Organizational Training Across Cultures: Variations in Practices and Attitudes

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.
htm
Organizational training across cultures: variations in practices and attitudes

Abderrahman Hassi
Algonquin College, Ottawa, Canada, and
Organizational training across cultures 45

Received 14 December 2009 Revised 27 April 2010 Accepted 28 June 2010
Giovanna Storti
Department of Continuing Education, La Cite collegiale, Ottawa, Canada, and Federal Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, Ottawa, Canada
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a synthesis based on a review of the existing literature with respect to the variations in training practices and attitudes across national cultures. Design/methodology/approach A content analysis technique was adopted with a comparative cross-cultural management perspective as a backdrop to address the occurrence of differences in practices and attitudes across various national cultures. Findings Most of the extant literature remains distant from providing a systematic and analytical repertoire on the subject. In efforts to bridge this gap, a synthesis of the literature has been elaborated, identifying a range of variations that have been grouped around the following categories: importance of organizational training; access to organizational training; different types of training provided to employees; actors involved in organizational training; and organizational support for training. Research limitations/implications The heterogeneity of the literature impeded the use of a theoretical training management framework for the present review. Practical implications Organizations operating overseas and HRM/HRD practitioners should consider the complexity of diverse cultural differences, while managing employee training in culturally diverse settings. Nations ought to be aware of training practices abroad to observe trends and changes caused by globalization, as they may inuence the shaping of national training practices and regulations. From a theoretical point of view, it is important to undertake conclusive research by further examining training practices and attitudes through the various national cultures with the objective of better circumventing the differences and by highlighting their prominent characteristics and implications. Originality/value The present contribution is the rst documented synthesis of the literature on the subject. Keywords Training, National cultures, Human resource management, Attitudes, Working practices, Cross cultural studies Paper type Literature review
The authors would like to thank the editors of the Journal of European Industrial Training, Dr Ronan Carbery and Professor Thomas Garavan, as well as the anonymous reviewers, for their insightful comments and suggestions.
Journal of European Industrial Training Vol. 35 No. 1, 2011 pp. 45-70 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0590 DOI 10.1108/03090591111095736
JEIT 35,1
46
Introduction In todays culturally interconnected societies and globalized world economy, organizations are no longer evolving within the connes of a particular national setting. They must operate in a more and more internationalized context (Savvas et al., 2001). The latter is characterized by the intensication of international exchanges and the opening of global markets (Shenkar and Luo, 2004), the transfer of business management practices (Turbin, 2001) and workplace mobility (Francis, 1995). This landscape implies an increased presence of the variables of various national cultures[1] in the life of organizations and individuals, leading to important implications for human resource management and development (HRM/HRD) in general, as well as, for organizational training and development in particular. Therefore, to better understand and grasp the demands of this rapidly changing environment in reference to HRM/HRD, a paramount question emerges: How does organizational training vary among national cultures? The variations in organizational training across cultures have been documented in numerous studies in diverse cultural contexts. Nonetheless, it is worthwhile to note the lack of analytical literature and limited review of the existing work on the subject. In fact, there exist no studies or syntheses that examine variations in terms of practices and attitudes related to training and development across cultures. For these specic reasons, the present article aims to draw a general portrait of these variations by means of a content analysis method with a comparative perspective as a backdrop to address the occurrence of differences in practices and attitudes across various national cultures. We posit that differences in the national culture lead to differences in training practices and attitudes and we expect that the latter vary among national cultures. With the globalization of markets, managers working beyond national borders need frameworks to assist them in interacting with their counterparts from diverse cultures (Vielba, 1995). Further, organizations on the global stage, such as multinational companies, need to be aware of variations in training across cultures to efciently manage their training programs in diverse settings. It is therefore intended that the present synthesis will be of use and interest for both researchers and practitioners in the eld of HRM/HRD and training and development. In the following paper we highlight the variations in question through an ` examination of the existing literature vis-a-vis certain training practices[2]. Furthermore, this review enabled us to identify a range of variations that may be grouped around the following headings: . importance of organizational training; . access to organizational training; . different types of training provided to employees; . actors involved in organizational training; and . organizational support for training. Before presenting these points in detail and discussing the underlying rationale of the differences, we begin with an attempt to disentangle the concepts of national culture and organizational culture as well as the impact of the latter on training.
National culture and organizational culture The concept of culture in a broad sense has mostly attracted attention and focus with the advent of the Japanese boom in the early 1980s. National culture refers to the collective programming of the mind, which distinguishes members of one human group from those of another (Hofstede, 1980, 2001) or to a distinct environment of a community about which members share meaning and values (House et al., 1997). Bennett and Bennett (2004) distinguish between an objective culture, which refers to the institutional aspects of a culture and a subjective culture that focuses on a worldview of a societys people. On the other hand, the concept of corporate culture was introduced after the publication of the book entitled Corporate Culture by Deal and Waterman in 1982. As for culture at the organizational level, Lewis and Thornhill (1994) distinguish corporate culture as referring to managements favourite way of doing things and organizational culture dened as the sum of all the sub-cultures, including non- managerial ones within an organization. Schein (1992) considers organizational culture as a deep-rooted phenomenon, which cannot be changed easily, a pattern of basic assumptions that a group has invented, discovered, or developed to deal with two main challenges, namely internal integration and external adaptation. Pettigrew (1990) concludes that organizational culture refers to people, their relationships and beliefs, products, structures, modes of recruitment and reward. From the onset, it is important to mention that both national culture and organizational culture have similarities and dissimilarities. Nevertheless, the consultation of literature does not allow us to determine denite links between national or societal culture and organizational culture, particularly with the impact of the former on the latter:
Further, the question of the extent to which societal culture has an impact upon organizational culture is one of considerable debate. The literature addressing this question has been inconclusive [. . .] (Dickson et al., 2000, p. 455).
Concerning the relationship between both levels of culture, Holbeche (2005) contends that corporate culture may be paramount over national culture within international organizations:
In international organizations employing large numbers of local staff, the national culture will act as a moderator of the corporate culture [. . .] However, it is probable that the corporate culture will predominate over national culture, making local ofces of the company designed to have a familiar feel, atmosphere and to some degree, shared values, wherever where they are based (Holbeche, 2005, p. 29).
Whereas for Ouchi (1981), managers are able to create strong organizational cultures that could even reect values different from those of the national culture where organizations evolve. On the other hand, societal or national culture was identied as a source of inuence on organizational culture by several authors. In this regard, given that national culture constitutes an integral part of the environment where organizations evolve, organizational culture, by implication, should be inuenced by societal culture (Dickson et al., 2000). Indeed, the surrounding national culture could affect organizations members behaviors by means of its effect on organizational culture, as much as it could impact beliefs, values and norms that individuals bring to an organization (Sagiv and Schwartz, 2000). For instance, Hofstede and Peterson (2000)
JEIT 35,1
48
contend that the nationality of a parent company is reected on its organizational culture given that culture is not specic to management it belongs to the total society of which management is just a part. (Hofstede and Peterson, 2000, p. 402). Although ideologies that constitute the substance of an organizational culture could be developed within the same organization, Trice and Beyer (1993) stress that the content of these ideologies is strongly inuenced and modeled by the surrounding culture. Additionally, national values are much more rooted than the organizations values among individuals:
However, as dIribarne (1989) makes abundantly clear in his analysis of historical cultural roots shaping institutionalized business practices, the values of nations reect patterns apparent for periods exceeding 200 years (Hofstede and Peterson, 2000, p. 413).
Consequently, the conclusion that managers and corporate business leaders will have more inuence on the attitudes and beliefs of employees, as well as, on organizational culture underestimates the socialization of individuals and overestimates the impact of organizations (Hofstede and Peterson, 2000). These business leaders only exert an inuence on observable behaviors. Thus, conformity to authority is not synonymous to a change in attitude or value. In other words, organizations are not able to engage in a ` rival socialization vis-a-vis societal socialization to produce values among their members. In fact, the socialization process of individuals is more inuenced by societal culture than by the culture of organizations where individuals work. The collective mental programming at the national level impacts the values that people acquire at a younger age, by large before the age of 12 (Hofstede and Peterson, 2000). By contrast, programming at the organizational level impacts practices, namely, the symbols, heroes and rituals according to results of a study based on 20 Danish and Dutch units carried out by Hofstede et al. (1990). In this respect, Sondergaard (2006) attributes more importance to values than to practices:
[. . .] Values are assumed to be relatively more stable than practices. In other words, we are embedded in the values of the national culture in which we spent the years of primary education, either by birth or by parental choice. However, organizational practices can be learned. Learned practices may t or mist with cultural values (Sondergaard, 2006, p. 117).
Similarly, using the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) societal culture scale, Dickson et al. (2000) nd that values shared at the societal level account for 50 percent of the variance in values shared at the organizational level. Whereas, dIribarne (1989) stipulates that national culture constitutes a referential of meanings in terms of management practices; indeed, every culture is singular in this respect (Dupuis, 2008). In summary, several authors support the idea that cultural differences impact management practices at the national level such as Hofstede (1980, 2001), Hickson and Pugh (1995), and Hampden-Turner and Trompeenars (1997). Opponents to the national culture thesis claim that the culturalist approach reduces organizational culture to a simple reection of national culture. However, to examine facets of national culture within organizations does not necessarily mean reducing organizational culture to merely these facets. Rather, the objective is to show manifestations of national culture in the management of organizations. In terms of the inuence of national culture and organizational culture on organizational outcomes, Jacobs (2003) ascertains that:
In fact, research has shown that national culture can be as strong a determinant of individual behavior as is organizational culture (Hofstede, 2001) ( Jacobs, 2003, pp. 200-201).
Similarly, McSweeny (2009) asserts that organizational culture inuences, just like national culture, behaviors and practices at work:
[. . .] action in an organization would be inuenced not just by national culture but also by the organizational culture which would not be nationally uniform as it would vary between organizations (McSweeney, 2009, pp. 937-938).
Organizational culture and training Concerning the impact of organizational culture on organizational training, little research has addressed this issue. In this respect, Kissack and Callahan (2010) state that organizational culture and training and development programs are inseparably linked. The culture of an organization moulds and shapes these programs, which, in turn, inuence the organizational culture given that these programs do not exist in a vacuum. Similarly, Hassan (2007) nds a positive relation between some HRD practices such as learning and training and organizational values of collaboration, creativity, quality, delegation, and humane treatment. Regarding training outcomes, Bunch (2007) attributes causes of training failure to organizational culture:
Training failure can be a manifestation of the values, beliefs, and assumptions shared by members of various levels of organizational culture (Bunch, 2007, p. 157).
In fact, training is provided in an organizational context that inuences training success. Hence, generalizing interventions in terms of training is problematic given that the same training can generate different results within the organization or between organizations. In the same vein, Au and Chong (1993) examine the relation between organizational culture and success of a training program based on a case study of the Seibu department store in Hong Kong. They conclude that failing to incorporate organizational culture in training programs might lead to total failure. Regarding training assessment, Lewis and Thornhill (1994) investigate reasons for which training assessment has been traditionally ignored and practised in an ineffective way. Those reasons are confounding variables effects, non-quantiable effect, cost outweighing benets effect, act of faith effect, trainer sensitivity effect and organizational political effect. All these reasons are related to organizational culture. National culture and training In his denition of national culture, Hofstede (1980, 2001) highlights the concept of mental programming which refers to the act of thinking, feeling and acting that consequently manifests itself into beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. These implications are expressed through the life of individuals and at the workplace, through the valorization of various practices in accordance with their cultural contexts. Indeed, diverse cultures may be seen through the lens of the oppression of certain behaviors and the acceptance of other behaviors (Adler, 1997). For instance, the eld of training and development clearly illustrates how the roles of participants widely differ across cultures, as in their daily ways of doing things and with their inherently different perceptions and behaviors.
JEIT 35,1
50
There are differences across national cultures in terms of values, attitudes and behaviors in management that often constitute a key element to understanding the dynamics within organizations, although it is not the only element, it is nonetheless an important one. In respect to organizational training, Noble (1997) examines the way training and development are managed within multinational corporations operating in both the UK and Australia in light of a comparative study of enterprise-based training and concludes that differences are a reection of national training policies rather than originating from the enterprise level. Within a similar line of thought, Tregaskis and Dany (1996) state that organizations in France and the UK show differences regarding the focus of training and development. Such differences reect divergence of cultural attitudes and legislative environments in both entities. However, it should be remembered that there is a lack of specic information regarding the relation between national culture and training (Jacobs, 2003). Before presenting the manifestations of national culture in organizational training, the theoretical framework and methodology adopted in the paper will be outlined. Theoretical framework and methodology The backdrop of the following paper rests on the comparative approach which revolves around observing differences and variations among cultures in terms of management practices and places the focus on the behavior of people within organizations as suggested by the culture-bound perspective. Conversely, the culture-free view seeks similarities and regularities across cultures (Hofstede, 1980; Child, 1981; Axelsson et al., 1991) and places the emphasis on macro-level variables and structure-context relationships, particularly contingency theory. The culture-free view argues that practices within organizations are the same anywhere in the world. For instance, according to contingency theory, organizations with similar structures should have similarities in terms of practices regardless of geographical location (Hickson et al., 1974). However, organizations and individuals are faced with behaviors and attitudes of people from different contexts. In fact, societal or national values shape human behaviors, preferences and decision-making, and are reected in management practices. Individuals make sense of the world and make decisions based on rationality rooted within their own cultural lens. Nevertheless, some structural regularity may be found across cultures and borders, but are relatively unimportant in comparison to the substantial differences regarding the ways individuals interact (Axelsson et al., 1991). Moreover, Child (1981) disentangled the inconclusive results of studies that advanced the convergence thesis versus those that highlighted divergence. The former focused on macro-level issues as structure and technology, while divergence is observed in micro-level issues referring to peoples behaviors within organizations. This view places the emphasis on the importance of cultural differences and their repercussions on management practices. It is based on the assumption that management practices are not universal but culturally contingent. In the same vein, anthropologists admit, for instance, that globalization affects local and national cultures but these effects vary from a region of the world to another and practices and models brought about by globalization are interpreted and used in light of local cultural categories (Appadurai, 2001; Inda and Rosaldo, 2002). Therefore, the cross cultural lens is of vital importance
not to mention relevant, in as much as it allows research to address differences and variations in terms of management practices across cultures. In the following paper, we opted for one source of variation, specically that of national culture, as opposed to focusing on other sources such as the impact of an organizations size, industry or sector, level of the technology, etc. on training practices and attitudes. Although it would be an ambitious endeavour, it would be impractical to approach several issues simultaneously as this would most denitely compromise the objective and scope of the paper. On the other hand, it should be stressed that several important facets of institutional explanations are an integral part of national culture and embedded within its core. In this respect, Bennett and Bennett (2004), as previously mentioned, distinguish between the objective culture that refers to the institutional aspects of a culture and the subjective culture that focuses on a worldview of a societys people. Further, institutional theory suggests that institutional contexts, which consist of a combination of formal rules and informal imperatives, create an impetus for action patterns in organizations that may not necessarily reect real efciency in its rational economic dimension. Indeed, the rules and ideologies of an organizations environment impact its business practices and create consistent changes within and across organizations. These general rules and ideologies yield mechanisms that mould organizations and their functioning by encouraging certain behaviors and discouraging others. Organizations undertake activities that establish their legitimacy in order to make them appear in accordance with the system of norms, values and beliefs of the environment where they evolve (Oliver, 1991; Suchman, 1995). In the same vein, DiMaggio and Powell (1983) contend that by responding to expectations of norms, organizations embedded in the same environment tend to become structurally comparable as they react to similar circumstances. In short, they incorporate externally legitimated elements. More specically, organizations strategic decisions are determined, in part, by the cognitive maps constructed by their decision makers while making sense of their environment (Haveman, 1993). In view of the above, Meyer and Rowan (1977) described organizations as composites of cultural rules rationalized through the actions of professions, the state, and mass media. To conclude, institutional explanations cannot consequently be separated from cultural explanations. While adopting the comparative approach as the backdrop, we consider the national culture as the explaining variable and the training practices and attitudes as the explained variables. In terms of methodology, we adopted the content analysis technique to assist with the condensation of data from the literature which enabled us to list the information based on training practices and attitudes in light of variations that subsequently yielded the ve categories presented in the paper. The rst phase consisted of exploring the literature that dealt with organizational training in diverse cultures. This stage initially based on intuition aimed at systematizing relevant data contained in the material consulted to elaborate categories which permitted us to apprehend the differences and variations across cultures in terms of training practices and attitudes. Hence, a classication system was created with categories identied as: importance of organizational training; access to organizational training; different types of training provided to employees; actors involved in organizational training; and organizational support for training. Some of
JEIT 35,1
52
the latter were divided into subcategories such as organizational support for training, which include investment, policies, management beliefs, etc. Last, we identied and grouped the data according to the categories that emerged. The latter enabled us to present the differences and variations in terms of training practices and attitudes across cultures as congruent with the view of the comparative approach. Therefore, these ve categories came to light from the examination of the literature rather than drawn from a predetermined framework due to the heterogeneity of the latter. All this considered, it should be stressed that most of the categories constitute an integral part and are important components of organizational training management. Importance of organizational training Do diverse national cultures attribute the same importance to employee training and development? In terms of attitudes towards training, Atiyyah (1991) is of the opinion that Arab[3] managers demonstrate a negative attitude in respect to employee training, perhaps in part due to cultural or bureaucratic factors that constrain performance which in these countries still remains limited and insubstantial. On the contrary, Wilkins (2001) asserts that the Arab culture positively encourages training and development. According to Nixon (2005), it is private organizations as opposed to public companies in Arab countries that demonstrate the least interest in organizational training. A concrete example from the Arab world shows that training in Kuwait is essentially perceived as a reward by upper level management (Ali and Magalhaes, 2008). Within the European context, learning in Spain is highly regarded in terms of social expectations, individual involvement and political interest (Lucio and Stuart, 2003); it is also well perceived in Austria (Vob, 1993). Along the same lines, education is highly regarded in Denmark where individuals rely on it for their personal and professional advancement (Madsen and Larsen, 1998). Whereas, in France (Gehin and Jobert, 2001), Spain and Greece (Lucio and Stuart, 2003) qualications tend to be overvalued. From a completely different standpoint, there is a negative and cynical attitude towards organizational training in Nigeria. Unquestionably, numerous employers consider that training is nothing more than a waste of nancial resources and believe that there are enough experienced employees available on the labour market that do not require further training at work (Akanji and Bankole, 2007). And thus, Nigerian employers send their employees on training only to reward or penalize them. Of particular concern, is the behavior of most Nigerian employees and the fact that they are discouraging and indifferent about attending training courses either because they regard the time spent on training as leave time or their share of the organizational pie; subsequently, they tend not to actively participate in training courses and activities (Akanji and Bankole, 2007). In line with the same perspective, organizational training takes place in Cote dIvoire simply because organizations are obligated to spend two percent of their total corporate payroll to train employees. However, the expenditure in training does not necessarily reect a need for the development of skills (Hansen, 2003). Moreover, training programs are not aligned with the business objectives of the organization because training is generally regarded as a bonus or reward, a social advantage in the form of vacation or leave time (Hansen, 2003). On another important point, Hansen (2003) notes that there is what she refers to as managerial elitism in Cote dIvoire characterized by the valorization of workforce
qualications rather than by competencies. The author contends that this aspect comes from the inuence of the French colonization. In fact, in the French tradition, the concept of management has for many years remained part of the aristocracy. It is important to highlight that the system of management in Cote dIvoire, as in other parts of Africa, is of a hybrid nature and at times takes from both the African and European traditions. The African aspect is paternalist and consultative by virtue of its facets of the traditional tribal governorship (Gardiner, 1996). In India, organizational training is exceptionally viewed as a social advantage to the point that employees nd it challenging to even consider transferring any new acquired skills in training to their working environments (Yadapadithaya and Stewart, 2003). In the same vein, training as a means of advancement for employees of the public service in Nepal outweighs productivity and organizational results (Subedi, 2006). Organizations in the US associate great importance to the training of employees viewing it as an investment in their future (Handy, 1988). According to Stewart and Bennett (1991), this practice is congruent with the concept of the American dream where anything is possible and every individual has a chance to inuence their own destiny. Conversely, Marquardt et al. (2000) argued that the priorities of organizational training in the US are dominated by the essence of human capital and have very little consideration for the overall professional development of the employee. In the Canadian province of Quebec, Foucher and Morin (2006) found in a study of small and medium-sized businesses that management beliefs regarding the importance and usefulness of training were correlated with the strategic orientation of human resource management. Access to organizational training The current literature supports the idea that certain cultures are reluctant to give employees access to organizational training, other cultures provide it only to a particular group of employees and some do not adhere to it at all. Al Bahar et al. (1996) conclude that the national culture inuences the behaviors of how managers make decisions in regards to training in Bahrain. Private sector organizations tend to adopt an organizational logic, which appears to focus on the current position of the employee, their performance, the corporate objectives and so forth, when selecting participants for training. Meanwhile, the selection process of employees sent on training in the public sector resorts to social relations established through friendships, family afliations, external social pressure and the sort. Similarly, Wilkins (2001) observed that access to training in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was achieved by means of family ties and communal relations rather than granted to employees on the basis of merit related to their professional experience, qualications or acquired skills. On the other hand, German employees have access to some sort of technical training at a given time in their career; however, training in management is to a greater extent limited to a category of employees, specically for those better known to have a high potential. Nonetheless, Gehin and Jobert (2001) afrm that the humanistic design inherent within the French education tradition has the advantage of ensuring equal access to education for every individual. However, Zambarloukos and Constantelou (2002) state that organizations in Greece are hesitant and disinclined to hire novice
JEIT 35,1
54
recruits with limited experience because companies have limited economic means to provide them with adequate training. According to Hansen (2003), managers from Cote dIvoire are apprehensive about the development of competencies of their employees. Further, in terms of the decision making process, the workplace environment in this region of Africa is marked by favouritism and is based on seniority and nepotism as opposed to that of competencies (Hansen, 2003). In the Asian context, access to training is inadequate for Nepalese employees who demonstrate a tendency to be successful in their current or future jobs (Subedi, 2006). From a different stance, Korean organizations appear to be characterized by a top-down approach; therefore, even if employees and their managers identify training needs that may require an investment, these needs cannot be transformed into new policies as long as top management does not identify them as a priority ( Jeong, 2000). To conclude, in a study of 16 countries, with a majority of them from Europe, Peretz and Rosenbaltt (2006) note an inuence on the role that cultural values play regarding participation in training. In fact, the lower the power distance, the higher the proportion of employees participating in training activities. Types of organizational training The purpose of this section is to examine different types of organizational training across cultures. In this respect, Nixon (2005) estimates that training management in Arab countries is based on models similar to those that are found in Western countries, particularly the USA, the UK and France. It appears that this phenomenon may be explained by the intricate historical insights between both entities and their closely interconnected economic business ties. On the one hand, a good number of Arab countries were French colonies or under British mandates and were inuenced on the economic, cultural and educational spheres by the European systems. On the other hand, several oil-exporting countries in the Gulf region have maintained close bilateral relations with the US and the UK, adopting many American and British models in the eld of management, among other areas, and are now to a greater degree viewed as exemplary models to emulate. A formal and structured aspect of training is observed with individuals relying more on explicit knowledge in Greece (Zambarloukos and Constantelou, 2002). Whereas, the organizational training approach adopted in France is primarily theoretical (Schneider and Barsoux, 2003) and privileges generalities in knowledge (Maurice, 1997). Historically, French employers focussed on the ideological requirements of the good employee rather than on technical requirements (Alaluf, 1997). Gehin and Jobert (2001) posit that this general dimension of training stems from Catholicism, particularly in the way which the individual maintains relations with the world and what is considered as respectable enough to be taught; specically, the continuation of the humanistic tradition which consists of exposing the person to the most general aspects of the heart and soul. On the other hand, Protestantism advances a more realistic pedagogy, which, by means of the study of science and technology, aims at giving individuals an active role conducive to the inuence of their destinies. Moreover, in the French context, there is a certain hierarchy and ranking between the diverse types of training. The culture resorts to hierarchy in order to maintain a certain ` historical social stability. Indeed, the organization a la francaise goes back to the
Middle Ages where three orders were distinguished: the nobles as the combatants, the preachers and the labourers (LeGoff, 2003). Despite modernization and democratization, this hierarchical ranking has been maintained over the years (Chanlat, 2008). On the contrary, even as different types of training are distinguished in Germany, they are not necessarily annexed to a hierarchical order (Maurice, 1997). Training and development in the German tradition is marked by a dual system consisting of cooperation and interaction between training institutions and the industry. Further, the Germans stress the technical aspect of training and regard themselves as technikers. It is not thus surprising that the technical aspect represents the core of training programs for employees (Schneider and Barsoux, 2003). Vocational training in Germany is a result of a tradition that goes back to the Middle Ages (Attwell and Rauner, 1999; Hansen, 2003; Tremblay and Le Bot, 2000) with the system of guild (Hansen, 2003) where society ensured the training of individuals in the artesian, commercial and technical trades. Also, vocational training enjoys a long history in both Spain (Lucio and Stuart, 2003) and the Netherlands where management training is not considered a main priority (Mulder and Tjepkema, 1999). The Dutch national education and training system primarily relies on formal education and fundamentally on an interaction with corporate training (Van Baalen and Hoogendoorn, 1998). In Norway, organizations select a general type of training for their employees (Skule et al. 2002). Additionally, Norwegian organizations prefer training in a work environment (Skule et al., 2002) similar to what occurs with Finnish companies (Hytonen, 2003) where organizational training is far from being a systematic process and individuals adopt an ad hoc approach. Heraty and Collings (2006) stress that organizations in the Republic of Ireland have various perceptions on what constitutes training and support informal training, as well as, apprenticeships at the workplace. In the UK, Tregaskis and Brewster (1998) noticed a shift from the formal training approach to an experiential on-the-job approach within organizations. Further, Thomson et al. (1997) reported a lack of interest in the use of electronic media for training purposes in the UK. Similarly, although new forms of training such as self-directed training have surfaced, in Russia, however, the quality of distance training and education is still considered mediocre (Schneider and Barsoux, 2003). In Nigeria, a general type of training is preferred by organizations, rather than a more specialized training (Akanji and Bankole, 2007). Ndoye (2003) carried out a study in rural Senegal to examine learning based on a formal schooling model introduced to increase the productivity of farmers. The model placed the emphasis on the relationship between the knowledge provider and the knowledge seeker and yielded limited success. The author contends that the model in question is more appropriate for a Western context but may not necessarily t in a more traditional setting where learning constitutes a collective experience rather than an individual activity. In the Senegalese context, the social system represents the learning environment of the farmers. The most efcient type of learning was found to be the discussions with other farmers and the elders, reections on past experiences, and observations of other individuals. In fact, those considered to be the community-based knowledge providers are preferred rather than external actors because knowledge of the former is considered to be more comprehensible and rooted within the same community culture. Moreover, the trust that the farmers have in their colleagues and the condence in their knowledge represents the fundamental bedrock of their learning experience.
JEIT 35,1
56
Through the lens of the Asian reality, the formal and structured aspect of training has been observed in Malaysia (Muhamad and Idris, 2005) where informal training activities are not recognized as part of training in terms of resource allocation and still remain inferior compared to formal training. Muhamad and Idris (2005) recall a local type of training, in the Malayan context, which resembles a discussion session better known in the local language as the ceramah. The discussions are brief presentations about a given subject with a follow-up period based on a question and answer exchange. Furthermore, the technical character of organizational training prevails in China as it complements the strong analytical skills of the employees (Pratt, 1990). Vocational training goes back to the Qin-Han dynasty[4] when the father and the master transferred their skills to the son and the apprentice; however, during ancient times in China, the craftsman was stigmatized and vocational training nowadays is still not valued as the current system continues to reinforce this stereotype (Xie and Wu, 2001). Similarly, vocational training is not valorized in Vietnam (Thang and Quang, 2007). There is also a lack of congruency between training and organizational needs within Vietnamese organizations (Thang and Quang, 2007). In Korea, the professional and technical training of engineers is too abstract to endorse the exible and sufcient practice of engineering principles (Jeong, 2000); distinctively, however, it is also too general to concede specialization. The theoretical attribute of training in Korea may be embedded within the cultural tradition of Confucianism. Whereas with Japan, it is assumed that training is not very transferable to other organizations (Tremblay and Rolland, 1997) because the labour market is characterized by a limited mobility between organizations (Rolland, 2000). Recruitment and appointments establish that training is an internal responsibility within the organization, where the approach of training mainly aims at producing general practitioners for the organization rather than specialists, based on the specic needs of the organization (Maurice, 1997; Tremblay and Rolland, 1997). Young graduates are recruited without any preliminary experience and according to their trainability rather than selected on the basis of previously acquired competencies (Rolland, 2000; Maurice, 1997). The selected candidates are assigned to positions at the bottom of the corporate ladder in organizations. Required skills will be acquired through on-the-job training as part of their formal training adopting structured methods. It is important to observe that senior employees are inclined to train novice recruits because of the fact that taking on the role of mentor constitutes a criterion of promotion impossible to circumvent. The rotation of tasks, which aims at encouraging the familiarization of employees with diverse assignments, encourages an exchange of competencies and dialogue between employees. In the case of off-site training in Japan, it only plays a complementary role in the process (Sato, 1997). A limited and weak valorization of vocational training compared to general training was noted in the province of Quebec in Canada (Bernier et al., 1993). As for the US, serious shortcomings with regard to general organizational training were observed (Lynch, 1993). According to Smith (1999), Australian organizations prefer training in a workplace environment where organizational training is far from being a systematic process and individuals adopt an ad hoc approach to training. On another note, Flynn et al. (2006) explored the continuing education environment at the workplace in four countries: China, Korea, the USA and Japan. According to their
study formal education is more important in China with 17.4 percent of the respondents, 13.6 percent in the US, 8.3 percent in Korea and 6.6 percent in Japan. In summary, Johnson (1991) highlights the implications of cultural differences in management education and training, particularly, on the content taught to learners from different cultures and examines the way the content is delivered. The author demonstrates that the American model of management training is not as universal as some tend to believe and there is no such convergence revolved around a unique model at the international level. Actors involved in organizational training From the outset, it is important to mention that the national culture is a key variable in the way that actors in the eld of HRD differently dene their roles and inuential positions (Hansen, 2003; Valkeavaara, 1998). In Italy, the prevalence of the roles of those who design training programs and the instructor reect a traditional approach of HRD (Valkeavaara, 1998). The reality in Germany seems to be halfway between that of Scandinavia and the UK in regards to the intervention of social partners in training. The state limits itself to applying agreements decided by social parties (Bosch, 1997). The role of the instructor is valued, most probably, because the importance of training within the organization is seen as essential for vocational training when searching for technical excellence. The German content material experts are responsible for the development and delivery of training (Hansen, 2003). In Belgium, public training institutions and industrial organizations are actively involved in policy-making regarding vocational training (Buyens and Wouters, 2005). Similarly, the Dutch polder model is marked by a collaboration and co-operation between social partners, such as government, employers and trade unions (Van Baalen and Hoogendoorn, 1998). Nonetheless, in Holland where the idea of human resources seems offensive because it is associated with exploitation, specialists in HRD simultaneously play several roles that are all equally important (Valkeavaara, 1998). Indeed, Mulder and Tjepkema (1999) found that Dutch HRD specialists, as their American counterparts, played the roles of training managers, material designers, instructors and needs analysis assessors. In the case of Scandinavia, the concept of HRD has a more acceptable interpretation where social services and the wellbeing of individuals play a paramount role in the company. There is strong cooperation in Sweden between the government, employers organizations and federations of employees regarding labour issues, including organizational training, known as the Swedish model (Kjellberg et al., 1998). In a similar vein, the same phenomenon was observed in Denmark where, for instance, social partners collaborate in planning adult vocational training programs (Madsen and Larsen, 1998). Also, Skule et al. (2002) evoke a strong tradition in Norway, which consists of involving social partners in the development of policies and legislative reforms linked to training. According to Valkeavaara (1998), specialists in HRD in Finland assume that their role consists of promoting change and assure organizational development. Moreover, Finnish experts in the eld of HRD are often regarded as a specic group of adult trainers (Hytonen, 2003). On the other hand, the consensus is that there is a considerable gap in the eld of training in the UK as carried out within the logic of the market; the state intervenes only when the market fails (Goodwin et al., 1999). Further, Tregaskis and Brewster (1998) afrm that both line management and HR divisions within organizations work
JEIT 35,1
58
collaboratively together with issues related to training in the UK. As for the participants in organizational training in Russia, Varner and Varner (1994) contend that the latter do not appreciate negative feedback and bring their own references to training activities. Second, they tend to express strong aversion towards sharing information for fear that it may be used against them or they may lose an element of power. From an African perspective, organizations in Cote dIvoire tend to resort to foreign experts for the development and delivery of training, not necessarily for their professional expertise compared to their local counterparts, but because their work would not be considered biased (Hansen, 2003). Furthermore, foreign experts do not remain long enough in the country to encourage signicant changes to the structure of the organization. Empowerment in terms of shared decision-making and of participatory management styles is desirable but not necessarily practical because in the advent of an error on the part of an employee, it is the manager who is held responsible (Hansen, 2003). Although it may be customary in Africa that the chief and his council discuss decision-making alternatives with clan members, the ultimate authority to make decisions rests with the chief (Lessem, 1998). The phenomenon of chieftaincy constitutes the fundamental philosophical framework of the seniority system, which is based on age and familial connections (Gardiner, 1996). Indian rms are less inclined to delegate the main tasks and responsibilities of training and HRD to their middle managers or supervisors (Yadapadithaya and Stewart, 2003). And hence, the burden of hierarchy and centralization is clearly present in the case of organizations in India. Similarly, the majority of decisions within Korean organizations are centralized and taken by upper level management by means of a top-down approach ( Jeong, 2000). In Vietnam, middle managers are responsible for employee training, particularly with on-the-job training; trainers may be supervisors or senior colleagues (Thang and Quang, 2007). The US culture is much less concerned with the differences in ranks during exchanges between individuals in respect to organizational training (Schneider and Barsoux, 2003). Additionally, according to Mulder and Tjepkema (1999), American HRD specialists perform the role of training managers, material designers, instructors and needs analysis assessors. Finally, in Latin America, the state plays an important role in adult training (De Ibarrola, 2000). Organizational support for training In his study of the Nepalese context, Subedi (2006) concludes that cultural norms and the beliefs of managers, supervisors and employees inuence the process and results related to training. Particularly, the extant literature supports the idea that different forms of organizational support for training vary across national cultures. This support refers to any form of action on behalf of the organization that encourages and promotes training activities of the workforce. It may be a question of investment, training policy, favourable organizational culture, and so forth. When referring to training policies, Atiyyah (1992) quotes El-Fathaly and Chackerian (1983) and Al Tayeb (1984) to underline the absence of clear policies of organizational training in Arab countries. In this respect, Ali and Magalhaes (2008) also came to the same conclusion in Kuwait. On the contrary, Wilkins (2001) reports that 73 percent of companies in the UAE formally document their training strategies
and 82 percent implement a formal process of training needs assessment for employees. In Turkey, Tanova and Nadiri (2005) found that 72.5 percent of large rms and 61.4 percent of small and medium enterprises declared that they had a documented policy for training and development. In Spain, organizations invested less than their European counterparts in terms of percentage of total wage bill in training and development in 1999 (Crespo and Sanz, 2000). Whereas, in France, where there is a legal obligation to invest in training, organizations invested two times the European average in the same year (Bentabet, 2008). Zambarloukos and Constantelou (2002) found that only larger organizations within the same sector are most likely to invest in employee training and provide more opportunities for professional learning and development compared to smaller organizations in Greece. While all new employees in Germany already benet from technical-based training acquired prior to integrating the job market, organizations, in general, allocate resources to rene current and anticipated skills. Indeed, training expenditure represents up to four percent of their corporate wage bill (Hansen, 2003). In the same vein, Jeanquart and Peluchette (2000) observed that German organizations spent a signicantly greater portion of their budget on training than organizations in the US and the authors attributed this difference to greater cultural preference for uncertainty avoidance in Germany than in the US. Rainbird (1994) found that only three UK organizations out of 23 cases studied had a strategic and long-term approach to training. For the remaining organizations, the focus was on narrowly dened employee skills, despite the fact that the rms had well-developed training programs that were often linked to organizational development and to the objectives of quality assurance. In the Republic of Ireland, Heraty and Collings (2006) contend that identifying training needs represents a common well-established practice within Irish companies. In Norway, due to an absence of public funding for training, employers and unions developed special training schemes collecting funds directly from employers and their employees in efforts to cover on-the-job training costs (Skule et al., 2002). The respondents, in Hansens (2003) study in Cote dIvoire, discuss training practices as a desired means rather than a reality likely to assist organizations to improve their processes, results and competitiveness. In this particular African country, organizations are reluctant to resort to systematic needs analyses that could identify the need for an organizational change and disturb the status quo (Hansen, 2003). From an Asian viewpoint, Subedi (2006) maintains that Nepalese stakeholders do not recognize the concept of return on investment as a critical factor of training success. Osman-Gani and Tan (2000), quoting the study of Heng et al. (1998), afrm that 80 percent of the respondents in their study have written policies with reference to employee training in Singapore. In India, fewer rms use modern audit methods in terms of training and strategic analyses to determine training and development needs (Yadapadithaya and Stewart, 2003). Training investment in China varies according to the status of the organization. In fact, private companies appreciate a higher level of returns compared to public organizations (Xie and Wu, 2001). Generally, investment in education and training forms an integral part of the Chinese tradition. Meanwhile, the majority of Korean companies are reluctant about long-term investment in training (Jeong, 2000). In fact, they avoid providing long periods of training to the extent that they mainly focus on cost reduction to reach a competitive advantage based on price
JEIT 35,1
60
rather than on quality or on the performance of their employees. Japanese investment in organizational training is closely related to the attribute of lifetime employment (McCormik, 1991). The US culture is characterized by the logic of contractual relations. A contract in the form of practices in the development of human resources clearly indicates the rights, limits and challenges of training (Hansen, 2003). The logic of the contract prevails and is based on the premise that social relations are contractual and are similar to the customer-supplier relationship, a relation among equals without hierarchy, which must satisfy certain equity. Since its origins, the American society seeks to establish its foundation on moral principles evidently inspired by religion, while eradicating any hierarchy of status. Of this history, there remain some traces of the importance that the American company adheres to the moral values and to the concept of equity and justice (Chanlat, 2008). At work, American HRD specialists are trained to perceive requests for training as a performance shortcoming due to major pervading problems that exist within the organization. Thus, trainers tend to analyze the organizational roots of the performance problems that may not be instantaneously obvious. Their analyses often identify systematic elements such as the management style, the reward system and the feedback procedures as causes of weak performance instead of a gap in their required skills (Hansen, 2003). In Quebec, Canada, Foucher and Morin (2006) concluded in a study of small and medium-sized businesses that management beliefs regarding training impacted organizational support to training in terms of means and media, assisting employees in learning, planning, and training investment. Flynn et al. (2006) stress that while policies and practices that support training demonstrate to be important across countries, differences are noted with regards to the support of supervisors and colleagues in respect to training. Finally, Peretz and Rosenbaltt (2006) highlight the role that national values play regarding organizational support for training. The authors conclude that the higher the orientation towards the future, the more organizations tend to invest in training. Further, the stronger the control of uncertainty, the more likely it is to nd a formal training policy and a higher propensity of organizations to invest in training at work. Rationale underlying the differences and variations There is little if any doubt that cultural views differ on how organizational training is perceived, who participates in it, the types of training provided to employees, the actors taking part in training activities and the support that organizations reserve to their workforce training. Nevertheless, these differences exist due to underpinning assumptions that are rooted within every culture. In order to provide some examples to clarify the link between the observed behavior and cultural explanations, we rely on different dimensions and orientations which were developed and extensively used to distinguish national cultures, particularly at the workplace, such as those of Hofstede (1980; 2001), Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars (1997), Hall (1976, 1986), House et al. (1997), among other authors. Some of these national orientations and dimensions are briey described in the subsequent section. The focal point of the power distance dimension is the nature of human relationships in terms of hierarchy. It is the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations accept that power is distributed unequally. Second, individualism
versus collectivism centres on the relationship between the individual and the group. Individualistic cultures believe that the individual is the most important unit, while the group is the most crucial entity in collectivistic cultures. Third, the cultural facet that focuses on gender roles is known as the masculinity versus femininity dimension. Masculinity emphasizes ambition, drive and competition, whereas femininity stresses caring and nurturing behaviors. Fourth, the uncertainty avoidance dimension examines how cultures adapt to changes and cope with uncertainty. High uncertainty avoidance indicates that a culture perceives unknown situations as threatening and people will tend to avoid them, as opposed to a low uncertainty avoidance, which indicates that a culture is less threatened by unknown situations; hence, people are not averse to risk-taking. Last, Hall (1986) distinguishes high context culture and low context culture. In the former, values, norms and traditions are interrelated to create an environment where subtle messages and meaning are clear. Individuals in the community are aware of the rules and roles and thus, do not require further detailed explanations. On the contrary, in low context cultures, a great deal of information needs to be transferred as nothing is taken for granted by the members of society. In light of this brief discussion on cultural concepts, we now move forward and provide specic examples from the literature regarding differences and variations in training practices and attitudes across cultures. In collectivistic cultures, developing relationships is just as important as achieving tasks. Training is perceived also to serve as an opportunity for socialization and establishing relations at the workplace rather than only focussing on the acquisition of knowledge and skills. This could explain the conclusion found by Ndoye (2003) that learning constitutes a collective experience rather than an individual activity in the rural Senegalese context where the social system represents the learning environment of the farmers. The most efcient type of learning was found to be the discussions with other farmers and the elders. According to Weech (2001), learners from cultures oriented towards success and that value assertiveness, such as the North American example, participate in training in order to advance their careers. Whereas with cultures based on social relations, employees take part in training because of their interest in the subject. This assertion seems congruent with the conclusions of Handy (1988) as well as Akanji and Bankole (2007). The former contends that American organizations concede great importance to training and perceive it as an investment for the future professional development of the employee. Conversely, Akanji and Bankole (2007) stress that employees in Nigeria participate in training because they regard the time spent on training as leave time or their share of the organizational pie. Similarly, training is generally considered as a bonus or reward, a social advantage in the form of vacation or leave time in Cote dIvoire (Hansen, 2003). Feminine cultures tend to inhibit and discourage the adoption of hard training practices whereas masculine cultures are more inclined to avoid soft practices. This could explain why the concept of HRD has a more acceptable interpretation in Scandinavia where social services and the wellbeing of individuals play a paramount role in the organization. In fact, there is strong cooperation between the government, employers organizations and federations of employees regarding labour issues, including organizational training in Sweden (Kjellberg et al., 1998), Denmark (Madsen and Larsen, 1998) and Norway (Skule et al., 2002). On the other hand, the consensus is that there is a considerable gap in the eld of training in the UK as carried out within
JEIT 35,1
62
the logic of the market where the state intervenes only when the market fails (Goodwin et al., 1999). In matters pertaining to organizational training and cultures that score high on uncertainty avoidance, rst, Jeanquart and Peluchette (2000) observe that German organizations spend a signicantly greater portion of their budget on training compared to organizations in the US. Second, Peretz and Rosenbaltt (2006) conclude that the stronger the control of uncertainty, the more likely it is to nd a formal training policy, the higher the propensity to invest in training, and more focus on organizational training objectives is observed as opposed to Handys (1988) conclusion on employee training in the American context. Last, Tanova and Nadiri (2005) found that in Turkey, a country scoring high on uncertainty avoidance, 72.5 percent of large rms and 61.4 percent of small and medium enterprises declared that they had a documented policy for training and development. In contrary, Norwegian and Finnish organizations prefer an ad hoc approach to organizational training rather than a systematic process (Skule et al., 2002; Hytonen, 2003) as a result of low uncertainty avoidance in these Scandinavian cultures. Cultures with a high power distance assume that wisdom resides in hierarchy and age and training heavily depends on the knowledge and expertise of the senior trainer. As noted in the literature, the Japanese approach tends to create company generalists with its emphasis on mentoring. Japanese graduates are recruited without any preliminary experience (Rolland, 2000; Maurice, 1997) and required skills are developed through on-the-job training provided by senior employees. It has been documented that Indian rms are less inclined to delegate the main tasks and responsibilities of training and HRD to their middle managers or supervisors (Yadapadithaya and Stewart, 2003). Similarly, the majority of decisions within Korean organizations are centralized and taken by upper level management through a top-down approach ( Jeong, 2000). This centralization in both India and Korea could be attributed to the high power distance dimension, which prevents the adoption of decentralized training practices. The conclusion drawn by Ndoye (2003) establishing that learning constitutes a collective experience rather than an individual activity may be explained by the fact that the Senegalese culture is characterized as a high context culture. The social system represents the learning environment of the farmers shaped by interrelated values, norms and traditions. And thus, the most efcient type of learning was found to be the discussions with other farmers and among elders rather than with external individuals because members of the community are aware of the rules and roles and detailed explanations are not required. Moreover, knowledge is stored in the collective memory of the elders and only a minimum amount of information needs to be transmitted through subtle messages and meanings. Conclusion In summary, there is a mutual relationship between national culture and organizational training given that the latter depends on beliefs, norms and values, which widely have been considered as the core of national culture. It appears that the literature supports the idea that practices and attitudes related to training vary across cultures. The body of literature also sheds some light on the scope of the above-mentioned studies representing a myriad of cultures.
Nonetheless, as previously noted, the review has explicitly placed the emphasis on the lack of sufcient research that closely considers the variations of organizational training across cultures. For instance, Atiyyah (1992) afrms that the majority of the studies about training management in Arab countries are impressionist and present limited reection and information in the way organizations carry out their duties and achieve their goals in respect to training. On a different dimension, except for the attempts of Gehin and Jobert (2001), Hansen (2003), and Peretz and Rosenbaltt (2006), the existing literature appears to be more descriptive rather than analytical in nature. In fact, most of the studies do not suggest convincing explanations or underlying assumptions for the practices and attitudes in regards to organizational training including an articulate analysis of their profound cultural and anthropological facets. At another level, the present review reveals certain inconclusive insights that require thorough analysis and comprehensive study. While, Atiyyah (1991) alleges that Arab managers express a negative attitude towards training, Wilkins (2001) sustains that the Arab culture highly encourages learning and training. As for Nixon (2005), she stresses that it is private rms in Arab countries as opposed to public organizations that are less interested in training. From another point-of-view, Handy (1988) advances that American organizations concede great importance to training and perceive it as an investment for the future professional development of an employee. On the other hand, Marquardt et al. (2000) postulate that the priorities of training in the US are dominated by the mere concept of human capital with little consideration for the prospect of human resources. This synthesis has critical implications concerning the importance of national ` culture vis-a-vis organizational training. While the latter is one of the most important aspects of HRD across borders (Nijhof and De Rijk, 1997), a number of training facets vary across cultures. HRM/HRD practitioners and organizations operating overseas ought to take into consideration these variations in order to implement more efcient and successful training programs. At the societal level, although most of the training programs are organized locally and subject to national laws and regulations, nations should be aware of training practices abroad to observe trends and changes as they may inuence shaping national training practices and regulations. Moreover, comparative studies carried out by international organizations provide a wealth of information about differences between nations in respect to training. However, their focal point is primarily based on quantitative data, and fall short in providing qualitative insights regarding the underpinning reasons and explanations behind the statistics. Despite the fact that the studies reveal numerous aspects of these variations, it appears that we remain distant from possessing a systematic and homogeneous repertoire of the existing literature. Consequently, from a research and theoretical perspective, it is important to undertake conclusive research on this subject from two standpoints. First, by further examining training practices and attitudes through the various national cultures with the objective to better circumvent the differences and second, by highlighting their prominent characteristics and implications. It would be benecial to use adequate cultural models and conceptual frameworks to guide research studies as those developed by Hofstede, Hampden-Turner and Trompnaars, Hall, among other authors. As organizations expand their activities across national
JEIT 35,1
64
borders, research of this under documented phenomenon is needed more than ever, particularly with the advent of globalization and international workforce mobility. All this considered, examining the inuence of national culture on management practices in general, and on training and development in particular, faces several ontological, epistemological and methodological challenges. These include distinguishing the effect of national culture from other sources such as sector or industry, separating cultural and non-cultural variables, inuence of researchers and parity of meaning across cultures. Further, while the focus of cross cultural management is the national culture, researchers should also discern between the different cultural layers such as the organizational, professional and regional levels within the same borders. Additionally, the operationalization of culture represents another hurdle, particularly identifying and using its multiple dimensions or orientations. Challenges may also be traced in the use of sampling strategies, the data collection process and with the selection of tools and techniques of analysis. Indeed, there are issues and concerns in research regarding the methodological approaches to be used. In this respect, there is an ongoing debate between the proponents of the quantitative approach and advocates of the qualitative approach. Although the two approaches are based on different epistemological and ontological assumptions, they are complementary and can contribute to a better understanding of the inuence of national culture on training practices and attitudes.
Notes 1. The concept of culture refers to the national level in the present article, unless otherwise specied. 2. The reference is to general practices, i.e. access and participation in training, types of training provided, etc. as opposed to technical practices, i.e. training design, modes of delivery, training assessment tools etc. 3. Owing to the lack of documented data in each respective Arab country, the reference to the concept of Arab culture which is a transnational level of culture is used rather than the national culture level. 4. The Qin-Han Dynasty governed China between 221 and 206 BC. References Adler, N.J. (1997), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH. Akanji, T. and Bankole, A. (2007), International brieng 19: training and development in Nigeria, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 222-33. Al Bahar, A., Peterson, S.E. and Taylor, W.G.K. (1996), Managing training and development in Bahrain: the inuence of culture, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 26-32. ` Alaluf, M. (1997), La dynamique des systemes de formation professionnelle: elements de ` reexion a partir des cas de la France et de la Belgique. Formation marchande et renouvellement des acteurs, in Tremblay, D.G. (Ed.), Formation et competitivite economique: perspectives internationales, Universite du Quebec, Editions Saint-Martin, Sainte-Foy, pp. 271-96. Ali, G.E. and Magalhaes, R. (2008), Barriers to implementing e-learning: a Kuwaiti case study, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 36-53. ` Appadurai, A. (2001), Apres le colonialisme: les consequences culturelles de la globalisation, Payot, Paris.
Atiyyah, H.S. (1991), Effectiveness of management training in Arabic countries, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 22-9. Atiyyah, H.S. (1992), Designing management training programmes in a developing country: a case study, Management Education and Development, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 123-30. Attwell, G. and Rauner, F. (1999), Training and development in Germany, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 227-33. Au, M. and Chong, C.Y. (1993), Corporate culture and training: the Seibu experience, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 24-5. Axelsson, R., Cary, D., Mallory, G.R. and Wilson, D.C. (1991), Decision style in British and Swedish organizations: a comparative examination of strategic decision making, British Journal of Management, Vol. 2, pp. 67-9. Bennett, J.M. and Bennett, M.J. (2004), Developing intercultural sensitivity: an integrative approach to global and domestic diversity, in Landis, D., Bennett, J.M. and Bennett, M.J. (Eds), Handbook of Intercultural Training, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 147-65. ` Bentabet, E. (2008), Tres petites, petites et moyennes entreprises: entre tradition et innovation, Centre detudes et de recherches sur les qualications (Cereq), Marseille. Bernier, C., Dussault, G. and Poulin Simon, L. (1993), La formation professionnelle au Quebec: ` la remise en question du systeme, in Laamme, G. (Ed.), La formation professionnelle: perspectives internationales, Centre de lOIT, Turin, pp. 23-42. Bosch, G. (1997), La formation professionnelle et la reorganisation des relations industrielles en Allemagne, in Tremblay, D.G. (Ed.), Formation et competitivite economique: perspectives internationales, Universite du Quebec, Editions Saint-Martin, Sainte-Foy, pp. 199-227. Bunch, K.J. (2007), Training failure as a consequence of organizational culture, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 142-63. Buyens, D. and Wouters, K. (2005), Continuing vocational training in Belgian companies, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 312-35. Chanlat, J.F. (2008), Lanalyse interculturelle et les sciences humaines, in Davel, E., Dupuis, J.P. and Chanlat, J.F. (Eds), Gestion en contexte interculturelle, Les Presses de LUniversite Laval, Quebec, pp. 25-72. Child, J. (1981), Culture, contingency and capitalism in the cross-national study of organizations, in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 3, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 303-56. Crespo, J.Y. and Sanz, I. (2000), La formacion continua en Espana: implicaciones de poltica economica, Papeles de Economa Espanola, No. 86, pp. 280-94. De Ibarrola, M. (2000), Les transformations des politiques de formation professionnelle en Amerique latine, in Tremblay, D.G. and Doray, P. (Eds), Vers de nouveaux modes de formation professionnelle? Role des acteurs et des collaborateurs, Presses de lUniversite du Quebec, Sainte-Foy, pp. 145-53. Dickson, M.W., Aditya, R.N. and Chhokar, J.S. (2000), Denition and interpretation in cross-cultural organizational culture research: some pointers from the GLOBE research program, in Askanasy, N.M., Wilderton, C.P.M. and Peterson, M.F. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 447-64. DIribarne, P. (1989), La logique de lhonneur: Gestion des entreprises et traditions nationales, Seuil, Paris. DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational elds, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 147-60.
JEIT 35,1
66
Dupuis, J.P. (2008), Lanalyse interculturelle en gestion: decloisonner les approches classiques, in Duval, E., Dupuis, J.P. and Chanlat, J.F. (Eds), Gestion en contexte interculturelle, Presses de lUniversite Laval, Quebec, pp. 73-118. Flynn, D., Eddy, E.R. and Tannenbaum, S.I. (2006), The impact of national culture on the continuous learning environment, Journal of East-West Business, Vol. 12 Nos 2/3, pp. 85-107. Foucher, R. and Morin, D. (2006), Les effets de lorientation strategique des pratiques de GRH et des croyances concernant la formation sur les pratiques de formation du personnel dans des PME quebecoises, Commission des partenaires du marche du travail, Quebec, Octobre. Francis, J.L. (1995), Training across cultures, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 101-7. Gardiner, K. (1996), Managing in different cultures: the case of Ghana, in Towers, B. (Ed.), The Handbook of Human Resource Management, Blackwell, London, pp. 488-509. Gehin, J.P. and Jobert, A. (2001), International brieng 8: training and development in France, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 81-93. Goodwin, J., Hills, K. and Ashton, D. (1999), Training and development in the United Kingdom, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 167-79. Hall, E.T. (1976), Beyond Culture, Doubleday, New York, NY. Hall, E.T. (1986), Unstated features of the cultural context of learning, in Thomas, A. and Polman, E. (Eds), Learning and Development A Global Perspective, Oise Press, Toronto. Hampden-Turner, C. and Trompenaars, F. (1997), Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Handy, C. (1988), The United States, in Handy, C., Gordon, C., Gow, I. and Randlesome, C. (Eds), Making Managers, Pitman, New York, NY. Hansen, C.D. (2003), Cultural myths in stories about human resource development: analysing the cross-cultural transfer of American models to Germany and the Cote dIvoire, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 16-30. Hassan, A. (2007), Human resource development and organizational values, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 435-48. Haveman, H.A. (1993), Follow the leader: mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 593-627. Heraty, N. and Collings, D.G. (2006), International brieng 16: training and development in the Republic of Ireland, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 164-74. Hickson, D. and Pugh, D. (1995), Management Worldwide The Impact of Societal Culture on Organizations around the Globe, Penguin, London. Hickson, D.J., Hinnings, C.R., McMillan, G.R. and Schwhitter, J.P. (1974), The culture-free context of organizational structure: a tri-national comparison, Sociology, Vol. 8, pp. 59-80. Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, 1st ed., Sage, Thousands Oaks, CA. Hofstede, G. (2001), Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousands Oaks, CA. Hofstede, G. and Peterson, M.F. (2000), National values and organizational practices, in Askanasy, N.M., Wilderton, C.P.M. and Peterson, M.F. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 401-15.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. and Sanders, G. (1990), Measuring organizational cultures: a qualitative and quantitative study across 20 cases, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 286-316. Holbeche, L. (2005), The High Performance Organization, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, MA. House, R.J., Wright, N. and Aditya, R.N. (1997), Cross-cultural research on organizational leadership: a critical analysis and a proposed theory, in Earley, P.C. and Erez, M. (Eds), New Perspectives on Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Hytonen, T. (2003), International brieng 14: training and development in Finland, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 124-37. Inda, J.X. and Rosaldo, R. (2002), The Anthropology of Globalization: A Reader, Blackwell, Malden, MA. Jacobs, R.L. (2003), Structured On-The-Job Training: Unleashing Employees Expertise in the Workplace, 2nd ed., Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA. Jeanquart, S. and Peluchette, J. (2000), The use of training by US and German rms: does culture make a difference?, Journal of Business and Public Affairs, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 27-31. Jeong, J. (2000), Skill formation of engineers in large Korean rms: an analysis from a comparative perspective, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 66-78. Johnson, H. (1991), Cross-cultural differences: implications for management education and training, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 13-16. Kissack, H.C. and Callahan, J.L. (2010), Training and development programs: building the case for a culture analysis within program planning, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 365-80. Kjellberg, Y., Soderstrom, M. and Svensson, L. (1998), Training and development in the Swedish context: structural change and a new paradigm?, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 22 Nos 4/5, pp. 205-16. LeGoff, J.P. (2003), LEurope est-elle nee au Moyen Age?, Seuil, Paris. Lessem, R. (1998), Management Development through Cultural Diversity, Routledge, London. Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (1994), The evaluation of training: an organizational culture approach, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 25-32. Lucio, M.M. and Stuart, M. (2003), International brieng 13: training and development in Spain the politics of modernization, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 67-77. Lynch, L.M. (1993), La formation en milieu de travail et son impact sur les revenus, la mobilite de la main-duvre et la productivite: lexperience americaine, in Laamme, G. (Ed.), La formation professionnelle: perspectives internationales, Centre de lOIT, Turin, pp. 91-110. McCormik, K.S. (1991), Japanese engineers, lifetime employment and in-company training: continuity and change in the management of engineering manpower resources, in Ryan, P. (Ed.), International Comparisons of Vocational Education and Training for Intermediate Skills, Falmer Press, London, pp. 159-84. McSweeney, B. (2009), Dynamic diversity: variety and variation within countries, Organization Studies, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 933-57. Madsen, P. and Larsen, H.H. (1998), Training and development in the Danish context: challenging education?, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 22 Nos 4/5, pp. 158-70.
JEIT 35,1
68
Marquardt, M.J., Nissley, N., Ozag, R. and Taylor, T.L. (2000), International brieng 6: training and development in the United States, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 138-49. ` ` Maurice, M. (1997), Larrimage entre lentreprise et le systeme deducation en matiere de formation professionnelle: le cas de la France, de lAllemagne et du Japon, in Tremblay, D.G. (Ed.), Formation et competitivite economique: perspectives internationales, Universite du Quebec, Editions Saint-Martin, Sainte-Foy, pp. 173-97. Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 340-63. Muhamad, M. and Idris, K. (2005), Workplace learning in Malaysia: the learners perspective, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 62-78. Mulder, M. and Tjepkema, S. (1999), International briengs 1: training and development in The Netherlands, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 63-73. Ndoye, A. (2003), Experiential learning, self-beliefs and adult performance in Senegal, International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 353-66. Nijhof, W.J. and De Rijk, R.N. (1997), Roles, competences and outputs of HRD practitioners a comparative study in four European countries, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 21 Nos 6/7, pp. 247-55. Nixon, J.C. (2005), Impact of national differences in work practices, The Journal of Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 43-52. Noble, C. (1997), The management of training in multinational corporations: comparative case studies, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 102-9. Oliver, C. (1991), Strategic responses to institutional processes, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 145-79. Osman-Gani, A.A.M. and Tan, W.L. (2000), International brieng 7: training and development in Singapore, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 305-23. Ouchi, W. (1981), Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Peretz, H. and Rosenbaltt, Z. (2006), The role of national values in organizational training: a comparative study in 16 countries, paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Work Values and Behaviour, Tallinn, Estonia, 25-29 June, 2006. Pettigrew, A.M. (1990), Is corporate culture manageable?, in Wilson, D. and Roseneld, R. (Eds), Managing Organization, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, London, pp. 267-72. Pratt, D.D. (1990), Contrasting foundations and teaching: selfhood in China and the United States, in Conti, G.J. and Fellenz, R.A. (Eds), Cultural Inuences on Adult Learning, Center for Adult Learning Research, Bozeman, MT, pp. 29-44. Rainbird, H. (1994), Changing role of the training function: a test of the integration of human resource and business strategies?, Human Resources Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 87-105. ` Rolland, D. (2000), Le systeme japonais de formation et le developpement du travail collaboratif: ` ` un nouveau modele a imiter?, in Tremblay, D.G. and Doray, P. (Eds), Vers de nouveaux modes de formation professionnelle? Role des acteurs et des collaborateurs, Presses de lUniversite du Quebec, Sainte-Foy, pp. 155-70. Sagiv, L. and Schwartz, S.H. (2000), A new look at national culture, in Askanasy, N.M., Wilderton, C.P.M. and Peterson, M.F. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 417-36. Sato, H. (1997), Japon: education permanente et formation en entreprise. Situation actuelle et ` principaux problemes, in Tremblay, D.G. (Ed.), Formation et competitivite economique:
perspectives internationales, Universite du Quebec, Editions Saint-Martin, Sainte-Foy, pp. 229-45. Savvas, M., El-Kot, G. and Sadler-Smith, E. (2001), Comparative study of cognitive styles in Egypt, Greece, Hong Kong and the UK, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 64-73. Schein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA. Schneider, S. and Barsoux, J.L. (2003), Managing across Cultures, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Harlow. Shenkar, O. and Luo, Y. (2004), International Business, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. Skule, S., Stuart, M. and Nyen, T. (2002), International brieng 12: training and development in Norway, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 263-76. Smith, A. (1999), International brieng 4: training and development in Australia, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 301-13. Sondergaard, M. (2006), Fit between national cultures, organizing and managing, in Burton, R., Ericksen, B., Hakenson, R. and Snow, C. (Eds), Organizational Design: The Evolving State-of-the-Art, Springer Science Business Media, New York, NY, pp. 103-24. Stewart, E.C. and Bennett, M.J. (1991), American Cultural Patterns: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, Intercultural Press, Yarmouth, ME. Subedi, B.S. (2006), Cultural factors and beliefs inuencing transfer of training, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 88-97. Suchman, M.C. (1995), Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 571-610. Tanova, C. and Nadiri, H. (2005), Recruitment and training policies and practices: the case of Turkey as an EU candidate, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 694-711. Thang, N.N. and Quang, T. (2007), International brieng 18: training and development in Vietnam, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 139-49. Thomson, A., Storey, J., Mabey, C., Gray, C., Farmer, E. and Thomson, R. (1997), A Portrait of Management Development, Institute of Management, London. Tregaskis, O. and Brewster, C. (1998), Training and development in the UK context: an emerging polarisation?, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 22 Nos 4/5, pp. 180-9. Tregaskis, O. and Dany, F. (1996), A comparison of HRD in France and the UK, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 20-30. ` Tremblay, D.G. and Le Bot, I. (2000), Le systeme dual de formation professionnelle en Allemagne: enjeux et des des annees 2000, in Tremblay, D.G. and Doray, P. (Eds), Vers de nouveaux modes de formation professionnelle? Role des acteurs et des collaborateurs, Presses de lUniversite du Quebec, Sainte-Foy, pp. 115-43. ` Tremblay, D.G. and Rolland, D. (1997), La formation au Japon, en Suede et en Allemagne: quelques elements de comparaison, Gestion, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 61-70. Trice, H.M. and Beyer, J.N. (1993), The Cultures of Work Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Turbin, J. (2001), Policy borrowing: lessons from European attempts to transfer training practices, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 96-111. Valkeavaara, T. (1998), Human resource development roles and competencies in ve European countries, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 171-89. Van Baalen, P. and Hoogendoorn, J. (1998), Training and development in the Dutch context: an overture to the knowledge society?, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 22 Nos 4/5, pp. 171-9.
JEIT 35,1
70
Varner, I.I. and Varner, C.H. (1994), A culture-based framework for successful business training in Russia, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 361-9. Vielba, C.A. (1995), Teaching managers about culture, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 4-9. ` Vob, R. (1993), Le nancement et la gestion du systeme de formation professionnelle en Autriche, in Laamme, G. (Ed.), La formation professionnelle: perspectives internationales, Centre de lOIT, Turin, pp. 139-50. Weech, W.A. (2001), Training across cultures: what to expect, Training and Development, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 62-5. Wilkins, S. (2001), International brieng 9: training and development in the United Arab Emirates, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 153-65. Xie, J. and Wu, G. (2001), Training and development in the Peoples Republic of China, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 223-32. Yadapadithaya, P.S. and Stewart, J. (2003), Corporate training and development policies and practices: a cross-national study of India and Britain, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 108-23. Zambarloukos, S. and Constantelou, A. (2002), Learning and skills formation in the new economy: evidence from Greece, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 240-53. Further reading LeGoff, J.P. (1992), Le mythe de lentreprise: critique de lideologie manageriale, La Decouverte, Paris. Sackman, S.A. (1997), Cultural Complexity in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. About the authors Abderrahman Hassi is a Professor at Algonquin College, Ottawa, Canada and has been teaching various corporate training courses for many years, particularly with programs for employees of the federal public service of Canada. His primary research interests include diverse issues related to employee training management, training and development across cultures and comparative HRM/HRD. Abderrahman Hassi is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: hassia@algonquincollege.com Giovanna Storti is a Professor/Coordinator in the Department of Continuing Education at La Cite collegiale and a Program Advisor for the federal department of Human Resources and Skills Development in Ottawa, Canada. Her research interests include culture and education, corporate linguistic training and continuing professional development.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Organizational Training Across Cultures: Variations in Practices and Attitudes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Organizational Training Across Cultures: Variations in Practices and Attitudes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.

Organizational training across cultures: variations in practices and attitudes

Organizational training across cultures 45

Organizational training across cultures 47

Organizational training across cultures 49

Organizational training across cultures 51

Organizational training across cultures 53

Organizational training across cultures 55

Organizational training across cultures 57

Organizational training across cultures 59

Organizational training across cultures 61

Organizational training across cultures 63

Organizational training across cultures 65

Organizational training across cultures 67

Organizational training across cultures 69

You might also like