Abstract
O’Donnell and McGuire (2006) critically discussed five interrelated assumptions in the perspective of human resources development. The aim of this essay is critically discussing the article about structure, strengths and weaknesses, value, method of critical discussion, and overlooked points.
Introduction
O’Donnell and McGuire (2006) put the question whether human resources development (HRD) aims at the benefit of employees, organizations or both. In other words, they intended to examine what precisely HRD serves, the labor or capital. Recognizing the complexity of HRD and decide the nature, proportionality of HRD benefits, or whether this relationship between employees and organizations is changing, did they take on to provide a critical discussion on five related questions.
The authors put their discussion in the frame of HRD literature bringing in a critical modernist objective critiquing five interrelated questions addressing capital-labor relationship. First is the active development of employees to steer organizational functioning and improves shareholders value. Second is the standpoint that employees are co-suppliers and co-beneficiaries of HRD gains, third is the difference between HRD and HRM (human resources management). Fourth is the recognizable dissociation of HRD from the unitarism HRM outline, and finally is the effectiveness of HRD involvement in forming a positive organization and learning cultures.
The article content analysis
The article theme, there are differences between official authority beliefs that prevailed during the peak of bureaucratic Taylorism emerged in the late 18th Century, to functional authority that emerged because of industrial, management, and economic expansion. F. W. Taylor (1865-1915) was one of the first to examine behavior at workplaces. The model was the machine, which lead to removing the need for skill or judgment and commitment to hierarchies in performing a task (Wertheim, 2008, pp.8-9).
With expansion of economic specialties and areas of interest, a difficult problematic relation emerged between management and employees that lead to emergence of new theories of HRD and HRM. Not only that, but the whole concept has moved to functional authorities based on knowledge, expertise and know how (O’Donnell and McGuire, 2006).
The authors then defined HRD through answering the questions what, where, and how. Explaining the differences between past and present concepts, and defining the theory of HRD, the authors suggested using Frankfurt method of critical modernist approach to discuss the imposed questions. They followed the critical theory of thinking hoping that it may lead to providing within reach views into HRD practice and later carrying them out.
The authors’ five arguments were well developed as they fulfilled the following criteria (Eichhorn 2007). They had well stated argument at question, citing relevant references, and the authors did not show sensitivity to their personal assumption, despite their many articles in the subject. Also, the authors followed a clear pattern of reasoning starting by defining the theory behind the argument, and moving to the correlation between argument variables. The influence of global factors as political economy changes, communication, or differences in global structural views were reflected on the relationship of argument variables. Finally, they put their view or their reference frame at the end of each argument.
The authors’ approach had few strengths and weaknesses. On one hand the authors chose interrelated issues in HRD to discuss that influence each other, this gives an outline to one side of the scope of HRD, which is the active nature of correlation of employment to HRD. Selecting these questions resulted in depicting points of change between oratory and realistic views of HRD. The authors recognized some ideological changes of views imposed by the political economical changes occurred starting from the mid 1990s.
On the other hand, the authors did not provide clarification of key ideas (as Taylorism, unitarism, and postmodernist stances) when needed assuming the article is intended for specialized HRD personnel. Although the flow of information is smooth and uninterrupted, and the authors provided general questions in the introduction, yet they did not provide a general answer that binds the interrelated questions together. The authors did not point to the mainstay question of how the insights raised might fit into HRD planes and how they would affect professional HRD practice. Despite learning is a key issue in HRD, yet the authors did not refer to many aspects of the relationship between learning and organization culture in their discussion.
Characteristically, the authors identified the complex diverse nature of HRD and changes in global politics. From these points they began the discussion on whether HRD should be direct to the benefit of employees, organizations or both. They inferred HRD is mainly compliant to capital with the proposed aim of developing labor. Therefore, HRD professionals must deal with worries of labor capital relations from the prospective of debate solving discussions or studying the best for both.
Evaluation and analysis
As far as critical reasoning is concerned, the authors have an end in view (reasoning to some end) to reach their declared objective. They have also set the experimental facet of reasoning and put suitable assumptions and reckon (Eichhorn 2007). About critical theory used in this article (Frankfurt), the authors did not define it or compare it with other critical theories, therefore, the researcher intends to spotlight this issue to judge whether the authors adopted the proper theory or not. Kellner (2006) recognizes the Frankfurt critical theory stimulates interests and controversies despite being applied for more than 60 years.
Its ideas, views, and methods have contributed to how the interaction of theory, culture and society are viewed. Boje (2001) defined the core of critical postmodern theory as playing on differences of small political movements and inclinations of conservatism, multiculturalism, and theology without a binding requirement for hypothetical incorporation or methodical constancy. Thus it is a mid way theory looking at the area among postmodernism era, postmodernism theories of knowledge, and critical modernism. In Kellner (2006) opinion, all forms of postmodern theory decline political economy or stumble in fragmentation, or rejection of social conventions.
Thus, this theory is defective in theoretical sources of developing a critical theory expressing present-day society with emphasis on organization and combining all prospects and viewpoints (Kellner, 2006). British cultural studies ignore the analysis of mass culture developed by the Frankfurt school of critical theory labeled as socially undesirable. Therefore, there is a need to develop a multi critical assessment approach involving the political economy, analysis of artifacts, and uses the media cultural means (Kellner, 1998).
Human resources development is about maximizing the productivity of the human capital in organizations. It includes training, learning, career, and organization development. In a world of changing politics, economic trends, and communication facilities and speed, organizations need to respond to these changes by maximizing employees’ performance, developing incentives, motivation and work environment (Rouda and Kusy, 1995). This article spotlights some significant issues in this topic also, draws a distinction line between HRD and human resources management. In this respect the article is a useful contribution to the awareness of HRD scope and to understanding some of its issues.
Unitarism theory considers the workplace as one incorporated congruent body, while pluralist theory recognizes the occasional different interests of employees and organizations (Radcliffe, 2005, p.60). The researcher agrees with O’Donnell and McGuire (2006) that implications of both theories are within the domain of human resources management.
About learning, O’Donnell and McGuire (2006) discussed the assumption of how learning is related to organizational learning culture from the prospective of impressing organizational standards and worth. However, other important issues linking learning to organizational culture were not referred to. Examples of these unanswered questions are what type of relationship between learning and performance? Is it natural or induced? When and how problems and tensions arise because of such a relationship? Other questions are how do organizations learn? What managers can do to transfer expertise and support a favorable learning environment (Gilbert, Harvard Business School, n.d.).
Conclusion
O’Donnell and McGuire (2006) critically discussed five assumptions in HRD aiming to examine what precisely HRD serves, the labor or capital. They provided general questions yet provided no collective answer to include the interrelated assumption. They inferred that HRD is mainly in the service of capital. They did not provide clarification of key ideas when needed, and did not point to the mainstay question of how the insights raised might fit into HRD planes and how they would affect professional HRD practice. Also, they did not refer to many aspects of the relationship between learning and organization culture in their discussion. Despite that, the article is a useful contribution to the awareness of HRD scope and to understanding some of its issues.
References
Boje, D (2001). What is Critical Postmodern Theory. Web.
Eichhorn, R. (2007). Developing Thinking Skills: Critical Thinking at the Army Management Staff College. Web.
Gilbert, S. J (n.d.). Overcoming Hidden Barriers to Organizational Learning. Web.
Kellner, D (2006). Critical Theory Today: Revisiting the Classics. Web.
Kellner, D (1998). The Frankfurt School and British Cultural Studies: The Missed Articulation. Web.
O’Donnell, D, McGuire, D. and Cross, C. (2006). Critically Challenging Some Assumptions in HRD. International Journal of Training and Development, 10(1), 4-16.
Radcliffe, D (2005). Critique of Human Resources Theory. Otago Management Graduate Review, 3, 51-67.
Rouda, R. H. and Kusy, M. E. Jr. (1995). Beyond Training: a perspective on improving organizations and people in the paper industry. Web.
Wertheim, E. (2008). Historical Backgrounds of Organizational Behavior: Chapter in Understanding Organizational Culture in the Construction Industry. Brisbane, Australia: Taylor and Francis.