Purpose -The aim of the paper is to present the findings of a definitional review and comparative study of HRD definitions. It also reports the results of comparing and contrasting a synthesis of the "intended purposes" and "processes" constituting these definitions against various definitions and conceptualisations of organisational development (OD) and coaching. Design/methodology/approach -A targeted literature review was conducted to identify and collate a comprehensive range of HRD, OD, and coaching definitions/conceptualisations. These were then subjected to forms of content and thematic analysis in search of similarities and differences. Findings -The literature review has revealed many "contradictions", "confusions" and "controversies" concerning the identity of HRD. Results from the definitional review suggest two or more of four synthesised "core purposes" of HRD are embedded explicitly or implicitly within the respective HRD definitions examined. Furthermore, these HRD "core purposes" and "processes" are virtually the same as those associated with OD and coaching Research limitations/implications -The definitions used in the study were limited to those that define HRD practice at the individual, group and organisational level, and are based on conventional and predominantly western conceptualisations. A challenge and dilemma arising from our findings bring into question the notion of HRD, OD, and coaching as unique and distinct fields of study and practice. Rather, the evidence implies there may be a compelling logic for these three fields to converge into a unified disciplinary domain concerned with "people and organisation development". Originality/value -The paper is particularly relevant for scholars interested in HRD theorising and/or developing HRD theories on the basis of empirical evidence. This is because they need to know whether the foci of their studies lie inside or outside the boundaries between HRD and other related domains. It may also be of interest to practitioners who wish to identify themselves as HRD professionals, as opposed to OD or coaching professionals.

Provides a contribution to the debate in the UK on the appropriateness of competence‐based qualifications. Identifies a number of weaknesses in the competence philosophy as currently defined, and a number of operational problems in implementing a national scheme of competence‐based vocational qualifications. Argues that the change to competence qualifications is unlikely to bring benefits commensurate with the required investment, and that the approach will be unworkable for higher level professional and managerial jobs. The first in a series of three, which is intended to stimulate critical debate within the education and training professions. The series will end with recommendations on a way forward within the established NCVQ framework.

This article describes a programme of practice-grounded empirical management research set within an NHS Trust Hospital in the UK that was conducted as part of an HRD Professional Partnership of the kind advocated by Jacobs (1997). The research was concerned with identifying the criteria of managerial effectiveness at the middle and front-line levels of management using critical incident technique and factor analytic methods. The results are compared against those from an equivalent partnership research study carried out previously by the author within one part of the British Civil Service, namely the Anglia Collection of HM Customs & Excise. The findings lend support to the notion of the 'universally effective manager', and provide empirical support for the potential development of evidence-based and research-informed approaches to management and human resource development within the case-study NHS Trust Hospital, and possibly beyond

No abstract

The second in a series of three articles which provide a contribution to the debate in the UK on the appropriateness of competence‐based qualifications. Identifies and emphasizes some of the particular strengths of established qualification methodologies which provide clear advantage over the competence philosophy. Draws attention to a number of false assumptions about current practices which premise the competency case.