Roles and Competencies of HRD and WLP Practitioners: A Case study of Korean HRD Practitioners

Roles and Competencies of HRD and WLP Practitioners: A Case study of Korean HRD Practitioners Ji Hoon Song The Pennsylvania State University, University Park For taking competitive advantages of Korean business organizations in this dynamic global market system, this research might be the foundational study to develop Korean HRD practitioners competency model. The main purpose of this study is to examine the current and future core-competencies including primary roles and key expertise of HRD practitioners. American Society of Training and Development (ASTD) study in 2004 was adapted as a principal conceptual framework. Following major four results were identified; (a) the role of business partner was perceived as future important required role by HRD practitioners, (b) delivering learning intervention and measuring the results were perceived the primary areas of expertise currently and in the future; (c) in terms of basic competencies, the personal competencies were perceived more importantly rather than business-related and interpersonal competencies; and (d) significant differences were not found on the different perceptions between HRD and HRM practitioners for the four WLP roles. Key Words: Human Resource Development (HRD); Workplace Learning and Performance (WLP), Roles and Competencies In the current era of fierce economic struggle, human capital is the dominant competitive weapon of organizations. The extent of knowledge and education of the workforce will be a priority over such external and physical resources formerly relied on, such as cash, capital, or even technology. With a growing awareness of the importance of human capital, educational competency of the workforce will be the determining factor in national prosperity and market competitiveness (Drucker, 1993, 2000; Thurow, 2000; Toffler, 1990). To cope with competitive business conditions in today's advanced technological, globalized, and turbulent capitalistic environment, an organization s workforce must think like explorers seeking to discover the uncertain shape of our future through a disorienting mist (Thurow, Jurica, & Donker, 2004). As human resource has been accentuated as an essential element, so has the realm of Human Resource Development (HRD). In today s competitive global economic conditions, HRD is the critical medium that can link human resources and organizational survival (Dubois & Rothwell, 2004; Rothwell, 1996). In response to the concern and momentousness over HR related fields, and as the vital momentum of organizational performance has been continuously emphasized, continuative efforts and research have been conducted to identify fundamental and practical questions. What should be the key assignments of HRD as a business partner to organizations? What should be the HRD core competencies for the effective performance of an organization, considering various external and internal work environments and the shift of social trends, including changes in the economy and technology which can influence human resource performance? In 1999, the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) started to use 1

the term Workplace Learning and Performance as a substitution for that of Training and Development, stating that WLP is the integrated use of learning and other intervention for the purpose of improving WLP creates positive, progressive change within organizations by balancing human, ethical, technological, and operational considerations (Rothwell & Sredl, 2000, p.3). This replacement of terminology is sufficient to explicate magnification of responsibilities and scope of HRD practitioners. Human resource development, therefore, should accompany organizational change, which depends on economic and social trends, and as a consequence, HRD roles and competencies should be revised following the movement of circumstance. Problem Statement On the one hand, in an age of turbulence and with the pressure of continual changes under the globalizing organization environment (Ulrich et al., 1997), the evolution of people, revolution of technology, and transformation of the organizational system is a complicated matter and rarely, if ever, moves at the same rate and in the same direction (Swanson, 1995; Swanson & Holton 2001). The best standard competencies and roles may not able to exist continuously. Even if we have a powerful competency model on our hands, there are obvious reasons why HRD professionals and major Human Resource societies such as ASTD are paying careful consideration to the HRD competency study. Today s competency models may be outmoded tomorrow, and may need to be replaced by completely different models of competencies and roles. On the other hand, the Korean HRD has not yet established its own definition for HRD. More seriously, the definition and concept of HRD has been directly imported with few attempts to indigenize (McLean & McLean, 2000) and, as a consequence, HRD practitioners in Korea perform their roles without a proper competency model (Park, 1997). Business strategies which include HRD strategies should vary according to cultural and social contexts. The word chaebol, used across the board in Korea (Gong, 1999), represents a significantly different organization culture and systematic structure from other countries. The same consequence can be considered at the portion of competency of HRD professions, even if we have great respect and appreciation of previous competency studies, the most acceptable HRD competency model in the United States may not be applicable to Korean HRD competency requirements. A uniquely Korean HRD competency model, in accordance with the Korean environment, is the most urgent assignment (Huh, 1993; Yoo, 1997) of Korean business if it is to be released from serious economic crisis (Yoo, 1998 & 2000). Research Purpose and Questions This research takes account of two foundational purposes: (1) to identify current core competencies of Korean HRD practitioners; and (2) to discover the most necessary competencies for HRD practitioners of Korea in the near future. Based on those profound research purposes, the following three main research questions were developed: 1. What are the appreciated role requirements of Korean HRD practitioners currently and in the future? 2. What are the appreciated core competencies of Korean HRD practitioners currently and in the future? 3. What are the appreciated priorities of areas of expertise of Korean HRD practitioners 2

currently and in the future? 4. What are the different perceptions between HRD and HRM practitioners for the major required roles of WLP? Significance of Study This study is significant both theoretically and practically. First, the research findings might be influential to develop theoretically essential competency model regarding various human resource-related factors for Korean HRD practitioners. On the other hand, based on given results from collected data from HRD-related field specialists in Korea business organizations, and given findings might be utilized in the HRD fields both practically and effectively. Furthermore, two previous studies have been conducted in 1994 by Yang and in 1999 by Yoo similarly (with different research conceptual frameworks). Comparing research findings of each study might be constructive for the better understanding the stream of HRD trends in Korea. Given consequences will contribute to HRD fields in at least three key guide directions: (a) understanding the flowchart of HRD competency trends identifying previous, current, and future core roles and competencies, (b) providing a prognosticative index for HRD practitioners competencies and roles to prepare the future generation, based on exhaustive analysis of previous HRD competency studies, and (c) identifying the most suitable competency model for Korean HRD practitioners that will ensure the survival of Korean HRD. Overview of Trend Shifting to WLP The meanings and concepts in HRD have evolved along with the changing needs of economic society and business trends. The major changes in HRD trends include shifting from Training and Development (T&D) (Pinto & Walker, 1978) to Human Resource Development (HRD) (McLagan, 1989) and from Human Performance Technology (HPT) (Stolovitic & Keeps, 1992) to Human Performance Improvement (HPI) (Rothwell, Hohne, & King, 2000). Recently, all these previous HRD-related concepts have been applied to Workplace Learning and Performance (WLP) (Rothwell, Sanders, & Soper, 1999; Rothwell & Sredl, 2000), depending on the changing needs of competitive economic circumstance. The shift of the focus from training to learning and performance in the workplace extends to the roles and competencies of HRD professionals who need to provide optimal solutions and directions not limited to simple training interventions for the survival of the organizations. To emphasize this conceptual shifting, ASTD (1994) stated that the emphasis in business on high performance work will shift training content away from isolated skill-building and information transfer to performance improvement and support (p.s31). McLagan (1997) stressed the shift of HRD roles from training to learning and performance, identifying the 11 roles and 74 outputs of HRD practitioners. This growing attention to and effort in human performance improvement in the workplace have been attributed to the new paradigm transition to WLP. 3

Methodology and Approach In order to gain the primary data of roles and competencies of HRD practitioners in Korea, the research sample were defined among the overall HRD practitioners. Quantitative study is the primary methodology of this research. Data collection was performed via web-based survey questionnaires. The questionnaire for this study was a version based on the one used in the original 2004 ASTD study, and was modified and translated into Korean. Prior to formal distribution, the survey was validated, pilot tested, and re-modified for the final version of the survey instrument. Participating in the process of validating were two Korean practitioners and one university professor, all of whom have doctoral degrees in the WLP field in the U.S. The target population for this study consisted of Korean HRD professionals in one of the following fields: training and developing, organization development, management development, career development, and human resource management. A total of 128 Korean WLP practitioners responded to the survey. Among the total respondents, 62.7% were male and 27.3% were female. Almost half of them (50.7%) were in the 30-39 age range, while 28.0% were in the 20-29 range, with the remaining 21.3% in the 40-49 range. The respondents length of experience in a professional occupation was evenly distributed: 21.6% reported having less than one year of experience; 31.1%, one to three years; 21.6%, three to five years; and 25.6%, more than 5 years. Respondents were asked to response the current importance and future importance of the four major roles using the Likert 5-point scale with 1 = not important and 5 = extremely important. In order to analyze the collected data to answer the research questions, descriptive statistics was mainly utilized and paired t-test was conducted to compare the current importance and future importance. The research questions were identified based on comparison of means. Results The mean between current perception of importance and future importance for all four major roles showed significant differences at the p<.001 level. There was little variance in mean values between current and future importance, which ranged from a minimum of 0.41 to a maximum of 0.70. As a result of the paired t-test between future and current importance, learning specialist (d=0.70) was recognized the most significant role, followed by business partner (d=0.65), project manager (d=0.45), and professional specialist (d=0.41), in orders (see Table 1). At this point, the rank orders between business partner and project manager were switched in terms of current and future importance levels, and the importance of learning strategist has no changes in ranking. Table 1 Paired T-test Results between Current and Future Importance of the Four Roles Current Roles Future Importance Roles M SD M SD d** t p Learning Strategist 3.75(1) 0.93 4.45(1) 0.75 0.70 9.21.000 Business Partner 3.63(3) 0.98 4.28(2) 0.79 0.65 9.97.000 Professional Specialist 3.61(4) 1.00 4.02(4) 0.92 0.41 5.84.000 Project Manager 3.73(2) 0.90 4.18(3) 0.83 0.45 6.45.000 Note. The number in parentheses is the rank, **d = Future importance Current importance 4

The comparison on current and future importance responses for basic three competency domains allows us to compare the changes of perception on WLP practitioners basic competency domains. Table 2 shows that the certain changes insides domains were found, however, the rank orders of overall perception on importance was not identified in terms of current importance and future importance at the three types of competency domains: (a) business/management domain (CM=3.65, FM=4.05); (b) interpersonal (CM=3.67, FM=4.11); and (c) person (CM=3.74, FM=4.18). Among the sub-competencies, some of competencies rank order has been changed, for example, the item of leveraging diversity, which was perceived as 9 th (M=3.62, SD=0.66) at the current importance, was changed to the second (M=4.18, SD=0.53) highly ranked important competency by respondents. Table 2 Mean Comparisons on Current and Future Importance of Competency Domains Current Importance Future Importance Competency Domains Competencies Mean SD Mean SD Business/Management (CM =3.65, FM =4.05) Analyzing Needs and Proposing Solutions 3.78 (1) 0.76 4.17(3) 0.57 Applying Business Acumen 3.56(12) 0.74 4.05(9) 0.58 Driving Results 3.71(5) 0.53 4.07(8) 0.48 Planning and Implementing Assignments 3.56(12) 0.76 3.84(12) 0.72 Thinking Strategically 3.63(8) 0.60 4.12(7) 0.47 Interpsersonal (CM =3.67, FM =4.11) Building Trust 3.69(6) 0.62 4.17(3) 0.53 Communicating Effectively 3.67(7) 0.80 4.02(11) 0.70 Influcing Stakeholders 3.61(10) 0.47 4.03(10) 0.45 Leveraging Diversity 3.62(9) 0.66 4.18(2) 0.53 Networking and Partnering 3.78(1) 0.49 4.14(6) 0.44 Personal (CM =3.74, FM =4.18) Demonstrating Adaptability 3.75(3) 0.50 4.21(1) 0.42 Modeling Personal Development 3.72(4) 0.60 4.15(5) 0.54 Note. The number in parentheses is the rank; CM means Current Importance Mean, and FM means Future Importance Mean. According to the 2004 ASTD competency study, in this research, the author assessed the importance perception of nine areas of expertise of WLP practitioners in Korea, the results was shown as Table 3. Table 3 Mean Comparison between Current and Future Importance for Nine Areas of Expertise Current Importance Future Importance Areas of Expertise (AOEs) Mean SD Mean SD Career Planning and Talent Management 3.62(7) 0.62 4.09(3) 0.49 Coaching 3.69(3) 0.65 4.05(4) 0.52 Delivering Training 3.82(1) 0.69 4.11(1) 0.62 Designing Learning 3.63(6) 0.69 3.92(9) 0.62 Facilitating Organizational Change 3.69(4) 0.73 4.05(5) 0.58 Improving Human Performance 3.58(8) 0.7 3.93(8) 0.6 Managing Organizational Knowledge 3.58(8) 0.76 3.99(7) 0.63 Managing the Learning Function 3.68(5) 0.72 4.03(6) 0.64 Measuring and Evaluating 3.77(2) 0.67 4.06(3) 0.63 Note. The number in parentheses is the rank. 5

The descriptive analysis on comparison between the current and future perceived importance addresses that the most importantly perceived expertise area was delivering training (M=3.82, SD=0.69; M=4.11, SD=0.62) for both current and future importance. The results, furthermore, identified that little differences between current importance and future importance was perceived by WLP practitioners expect for two areas of expertise, which are career planning and talent management (7 th rank as M=3.62, SD=0.62 in current to 3 rd rank as M=4.09, SD=0.49 in the future importance), and designing learning (6 th rank as M=3.63, SD=0.69 in current to 9 th rank as M=3.92, SD=0.62 in the future importance). In addition, for the better understanding the differences, based on demographic variables (HRD position and HRM position), t-test was conducted. The results were shown at the table 4. The results represent that there is little significant differences (p>.05) for the perceived WLP practitioners role importance by HRD practitioners and HRM practitioners on both current and future importance. Table 4 The Results of T-test of Perception of HRD and HRM Practitioners Roles in WLP Current Importance Future Importance Roles Group A* Group B** Group A* Group B** Mean SD Mean SD P Mean SD Mean SD P Learning Strategist 3.81 0.87 3.76 0.83.85 4.48 0.66 4.41 0.62.69 Business Partner 3.81 0.89 3.53 1.12.28 4.41 0.62 4.18 1.07.25 Project Manager 3.67 1.03 3.88 0.78.44 4.12 0.86 4.35 0.70.31 Professional Specialist 3.72 0.91 3.88 0.70.51 4.22 0.75 4.35 0.70.53 Note. * is HRD-related jobs and ** is HRM-related jobs Conclusion Korean WLP practitioners are perceived the role of business partner will be more important in the future (M=3.63, SD=0.98, p<.01 as the 3 rd) rank than it is currently (M=4.28, SD=0.79, p<.01 as the 2 nd rank) based on the paired t-test results. The changes might be inferred that the WLP practitioners roles have been expanded beyond only roles of learning and instruction in terms of task responsibilities and required competencies. This trend, furthermore, represents that the HRD trends in Korean business organizations has been more related to business strategies of overall organization. Additionally, the Korean HRD focus is given to the learning transformation and performance currently and in the future. To support this interpretation, the results of assessing the priority of expertise areas represents that two areas of expertise, delivering training (M=3.82, SD=0.69 as the 1 st rank currently, and M=4.11, SD=0.62 as the 1 st rank in the future importance) and measuring /evaluating (M=3.77, SD=0.67 as the 2 nd rank currently, and M=4.06, SD=0.63 as the 3 rd rank in the future importance), were perceived as the most important areas of expertise which should be masterly achieved currently and in the future. Based on those data analysis, the author assumes the following two major trends in Korea business organizations: (a) HRD practitioners take the role of strategic business partner in the near future and (b) the focus of HRD is more effective learning transformation and measuring the results of learning intervention regarding the performance. Finally, the differences between the job positions, HRD and HRM practitioners, were not found significantly based on the results of t-test (p>.05) for the major four roles. This result might be inferred like that, in the WLP situation, the distinguish differences of the task perceptions, between Human Resource Development (HRD) practitioners and Human Resource Management (HRM) Practitioners, has been reduced in terms of their task-responsibility and required competencies. 6

Implication and Further Research The results of this research provide several positive impacts on the WLP practice in Korea business organizations. According to the results, the roles and required expertise areas have been expanded into the understanding and application of business acumen as strategic business partner for the performance improvement. Constantly, the HRD practitioners need to be acquired business oriented perception for their learning and instructional-related roles. In accordance with this results, Korean business would consider and redefine the mission and visions of HRD practices based on the understanding the trends-shifting. In practically, based on the examination of overall questionnaire factor analysis, the more achievable and applicable inventory for assessing the competencies of Korean HRD practitioners could be developed. Secondly, based on the current research further research might be conducted on the theme of HRD practitioners value perception to verify the reasons of their responses for the competency requirement. The value-perception assessment of HRD practitioners might be functional to recognize their internal concept and cognitive perception on their affirmative, continuance, and normative responsibility for the WLP practices. Limitations There are, at least, two major limitations of the current research. On the one hand, the research sample might not be represented the whole HRD population in terms of quantity of number. The number of Korean HRD practitioners population might not be easy (Ryu, 1994) to be confirmed for the reason of that the areas of HRD could be various meaning how far we consider the task-areas of HRD might be different in cases. On the other hand, the conceptual framework and survey questionnaire were adapted the foreign national-level research, 2004 ASTD competency study for WLP practitioners, thus, some of questionnaire items might not be appropriated for apply to the Korean business organizations on account of cultural differences, diverse dominant organization structures, and overall dissimilarities on the HRD definitions. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Dr. Judith A. Kolb and Dr. William J. Rothwell at the Pennsylvania State University for their contributions and guidance to conceptualizing the research and for their endless supportive encouragement. Author Ji Hoon Song (M.S.) is a Doctoral student in Workforce Education and Development Program (WF ED) at the Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 301 Keller Building, University Park, PA 16803-1303. Email: jus205@psu.edu Phone: 949-533-5102. Fax: 814-863-7532. Reference Bernthal, P. R., Colteryahn, K., Davis, P., Naughton, J. Rothwell, W. J., & Wellins R. (2004) Mapping the future: New workplace learning and performance competencies. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. 7

Dubois, D. D. & Rothwell, W. J. (2004) Competency-based human resource management. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Pub. Drucker, P. F. (1999) Beyond the information revolution. The Atlantic Monthly, 284 (4): 47-57. Drucker, P. F. (2000) Knowledge work. Executive Excellence, 17 (4): 11-12 Gong, B. H. (1999) The Cheabols: Myth and reality. Business Korea, October. 38-38 Huh U. N. (1993) Saneup yoyook yogooboonsuk, Seoul, Korea: Bakyongsa. McLagan, P. A. (1989) Models for HRD practice: The models. Washington, DC: American Society for Training and Development. McLagan, P. A. (1997) Competencies: The next generation. Training & Development, 51(5): 40-47. McLean, G. N. & McLean, L. D. (2000) If we can t define HRD in one country, how can we define it in an international context? Defining HRD: The Debate So Far, Economic and Social Research Seminar Series. Kingston, UK: Kingston Business School, Kingston University. Park, J. I. (1997) Analysis of organizational factors for developing performance oriented company education system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Sejong University, Seoul, Korea. Pinto, P. R., & Walker, J. W. (1978) A study of professional training and development roles & competencies. Washington, DC: American Society for Training and Development. Rothwell, W. J. (1996) ASTD models for human performance improvement. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Rothwell, W. J., & Sredl, H. J. (2000) The ASTD Reference Guide to Workplace Learning and Performance: Present and Future roles and competencies (3rd ed.). Amherst, MA: HRD Press, Inc. Rothwell, W. J., Hohne, C. K., & King, S. B. (2000) Human Performance Improvement: Building practitioner competence. Huston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company. Rothwell, W. J., Sanders, E. T., & Soper, J. G. (1999) ASTD Models for Workplace Learning and Performance: Roles, competencies, and outputs. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Ryu J. H. (1994) A study on the methods for role-performance improvement of HRD staffs. Unpublished master dissertation, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea. Stolovitic, H. D., & Keeps, E. J. (Ed.). (1992) Handbook of human performance technology: A comprehensive guide for analyzing and solving performance problems in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Swanson, R. A. (1995) Performance is the key. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6(2): 207-213. Swanson, R. A. & Holton, E. F. (2001) Foundation of human resource development. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Thurow L. (2000) Economic forces, Executive Excellence, 17(4), 20 Thurow, L., Jurica E., & Donker A (2004) Exploring global paths, Optimize, 24-30. Toffler, A. (1990). Toffler's next shock. World monitor. Boston, 3 (11), 34 Ulrich D., Losey, M. R., & Lake, G. (1997) Tomorrow's HR management : 48 Thought Leaders Call for Change. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Yang, J. C. (1994) Perceived competencies needed by HRD managers in Korea. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota. Yoo, P. J. (1999) Korean human resource development (HRD) practitioners perception of expertise level and importance of workplace learning and performance (WLP) competencies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park. 8

Yoo, Y. M. (1997) Kiroe sun hankook kieupkyoyoog. Seoul, Korea: Eltech Yoo, Y. M. (1998) Hankook kieupkyoyoog eui kyungjaengryuk kanghwa bangan. Seoul, Korea: Eltech. Yoo, Y. M. (2000) Dead business education and living digital learning. Seoul: Han Earn. You, S. W. (1993) Perceptions of Korean human resource development practitioners toward selected roles and competency standard. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland. 9