Matthew W. Gosney

HRD in the Modern Era

One of the challenges of evaluating the modern era of HRD is that it is still ongoing. History, like high school relationships, is usually best judged with the perspective of longitudinal distance. The challenge is made all the more difficult when considering modern HRD in a similar manner to other eras contained in this text. While the pattern of interplay between philosophy, theory, and practice is more or less evident in previous eras, our own biases tend to interfere with our ability to “step out” of ourselves and evaluate our own philosophical assumptions. Because, that is what a consideration of the modern era requires. By reading this book you may have some role in the modern expression of HRD as a discipline, be it as a practitioner or theorist. If Gosney’s model of modern era theory and practice generation in HRD, proposed in chapter 1, holds true, then we are bound to our own current historical context.

Introduction to HRD History and Critical Thinking Theory

On Saturday evening, January 7, 2012, a TV commercial for the prescription drug Chantix depicted a loving wife expressing a desire to stop smoking for the benefit of her husband and children. A voice-over began describing the potential side effects of the medication. The side effects become starker, with the voice-over calmly suggesting, “If you notice changes in your behavior such as a powerful, overwhelming desire to kill the person you love most, call your doctor right away” (Saturday Night Live, 2012). The couple, upon hearing the escalating severity of these side effects, looked at each other in horror.

Early Human History

This is the first chapter in which we will begin to delve into human history to better understand the growth and development of HRD as a discipline, as well as its current practice. Historical research, like any research epistemology, carries with it strengths and weaknesses. Johnson and Christensen (2008) def ine historical research as an “attempt to arrive at an account of what has happened in the past by systematically examining past events or combinations of events” (p. 435). Isaac and Michael (1995) give clear cause for when historical research is appropriate. Its purpose is: “To reconstruct the past systematically and objectively by collecting, evaluating, verifying, and synthesizing evidence to establish facts and reach defensible conclusions, often in relation to particular hypotheses” (p. 48). The dirty words in Isaac and Michael’s statement are systematically and objectively.

The Industrial Revolution

The end of the Middle Ages also brought about a significant reduction and almost extinction of the craft economy in which farmers, artisans, and miners were the predominant workforce (Bass, 1994). The Industrial Revolution of the late 1800s through the early 1900s ushered in the mass production economy and, with it, bureaucratic procedures and the notion of the worker as part of a larger organization (Carnevale, 1991). The American Industrial Revolution showed technological and organizational change in the areas of transportation and communication, roads, canals and engineering, railroads, the telegraph, manufacturing—including the Lowell system in the textile mills with power-operated processes—agriculture, and networks and systems (Williams, 2008). Jensen (1993) also noted widespread technological and organizational change that led to “declining costs, increasing average but decreasing marginal productivity of labor, reduced growth rates in labor income, excess capacity, and—ultimately—downsizing and exit” (p. 2). Energy in preindustrial America came from human labor, animal power, water power, and wood. The key concern then was human labor and the best use thereof. Capital markets played a major role in eliminating excess products and capacity of human resources and “although the vast increases in productivity associated with the nineteenth century industrial revolution increased aggregate welfare, the large costs associated with the obsolescence of human and physical capital generated substantial hardship, misunderstanding, and bitterness” (p. 2).

Underlying Assumptions of HRD Theory and Practice

Reviewing the history of HRD in this text is somewhat akin to flying cross-country in a jumbo airliner versus meandering down Route 66 in a ragtop convertible: your view is limited by small windows, high elevation, and the route the pilots chose. After reading thus far you may be exclaiming to yourself, “But what about the Cadillac Ranch outside of Amarillo? How can any tour of the United States consider itself complete without visiting such a landmark of Americana?” And you may very well be right! Without question, we have missed some elements of history that are indeed significant. In some instances, this is due to the limitations inherent in writing a book—one can only cram so much in before one risks critical overload. Other instances may simply be due to the authors’ biases or interests. We may have skipped the Cadillac Ranch in Amarillo to save time for a visit to the Winchester Mystery House in San Jose.

1950s–1970s: The Rise of Organization Development

Organization development, which evolved from organization theory (Hinings & Greenwood, 2002; Weber, 1964), has been defined by many researchers (Cummings & Worley, 2005; Egan, 2002; McLagan, 1989; McLean & McLean, 2001; McLean, 2006), and involves the principles, processes, and performance within organizations. McLean (2006) broadly describes organization development as follows: Any process or activity, based on the behavioral sciences, that, either initially or over a long term, has the potential to develop in an organization setting enhanced knowledge, expertise, productivity, satisfaction, income, interpersonal relationships, and other desired outcomes, whether for interpersonal or group/team gain or for the benefit of an organization, community, region, or, ultimately, the whole of humanity. (p. 9)

The Hellenic Period

As we progress in our journey through human history, the reader, as an astute observer, will begin to notice a rather important phenomenon: the interrelatedness of historic events. Similar to the concept of scaffolding in learning (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976), history regularly builds upon itself. New benchmarks are achieved as individuals walk paths others have trod, and then dare to go further. While we make particular note of the moments of distinction, in truth, these seminal moments are actually a culmination of perhaps decades or centuries of slow and steady progress. So, then, it should come as no surprise that as we begin to more closely examine these seminal events in the history of HRD, we begin to notice that they share DNA with other events in the past. Much like when you look through old photo albums of relatives long since forgotten—even though you may not know the exact genealogical connection—there is no denying the family resemblance.

400–1800 AD: The Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Enlightenment

As we move forward in our historical examination of seminal events in HRD, one fact should become more apparent: casting a net large enough to appropriately capture the various influential events is impossible. Therefore, no claims should be made, or expectations set, that the history contained herein is comprehensive in nature. However, as we progress down the timeline into the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Enlightenment periods, truly interesting patterns begin to emerge more distinctly and the interplay between the predominant philosophy of the time and the theory and practice of what will go on to become HRD becomes more readily apparent.

Critical Thinking in HRD: A Path Forward

As has been previously mentioned, one of the core concepts of critical thinking is the illumination of philosophical assumptions. In this text, the reader has been exposed to numerous philosophies, most of which are core not only to HRD but also to Western thought. In reviewing these philosophies, three key themes emerged that could be considered pillars of current HRD practice with strong ties to major historical events: (1) the influence of scientific management, (2) the influence of the human relations movement, and (3) the influence of systems theory.