HRD

HRD

And, similarly to Lee (2001), Kessel (2001) advocates a non-standardized approach to HRD, which considers the context of the existing culture. As example, the authors presents Netherlands, where the long habit of collaboration and negotiation shaped a view on HRD somehow opposed to the one “imported” via USA, which emphasizes the performance improvement based on technology. Kessel sees practice of HRD responsible for offering a territory for human mind expansion, as opposed to establishing learning objectives and producing learning strategies. Freedom and interest for a topic should be the criteria for each employee when choosing the learning direction, believes Kessel (2001)

In the same spirit, Leitch et al.(1996, quoted in Gardiner & Whiting , 1997) stress that the learning organization is not an activity, but rather an orientation, and the authors recommend use of a scale in measuring the process, and not the sharp realization of an established goal.

The above tensions between the performance improvement approach and a more flexible and contextual development approach is observed as well by Ruona & Lynham (2004), who claim that the different views in HRD practices, have roots in different underlying philosophies.

In the framework presented, Ruona & Lynham see that Research and Practice are only complementary processes integrated in a much bigger cycle of thinking (figure 3).



Figure 3 Ruona and Lyhnham’s philosophical framework for thought and practice (Ruona & Lynham, 2004, p. 155)

The authors reveal that how the world is seen, how the knowledge about world is acquired and how should be acted in inquiry and practice, all are articulated using systems theory into a framework that could guide HRD interventions in a holistic manner. The HRD interventions become part of a larger vision, and we can deduct that any change in vision, could generate a change in the design of interventions.

I find this interconnectedness to represent the core...