771

Career Development Within HRD: Foundation or Fad?

This article examines the evolving nature of Human Resource Development (HRD) as reflected in changes
in one of the component parts often associated with HRD – career development (CD). Recent
developments within career development such as a focus on employability, the boundaryless career, and
free agent workers are discussed. New directions for career development, including the role of informal
learning, integrative life planning, and the focus on systems theory as a link between both fields, lead to
the conclusion that CD can and should be a foundation for HRD.

Keywords: Career Development, Foundations of HRD, New Directions in HRD

Human resource development (HRD) scholars and practitioners have frequently identified career development (CD)
as one of the key components, or critical areas, underlying the field (McLagan, 1989; Swanson & Holton, 2001;
Weinberger, 1998). Moreover, Ralphs and Stephan (1986) surveyed HRD departments in Fortune 500 companies
and reported that the four main HRD activities in those organizations were considered to be: organization
development, training and development, human resource planning, and career development. More recently, Bartlett,
Kowske and Anthony (2003) examined Web sites of 247 of the Fortune 500 companies and found that over half
mentioned career development, even if only briefly. This evidence seems to lead to the conclusion that career
development is of interest to HRD scholars and practitioners and, thus, one of the foundational components of HRD.
However, in examining HRD research, and as mentioned by other authors, career development does not receive
much attention from HRD scholars (Boudreaux, 2001; McDonald, Hite & Gilbreath, 2002; Upton, Egan & Lynham,
2003). A review of conference proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development of the last three
years revealed only two articles related to career development in the 2003 proceedings, one in 2002, and three in the
2001 conference proceedings. Moreover, in a foundational text on HRD, Swanson & Holton (2001) acknowledged,
“career development is often overlooked as a contributor to HRD” (p. 312).
An examination of curriculum content in HRD and HR programs paints an even worse picture. Kuchinke
(2002) reported that career development is taught in less than half of the core or required curricula of graduate HRD
programs in the USA. An analysis of content areas covered in U.S. American graduate HR programs showed that
career management or development is required at only one of the 76 universities surveyed and one other program
offered it as an elective course (Madsen, Musto & Hall, 2003). In conclusion, even though career development is
often defined as a foundational component of HRD, it is underrepresented in the literature in the field as well as in
the education of our future scholars and practitioners.
One reason for this, as reported by Upton, Egan and Lynham (2003), might be the lack of literature with a focus
on the common ground between HRD and career development. Another reason could be that HRD is more focused
on performance improvement and learning on the organizational and systems levels than on the individual level
(Upton, Egan, & Lynham, 2003). Furthermore, macro-level forces, such as technological and economic forces,
coupled with changing workforce demographics, changed the nature of work and modified the concept of career
drastically over the last ten or so years (ACES, 2000; Brown, 1996, 1997, 1998a, 1998b; Feldman, 2002; Hall, 1996;
Howard, 1995; Judy & D’Amico, 1997; Sullivan, 1999). As a result, the responsibility for the development of
careers has shifted from an organizational centric design to an individual centric design. Individuals must now take
control of their own career development (Leana, 2002; Sullivan, 1999; Swanson & Holton, Upton, Egan & Lynham,
2003). These changes in the nature of work have had a significant impact on the theory and practice of career
development.
It appears that in the midst of all this change, HRD scholars and practitioners have lost sight of an important
field to draw upon for their theory building and development of practice. Although individuals are ultimately
responsible for their own career development in the new workplace, organizations remain the context in which this
development has to take place. This author agrees with Conlon (2003) that “organizations create the climate and
influence career decisions for the individual, whether by design or not” (p. 489). Therefore, I will argue that career
development should be a foundation for HRD and not some fad that is insignificant to the discipline.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the evolving nature of HRD as reflected in changes in one of its
components - career development. First, a short overview of career development, including definitions, history, and

Copyright © 2004 Marieke S. van Dijk

36-1
 772

the specific focus on adults, will be provided. Next, the changing nature of work and its impact on the focus and
availability of career development opportunities in organizations is discussed. In addition, this article explores how
these changes in the nature of work have resulted in new visions on the concept of career and the employer-
employee relationship. Furthermore, foci for career development within the new employee-employer relationship
are highlighted. As a final point, recommendations for future directions in research in the field of career
development and its relationship with HRD are presented.

Career Development: Definitions and Focus

Definition
Upton, Egan, and Lynham (2003) examined 30 different definitions of career development that covered 48
dependent variables. These variables ranged from individual outcomes, e.g. achieved career objectives and
development of a self-concept to organizational and societal outcomes, e.g. increased organizational performance
and aligned organizational talent with individual career needs. One of the definitions of career development listed
by Upton, Egan, and Lynham (2003) is the definition by Boudreaux (2001). She described career development in
terms of fit between organizational and individual goals, noting that “Career development focuses on the alignment
of individual subjective career aspects and the more objective career aspects of the organization in order to achieve
the best fit between individual and organizational needs as well as personal characteristics and career roles” (p. 806).
This definition of career development will be used in this article because the focus of this definition is on both
the individual and the organization. Many of the definitions described by Upton, Egan, and Lynham (2003) were
more geared to the self-development of an individual, but missed the organizational perspective. Since performance
improvement on both the organizational and individual level is central to HRD, Boudreaux’s (2001) definition
seemed an appropriate definition for career development within the context of HRD.
History and Focus
Historically, career development practice stems from vocational guidance. The shift from an agricultural
economy to an industrial system increased the need for people to identify and access emerging jobs. Career
development in that time focused on helping the individual choose their profession. It was not until the Twentieth-
century that career development also started to include the effectiveness of career development interventions across
a wide range of organizational settings and populations (Herr, 2001). Therefore, the term career development has
come to describe two sets of theories, or conceptual domains.
The first set of theories focuses on the development of career behavior across the life span and concentrates on
matching individuals to jobs and providing occupational information. This approach is also called career counseling
or career planning. The second set of theories, sometimes called organizational career development or career
management, explains how career behavior is changed by certain (organizational) interventions. Career management
is an organizational level approach that addresses human resource needs of the organization and connects these with
individual career plans and development needs (ACES, 2000; Boudreaux, 2001; Gutteridge, Leibowitz & Shore,
1993; Hall, 1996; Herr, 2001).
Career development, as used in this article, will focus on organizational career development. Career planning
theories focusing on choosing a first career for high school or college students are not as relevant to HRD since this
target group traditionally falls outside the boundaries of HRD. On the other hand, theories with regard to adult
development are especially relevant to HRD because these give scholars and practitioners insight in the different
career stages through which adults progress (Swanson & Holton, 2001). Organizational career development theories
should focus the interaction between individual and organization, and can also be regarded as change theories on an
individual level, which make them central to HRD (Swanson & Holton, 2001).

Beyond the Individual and the Organization: Forces Influencing Career Development

According to systems theory, the forces at work in the macro environment inevitably have an effect on the
individual employee within the organization (Swanson & Holton, 2001). Advancements in technology, changing
workforce demographics, and expanding global markets influence the skills one needs to advance in a career, but
also the way a career is developed (Coovert, 1995; Feldman, 2002; Howard, 1995; Madsen, 2001; Sullivan, 1999;
Van der Spiegel, 1995). For example, economic conditions and the health of particular sectors of the economy
influence individual’s career opportunities and constraints. Moreover, as Feldman (2002) noticed, “the effect of
macro-level forces may even be greater on individual’s perceptions of the desirability of various career
opportunities” […] than the influence of the immediate nuclear family on career development (p. 8). Leana (2002)
also acknowledged that external markets have become the primary factor in career development decisions. From

36-1
773

training opportunities to the very existence of jobs, it all depends on external market forces. In this section, three
important forces that influenced the field of career development over the past few years will be discussed. These are
the gap in career development opportunities between professionals and nonexempt employees, the winner-take-all
economy, and the potential national role for career development.
Professional vs. Nonexempt Employees.
One of the basic principles of career development should be that career development is for everyone, not just
for high potentials (McLean, 2002). However, McDonald, Hite, and Gilbreath (2001) called attention to the fact that
nonexempt employees are often overlooked in career development and HRD. Access to developmental activities
has traditionally been limited to managerial talent, who are viewed as the most valuable human resource. There
seems to be an implicit assumption that nonexempt employees do not have careers--they have jobs. Even now, the
assumption prevails that nonexempt employees have no significant long-term aspirations that need to be addressed
by career development staff. McDonald, Hite & Gilbreath (2001) illustrated the falsity of this assumption and
identified three themes important for nonexempt employees, that deserve the attention of both career development
and HRD specialists. These are: (1) the work itself (e.g. challenge, variety, accomplishment) (2) climate issues (e.g.
relationship with colleagues, being appreciated, having input), and (3) security/ compensation/ benefits (e.g. job
security, good pay/benefits, flexible work schedules).
Moreover, with the current mass lay-offs, the fear of finding a job in the first place has prevailed over concerns
about career opportunities, but this will change in the future. Even then, when unemployment numbers drop, the
problem of employee matching remains. The “right” people for the job may not be those who are seeking
employment (Howard, 1995; Judy & D’Amico, 1997). Yet, it is this group of employees – usually nonexempt
workers- that is often overlooked in career development and HRD efforts (Leana, 2002; McDonald, Hite &
Gilbreath, 2001; McLean, 2002). In summary, future efforts of career development specialists should focus on
raising awareness that career development is important for everyone, not just for high potentials and upper
management.
Winner-take-all Markets
Lack of career development opportunities for certain groups of employees might also be due to the so-called
winner-take-all markets, as described by Leana (2002). In these markets, those at the top receive astronomical
rewards often at the expense of those slightly below the top tier. “Such markets operate like those for professional
athletes were the difference between being first place or second is enormous in terms of the rewards being received,
even if there are no real discernable differences between the two in actual skill and talent” (Leana, 2002, p. 279).
One of the consequences for career development is that in order to compete in a winner-take-all market, only the
best of the best will be considered to compete at the top in certain professions. This is an important fact to take into
consideration when choosing a vocation or changing careers.
As said before by McDonald, Hite & Gilbreath (2001) career development and HRD specialists should increase
their attention to release the untapped potential within the workforce in the non-managerial jobs in order to decrease
this gap. If HRD and career development truly want to make a contribution on a national level – as will be discussed
in the next section – they must not accept the widening of the gap between the “haves” and “have-nots”.
A National Role for Career Development
Career development and HRD share a common characteristic that goes beyond their focus on matching
individual and organizational needs. That is, both fields have the potential to influence the economic health and the
knowledge and skills of its workforce on a national scale. As Herr (2001) states: “the importance of career
development in the twenty-first [century] will grow as a world-wide, sociopolitical force designed to facilitate the
economic health of nations and the purpose and productivity of individuals”(p. 209). Moreover, the Association for
Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES) identified that a philosophy of career development is “preparing
people for work to help nations build or keep the competitive economic edge in the global market place (p. 5). This
claim reveals a close link between career development and HRD. Looking at the definition of HRD by McLean and
McLean (2001), we see many similarities in the contribution and objectives of both fields that include benefits on a
national level. McLean and McLean’s (2001) definition of HRD is: “Human Resource Development is any process
or activity that, either initially or over the long term, has the potential to develop adults’ work-based knowledge,
expertise, productivity and satisfaction, whether for personal or group/team gain, or for the benefit of an
organization, community, nation or, ultimately, the whole of humanity” (p. 322).
Future research is needed to explore in more detail how career development and HRD are influenced by society
and how both fields, in turn, can influence the development of knowledge and skills for the benefit of nations as a
whole. This expansion of the definition and role of HRD and career development beyond the individual and
organizations shows great promise in getting HRD and career development on the national agenda.

36-1
 774

The Changing Nature of Careers

The review above demonstrates that macro change forces influence career development. The most significant
change seems to be the shift in responsibility for career development. Organizations no longer take the
responsibility to protect their employees from market fluctuations, expecting their workers to take control of their
own careers (Leana, 2002; Upton, Egan & Lynham, 2003; Feldman, 2002). Concepts that try to work within the
new boundaries of the employer-employee relationship– employability and the boundaryless career-- will be
discussed in this section.
Employability
With the shift in responsibility for career development from the organization to the individual, the concept of
employability is receiving increasing attention in the literature (Baruch, 2001; Brown, 1996, 1998; Howard, 1995;
Short & Opengaart, 2001). What the term means is that the organization will give employees tools to expand their
employability (i.e. make them attractive to other employers), so it will be easier to find a job in case of downsizing
(Baruch, 2001). The positive consequence of employability is that it creates self-reliant workers and a career
resilient workforce (Brown, 1996). Employees take charge of their own careers; they contribute skills aligned with
business needs and are committed to continuous learning (Brown, 1996). The question remains, is this a voluntary
movement or is it an offer one can not refuse since one’s job is at stake? Fear for one’s job is a very strong
motivator (Baruch, 2001). Introducing employability as a new concept assumes that organizations in the past did not
offer tools for their employees to remain up to date with regard to their knowledge and skills. This is not the case;
organizations have always been providing training and development for their employees. Baruch (2001) warns that
although employability might be beneficial for individuals – it is advantageous to be employable in turbulent
markets – employability cannot be a replacement for organizational commitment. Employability is a concept that
needs further research within the context of career development and HRD. It seems evident that the responsibility
for career development lies with the employee now, and this will not change in the near future. The question
remains, what is the role of the organization in facilitating the employability of their employees?
Boundaryless Careers
Traditional careers where people climbed the organizational ladder gaining income, power, security and status
are gone (Feldman, 2002; Hall, 1996; Sullivan, 1999). Instead, “many individuals are traveling career paths that are
discontinuous and go beyond the boundaries of a single firm” (Sullivan, 1999, p. 464). The idea of a ‘job for life’
has been replaced with ‘survival of the fittest’ as downsizing has forced employees to develop their own career plans
(Loughlin & Barling, 2001, as cited in Conlon, 2003). Changes in the psychological contract between organizations
and employees have given rise to the idea of boundaryless or protean careers (Sullivan, 1999). Since organizations
cannot offer job security any longer, people need to take charge of their own careers. Consequently, careers are
being viewed as boundaryless in the career development literature (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996). Boundaryless
careers, as described in Sullivan (1999) have the following characteristics. They (1) transition across occupational
boundaries, (2) transition across organizational boundaries, (3) transition across the boundaries between roles, (4)
transition across boundaries within roles (e.g. increased responsibilities), (5) have changed meanings of
employment, relationships, and (6) depend on network relationships. Even though the majority of people might still
have a “traditional” career at the moment, the concept of the boundaryless career will most probably play an
important part in the future of career development and HRD. More knowledge is needed on how career
development specialists can assist employees in dealing with this new type of career.
Free Agent Workers
Free agent workers seem to make up the other side of the coin for boundaryless careers. Free agents are those
employees “who focus on their long-term employability security within the new career model, without seeing
themselves as bound to any one organization” (Short & Opengart, p.813). Thus, free agents are most likely
employees who have a boundaryless careers (Imel, 2001; Short & Opengart, 2001). Much can be learned from free
agents and future research will have to provide insight on what the specific needs and demands are of free agent
workers with regard to career development. The development of networks has been proposed as a career
development strategy for free agents, but more research is needed (Imel, 2001).

New Directions for Career Development in Organizations

Even though the responsibility for career development has shifted from the employer to the employee, this does not
mean that the organizations do not have any responsibilities anymore for the development of their workforce.
Organizations create a climate, one that supports learning or not, and influence career decisions of employees
through several different means (e.g. pay and benefits). In short, career development should remain a shared

36-1
775

responsibility (Boudreaux, 2001; Brown, 1997). Economic forces may have caused training and development
budgets to be cut severely, but there are other possibilities that career development and HRD can explore to achieve
the best fit between individual and organizational needs as well as personal characteristics and career roles, such as
informal learning and learning opportunities within the workplace.
Role of Informal Learning
Informal learning techniques are convenient and accessible. Coupled with findings that as much as 70% of
employees’ learning needs are fulfilled by informal learning, the concept needs further attention from scholars
(Power, Hubschman, & Doran, 2001). Informal learning can take place in many different settings, even in more
formal activities, such as “lessons learned” sessions, developmental assignments, and on-the-job coaching
(McCauley & Hezlett, 2001; Power, Hubschman, & Doran, 2001). Power, Hubschman, & Doran (2001) have
proposed a model to re-create career development via informal learning. In this model the HRD professional acts as
“the filter or catalyst who assists, through the reframing process, employees in enhancing their career development
skills in improved goal setting and visioning, resulting in whole person learning for the employee and enhanced
performance for the organization” (p. 826). In times of economic down turn, when development budgets are small,
informal learning shows great promise to continue to create a learning culture and social support for learning in a
more informal setting.
Learning Opportunities and Learning Behavior
With the expanding role of informal learning, organizations need to ensure there are ample learning
opportunities created for employees within the organization (McCauley & Hezlett, 2001; Power, Hubschman, &
Doran, 2001). Van der Sluis & Poell (2003) examined the impact of learning opportunities and learning behavior at
work and found that “career development depends both on the work environment in terms of learning opportunities
and on individual characteristics in terms of learning behavior” (p. 174). Individual learning behavior has an impact
on career development, which is in line with the traits of the new free agent workers, as discussed above. Van der
Sluis & Poell (2003) also found a link between a supportive job environment and the career satisfaction of
employees. They conclude that employees appreciate feedback on their performance and are more aware of their
own responsibility for their learning and professional development. In sum, the role of learning theory in career
development should be a focus of future research on the crossover between individual and organizational learning.
Integrative Life Planning
Professional organizations (ACES, 2000; NCDA, 2000) urge career development specialists to see career
development as a developmental process that is lifelong and contextual in nature. Changes in the world of work
result in new attitudes about work, family, and leisure. Career development professionals need to understand that
these issues are often link with other parts of their lives, which blurs the line between career counseling and personal
counseling, and calls for a broader definition of career development. Hansen (1997) has proposed the term
“integrative life planning” to expand career development beyond trait factor theories and matching people with jobs,
to include other work and life roles. This definition of career development is linked closer to the purpose and
objectives of HRD with its holistic focus and the greater emphasis on work and organizations. New developments
in theory building and practice in this area should be encouraged.

Systems Theory: The Missing Link Between Career Development and HRD?

Like HRD, career development is an applied field with a multi-disciplinary theory base (Boudreaux, 2001). In
previous efforts to link career development and HRD, the focus was on identifying these theoretical frameworks in
career development that can inform HRD theory and practice; these include: trait-factor theory, social learning
theory, adult development theory, and behavioral theory (Boudreaux, 2001; Upton, Egan & Lynham, 2003).
Although HRD scholars need to be informed by these theories, organizational change models and systems thinking
might provide a stronger basis for arguing why career development lies at the heart of HRD (Russel, 1991, Patton &
McMahon, 1998).
A systems perspective might provide a new insight in the relationship between career development and HRD.
Elements of systems thinking, such as interconnectedness of parts, relatedness, and a notion that the whole is more
than the sum of its parts were already present in some career development theories, such as Hansen’s (1997) model
of integrative life planning. Nevertheless, Patton and McMahon (1998) are the first who proposed a meta-theoretical
framework using systems theory for the integration of different career theories and the development of a relationship
between theory and practice with a focus on the individual. They portrayed the field of career development as a self-
organizing, open system that constantly changes from within, but is also changed by the ongoing interaction with
other systems.

36-1
 776

Patton and McMahon’s (1998) systems theory framework of career development focuses on the individual as a
learning system, and includes elements such as: skill, world-of-work knowledge, workplace, employment market
and education institutions – elements that are very much related to HRD. Although no specific comparison between
HRD and career development theories is made in this framework, I would recommended this as an area for future
research.
As Patton and McMahon (1998) stated “A systems theory perspective recognizes the contribution to career
development theory and practice of other disciplines” (p. 167). This can also be applied in a HRD setting, where a
systems career development approach can aid to our understanding of the development of a meaningful integration
of systems and organizational level development with individual development in the workplace” (Upton, Egan &
Lynham, 2003, p. 728)

Directions for Future Research

The purpose of this paper was to argue that career development should be a foundation for the field of HRD. In
order to strengthen the ties between the fields and to create a body of literature with a focus on the commonalities
between the fields, much future research is needed. In summary, future research should focus on six main areas: (1)
the consequences of the changing nature of work and careers on career development, (2) effectiveness of different
career development interventions, (3) a holistic approach towards career development, (4) the role of learning in the
development of careers, (5) societal and national issues, and (6) systems thinking.
Consequences of the Changing Nature of Work and Careers
This includes examining external or environmental factors associated with learning, development and
performance such as the impact of technology and cross-cultural implications of career development (ACES, 2000;
Boudreaux, 2001; Sullivan, 1999). In addition, emerging concepts like employability, free agent workers and the
effects of boundaryless careers need further attention (Boudreaux, 2001; Sullivan, 1999; Upton, Egan & Lynham,
2003).
Effectiveness
This includes examining how different employment relationships affect individual and organizational outcomes
(Sullivan, 1999; Upton, Egan & Lynham, 2003). Another important research area is to examine the effectiveness of
organizational programs and newer learning methods that focus on developing the skills needed for success in non-
traditional career paths (Sullivan, 1999). Research on the proposed link between career development interventions
and individual and organizational performance improvement needs more attention. As Boudreaux (2001) argued,
future career development research and practice must be linked more closely to performance outcomes.
Holistic Approach
Future research must take a more holistic approach to career development, acknowledge its contextual nature,
and the interplay between work and life issues (Hansen, 1997). Research should include the relationship between
different career development interventions and activities with all corresponding facets of personal identity (Hall,
1996). This holistic approach to career development should also include examining systems dimensions of learning
and performance and looking for connections between employee preferences and competencies, and HRD practices
(Upton, Egan & Lynham, 2003).
Learning Theory
Future research should focus on the role of learning theory in career development. Informal learning and
specific individual development practices with a focus on learning will be a very important part of future career
development practice (McCauley & Hezlett, 2001; Power, Hubschman, & Doran, 2001; Upton, Egan & Lynham,
2003; Van der Sluis & Poell (2003). Learning theory shows promise to tighten the interrelationships between career
development and HRD, which needs to lead to an examination of interchanges between individual career
development interests and organizational needs (Upton, Egan & Lynham, 2003).
Societal and National Issues
The increasingly widening gap between the “haves” and “have nots” should be of great concern in future career
development and HRD research. With expanding definitions of both HRD and career development (Herr, 2001;
McLean & McLean, 2001) come greater responsibilities as well. Although this is a big aspiration, career
development and HRD should focus on the whole of humanity and not forget about the people with the least skills,
who often need attention the most to develop their expertise (ACES, 2000; Leana, 2002; McDonald, Hite &
Gilbreath, 2002).
Systems Thinking
The focus on systems in both career development and HRD shows potential for bringing the two fields closer
together. Career development can be seen as a sub-system of HRD. The nature of systems is that the sub systems

36-1
777

influence each other. More research is needed on how HRD influences career development and the other way
around. Patton and McMahon’s (1998) systems framework for career development provides a good starting point to
investigate this relationship further.

Conclusion

Due to macro economic, technological and demographical changes, career development has changed dramatically
over the past years. This raised the question: should career development still be considered a component of HRD, or
is there a new paradigm we should be looking at? Although, career development as a field is still mostly focused on
career choice, developmental stages and career counseling (ACES, 2000; Hansen, 1997; Herr, 2001; McDonald,
Hite & Gilbreath, 2002) a holistic approach to career development has been proposed that shows a closer
relationship with the outcomes and objectives of HRD (Hansen, 1997). Further investigation into systems theory as
the missing link between both fields promises to be fruitful. Patton and McMahon’s (1998) systems framework
provides a good starting point to elaborate on the holistic approach as proposed by Hansen (1997) and can provide a
better insight in the nature of the relationship between career development and HRD.
A major change in the nature of career development has been the shift in responsibility from the organization to
the individuals. Employees are expected to become free agents, self-directed learners, who take charge of their own
career (Feldman, 2002; Leana, 2002; Sullivan, 1999; Swanson & Holton, Upton, Egan & Lynham, 2003). Research
shows, however, that career development depends “both on the work environment in terms of learning opportunities
and on individual characteristics in terms of learning behavior” (Van der Sluis & Poell, 2003, p. 174). As a result,
the future role for HRD and career development professionals should be to help organizations create meaningful
learning opportunities and encourage learning behavior at all levels of the organization, for all employees, not just
high potentials (McLean, 2002). Career development and HRD practitioners can assist employees with goal setting
and developing a career vision, resulting in whole-person learning for the employee and improved performance on
the individual, systems, and organizational level (Conlon, 2003; Hansen, 1997).

References

Association for Counselor Education and Supervision & National Career Development Association (2000).
Preparing counselors for career development in the new millennium. [Brochure]. Chicago: Author.
Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (1996). The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new
organizational era. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bartlett, K. R., Kowske, B. J., & Anthony, K. (2003). Human resource development on the web: An examination of
references to HRD on Fortune 500 websites. Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development,
USA, 34-41.
Baruch, Y. (2001). Employability: A substitute for loyalty? Human Resource Development International, 4(4), 543-
566.
Boudreaux, M. A. (2001). Career development: What is its role in Human Resource Development? Proceedings of
the Academy of Human Resource Development, USA, 805-812.
Brown, B. L. (1996). Career resilience. Eric Digests No.178. . ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and
Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED402474).
Brown, B. L. (1997). The future of career development. . ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED417295).
Brown, B. L. (1998a). Career Mobility: A choice or necessity? Eric Digests No. 191 . . ERIC Clearinghouse on
dult, Career, and Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED414436).
Brown, B. L (1998b). Career development: A shared responsibility. Eric Digests No. 201. . ERIC Clearinghouse on
Adult, Career, and Vocational Education .(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED423427).
Coovert, M. D. (1995). Technological changes in office jobs: What we know and what we can expect. In A. Howard
(Ed.) The changing nature of work. (pp. 175-208). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conlon, T. J. (2003). Development of an operational definition of career development for the 21st century
workplace. Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development, USA, 489-493.
Davis, D. D. (1995). Form, function, and strategy in boundaryless organizations. In A. Howard (Ed.) The changing
nature of work. (pp. 112-138). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Feldman, D. C. (Ed.). (2002). Work careers: A developmental perspective. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gutteridge, T., Leibowitz, Z. B., & Shore, J. E. (1993). Organizational career development: Benchmarks for
building a world-class workforce. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

36-1
 778

Hall, D.T. (1996). The career is dead: Long live the career. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hansen, L. S. (1997). Integrative life planning: Critical tasks for career development and lifechanging patterns. San
Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Herr, E. (2001). Career development and its practice: A historical perspective. The Career Development Quarterly,
49(3), 196-211.
Howard, A. (Ed.). (1995). The changing nature of work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Imel, S. (2001). Career development of free agent workers. Eric Digests No. 228. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult,
Career, and Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED452369).
Judy, R. W., & D’Amico, C. (1997). Workforce 2020: Work and Workers in the 21st Century. Indianapolis: Hudson
Institute.
Kuchinke, K. P. (2002). Institutional and curricular characteristics of leading graduate HRD programs in the United
States. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(2), 127-143.
Leana, C. R. (2002). The changing organizational context of careers. In D. C. Feldman (Ed.), Work careers: A
developmental perspective (pp. 274-293). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bas.
Madsen, S. R. (2001). The benefits, challenges, and implications of teleworking: A literature review. Proceedings
of the Academy of Human Resource Development, USA, 25-1.
Madsen, S. R., Musto, A. L., & Hall, T. S. (2003). What HRD curriculum is being taught within HR programs in
U.S. business schools? Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development, USA, 42-49.
McCarthy, C. J., Moller, N., & Bear L. M. (2003). Suggestions for training students in using the internet for career
counseling. The Career Development Quarterly, 51(4), 368-382.
McCauly, C. D., & Hezlett, S. A. (2001). Individual development in the workplace. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H.
K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.) Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology. (pp. 313-
335). London: Sage Publications.
McDonald, K. S., Hite, L. M., & Gilbreath, B. (2002). A qualitative study of nonexempt employees: Careers or
jobs? Proceedings of the Academy of Human ResourceDevelopment, USA, 492-499.
McLagan, P. A. (1989). The models: A volume in models for HRD practice. Alexandria, VA: American Society for
Training and Development.
McLean, G. N. (2002, August). A journey through career development at Boston Scientific. Presentation to the
Korean Research Institute for Vocational Education and Training, Seoul, Korea.
McLean, G. N., & McLean, L. (2001). If we can’t define HRD in one country, how can we define it in an
international context? Human Resource Development International, 4(3), 313-326.
National Career Development Association. (2000). Career connecting in a changing context: A summary of the key
findings of the 1999 national survey of working America. Columbus, OH: Author.
Patton, W. & McMahon, M. (1998). Career development and systems theory: A new relationship. Pacific Grove:
Books/Cole Publishing Company.
Powell, T., Hubschman, B., & Doran, M. (2001). Career development through informal learning: A review of the
literature. Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development, USA, 821-827.
Ralphs, L. T., & Stephan, E. (1986). HRD in the Fortune 500. Training and Development Journal (40)10, 69-76.
Russel, J. E. A. (1991). Career development interventions in organizations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38(3),
237-287.
Short, D. & Opengart, R. (2001). Free agent learners: the new career model and its impact on HRD. Proceedings of
the Academy of Human Resource Development, USA, 813-820.
Sullivan, S. E. (1999). The changing nature of careers: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management,
25(3), 457-484.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. III (2001). Foundations of human resource development. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.
Upton, M., Egan, T. M., & Lynham, S. A. (2003). Career development: Definitions, theories, and dependent
variables. Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development, USA, 728-735.
Van der Sluis, L. E. C., & Poell, R. (2003). The impact on career development of learning opportunities and learning
behavior at work. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(2), 159-179.
Van der Spiegel, J. (1995). New information technologies and changes in work. In A. Howard (Ed.) The changing
nature of work. (pp. 89-111). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Weinberger, L. A. (1998). Commonly held theories of human resource development. Human Resource Development
International, 1(1), 74-94.

36-1