast majority of organizations assess performance primarily based on financial and economic indicators (Haggerty & Wright, 2009). Transforming the people are our most valued assets rhetoric into reality is by far one of the biggest challenges facing organizations today. Traditionally, organizations rely on the HR function in the management of employeeand job-related services such as recruitment, selection, payroll, benefits, employee relations, and legal issues. The strategic role in leveraging employee-related skills, abilities, and knowledge, as a source of competitive advantage, remains an aspirational goal for many HR departments. Few senior executives perceive a significant value and role for the HR function in the development of organization members (Barney & Wright, 1998). Although research has established that a high level of investment in HR practices and systems influences organizational-level outcomes such as labor productivity, turnover, profitability, sales growth, and quality (Bae & Lawler, 2000; Collins & Clark, 2003; Huselid, 1995; Huselid, Jackson, & Schuler, 1997; Lam & White, 1998), companies continue to focus on other organizational functions to achieve corporate goals. Nevertheless, the impact of HR in organizations is an area attracting increasing interest from scholars and practitioners.
Purpose Statement
As noted by Ruona and Gibson (2004), the distinction between human resource development (HRD) and human resource management (HRM) fields is blurring. Both fields have established HR as an important function in organizations. However, they disagree on the definition, role of HR in organizations and how to study that role. Each field focuses on different questions and provides unique understanding and perspectives about HR. Although scholars view these as competing perspectives, the increasing complexities in organizational contexts underline the need for drawing on the contributions of the two fields. This article argues for a pluralistic approach in treating HRD and HRM perspectives as complementary, and doing so provides an enriched understanding of HR in the scholarship and practice of HRD/M (human resource development and management). To demonstrate this, I build a case using literature from HRD and HRM by addressing HRD/M linkage to OP. Examining the link between OP and HRD/M is important and useful for assessing the value and impact of HR in organizations. The article compares and contrasts HRD with HRM from multiple perspectives such as ontology, epistemology and how the fields are understood (as a construct and/or as a practice). The article outlines some of the significant differences in understanding OP, how those differences developed, the
Alagaraja
119
implications of the differences, and how this improved understanding is helpful in bridging the researchpractice gap in HRD.
120
Table 2. Final Count of the Articles Reviewed on HRD and HRM. ABI/ INFORM 5 39 Total articles (repeat Social Sciences articles across the EBSCO Citation Index (SSCI) databases were removed) 9 30 4 163 16 232
decisions with respect to the search strategy. The first decision involved the selection of keywords that were defined at the outset to reduce researcher bias. The following keywords were selected for conducting the search in HRD and HRM literatures, respectively: HRD, OP and HRM, OP. The key-word search was performed using Google Scholar to conduct a preliminary assessment of the extent and scope of the review. The search furnished 32,300 results for HRM and 14,400 results for HRD. In order to manage the review process, a second decision was made to exclude practitioner reports, books, and other Internet outlets and narrow the list to peer-reviewed publications. The third decision was made to maintain consistency in the search findings. Thus, three databases (ABI/ Inform, EBSCO and SSCI) were commanded to refine the search linking HRD/M to OP. All the databases were accessed through online library resources. The fourth decision involved the development of a review protocol to further refine and narrow the final selection of articles for conducting the review and is presented in the next section. As mentioned before, the search was conducted separately for HRD and HRM. The search results were not limited to a specific date range to ensure full coverage of the topic. The keyword search was performed in the abstract and/or in the article title. This was to ensure that the central line of the research inquiry was consistent with the focus of the literature review. The final list of articles was reviewed, and any redundancies in the citations were removed. The results were verified by using peer member checking to ensure robustness of the review protocol. This was the last step in the refinement and selection of the final tally of the articles before performing the systematic review. Table 2 describes the search results across each database and the final count of articles that were included for the review. In addition to the articles identified using the above criteria, the HRD/M and OP landscape was carefully scanned to include seminal reviews of HRD and HRM literature. These articles helped the researcher develop an understanding of the important debates and scholarly conversations on the topic in both HRM and HRD. In addition to ensuring the robustness of the literature review process, the reference sections in the seminal reviews (Arthur & Boyles, 2007; Becker & Huselid, 1999; Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006; Ferris et al., 1998; Garavan, Morley, Gunnigle, & McGuire, 2002;
Alagaraja
121
Garavan, ODonnell, McGuire, & Watson, 2007; Jacobs, 2003; Kuchinke, 1996, 2003; Lengnick-Hall, Lengnick-Hall, Andrade, & Drake, 2009; McGuire, ODonnell, & Cross, 2005; Swanson, 1995; Wood, 1999; Wright & Boswell, 2002) were culled and compared to the overall publication pool that was laid out for review and analysis. It became apparent that fewer studies examined the HRD role in the OP area (16). The review of articles pertaining to the HRM -OP linkage, on the other hand, revealed a larger set of articles (232). The researcher made two decisions with respect to the analysis of the articles. The first decision related to the coding of the articles separately for the two fields. The thematic results from the analysis of HRM articles were not unique and in fact have been widely reported in the HRM literature (Arthur & Boyles, 2007; Becker & Huselid, 1999; Combs et al., 2006; Wright & Boswell, 2002). Despite the dearth of articles on the topic in the HRD literature, the contributions reveal a range of theoretical streams that reflect evolving interests, a general degree of confusion on what constitutes HRD, the intended audiences, and beneficiaries (Garavan et al., 2002, p. 9; McGuire, Garavan, ODonnell, & Watson, 2007). The first decision thus, entailed a close examination of the meaning of HRD/M and how it is studied. The second decision related to how OP is studied in HRD/M. Any substantive differences from this analysis were likely to surface underlying assumptions and values that define HRD and HRM. Variations if any, in the understanding of OP would be valuable in building knowledge and improving the practice of HRD. In the following section, the analysis of the articles identified from the literature review process is presented.
Coding scheme
Most scholars agree that OP is critical in the study of HRD and HRM in organizations. The adoption of OP as a common variable opened up a new line of interpreting the fundamental issues of how HRD and HRM scholars view HR in organizations. The empirical articles identified for the study guided the initial development of coding and category development in the literature review. The abstract from the final list of articles were coded separately for HRD and HRM. The initial coding adopted a chronological perspective in tracing the evolution and growth of the fields. Scholars hold different ontological views regarding each field (HRD and HRM). They also adopt different epistemologies for conducting research on the HRD and HRM linkage to OP. Based on the purpose of the systematic review, a 2 2 matrix was developed to assist the analysis. This organizing system (Table 3) helped in deriving the major themes of the study. The four cells from Table 2 form the four main themes from the literature. Each cell provides an unique but incomplete understanding of HR in organizations. By combining the insights from the four cells, the article hopes to provide a fuller understanding of areas of scholarship, which will benefit both fields and the practice of HR in organizations. The article begins by presenting the ontological views of HRM and HRD
122
Table 3. Organizing System for Coding and Analysis. Ontology HRD in relation to organizational performance HRM in relation to organizational performance What constitutes HRD? What constitutes HRM? Epistemology How do HRD scholars study OP? How do HRM scholars study OP?
scholars in relation to OP. This is followed by a discussion of the approaches both fields use for defining OP and the methods used for studying the linkage.
Alagaraja
123
HRM as a System
In recent years, several mediating constructs that enable or inhibit HRM system impact on OP have been identified. Becker, Huselid, Pickus, and Spratt (1997) recommended that HR departments direct their interest on macro-level business outputs and develop a systemic perspective since traditional HR role expectations appeared to have no apparent connection to OP. In Guests (1997) HR model, two intervening constructsHR outcomes (commitment, quality, and flexibility) and behavioral outcomes (effort/motivation, cooperation, involvement, and organizational citizenship) linked HR strategy and practices to firm-level performance outcomes. While developing an HR -firm performance model for software companies, Paul and Anantharaman (2003, p. 1249) defined a set of intervening variablesemployee competence, teamwork, organizational commitment and customer orientationto render causal linkages between HR practices and a firms performance (operational and financial). HRM practices aligned closely with organizational strategy reported higher financial outcomes (Delery & Doty, 1996; Huselid, 1995; Youndt, Snell, Dean, & Lepak, 1996). Although no single HR practice was found to have a direct causal connection with financial performance (Becker & Huselid, 2009), several HR practices, such as training, job design, compensation, and incentives, directly affected operational performance measures, namely, employee retention, employee productivity, product quality, speed of delivery, and operating cost. Of these, operational measures, employee retention, and, to some extent, employee productivity have been traditionally associated with HRM system outcomes, although these and a few individual HRM practices (job design, work environment) are dependent on enterprise-level dimensions such as organizational strategy and business orientation. HRM structure and design is determined by the organizations business and strategic initiatives (Becker & Huselid, 1999). As a formal system, HRM provides an important foundational support for training and performance. Although the quality of HRM system and outcomes is dependent on organizational-level business initiatives, scholars have taken the approach that HRM as a system is an important component that can help an organization become more effective and achieve competitive advantage (Becker & Huselid, 1999). A related perspective has framed HRM systemfirm performance linkage as a process through which a set of intervening variables are generally aligned in ways to ensure that the HRM system is a source for competitive advantage (e.g., Becker & Gerhart, 1996; Wright, McMahan, & McWilliams, 1994). Wright and Snell (1998) linked HRM practices to strategy by demonstrating a case of sustainable fit of HRM practices with company strategy. HRM practices aligned closely with organizational strategy reported higher financial outcomes (Delery & Doty, 1996; Huselid, 1995; Youndt et al., 1996). There is a lack of consensus on what constitutes HR systems or practices and how these individually or as a combination define the construct of HRM (Paauwe & Boselie, 2005). Different themes emerging
124
from the literature review HRM as best practices (Delery & Doty, 1996) or consider internal fit. While Boxall and Purcell (2003) argue the case for emphasizing both best practices and the internal fit approach. Wood (1999) noted internal, organizational, environmental, and strategic fit as four different types of fits that consider different linkages in establishing HR contribution to firm performance. The HRMOP linkage shaped the agenda of the HRM field in the 1990s and asserted the value and impact of HR in organizations. In addition to improving our understanding of the linkages between HRM and OP, the empirical conversations significantly influenced the formulation of strategic role for HR in organizations. The HRM discipline reframed the traditional role of HR departments from a maintenance/ administrative function to that of a strategic business partner. The intellectual roots of the field suggest that HRM contributions emphasize fuller integration of micro- and macro-level approach theories and analysis linking HR with organizational-level performance outcomes. This is an important perspective on the role and contribution of HR to the bottom-line performance in organizations. The underlying assumption of HRM suggests that the field values the managerial paradigm in that HR policies, practices, and systems are designed to enhance organizational and individual performance. Thus, investments in human capital benefit the performance of the organization. This overarching philosophy is also important to understand from an HRD perspective. In the following section, HRD perspectives on the linkage to OP are discussed.
Alagaraja
125
lacking (Katou, 2009). This is not a flaw, as HRD researchers highlight multilevel (individual, team, organizational) perspectives to establish the linkage to OP. This is in sharp contrast to the HRM field, which emphasizes a different vantage point.
126
practices, there is some similarity as both fields have investigated T&D practices extensively. In addition to this, three other practices (compensation, performance management, recruitment and selection) were reviewed extensively in the HRM literature. However, these practices may have different levels of impact on OP since HRM or HRD systems have been understood differently and are not comparable. This is especially true when comparing best-practices and best-fit concepts in both literatures. These concepts should be considered carefully in comparisons because the best-fit concept carries the influence of organization and the HRD/M or HRD practices on OP. Although scholars have argued that both concepts may be right in their own way (Boxall & Purcell, 2003), the best-fit approach highlights the importance of external and internal organizational contexts in the design and effectiveness of HRD/M best practices in the workplace (Paauwe, 2005). However, both approaches are important in exploring the HRM and HRD linkage to OP. Therefore, it is not surprising that OP is a common thread in comparing the research and practice of HRD or HRM in organizations. Some scholars have also used the term firm performance. Although the article does not view firm performance as an alternative concept to OP, the two phrases have been used interchangeably in HRD and HRM literature. It is interesting that both HRD and HRM scholars define OP using different sets of indicators. These divergent explanations represent different epistemologies in the study of HR in organizations. An analysis of how OP is defined, understood, and studied by HRM and HRD literature is presented in the next section.
Alagaraja
127
128
Organizational turnover. Huselid (1995) included two measures of turnover separately for exempt and nonexempt employees. The average annual turnover included both voluntary and involuntary departures. Richard and Johnson (2001) collected annual turnover measures for nonexempt employees as a measure of organizational turnover. Industry-specific turnover measures were analyzed by Shaw, Delery, Jenkins, and Gupta (1998). Measures of driver turnover as a percentage of total firm employment were reported separately for both voluntary and involuntary separations in their study. Corporate financial performance. Standard market-based measures of short-term (annual) profitabilitygross rate of return on assets (GRATE)were utilized as measures of OP (Bae & Lawler, 2000; Huselid, 1995; Huselid et al., 1997). Traditional measures of accounting profits such as the return on assets and return on equity were calculated (d Arcimoles, 1997; Delery & Doty, 1996; Lam & White, 1998; Lee & Chee, 1996; Lee & Miller, 1999). Return on equity, the ultimate measure of the financial strength of the institution, was included in some studies (Delery & Doty, 1996; Lee & Chee, 1996; Richard & Johnson, 2001). Two research studies also measured stock performance by the extent to which firms maximized shareholder value by assessing the annual growth rate of the organizations stock market value (Collins & Clark, 2003; Lam & White, 1998). Profitability. Increased firm profitability over a period was another OP measure utilized in the identified literature (Bae & Lawler, 2000; Banker, Lee, Gordon, & Srinivasan, 1996). Several studies included both profitability and sales growth as a combination to assess OP (Perry-Smith & Blum, 2000; Terpstra & Rozell, 1993; Wright et al., 2003). Simons, Pelled, and Smith (1999) conceived top management performance in terms of increased firm profitability and sales. Wright et al. (2003) also incorporated operating expenses as an OP measure. Sales growth. Another important measure of OP was the calculation of the average annual growth in sales for a specific period. This measure was used to indicate the extent to which customers accepted the firms products and services (Bae & Lawler, 2000; Collins & Clark, 2003; Lam & White, 1998; Lee & Chee, 1996; Simons et al.,1999). In another study, individual average monthly sales were developed to assess sales productivity (Batt, 1999). Quality. Self-reported measures of quality were reported by respondents indicating their work groups service quality as well as product service quality improvements, according to Bae and Lawler (2000) and Batt (1999). MacDuffie (1995) and Wright et al. (2003) measured the number of defects or errors per pieces of the vehicles emphasizing fit and finish of the final product. Shaw, Gupta, and Delery (2001) captured quality as a ratio of out-of-service percentage due to driver fault to the total number of inspections. Montemayor (1996) also added effort performance as a measure to estimate the percent of employees who manifested extra-role behavior that improved the overall quality performance of the organization. Customer satisfaction data was also utilized to capture long-term performance data (Banker et al., 1996). In addition, the ratio of workers compensation expenses to sales (Wright et al., 2003) and accident frequency ratio (Shaw et al., 2001) were other quality-related measures adopted as a measure of OP.
Alagaraja
129
130
inquiry has seldom moved beyond individual and team processes, structuring interventions at these two levels, and long-term emphasis on training, learning, and development. As the literature demonstrates, the connection of human effort to organizational outcome can be tenuous. Multilevel empirical research demonstrating cause at one level (person) and effect at another (organization) is complex. It is not necessarily a flaw or gap in HRD literature because the discipline and its foundations are not as focused as HRM on OP outcomes. This is an important and fundamental issue that is discussed in the following section. The analysis of the literature review considered the following measures of OP in HRM: productivity, market performance, organizational turnover, financial performance, profitability, sales growth, and quality. The following measures of OP were considered in HRD: turnover intention, learning organization characteristics, and strength of HR orientation. The measures with respect to HRM refer to ultimate measures in the HRMOP relationship, the measures with respect to HRD refer to mediation measures in the HRDOP relationship. It is apparent that the performance outcomes of HRD are captured through the use of mediation measures. In contrast, HRM utilizes financial outcomes (profits, sales, market share, Tobins q, GRATE), organizational outcomes (productivity, quality), and mediation measures similar to HRD (satisfaction, commitment, and turnover intention) to conceptualize OP. In the next section, I discuss the key findings from the literature review highlighting the differences in approaches in the two fields in identifying and exploring the dependent variable and the underlying philosophies that guide and inform them.
Discussion
The scholarly conversations pertaining to HRD definitions reveal divergent perspectives in understanding the role of HRD at multiple levels of the organizations (and at the national level) for the purpose of enhancing learning and performance. Given the multiplicity of perspectives in HRD, numerous theories and theoretical frameworks thus, inform the field and continue to energize the scholarly conversations that expand the field. In comparison, the HRM focus is concerned with the scholarly debates over the best-practice versus best-fit approach, the components of the HRM system, the inclusion of different employee groups, and the perceived effect of practices (Paauwe, 2005). Three theoretical frameworks dominate and inform these HRM concerns: the contingent framework, which suggests that HRM influences performance in relation to contextual factors from the external environment such as business strategies (Schuler & Jackson, 1987); the resource based view, which asserts that HRM influences performance according to the human and social capital held by the organization (Barney, 1995); and the AMO theory, which asserts that HRM influences performance in relation to employees ability, motivation, and opportunity to participate (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000). In contrast to HRM, seminal conversations in HRD reveal that the theoretical frameworks and theories are too numer-
Alagaraja
131
ous to mention. The underlying philosophical assumptions of HRM and HRD inform these dominant theoretical frameworks in the area. Empirical studies exploring the HR linkage to OP provide a list of frequently measured organizational-level performance indicators. These quantitative indicators provide a baseline for the evaluation and assessment of OP improvement and effectiveness. The overarching themes of HRD studies expand on the strong linkage between learning organization characteristics and firm performance. Thus, important contributions of the HRD-OP linkage literature emphasize learning organization characteristics. It is clear that HRD places importance on the learning organization characteristics to determine and establish a connection with OP. There is limited evidence of empirical studies that examine these linkages in HRM. The learning versus performance debate (Kuchinke, 1996) is an outcome and a reflection of the importance HRD lays on the learning organization characteristics. These characteristics are important intermediating mechanisms that determine the strength of OP outcomes. This stream of research also suggests that HRD places importance on the role of formal, informal, and other forms of learning organization and training. HRD scholarship emphasizes a systems-based organic approach to uncovering complex relationships and discerning the nuances in the intricate linkages involved in fulfilling internal and external stakeholder needs through the adoption of different variables (e.g., organizational commitment, prediction of turnover). The wealth of HRD scholarship in the HRD-OP linkage topic appears to emphasize the intangible mechanisms that are significant but difficult to explicate in understanding the value and contribution of HRD to OP. The learning organization model developed by Marsick and Watkins (2003) is a significant HRD contribution in advancing the literature on the HR-OP linkage. Their contribution toward the development of comprehensive learning organization characteristics is also a reflection of the philosophical assumptions that characterize our field. There is growing evidence of scholarship utilizing OL as a conceptual or a theoretical framework from different disciplines (Ellinger et al., 2002; Jashapara, 2003). Although achieving consensus on a common definition of HRD has been difficult, the adoption of the learning organization model has brought about a great deal of acceptance among HRD scholars in establishing the connection between HRD and OP. In comparison, the everyday management of the traditional HR function in organizations continues to occupy the interest of HRM scholars. The HRM field closely identifies itself with the components that constitute the traditional HR function. HRM scholars emphasize objective measures of OP. Empirical studies in HRM established the effect of HRM practice, policies, and systems on, and their relationship to, OP using quantitative measures.
132
an important debate about the importance of HR in organizations that continues to this day in practice The HRM approach in addressing the linkage between HR and OP suggests that scholars aimed to achieve the same level of importance for HR as other traditional and direct functions/departments (operations, finance, quality, marketing, and sales) in the organization. The HRM philosophy placed more emphasis on assessing the impact of HR practices, policies, and systems on the financial success of the organization. In contrast, the HRD research stream reflects a more humanistic, holistic, and systemic approach, with scholarly inquiries focusing on learning and performance at the level of the individual, team, and the organization. A great diversity of philosophical and theoretical perspectives and the accompanying debates in HRD reflect the emphasis on the development of human resources. In contrast, it appears that the significant HRM focus on OP indicators as measures of financial, sales, or operational outcomes reflects the management orientation in addressing the linkage between HR and bottom-line performance. The HRM scholarly contributions in establishing the HR-OP linkage has been substantive in comparison to HRD, where this line of inquiry has not been pursued as vigorously. However, HRD has much to offer to advance research in this area. For example, HRD theories support the examination of characteristics such as context, strategy, and culture as socially complex systems (Watkins & Marsick, 2003), although fewer scholars have contributed significantly in utilizing systems-level thinking to guide empirical studies in the HRD-OP linkage. Empirical studies have typically focused on employee-level performance indicators or micro-level approaches (Kuchinke, 1996), with the exception of the studies conducted by Ellinger et al. (2002) and Jashapara (2003), where positive relationships between certain learning organization characteristics and objective measures of OP were explored. It appears that a great diversity of philosophical and theoretical perspectives take the HRD focus away from some of the more important challenges facing HR practitioners. However, multitheoretical and diverse perspectives have been foundational to the development of HRD as an independent discipline, where scholars wrestle with competing paradigms and individual-, team-, and organizational-level approaches within the organization. This is a potential area of opportunity for HRM. HRM must leverage HRDs multitheoretical and diverse perspectives to reconcile competing priorities at the level of the individual, team, and the organization to expand the HR-OP line of inquiry.
Methodological Differences
Different data designs produce different results (Wright, Gardner, Moynihan, & Allen, 2005). Thus, when data designs are categorized into (a) predictive (i.e., practices are not measured before the performance period), (b) post-predictive (i.e., practices are measured after the performance period), (c) contemporaneous (i.e., practices are measured contemporaneously with performance), and (d) retrospective (i.e., prac-
Alagaraja
133
tices are measured based on past performance period), they contribute to variations in the findings on the linkage between HRM, HRD and OP. Thus, methodological differences produce mixed results. In this section, I consider the methodological differences when comparing HRD/M and OP linkage. The quantitative approaches in some of the studies (Bae & Lawler, 2000; Delery & Doty, 1996; Huselid, 1995; MacDuffie, 1995; Shaw et al., 1998) relied on singlemember responses for gathering organizational-level performance and HR practices data (Patterson, West, & Wall, 2004). These studies utilized cross-sectional data collection methods involving multiple firms, across or within particular industry sectors, enabling generalization of findings. In contrast, fewer longitudinal studies (Cappelli & Neumark, 2001; Huselid, 1995) investigated HRM and firm performance relationship. Large-scale survey designs dominate the HRMOP research stream. The findings from quantitative-based designs have resulted in offering snap shots and high-level analysis of HR-OP linkages. HRM studies imply deterministic, static, and objective notions of the linkage between HR and OP. These notions also influenced the HRD line of inquiry in determining HRs relationship to OP-level outcomes. The qualitative methodology, on the other hand, offers a different line of approach in addressing the HROP linkage. This methodology addresses the notion of HR practices as institutionally embedded. Thus, accessing multiple respondents in every organization is required to obtain a variety of perspectives. By focusing on the influences of local contexts on organizational members, the qualitative approach is well-suited for examining micro-level approaches toward establishing the linkage between HR and OP. The multiplicity of perspectives that define HRD allow for the adoption of a variety of research methods. In contrast, several HRM scholars have only recently begun to call for qualitative studies (Becker & Huselid, 2009). Therefore, it is not surprising to note that the HROP linkage has been examined exclusively through the lens of quantitative research. Building cumulative evidence from a variety of research designs, methodologies, and data collection sites will strengthen scholarship and credibility for HRM and HRD theory, research, and organizational practice. Both largescale studies and small, highly contextualized studies would advance the scholarly inquiry on the HR-OP linkage (Alagaraja & Egan, 2011). The qualitative methodology also complements the many quantitative research studies. More important, the methodology would elaborate the dynamic interactions among key organizational decision makers on how the HR-OP linkage is achieved in organizations.
Conceptualization of HRD/M
One outcome of the review is to suggest the adoption of the term HRD&M as a better approach for defining HR to include people management (HRM) and development aspects (HRD) as a combined system of practice, policies, and performance outcomes. A new term HRD&M is proposed as a more inclusive reflection of the work HRM and HRD professionals do in organizations. As more organizations look to
134
adopt broad approaches in practice, a more accurate reflection of the practice of HRM and HRD in organizations as HRD&M is useful. However, this may not always be the case, and there may be some resistance in larger organizations with resources or the wherewithal to have separate HRM and HRD departments. HRD/M can also be considered as a field of theory, research, and practice involving the management and development of human resources in organizations. HRD/M function includes human capital development at the individual level (knowledge, skills, and abilities), social networks and relationships (social capital), and human capital management of human resource systems based on employment policy, comprising a set of policies designed to maximize functional and organizational integration, employee commitment, flexibility, and quality of work that support HR systems and structures within an organizational context. The work of Gilbreath and Montesino (2006) recommended an expanded HRD role to include both employee well-being and OP. The conceptualization of HRD/M is similar to the goals stated by their research. Organizations need to develop a greater understanding of HRD&M as a system with clearly defined performance expectations and outcomes (Colakoglu, Hong, & Lepak, 2009). Effective HRD&M systems integration with operational aspects of business is thus imperative for the performance and improvement of individuals, processes, and the organization as a whole (Becker & Hueslid, 2009; Guest, 1997). The goal of HR function involving the development and management aspects thus, places a central value in simultaneously embracing the development and management of the HR function. Achieving balance between competing employee and organizational demands and needs would contribute toward effective OP. Thus, HRD&M can be understood as a field involving the management and development of human resources in organizations. HRM&D function includes human capital at the individual level (knowledge, skills, and abilities), social networks and relationships (social capital), and organizational capital.
Alagaraja
135
in organizations and their contributions to OP has not received attention from either fields. This is a major gap that was identified in the literature review. Both HRM and HRD need to support practitioners in the application of theories, research, and models for evaluating the performance and service delivery of HR function.
Strategic Perspectives
The implementation of strategy is important in establishing the HR-OP linkage. Becker and Huselid (2009) call for future research studies in the implementation of strategic human resource management (SHRM). According to them, strategy implementation is an equally important area of study as SHRM theory development. Other notable empirical research gaps from the literature call for identifying key intermediate outcomes in accomplishing strategy implementation (Doorewaard & Meihuizen, 2000) and increased within-industry studies (such as Doorewaard & Meihuizen, 2000; MacDuffie, 1995). These scholars suggest the need for balanced perceptions toward understanding HR performance, taking into account multiple stakeholder expectations. Haggerty and Wright (2009) contend that the strength of an HR system contributes to desired organizational-level performance and recommended future research in this area. These are complex constructs that need in-depth understanding of the interacting dynamics between organizational culture, structure, strategy, and context. Gilley and Maycunich (2000a, 2000b) recommended the integration of HRD as a strategic partner to maximize OP. Garavan (2007) and Holton and Yamkovenko (2008) have also called for studies examining the impact of strategic human resource development (SHRD) on firm-level performance outcomes. The theoretical and intellectual debate about the importance of HRD or HRM as a strategic partnership has not yet translated into an established line of inquiry. There is a convergence across both fields in the conceptualization and positioning of strategic human resource development and management (SHRD&M) for conclusively establishing the effect of human resources on OP.
Conclusions
The accumulation of research evidence for HR-OP linkages would make a strong case for greater role, status, and influence of the HR function in organizations. The general and academic discourse on the effect of HR function in organizations continues to remain an underdeveloped area. Greater integration of HRD and HRM theoretical perspectives and the general HR practitioner discourse would significantly improve the role, status, and influence of HR function on OP. It would also help in developing a deeper understanding of HR functional service capacity and performance delivery in organizations. To do so, research studies adopting innovative approaches are needed to enhance our understanding of HR performance, taking into account multiple stakeholder expectations. The article recommends that both HRD and HRM draw
136
from each others strengths, acknowledging their contribution in the development, furthering of knowledge, and application of theories in improving HR service delivery and its impact on firm performance. The progress in achieving the HROP linkage in theory, research, and practice cannot be overstated. To be valued as a strategic and tactical source of competitive advantage, HRD and HRM need to draw on each others disciplinary perspectives, assumptions, and methodologies to fully leverage the development and management of human resources -- the most important of all organizational resources. Both fields have sought to become more strategic over the past two decades and are very much connected in practice. Much of the separation, therefore, appears to be academic. The synergy between the two disciplines would help in fully translating the people are our most valuable assets rhetoric into reality. Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Abrams, D., Ando, K., & Hinkle, S. (1998). Psychological attachment to the group: Crosscultural differences in organizational identification and subjective norms as predictors of workers turnover intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1027-1039. Alagaraja, M. (2013). Mobilizing organizational alignment through strategic HRD. Human Resource Development International, 16(1), 515-524. doi: 10.1080/13678868.2012.740794. Alagaraja, M., & Egan, T. M. (2011, August). Achieving HR-firm performance linkage through organizational strategy implementation: Qualitative cross case analysis of U.S companies. Paper presented at the 2011 Annual Proceedings of the Academy of Management, San Antonio, TX. Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. (2000). Manufacturing advantage. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 670-687. doi:10.2307/256705 Arthur, J. B., & Boyles, T. (2007). Validating the human resource system structure: A levelsbased strategic HRM approach. Human Resource Management Review, 17(1), 77-92. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.02.001 Bae, J., & Lawler, J. J. (2000). Organizational and HRM strategies in Korea: Impact on firm performance in an emerging economy. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 502517. doi:10.2307/1556407 Banker, R. D., Lee, S. Y., Gordon, P., & Srinivasan, D. (1996). Contextual analysis of performance impacts of outcome-based incentive compensation. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 920-948. doi:10.2307/256717
Alagaraja
137
Barney, J. B. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of Management Executive, 9(4), 49-61. doi:10.5465/AME.1995.9512032192 Barney, J. B., & Wright, P. M. (1998). On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human resources in gaining competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 37(1), 31-46. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X(199821)37:1<31::AID-HRM4>3.0.CO;2-W Batt, R. (1999). Work organization, technology, and performance in customer service and sales. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 52(4), 539-564. doi:10.2307/2525063 Becker, B., & Gerhart, B. (1996). The impact of human resource management on organizational performance: Progress and prospects. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 779-801. doi:10.2307/256712 Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (1999). Overview: Strategic human resource management in five leading firms. Human Resource Management, 38(4), 287-301. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099050X(199924)38:4<287::AID-HRM2>3.3.CO;2-C Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (2009). Strategic human resource management: Where do we go from here? In A. Wilkinson, N. A. Bacon, T. Redman, & S. Snell (Eds.), The Sage handbook of human resource management (pp. 351-376). London: Sage. Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., Pickus, P. S., & Spratt, M. F. (1997). HR as a source of shareholder value: Research and recommendations. Human Resource Management, 36(1), 39-47. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X(199721)36:1<39::AID-HRM8>3.0.CO;2-X Bedeian, A., Kemery, E., & Pizzolatto, A. (1991). Career commitment and expected utility of present job as predictors of turnover intentions and turnover behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39(3), 331-343. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(91)90042-K Bluedorn, A. D. (1982). A unified model of turnover from organizations. Human Relations, 35(2), 135-153. doi:10.1177/001872678203500204 Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the strength of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203-221. doi:10.2307/20159029 Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. (2003). Strategy and human resource management. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2003.tb00095.x Cappelli, P., & Neumark, D. (2001). Do high-performance work practices improve establishmentlevel outcomes? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54(4), 737-775. doi:10.2307/ 2696111 Colakoglu, S., Hong, Y., & Lepak, D. P. (2009). Models of strategic human resource management. In A. Wilkinson, N. A. Bacon, T. Redman, & S. Snell (Eds.), The Sage handbook of human resource management (pp. 31-50). London: Sage. Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2003). Strategic human resource practices, top management team social networks, and firm performance: The role of human resource practices in creating organizational competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 740-751. doi:10.2307/30040665 Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high-performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59, 501-528. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00045.x
138
dArcimoles, C. H. (1997). Human resource policies and company performance: A quantitative approach using longitudinal data. Organization Studies, 18, 857-874. doi:10.1177/ 017084069701800508 Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949-969. doi:10.2307/256718 Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 802-835. doi:10.2307/256713 Doorewaard, H., & Meihuizen, H. (2000). Strategic performance options in professional service organisations. Human Resource Management Journal, 10(2), 39-57. doi:10.1111/ j.17488583.2000.tb00019.x Dymock, D. (2003). Developing a culture of learning in a changing industrial climate: An Australian case study. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 182-195. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2000.tb00019.x Egan, T. M., Yang, B., & Bartlett, K. R. (2004). The effectives of organizational learning culture and job satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 279-301. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1104 Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., Yang, B., & Howton, S. W. (2002). The relationship between the learning organization concept and firms financial performance: An empirical assessment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13, 5-21. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1010 Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ferris, G. R., Arthur, M. M., Berkson, H. M., Kaplan, D. M., Harrell-Cook, G., & Frink, D. D. (1998). Toward a social context theory of the human resources management organization effectiveness relationship. Human Resource Management Review, 8, 235-264. doi:10.1016/ S1053-4822(98)90004-3 Garavan, T. N. (2007). A strategic perspective on human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(1), 11-30. doi:10.1177/1523422306294492 Garavan, T. N., Morley, M., Gunnigle, P., & McGuire, D. (2002). Human resource development and workplace learning: Emerging theoretical perspectives and organisational practices. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26(2/3/4), 60-71. Garavan, T. N., ODonnell, D., McGuire, D., & Watson, S. (2007). Exploring perspectives on human resource development: An introduction. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(1), 3-11. doi:10.1177/1523422306294342 Gilbreath, B., & Montesino, M. U. (2006). Expanding the HRD role: Improving employee wellbeing and organizational performance. Human Resource Development International, 9(4), 563-571. doi:10.1080/13678860601032684 Gilley, J. W., & Maycunich, A. (2000a). Beyond the learning organization: Creating a culture of continuous growth and development through state-of-the-art human resource practices. Cambridge, MA: Perseus. Gilley, J. W., & Maycunich, A. (2000b). Organizational learning, performance and change: An introduction to strategic human resource development. New York, NY: Perseus Publishing.
Alagaraja
139
Guest, D. E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: A review and research agenda. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 263-276. doi:10.1080/095851997341630 Haggerty, J. J., & Wright, P. M. (2009). Strong situations and firm performance. A proposed re-conceptualization of the role of the HR function. In A. Wilkinson, N. A. Bacon, T. Redman, & S. Snell (Eds.), The Sage handbook of human resource management (pp. 100-114). London: Sage. Harel, G. H., & Tzafrir, S. S. (1999). The effect of human resource management practices on the perceptions of organizational and market. Human Resource Management, 38(3), 185. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X(199923)38:3<185::AID-HRM2>3.0.CO;2-Y Hernandez, M. H. (2003). Assessing tacit knowledge transfer and dimensions of a learning environment in Colombian businesses. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5, 215-221. doi:10.1177/1523422303005002009 Hendry, C., & Pettigrew, A. (1990). Human resource management: an agenda for the 1990s, 1(1), 17-43. doi: 10.1080/09585199000000038 Holton, E. F., & Yamkovenko, B. (2008). Strategic intellectual capital development: A defining paradigm for HRD? Human Resource Development Review, 7( 3), 270-291. doi:10.1177/1534484308321360 Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635-672. doi:10.2307/256741 Huselid, M. A., Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1997). Technical and strategic human resource management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 171-188. doi:10.2307/257025 Ichniowski, C., & Shaw, K. (1999). The effects of human resource management systems on economic performance: An international comparison of U.S. and Japanese plants. Management Science, 45(5), 704-721. doi:10.1287/mnsc.45.5.704 Ichniowski, C., Shaw, K., & Prennushi, G. (1997). The effects of human resource management practices on productivity: A study of steel finishing lines. The American Economic Review, 87(3), 291-313. Jacobs, R. L. (2003). Structured training: Unleashing employee expertise the workplace. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Jashapara, A. (2003). Cognition, culture and competition: An empirical test of the learning organization. The Learning Organization, 10(1), 31-50. Joo, B.-K. (2010). Organizational commitment for knowledge workers: The roles of perceived organizational learning culture, leadermember exchange quality and turnover intention. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(1), 69-85. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20031 Katou, A. A. (2009). The impact of human resource development on organizational performance: Test of a causal model. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 5, 335-356. Koch, M. J., & McGrath, R. G. (1996). Improving labor productivity: Human resource management policies do matter. Strategic Management Journal, 17(5), 335-354. doi:10.1002/ (SICI)1097-0266(199605)17:5<335::AID-SMJ814>3.3.CO;2-I
140
Koch, J., & Steers, R. (1978). Job attachment satisfaction, and turnover among public employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 12(2), 119-128. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(78)90013-1 Konrad, A. M., & Mangel, R. (2000). The impact of work-life programs on firm productivity. Strategic Management Journal, 21(12), 1225. doi:10.1002/1097-0266(200012)21:12<1225::AIDSMJ135>3.3.CO;2-V Kontoghiorghes, C., Awbrey, S., & Feurig, P. (2005). Examining the relationship between learning organization dimensions and change adaptation, innovation as well as organizational performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2), 185-211. doi:10.1002/ hrdq.1133 Kuchinke, K. P. (1996). Classification of human development in HRD. Organization Development Journal, 14(1), 55-69. Kuchinke, K. P. (2003). Contingent HRD: Toward a theory of variation and differentiation in formal human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 2(3), 294309. doi:10.1177/1534484303256885 Lahteenmaki, S., Storey, J., & Vanhala, S. (1998). HRM and company performance: The use of measurement and the influence of economic cycles. Human Resource Management Journal, 8(2), 51-65. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.1998.tb00166.x Lam, L. W., & White, L. P. (1998). Human resource orientation and corporate performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9(4), 351-364. doi:10.1002/hrdq.3920090406 Lee, C. H., & Bruvold, N. T. (2003). Creating value for employees: Investment in employee development. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(6), 981-1000. doi:10.1080/0958519032000106173 Lee, M. B., & Chee, Y. (1996). Business strategy, participative human resource management and organizational performance: The case of South Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 34, 77-94. Lee, J., & Miller, D. (1999). People matter: Commitment to employees, strategy and performance in Korean firms. Strategic Management Journal, 20(6), 579-593. doi:10.1002/ (SICI)1097-0266(199906)20:6<579::AID-SMJ37>3.0.CO;2-C Lee, T. W., & Mowday, R. T. (1987). Voluntarily leaving an organization: An empirical investigation of Steers and Mowdays model of turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 721-743. doi:10.2307/256157 Lengnick-Hall, M. L., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Andrade, L., & Drake, B. (2009). Strategic human resource management: The evolution of the field. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 64-85. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.01.002 Macduffie, J. P. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(2), 197-221. doi:10.2307/2524483 Marsick, V., & Watkins, K. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organizations learning culture: The dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5, 132-151. doi:10.1177/1523422303005002002 McGuire, D., Garavan, T. N., ODonnell, D., &Watson, S. (2007). Metaperspectives and HRD: Lessons for research and practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(1), 120-140. doi:10.1177/1523422306294500
Alagaraja
141
McGuire, D., ODonnell, D., & Cross, C. (2005). Why humanistic practices in HRD wont work. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(1), 131-137. McHargue, S. (2003). Learning for performance in nonprofit organizations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 196-204. doi:10.1177/1523422303005002007 McLean, G. N., & McLean, L. (2001). If we cant define HRD in one country, how can we define it in another? Human Resource Development International, 4(3), 313-326. doi:10.1080/13678860126441 Michaels, C. E., & Spector, P. E. (1982). Causes of employee turnover: A test of the Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 53-59. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.67.1.53 Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Montemayor, E. F. (1996). Congruence between pay policy and competitive strategy in high performance firms. Journal of Management, 22, 889-908. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(96)90041-0 Paauwe, J. (2005). HRM and performance: Achieving long-term viability. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2005). HRM and performance: What next? Human Resource Management Journal, 15(4), 68-83. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2005.tb00296.x Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., & Toby, D. W. (2004). Integrated manufacturing, empowerment, and company performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(5), 641-665. doi:10.1002/job.261 Patterson, M., West, M. A., & Wall, T. D. (2004). Integrated manufacturing, empowerment, and company performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 641-665. doi:10.1002/ job.261 Paul, A. K., & Anantharaman, R. N. (2003). Impact of people management practices on organizational performance: Analysis of a causal model. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(7), 1246-1266. Perry-Smith, J. E., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Work-family human resource bundles and perceived organizational performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1107-1117. doi:10.2307/1556339 Richard, O. C., & Johnson, N. B. (2001). Strategic human resource management effectiveness and firm performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(2), 299-310. doi:10.1080/09585190121674 Ruona, W. E. A. (2000). Philosophy and core beliefs in human resource development: A journey for the profession and its professionals. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 1-27. doi:10.1177/152342230000200302 Ruona, W. E. A. (2001). The real debate: Who does human resource development serve? In O. A. Aliaga (Ed.), Academy of Human Resource Development 2001 Conference proceedings (pp. 15-1). Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development. Ruona, W. E. A., & Gibson, S. K. (2004). The making of twenty-first century HR: An analysis of the convergence of the HRM, HRD, and OD. Human Resource Management, 43(1), 49-66. doi:10.1002/hrm.20002
142
Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Linking competitive strategies with human resource management practices. Academy of Management Executive, 1(3), 207-219. doi:10.5465/ AME.1987.4275740 Shaw, J. D., Delery, J. E., Jenkins, G. D., & Gupta, N. (1998). An organization-level analysis of voluntary and involuntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 511-525. doi:10.2307/256939 Shaw, J. D., Gupta, N., & Delery, J. (2001). Congruence between technology and compensation systems: Implications for strategy implementation. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 379386. doi:10.1002/smj.165 Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 6, 662-673. doi:10.2307/256987 Sta-Maria, R. F. (2003). Innovation and organizational learning culture in the Malaysian public sector. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 205-214. Swanson, R. A. (1995). Performance is the key. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6(2), 207-220. doi:10.1002/hrdq.3920060208 Swanson, R. A., & Arnold, D. E. (1996). The purpose of human resource development is to improve organizational performance. In R. Rowden (Ed.), Workplace learning: Debating the five critical questions of theory and practice (New Directions for Adult and Continuing Development, No. 72, pp. 74-92). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2009). Foundations of human resource development (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Terpstra, D. E., & Rozell, E. J. (1993). The relationship of staffing practices to organizational level measures of performance. Personnel Psychology, 46(1), 27-48. doi:10.1111/ j.17446570.1993.tb00866.x Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Ulrich, D., Halbrook, R., Meder, D., Stuchlik, M., & Thorp, S. (1991). Employee and customer attachment: Synergies for competitive advantage. Human Resource Planning, 14, 89-104. Wang, G., Dou, X., & Li, N. (2002). A systems approach to measuring return on investment for HRD interventions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 1(2), 203-224. doi:10.1002/ hrdq.1024 Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (Eds.). (2003). Make learning count! Diagnosing the learning culture in organizations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 19-24. Weinberger, L. A. (1998). Commonly held theories of human resource development. Human Resource Development International, 1, 75-93. doi:10.1080/13678869800000009 Wood, S. (1999). Human resource management and performance. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1, 367-413. doi:10.1111/1468-2370.00020 Wright, P. M., & Boswell, W. R. (2002). Desegregating HRM: A review and synthesis of micro and macro human resource management research. Journal of Management, 28(3), 247-276. doi:10.1177/014920630202800302 Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., & Moynihan, L. M. (2003). The impact of HR practices on the performance of business units. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(3), 21-36. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2003.tb00096.x
Alagaraja
143
Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., & Allen, M. R. (2005). The relationship between HR practices and firm performance: Examining causal order. Personnel Psychology, 58, 409-446. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00487.x Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., & McWilliams, A. (1994). Human resources and sustained competitive advantage: A resource-based perspective. International Journal of Human Resources Management, 5, 301-326. doi:10.1080/09585199400000020 Wright, P. M., & Snell, S. A. (1998). Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibility in strategic human resource management. The Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 756-772. doi:10.2307/259061 Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, J. W., Jr., & Lepak, D. P. (1996). Human resource management, manufacturing strategy, and firm performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 836-866. doi:10.2307/256714 Yutchman, E., & Seashore, S. (1967). A system resource approach to organizational effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 32, 891-903.
Author Biography
Meera Alagaraja is an assistant professor of human resource development at the University of Louisville. Her research interests include strategic HRD, performance interventions, international HRD, and learning in organizations. Her work has appeared in publications such as Human Resource Development Review, Human Resource Development International, and the Human Resource Development Quarterly.