Download Trehan,K. WHO IS NOT SLEEPING WITH WHOM WHAT`S

WHO IS NOT SLEEPING WITH WHOM
WHAT’S NOT BEING TALKED ABOUT IN HRD?
Dr Kiran Trehan
University of Central England Business School
[email protected]
Abstract
Human Resource Development occupies some interesting educational territory.
Given the rapid pace of development and innovation in education and in the
practice of HRD, coupled with alternative approaches to learning, a reevaluation of HRD might be expected to be a prominent feature within discussions
of the future practice of HRD.
However, whilst there has been a growing demand in the academic literature of
the last few years for management educators to engage more critically with their
subject than has been the tradition in Business Schools. The case has been
argued for strengthening the critical perspectives in contributory disciplines
within management (Reynolds, 1999, Alvesson and Willmot, 1996) and for a
revision of management more generally (French and Grey, 1996). Yet, while
examples of critical pedagogies are accumulating, they seldom exhibit
corresponding changes in HRD practices. Where HRD does depart from
mainstream practices, alternatives are typically based on humanistic studentcentred aspirations for social equality, rather than on an analysis of HRD in
terms of power, politics and social dynamics.
The intention of this paper is to highlight what’s not being talked about in HRD in
order to illuminate the importance of power to the study of HRD. The paper will
explore the significance of power in Human Resource Development, drawing on
ideas from critical and post modern perspectives. By illuminating social and
power relations embedded within HRD practices, I hope to present a more
contextualised and processual account than the proceduralist recipes that
currently dominate the study of this vital aspect of educational and organisational
practice.
Key words: critical power authority deconstruction
Introduction
This brief exploration of power seen from within the postmodern paradigm (pattern of thought)
might seem, quite reasonably, to be an overly abstract and theoretical way to approach the
subject of power in Human Resource Development. However, this way of seeing power has
been prevalent in the social sciences since the eighties and even the IPD syllabus now includes
postmodernism under ‘leading ideas in Human Resource development’.
Much of the power within organisations and Human Resource Development is invisible. It
resides in and between the very words that are used in ‘management’ and within practices that
have become so habitual that they are no longer worthy of comment. The need to find and then
question the hidden assumptions, ideas and values behind a practice (deconstruct the discourse)
is highlighted by Edwards, writing on adult education, …’practice’ is already informed by overt
or covert discursive understanding and exercises of power.’ (Edwards 1997:155) and by
Watson, writing on management ‘…managers themselves, however much they tend to scorn the
very idea of theory, are inevitably theorists of a sort.’ (Watson 1994:2) and by Schein, writing
on shared assumptions about nature, reality and truth; ‘A fundamental part of every culture is a
set of assumptions about what is real, how one determines or discovers what is real… …how
members of a group determine what is relevant information, how they interpret information, how
they determine when they have enough of it to decide whether or not to act, and what action to
take.’ (Schein 1992;97). In other words, practices are always supported by theories and preunderstandings of sorts, whether this is the result of academic work or local practitioner
theorising. These theories, whether written as texts or carried in the head, always exist within
one or several fields of discourse (a coherent system of meanings) that define the limits of the
knowable and the permissible, and are conditioned by the socio-historical biography of the
author or ‘authorities’ (usually academics) within that practitioner community.
In Human Resource Development, just as in adult education and the practices of management
education and management development, an essential part of reflecting critically on, and
interpreting, practice is identifying the often hidden threads of discursive understandings with
which current practices are interwoven. To achieve this it is necessary to make use of some
conceptual tools from recent sociology and philosophy, to unpick the epistemology (system of
knowledge that provides the foundations for a discourse or practice) and deconstruct the
rationality (system of beliefs about cause and effect) of management practice which is commonly
limited by the immediate pressures of practice. There follows an outline of some key concepts
that are used from within a postmodern awareness to deconstruct (expose and examine the parts)
the hidden power built into Human Resource Development.
The Contemporary Context
The contemporary condition, and particularly the field of human sciences, is characterised by a
loss of certainty. We are witnessing profound and accelerating political, economic, social and
technological changes. A major factor in this is the increasing rejection of taken-for-granted
belief systems and overarching philosophies. In particular the modernist project of ‘finding the
truth out there’, i.e. objectivity, has been critically undermined. The term ‘modern’ is used here
to ‘…designate any science that legitimates itself with reference to a metadiscourse (philosophy)
making an explicit appeal to some grand narrative, such as the dialectics of spirit, the
hermeneutics of meaning, the emancipation of the rational or working subject, or the creation of
wealth.’ (Lyotard 1979; xxiii). This condition, that now severs us from any reassuring belief
that all thought is based on agreed foundations, has been labelled by Habermas as a ‘crisis of
legitimation’ (Habermas in Usher et al 1997;210) and by Lyotard as ‘postmodern’ (Lyotard
1979;xxiv).
The disputed, untidy and overlapping fields of Human Resource management education and
Human Resource development have, it seems, had few definite or agreed foundations, even
overlapping, uncomfortably as they do, with the modernist-managerialist project. Their
role/purpose is still a source of confusion and debate for line managers and HRD practitioners
alike. The fields remain, like the field of personnel management generally, Drucker’s ‘dustbin’
(Drucker in Townley 1994;3). Acceptance of the ‘realities’ of the postmodern condition leads to
the problematisation (exposing the weaknesses of a theory’s supporting arguments) of even the
few taken for granted assumptions that have been the basis for these practices. However, if HRD
practitioners are to make a significant contribution to the success of their organisations, in
whatever way that success might be defined, they will need to understand and respond to these
disorientating changes in the contemporary condition. Paradoxically, some of these changes may
actually lead to greater freedom to interpret the role/purpose of Human Resource
educators/developers and increase their potential to influence the strategic direction of
organisations. Some characteristics of the contemporary world that have already impacted, or
can be expected to have an impact on the fields of Human Resource development, management
development and ‘management’ are explored in more detail below.
Perspectives on Human Resource Development
To define or not to define?
It has become almost routine to point out the importance of Human Resource Development
(HRD). This section explores literature on HRD and draws from current debates on how HRD
might be theorised, before offering a critical perspective on HRD.
Since the mid 1990s, Britain has seen increased exhortations to improve its development of
people. Invariably the rationale for human resource development is to better pursue competitive
advantage, or to fulfil the needs of business strategy. Following on from the performative
concerns with human resource development, it is a term that is used both in terms of its
objectives or rationale, and with respect to the processes of doing it.
Other definitions focus on the overlap of individual objectives and organisational interests, for
example, oriented towards developing individuals in ways which are complementary with the
organisation and its objectives and appropriate for meeting the individual’s own career and
development needs. Human resource development is also frequently understood in terms of its
processes, of formal and informal activities and processes which provide opportunities for
individuals to develop cognitively in their understanding and behaviourally in their skills and
competences. Although this conception of human resource development highlights processes of
development, it again emphasises the performative rationales. Typically the measure of
successful human resource development lies in its impact on business performance, as indicated
by financial measures.
An additional interest in most definitions of human resource development is their focus on
cognitive processes and behavioural capabilities, i.e. on knowledge, understanding and
competences or skills. Again there are absences, notably mention of values, or of learning.
Human Resource Development is presented as an additive process, akin to Paulo Freire’s
‘banking’ concept on knowledge (1972), rather than conceiving how it might be a process of
change or transformation.
Recent developments in HRD have been influenced by professional practice and academic
enquiry. This has created a fertile ideological backdrop for the flourishing of the notion HRD.
The concept of HRD is used to convey different meanings, including those which frame HRD as
a synonym for Training and Development. This means the systematic development of
knowledge, skills and attitudes required by individuals to perform adequately a given task or job.
Implicit within this definition are the notions of present needs and structured or mechanistic
processes designed to meet specific job performance standards. HRD, as an extension of training
and development, is seen by many as the poor relation to more mainstream human resource
activities. Steward, Manhire and Hall (1999) argue that the organisational world has changed
and recent years have seen the introduction of the terms development and Human Resource
Development to the vocabulary, as their growing recognition that HRD can develop individuals
and, more significantly, organisations.
An alternative and more ambitious perspective is to see HRD as an ‘holistic societal process of
learning drawing upon a range of disciplines’ (Stead and Lee, 1995). They suggest that there are
two historical traditions for addressing HRD: firstly, where HRD is conceived as an extension to
Training and Development with the specific orientation towards organisational learning
interventions designed to improve skills, knowledge and understanding. Secondly to view HRD
as being more holistic in origin and focusing on ‘the interplay of global, national, organisational
and individual needs’. A key feature of their argument is that HRD encompasses national
initiatives to improve the skills and knowledge base of a given society and is less ‘instrumental’
than organisation-centred training and learning interventions.
McLagan (1989) adds to the debate by arguing that HRD as a process can be defined as the
integrated use of training and development, organisation development and career development to
improve individual, group and organisational effectiveness. These three areas use development
as their primary process. HRD as an emerging concept thus encompasses training and
development but is not restricted to it.
Thus, development opportunities have also been extended beyond the perimeters of a given
organisation, as activities are being outsourced and sub-contracted. Non-employee human
resource development is concerned with enabling an organisation to influence its external
environment through a planned process of learning so that the skills and knowledge of those
outside its boundaries on whom it depends to a greater or lesser extent are enhanced.
The emerging nature of theory and practice in this area is leading to much reflection as to what
constitutes HRD. Stewart and McGoldrick (1996) argue that HRD is seen as a relatively new
concept that has yet to become fully established and accepted, either within professional practice
or as a focus of academic enquiry. Whilst Walton (1999) believes that part of the reason for this,
lies in the emergent nature of HRD and a sense that people are finding their way to something
new and creative.
The initial problem in attempting to present a case for HRD being a discipline, or
multidisciplinary, or a body of practice (or indeed none of these) has been the absence of
agreement on what it means in the first place. Chalofsky (1992) from an academic perspective
has suggested that ‘HRD is a field of study in search of itself’. Blake (1995) from a more
practitioner-orientated standpoint, contends that ‘the field of HRD defies definition and
boundaries’. He goes on to say; ‘It’s difficult to put in a box. It has become so large with the
field still growing’. Megginson et al (1993) refer to the ‘fog factor’ that has developed in the
HRD world. ‘Anyone new to the world of human resource development will quickly realise that
one of the most important requirements for a speedy assimilation is to learn the language’.
However, he goes on to say ‘Don’t assume that the people you are working with … share your
understanding’.
All of the above creates one of the dilemmas articulated by Elliott (1998) when trying to review
texts influential upon HRD in the UK. She felt the picture to be undefined, ‘consisting of many
fuzzy and indistinct areas with no recognisable boundaries’. This lack of boundaries and
‘newness’ made it for her an exciting field of work within which to work and write, enabling her
to develop her ‘own perception of the interdisciplinary nature of the field’ but led to a justifiable
‘concern that her understanding of HRD is likely to be different from anyone else’s, she goes on
to argue ‘How can we justify any claims to HRD being a distinctive discipline if there is no
consensus about the field of study that HRD is purported to encompass?’
In summary, the use of the term ‘HRD’ is a subject of ongoing contention, with much of the
complexity surrounding the area due partly to a lack of agreement as to how HRD is
conceptualised, defined and distinguished. Part of this problem can be attributed to the
assumptions that people make when using these terms, which has led to multiple definitions as to
what HRD entails. Much of the earlier literature and debates on HRD were prescriptive in
orientation and intended for the consumption of large organisations.
One of the outcomes of current attempts to define HRD is a focus on the role of learning. A more
in-depth understanding of individual learning and the ways in which such learning is supported
by training and development initiatives is central in understanding and researching HRD
activities.
Rigg and Trehan (2003) argue that recent debates on how to define HRD have produced some
stimulating insights (e.g. Lee 2001, McGoldrick et al 2001a). One of the developments is the
broadening of HRD beyond a focus on training to encompass learning. For example,
McGoldrick, Stewart and Watson propose a holographic metaphor to understand HRD as “…’the
fluid, multifaceted, integrated social artefacts’ which are the ’continuing outcome’ of
contextualised learning. HRD then serves as collective noun for the various concepts, theories
and methods devised to manage and control learning”. (McGoldrick et al 2001a:351).
Concluding the benefits of their holographic metaphor they say ‘it emphases the analytical
significance of mutually involved processes of social and discursive construction …(and)
provides interesting methodological questions concerning empirical research’.
Summing up authors’ perspectives in their recent edited collection (McGoldrick et al, 2001b),
they conclude ‘HRD has a central focus on and concern with learning…Therefore we can
conclude that HRD will be increasingly concerned with facilitating the learning of individuals,
teams and organisations through the design, structuring and organisation of work itself’
(2001b:396).
It is not that in the past there have not been voices calling for recognition of learning within
HRD. Marsick and Watkins (1990) are perhaps most notable, drawing attention over 10 years
ago to informal and incidental sources of learning; ‘Informal learning…can be planned, but
includes learning that is not designed or expected. Incidental learning, by definition, includes the
unexpected’. (Marsick and Watkins, 1990:215). Not only does this perspective collapse any
boundary between work and rest-of-life, in that experiences outside work can provoke learning
about work, but they also acknowledged learning as a collective, not simply as individual
process; ‘In the process of seeking answers to collective problems, other people learn along with
the person initiating the action’. (Marsick & Watkins, 1990:217).
Other writers who present a perspective on HRD as integral to organisation processes, include
Walton (1999), who talks of human development as part of the fabric of an organisation and
Kessels (2001) who likens HRD to a ‘corporate curriculum’ - “the ‘rich landscape’ of the work
environment that invites you to explore, meet others and develop”. (Kessels, 2001:388).
However, there is also arguments presented on not defining HRD. Lee (2001) argues for nondefinition – drawing from Chia’s ontology of becoming (1996) as justification. She says;
‘instead, I suggest we seek to establish, in a moral and inclusive way, what we would like HRD
to become, in the knowledge that it will never be, but that we might thus influence its becoming.
(Lee 2001:338), which the next section goes on to examine.
HRD; A Postmodern Perspective
Usually one would define a term before going on to use it in a text, however ‘the postmodern’
creates a problem here. It resists easy definition because the very systems of knowledge that we
usually call on to provide the foundations for a ‘definition’ are themselves problematised by the
postmodern. ‘Perhaps it is best understood as a state of mind, a critical, self-referential posture
and style, a different way of seeing and working, rather than a fixed body of ideas, a clearly
worked-out position or a set of critical methods and techniques.’ (Usher and Edwards 1994;2).
In the postmodern, language is understood as referential, (definable only by reference to other
parts of itself) leaving nowhere solid to stand, no fixed foundations on which to build.
Everything is contingent and provisional. Language does not just describe the ‘real’, it
constitutes it, defining the knowable and the permissible, shutting out that for which there are not
yet words ‘Simplifying in the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity towards metanarratives.’ (Lyotard 1979;xxiv). To live consciously in the postmodern is to maintain a
constant resistance to totalising discourses, the temptation to sum up, create constricting
taxonomies (categories) and carelessly generalise, to remain uncomfortably generalise, to remain
uncomfortably at home in chaos and ambiguity. Many disciplines have formulated ways of
being in the postmodern, these include architecture, literature, cinema, fine art and cultural
studies. The postmodern has also begun to inform the discourses of education, sociology,
management and, specifically in the case of Townley applying the concepts of Foucault, to the
theory and practice of HRM, ‘There is sense here, but not safe sense. Sense made here is
limited, local, provisional and always critical. Self-critical. That is sense within the postmodern
moment. That is the postmodern.’ (Marshall 1992:2). Some concepts that are commonly
associated with the postmodern and only really have currency within it are explored below to
collectively provide a rounder picture of this condition.
Poststructuralism
Poststructuralist texts examine how it is that writing is the source of subjectivity (who we and
others are) and culture and not just a reflection of it ‘…only within the postmodern moment do
the questions raised by post-structuralists have currently…these post-structuralist concerns and
questions – about language, texts, interpretation, subjectivity for example, specifically lend
themselves to larger historical, cultural questions which inhabit the postmodern moment.’
(Marshall 1992;8).
Meanings have now been recognised as only contingent; words can only be defined by their
differences with other words, there being no original word that has a totally stable meaning of
itself. Everything is relative and relational. In other words, hot is not hot without cold, up is not
up without down and red is not red without blue, yellow, green etc. to compare with it. Each of
these opposites is also indefinable. Post-structuralism also subjects to radical questioning
‘otherness’ and the subject – object relation.
Deconstruction
As a concept and practice deconstruction is still controversial. Through the process of
deconstruction a single text; or the history of a field of thought, can be broken down to uncover
hidden assumptions, answering questions like what underpinning philosophy is the whole text
built on? Who is setting agendas? How this is achieved? Moving us to a point beyond the
ideological (a system of thought based on a single idea that claims to explain everything)
deconstruction, a notion derived in the case of single texts from Derrida (1967) and in the case of
whole discourses from Foucault, does not favour any ideological standpoint as all of these are
founded in one meta-narrative (a single idea that claims to explain everything) or another.
Foucault has, using an ‘archeological’ approach, exposed the hidden structures in many fields of
discourse, including clinical medicine, sexuality, madness and mental illness (Foucault 1970,
1972, 1973a, 1975, 1977, 1980b, 1981a). Deconstruction is potentially a powerful tool for
organisational analysis, Human Resource development and change management.
Power/Knowledge and HRD
The deconstruction of a discourse exposes the power dynamics structured into it, recognising that
the discourse of a particular field of knowledge does not describe the world in that field but
instead inscribes or ‘writes’ (constructs) the world of this field. Identifying who are the ‘authors’
in a particular discourse points to those with ‘authority’ i.e. the power to define the knowable and
the permissible (often, but not always academics). In other words power and knowledge are
inseparable. This perspective on power that recognises its [power’s] inseparability from
knowledge, leads to new ways of seeing issues of power in organisations. The underlying
politics and ethics of Human Resource development, constructed from the discourses of
humanism, economics, HRM and the wider managerialist discourse, have increasingly become
foregrounded (the focus) for the management education and Human Resource development
practitioner. These discourses shape the whole body of knowledge in Human Resource
development, actually constituting them as fields. Professional practices are constructed through
these discourses, rather than received in tablets of stone, and are therefore open to the possibility
of change. Issues of power and influence in the HRD professional and by definition for the
management educator/developer, have been acknowledged as important and explored in the
HRM literature, in particular by K. Leg, D. Guest and B. Townley. Corresponding changes in
HRD are still limited. Where HRD does depart from mainstream practices, alternatives are
typically based on humanistic student-centred aspirations for social equality, rather than on an
analysis of HRD in terms of institutional power, politics and social dynamics.
A key rationale for encouraging human resource developers to be critical lies in the realisation of
how powerful managers now are in the world, yet how poorly traditional HRD education has
prepared them for considering questions of power and responsibility. Alvesson and Willmott
argue (1992) that the practice of management has a dominant effect on the lives of an
organisation’s employees, its customer and wider society, extending even to the lives of unborn
generations through the environmental impact of an organisation’s processes. Because of the
rise of managers’ social importance, French and Grey (1996;2) reason that ‘…the management
academy has, for better or worse, a crucial role in producing and reproducing the practices of
management.’.
The traditional view of HRD education has been a technocratic ‘development of effective
practitioners’, as epitomised by the Constable and McCormick (1987) and Handy (1988) reports.
Implicit within this tradition has been the presumption of HRD knowledge and practice to be
objective, apolitical and value-free. Many writers have challenged this, and argued the need to
deconstruct the discourse of practice, Edwards (1997;155) for example, writing on adult
education, argued ‘…’practice’ is already informed by overt of covert discursive understandings
and exercises of power; Watson (1994;2), writing on management ‘… managers themselves,
however much they tend to scorn the very idea of theory, are inevitably theorists of a sort’. And
Schein, writing on shared assumptions about nature, reality and truth:
‘A fundamental part of every culture is a set of assumptions about what is real, how one
determines or discovers what is real … how members of a group determine what is
relevant information, how they interpret information, how they determine when they have
enough of it to decide whether or not to act, and what action to take.’ (Schein 1992;97)
In this sense the rationale has been that it is no longer acceptable that HRD educators allow
managers to maintain the illusion that their choices and actions are without political
consequences.
Power: A Foucauldian Perspective
Townley’s (1994) analysis, making use of the critical perspective on power, breaks out of the
rather stale and action-inhibiting analysis of power in organisations provided by much of the
HRD literature. Townley makes use of a non economistic, non-commodity (not numerically
quantifiable and not directly tradable) conception of power/knowledge provided by Foucault that
focuses on the ‘how’ of power rather than the who? The where? The how much? This analysis
points towards new practices that enable rather than inhibit action. This Foucauldian critique of
HRD practices suggests a critically sustainable, politically and ethically aware model for
practitioners. A model that involves individual informed experimental action, i.e. praxis, to first
understand, challenge and then re-write existing mechanisms of power/knowledge formation and
asymmetry. 'Whether explicitly acknowledged, or not, the experience of work is located in, and
constituted by, power relations. To be relevant, therefore (we) must provide people with a
framework for understanding power.’ (Townley 1994;1).
Working in the organisational context involves making the decision of whether to work within
the dominant power/knowledge formation or whether to consciously privilege new and/or
previously subjugated discourses and the voices of those hitherto ignored or shut out of the
debate. To choose either is an inescapably political act, hence it could be argued that
organisations are major sites of political activity, whether this is the uncritical support of the
status quo or critically conscious emancipatory action i.e. praxis (e.g. interventions genuinely
aimed at increasing empowerment and emancipation). By encouraging awareness of how power
operates, practitioners need not be peddling a particular political standpoint over another but
facilitating the development of an awareness of the mechanisms of power. Thus giving people
the opportunity to decide for themselves. Some critics of the Foucauldian conception of power
read it as an all-pervasive and oppressive disciplinary power that as such provides little basis for
emancipatory action. Townley argues that to the contrary, Foucault’s focus on the ‘how’ of
power rather than the ‘who’ or ‘why’ is significant in its implications for the politics of the
workplace. ‘The focus is practice and its effects not power and its source.’ (Townley 1994;18).
Exploring the implications of this view of power could be very fruitful for HRD professionals,
managers and anyone else involved in an organisation development context. To understand
power within the Human Resource development practice, we have to understand the mechanics
of power relations within the institutions.
Reconceptualising power as a relational activity means power cannot be portrayed as external,
something which operates on something or someone. It is integral to that relation. Power is
positive and creative, not just negative or repressive. As Foucault (1997) argues ‘We must cease
once and for all to describe the effects of power in negative terms; it excludes, it represses, it
censors, it abstracts, it masks, it conceals. In fact power produces, it produces reality; it
produces domains of objects and rituals of truth.’ (p.194).
Within HRD understanding power as a relational activity means we need to recognise that power
operates in areas which may be obscured by traditional theories. As Fraser (1989) argues
‘…power is as present in the most apparently trivial details and relations of everyday life.’
(p.26). This is further reinforced by Foucault (1991) who points out the identification of the
nature of power, how it operates as a microphysics, and how it is experienced in practice is the
foundation of a political agenda which ‘allows for the questioning of the mode of existence and
the functioning of discourse in the name of political practice.’ (p.68). For Foucault (1983),
power exists with three distinct qualities, firstly, origins (why), secondly, nature (what) and
thirdly, manifestations (how). The implication of his work is that we broaden analysis from the
‘what’ and ‘why’ of power to the ‘how’. ‘How not in the sense of how does it manifest itself?
But by what means is it exercises and what happens when individuals exert power over others…’
(Foucault, 1983;217).
Thus a Foucauldian analysis involves an ascending analysis of power, this means to delineate the
way power is exercised, concretely and in detail. It is a study of how mechanisms of power
affect everyday lives. In short, power must be analysed as a micro process of social life, within
HRD practices.
Governmentality
Foucault offers a way of analysing the control of practices by introducing the idea of
governmentality. The power relations of the workplace continue to condition people into
accepting discipline by others and to develop a type of self-discipline that can be understood
through the concept of ‘governmentality’ (Foucault 1979). If something is to be controlled,
governed or managed, it must first be known. Governmentality is the necessary process that
precedes administration and control, the process by which a domain becomes knowable and
thereby 'governable’. This process involves formulating (breaking up into categories) that which
is to be known in some particular conceptual way, developing measures by which it can be
quantified, values assigned and coded, and the provision of a method of representation that
facilitates decision making and the application of value judgements. Once this system of
knowledge is in place, a complex and qualitative group of variables can be reduced to a single
measure of performity. Examples of the techniques of governmentality in organisations include
accounting procedures, by which the whole complex performance of a business unit can be
communicated to head office by the means of a single financial figure. Within HRD particularly,
human asset accounting and value added is the obvious example, while NVQ performance
criteria and the MCI management competence system might be less so. Common sense and ‘pop
psychology’ discourses of human personality provide such limited, and necessarily referential,
variables with which to assess one’s own and others’ personality that a shared understanding is
difficult to achieve. Governmentality, in organisations, is mostly exercised unconsciously by the
governed (employees) through the action of ‘being one’s own policeman’, managing one’s own
practices. This understanding of ‘self control’ is an important aspect of the concept of
governmentality.
‘His, [Foucault’s] approach is to deconstruct practices and examine in detail how they
work…focused on the processes of normalisation whereby practices are sanctioned not by an
external authority or an appeal to collective sentiments, but by mundane acts of selfauthorisation which sustain in the practitioner as a compliant identity, a self-policing
individual.’ (Usher et al 1997;56)
Conclusion
This paper has explored the significance of power in Human Resource Development, drawing on
ideas from postmodern and critical perspectives to highlight what is not being talked about in
HRD.
In order to illuminate the importance of power to the study of HRD, it is crucial to examine the
inseparability of power between academic disciplines, and between HRD practitioners. By
conducting research, using the techniques of deconstruction, into the dominant and subjugated
discourses in their organisations, HRD practitioners could gain far greater insight into the
invisible workings of managing and organising than is provided by other analyses of
organisational workings. This could provide us with a powerful tool for understanding and
influencing future ‘re-authoring’ in the workplace.
The professional education system of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development
(CIPD) plays a major role in defining the accepted discourse of the profession, the rather
disparate bag of practices that have almost by default become the responsibility of the profession
could be questioned and subjected to critical examination. The overall ethical stance of
practitioners is also rarely discussed, being a kind of invisible acceptance of the managerialist,
efficiency meta-narrative drives everything. The concept of habitus (Bourdieu and Wacquant
1992;120) applies to the way that practices ‘become at home with themselves’ (Usher et al
1997;59). The habitual practices that are so comfortably a part of an uncritical HRD role are the
personnel habitus As Brubaker puts it, ‘The habitus determines the manner in which problems
are posed, explanations constructed, and instruments employed.’ (Brubaker 1993;213). If the
HRD practitioner is going to expand their view of what is possible from within an HRD role and
change their practices to reflect this, then a major hurdle that needs to be explored is their own
self imposed limits on the role of the HRD profession and this may be reinforced within the
academic arena.
Another consideration to reviewing the role of an HRD practitioner is the way in which they and
their role can be inscribed and objectified (defined in a limiting way) by others in the
organisation. Lyotard provides the concept of ‘the differend’ to explain the difficulties in
gaining acceptance for new ideas that fall outside of the accepted discourse. The differend is the
name Lyotard uses to describe the shutting out of one player from a ‘language game’ The
concept of a ‘language game’ is derived from Wittgenstein. This shutting out phenomena occurs
where there are no agreed rules for the introduction of something new to the game. This could
be a new rule, a new idea, principle or grievance. The differend is the impossibility of giving
expression to an injustice, as it is rendered invisible. This has implications for HRD
practitioners trying to introduce new concepts and values to an organisation.
Many of the issues that I have explored in this paper are complex and pose as many questions as
they provide answers. The aim of the paper is not to offer a prescription, but to stress the
importance of actively exploring and working with the complexities and contradictions with
HRD. In this respect therefore, the issues unveiled within the paper are likely to generate
additional uncertainties in ‘What’s not being talked about’ in the design and process of HRD.
However, it is important that our own hesitancies and anxieties about working with these
differences (power, conflict, authority, emotion) do not impede such a process because, as
educators and practitioners, we encounter these ambiguities in the workplace every day.
Word count = 5,624
REFERENCES
Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H. (eds) 1992 Critical Management Studies London: Sage
Chalofsky, N. 1992 A unifying definition for human resource development. Human Resource
Development Quarterly 3(2) pp175-182
Clegg, S.R. & Hardy, C. (eds) 1999 Studying Organisations London: Sage
Elliott, C. 1998 Human resource development in the UK, a review of the literature Academy of
Human Resource Development Conference Proceedings. ed.Torraco, R.J.
Freire, P. 1972 Pedagogy of the Oppressed Middlesex: Penguin
Foucault, M. 1979 Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison Harmondsworth: Penguin
Habermas, J. 1972 Knowledge and Human Interests London: Heinemann
Hill, R., & Stewart, J. 1999 HRD in Small Organisations HRD1 2(2) pp103-123
Lee, M. 2001 ‘A refusal to define HRD’ HRD1 4:3 pp327-341
Marsick, V. & Watkins, K. 1990 Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace London:
Routledge
McGoldrick, J., Stewart, J., & Watson, S.2001a ‘Theorising Human Resource Development’
HRD1 4:3 pp343-356
McGoldrick, J., Stewart, J., & Watson, S. 2001b Understanding Human Resource Development:
a research approach London: Routledge
Megginson, D., Joy-Matthews, J. & Banfield, P. 1993 Human Resource Development London:
Kogan Page
Reynolds, M. 1999 Critical reflection and management education: rehabilitating less
hierarchical approaches Journal of Management Education 23, pp537-553
Rigg, C. & Trehan, K. 2003 ‘Now you see it, now you don’t: Comparing Traditional and
Discourse Readings of HRD in Small Organisations, in Stewart, J. & Beaver, G. HRD in Small
Organisations London: Routledge
Sambrook, S. & Stewart, J. 1998 “HRD as Discursive Construction” paper presented to
Lancaster-Leeds conference Emergent Fields in Management – Connecting Learning and
Critique, July
Stead, V. & Lee, M. 1996 ‘Intercultural Perspectives on HRD’ in Stewart, J. & McGoldrick, J.
Stewart, J. & McGoldrick, M. 1996 Human Resource Development Perspectives, Strategies and
Practice London: Pitman
Townley, B.1994 Reframing Human Resource Management London: Sage
Usher, R. & Edwards, R. 1996 Postmodernism and Education London: Routledge
Walton, J. 1999 Strategic Human Resource Development London Financial Times: Prentice
Hall
Watson, T. 1994 In Search of Management London: Routledge