1736703

8/13/2019 1736703

1/15

Strategic HRD practices as keyfactors in organizational learning

Chien-Chi TsengUniversity of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA, and

Gary N. McLeanTexas A and M University, College Station, Texas, USA

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationships among strategic HRD (SHRD)practices and organizational learning; and the relationships among organizational learning and HRDoutcomes through a literature review.

Design/methodology/approach Keywords were identified to use in the literature search: HRD,SHRD practices, and organizational learning. All of the several electronic databases available in theuniversitys electronic library, including both journal and book sources, were used to search forresources, as well as Google Scholar and Google.

Findings Organizations that learn and develop their SHRD practices have more opportunities toobtain and integrate the nine HRD outcomes in the learning process: organizational mission and goals,top management leadership, environmental scanning, HRD strategies and plans, strategicpartnerships with line management, strategic partnerships with HRM, trainers as organizationalchange consultants, influence corporate culture, and emphasis on individual productivity andparticipation.

Research limitations/implications The study was exploratory, based on a literature review.Empirical research is needed to examine why some SHRD practices, like culture recognition,environmental scanning, and organizational mission and goals, were suggested as key factors in

organizational learning.Practical implications Instilling more SHRD practices through organizational learning may leadto more desired HRD outcomes.

Originality/value The research constructs a conceptual framework to outline the relationshipsamong SHRD practices and organizational learning. Value was created when strategic HRD practiceswere identified as key factors in organizational learning.

KeywordsHuman resource development, Organizational learning, Organizational effectiveness,Mission statements, Leadership, United States of America

Paper type Literature review

Effective organizations have employees who are committed and make contributions toorganizational success (Marsick and Watkins, 1999). Hale (1991) pointed out that

human resource development (HRD) professionals support organizational learning inorder to establish performance expectations, address higher-level problem-solvingskills, and account for societal outcomes. Thus, strategic HRD involves long-termdevelopment of people within the organization (Gilley and Maycunich, 2000) thatfosters continuous organizational effectiveness.

Thus, HRD professionals have adopted a new approach to maximizingorganizational effectiveness, one that addresses the real problems of an organizationand enables it to achieve learning results (Rothwell, 1996). What does this new

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

JEIT32,6

418

Received 23 October 2007Revised 7 January 2008Accepted 4 March 2008

Journal of European Industrial

Training

Vol. 32 No. 6, 2008

pp. 418-432

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0309-0590

DOI 10.1108/03090590810886544

8/13/2019 1736703

2/15

approach look like to enable organizations to achieve learning results and adopt thenew approach?

By organizing, integrating, and evaluating previously published material identifiedin a comprehensive literature review, this research focused on identifying the

relationships among strategic HRD (SHRD) practices and organizational learning. Weargue that SHRD has a responsibility to provide strategies, training, and developmentopportunities to help organizations and their employees to achieve their business goals.Then, we argue that the characteristics of SHRD are important in supportingorganizational learning. We argue, finally, that SHRD practices, by influencingorganizational learning, provide organizations with the key capabilities to enhancetheir HRD outcomes related to SHRD practices.

Problem statementThe concept of SHRD has been explored by several authors in recent years (Beckeret al., 2001; Garavanet al., 1995; Gilley and Eggland, 1989; Gilley and Maycunich, 2000;

Grieves, 2003; Harrison, 1997; Lee, 2003; Nadler and Wiggs, 1986). For example,Grieves (2003) stated that SHRD provides the foundation for understandingtwenty-first-century change management: organizational design, innovation andenterprise, empowerment, strategic downsizing, total quality management, businessprocess reengineering, and teamwork. Lee (2003) argued that SHRD practice is aboutaddressing the underlying assumptions of human conditions and influencing humanconditions.

To almost the same extent, the role of organizational learning has been muchdiscussed in the literature (Brinkerhoff and Gill, 1994; Dixon, 1994; Gardiner andSadler-Smith, 2001; Gomez et al., 2004; Klimencki and Lassleben, 1998; Sadler-Smithet al., 2001; Williams, 2001). These studies were used to examine how organizationallearning helps employees attain performance results that enable them to accomplish

work performance and outcomes. For example, Sadler-Smith et al. (2001) stated that:

[. . .] organizational learning is often presented as one way in which firms may respond toincreasingly competitive market conditions by managing their knowledge assets in moreeffective ways (Sadler-Smithet al., 2001, p. 139).

However, there is a need to develop a holistic perspective of the way in which SHRDpractices relate to organizational learning. Although several studies have highlightedthe positive effects of certain HR practices on organizational learning (Cavaleri, 2004;Ford, 2006; Perez Lopez et al., 2006), there is a lack of studies that explore SHRDpractices broadly and their relation to organizational learning. Although several workshave emphasized the effects of certain SHRD practices in organizational learning(Gilley and Maycunich, 2000; Grieves, 2003; Wang and Wang, 2004), there is a lack of a

conception or model that examines these relationships and their related outcomes.Therefore, because outcomes are important for business success, understanding therelationships among SHRD practices, organizational learning, and HRD outcomeswould be a valuable contribution.

The purpose of this research was to explore the relationships among strategic HRD(SHRD) practices and organizational learning; and the relationships amongorganizational learning and HRD outcomes through a literature review. Aconceptual framework outlining the relationships among SHRD practices and

Strategic HRDpractices

419

8/13/2019 1736703

3/15

organizational learning is provided to illustrate how these relationships can enhanceHRD outcomes.

Research questions and significanceThis research clarifies the relationships among SHRD practices, organizationallearning, and HRD outcomes by exploring the following two research questions:

RQ1. What are the key factors of SHRD practices in organizational learning?

RQ2. How do SHRD practices help to maximize HRD outcomes by embracingorganizational learning?

HRD professionals need to develop an approach that helps the organization focus on itsstrategic business goals. Such an approach must focus on organizational learning andthe key factors that it influences. In this study, the key factors are to be found in SHRDpractices (Brinkeerhoff and Gill, 1994). In an organizational learning context, strategyemphasizes the importance and critical nature of employees and organizations inachieving their business goals and organizational effectiveness.

Argyris and Schon (1978) pointed out that:

[. . .] organizational learning occurs when members of the organization act as learning agentsfor the organization, responding to changes in the internal and external environments of theorganization by detecting and correcting errors in organizational theory-in-use, andembedding the results of their inquiry in private images and shared maps of organization(Argyris and Schon, 1978, p. 29).

In addition, organizational learning establishes a link between the environment and theHRD outcomes that encourages proactive rather than reactive behavior (Perez Lopezet al., 2005). Thus, SHRD practices have the objectives to channel organizationalinquiry (Argyris and Schon, 1996), implement organizational learning (Marsick andWatkins, 2003), and maximize HRD outcomes (Antoni, 2004; Bauman, 2005; Pe rezLopez et al., 2005). To fulfill these objectives, SHRD must be well-organized andplanned, as well as integrated into every aspect of the organization. Therefore, theanswers related to the above research questions demonstrate the significance of thisapproach.

MethodsIn order to conduct a comprehensive literature review, we first identified key words:HRD and outcomes, SHRD practices, and organizational learning, as discussed earlierwith their definitions. Second, we identified databases to search; the University ofMinnesotas electronic library multiple databases of EBSCO Hosts Academic Search

Primer, MasterFILE Primer, Business Source Primer, and EBSCO megaFILE,including both journal and book sources, were used, as well as Google Scholar andGoogle.

Theoretical frameworkGaravans (1991) paper was used as the foundation of this study, with additional inputemerging from the search to provide information on ways in which SHRD has changedsince 1991. The literature enhanced our understanding of the nine key factors

JEIT32,6

420

8/13/2019 1736703

4/15

influencing the framework for SHRD practices in organizational learning. In addition,Gilley and Maycunich (2000) and Perez Lopez et al. (2006) provided the concept oforganizational learning used in this study. The study supported the importance ofhelping employees learn effectively through knowledge acquisition, distribution,

interpretation, and organizational memory. McCracken and Wallaces (2000) findingswere applied to the discussion of HRD outcomes to combine SHRD inputs,transformations, and HRD outcomes. In addition to this literature, the system model inorganizations discussed by Swanson (1996) was used to examine improvements inorganizational performance through organizational learning.

DefinitionsDefinitions are provided for HRD and outcomes, SHRD practices, and organizationallearning.

HRD and outcomesSeveral definitions have been provided for human resource development (HRD) duringthe past few decades (Gilley and Eggland, 1989; Lee, 2003; McCracken and Wallace,2000; McLean and McLean, 2001; Nadler, 1983; Nadler and Wiggs, 1986; Smith, 1988;Swanson, 1996). Three areas of professional practice are typically included in thedefinitions of HRD:

(1) learning;

(2) performance; and

(3) change.

For example, Swanson (1996), p. 207) defined HRD as a process of developing and

unleashing human expertise through organization development and personal trainingand development for the purpose of improving performance. Nadler (1983, p. 1)defined HRD as organized learning experiences in a given period of time to bringabout the possibility of performance change or general growth for the individual andthe organization. McLean and McLean (2001) described HRD in a global perspective:

Human resource development is any process or activity that, either initially or over the longterm, has the potential to develop . . . work-based knowledge, expertise, productivity andsatisfaction, whether for personal or group/team gain, or for the benefit of an organization,community, nation or, ultimately, the whole of humanity (McLean and McLean, 2001, p. 322).

Most definitions include, at minimum, the need for organizational efforts to result inHRD outcomes that enhance the organizations competitiveness and effectiveness.

Based on Besterfield-Sacre et al. (2000) and McLean and McLean (2001), outcomescould be defined as the abilities and recognition for developing work-based knowledge,expertise, productivity, and satisfaction.

SHRD practicesSHRD is useful in many contexts and widely differing activities (Garavanet al., 1995).Gilley and Eggland (1989) concluded that SHRD is an organized learning activitywithin the organization used to improve performance and personal growth for the


421

8/13/2019 1736703

5/15

purpose of improving the job, the individual, and the organization. The key definitionof SHRD used in this article is Garavans (1991):

SHRD is the strategic management of training, development, and of management orprofessional education interventions, so as to achieve the objectives of the organization whileat the same time ensuring the full utilization of the knowledge in detail and skills ofindividual employees (Garavan, 1991, p. 19).

SHRD, with its focus on proactive change management, can help organizations survivein an increasingly global, unstable, and competitive environment (Grieves, 2003).Several key elements, including critical thinking (Patterson et al., 2002), evaluation(Torres and Preskill, 2001), strategic hiring and training (Perez Lopez et al., 2006),participation (Wang and Wang, 2004), and credibility (Ulrich, 1997), serve as a roadmap for SHRD practices and provide SHRD professionals with a clear path to establishvalue and performance in their organizations.

Garavan (1991) emphasized the need for integration into business planning ascritical for SHRD, as is a contribution to corporate goals and an awareness of mission.The support and active participation of top management, as key stakeholders, are vitalfor the development of SHRD. In addition, he argued, continuous knowledge of theexternal environment, in terms of opportunities and threats for the business and forHRD, specifically, is vital for SHRD to flourish. The nine SHRD key characteristicssuggested by Garavan (1991) are:

(1) integration with organizational missions and goals;

(2) top management support;

(3) environmental scanning;

(4) HRD plans and policies;

(5) line manager commitment and involvement;

(6) existence of complementary HRM activities;

(7) expanded trainer role;

(8) recognition of culture; and

(9) emphasis on evaluation.

Organizational learningPerez Lopez et al. (2006) concluded that organizational learning is a process toimprove the development of the organization by means of new initiatives(technological, productive or commercial) (p. 217). In addition, organizationallearning is important for product innovation (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). This

requires a move from simply putting more knowledge into databases to leveraging themany ways that knowledge can migrate into an organization and impact businessperformance (Cross and Baird, 2000). Tippins and Sohi (2003) considered thatorganizational learning consists of four dimensions: information acquisition,information dissemination, shared interpretation, and development of organizationalmemory.

Perez Lopez et al. (2006, p. 218) conceptualized organizational learning in thefollowing dimensions:

JEIT32,6

422

8/13/2019 1736703

6/15

. knowledge acquisition, which, due to its distinctive characteristics, can besubdivided into external and internal knowledge acquisition;

. distribution, by means of which knowledge is spread among the members of theorganization;

. interpretation, in which individuals share and incorporate aspects of theirknowledge that are not common to all of them, thereby achieving sharedunderstanding, as well as coordinating the decision making; and

. organizational memory, which tries to store knowledge for future use, either inorganizational systems designed for this purpose or in the form of rules,procedures and other systems.

Gilley and Maycunich (2000) conceived the learning process as consisting of fivephases. First is preparation for learning; in order to ensure that learning is effective,organizations must adequately prepare for the acquisition of new knowledge. Second isinformation exchange, allowing employees to obtain content necessary to improve

their knowledge, skills, or behaviors. The learning environment must support the freeexchange of ideas and feelings and allow learners to feel secure and to participate inopen two-way communications (Hiemstra, 1991). Third is knowledge acquisition andpractice; learning occurs when certain activities cause an individual to transposeinformation into new awareness that ultimately alters behavior. The new awareness isequal to knowledge acquisition and practice. Fourth is transfer and integration; if theorganization fails to assist employees in integrating learning and transferring skills orknowledge on the job, the organization will experience difficulty, and opportunities forchange will be lost. The last is accountability and recognition; individuals are heldaccountable for their learning and are recognized for their efforts and improvement.

Based on an integration of the above definitions, organizational learning is a process

of learning in order to acquire knowledge and improve business performance, and itconsists of at least four dimensions: knowledge acquisition, knowledge distribution,interpretation, and organizational memory.

Outcomes and findingsAs SHRD emerges and thrives, then so do organizational learning practices(McCracken and Wallace, 2000). According to McCracken and Wallace (2000), HRDoutcomes are relevant to consider in the context of SHRD, and there is a need foridentifiable organizational culture (Schein, 1985) practices to emerge. Thus, SHRDpractices become the creation of a learning culture, within which a range of training,development and learning strategies both respond to corporate strategy and also helpto sharp and influence it (McCracken and Wallace, 2000, p. 288).

To achieve the desired outcomes, SHRD practices must be well-organized, planned,and integrated into every aspect of the organization. The impact of the nine key factorsof SHRD practices in a systematic learning process is not easily analyzed as the resultsare not easily observed. A process model looking at inputs, processes, and outputs maybe helpful in understanding these relationships, with the nine characteristics of SHRDpractice as the inputs, organizational learning as the systematic implementationprocess, and organizational learning as the transformative output. From the literature,we have concluded that SHRD practices should have a proactive and influential role.


423

8/13/2019 1736703

7/15

This leads to a proposal for a conceptual framework for SHRD practices as key factorsin organizational learning as detailed in Figure 1.

In the framework, three major components are included in an organizational systemmodel (inputs-processes-outputs) (Swanson, 1996). The nine features of SHRD

practices are established as the inputs of the model. The nine traits of HRD outcomesare the outputs. Four aspects of organizational learning are the processes fortransformation, which is between SHRD practices and HRD outcomes. The HRDoutcomes, relationships among SHRD practices and organizational learning, andrelationships among organizational learning and HRD outcomes are discussed.

HRD outcomesFacilitation of organizational learning and HRD outcomes can take place only in asupportive environment where there is a clear link between HRD and corporatestrategy (Garavan, 1991; McCracken and Wallace, 2000; Perez Lopezet al., 2006), whereHRD is developed into the new enhanced version of the nine SHRD characteristics

shown in Figure 1. These effects are not mutually exclusive but are interrelated suchthat employees and the organization use all or a combination of them simultaneously todirect and control their learning.

Relationships among SHRD practices and organizational learningMohrman and Lawler (1997) believed that SHRD practices contribute to businessstrategy based on knowledge of the competencies and capabilities of the organization,and an understanding of organizational learning that will be required to supportspecified strategic directions. In Figure 1, the nine key factors of SHRD practices fororganizational learning are examined within the proposed framework.

Figure 1.Conceptual framework forstrategic HRD practices inorganizational learning

JEIT32,6

424

8/13/2019 1736703

8/15

(1) Integration with organizational missions and goals: SHRD practices in thiscontext are seen as vital in organizational learning, and training anddevelopment are viewed as making an effective contribution to business goals.Barhamet al.(1987) pointed out that SHRD involves a move from activities that

are fragmented to a situation where training and development are either moresystematically linked to such goals or else are so systematically integrated withorganizational needs that they are seen as a necessity for organizationalsurvival.

(2) Top management support: According to Holland and Light (1999), executivesmust be willing to allocate valuable organizational resources and must have thecredibility to build strong strategic partnerships with functional areas(Willcocks and Sykes, 2000, p. 35). In addition, Dong (2001) suggested that a topmanagement commitment to resources is vital to ensure project continuanceand success. Top management support is one of the most important factors forensuring organizational learning success (McCracken and Wallace, 2000).

(3) Environmental scanning: Garavan (1991) argued that a competitiveenvironment presents major opportunities as it highlights the role of humanresources as a key component of business success. This, in turn, will present theopportunity to discuss HRD strategies at the highest level and ensure that thefirst characteristic discussed, that of integration, is achieved. The environmentcan also act as a threat to the HRD function. Stiff competition, if not addressedeffectively, can reduce profit margins and consequently lead to a reduction intraining budgets. This situation clearly points to the need for HRD strategy tobe well positioned in the overall business context including organizationallearning.

(4) HRD plans and policies: Organizational learning engages in HRD policy and

plan formulation because it acts not only as a source of information for allmanagers, but also clearly sets out for employees the different types ofeducation, learning, and development activities that they can undertake to helpdevelop their skills and knowledge, and, therefore, it complements careerdevelopment activities.

(5) Line manager commitment and involvement:The line manager is best placed toassess, on an ongoing basis, the training and development needs ofsubordinates and can facilitate identifying development routes forsubordinates and is ideally placed to provide advice, direction, andcounseling to subordinates. Therefore, the competence of line managers isvital to a successful implementation of strategic HRD (Garavan, 1991) and

organizational learning (Day, 2001).(6) Existence of complementary HRM activities: Buckley and Caple (1990) rightly

pointed out that in the past HRD has adopted a closed system mode of thinking.This has had the consequence of making it unresponsive to organizationalneeds, unaware of how its activities link with HRM activities, and lacking insignificant evaluation. HRD must view itself as one strategy available to anorganization wishing to retain, develop, and motivate its human resources toincrease the value of organizational learning.


425

8/13/2019 1736703

9/15

(7) Expanded trainer role: The HRD role is burdened with many role conflicts.Three types of conflict in particular have been identifiedthe trainers internalconflicts, managing conflicting priorities between the HRD function and thewider organization, and managing conflicts among line departments (Garavan,

1991). These conflicts place high demands on the skills and credibility of theHRD specialist, and the probability of failure in the role is high. Thus, it isimportant to expand the trainers role.

(8) Recognition of culture:Culture must be viewed as a central factor in the overallprocess because the HRD function has a key role in maintaining and changingcorporate culture. An examination of these various perspectives is necessary ifa strategically-focused HRD function is to establish options, policies, and plansthat fit the strategic logic and cultural web found in the organization. Thus,HRD efforts cannot ignore the prevailing and desired cultures of anorganization in the learning process.

(9) Emphasis on evaluation:A key component of the strategic learning process is

that of strategy evaluation. If the HRD function wishes to have a strategic focus,then it must evaluate its activities. Zenger and Hurgis (1982) pointed out thatstrategically-oriented HRD functions spend time evaluating their activities, andthey use measures that seem most relevant to the management of their ownorganization.

Relationships among organizational learning and HRD outcomesGaravan (1991) pointed out that HRD is best seen as the strategic management oftraining, development, and management or professional education interventions, so asto achieve the objectives of the organization, while at the same time ensuring the fullutilization of the detailed knowledge and skills of individual employees. He emphasized

that SHRD is concerned with the management of employee learning for the long-termwith emphasis on explicit corporate and business strategies. Nine levels of HRDoutcomes are created, Garavan (1991) suggested, when SHRD practices help tomaximize HRD outcomes by embracing organizational learning. Consequently, there ismuch to be explored regarding interactions between organizational learning and HRDoutcomes (Egan et al., 2004).

(1) Shaping organizational mission and goals. Organizational learning provides anopportunity to shape organizational mission and goals (McCracken andWallace, 2000). This understanding helps to facilitate organizational change(Kezar, 2002).

(2) Top management leadership.Manev, 2005 argued that leadership factors have

strong effects on top-management innovation influence. In support of theSHRD-specific view of leadership, the human resource management contextdirectly influences leadership and moderates its relationship withorganizational learning.

(3) Environmental scanning by senior management. There is a significantrelationship, resulting in greater firm performance, between the frequencythat senior managers conduct environmental scanning and a firms level ofcommitment to the planning process (Newkirk-Moore and Bracker, 1998).

JEIT32,6

426

8/13/2019 1736703

10/15

(4) HRD strategies, policies, and plans. McCracken and Wallace (2000) explainedthat HRD has a role in systematic implementation of strategies, policies, andplans. SHRD practices develop the internal learning consultancy capabilities,allowing the organization to shape further its mission and goals, as well as its

HRD strategies, policies, and plans.

(5) Strategic partnerships with line management. It is necessary to draw onconsulting experiences within a networked organization to focus on issuesrelated to creation, maintenance, and assessment of SHRD. Lessons learned formanaging and consulting in such partnerships are essential (Buono, 1997).

(6) Strategic partnerships with HRM. HRM is a key component of a corporationscompetitive strategy. It offers flexible means of achieving market access, scaleeconomies, and competence development (Garavan, 1991).

(7) Trainers as organizational change consultants. Trainers have a specialimplementation role in relation to HRD (McCracken and Wallace, 2000).Training specialists tend to have an administrative and delivery role. The roleof trainers shifts from expanded trainer to trainers as organizational changeconsultant.

(8) Ability to influence corporate culture.Gordon (1995) analyzed the managementof racial and gender identities and conflicts as core components of corporateculture. Developing the ability to influence corporate culture is very importantin the process of organizational learning transformation.

(9) Emphasis on individual productivity and satisfaction.Rosenberg and Rosenstein(1980) concluded that an increase in the level of participative activity wasassociated with an increase in productivity and employee satisfaction.

Conclusions and recommendationsConsidering the contribution to a wider human resource effort, the practices of SHRDhave become dynamic activities to link the advantages of nine characteristics of SHRDtogether (Garavan, 1991). The literature suggests that, when all of the practices ofSHRD are implemented as key factors, organizational learning will have adevelopmental effect on the nine HRD-related outcomes. In order to developstrategic HRD practices that can be introduced in the organizational learning process,SHRD practices, as defined by nine components, are in place, including integrationwith organizational missions and goals, top management support, environmentalscanning, HRD plans and policies, line manager commitment and involvement,existence of complementary HRM activities, expanded trainer role, recognition ofculture, and emphasis on evaluation.

This research concludes that organizations that take the initiative to learn anddevelop their SHRD practices have more opportunities to use learning to achieve thenine HRD outcomes. On the other hand, the nine HRD outcomes are cultivated throughlearning by integration with organizational mission and goals, top managementleadership, environmental scanning by senior HRD management, HRD strategies,policies and plans, strategic partnerships with line management, strategic partnershipswith HRM, trainers as organizational change consultants, ability to influence corporateculture, and emphasis on individual productivity and participation. Therefore,


427

8/13/2019 1736703

11/15

organizations can become more effective when they know the intended business goalsand outcomes regarding their practices in SHRD during the learning process.

Implications of SHRD practices for the workplaceIn the workplace, learning is the crucial component in the transformation from thetraditional organization to the developmental organization (Gilley and Maycunich,2000). In addition, SHRD practices have the potential for being valued components ofmanagement by contributing to business strategy and organizational learning. That iswhy SHRD practices appear to be important for organization learning. For industrialapplications, instilling more SHRD practices through organizational learning may leadto a more desired HRD outcome.

First, organizational change in the workplace appears to be a benefit whenorganizational learning is headed by SHRD practices. Second, SHRD practices mayhelp the organization integrate its vision, mission, strategy, and practices. Third, theorganization may become more diversified in the workplace. Fourth, individuals and

organizations may improve their performance. Fifth, implementing these practicesmay encourage employees to create innovation, including the process of bringing newproblem-solving and value-adding ideas into use. Finally, such practices may providegreater customer and employee satisfaction (Crannyet al., 1992; Smith, 1997; Spector,1997).

Therefore, organizations are increasingly establishing alliances and partnershipswith each other, with universities, and with governments to provide services such astraining and development, career and financial counseling, and development ofportable benefits and other systems necessary to nourish the new workforce. Further,new resources continue to become available to a workforce struggling to adapt to thechanging employment environment.

Contributions to new knowledge in HRDThis article provides support for the factors and directions of the relationships of theSHRD practices model suggested in Figure 1. Future research can build on this articleto validate the model. This article provides the foundation for future research toexamine the link between organizational learning and performance in order to increaseunderstanding of the role of HRD practices that can, in turn, lead to new ideas andtechnologies. Finally, how to address a wider group of respondents and examine therelationships in appropriate empirical research would be important for future research.We expect different characteristics of SHRD practices in the model to have variedeffects on performance and organizational learning.

ReferencesAntoni, C.H. (2004), Research note: a motivational perspective on change processes and

outcomes, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 2,pp. 197-216.

Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A. (1978), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective,Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A. (1996), Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice,Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

JEIT32,6

428

8/13/2019 1736703

12/15

Barham, K., Fraser, J. and Heath, R. (1987), Management for the Future, Ashridge Management

College, Berkhamsted.

Bauman, G.L. (2005), Promoting organizational learning in higher education to achieve equity in

educational outcomes, New Direction for Higher Education, Vol. 131, pp. 23-35.

Becker, B.E., Huselid, M. and Ulrich, D. (2001), HR as a strategic partner: the measurement

challenge, in Becker, B.E. (Ed.),The HR Scorecard: Linking People, Strategy, and Practice,

Harvard Business School, Boston, MA, pp. 1-26.

Besterfield-Sacre, M., Shuman, L.J., Wolfe, H., Atman, C.j., McGourty, J., Miller, R.L., Olds, B.M.

and Rogers, G.M. (2000), Defining the outcomes: a framework for EC-2000, IEEETransactions on Education, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 100-10.

Brinkerhoff, R.O. and Gill, S.J. (1994), The learning alliance: systems thinking in human resource

development, available at: www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1555427111/ref sib_dp_pt/

002- 7904716-1088803#reader-link (accessed 13 November 2006).

Buckley, R. and Caple, J. (1990), The Theory and Practice of Training, Kogan Page, London.

Buono, A.F. (1997), Enhancing strategic partnerships: intervening in network organizations,

Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 251-66.

Cavaleri, S.A. (2004), Leveraging organizational learning for knowledge and performance,The

Learning Organization, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 159-76.

Cranny, C.J., Smith, P.C. and Stone, E.F. (1992), Job Satisfaction, Lexington Books, New York, NY.

Cross, R. and Baird, L. (2000), Feeding organizational memory: improving on knowledge

managements promise to business performance, in Robert, L., Cross, J. and Israelit, S.B.

(Eds), Strategic Learning in a Knowledge Economy: Individual, Collective and

Organizational Learning Process, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 69-90.

Day, C.R. (2001), The salty line manager and organizational learning: a conversation with Nick

Zeniuk,Reflections, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 35-40.

Dixon, N. (1994), The Organizational Learning Cycle: How We can Learn Collectively,

McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.

Dong, L. (2001), Modeling top management influence on ES implementation,Business Process

Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 243-50.

Egan, T.M., Yang, B. and Bartlett, K.R. (2004), The effects of organizational learning culture and

job satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention, Human

Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 279-301.

Ford, R. (2006), Organizational learning, change and power: toward a practice-theory

framework, The Learning Organization, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 495-524.

Garavan, T.N. (1991), Strategic human resource development, Journal of European Industrial

Training, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 17-30.

Garavan, T.N., Costine, P. and Heraty, N. (1995), The emergence of strategic human resourcedevelopment, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 19 No. 10, pp. 4-10.

Gardiner, P., Leat, M. and Sadler-Smith, E. (2001), Learning in organizations: HR implications

and considerations,Human Resource Development International, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 391-405.

Gilley, J. and Eggland, S.A. (1989), Principle of Human Resource Development, Perseus,

Cambridge.

Gilley, J. and Maycunich, A. (2000), Organizational Learning, Performance, and Change:

An Introduction to Strategic Human Resource Development, Perseus, Cambridge.


429

8/13/2019 1736703

13/15

Gomez, P.J., Lorente, J.J.C. and Cabrera, R.V. (2004), Training practices and organizational

learning capability: relationship and implications, Journal of European Industrial

Training, Vol. 28 Nos 2-3, pp. 234-56.

Gordon, A. (1995), The work of corporate culture: diversity management, Social Text, Vol. 44,

pp. 3-30.

Grieves, J. (2003),Strategic Human Resource Development, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Hale, J.A. (1991), Identification of key competencies of managers of training, Dissertation

Abstracts International, Vol. 52 No. 7, p. 2389A.

Harrison, R. (1997), Employee Development, Institute of Personal and Development, London.

Hiemstra, R. (1991), Toward building more effective learning environments, in Hiemstra, R.

(Ed.),New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education: 50, Creating Environments for

Effective Adult Learning, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Holland, C.P. and Light, B. (1999), A critical success factors model for ERP implementation,

IEEE Software, May/June, pp. 30-6.

Kezar, A. (2006), Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century:recent research and conceptualizations, available at: www3.interscience.wiley.com/

cgi-bin/abstract/89016385/ABSTRACT (accessed 25 November 2006).

Klimencki, R. and Lassleben, H. (1998), Modes of organizational learning: implications from an

empirical study, Management Learning, Vol. 29, pp. 405-30.

Lee, M. (2003), HRD in a Complex World, Routledge, New York, NY.

McCracken, M. and Wallace, M. (2000), Towards a redefinition of strategic HRD, Journal of

European Industrial Training, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 281-90.

McLean, G.N. and McLean, L.D. (2001), If we cant define HRD in one country, how can we

define it in an international context?,Human Resource Development International, Vol. 4

No. 3, pp. 313-26.

Manev, I.M. (2005), Top management leadership and influence on innovation: the role ofsociocultural context, Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 381-402.

Marsick, V.J. and Watkins, K.E. (1999), Facilitating Learning in Organizations: Making Learning

Count, Gower, Aldershot.

Marsick, V.J. and Watkins, K.E. (2003), Demonstrating the value of an organizations learning

culture: the dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire, Advances in

Developing Human Resources, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 132-51.

Mohrman, S.A. and Lawler, E.E. III (1997), Transforming the human resource function, in

Ulrich, D., Losey, M.R. and Lake, G. (Eds), Tomorrows HR Management: 48 Thought

Leaders Call for Change, Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, pp. 241-9.

Nadler, L. (1983),Human Resource Development: The Perspective of Business and Industry, ERIC

Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Columbus, OH.Nadler, L. and Wiggs, G. (1986), Managing Human Resource Development: A Practical Guide,

Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Newkirk-Moore, S. and Bracker, J.S. (2006), Strategic management training and commitment to

planning: critical partners in stimulating firm performance, available at: www.

blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/1468-2419.00037 (accessed 11 November 2006).

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press,

Oxford.

JEIT32,6

430

8/13/2019 1736703

14/15

Patterson, C., Crooks, D. and Lunyk-Child, O. (2002), A new perspective on competencies for

self-directed learning, Journal of Nursing Education, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 25-31.

Perez Lopez, S., Peon, J.M.M. and Ordas, C.J.V. (2005), Organizational learning as a determining

factor in business performance,The Learning Organization, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 227-45.

Perez Lopez, S., Peon, J.M.M. and Ordas, C.J.V. (2006), Human resource management as adetermining factor in organizational learning, Management Learning, Vol. 37 No. 2,pp. 215-39.

Rosenberg, R.D. and Rosenstein, E. (1980), Participation and productivity: an empirical study,

Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 355-67.

Rothwell, W. (1996),Beyond Training and Development: State-of-the-art Strategies for EnhancingHuman Performance, AMACOM, New York, NY.

Sadler-Smith, E., Spicer, D.P. and Chaston, I. (2001), Learning orientations and growth in smallerfirms, Long Range Planning, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 139-58.

Schein, E. (1985), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Smith, R. (1988), Human Resource Development: An Overview, Office of Educational Research

and Improvement, Washington, DC.

Smith, V. (1997), Mew forms of work organization, in Hagan, J. and Cook, K.S. (Eds), AnnualReview of Sociology, Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 315-409.

Spector, P.E. (1997),Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Swanson, R.A. (1996), In praise of the dependent variable, Human Resource DevelopmentQuarterly, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 203-7.

Tippins, M.J. and Sohi, R.S. (2003), IT competency and firm performance: is organizational

learning a missing link?, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24, pp. 745-61.

Torres, R.T. and Preskill, H. (2001), Evaluation and organizational learning: past, present, andfuture, American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 387-95.

Ulrich, D. (1997), Human Resource Champions, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.

Wang, G.G. and Wang, J. (2004), Toward a theory of human resource development learningparticipation, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 326-53.

Willcocks, L.P. and Stykes, R. (2000), The role of the CIO and IT function in ERP, Associationfor Computing Machinery, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 32-8.

Williams, A.P.O. (2001), A belief-focused process of organizational learning, Journal ofManagement Studies, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 65-87.

Zenger, J.H. and Hurgis, K. (1982), Assessing training results: its time to take the plunge,

Training and Development, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 10-16.

Further readingBrown, H., Peccei, R., Sandberg, J. and Welchman, R. (1989), Management training and

development: in search of an integrated approach, Journal of General Management,Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 69-82.

Ericson, M. (2006), Strategic HRD and the relational self, Human Resource DevelopmentQuarterly, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 223-9.

Huselid, M.A., Becker, B.E. and Beatty, R.W. (2005), The Workforce Scorecard: ManagingHuman Capital to Execute Strategy, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.


431

8/13/2019 1736703

15/15

About the authorsChien-Chi Tseng is a PhD Candidate in Human Resource Development in the Department ofWork and Human Resource Education at the University of Minnesota. He has ten yearsexperience in national research institutions, the academy, incubator centers, and industry, where

he worked as a researcher, instructor, and professional manager and won the Best ProfessionalIncubator Manager Award of the Year from the Government of Taiwan in 2001. Tseng has aspecial interest in researching enterprise development and organizational learning.

Gary N. McLean is a Senior Professor and Executive Director of International HRD Programsin the Department of Educational Administration and Human Resources at Texas A&MUniversity. With over 40 years experience in HRD and adult education and as ProfessorEmeritus at the University of Minnesota, he has published over 400 journal articles, bookchapters, and technical reports, with 22 textbooks. Gary has received numerous recognitions forhis teaching, research, and service, including the International Adult and Continuing EducationHall of Fame (2006), the Academy of HRD Hall of Fame (2007), and Morse Alumni DistinguishedTeaching Professor.

JEIT32,6

432

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

1736703

Documents