Journal of Health Sciences Management and Public Health
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT (HRD) PROFESSIONALS ROLE EVOLUTION: SHIFTING THE PARADIGM FROM
INTROSPECTIVE TO “EXTROSPECTIVE”
William G. Wallick1
Abstract
The literature related to the roles that HRD professionals perceive they should play in
organizations reflects an evolution from an introspective to an “extrospective” approach to defining
the various roles. This evolution is evident in role studies conducted in the past and is further
evident in the more recent studies of HRD roles. As a new direction toward defining HRD roles
unfolds, we must discover and embrace innovative ways to identify the most essential HRD
roles that are critical to the success of individual HRD professionals, the HRD profession in
general, and the organizations we serve.
Keywords:
HRD Roles, Introspective, Extrospective
Roles of HRD professionals have been
studied by a variety of researchers (HRD
professionals, consultants, and scholars) over the
past three to four decades. The research focused
primarily on shaping a framework of roles
from which HRD professionals could operate.
The framework has been used to benchmark
and compare the actual roles with the roles
discovered and suggested by the various
researchers. However, the vast majority of the
studies conducted were “introspective”. This
means that HRD professionals looked to fellow
colleagues within the profession to identify the
roles that could ultimately support and enhance
the HRD profession. Others have not
substantially verified HRD professionals’
perceptions of their roles outside the HRD
arena. “The question of whether or not trainers
have correctly identified the roles they are
providing organizations has gone unanswered”
(Bengtson, 1994, p. 1).
The accuracy of HRD professional’s
perceptions of their roles in organizations is
certainly questionable considering that most of
the studies were introspective or self-assessing
in nature. It is essential to discover the most
appropriate roles for HRD professionals in
organizations from the perspective of other key
organization members. The focus from
primarily an introspective approach to a
1
ABD, CHE, SPHR, Director Undergraduate Human
Resources Studies Program, University of Scranton
403 McGurrin Hall, Scranton, Pennsylvania 18510, Tel.:
(570) 941-4128, e-mail – [email protected]
70
somewhat more “extrospective” approach to
defining roles began to evolve over the past two
decades. Wallick (1999) defined the term
“extrospective” as a phenomenon whereby
HRD professionals look outward to examine
how their roles can be enhanced, supported,
and shared by others within organizations.
“Extrospective” can be thought of as the
antonym of introspective whereby HRD
professionals reflect inward to examine how their
roles can enhance and support the HRD
profession.
Nine major competency studies were
conducted between 1970 and 1989 that helped
shape the HRD field and served to help increase
practitioner’s awareness of HRD (Gilley &
Eggland, 1989). Each of the nine studies
included various roles that the researchers found
to be important and relevant to the practitioner’s
success as HRD professionals. Bengtson (1994)
used the eleven roles identified by McLagan and
Suhadolnik (1989) to compare the perceptions
of HRD roles with those of CEOs in selected
manufacturing firms. The main purpose of
Bengtson’s (1994) study was to determine if a
gap existed between what certain CEOs
perceived as appropriate HRD roles compared
with the HRD professional’s perceptions of
their actual roles. Although there were many
limitations to Bengtson’s (1994) study, the results
of the research showed that CEOs perceived
someone other than the HRD professional to
be best suited for seven of the eleven roles
identified by McLagan and Suhadolnik (1989).
Journal of Health Sciences Management and Public Health
The McLagan and Suhadolnik study was the
most complete and up-to-date study of HRD
roles and competencies at the time Bengtson
conducted her research.
Since that time other researchers (Rothwell,
1996; Piskurich & Sanders, 1998; Rothwell,
Sanders, & Soper, 1999) have further studied
perceptions of HRD roles. However, their
research included the perceptions of other
organizational members such as line managers,
staff employees, and information system staff
members to assist in determining the most
appropriate and valuable roles for HRD
professionals in organizations. Additionally, the
scope of the more recent studies was greatly
expanded to include organizations from around
the world. These researchers recognized that
the role of the HRD professional could no
longer be solely determined by the HRD
professionals themselves but required a greater
focus on systems thinking, which by its very
nature, must include input from a greater
representation of organizational members.
Initiated by Rothwell (1996), the concept of
shared responsibility for HRD roles appears to
have produced a favorable trend for the HRD
profession. Since his 1996 study (this was the
first major undertaking to update McLagan and
Suhadolnik’s 1989 work), the two most recent
major role and competency studies have
included the concept of shared responsibility.
The results of this current research demonstrate
the value and the potentially positive effect that
input from other organizational members can
have on the HRD profession. It is equally
important to gain the input from the highest
levels in the organization to further add to the
value that HRD professionals can provide to
an organization.
Foundational Role Studies
In 1962 Leonard Nadler completed work
on his doctoral dissertation which focused on
the needs of selected training directors
employed by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. Nadler interviewed training
directors, their subordinates, and their
administrators to determine what training
directors did and the “know-how needed to
accomplish these tasks” (Nadler, 1962, p. 1). He
looked at tasks and know-how in terms of
expected, actual, and ideal. He determined that
training directors performed the following tasks:
obtain and control a budget; choose, purchase,
and evaluate training equipment; provide
leadership and supervision to training staff;
determine needs, plan curriculum, conduct
training, and evaluation; obtain and share
information concerning training planned and
accomplished (Nadler, 1962, p. 1-2). In order
to accomplish these tasks training directors
needed to know: general administrative
principles and practices; curriculum
development, instructional materials, instruction,
and general philosophical positions in education;
how to use data gathering techniques to
determine training effectiveness; how adults
behave in work situations; the communication
process (speaking, writing, reading, listening); the
objectives of the state agency (Nadler, 1962, p.
2).
Nadler’s original research was important
for three reasons. First, it served as the basis
for further research. Lippitt and Nadler (1967)
used the original research as the basis for a
discussion of the emerging roles of the training
director. Second, the concepts of tasks and
know-how were now described as roles. And
third, the work of Nadler and Lippitt (1967)
served as the foundational framework for
Nadler’s Model that described the three major
roles of the human resource development
(HRD) specialist. The three major roles (as cited
in Gilley & Eggland, 1989) were Administrator,
Consultant, and Learning Specialist. Nadler’s
Model also inspired the research and
development of other models, including
enhancements and refinements to his own
model.
The U.S. Civil Service Commission
(USCSC) conducted another foundational study
of trainer roles in 1973. The purpose of the
study was to investigate “(barriers) to effective
employee development in the federal
government” (Chalofsky & Lincoln, 1983, p.
37). “The roles included career counselor,
consultant, learning specialist, program manager,
and training administrator” (Gilley & Eggland,
1989, p. 310-311). Nadler’s Model was used as
the basis for the USCSC study. The USCSC
study was important because it “provided a
structure for the federal government (roles,
competencies, and tasks), and it provided a
standard of performance for HRD specialists”
(Gilley & Eggland, 1989, p. 311).
71
Journal of Health Sciences Management and Public Health
In March 1976 a subcommittee of the
Ontario Society for Training and Development’s
Professional Development Committee was
formed to investigate core competencies of
trainers. The investigation resulted in the
identification of four roles and eleven
competencies that the subcommittee believed
necessary to effectively perform the identified
roles. The four roles identified were instructor,
designer, manager, and consultant (Kenny, 1976,
p. v).
In 1982 Kenny authored an article in which
he discussed the notion of trainer certification.
In that article, Kenny described the 1976 study
of roles and competencies but stated that “we
finally settled on 12 areas of core competency”
(Kenny, 1982, p. 145). The competency
apparently missing from the 1976 report was
research and development. There was no
explanation given by Kenny (1982) as to why
the twelfth competency (i.e., research and
development) was not mentioned in the original
study. This may have simply been an oversight
on the part of the author.
Although the specific methodology used
to identify the roles and competencies was not
discussed, Kenny (1976) described a seven
member working committee, six other
members, and eight corresponding members
who communicated about the perceived roles
and competencies of trainers. Additionally, the
American Society for Training and
Development’s Professional Development
Committee as well as people in various
community colleges were contacted for input
regarding the study. Lastly, a review of the then
current literature was conducted and a partial
listing was noted at the conclusion of the article
in the bibliography. The Ontario Society for
Training and Development study has been and
continues to be quoted as an important study in
the field of training and development
(Chalofsky & Lincoln, 1983; Gilley and
Eggland, 1989; McLagan, 1983; Pinto & Walker,
1978; Rothwell & Cookson, 1996; Rothwell &
Sredl, 1992).
Major Role Studies
The major studies described below were
all commissioned by the American Society for
Training and Development (ASTD) and are
discussed in chronological order.
72
The American Society for Training and
Development (1978) “In 1976 ASTD charged
the Professional Development Committee with
the task of developing a role model for HRD
specialists” (Chalofsky & Lincoln, 1983, p. 65).
After two years of brainstorming ideas the
committee elected to use their work as a
foundation for conducting “a national study of
what HRD professionals actually do, rather than
publish another theoretically based role model”
(Chalofsky & Lincoln, 1983, p. 65). The purpose
of the study was to determine the competencies
needed for effective performance in training and
development and to create a research base for
enhancing and refining those competencies as
the profession continued to evolve. Pinto and
Walker (1978) defined role “as a set of activities
performed by an individual in fulfillment of
the expectations imposed by professional
standards of behavior or employer position
requirements” (p. 59).
They defined
competencies as “the specific skills knowledge,
abilities and other attributes, such as values and
attitudes, necessary for effective role
performance” (Pinto & Walker, 1983, p. 65).
The roles Pinto and Walker (1978) identified are
listed in Table 1.
This study was significant first because of
the large scope of the research. Pinto and Walker
(1978) surveyed over 14,000 ASTD members
in the United States and in other countries that
ultimately resulted in 2,790 usable surveys or
approximately 20% of the surveys mailed.
Pinto and Walker (1978) noted that “since the
questionnaire was developed for practitioners,
a number of academics, consultants, students,
vendors and retired members may not have
been able to respond appropriately” (p. 60).
Second, the researchers used commonly
accepted research methods to collect and analyze
the data. Lastly, the study has been accepted as
foundational and continues to be cited in many
references and texts (Chalofsky & Lincoln, 1983;
Gilley & Eggland, 1989; McLagan, 1983;
Nadler, 1989; Rothwell, 1996; Rothwell &
Cookson, 1996; Rothwell & Sredl, 1992;
Rothwell & Soper, 1999).
Models for Excellence (1983) In 1981
the Professional Development Committee of
ASTD commissioned a Training and
Development Competency Study known today
as Models for Excellence. One underlying reason
for the study was to examine relevant
Journal of Health Sciences Management and Public Health
competencies as a basis for a meaningful
discussion on the topic of certification for
trainers. Patricia McLagan was named director
of the study. She and her team were charged
with developing a model that would provide a
detailed and current definition of excellence for
training and development professionals that
could be used as a standard for performance
(Gilley & Eggland, 1989). McLagan’s (1983)
methodology consisted of a series of studies
that were specially designed to accomplish seven
steps: 1) Determine the domain of the training
and development field; 2) Determine the key
roles for the [training and development] T & D
field; 3) Identify the major environmental forces
expected to affect the field in the near future; 4)
Identify the critical outputs which the T & D
function is expected to produce; 5) Identify the
critical competencies for the T & D field; 6)
Develop behavioral anchors for the
competencies; and 7) Cluster the roles to reflect
common competency requirements (p. 7).
Ultimately, McLagan’s 1983 study Models
for Excellence defined the training and
development field by firmly identifying it as a
specialty area within the larger context of the
human resources field. Further, the study
focused on assisting professionals to change
through learning by providing a future-oriented
description of the field that could be used to
select, manage, and develop professionals
(McLagan, 1989). Additionally, the results of
the study “defined training and development
work in terms of results or outcomes rather
than tasks and activities, which was the focus
of many other studies” (Gilley & Eggland,
1989, p. 318).
The study identified training and
development as one of nine specialty areas in
the human resources field that consisted of 15
functions or roles that required a body of
knowledge to support 32 competencies and 102
outputs (Gilley & Eggland, 1989). The fifteen
key roles are identified in Table 1.
Models for HRD Practice (1989) The
third major competency study called the
Competencies and Standards Study was
commissioned by ASTD in 1987 to build on
and expand the results of the 1983 study. The
study is better known today as the Models for
HRD Practice. Assisted by a large task force of
human resource development (HRD) experts,
McLagan and the task force were charged with
conducting the study, communicating its results,
and developing a plan for applying the results
(McLagan & Suhadolnik, 1989). There were
key differences between the 1983 and the 1989
studies. Specifically, the 1989 study covered the
field of HRD rather than just training and
development, included standards of quality for
the HRD outputs, and identified major ethical
issues facing HRD professionals (McLagan &
Suhadolnik, 1989, p. 2). HRD roles were
defined as “roles that individuals in HRD will
perform in the future and that encompass the
range of responsibilities and functions that define
HRD work” (McLagan & Suhadolnik, 1989, p.
69).
Pinto and Walker (1978) surveyed all
ASTD members as a part of the methodology
used for their study. In contrast McLagan’s
methodology was specified by ASTD to include
only a task force of individuals at the forefront
of HRD (McLagan & Suhadolnik, 1989).
McLagan and Suhadolniks’s (1989)
methodology was similar to the methodology
used in McLagan’s (1983) study. “Selected
HRD experts reviewed and expanded on the
results from the 1983 study to produce a
preliminary HRD model consisting of future
forces, outputs, quality requirements,
competencies, and ethical issues for identified
HRD roles” (McLagan & Suhadolnik, 1989, p.
7). This review produced an initial draft of an
HRD model that was subsequently revised to
produce a second draft model, and then a final
HRD Model. The results of the study produced
a list of future forces likely to have a significant
impact on HRD and HRD professionals; 11
functional HRD roles; 74 outputs that HRD
professionals must produce or provide to
others; 35 competencies necessary to produce
HRD outputs; major ethical issues facing
individuals in HRD; role profiles for each role
that describe the outputs for the role, the quality
requirements for each output, the competencies
needed to produce the outputs, and the major
ethical issues facing individuals in each role; and
role clusters that identify roles with similar critical
competencies and linkages between them
(McLagan & Suhadolnik, 1989, p. 17).
The 11 roles identified in the 1989 study
are listed in Table 1.
The ASTD Models for Human
Performance Improvement (1996) The fourth
major ASTD-sponsored competency study was
73
Journal of Health Sciences Management and Public Health
Table 1. Comparison of Trainer Roles Identified in 6 Major Studies
ASTD Models for Human Performance Improvement
(Rothwell, 1996). The study builds upon the
work of Pinto and Walker (1978), McLagan
(1983), and McLagan and Suhadolnik (1989).
The purpose of the study was “to lay the
foundation for future work on human
performance improvement” (Rothwell, 1996,
p. 2). Rothwell (1996) used commonly accepted
74
research methodologies to conduct the study.
He first prepared an extensive review of
literature on relevant competencies. Next, he
gathered a panel of experts to select the
competencies that they believed were most
relevant to the study of human performance
improvement.
Rothwell (1996) identified four roles tied
Journal of Health Sciences Management and Public Health
to human performance improvement work,
identified 38 competencies, including 15 core
competencies, “needed by those who perform
human performance improvement work”
(Rothwell, 1996, p. 18).
One major limitation of the research is its
lack of empirical rigor. But Rothwell (1996)
clearly explains that the field of human
performance improvement is fast and ever
changing, requiring almost continual updating.
Empirical research may produce reliable and
valid results but often results that are too
outdated to be useful. “Methodological rigor
has been sacrificed to a certain extent in order
to obtain faster, more current results” (Rothwell,
1996, p. 2).
This study was important to the field of
training and development for two major
reasons. First, the study suggested that a broader,
systems thinking view of the training profession
was on the horizon. Traditionally the HRD
professional tended to bear the sole
responsibility for assessing, designing,
developing, and implementing programs and
processes for improving performance within
organizations. The sole responsibility mindset
appears to have been self-imposed. For the
first time the focus began to shift from trainers
as the exclusive proprietors of employee
development. The study included suggested
ways for both line managers and employees to
participate and share in the responsibility for
improving human performance through
learning and management solutions. Second,
the shared responsibility concept suggested by
Rothwell (1996) was used in the subsequent
major ASTD competency study conducted by
Piskurich and Sanders (1998). They suggested
that line managers as well as information systems
staff should consider the roles they play in
supporting the work of the HRD professionals.
ASTD Models for Learning
Technologies (1998) The fifth major ASTDsponsored competency study was ASTD Models
for Learning Technologies (Piskurich & Sanders, 1998).
The study specifically examined the roles and
competencies that training professionals needed
to enable them to select, manage, and implement
learning technologies in the workplace.
Piskurich and Sanders (1998) modeled their
research methodology on McLagan and
Suhadolnik’s (1989) ASTD Models for HRD
Practice and Rothwell’s (1996) ASTD Models
for Human Performance Improvement.
The roles for learning technologies
described by Piskurich and Sanders (1998) are
listed in Table 1. The study was important for
three reasons. First, it was the leading study to
specifically examine the role, competency, and
output requirements for learning technologies.
Second, although the main purpose of study
was not to depict the larger field in which
training resides (Rothwell, Sanders, & Soper,
1999), it did focus on identifying and describing
the competencies required of training
professionals to effectively perform their roles
in a now technologically advanced field. Finally,
the study examined the organizational forces
potentially affecting the use of technology in
the future as well as some emerging trends in
technological advancements (Piskurich &
Sanders, 1998).
ASTD Models for Workplace Learning
and Performance (1999) The most recent
ASTD-sponsored competency study is ASTD
Models for Workplace Learning and Performance
(Rothwell, Sanders, & Soper, 1999). The study
describes the competencies, as perceived by
practitioners and line managers, needed for
successful workplace learning and performance
now and five years into the future. Although
formal training still occurs, the focus is now on
creating conditions in the workplace where
managers and employees alike can be more
responsible and accountable for learning and
high performance. Training focuses on changing
individuals by equipping them with new
knowledge and skills (Rothwell et al., 1999).
Training has traditionally been viewed as an
activity rather than a method of producing
results in work settings. The concept of
Workplace Learning and Performance (WLP)
was designed to stimulate a shift toward
bridging the gap between activity and results.
The research questions inherent in this study
centered on the current competencies required
for success in WLP as perceived by practitioners,
senior practitioners, and line managers and the
competencies that will be required in five years
(Rothwell et al, 1999). The research
methodology used to conduct this study was
similar to recent ASTD-sponsored studies,
except that part of this study was conducted
and data were collected for the first time on the
World Wide Web. Rothwell et al (1999)
identified seven workplace learning and
75
Journal of Health Sciences Management and Public Health
performance roles that are listed in Table 1.
Rothwell et al (1999) noted four limitations
of the study: (1) the results could not be
generalizable to represent the work of all WLP
practitioners; (2) levels of experience and
expertise of the respondents could not be easily
verified; (3) there were varying levels of
computer technology among potential
participants, many with outdated software that
prevented some potential participants to
respond; and (4) there was an uneven
distribution of responses among disciplines and
levels within organizations.
Nonetheless, this study is important to the
field of training and development for the
following reasons: (1) it is the first study that
primarily examines future competencies - past
studies focused on the then current training
environment and suggested additional or
enhanced roles based upon current thinking; (2)
it is the first major study in the field of training
to use a web-based data collection effort; and
(3) the study further expanded the idea of
“extrospective” thinking and the trend of shared
responsibility within a systems approach to the
training profession. Rothwell et al (1999) invited
both practitioners and line managers to jointly
assess the competencies needed for effective
workplace learning and performance.
Bengtson (1994) examined for the first time
CEO perceptions of trainer roles in selected
central Pennsylvania manufacturing companies.
Limitations to the study were 1) it was designed
to examine perceptions and not actual skill and
knowledge levels of trainers; 2) manufacturing
was the only industry type examined; 3) the
organizations in the study employed less than
1,000 employees; 4) the sample size was
considered small and did not represent all
manufacturing organizations; and, 5) since the
sample was drawn from central Pennsylvania,
the results could not be generalizable to other
areas of the United States (Bengtson, 1994, p.
13).
Despite the limitations inherent to
Bengtson’s (1994) study, the results are
nonetheless significant and subject to further
study.
Discussion and Recommendations
The foundational and major studies
examined here establish the bedrock of the body
76
of literature on HRD roles. The various role
studies have helped to shape the broader HRD
field and continue to serve as indispensable
structural and operational guides to the most
common HRD roles and competencies.
However, if we unconsciously govern our
behaviors and the resulting roles by attempting
to only fit within the defined boundaries of the
studies, we may limit our creativity in defining
new and expanding roles. The role studies
conducted over the past two decades produced
at least thirty-six role descriptions. The number
of HRD roles has fluctuated from a high of 15
(McLagan, 1983) to a low of four (Pinto &
Walker; Rothwell, 1996) since Pinto and Walker’s
groundbreaking study. However, the actual
number of roles is far less important to discuss
than why the roles continued to evolve and
change. Changing expectations of the
organizations served by HRD professionals is
a major reason why the roles continue to evolve
(Rothwell, et al 1999). Not only must HRD
professionals be multidimensional and
innovative in leading performance improvement
efforts in organizations, they must be equally
creative in defining their roles in a fast-paced,
ever-changing organizational environment.
Identifying the most appropriate roles does not
mean simply adjusting parts of the traditional
HRD professionals’ work. It calls for a
fundamental change in how we view and
represent ourselves in organizations. One
approach to fundamentally altering our own
views is to seek input from others outside the
HRD profession as to how HRD roles might
be enhanced, supported, and shared by others
within organizations.
Bengtson (1994) attempted to determine
Chief Executive Officer (CEO) perceptions of
HRD roles in selected Pennsylvania
manufacturing companies. CEOs were selected
as subjects for the study because “as the top
decision-makers in the organizations, [they] have
the authority to restrict or expand a function’s
scope of responsibility” (Bengtson, 1994, p. 1).
If an HRD professional’s perceptions of their
roles are incongruent with the perceptions of
the top leadership, it is perhaps useless for HRD
professionals to continue to prepare themselves
for roles that CEOs perceive as inappropriate
for their organizations. It would, however, be
very advantageous for HRD professionals to
prepare themselves for roles that are consistent
with HRD profession as well as for their specific
Journal of Health Sciences Management and Public Health
organization. Although CEO perceptions of
HRD roles are indeed critical in determining
appropriate and meaningful HRD roles, other
key organizational member’s perceptions may
be equally important. The perceptions of other
top leaders, e.g., Chief Operating Officers
(COO), Chief Financial Officers (CFO), as well
as managers and staff employees could also
provide valuable input and insights into the most
appropriate HRD roles as direct consumers of
the efforts of HRD professionals.
The best way to advance an extrospective
approach to discovering new HRD roles is
through research and further research is
indicated in this area. Suggestions for research
include:
1. Survey organizational members to
determine their opinions about the most
appropriate roles that they believe HRD
professionals should play and compare the
roles that they identify to the roles identified
in the major studies.
2. Survey organizational members to
determine their opinions about the most
appropriate roles that they believe HRD
professionals should play and compare the
roles that they identify to the actual roles of
HRD professionals in an organization.
3. Choose a specific type of industry (e.g.,
Pharmaceuticals) and survey the senior
leaders to determine their perceptions about
the most important HRD roles. Compare
the senior leader perceptions to the actual
HRD roles in the selected companies.
4. Conduct in-depth interviews with
consumers of HRD products (e.g.,
managers or staff members) to determine
the value they receive, as a direct result of
the HRD professional’s efforts. New and
unique roles may emerge from this type of
research.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Bengston, B.L. (1994). An analysis of CEO
perceptions concerning trainer roles in selected central
Pennsylvania manufacturing firms (Doctoral
dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1994).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 478.
Chalofsky, N.E., & Lincoln, C.I. (1983). Up the
HRD ladder: A guide for professional growth. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Gilley, J.W., & Eggland, S.A. (1989). Principles
of human resource development. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Kenny, J.B. (1976). Core competencies of a trainer.
Canadian Training Methods, Special Issue, i-xvi.
Kenny, J.B. (1982). Competency analysis for trainers:
A model for professionalization. Training and
Development Journal, 36(5), 142-148.
Lippitt, G.L., & Nadler, L. (1967). Emerging roles
of the training director: Is training sufficiently creative and
innovative to serve its full purpose? Training and
Development Journal, 21(8), 2-10.
McLagan, P.A. (1983). Models for excellence.
Washington, DC: The American Society for
Training and Development.
McLagan, P.A., & Suhadolnik, D. (1989). The
models for HRD practice: The research report.
Alexandria, VA: The American Society for Training
and Development.
Nadler, L. (1962). A study of the needs of selected
training directors in Pennsylvania which might be met by
professional education institutions. Dissertation
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Abstracts International, 24(2). (University
Microfilms No. 63-3766)
Pinto, P.R., & Walker, J.W. (1978). What do
training and development professionals really do? Training
and Development Journal, 32(7), 58-64.
Piskurich, G.M., & Sanders, E.S. (1998).
ASTD models for learning technologies. Alexandria, VA:
The American Society for Training and
Development.
Rothwell, W.J. (1996). The ASTD models for human
performance improvement: Roles, competencies, outputs.
Alexandria, VA: The American Society for Training
and Development.
Rothwell, W.J., & Cookson, P.S. (1996). Beyond
Instruction: Comprehensive program planning for business
and education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Rothwell, W.J., Sanders, E.S., & Soper, J.G.
(1999). ASTD models for workplace learning and
performance. Alexandria, VA: The American Society
for Training and Development.
Rothwell, W.J., & Sredl, H.J. (1992). The ASTD
guide to professional human resources development roles and
competencies (2nd ed., Vol.1). Amherst, MA: HRD
Press.
Wallick, W.G. (1999). Review of literature: An analysis
of CEO perceptions regarding trainer roles in Fortune 500
companies. Unpublished manuscript.
77
Journal of Health Sciences Management and Public Health
adamianuri resursebis ganviTarebis sferoSi moqmed menejerTa
saqmianobis Taviseburebebi
uiliam uoliki
Catarebuli analizis safuZvelze dadginda, rom adamianuri resursebis
ganviTarebis sferoSi moqmed profesionalTa movaleobebis Secvla aSkarad asaxavs
im evolucias, romelic ganicada am profesiam ukanasknel wlebSi.
am sferoSi momuSave menejerebis moqmedebis efeqturobis obieqturi
kriteriumebis dadgena unda daexmaros rogorc calkeuli profesionalis, ise
mTlianad am profesiis rolis gansazRvras samedicino dawesebulebis saqmianobis
warmatebulad warmarTvis saqmeSi.
78