ASAP reflection papers (3) based on 5 articles each - Human Resource Management

THE MAKING OF TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY HR: AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONVERGENCE OF HRM, HRD. AND OD

Wendy E. A. Ruona and Sharon K. Gibson

Twenty-first-century HR is emerging to uniquely combine activities and -processes of human re- source management (HRM), human resource development (HRD), and organization develop- m.ent (OD)—three fields that "grew up" distinct from each other. Contributing strategically to organizations demands that HRM, HRD, and OD coordinate, partner, and think innovatively about how they relate and how what they do impacts people and organizations. An analysis of the evolutions of these fields helps to explain why the distinctions between them continue to blur and how the similarities among them provide the necessary synergy for HR to be a truly val- ued organizational partner. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Introduction

It has hecome a common refrain to hear the many challenges Facing organizations today. These include glohalization, the pressure For speed and innovation, the transition to a service economy with its ex- traordinary emphasis on customers, the pressure For Financial perFormance, the im- pact oF technology and e-husiness, and changing workForce demographics. While this list is hy no means comprehensive, it provides the context that is propelling pro- Found change in modern organizations.

Perhaps the change that has most im- pacted organizations in the past decade has heen the growing realization that people are an organization's primary source oF

competitive advantage. It is now widely ac- cepted that an organization's "...success is determined hy decisions employees make and hehaviors in which they engage" (Mello, 2002, p. 4). It has never heen more important For organizations to Foster and tap the strategic potential oF people. Managing people as an organization's primary asset has inspired HR to hecome increasingly more eFFective at developing programs and policies that leverage talent to align with or- ganizational competencies and at executing organizational strategy.

MacDonald (2003) states that "creating the next generation work environment— highly collahorative and capahle oF not just Fostering, hut also encouraging, the instant, seamless movement oF ideas and expertise—

Correspondence to: Wendy E. A. Ruona, Assistant Professor, Department of Oceupational Studies, 213 Rivers Crossing, 850 College Station Road, Athens, CA 30602, Tel: (706) 542-4474, Fax: (706) 542- 4054, E-mail: [email protected]; Sharon K. Cibson, Assistant Professor, Organization Learning and De- velopment, Mail #MOH 217, 1000 LaSalle Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55403, Tel: (651) 962-4387, fax: (651) 962-4169, E-mail: [email protected]

Human Resource Management, Spring 2004, Vol. 43, No. 1, Pp. 49-66 © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, inc. Published online in Wiiey InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20002

50 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2004

will present both intellectual and technical challenges for us as professionals" (p. 262). HR faces these challenges as it contemplates organizational strategy and workforce impli- cations. It also, however, must reflect on these challenges as they relate to HR itself. The HR function and its processes have changed as a direct result of these organiza- tional dynamics. The next-generation HR is emerging as a field that uniquely combines activities and processes that have traditionally heen associated with human resource man- agement (HRM), human resource develop- ment (HRD), and organization development (OD)—three fields that "grew up" distinct from each other and, in many cases, separate in their theories and practices (Grieves & Redman, 1999; Sammut, 2001).

Today's requirement to contribute strate- gically to organizations demands that HRM, HRD, and OD coordinate, partner, and inno- vatively think about how they relate and how what they do impacts people in organizations. An analysis of the evolutions of these three fields helps to explain why the distinctions among the three areas continue to blur and how the similarities among them provide the necessary synergy for HR to be a truly valued organizational partner. The purpose of this article is to contextualize the emergence of twenty-first-century HR (as a meta-profes- sion, if you will, that can accommodate mul- tiple fields under its umbrella) in a historical and comparative context. To do this, the evo- lutions of HRM, HRD, and OD are traced from their formal and distinctive beginnings in the early-to-mid-1900s through the dawn of the twenty-first century where we see great convergence. Implications for HR and its pro- fessionals are then explored.

Methodology and Conceptual Framework

Our approach for this historical analysis en- tailed tracing patterns of events, forces, and ways of thinking that impacted the develop- ment of HRM, HRD, and OD, and conduct- ing a critical analysis of their origins and con- sequences (Marius, 1995). We then sought a descriptive frame to assist us in organizing the reporting of our findings, which was aligned with prior literature on HR evolutions in the

field. In conducting a historical review of HRM in American industry, Lawrence (1985) found that there was no generally recognized framework for describing the development of HRM in the United States. After reviewing a number of current HR texts and articles, we selected Brockbank's (1999) model, entitled Dimensions of Competitive Advantage for HR Activities (see Figure 1), to organize our find- ings, as this framework was designed specifi- cally for HR, incorporated the concept of in- creasing competitive advantage that is predominant in the field today, and, most im- portantly, enabled us to express these trends on a historical continuum.

Brockbank's (1999) framework charac- terizes professional HR practices along two sets of dimensions: (a) operational or strate- gic and (h) reactive or proactive. In addition, Brockbank reconfigured the matrix pre- sented in Figure 1 to create a timeline of in- creasing competitive advantage along which we can further understand and assess the progress of HR (see Figure 2).

Although we found our historical analysis to best align with the progression of Brock- bank's framework, the distinction made be- tween operational and strategic levels of HR is also congruent with other models that are extensively used in the HR field. In Ulrich's (1997) four-factor HR roles model, which has received considerable attention in the litera- ture, the administrative expert and employee champion roles have a day-to-day/operational focus and are, therefore, aligned with Brock- bank's operational (reactive and proactive) quadrants. Similarly, the strategic partner and

Strategic

Operational

Support strategy

Implement the basics

Reactive

Create future, strategic

alternatives

Improve the basics

Proactive

• Slightfy adapted from llrockhan

Figure 1. Brockbank's (1999) Dimensions of Competitive Advantage.*

The Making of Twenty-First-Century HR 51

Operationally Operationally Strategically Strategically

Reactive Proactive

Figure 2. Continuum of Competitive Advantage.*

change agent roles, as defined by Ulrich (1997), have a future/strategic focus and most closely align with the strategically reactive and proactive quadrants. Brockbank further ar- gues that combining the dimensions of strate- gic/operational and reactive/proactive (e.g., being proactive may look different when it is done in operational ways versus strategic ways) can help the HR field organize its think- ing about the past, present, and future. We suggest that Brockbank's framework is also useful in thinking about the related disci- plines of HRD and OD and, overlaid against an analysis of HRM, provides us with unique insights into the forces and trends that are af- fecting all three fields.

Brockbank (1999) describes the activities that take place in the various quadrants as fol- lows. Operational activities are generally rou- tine and focus on things that must be done for the organization to operate on a daily basis. Strategic activities are those that are organiza- tionally comprehensive, planned, integrate multiple facets, and are considered high, long- term "value-added" in terms of their contribu- tion to business success. Reactive activities are in response to a need of the organization, while proactive activities involve the creation of operational improvements or strategic al- ternatives. Brockbank demonstrates that HRM's focus has evolved over time—pro- gressing along a continuum from opera- tionally reactive to operationally proactive to strategically reactive to strategically proactive. In that progression, he argues, HRM has pro- vided increasingly higher value to organiza- tions and, thereby, has increased its contribu- tion to organizations' competitive advantage. This does not imply, however, that various practices within all four quadrants are still not necessary and, in many contexts, quite valued.

Evolutions of HRM, HRD, and OD

The following section traces the evolutions of HRM, HRD, and OD as three distinctive

Reactive Proactive • Slightly adapted from Brockhank (t</</9)

fields to unfold their unique, yet strikingly similar, histories and to explore the trends currently affecting each field. To do this, an extensive literature review of over 50 articles and chapters was done to briefly and suc- cinctly chronicle each field by focusing on dominant trends in each field during the past 50-plus years. Brockbank's (1999) analy- sis began to unfold the history/trends of HRM (which he called HR). This analysis expands upon that chronicle, and also adds analyses of both HRD and OD for an even more holistic view of what we observe to be the emergence of a more integrated twenty-first-century HR.

Although there remains considerable dis- pute as to whether OD is a distinctive profes- sion in its own right (Church, 2001; Grieves & Redman, 1999; Weidner & Kulick, 1999), the evolution and practices of HRD and OD as two distinctive emerging fields were inves- tigated separately for this article. This was done for a few reasons. First, each of these fields has a distinctive history that must be analyzed separately to fully understand its unique lineages. Second, it is only relatively recently (vvdthin the last 15-20 years) that these two fields have often been operational- ized together in practice. As this analysis will show, there is ample evidence that OD did, and continues to, emerge as a distinctive pro- fession, has not yet been subsumed by its close relatives (such as HRM or HRD), and, in fact, has been a critical contributor to the strategic advancement of the family of prac- tices that comprise strategically proactive philosophy and action in organizations today.

Since the evolutions of HRM, HRD, and OD did not necessarily occur during the same time spans, we focused on the opera- tional definitions of each of Brockbank's (1999) quadrants and provide our interpreta- tion of the time span during which each field was characterized by these dimensions. The activities that characterize each field during each phase are also summarized and pre- sented in Figure 3.

52 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2004

X

Operationally Reactive

• Basic personnel functions L of managing people 1 (staffing, compensation, 1 compliance, labor 1 relations) 1

•Administrative • Regulatory

(EEO/Affirmative Action, Safety/OSHA, etc.)

Operationally Proactive

J • Improve the efficiency of HR practices and the workforce (reengineering and process centralization)

• Manage latror costs • HRM metrics • Employee satisfaction.

involvement, and organizational climate

Strategically Reactive

• Support strategy execution through people

J and culture 1 • Emphasis on results 1 • HR technology systems to 1 automate "routine" 1 processes

• High-performance work systems

• Change management and OD

Strategically Proactive 1 1 • Contribute to

organization's core competence

J • Design and manage HR 1 systems as strategic 1 assets 1 •Create strategic 1 alternatives

• Culture change to support radical innovation

Operationally Reactive Operationally Proactive Strategically Reactive Strategically Proactive

' Job and task analysis • Instructional systems design

'Job-focused training • Instructor-driven delivery

• Needs assessment • Individual performance

improvement with a focus on factors outside of training

•Alternative methods for training deiivery (e.g., computer-based)

• Evaluation

• Systemic models and methods for whole system | performance improvement and performance consulting

• Multiskilllng •Cross-training •Constnjctivist learning approaches

• Performance support systems

• Ensuring knowledgeable, agile, reflective workforce and workplace

•Organizational learning and leaming organization

• Self-directed learning and development {coaching, Informal learning, etc..)

• Knowledge management

Operationaiiy Reactive Operationaily Proactive Strategically Reactive Strategically Proactive

' Personal development • Interpersonal relations 'Group dynamics and team | building

' Process consultation

• Sociotechnical approaches

• Market-driven and "packaged" solutions to accelerate change

• Assessments to demonstrate intervention effectiveness

• Strategic, long-term, and multiple-level change

•Alignment of strategy, design, and management

• Flattened organizational designs and collaborative approaches

• Organizational transformation

• Whole systems change • "Inter" focus •Visioning, scenario planning. Future Search

• Transorganizational OD

21st-Centurv HR

• Centraiity of people • Focus on whole

systems and integrated solutions

• Strategic alignment and impact

• Capacity for change

Figure 3. The Evolutions of HRM, HRD, and OD: Toward a Twenty-First-Century HR.

Operationally Reactive

During the First World War and in the follow- ing decade, the U.S. workforce experienced major changes. The shift from craft to massed lahor, concentrated immigration and, in large part, the organizing efforts of the union move- ment produced the need for a "personnel" function to manage these lahor issues. Wage controls and the lahor demands of World War II created additional pressure on organizations and, after the war, an entire union-manage- ment system was estahlished in response to the labor movement's continued strength (Freed- man, 1990; Lawrence, 1985). By the 1960s, organizations had also recognized the need to establish specialized employee relations pro- grams for their nonunion workforce. In addi- tion, a significant increase in government reg- ulations affecting the employment relationship required organizations to develop policies and

procedures to ensure regulatory compliance (Dyer & Holder, 1988; Freedman, 1990). Meanwhile, the organization itself hecame in- creasingly important in the day-to-day lives of U.S. workers. These kinds of dynamics led to the formal estahlishment and growth of what we currently call HR.

The State of HRM (Reginnings-Mid-1980s). Since its inception as a separate function es- tahlished to manage labor issues, person- nel's role has grown to include the hasic ad- ministrative activities associated with people management in organizations (Brockhank, 1999). The role of personnel during this pe- riod focused on the transactional compo- nents of the various functions—including henefits, employment/recruitment, compen- sation, EEO/affirmative action, safety and OSHA compliance, lahor relations, and training and development. The performance

The Making of Twenty-First-Cenlury HR • 53

of these functions was technical in nature. Employment planning was concerned with forecasting work. Lahor relations focused on administering collective bargaining agree- ments. Selection, training, performance ap- praisal, and compensation emphasized indi- vidual jobs and descriptions (Beaumont, 1992). These functions were viewed as "dis- associated programs and practices" (Dyer & Holder, 1988, p. 1-14) and were not seen as part of a broader HR strategy.

The State of HRD (Beginnings-Late 1970s). Training has literally existed throughout all recorded history of the human race. It has pro- gressed through key phases such as appren- ticeship and craft guilds, the emergence of cor- poration schools in the early 1900s, the focus of (and government funding for) vocational ed- ucation and military training in the United States, through today's modern-day manage- ment (Miller, 1996; Swanson & Torraco, 1994). It was during the industrial era that training became a central feature in modern organizations with organizations focusing on the "basics" of creating and integrating com- ponents of the instructional process and adult learning into a coherent system (Clark, 1999). The term human resource development (HRD) was defined by Leonard Nadler (1970) as "a series of organized activities conducted within a specific time and designed to produce be- havioral change" (p. 3). Throughout this pe- riod the terms training, training and develop- ment, and HRD were used almost interchangeably and focused exclusively on or- ganized learning experiences.

By the early 1980s, training departments in organizations had become quite common, as organizations wanted workers trained more efficiently and cost-effectively. Training during this era was predominantly based on perceived and short-term organizational needs. Task analysis was common, and training was closely linked to a person's job. Training in organiza- tions was instructor-driven and -led, and firmly entrenched in behaviorism, which emphasized behavioral changes resulting from learning. Training was also beginning to be channeled toward management and supervisors to sup- port their central role in the environment out- side of the classroom (Harris, 2000).

The State of OD (Beginnings—Mid- to Late 1970s). The field of OD was founded on the strong humanistic values of its early founders, who aimed to improve the conditions of peo- ple's lives in organizations hy applying behav- ioral science knowledge and interventions (see Cummings & Worley, 2001; French & Bell, 2000; Sanzgiri & Gottlieb, 1992, for reviews of these early contributors and foundational ideas). These early founders were steeped in the T-group movement, which focused heavily on group dynamics, and the survey research and feedback movement. These movements utilized methods that also ultimately fed the de- velopment of action research, a methodology that is now central to many processes in OD.

However, early OD interventions can be categorized as primarily focusing on individ- uals and interpersonal relations. OD was es- tahlished as a social philosophy that empha- sized a long-term orientation, the applied behavioral sciences, external and process- oriented consultation, change managed from the top, a strong emphasis on action re- search, and a focus on creating change in collaboration with managers (Sanzgiri & Gottlieb, 1992). Burke (1995) states that "in the mid-1970s, OD was still associated with T-groups, participative management and consensus. Theory Y, and self-actualization ... the 'soft' human, touchy-feely kinds of ac- tivities" (p. 8). OD during this time was prac- ticed predominantly hy external consultants who worked with top-level managers.

Operationally Reactive Period Analysis. During this evolutionary phase, all three fields were focused on those activities that needed to be accomplished for the organization to effec- tively operate on a daily basis and were in re- sponse to needs identified by the organization. Skills required of these professionals to per- form these activities were both technical and interpersonal. HRM's engagement in transac- tional and administrative activities was di- rectly in response to the organizing efforts of the labor unions and the pressure of increased government regulation. HRD professionals were predominantly engaged in training activ- ities based on short-term organizational needs and designed to elicit behavioral change linked to a person's job. Similarly, OD was fo-

During this evolutionary phase, all three fields were focused on those activities that needed to he accomplished for the organization to effectively operate on a daily hasis and were in respotise to needs identified hy the organiza tion.

54 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2004

In the 1980s, factors such as deregulation and imports introduced new competitive pressures on organizations, triggering a shift in priorities toward internal business issues...

cused on individuals and interpersonal rela- tionships—the hasic activities associated with human relations in organizations. These activ- ities contrihuted to the organization's ahility to respond to employee needs during this period.

Operationally Proactive

In the 1980s, factors such as deregulation and imports introduced new competitive pressures on organizations, triggering a shift in priorities toward internal husiness issues (Beaumont, 1992; Dyer & Holder, 1988). Organizations during this era were greatly in- fluenced hy glohal competition and total quality management (TQM; Freedman, 1990). Workforce unionization levels, partic- ularly in the private sector, hegan to decline and the United States saw relative growth in the service, white-collar employment sector. The recession of 1991-1992, along with recognition of the high costs of the hierar- chical structure of many companies, resulted in a reduction of staff functions and a strong focus on hecoming more flexihle, responsive, and productive (Brockhank, 1999).

The State of HRM (Late 1980s~Early 1990s). This time period was characterized hy a shift from the administrative and transactional focus of the personnel department to a focus on improving the efficiency of HR practices. Activities included outsourcing, reengineer- ing of HRM processes, transferring the re- sponsihility for employee transactions to the line managers as well as employees, and the centralization of transaction processing through the estahlishment of HR service centers (Brockhank, 1999). Efficiency was also stressed in terms of HRM's practices with the workforce. The emphasis was on providing flexihle and innovative alternatives to manage lahor costs while increasing the efficiency and productivity of employees. These included practices such as purchasing of services, restructuring, downsizing, uti- lization of contingent lahor, and incentive- hased compensation. HRM was increasingly involved with personnel reductions and reor- ganizations (Freedman, 1990). Metrics were developed to measure the productivity of the various HR functional areas (Brockhank,

1999), and HR professionals were expected to assess the cost implications of their work. There was also an increase in practices de- signed to enhance the organization's knowl- edge of internal employee satisfaction and organizational climate (Beaumont, 1992; Brockhank, 1999) as well as to strengthen employees' involvement in the organization.

The State of HRD (Late 1970s-Late 1980s). During this period, we saw an increasing con- vergence hetween training and OD. Trainers hecame interested in training methods emerg- ing out of OD and they discovered that their hehaviorist philosophy (with its focus on the environment outside of training) was congru- ent with OD professionals who were applying interventions to increasingly complex levels of organizational systems (Miller, 1996). New methodologies for individual performance im- provement hegan to emerge (Gilhert, 1978), and there was increasing focus on how to en- hance an individual's environment and foster those factors that support a person applying newly learned skills on the joh.

The pragmatism that was affecting HRM and OD also spurred developments in train- ing around needs assessment, task analysis, evaluation, and return-on-investment. Com- petency-hased learning came into vogue as a way to focus on critical components of the joh and reduce unnecessary training. Behav- ioral modeling hecame even more popular in the 1980s and continues to he a mainstay of many training designs (Miller, 1996). Trainees also hegan to receive training via computers as instructional designers worked to leverage technology to create designs that were interactive and learner-centered as well as more time- and cost-efflcient.

The State of OD (Mid- to Late 1970s-Mid- to Late 1980s). In the late 1970s, a new pragma- tism emerged in OD (Sanzgiri & Gotdieh, 1992). First was the rise of sociotechnical and technostructural approaches that had heen a vital part of early OD. These approaches were extended and operationalized to expand OD's focus further heyond individual-level joh de- sign (Tichy, 1983). This resulted in larger- scale and longer-term projects and shifted at- tention heyond the individual and workgroups

The Making of Twenty-First-Centur)' HR • 55

to the larger work context. By the mid-1980s, an analysis showed that OD texthooks dedi- cated almost two-thirds of their diagnostic chapters to organizational-level issues rather than those at the individual and group levels (Brown & Covey, 1987).

It is also evident during this period that there were "market pressures to make the field more tools- and technology-driven and more responsive to pragmatic needs of the corporate world" (Sanzgiri & Gottlieh, 1992, p. 61). Emphasis was placed on accelerating phases of change and, as a result, there was a marked increase in packaged and prescriptive solutions, tools, and techniques. The OD consultant began to change from a nondirec- tive, process-oriented practitioner to an au- thoritative specialist (Burke, 1995) as the tension hetween the humanistic concerns that founded OD and the "hottom line" grew. There was also increased pressure for OD to demonstrate its effectiveness and a surge in publications, assessments, and tools to im- prove the link between OD interventions and organizational results.

Operationally Proactive Period Analysis. Con- tinuous improvement, efficiency, and cost-ef- fectiveness characterized the activities of all three fields during this operationally proactive stage. HRM's activities were focused on im- proving the efficiency of HRM practices through outsourcing, reengineering, transfer- ring of transactional work to line managers, and developing HR metrics to measure pro- ductivity. HRD began to look at new method- ologies for individual performance improve- ment and focused on enhancing an individual's environment in order to support the application of newly learned behavior (i.e., improved on-the-job performance). OD shifted their focus to the larger work context and responded to increased pressure to facili- tate faster change processes and link OD ini- tiatives with business results. Each field, while still operational in focus, was actively engaged in enhancing and measuring its ac- tivities and determining the most cost-effec- tive methods of operation. While all three fields continued to emphasize technical ex- pertise (the "basics" of the respective work), it was apparent that a broader business perspec-

tive was increasingly necessary and that HR professionals needed to assess the cost and ef- fectiveness of various HR decisions.

Strategically Reactive

During this period, many organizations rec- ognized that human capital was central to competitive advantage. Organizations faced many challenges including increased global- ization, the impact of technology, the need to simultaneously manage costs and growth, the rapid pace of change, and the need to re- focus employee activities on the customer (Ulrich, 1997). As a result, the strategic management of people and how they work emerged as essential to sustained competi- tive advantage (Pfeffer, 1995). Although con- tinuing to look for ways to provide the "ba- sics" more efficiently, professionals during this period emphasized "supporting the exe- cution of tactics that drive long-term strate- gies and developing the cultural and techni- cal capabilities necessary for long-term success" (Brockbank, 1999, p. 342).

The State of HRM (Early 1990s-Current). HRM's primary role was to add value by aligning its people strategies in support of the organization's business strategies. This included working to establish a desired cul- ture that would support competitive advan- tage and designing HR practices (such as competency assessment, diversity initiatives, work-life balance, and total reward systems) that would foster this culture. HRM also began a foray into change management and organization development activities in sup- port of the implementation of the strategic direction (Brockbank, 1999).

The continued development of HR tech- nology allowed line managers to actively han- dle more of the tasks related to recruitment, salary administration, and succession plan- ning (Patel, 2002), thus freeing up HRM's time to assume more strategic roles and to work toward garnering a "seat at the table." For instance, much research was conducted on establishing the empirical link between HR strategies, systems, practices, and busi- ness financial performance (Becker & Cer- hart, 1996; Becker & Huselid, 1998; De-

... many organizations recognized that human capital was central to competitive advantage.

56 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2004

The developments of the 1980s led to what can now he viewed as a hit of an identity

laney & Huselid, 1996; Huselid, 1995). This further supported the importance of HRM's business partner role and emphasized the po- tential of high-performance work systems as an inimitable strategic asset in organizations. Competencies in business knowledge, deliv- ery of HR, and management of change were identified as key to HRM's success (Uirich, Brockbank, Yeung, & Lake, 1995).

The State of HRD (Late 1980s-Current). The developments of the 1980s led to what can now he viewed as a hit of an identity crisis and, perhaps, a splintering within training/HRD. The term HRD had been throwrt about for nearly 15 years, hut in the 1980s, over 11 al- ternative definitions were forwarded in the lit- erature (see Weinberger, 1998). The capstone definition that has "stuck" through today re- sulted from McLagan's (1989) landmark study of HRD practice during the 1980s and defined HRD as "the integrated use of training and de- velopment, career development, and organiza- tion development to improve individual and or- ganizational effectiveness" (p. 7). Phillips (1999) refers to this shift toward effectiveness and performance improvement as an extremely critical one—in paradigm, processes, prac- tices, and procedures. During the early-to- mid-1990s, the literature on performance con- sulting (Robinson & Robinson, 1995) and performance improvement burgeoned, while the field of human performance technology (Stolovich & Keeps, 1992) gained a growing presence. Individual-level performance im- provement models alone became insufficient while new, more systemic models of perfor- mance improvement emerged (Rummler & Brache, 1995; Swanson, 1994).

Meanwhile, outsourcing of more tradi- tional forms of training (i.e., the basics) be- came increasingly prevalent while organiza- tions asked internal HRD professionals to act as brokers of learning services and focus on strategic alignment and more systemic inter- ventions. This enhanced strategic focus led to innovations in multisldlling and cross-train- ing, cross-cultural and global training, and an increased emphasis on "soft" skills training (group dynamics, interpersonal relations, and systems thinking). There were also major in- novations within training and instructional

design—including more constructivist ap- proaches to designing learning environments, hypertext and hypermedia, and uses of tech- nologies for e-learning (McNeil, 2002). Rapid prototyping response and delivery sys- tems were developed to meet organizations' demands for more efficiently designed and just-in-time training. HRD and instructional systems design (ISD) professionals involved in this kind of work were increasingly becom- ing involved in utilizing technology for job supports, integrated performance support, and expert systems (Sleight, 1993).

The State of OD (Mid-1980s-Current). Beckhard's work during the 1960s on strate- gic change and open systems planning pro- duced the need for a strategic perspective from OD (Gummings & Worley, 2001) and ushered in an increasingly "holistic and open systems view of organizations" (Swanson & Holton, 2001). Gentral to these models is the assumption that strategic and systemic change involves alignment with strategy, de- sign, and management at multiple levels of the organization (including culture) and comprehensive change processes (including reward systems, management structures, process interventions, and information sys- tems). This approach emphasized improving an organization's fit between its technical, political, and cultural systems. During this period, OD professionals were also helping to facilitate the development and implemen- tation of strategy wdth their clients. Weidner & Kulick (1999) characterized the talk of many OD professionals as "if it's not strate- gic, if it's not long-term, if it's not working at the levels of a system, then it's not organiza- tion development" (p. 347). During the 1980s, OD professionals were pivotal in heightening attention around organizational culture. They identified culture as critically important in dealing with increasingly large and more complex change as well as a pri- mary mechanism through which strategic de- sign was carried out (Sashkin & Burke, 1990). OD professionals also became in- volved in assisting organizations in coping with the alignment of multiple cultures as a consequence of mergers/acquisitions and/or significant reorganizations.

The Making of Twenty-First-Century HR 57

More traditional interventions such as conflict management and team huilding were recast to he aligned with strategic imperatives resulting from either planned or emergent strategy or new organizational forms that tended toward flattened hierarchies and col- lahorative approaches. In addition, OD pro- fessionals were instrumental in the TQM movement that swept the United States dur- ing the 1980s, especially in their contrihu- tions around decentralized management of change and self-regulating or self-managed work teams and quality circles. OD profes- sionals were encouraged to he more strategic and to more effectively relate OD skills to the changing competitive context of the organiza- tion and its memhers (Jelinek & Litterer, 1988). As a result, OD professionals were in- creasingly internal to the organization (Sam- mut, 2001) and supplemented traditional skills with more emphasis on husiness liter- acy, competitive strategy, flnance, marketing, information systems, and process design.

Strategically Reactive Period Analysis. During this period, we see an increasing emphasis on the strategic alignment and positioning of each of the three emerging professions. This is not surprising given the clear shift toward a re- source-hased view of the organization (Barney, 2001; Wright, Dunford, & Snell, 2001) and important innovations of the day such as Pra- halad & Hamel's (1990) ideas on the roots of the core competence of organizations. Each field turned its attention to aligning its inter- ventions to strategy. In most cases, this was re- active in the sense that the strategy was often delivered to HRM, HRD, and OD for these professions to "react to." Business literacy, change management, and strategic thinking were identified as the competencies needed for these professions to efî ectively align their in- terventions with organizational requirements. We also see during this period that each field had to hecome more systematic in what they do to accomplish their goals. This included a clear emphasis on demonstrating the effective- ness and impact of interventions. Most impor- tantly, each field had to adopt a more systemic view of the organization and incorporate this view as a hasic assumption underlying their in- terventions.

Strategically Proactive

The rate of change for organizations contin- ues to rapidly accelerate. Societal and demo- graphic changes are fostering glohalization, greater diversity, and the increased impact of science and technology on our work and per- sonal lives. A major shift in geopolitics has caused networks and alliances to hurgeon and has also created uncertainty (Mello, 2002; Patel, 2002). These dynamics demand that organizations continue to innovate, find ways to reduce costs, and he more flexihle in developing practices that create competitive advantage (Brockhank, 1999).

The State of HRM (Late 1990s-Current). This new role for HRM involves creating future strategic alternatives for the organization. HRM must develop distinctive people prac- tices to create core competencies that translate into husiness strategies and help to differenti- ate an organization's products and services (Cappelli &: Crocker-Hefter, 1996). The motto for the new HRM role is "helping to set the agenda" (Bates, 2002). Brockhank (1999) sug- gests that HRM can evidence this strategically proactive role hy (a) enhancing the innovation capacity of the firm; (h) heing involved in each phase of the merger and acquisition process; and (c) linking internal human capahilities with the requirements of the external market. HRM must design and manage its systems as strategic assets, focus on the development of strategic competencies, and utilize a systems perspective as it works to develop strategic al- ternatives and new husiness opportunities (Becker, Huselid, Pickus, & Spratt, 1997). In order to he a driver of strategy, HRM must he engaged in creating institutional change ca- pacity, identifying social trends impacting fu- ture husiness opportunities, and huilding orga- nizational cultures that can accomplish radical innovation (Brockhank, 1999).

The State of HRD (Mid-1990s-Current). The strategically proactive HRD roles of the next decade and heyond revolve around ensuring a knowledgeahle, competent, agile, and reflec- tive workforce that utilizes learning to capital- ize on emerging opportunities (Torraco & Swanson, 1995). In response, HRD has heen

During this period, we see an increasing emphasis on the strategic alignment and positioning of each of the three emerging professions.

58 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2004

It is clear that what is beginning to characterize this period is HRM, HRD, and OD needing to he extremely attuned and responsive to the external climate and markets of an organization.

an important contributor in the development of concepts around organizational learning (Dixon, 1994), and various powerful models for creating a learning organization have emerged (Marquardt, 1995; Senge, 1990; Watkins & Marsick, 1993). It is possible that this focus on organizational learning has the potential to be the hallmark of a strategically proactive HRD that features generative learn- ing as central in creating future strategic al- ternatives. Other prominent trends in this same vein include emerging foci on self-di- rected learning, informal learning (Marsick & Watkins, 1990), personalized individual learn- ing and development plans, and coaching.

There has also been increased attention on HRD implications for knowledge manage- ment systems designed to capture, store, and share learning as well as on an expanded no- tion of the corporate university (CU; Phillips, 1999). The CU of the future, though, is con- ceptualized as a process, not a place, where all levels of employees, customers, and sup- pliers participate in a variety of learning expe- riences to improve performance and enhance organizational impact (Phillips, 1999). Fi- nally, Walton (1999) focuses on how HRD can play a role in creating synergy among and between subsystems of an organization as well as between organizations in globalization strategies (including global sourcing, train- ing, team building, mentoring, career devel- opment, learning systems, and culture-work).

The State of OD (Mid-1990s-Current). In OD, we see an increased focus on organiza- tional transformation or second-order change, which Levy & Merry (1986) define as a "multi-dimensional, multi-level, qualitative, discontinuous, radical organizational change involving a paradigmatic shift" (p. 5). This focus on facilitating massive and sometimes revolutionary change is a departure from OD's traditional evolutionary and incremental ap- proaches. The need for this kind of change has also ignited the emergence of multiple methodologies for (a) whole systems change and interventions (Dannemiller Tyson Associ- ates, 2000; Weisbord, 1992) as well as (b) vi- sioning, future search (Weisbord, 1992), and scenario planning (Van der Heijden, 1997), which are designed to help organizations look

to the future in a more agile way and learn and act differently as a result.

There are increased calls for OD to be in- creasingly "inter"—that is, working in be- tween persons, organizations, and cultures (Burke, 1997)—and this "inter-focus" has spurred a renewed emphasis on diversity, es- pecially across cultural boundaries as well as occupational communities (Schein, 1997). Transorganizational development has also begun to emerge as OD professionals develop methodologies aimed at helping organizations develop collective and collaborative strategies with other organizations (Cummings & Wor- ley, 2001). In addition, organizational learn- ing is increasingly emphasized as OD focuses on collective learning and organizational growth. Schein (1997) speculates that we'll see "even more blending of systems thinking, cognitive psychology, and organization devel- opment approaches under one label, probably the 'learning' label" (p. 17) and predicts that "OD as a distinctive field of interventions based on behavioral science concepts with a humanistic overtone will increasingly become blended with the broader field of organiza- tional learning and will develop broader con- cepts and methods" (p. 18).

Strategically Proactive Period Analysis. The shape of this period is emerging even while this article is written. It is clear that what is be- ginning to characterize this period is HRM, HRD, and OD needing to be extremely at- tuned and responsive to the external climate and markets of an organization. Rather than simply reacting to the external climate along with organizational stakeholders, these emerg- ing professions will need to be out scouting it and anticipating future trends. In addition, the emphasis for a strategically proactive role must be on integrated, systemic interventions that develop and leverage an adaptable, agile work- force. The key to an agile workforce seems to be a genuine focus on learning at the individ- ual, group, and organizational levels and the development of holistic organizational systems that translate learning into unique and strate- gic core organizational competencies.

All of these trends suggest the need for HR professionals to have an expanded base of knowledge in business and the ability to

The Making of Twenty-First-Century HR • 59

integrate HR knowledge to create business alternatives. They must demonstrate mastery not only of their specialized (HRM, HRD, and OD) practices, but, most importantly, how they fit together. They must also possess broader business knowledge and skills in- cluding a working knowledge of other busi- ness units, a fundamental understanding of an organization's core business, its environ- ment and competition, value creation, and strategy (Magretta, 2002).

An Analysis of These Evolutions: Convergence toward Collective Futures

It is clear that HRM, HRD, and OD have "grown up" as distinctive fields in their own right, and yet it is vitally important to under- stand this growth in context and not under- estimate the similarities and interdependen- cies that have emerged between the fields during the past 40-plus years. A "snapshot" look at these evolutions is provided in Figure 3 to summarize the historical review pre- sented in this article and highlight the changing nature of work in each field during the past 50-plus years. The unfolding of key trends in HRM, HRD, and OD provided in this article draws out four major themes that indicate a clear convergence and the birth of a new twenty-first-century HR:

• Increased centrality of people to or- ganizational success;

• Focus on whole systems and inte- grated solutions;

• Strategic alignment and impact; and • Capacity for change.

These areas of convergence are de- scribed below.

Increased Centrality of People to Organizational Success

Undoubtedly the most powerful force affect- ing these three fields is the increased cen- trality of people to organizational success (Brockbank, 1999). The emergence of re- source-based views of organizations (Barney, 2001; Wright et al., 2001) has placed in- creasing importance on the intellectual and

social capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) underlying an organization's core competen- cies. This has been a key force driving the de- mand for and growth of HRM, HRD, and OD. Organizational leaders are finally tuning into the idea that people are vitally important in the execution of their strategic intent.

Focus on Whole Systems and Integrated Solutions

It is clear that these three fields have become increasingly systemic during their evolutions. Each has recognized the need for a systems perspective and responded with increasingly comprehensive, integrated, coordinated, and dynamic approaches. By definition, this has almost required that HRM, HRD, and OD in- tegrate their efforts. This enhanced systems perspective is also the most viable explanation as to why the distinctions between these fields seem to be blurring and the "new" HR has emerged. Given the pull toward a strategically proactive role, the challenge for HRM, HRD, and OD is to continue to develop innovative systems that

create a synergistic effect rather than de- velop a set of independent best practices ... where independent sub-functions (of the or- ganization) are viewed as interrelated com- ponents of a highly interdependent system. The interrelatedness of these systems com- ponents makes the advantage difficult, if not impossible, for competitors to identify and copy. (Barney & Wright, 2001, p. 40)

Strategic Alignment and Impact

Organizational leaders began evaluating the contributions of HRM, HRD, and OD during the late 1970s, and continued that call throughout the 1980s and early 1990s as they emphasized strategic alignment. The focus is now on producing real strategic impact—that is, processes and interventions that are aligned with both planned and emergent strategy and that provide clear, concrete, and qualifiable value. Indeed, in most cases, the results must be quantifiable. Each field has had to tackle the challenge of creating metrics that effec- tively demonstrate their contributions. Most of

/t is clear that HRM, HRD, and OD have "groxvn up" as distinctive fields in their own right, and yet it is vitally important to understand this growth in context and not underestimate the similarities and interde- pendencies that have emerged hetween ihe fields during the past 40-plus years.

60 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2004

There is great synergy hetween these fields and it must he tapped even more strongly as we aim to significantly contribute to organizational strategy and results.

the actual responsihility for those indicators is shared hetween HRM, HRD, and OD in many organizations today. Twenty-first cen- tury HR has hecome more integrated hy its measurement efforts, and it is expected that the importance of these efforts will only in- crease in the coming years. This is all heing driven hy increased pressure to work on is- sues that are most important to the husi- ness and to provide organizational leaders with understandahle information that helps them to make hetter and more strategic de- cisions ahout the workforce. Ultimately, we must work together to enhance HR's capac- ity to contrihute to organizational and fi- nancial performance.

Ca-pacityfor Change

It is also clear from this analysis that there has heen an increased focus on enhancing an organization's capacity for change. Today's organizations must thrive in complex and un- predictahle environments and must he ex- tremely agile. This demands the develop- ment and implementation of structures and processes that facilitate incremental, and, in many cases, transformational change. It has also meant an increasing focus on organiza- tional culture as a central factor that facili- tates or inhihits an organization's capacity for change. Change and culture simply cannot he effectively addressed hy solutions pro- posed from HRM, HRD, and OD that are not integrating their hest contrihutions in new and innovative ways.

Implications for HR of the Twenty-First Century

One of the important lessons gained from this analysis of the evolutions of HRM, HRD, and OD is that these fields must con- sider how they are interrelated and how, to- gether, they comprise the HR of the twenty- first century. This section outlines key implications for the fields, organizations, and individual practitioners. It also surfaces several themes that threaten the future via- hility of twenty-first-century HR that should he managed as we move forward as a united force.

Implications for the Professions

It is simply no longer viahle to insist that these three fields are as distinct as they once were. Indeed, Brockhank & Ulrich (2003) found in their study of HR competencies that "HR professionals in high-performing firms actively translate (husiness) knowledge in contrihuting to strategic decision making, developing competitive cultures, making change happen, and creating market-driven connectivity" (p. 6). Their findings affirm our analysis of the historical evolutions of these fields. There is great synergy hetween these fields and it must he tapped even more strongly as we aim to significantly contrihute to organizational strategy and results.

For us, this leaves little question ahout how the future will unfold and places a great onus on each of the fields to unite under a common umhrella. The term human re- sources or HR has commonly heen associ- ated with the field of HRM; however, it could he redefined to serve as a unifier for professionals in HRM, HRD, and OD while also encouraging the growth and profession- alization of each of the three fields. Or per- haps this new hyhrid will need to he called something else altogether? Many organiza- tions are currently struggling with identify- ing a new term for this function—one that helps them to "rehrand" and more accu- rately depict their role and responsihilities. We're hearing terms such as talent, people, and workforce instead of the term human. However, none of those terms reflect the kind of process and system work that many in the fields of HRM, HRD, and OD do (e.g., performance consultants, organization development consultants, and strategists). While much of that work certainly involves people, the organizational systems are the primary foci. And, perhaps we'd he hetter off naming our contrihutions more explicitly hy using the terms leadership, catalysts, or -part- ners'? There's no easy answer to this; how- ever, we predict that there will he a new term that emerges during the next ten years to hetter depict and unify these fields.

Creating the necessary synergy hetween HRM, HRD, and OD vidll he challenging. Especially in light of the current societal

The Making of Twenty-First-Century HR 61

context of increased professionalization and specialization (Leicht & Fennell, 2001) that is being driven by the sheer quantity and quality of what must be known within each of the three fields to even achieve "the ba- sics" today. It is not wise for the fields to en- tirely blur into each other. However, the sim- ilarities and differences between them must be consciously explored and made more transparent. Each field must become more conscious of its essential defining qualities, get clearer about its unique contributions around people in organizations, and identify specific areas in which synergy between HRM, HRD, and OD is necessary. We must continue to define and distinguish the more- specialized fields while also creating interde- pendence, synergy, and pliable boundaries.

How do these fields make this shift? In this endeavor, we must view these fields as the communities that comprise them—and then foster change within them. Professional associations, for instance, can play an ex- tremely powerful role. Our associations, both practitioner and academic, must soften their boundaries and rethink their purposes and the structures/processes that support them. We need more conversation across the fields. We need more professional special interest groups that attract each other to our profes- sional associations. We need to stop dis- counting the work that we each do or lightly assuming that "those HRM (or HRD or OD) people don't know what is needed." Our divi- siveness is hurting all of us in the organiza- tions in which we work—and could be our downfall should we not bind together. We need to lay out the welcome mat for each other and create synergies in ways that are yet to be explored.

In academe, we need programs that more effectively integrate the fields—espe- cially since HRD and OD are often housed outside of more traditional business schools. Each field can more clearly identify the spe- cializations inherent in their disciplines, while together working to define a generalist role that encompasses the strategic, sys- temic, change, culture, and business part- nership attributes that are generalizable for all three fields. We also need researchers who inquire into the people and organiza-

tional challenges that organizations face rather than "claiming them" as uniquely ad- dressed by HRM, HRD, or OD. We need to be publishing in each other's journals and magazines, and tapping each other's insights more. We need to loosen our tight rein on "turf and proprietary areas of knowledge and join together to create a knowledge base that will best serve the needs of both the people and the organizations that twenty- first-century HR is committed to serving.

Implications for HR in Organizations

Organizations are facing unprecedented challenges. They are increasingly forced to limit their costs, maximize their returns, and act strategically in an extremely complex, global society. Organizations need integrated and innovative solutions. The potential im- pact of HR is maximized by a more formally integrated HRM, HRD, and OD.

We need to tear down whatever walls have been built between these three fields. In many organizations today, these three fields are separated by function, structure, and, often, reporting relationships. This does little to foster integrated solutions and, in our observation, confuses people who work in the organization. Who are they to call for what? When HRM, HRD, and OD are each playing a strategically reactive or proactive role, it will likely look quite similar to the layperson who is, in the end, our mu- tual client. It also fosters duplication of ef- forts and, most importantly, it inhibits the development of genuinely integrated peo- ple/system solutions that are desperately needed in organizations.

This transition will require an enlight- ened organizational leadership that is capa- ble of bringing together these three fields. These leaders must embody and exhibit strategically proactive HR. They must be flu- ent in the core contributions of each field. They must foster cross-fertilization of con- cepts and competencies, while also nourish- ing the uniqueness of each. While the struc- ture and process of twenty-first-century HR will be customized to the unique context of the organization, the message that "HR's all on the same team" must be resounding!

Organizations need integrated and innovative solutions. The potential impact of HR is maximized hy a more formally integrated HRM, HRD, and OD.

62 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2004

Our review of the evolutions of these three fields indicates that achieve- ment of the true strategic partner role to which HR aspires requires the integration of the expertise of all three professions and that, without this partner- ship, this role will continue to remain elusive.

Implications for Practitioners

The competencies listed by each field for its modern professionals are strikingly similar. An effective professional in HRM, HRD, and OD is now asked to master the basics as effi- ciently as possible while also becoming busi- ness-sawy, strategic, systemic, and adept at designing systems for change and more agile cultures. Each of the most recent compe- tency studies in the three fields emphasizes these areas quite prominently (see Brock- bank & Uirich, 2003, for HRM; Rothwell, 1999, for HRD; and Sullivan, Rothwell, & Worley, 2001, for OD). It is important to note that the primary competencies for OD and HRD are (and have always heen) funda- mentally related to facilitating and managing culture and change, which is one of the most emphasized competencies in the recent study of HR competencies (Brockbank & Ui- rich, 2003). One could argue (and more than a few have!) that HRM has needed to in- creasingly tap the foundational theories and practices that OD has spawned in order to fulfill its strategic mandate.

We predict that those professionals in- volved in the necessary basics of each field (those activities that fall into the operationally reactive and proactive quadrants in Figure 1) will continue to be quite specialized, while those professionals striving towards strategi- cally reactive and proactive roles will continue to converge in their competencies and contri- butions. If this is true, then the challenge re- mains for those working in the strategically re- active and proactive roles who will continue to face a paradox of specialization paired with synergy and interdependence.

These trends suggest the need for HR professionals to have a strong, working knowledge of the organization—a fundamen- tal understanding of an organization's core husiness, environment and competition, value propositions, strategy, and various business units (Magretta, 2002). They must have the ahility to integrate HR knowledge to shape and create business alternatives. They must demonstrate the necessary systemic view through their mastery of not only their specialized (HRM, HRD, and OD) practices but, most importantly, how they all fit to-

gether. We're going to have to let go of our traditional notion and reverence for the idea of "expert" and instead understand that to "...manage the HR function effectively and also be a trusted advisor to top management, however, you need depth and breadth—you need to become a deep generalist" (Gandossy & Sobel, 2003, p. 288). This will require that HR professionals have some knowledge in each of the areas within HR that are not their specialties. They must integrate the best that we each know on culture and change management. Our review of the evo- lutions of these three fields indicates that achievement of the true strategic partner role to which HR aspires requires the inte- gration of the expertise of all three profes- sions and that, without this partnership, this role will continue to remain elusive.

Potential Divergence?

We see at least three areas that threaten to pull these fields further apart in the future. These must each be managed to ensure the future vi- ahility of HR. First, the emphasis of HRM in terms of being strategically proactive may be more external than that of HRD and OD in terms of impacting future business opportuni- ties. According to the most recent Human Re- source Competency Study, HR professionals from high-performing companies were inte- grally involved in "strategically connecting the firm to its external environment" and in creat- ing "structures and processes to enable the or- ganizational parts to complement each other in quickly and collaboratively responding to key opportunities and threats in the market en- vironment" (Brockbank & Uirich, 2003, p. 4). While all three fields seem to be attuned to the criticality of people in organizations, HRM has begun to talk in their literature ahout HRM as a strategic core competency of the organiza- tion with a distinctively external (versus inter- nal) focus that includes proactively monitoring and shaping the organization's responses to the external environment. We see much less ex- ploration and developed notions of this in HRD and OD.

Second, there is a significant amount of HRM literature that explores what types of configurations work best as related to environ-

The Making of Twenty-First-Century HR 63

ment, market strategy, culture, structure, and HR practices in terms of organizational effec- tiveness measures (see, for example, Delery & Doty, 1996; Ketchen, Thomas, & Snow, 1993; Meyer, Tsui, & Hinings, 1993; Miller, 1987; Miller & Mintzberg, 1984). OD and HRD have much to contrihute here, yet neither has produced a significant major focus in this area.

Third, it is important to note that there is some upheaval in OD about the loss of the humanistic value base that has rooted it for so many years (Church, Burke, & Eynde, 1994). Although there are many professionals in OD who categorize themselves as strong pragma- tists and are deeply concerned with strategic alignment and interventions, a review of the competency list endorsed by the Organization Development Network (Sullivan et al., 2001) reveals very little emphasis on strategic align- ment or concerns of the business. There seems to be a palatable resistance by some leaders in the field to accept the kinds of strategic roles and responsibilities that HRM and HRD are increasingly embracing. Should the field of OD retrench too strongly into the humanism that roots it, this may be a unique characteristic that differentiates OD profes- sionals from those who identify vWth HRM and HRD. This may result in a distinct splin- tering of the OD field, with those profession- als who adopt a strategically proactive role finding a home in a new twenty-Brst-century

HR that welcomes diversity and invites syn- ergy among all those who foster the strategic contribution of people in organizations.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article was to situate the evolutions of HRM, HRD, and OD in a his- torical and comparative context. To do this, the evolutions were traced from their begin- nings in the early to mid-1900s through the dawn of the twenty-first century.

We analyze the past to learn from it. Our histories provide us with great clues of what is to come. Our histories have led us to this moment that demands a more strategic HR. We believe that it is only through synergistic and unified partnerships that the develop- ment of twenty-first-century HR will be fos- tered and that all three fields will continue to grow and achieve their full potential. In the words of Ulrich (1998), if this partnership is achieved, there will be no further need to ask, "Should we do away with HR?" (p. 124), as the strategic impact of HR will be assured. We assert that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts—and that our "parts" must continue to be nurtured to maximize the whole. HRM, HRD, and OD should be en- couraged to thrive in their individuality, but not at the great cost of diminishing the whole of HR's value to organizations.

WENDY E. A. RUONA is an assistant professor of human resource development (HRD) at the University of Georgia. Her research interests include performance systems, foundations of HR, and strategic HR. She was recently awarded the Outstanding As- sistant Professor Award by the University Council for Workforce and Human Resource Education and has also been awarded the Richard A. Swanson Research Excellence Award. She is the associate editor-in-chief of Advances in Developing Human Resources and serves on the board of directors for the Academy of Human Resource Develop- ment. She completed her PhD in HRD at the University of Minnesota in 1999.

SHARON K. GIBSON is an assistant professor of organization learning and development at the University of St. Thomas. She is also an instructor for the division of executive and professional development in the College of Business. She received her PhD in adult education from the University of Minnesota, and holds an MSW and graduate certificate in labor and industrial relations from the University of Michigan. Her re- search interests focus on mentoring, strategic HR, phenomenological methodology, and adult learning. She has over 20 years of business, nonprofit, and consulting expe- rience, and has held various management positions in the human resources field.

64 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2004

REFERENCES

Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based 'theories' of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Manage- ment, 27, 643-650.

Barney, J. B., & Wright, P. M. (2001). On becoming a strategic partner: The role of buman re- sources in gaining competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 37, 31-46.

Bates, S. (2002, July). Facing tbe future. HR Maga- zine, pp. 26—32.

Beaumont, P. B. (1992). Tbe US buman resource management literature: A review. In G. Sala- man, S. Cameron, H. Hamblin, P. lies, C. Mabey, & K. Tbompson (Eds.), Human re- source strategies (pp. 20-37). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Becker, B. E., & Cerbart, B. (1996). Tbe impact of buman resource management on organizational performance: Progress and prospects. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 779-801.

Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (1998). Higb per- formance work systems and firm performance: A syntbesis of researcb and managerial implica- tions. Researcb in Personnel and Human Re- source Management, 16, 53-101.

Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., Pickus, P. S., & Spratt, M. F. (1997). HR as a source of sbare- bolder value: Researcb and recommendations. Human Resource Management, 36, 39—47.

Brockbank, W. (1999). If HR were really strategi- cally proactive: Present and future directions in HR's contribution to competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 38, 337-352.

Brockbank, W., & Ulricb, D. (2003). Tbe new HR agenda: 2002 buman resource competency study (Executive Summary). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Business Scbool. Retrieved November 22, 2003, from bttp:// w e b u s e r . b u s . u m i c b . e d u / P r o g r a m s / b r c s / HRCS2002ExecutiveSummary.pdf

Brown, L. D., & Covey, J. C. (1987). Development organizations and organization development: An annual series featuring advances in tbeory, metbodology and researcb. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Researcb in organiza- tional cbange and development (Vol. 1, pp. 59-87). New York: JAI Press.

Burke, W. W. (1995). Organization development: Tben, now and tomorrow. Organization Devel- opment Journal, 13(4), 7-17.

Burke, W. W (1997). Tbe new agenda for organiza- tion development. Organization Dynamics, 26(1), 6-20.

Cappelb, P., & Crocker-Hefter, A. (1996). Distinc- tive buman resources are firms' core competen- cies. Organizational Dynamics, 24(3), 7-22.

Cburcb, A. (2001). Tbe professionalization of or- ganization development: Tbe next step in an evolving field. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pas- more (Eds.), Researcb in organizational cbange and development (Vol. 13, pp. 1-42). Amster- dam: JAI Press.

Cburcb, A. H., Burke, W. W, & Eynde, D. F. V. (1994). Values, motives, and interventions of organization development practitioners. Group and Organization Management, 19(1), 5-50.

Clark, D. (1999). A time capsule of training and learning. Retrieved January 20, 2004, from bttp://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/brd/bistory/ bistory.btml

Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2001). Organiza- tion development and cbange (7tb ed.). Cincin- nati, OH: Soutb-Westem College Publisbing.

Dannemiller Tyson Associates. (2000). Wbole-scale cbange: Unleasbing tbe magic in organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koebler.

Delaney, J. T, & Huselid, M. A. (1996). Tbe impact of buman resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 949-969.

Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theo- rizing in strategic buman resource manage- ment: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Acad- emy of Management Journal, 39, 802-835.

Dixon, N. M. (1994). Tbe organizational learning cycle: How we can learn collectively. San Diego: University Associates.

Dyer, L., & Holder, G. W. (1988). A strategic per- spective of buman resource management. In L. Dyer & G. W. Holder (Eds.), Human resource management: Evolving roles and responsibili- ties (pp. 1-1-1-46). Wasbington, DC: Tbe Bu- reau of National Affairs Inc.

Freedman, A. (1990). Tbe cbanging buman re- sources function (Report No. 950). New York: Tbe Conference Board Inc.

Frencb, W. L., & Bell, J. C. H. (2000). A bistory of organization development. In W. L. Frencb, J. C. H. Bell, & R. A. Zawacki (Eds.), Organiza- tion development and transformation: Manag-

The Making of Twenty-First-Century HR 65

ing effective change (5th ed,, pp. 20—42). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Gandossy, R., & Sobel, A. (2003). The HR head as trusted CEO advisor: Six strategies for becom- ing a valued partner to senior management. In M. Effron, R. Gandossy, & M. Goldsmith (Eds.), Human resources in the 21st century (pp. 287-294). New York: Wiley.

Gilbert, T. F. (1978). Human competence: Engi- neering worthy performance. New York: Mc- Graw-Hill.

Grieves, J., & Redman, T. (1999). Living in the shadow of OD: HRD and the search for iden- tity. Human Resource Development Interna- tional, 2(2), 81-103.

Harris, H. (2000). Defining the future of reliving the past? Unions, employers, and the challenges of workplace learning (Information Series #380 and ERIG #: ED440292). Golumbus, OH: ERIG Glearinghouse on Adult, Gareer, and Vo- cational Education.

Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human re- source management practices on turnover, pro- ductivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635—672.

Jelinek, M., & Litterer, J. A. (1988). Why OD must become more strategic. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organization change and development (Vol. 2, pp. 136—162). Greenwich, GT: JAI Press.

Ketchen, D. J., Thomas, J. B., & Snow, G. S. (1993). Organizational configurations and perfor- mance: A comparison of theoretical ap- proaches. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1278-1313.

Lawrence, P. R. (1985). The history of human re- source management in American industry. In R. E. Walton & P. R. Lawrence (Eds.), HRM trends and challenges (pp. 15—34). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Leicht, K. T, & Fennell, M. L. (2001). Professional work: A sociological approach. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.

Levy, A., & Merry, U. (1986). Organizational trans- formation. New York: Praeger.

MacDonald, J. R. (2003). Profession at a crossroads. In M. Effron, R. Gandossy, & M. Goldsmith (Eds.), Human resources in the 21st century (pp. 259-264). New York: Wiley.

Magretta, J. (2002). What management is: How it works and why it's everyone's business. New York: The Free Press.

Marius, R. (1995). A short guide to writing about history (2nd. ed.). New York: Harper GoUins Gollege Publishers.

Marquardt, M. J. (1995). Building the learning or- ganization: A systems approach to quantum im- provement and global success. New York: Mc- Graw-Hill.

Marsick, V. A., & Watkins, K. E. (1990). Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. Lon- don: Routledge.

McLagan, P. (1989). Models for HRD practice. Training and Development, 43(9), 49-59.

McNeil, S. (2002). A hypertext history of instruc- tional design. Retrieved January 20, 2004, from http://www.coe.uh.edu/courses/cuin6373/ idhistory/

Mello, J. A. (2002). Strategic human resource man- agement. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Gol- lege Publishing.

Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, G. R. (1993). Gonfigurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1175-1195.

Miller, D. (1987). The genesis of configurations. Academy of Management Review, 12, 686—701.

Miller, D., & Mintzberg, H. (1984). The case for configuration. In D. Miller & P. H. Friesen (Eds.), Organizations: A quantum view (pp. 10-30). Englewood Gliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Miller, V. A. (1996). The history of training. In R. L. Graig (Ed.), The ASTD training & develop- ment handbook: A guide to human resource development (4th ed., pp. 3-18). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nadler, L. (1970). Developing human resources. Houston: Gulf.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational ad- vantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.

Patel, D. (2002). SHRM workplace forecast: A strategic outlook 2002-2003. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.

Pfeffer, J. (1995). Producing sustainable competitive advantage through the effective management of people. Academy of Management Executive, 9(1), 55-72.

Phillips, J. J. (1999). HRD trends worldwide. Hous- ton, TX: Gulf.

Prahalad, G. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core com- petence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79-92.

66 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2004

Robinson, D. G., & Robinson, J.C. (1995). Perfor- mance consulting: Moving beyond training. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Rothwell, W. J. (1999). ASTD models for human per- formance improvement: Roles, competencies, and outputs (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASTD.

Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1995). Improving performance: How to manage the white space in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sammut, A.C. (2001). HR & OD : Highlighting the need to establish a clear definition of OD. Or- ganization Development Journal, 19(2), 9-18.

Sanzgiri, J., & Gottlieb, J. Z. (1992). Philosophies and pragmatic influences on the practice of or- ganization development 1950-2000. Organiza- tion Dynamics, 21(2), 57-69.

Sashkin, M., & Burke, W. W. (1990). Organization development in the 198O's. In F. Massarik (Ed.), Advances in organization development (Vol. 1, pp. 315-349). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Schein, E.H. (1997). Organization development and the organization of the future. Organization De- velopment Journal, 15(2), 11-19.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Gurrency.

Sleight, D.A. (1993). A developmental history of train- ing in the United States and Europe. Retrieved January 20, 2004, from http://www.msu.edu/ -sleightd/trainhst.html

Stolovich, H. D., & Keeps, E. J. (1992). What is human performance technology. In H. D. Stolovich & E. J. Keeps (Eds.), Handbook of human performance technology (pp. 3-13). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sullivan, R., Rothwell, W. J., & Worley, C. G. (2001). Twentieth edition of the organization change and development competency effort. Retrieved November 22, 2003, from http:// www.odnetwork.org/odcompetencies/index.html? PHPSESSID=63bcfe7fd93548ee41a55bdlb317 6063

Swanson, R. A. (1994). Analysis for improving per- formance: Tools for diagnosing organizations and documenting workplace expertise. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2001). Foundations of human resource development. San Fran- cisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Swanson, R. A. & Torraco, R. J. (1994). History of technical training. In L. A. Kelly (Ed.), ASTD technical and skills training handbook (pp. 1-47). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tichy, N. (1983). Managing strategic change. New York: Wiley.

Torraco, R. A., & Swanson, R. A. (1995). The strate- gic roles of human resource development. Human Resource Planning, 18(4), 10-21.

Ulrich, D. (1997). Human resource champions. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Ulrich, D. (1998). A new mandate for human re- sources. Harvard Business Review, 76(1), 125-134.

Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W, Yeung, A. K., & Lake, D. G. (1995). Human resource competencies: An empirical assessment. Human Resource Management, 34, 473-495.

Van der Heijden, K. (1997). Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation. New York: Wiley.

Walton, J. (1999). Strategic human resource de- velopment. Essex, UK: Prentice Hall.

Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and science of systematic change. San Fran- cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Weidner, C. K., & Kulick, O. A. (1999). The pro- fessionalization of organization development: A status report and look to the future. In R. W. Woodman & W A. Pasmore (Eds.), Re- search in organizational change and develop- ment (Vol. 12, pp. 319-371). Amsterdam: JAI Press.

Weinberger, L. (1998). Gommonly held theories of human resource development. Human Re- source Development International, 1(1), 75-93.

Weisbord, M. R. (1992). Discovering common ground. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., & Snell, S. A. (2001). Human resources and the resource based view of the firm. Journal of Manage- ment, 27, 701-721.