THE IMPACT OF NATIONAL CULTURE ON HUMAN RESOURCE TRAINING PRACTICES

(1)

THE IMPACT OF NATIONAL CULTURE ON

HUMAN RESOURCE TRAINING

PRACTICES

Master thesis, Msc. specialization Human Resource Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization

August 14, 2008

Wei Shen

Studentnumber: 1659812

Esdoornlaan 816

9741MK Groningen

Tel.:+31 (0)64 3183031

E-mail: W.SHEN@student.rug.nl

Supervisor

Dr. F. Walter

(2)

ABSTRACT

This thesis builds theory on the impact of national culture on human resource training practices. A conceptual model is developed based on Hofstede’s five national culture dimensions and a four-phase approach of systematic training process. Theory about the relationship between national culture and training practices is developed based on the literature. The model developed in this paper helps organizations to understand why training is done in different ways in different countries and therefore to know what to expect when design and deliver training in a specific country.

(3)

Human Resource Development (HRD) has become more and more important since the last century. Nadler and Nadler (1989) defined it as organization learning experience provided by employers within a specified period of time to bring about the possibility of performance improvement and personal growth. HRD encompasses activities and processes which are intended to have an impact on organizational and individual learning. The purpose of HRD is to enhance learning, human potential and high performance in work-related systems (Bates, Hatcher, Holton & Chalofsky, 2001). It provides a framework for self-development training programs and career development to meet an organization’s future skill requirements (Price, 2007).

Salas and Cannon-Bowers (2001) have proclaimed the importance of training as a fundamental component of human resource development. Training refers to a planned effort by a company to facilitate employees’ learning of job-related competences (Noe, 2003). The goal of training is for workers to master the knowledge, skills, and

behaviors emphasized in training programs and to apply them to their daily activities. Organizations in the USA spend as much as US﹩200 billion annually on training and development in order to facilitate employees’ learning of job-related competencies (Carnevale, Gainer & Villet, 1990; Cascio, 2000; Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart & Wright, 2006). Furthermore, investment in training activities has increased all over the world in recent years (Velada, Caetano, Michel, Lyons, & Kavanagh, 2007). So it is

important for organizations to ensure that the training activities lead to desired training outcomes such as enhanced work performance.

(5)

(Pritchard & Youngcourt, 2008).

Comparing one country with another, it is obvious that the components of organizational management are of different degrees of importance and are

implemented differently (Price, 2007). The training practices in each country may also be quite different from one another. For example, the training activities in Chinese organizations are usually short-term oriented, which mostly emphasize current occupations and technical skills (Shen, 2008). Many Chinese firms do not have

enough resources and time to implement systematic training, which results in a lack of high-caliber or properly trained and mentored employees (Shen & Darby, 2006; Zhu, 2005). On the other hand, training practices in the USA are quite opposite. The training programs in the US are more focused on employees’ personal ability and development. Many American firms have highly structured systematic training

programs to develop employees’ capability and maintain high-caliber and well-trained employees (Bai, 2007; Carnevale et al., 1990).

It is clear that some reasonable training practices in one culture may turn out to be unsuitable in another. We cannot change the way people in a country think, feel, and act by simply using foreign institutions. And the cultural differences do not disappear simply because people of different culture start to live and work together. Culture barriers will most likely bring new challenges and opportunities in the design and implementation of training practices. Therefore, it is helpful to study the relationship between the culture differences and training practices. Then we can adjust training practices to the different cultural contexts of different countries.

Although some research has analyzed the relationship between cultures and

(6)

study therefore is to explore such impacts of national culture on training practices in a theoretical manner.

Blanchard and Thacker (2003) stated that training is a process, not just a program or a set of programs. They claimed that effective training is about meeting

organizational needs, not just conducting training programs. Training will be more effective if organizations consider training as a systematic process and each phase of the training process is well organized and managed. So the four-phase approach of training process will be used in this paper, which are training needs analysis, training design, training implementation, and training evaluation (Blanchard & Thacker, 2003; Goldstein, 1992; Noe, 2003). Training needs analysis refers to the process used to determine whether training is necessary and it involves organizational analysis, person analysis and task analysis (Noe, 2003). Training design is the process used to determine the training objectives and to understand the factors that facilitate learning and the transfer of training (Blanchard & Thacker, 2003). Training implementation aims to put the training methods into practice and to facilitate the management of training. The last step is to evaluate the training program and make improvements for further training and development (Noe, 2003). Moreover, Hofstede’s (1991, 2005) five national culture dimensions (power distance; individualism/collectivism; masculinity/feminity; uncertainty avoidance; and short-term/long-term orientation) will be used to distinguish culture differences among countries. The conceptual model of this research is given in figure 1.

***Insert Figure 1 about here***

I begin by defining the five national culture dimensions as theoretical background of this study. Then I will outline the relationships between these variables and the four phases of training process. Finally, I will discuss the theoretical and practical

implications of this model.

THEORY BACKGROUND

Culture has been defined in many ways. The definitions of culture include the concepts of shared norms, values, assumptions, attitudes, and beliefs that are

(7)

Nevertheless, Hofstede (1991) offered a frequently used definition of culture as the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another.

Culture has been described as multilayered. In this study, I used five national cultural dimensions, identified by Hofstede (1991, 2005). By using data collected from questionnaires distributed to subordinates of the International Business Machines (IBM) group in 66 countries all over the world, Hofstede (1991, 2005) identified five dimensions of national culture, which I describe in the following. Power Distance

Power distance is described based on the value system of less powerful

individuals. It is defined as the extent to which less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed

unequally (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). In high power distance cultures such as France, some individuals are perceived to have a higher overall rank whose power is unquestionable and virtually unattainable by those with lower power (House et al., 2004). In low power distance countries such as Scandinavia and the Netherlands, each individual is respected and appreciated for what that person has to offer, and people expect equal access to upward mobility in both their social class and their jobs (House et al., 2004).

Individualism/collectivism

According to Hofstede (2005), individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everybody is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. Collectivism as its opposite pertains to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive groups, which

(8)

Masculinity/femininity

Masculinity refers to societies in which social gender roles are clearly distinct: men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and to focus on material success, whereas women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. A society is called feminine when emotional gender roles overlap: both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).

Masculinity/femininity (Hofstede, 1980, 1998, 2005) appears to cover at least two distinct facets of societal culture. The first aspect reveals differences among societies to the extent that each emphasizes and rewards “tough” or “masculine” values such as assertiveness, success, and competition versus “tender” or “feminine” values such as nurturance and solidarity. For example, “masculine” cultures have been shown to score higher in achievement motivation and to value individual achievement over solidarity, confrontation over cooperation, and independence over honoring moral obligations (Doney, Cannon, & Mullen, 1998). The other aspect reflects differences among societies in their beliefs about the behavior that is appropriate for males versus females. Male achievement reinforces masculine assertiveness and competition; female care reinforces feminine nurturance and a concern for relationships and for the living environment (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).

Uncertainty Avoidance

Societies vary in their tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty (Hofstede, 1980). Uncertainty avoidance is the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations. This feeling is, among other things, expressed through nervous stress and in a need for predictability, a need for written and unwritten rules (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). As defined by GLOBE (House et al., 2004), uncertainty avoidance refers to the extent to which members of collectives seek orderliness, consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover situations in their daily lives. In some societies, people are essentially more nervous about the unpredictability of the future than people in other societies.

(9)

Hofstede (2005) states that long-term orientation stands for the fostering of virtues oriented toward future rewards, in particular, perseverance and thrift. Its opposite pole, short-term orientation, stands for the fostering of virtues related to the past and

present, in particular, respect for tradition, preservation of “face”, and fulfilling social obligations. Cultures with short-term orientation show incapacity or unwillingness to plan a sequence to realize their desired goals, and may not appreciate the warning signals that their current behavior negatively influences realization of their goals in the future (Keough, Zimbardo, & Boyd, 1999). In contrast, cultures with long-term orientation have a strong capability and willingness to imagine future contingencies, formulate future goal states, and seek to achieve goals and develop strategies for meeting their future aspiration (Keough et al., 1999).

Despite criticisms of his work, including concerns that five dimensions are not sufficient to distinguish among the complexity of various cultures and that findings from survey data are not altogether generalizable (Fang, 2003; House et al., 2004), Hofstede’s cross-culture work remains the most widely used, cited, and replicated cultural framework to date (Kuchinke, 1999). In this paper, I will therefore develop theory about the effects of these five culture dimensions on training practices in organizations.

CULTURAL EFFECTS ON TRAINING PRACTICES

Training needs analysis, training design, training implementation, and training evaluation will be influenced by the five dimensions of national culture described above. Nevertheless, I will emphasize the culture dimensions which seem most relevant to the respective training practices according to the availability of literature. Training Needs Analysis

(10)

training are included, and provides the data to show trainees why the training is needed.

Organizational analysis and person analysis are two main aspects of training needs analysis (Noe, 2003). Organizational analysis involves identifying whether training supports the organization’s strategic direction. It focuses on the strategies of the organization, the resources in the organization, the allocation of these resources, and the total internal environment (Blanchard & Thacker, 2003). Person analysis helps to identify employees who need training to analyze whether current performance or expected performance indicates a need for training (Noe, 2003).

Hofstede’s (1980) conceptualization of culture differences in terms of individualism/collectivism has been widely used to explain differences in work attitudes (Noordin, Williams, & Zimmer, 2002), and this distinction may cause training differences in organizations in different cultures. Workers from an

individualistic culture generally strive to improve work performance because of the recognition they may receive, whereas workers from a collectivistic culture generally seek improvement due to the gains their group may obtain (Earley, 1994). According to Triandis (1995), employees in individualistic cultures have their own independent selves, choose goals that meet their personal needs even when they are not compatible with in-group goals, behave consistently with their personal attitudes, beliefs, and values, and base their social relationships on a careful computation of the costs and benefits of these relationships. By contrast, workers in collectivistic cultures have an interdependent self, their goals are compatible with those of their in-groups, their behavior is norm driven (e.g., they conform to social pressure and are dutiful), and they give priority to relationships even when they are costly.

(11)

Both organizational and person needs analysis are important in any cultures, but the emphasis is quite different. Employees’ attitudes toward achievement and

goal-attainment may influence organizations’ preference for training needs analysis. It is because organizations have to motivate employees to learn by fulfilling their

self-development needs. Earley (1994) argues that the emphasis of training needs analysis in individualistic culture is on individual initiative and achievement. This is in contrast to that in collectivistic cultures on group goals and loyalty to the in-group. Organizations in individualistic cultures therefore seem likely to emphasize person needs analysis rather than organizational training needs. Organizations in

collectivistic cultures in contrast are likely to emphasize organizational training needs analysis rather than person analysis. This discussion suggests the following

propositions.

Proposition 1a: The higher the individualism at the national level, the more emphasis organizations will put on person analysis rather than organizational analysis when analyzing training needs.

Proposition 1b: The higher the collectivism at national level, the more emphasis organizations will put on organizational analysis rather than person analysis when analyzing training needs.

An area of growing concern in the training needs analysis phase is the question of strategic job analysis (Goldstein, 1992). As technology continues to change the workforce, training programs are being considered for jobs that may not exist yet. Thus, Hall (1986) explains the importance of analyzing future strategic objectives of organization. Schneider and Konz (1989) describe this as strategic job analysis method, which is quite different from the traditional non-strategic needs analysis. Non-strategic needs analysis mostly focuses on current job requirements and pays little attention to future job requirements. By contrast, strategic needs analysis

indicates that explicit future job requirements are demanded in training needs analysis (Goldstein, 1992).

(12)

Future orientation definitely is the basis of formal organizational strategy which

involves the planned future actions of a firm (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). Das (1986) also underlined the importance of future orientation among executives in relation to the strategic planning needed to prepare their organizations for continued growth in complex environments.

Long-term orientation is expected to influence organizations’ preference of training needs analysis methods. As mentioned before, individuals in cultures with long-term orientation have strong capability and willingness to image future

contingencies, and seek to develop strategies for meeting their future goals. Moreover, individual employees’ capabilities will largely determine the organization’s response capability (Das, 1987). This means that organizations in long-term orientation cultures have strong capability and willingness to develop strategies for future goals.

Consequently, organizations in long-term orientation cultures prefer strategic needs analysis because they want to know future needs of both organization and employees to prepare themselves for future development.

By contrast, individuals in cultures with short-term orientation show incapability or unwillingness to plan their goals in future (Keough et al., 1999). It is because that in short-term orientation societies, the systems’ emphasis is obviously more on

short-term results than in long-term orientation societies (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). People in short-term orientation cultures are less capable and less willing to image future needs of organization compare to those in long-term orientation cultures. Organizations in short-term orientation cultures therefore focus more on current needs (e.g., knowledge and skills needed in existing job) of organizational training. I

therefore conclude the following proposition.

Proposition 2: The greater the long-term orientation at the national level, the more the strategic needs analysis method will be used in training needs analysis in organizations.

Training Design

(13)

are then used to drive the design of training such as content, methods, materials, etc. What is more, the plan must take into account any constraints the organization may have such as money, time, facilities, etc.

The term training objectives refers to all the goals that are developed for the training program (Blanchard & Thacker, 2003). Developing good training objectives takes time, effort, and careful thought. The objectives should describe behavior (what the trainee will be expected to do) and conditions (under which circumstance the behavior has to occur), which can be measured both inside and outside the training environment, and standards (the acceptable level of performance; Wills, 1998).

A country’s uncertainty avoidance is reflected in the way people structure learning objectives. In countries with high uncertainty avoidance, people generally favor structured learning situations with precise objectives, detailed assignments, and strict timetables (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). In countries with low uncertainty avoidance, on the other hand, people usually despise too highly structured systems. They like open-ended learning situations with vague objectives, broad assignments, and no timetables (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).

This dimension of national culture differences not only affects the way people structure learning objectives, but also influences individual’s interaction in

organizations in different societies. The level of uncertainty avoidance in one country is expected to determine the degree of specific training objectives in organizations. Organizations in high uncertainty avoidance countries like Germany usually prefer to lay out detailed plans before decision making; the training practices are highly

structured (Salas et al., 2008). Hence, the training objectives tend to be more specified. It is because that individual from cultures where ambiguity is not tolerated well will more likely prefer specific objectives. In contrast, organizations in weak uncertainty avoidance countries like the USA prefer quicker, trial-and-error methods; the training objectives are less planned (Salas et al., 2008). I therefore propose the link between uncertainty avoidance and training objectives as follow.

(14)

After developing training objectives, appropriate training methods and training techniques should be selected to meet these objectives. The growth of the training industry, the increased number of providers and the rapid advances in technology create an ever-growing number of methods and delivery system, which make the selection more challenging (Blanchard & Thacker, 2003). Moreover, with the growth of globalization, selection of training method and techniques has to come to terms with cultural differences. Training techniques are commonly characterized as falling along a scale form “didactic” to “experiential” (Industrial and Commercial Training, 1995). Experiential training methods refers to learning by doing (Wood, 2003), which is process-oriented. Kolb (1984) defined experiential training as the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Didactic training methods, on the other hand, depend on the trainer to provide all the required

instructions, which is content-centered (Industrial and Commercial Training, 1995). Uncertainty avoidance is expected to distinguish the different training methods used in organizations in different countries. Appropriate training methods for each culture are those effectively motivate the participants without attracting much resistance (Industrial and Commercial Training, 1995). It may be necessary for organizations to know the different methods each culture prefers, in order to enhance trainees’ willingness to learn. In cultures with weak uncertainty avoidance, trainers are allowed to say: “I don’t know”. Trainees are comfortable with unanswered questions. They are encouraged to seek innovative approaches to problem solving. As a result, experiential methods are commonly used in countries with weak uncertainty

avoidance cultures such as the USA (Salas et al, 2008). In contrast, cultures with strong uncertainty avoidance expect the trainer to have all the answers. Trainers are considered to be experts. In these cultures, trainees are rewarded for consistency with trainer-established principles (Industrial and Commercial Training, 1995).

Organizations in these cultures therefore may tend to prefer didactic methods. This discussion suggests the following propositions.

(15)

Proposition 4b: The lower the level of uncertainty avoidance at the national level, the more likely organizations are to use experiential methods in training program. Training Implementation

There are multiple factors which influence training implementation in ways that are difficult to predict fully ahead of time in the design phase. The relationship

between trainer and trainees is one of the most important factors. The effectiveness of the training process, formed in the design phase, depends largely on the outcome of the interaction between trainer and trainees (Korte, 2006). The interactions among the people and the content in the context of learning transaction can be extremely

complex and variable. In design phase, the didactic and experiential methods which based on technique were discussed. Here I will address the implementation phase with a look at the methods of training delivery placed on a continuum extending from a trainer-centered to a learner-centered approach (Korte, 2006). This approach emphasizes the relationship between trainer and trainees.

The trainer-centered strategy implies more directive action. Control is designed to be in the hands of the trainer and experts (Korte, 2006). The effectiveness of training is considered to be a product of the knowledge and expertise of the trainer, and knowledge is to be obtained from the trainer (Industrial and Commercial Training, 1995). The learner-centered strategy, in contrast, implies more supportive action, and sharing the control of learning with learners (Korte, 2006). The effectiveness of training is related to the amount of communication between trainer and trainees, as well as among trainees. Knowledge can be gained from any competent person (Industrial and commercial training, 1995).

(16)

contributions. From the trainees’ standpoint, relationships are then characterized by easiness, affiliation and equality.

The different degree of power distance in particular countries will cause the different relationships between trainer and trainees. Unnecessary miscommunication and conflicts between trainers and trainees can be reduced by identifying the culture differences. In high power distance cultures, trainees take for settled distances that power inequalities engender (Triandis, 1994). In contrast, trainer and trainees work closely together and consult each other in low power distance cultures (Hofstede, 2001). In sum, organizations in cultures with high power distance value

trainer-centered learning. Organizations in cultures with low power distance, in contrast, value learner-centered learning (Industrial and Commercial Training, 1995). I therefore conclude the following propositions.

Proposition 5a: The higher the level of power distance at the national level, the more likely organizations value trainer-centered learning.

Proposition 5b: The lower the level of power distance at national level, the more likely organizations value learner-centered learning.

Training Evaluation

Training evaluation provides a way to understand the effects of training programs and provides information needed to improve training. Noe (2003) states that training evaluation refers to the process of collecting the outcomes needed to determine

whether training is effective. There are many reasons why evaluation may be required, perhaps to justify the cost of a particular learning event or to measure the impact of the event on job performance, or to assess the performance of the organization (Noe, 2003). Each of these aims may involve different criteria and different evaluation methods.

Outcome measures refer to criteria, like learning and performance, which

(17)

level like individual learning and performance. Collectivism/individualism is

expected to shape the different types of evaluation outcomes that organizations apply in training evaluation.

Collectivistic cultures demand high involvement and participation from employees who are expected to actively support the execution of group tasks and collaborate with others in the attainment of collective goals (Varela & Premeaux, 2008). Employees in collectivist cultures may approach teamwork and cooperative acts in the hope of achieving result that benefit the group (Hofstede, 1991) because they are motivated by such things as deference and affiliation (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). On the other hand, people in individualistic cultures choose goals that meet their personal need (Triandis, 1993). In such cultures, employees will be more likely to take actions that will lead to results that benefit themselves in terms of providing them more pay, reputation or power (Stone-Romero & Stone, 2002). The extent to which certain results are valued by culture will likely influence the type of evaluation that will result (Pritchard & Youngcourt, 2008). For example, collectivistic cultures value results that benefit the group. Therefore, in these cultures, evaluation outcomes that measure the goals of the workgroup or organization may be valued more

favorably by evaluators than those of individual.

In sum, collectivism/individualism at the national level could influence

organizational training evaluation in that the actions people take can vary depending on whether they value the individual above the collective or the collective above individual. People have different preferences based on culture differences, which may lead organizations to apply different evaluation outcomes. Just as training evaluation can vary by culture, the values placed on such training outcomes will vary as well. As mentioned above, it is clear that high degree of collectivism in national level makes organizations opt for group-based outcomes rather than individually based outcomes. Conversely, organizations in individualistic cultures are likely to use individually based outcomes. Therefore, the following propositions are offered.

(18)

Proposition 6b: The greater the individualism at the national level, the more likely organizations will use individually based outcomes in training evaluation.

Training evaluation can be also classified into short-term and long-term outcome evaluation (Wang & Wilcox, 2006). In most situations, organizations need to identify immediate training outcomes after the program implementation. Short-term outcomes are mostly measured during and toward the end of the training implement phase. Evaluation of learning outcomes is an example of short-term evaluation. Such evaluation is conducted immediately after training implementation in order to assess the knowledge and skills gained through training practices. Nevertheless, the ultimate goal for design and conducting training in organization settings is to improve

individual and organizational performance (Goldstein, 1992). Therefore, long-term evaluation of the impact of training programs has received increasing attention in organizations. One example of long-term evaluation is the measurement of learning transfer and behavior change in workplace. Such evaluation can only be assessed when employees apply new skills and knowledge on their daily work. In practice, evaluation of knowledge and skills transfer requires a 3 to 6 months time period after training implementation (Wang & Wilcox, 2006). So long-term evaluation is usually conducted some time (e.g., 3 months, 6 months, 1 year) after training is implemented in order to assess the transfer of knowledge and skills.

Short-term and long-term oriented culture dimensions may influence

(19)

Second, individuals in short-term orientation culture have more social pressure toward spending and they believe that efforts should produce quick results (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). As a result, most organizations in these cultures are unwilling to put too many efforts to carry out future evaluation. Conversely, individuals in

long-term orientation culture sustain efforts toward slow results (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Thus, organizations in long-term orientation culture mostly prefer long-term evaluation compared to those in short-term orientation culture, because they are more willing and capable to wait for months and even years to get the results. To bring these aforementioned findings together, it must be established that there is a link between the degree of long-term orientation at the national level and company’s strategy in training evaluation. I therefore posit the following proposition.

Proposition 7: The greater the long-term orientations at the national level, the more likely organizations will emphasize on long-term evaluation in training evaluation phase.

DISCUSSION

The objective of this thesis is to theoretically explore the relationship between national culture and training practices. This study suggests that as organizational business management becomes more global and extends across national boundaries, culture differences should be seriously considered. I therefore studied how culture differences at the national level influence training practices. The theory I present in this thesis is based on Hofstede’s five national culture dimensions and the four phases of systematic training process. Seven propositions have been developed to explain the effects of national culture dimensions on training practices based on previous research and theories. The outcomes of this study are summarized in Table 1.

*** Insert Table 1 about here ***

(20)

culture is a concept which helps to determine similarities and differences between the cultures of countries. The results of this study suggest that national culture differences do influence that in human resource training practices.

Training is central to organizational transformation and to sustain organization’s competitive advantage (Brinkerhoff & Gill, 1994). With the growth of

internationalism, training has to come to terms with culture differences. One of the reasons is that more companies are setting up factories and offices outside their own countries. Organizations usually recruit foreign employees who need to be trained. Organizations therefore need to determine what works and what doesn’t for various cultures and how training should be designed to compensate for these differences. This paper offers a blueprint for organizations to understand why training is done in specific ways in a certain country and therefore to know what to expect in a specific country.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

The model developed here suggests some interesting directions for future research. For instance, the present model mainly refers to the direct influence of individual national culture dimensions on training practices. It may be interesting to further explore national culture as a multidimensional construct (Steensma, Marino, Weaver, & Dickson, 2000).Researchers may wish to examine howmultidimensional measure of national culture differences will influence training practices. For example, culture attitudes toward uncertainty avoidance have a significant influence on the

organization’s future orientation (House et al., 2004). The term of uncertainty

avoidance can be integrated with long-term orientation to further explore the cultural impact on strategic training needs analysis. Such research could contribute to a better understanding of relationships between national culture dimensions and training practices.

(21)

For example, future research may study the impact of masculinity/femininity on training practices. It should be noted that the findings from this study are purely conceptual. Future extension of empirical research of this model may add particular value. Training researchers and practitioners should consider the applicability of the impacts of national culture on training practices in different countries. For instance, how organizations can benefit from knowing these differences and how they can apply these findings to their human resource training.

Organizations are complex systems operating within dynamic environment. Managing such complex systems requires a comprehensive understanding of the influence of both internal and external environments (Aycan et al., 1999). Future work should therefore examine the impact of not only national but also organizational culture on human resource training practices. Organizational culture is constructed in terms of prevailing managerial assumptions and beliefs (Schein, 1992).

Organizational culture can lead to positive outcomes such as the creation of social order and continuity, creation of communal identity and commitment, and

management of collective uncertainty (Trice & Beyer, 1993). Thus, organizational culture can be integrated with national culture in an expanded model to examine how different levels of cultures may influence training practices.

Another complicating factor in research on organizational culture is the potential for subcultures within firms (McAleese & Hargie, 2004). While a firm may have a general culture at the organizational level, culture may also differ across functional areas and among the individual office within large firms such as marketing, R&D, finance. So the subculture can be viewed as an intermediate culture variable linking organizational culture and training practices in different departments of the

organization. Further studies are needed to assess whether different subcultures within organizations may enhance or weaken the impact of national and organizational culture on training practices.

(22)

could moderate the effectiveness of training (Lee & Croker, 2006). Hayes and

Allinson (1988) also demonstrated that the activities which promote effective training in some cultures may not produce the same outcomes in other cultures where different learning styles dominate. It may be interesting to further explore the relationship between national culture and training effectiveness. For example, organizations can choose the most suitable training methods which promote effective training in different countries by knowing the impacts of different national cultures on training practices.

Implications for Practice

By understanding why training is done in specific ways in a certain country, organizations may be able to design and deliver useful training for different cultures. For example, organizations in the US (an individualistic, low power distance culture) prefer experiential training methods (Sarkar-Barney, 2004). However, most trainees in China (highly collectivist, high power distance) may be uncomfortable with this type of training, as they prefer a more passive role. In order for organizations to train employees in different cultures, they may first have to recognize that employees’ preference vary in terms of their cultural values. As a result, organizations might change their training practices to meet the needs of individuals in different cultural background. Thus, instead of using standardized training practices of the home country, organizations may adapt training practices to national cultures in different countries.

National culture differences have important implications for the design of human resource training policies, processes, and practices. In view of the changing nature of the workforce, training systems should be congruent with the needs and cultural values of the individuals from diverse cultures. For instance, additional training may be needed to ensure that employees and supervisors understand both cultural

(23)

blueprint for how to develop and manage human resource training under the pressure of globalization.

CONCLUSION

The forces of global economic and technological changes have made a highly trained, skilled and well-educated workforce essential for any organizations to remain competitive. It has become obvious that, in order to maintain and develop high-caliber and well trained workforce, organizations need to be able to function smoothly and successfully across cultural boundaries. This thesis offers an insight into the impact of national culture dimensions on human resource training practices. It helps

(24)

REFERENCE

Awoniyi, E. A., Griego, O. V., & Morgan, G. A. 2002. Person—environment fit and transfer of training. International Journal of Training and Development, 6: 25–35.

Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R.N., & Sinha, J.B.P. 1999. Organizational culture and human resource management practices: the model of culture fit. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 30(4): 501-526.

Bai, T. 2007.

中美企业人力资源管理的五大差异

. [Five differences in Human Resource Management in Chinese and American enterprises]. Retrieved July 2, 2008, from website: http://www.konsultants.cn/show_article.asp?id=2338

Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. 1988. Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41: 63–105.

Bates, R., Hatcher, T., Holton III, E., & Chalofsky, N. 2001. Redefining human resource development: An integration of the learning, performance, and spirituality of work perspectives. In O. A. Aliaga (Ed.), Academy of Human Resource

Development 2001 Conference Proceedings: 205–212. Bowling Green, OH: Academy of Human Resource Development.

Blanchard, P.N., & Thacker, J.W. 2003. Effective training: System, strategies, and practices (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Bowman, J., & Wilson, J.P. 2008. Different roles, different perspectives: Perceptions about the purpose of training needs analysis. Industrial and Commercial Training, 40: 38-41.

Brinkerhoff, R.O., & Gill, S.J. 1994. The learning alliance: System thinking in human resource development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brommer, M., & De La Porte, R. 1992. A context for envisioning the future. National Productivity Review, 11: 549-552.

Bunch, K.J. 2007. Training failure as a consequence of organizational culture. Human Resource Management Review, 6: 142-163.

(25)

Cascio,W. F. 2000. Costing human resources: The financial impact of behavior in organizations (4th ed.). Cincinnati: South-Western.

Das, T.K. 1986. The subjective side of strategy making: Future orientations and perceptions of executives. New York: Praeger.

Das, T.K. 1987. Strategic planning and individual temporal orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 8: 203-209.

Doney, P.M., Cannon, J.P., & Mullen,M.R. 1998. Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23:601-620.

Downey, S., Wentling, R.M., Wentling, T., & Wadsworth, A. 2005. The relationship between national culture and the usability of an E-learning system. Human Resource Development International, 8: 47-64.

Earley, P.C., 1994. Self or group? Cultural effects of training on self-efficacy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39:89-117

Fang T. 2003. A critique of Hofstede’s fifth national culture dimension. Cross Cultural Management, 3: 347-368

Goldstein, I.L. 1992. Training in organizations. (3rd ed.) California: Brooks Publishing Company.

Hall, D.T. 1986. Dilemmas in linking succession planning to individual executive learning. Human Resource Management, 25: 235-265.

Hayes, J., & Allinson, C.W. 1988. Cultural differences in the learning styles of managers. Management International Review, 28: 75-80.

Hodgetts, R. 1993. A conversation with Geert Hofstede. Organizational Dynamics. 21:53-61.

Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. (1st ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.

(26)

Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pubilications.

Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G.J. 2005. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.

House R.J., Hanges P.J., Javidan M., Dorfman P.W., & Gupta V. 2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The global study of 62 societies. California: Sage Publications.

Industrial and Commercial Training. 1995. Training across cultures. 27: 3-4. Keough, K.A., Zimbardo, P.G, & Boyd, J.N. 1999. Who’s smoking, drinking, and

using drugs? Time perspective as a predictor of substance use. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21: 149-164.

Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Korte, R.F. 2006. Training implementation: Variations affecting delivery. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8: 514-527.

Kuchinke, K.P. 1999. Leadership and culture: Work-related values and leadership styles among one company’s U.S. and German telecommunication employees. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10: 135-154.

Laverty, K.J. 1996. Economic “short-termism”: The debate, the unresolved issues, and the implications for management practice and research. Academy of Management Review, 27: 825-860.

Lee, L.Y., & Croker, R. 2006. A contingency model to promote the effectiveness of expatriate training. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 106: 1187-1205. Lytle, A L., Brett, J. M, Barsness, Z. I., Tinsely, C. H., & Janssens, M. 1995. A

paradigm for confirmatory cross-cultural research in organizational behavior. Research in 0rganzational Behavior, 17: 167-214.

Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. 1991. Culture and the self: Implications for cognitive, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98: 224-253.

(27)

synthesis of best practice. Journal of Communication Management, 9: 155-170. Nadler L., & Nadler Z. 1989. Developing human resources (3rd ed.). San Francisico:

Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers.

Noe, R.A., 2003. Employee training and development (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M., 2006. Human resource management: Gaining a competitive advantage (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Noordin, F., Williams, T., & Zimmer C., 2002. Career commitment in collectivist and individualist cultures: A comparative study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13: 35-54.

Palmer, R. 2006. The identification of learning needs in Wilson, J.P. (ED.) Human Resource Development: Learning and Training for Individuals and organizations, London: Kogan Page, 137-155.

Price, A. 2007. Human resource development in a business context. (3rd ed.) London: Thomson

Pritchard, R.D., & Youngcourt, S.S. 2008. Culture, feedback, and motivation. In Stone, D.L., & Stone-Romero, E.F. (Eds). The influence of culture on human resource management processes and practices. New York: Psychology Press.

Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. 2001. The science of training: A decade of progress. Annual Review of Psychology, 52: 471–499.

Salas, E., Wilson, K.A., & Lyons, R. 2008. Designing and delivering training for multicultural interactions in organizations. In Stone, D.L., & Stone-Romero, E.F. (Eds). The influence of culture on human resource management processes and practices. New York: Psychology Press.

Sarkar-Barney, S. 2004. The role of national culture in enhancing training

effectiveness: A framework. In E. Salas (Eds.), Advances in human performance and cognitive engineering research. Amesterdam: Elsevier.

(28)

Schein, E.H. 1992. Organizational Culture and Leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shen, J. 2008. Human resource management in Chinese privately owned enterprises. International Business Review, 50: 91-104.

Shen, J., & Darby, R. 2006. International training and management development in Chinese multinational enterprises. Employee Relations, 28, 342–362.

Steensma, H.K., Marino. L., Weaver, K.M., & Dickson P.H. 2000. The influence of national culture on the formation of technology alliances by entrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 951-973.

Stone-Romero, E.F., & Stone, D.L. 2002. Cross-cultural differences in responses to feedback: Implications for individual, group, and organizational effectiveness. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 21: 275-331. Stone-Romero, E.F., Stone, D.L., & Salas, E. 2003. The influence of culture on role

conceptions and behavior in organizations. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52: 328-362.

Triandis, H. C. 1993. Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes. Cross-Cultural Research, 27:155-180.

Triandis, H.C. 1994. Cross-cultural industrial and organizational psychology. In: Triandis, H.C., Dunnette, M.D. & Hough, L.M. (EDS.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.). CA: Consulting Psychologist.

Triandis, H.C. 1995. Individualism and collectivism, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Trice, H. M. & Beyer, J.M. 1993. The cultures of work organizations. NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. 1998. Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in global business (2nd ed.). New York: McGrew-Hill.

(29)

Velada, R., Caetano, A., Michel, J.W., Lyons B.D. & Kavanagh, M.J. 2007. The effects of training design, individual characteristics and work environment on transfer of training. International Journal of Training and Development, 11: 282-294.

Wang, G.G., & Wilcox, D. 2006. Training evaluation: knowing more than is practiced. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8(4): 528-539.

Wills, M. 1998. Managing the training process: Putting the principles into practice. Aldershot: Grower Publishing Company.

Wood, C.M. 2003. The effects of creating psychological ownership among students in group projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 25: 241-249.

(30)

TABLE 1 National Culture Dimensions Impact on Training Practices High power distance Trainer-centered training Low power distance _{Learner-centered training} High individualism _{Person training needs analysis}

Individually based outcome evaluation High collectivism _{Organizational training needs analysis}

Group-based outcome evaluation

High uncertainty avoidance _{More precise and detailed of training objectives} Didactic training methods

Low uncertainty avoidance _{Experiential training methods} Long-term orientation _{Strategic needs analysis}

(31)

FIGURE 1 CONCEPTUAL MODEL National Culture -Power Distance -Individualism/collectivism -Masculinity/femininity -Uncertainty Avoidance -Short-term/long-term Orientation

Human Resource Training -Training needs analysis -Training design

THE IMPACT OF NATIONAL CULTURE ON HUMAN RESOURCE TRAINING PRACTICES