It is generally accepted that the study of human-resource development (HRD) at an organizational level requires an approach that takes account of organizational actors, multiple interests, expectations, and perceptions (Camp, Blanchard, and Husczo, 1986; Harrison, 1997; Stewart and McGoldrick, 1996). While the level of debate within the United Kingdom and Ireland on the nature and meaning of HRD does not compare in volume with that given to HRM, there is a solid body of evidence suggesting that HRD can be construed by different groups of organizational actors in different ways (Lee, 1992; Tsui, 1987). These include strategic, processual, practical, and functional meanings (Goldstein et al., 1989; Hequet, 1996). Because research in this area is rare, commentators have highlighted the need for academic research to further explore these differences in meaning and perceptions (Coopers and Lybrand Associates, 1985; Rothwell and Kazanas, 1991). The dearth of work in this area is partly a result of the failure to recognize the need for such research and partly the result of an observable bias in much of HRD research toward micro models that explain the steps involved in HRD rather than the management of HRD in a wider organizational context. This paper challenges the dominant theoretical approaches adopted