The implications of EI for HRD rese

The implications of EI for HRD research and practice are captured under this section in
addition to aspects of the effect of HRD and EI on individual and organizational
productivity, EI and leadership development, and the relationship between EI and job
performance. The need for organizations such as universities to invest in people through
HRD programs, EI activities, and promotion of the development of social capital to remain
competitive and succeed in the current knowledge-based economy characterized by
uncertainty and inevitable change is critical. The research linking HRD and performance
improvement is a relatively
new body of literature and has endeavoured to integrate economic theories, psychological
theories, and systems thinking models (Nafukho, Hairston, & Brooks, 2004; Nafukho &
Hinton, 2003; Pate, Martin, Beaumont, & McGoldrick, 2000; Swanson, 1999). The current
literature specifically linking HRD, EI, social capital, and organizational productivity is
limited at best (Brooks & Nafukho, 2006). Although a universally accepted definition of
HRD is nonexistent, several scholars have attempted to identify its essential elements. For
instance, McLagan and Suhadolink (1989) grouped organization development, training and
development, and career development as the primary foci of HRD. Swanson and Holton
(2001) define HRD as “a process for developing and unleashing human expertise through
organization development and personnel training and development for the purpose of
improving performance” (p. 4). This definition is more inclined toward individuals,
organizations, and work groups or teams. An exploratory study of the definitions of HRD
concluded that HRD’s definitions were culturally influenced and varied internationally in
scope of activities, intended audiences, and beneficiaries (McLean et al., 2003; McLean &
McLean, 2001; Weinberger, 1998). Social capital theory has emerged from sociology as a
potential influence on performance at the individual, process, and organizational levels.
Social capital can be expressed as “the resources embedded in social networks accessed and
used actors . . . and can also be envisioned as investment by individuals in interpersonal
relationships useful in the markets” (Lin, 2001, p. 25). Coleman (1990) explains that in social
capital, the social relationships are relations with predictive capacity and can be used to
create something of value. Unlike human capital and traditional organizational assets, social
capital is unique in that it is developed by and is a result of meaningful social relationships
that individuals invest in creating together over time (Storberg-Walker, 2002). In her
excellent review of the evolution of social capital theory, Storberg-Walker (2002) indicates
that like human capital theory and HRD, conflicting definitions and rationale for its
measurement can be found in the management, sociology, and HRD literature. However,
Lin (2001) suggested that although definitions may differ, most scholars agree that social
capital “benefits both the collective and individuals of the collective” (pp. 11-13).