The debate about whether HRD should be oriented primarily toward performance or toward learning has been the focus of much scholarly discourse in the past few years (for example, Swanson, 1994;Kuchinke, 1995; Dirkx, 1997). Most recently, Barrie and Pace (1998) published a passionate plea that the importance of learning within a liberal education framework should be the goal of HRD. My own view throughout this discussion has been that it is not inherently necessary, nor even desirable, for a profession to come to closure on paradigmatic debates. Indeed, most social science fields are clearly divided into proponents of radically and fundamentally different perspectives.
Thus, in the case of learning versus performance as fundamental goals for HRD, there is merit in moving beyond the dualism, beyond the either-or orientation that has characterized the debate. John Dewey (1915/1966) pointed out that dualistic viewpoints are inherently problematic because they ignore the continuity present in reality and because they prevent us from recognizing the promise of the synthesis-the both-and stance that integrates the apparent opposites at a higher and more appropriate level of understanding.
This chapter responds to the points Barrie and Pace made and examines some of the assumptions underlying the learning and performance perspectives. It also seeks to begin a conversation about a synthesis that might serve as a more inclusive and comprehensive foundation on which to build HRD theory and improve practice.
Review of the Two Perspectives
The performance perspective is well known in the field and has been expressed by scholars such as Rummler andBrache (1995) andSwanson (1994). It is founded on human capital theory (Becker, 1975), which states that organizations and individuals participate in education and training primarily to increase productivity and gain higher pay. This perspective is not new: Adam Smith FORUM is a nonrefereed section inviting readers' reactions and opinions.