Theorizing advances in international human resource development

This article was downloaded by: [University of Sydney]On: 29 April 2013, At: 15:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Human Resource DevelopmentInternationalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhrd20

Theorizing advances in internationalhuman resource developmentDr Beverly Dawn Metcalfe a & Christopher J. Rees ba Hull University Business School, UKb Institute for Development Policy and Management, University ofManchester, UKPublished online: 17 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Dr Beverly Dawn Metcalfe & Christopher J. Rees (2005): Theorizing advancesin international human resource development, Human Resource Development International, 8:4,449-465

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678860500354601

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhrd20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678860500354601

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Theorizing Advances in InternationalHuman Resource Development

BEVERLY DAWN METCALFE* & CHRISTOPHER J. REES***Hull University Business School, UK, **Institute for Development Policy and Management, University

of Manchester, UK

ABSTRACT In recent presentations at HRD conferences in Europe and Asia, various papers haveidentified ‘Globalization and HRD’ as a growing area of intellectual inquiry. Our papercontributes to these theoretical explorations by attempting to map out the terrain of IHRD theoryand activity. Drawing on international HRM (IHRM), development economics and developmentsociology writings we propose that international HRD in the global arena can be categorizedunder three headings: ‘global HRD’, ‘comparative HRD’ and ‘national HRD’. We present adevelopment model as a way of analysing HRD. It is argued that this model can be viewed as aheuristic device that may be used to break down the components of IHRD and, in doing so,contributes to IHRD theory formulation and a greater understanding of HRD organizationpolicy and practice within an international context. Our theoretical discussion stresses thebroader social development orientations of education and HRD.

KEY WORDS: HRD, theory, international, globalization, HRM, social development

Globalization has paved the way for greater cross-cultural communication andnecessitated greater awareness of diverse management and business values asimportant aspects of competitiveness (Sklair, 2001; Sparrow et al., 2004; Kiesslingand Harvey, 2005). Globalization has also highlighted patterns of ‘uneven’ economicand social development and made more visible disparities in education and skilllevels (Stiglitz, 2002; UNDP, 2003b; World Bank, 2003). As a consequence, there hasbeen a growth in comparative and international HRD scholarship, both in terms ofunravelling the nuances of global HRD systems, and in identifying the societal andcultural practices that shape HRD and learning in different geographic locations(see, for example, Cho and McClean, 2004; Ashton et al., 2002; OECD, 2000).Among the HRD academic community, there have been emerging discussions of thenature and scope of international HRD (IHRD) that have revealed an underlying

Correspondence Address: Dr Beverly Dawn Metcalfe, Hull University Business School, Hull University,

Cottingham Road, Hull, HU7 7RX, UK. Email: [email protected]. Dr Chris Rees, Institute of

Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, Harold Hankins Building, The Precinct,

Oxford Road, Manchester, UK. Email: [email protected]

Human Resource Development International,Vol. 8, No. 4, 449 – 465, December 2005

ISSN 1367-8868 Print/1469-8374 Online/05/040449-17 � 2005 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13678860500354601

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

15:

57 2

9 A

pril

2013

conceptual ambiguity surrounding this term (Beer and Cannon, 2004). Arguably,this ambiguity may be traced back to confusion surrounding the term HRD andwhat it represents (McGoldrick et al., 2002; Walton, 2003). Unsurprisingly,therefore, it has been noted that, if we cannot define HRD, we will be unable todefine it either internationally or within specific country contexts (McLean andMcLean, 2001).

This paper is a response to these practical and theoretical debates. Whileacknowledging that there is fluidity and variety in the ways in which HRD processesare theorised and constructed (McGoldrick et al., 2002; Walton, 2003; Beardwell andHolden, 2001; Legge, 2004), we want to move the debate forward by mapping outdifferent knowledge and practice terrains that can be seen to influence HRD in theglobal domain. First, the paper reviews the development of HRD thinking andhighlights how HRD research has broadened its scope of intellectual inquiry(Lynham, 2000). We do this by drawing on literatures not normally covered in HRDwritings, but which we feel are complementary; namely, IHRM, developmenteconomics and development sociology. Second, we proceed to develop a model ofIHRD and its sub-components: global HRD, comparative HRD and national HRD.The model can be viewed as a heuristic device. It is suggested that separate HRDdefinitions and practices are not discrete; rather, they represent overlappingknowledge and practice boundaries. In surfacing the interconnections betweendifferent theoretical disciplines, we feel that we can contribute further to the idea ofHRD as an emerging discipline (Lee, 2003).

The Global Terrain of HRD Inquiry

HRD as a field of academic study is relatively recent and primarily of Americanorigin. Perhaps two of the main milestones in the emergence of the discipline of HRDare McLagan and Suhadolnik’s (1989) HR wheel that differentiated HRD from otherHR functions and the formation of the USA-based Academy of HRD. Asmanagement and organizational writers have noted, the field of HRD has expandedbeyond training and development to include a strong connection to corporatestrategy, individual responsibility for learning, extension into team learning, incor-poration of career development, an emphasis on internal consultancy, organizationallearning and knowledge management and the nurturing of the intellectual capital ofan enterprise (Easterby-Smith and Cunliffe, 2004; Walton, 1996).

There is not homogeneity in HRD intellectual inquiry. USA scholarship hascharted the intellectual history and origin of HRD within human development(psychology and education) and human capital (economics and management) (seeSwanson, 1990, 1995; also Becker, 1993). In the United Kingdom scholars havehighlighted the importance of culture, leadership and organizational learning ascomponents of HRD processes (see McGoldrick et al., 2002; Easterby-Smith andCunliffe, 2004). The terrain of HRD inquiry has thus perhaps always beenmultidisciplinary. Indeed, the Academy of HRD has promoted attempts to broadenthe definition and scope of HRD, as evidenced by recent papers in Academy journalsand key speaker presentations at European HRD and Asian HRD conferences (seeMcLean, 2003, 2004; Kessels, 2002; Kuchinke, 2002; Haworth and Winterton, 2004).A key area of inquiry has been to try and figure out the current boundaries of HRD

450 B. D. Metcalfe & C. J. Rees

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

15:

57 2

9 A

pril

2013

research, in order to aid both theoretical development and HRD practice. Forexample, the importance and value of incorporating a feminist/gender lens as part ofHRD theorizing (Bierema and Cseh, 2003; Metcalfe and Rees, 2004) is now beingemphasized. Recent scholarship has also considered how HRD contributes to thebroader goals of economic and social development (see Budhwani et al., 2004; Zidan,2001). Hatcher (2003) has also highlighted debates about the social and ethicalresponsibility of HRD, implying that HRD has a key role in developingcommunities.

In reviewing convergence and divergence in HRD roles and practices acrossEurope, Woodall et al. highlighted that ‘it has to be acknowledged that thecontextual factors in mainland Europe are an important influence upon HRDoutcomes’ (2002, p. 341). This incorporates an assessment of social and politicalenvironments, demographic changes and the stages of economic development(McLean and McLean, 2001; ILO, 2002). Consequently, Western scholars aresteadily extending their knowledge of HRD beyond those countries that seeminglyhave dominated Western interests (for example, Japan), with information aboutHRD in countries such as China, Thailand, Vietnam, Pakistan and India steadilyemerging (see, for example, Paprock, 2003; Cho and McLean, 2003; Pareek et al.,2002; Akaraborworn et al., 2003; Lien and McLean, 2001).

This proliferation of global HRD research suggests that we should, at least, bestarting to scratch the surface of the many socio-cultural variations that shape HRDphilosophies and practices. Yet, conversely, globalizing effects, such as the expansionof international markets, the accelerating speed of business transactions aided byinformation communication technologies and the internationalization of productionof MNCs, make it less easy to ascertain the nature of HRD practices at firm level.For example, Sklair (2001) argues that transnational organizations are reluctant toreveal the realities of training and employment practices especially in operations indeveloping nations. This suggests that the investigation of global, intra-firm andHRD knowledge developments is required to address broader economic and socialgoals such as to improve good governance systems and human resource capabilities(see ILO, 2002).

It is our contention that, despite the fact that research into HRD is now takingplace in many countries around the world, current IHRD scholarship that isgenuinely international in design and focus remains sparse and fragmented. This isnot to say that some progress in understanding IHRD has not taken place. Forexample, McGuire et al. (2002) have drawn attention to the culturally boundednature of HRD literature and practice. Similarly, McLean (2004) and Cho andMcLean (2004) have proposed separating out national HRD practices in relation towhether a country is a developed, developing or transitional society and also theextent to which HRD policy is centralized or decentralized. Perhaps most relevant tothis paper, one multi-level approach that includes the individual, the organizationand society positions the learner as central in HRD inquiry (Garavan et al., 2004).This lucid and thought-provoking model portrays conceptual linkages between thesedifferent levels in an attempt to develop HRD theory and practice. Overall, however,these writings have not linked to broader social theory research which seeks tounravel complex interactions between culture, institutions, societal norms andgovernment regulations (see, for example, Stiglitz, 2002; ILO, 2002; Edwards and

Theorizing Advances in IHRD 451

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

15:

57 2

9 A

pril

2013

Kuruvilla, 2005). If we are to advance theorizing there is a need to examine theserelationships further.

In summary, the terrain of IHRD inquiry must, therefore, be seen to be global if itis to be meaningful and comprehensive. Such an inquiry should be seen to includeconsideration of factors such as the variety and forms of different national businesssystems, the differential impact of globalization upon organizations within differentgeographical regions and the role of MNCs in devising global HRD practices. Ourattempt to map the field of IHRD, with reference to factors such as these, is furtheradvanced in the next section of the paper in which we review conceptualdevelopments in IHRM. As Woodall et al. (2002) have noted, IHRM can assistHRD researchers and practitioners who are seeking to explore, conceptualize andadvance the discipline of IHRD.

The Emergence of IHRM

The recognition of the significance of human resources to organizational output andgross domestic product (GDP) has resulted in a proliferation of IHRM research(Sparrow and Marchington, 1998; Sparrow et al., 2004; Legge, 2004). IHRMscholars can be categorized in various ways relating to their specific area of study,but all are concerned with the relationships between human resource processes,globalization and international business development. A useful way to distinguishbetween IHRM academics is to group those who study HRM processes in globalorganizations/MNCs1 separately from those who research broader social andcultural issues of HRM (Beardwell and Holden, 2001). (This dichotomy should notbe seen as fixed, but, rather, as transitory and socially and historically relevant.) Theformer group tends to consider the role of the international manager and expatriatemanagement, and related global HR systems, including recruitment and selectionand staffing decisions (for example, Scullion and Brewster, 2001). The latter group ismore diverse and has dealt with comparative issues in a purely intra-nationalcontext, as well as considering comparative employment and industrial relationssystems (see Brewster et al., 1996; Edwards and Kuruvilla, 2005). There is alsosubstantial interest in issues of culture and acculturation. Boxall nicely summarizesthe situation when he argues that IHRM research is concerned with HR problems inglobal stages that are ‘unfolding’ with the ‘various stages of the internationalizationprocess’ (Boxall, 1995, p. 5).

When Boxall wrote this statement, IHRM research and scholarship were still verymuch in their infancy. Since then, the field has blossomed into an area of specialistacademic expertise in its own right. In this paper we suggest that the field of IHRDcan, perhaps, be seen as developing in similar ways to IHRM, although it isimportant to interrogate the specific nuances that are helping shape specificallyIHRD knowledge and practices. An area that is certainly one of overlap isconceptual definition.

Universalizing Theory of IHRM

One area of academic inquiry that has concerned HRM scholars has been to tryand unravel HRM as a best practice associated with particular HR strategic


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

15:

57 2

9 A

pril

2013

interventions irrespective of societal contexts and industrial sectors (see Sparrowand Marchington, 1998; Legge, 2004). While there is clear evidence that ‘bundlesof HR practices’ (Huselid, 1995; Kiessling and Harvey, 2005) can yield greaterproductivity and organizational performance, there is now a high level ofambivalence (especially in the UK) towards the idea that HRM can be auniversalistic strategy, even though, in the mid-1990s, this line of reasoning didappear to dominate much international business thinking (Boxall, 1995). As Pieperstated so aptly, ‘HRM seems to be more of a theoretical construct than an appliedreality’ (1990, p. 18; see also Legge, 2004). The exploration of the rhetoric asopposed to the reality of HRM has even emerged as a line of inquiry in its ownright (Rees et al., 2004). Nevertheless, there is evidence that globalization isinfluencing a universalistic/one-way HRD approach (see Marquardt and Berger,2003).

While the performance paradigm has dominated IHRM theorizing and, as such,has intimated a concern for broader societal well-being (Boxall, 1995; Sparrow andMarchington, 1998), the role of the state in influencing and regulating HR policyand practice (aside from employment law regulations) has tended to be overlooked.Indeed, given the plethora of studies that have concentrated on Anglo-Americanorganizational practice, little has been said of the way in which governmentministries and international agencies can assist with (or complicate) the planningand development of relevant management systems (see Edwards and Kuruvilla,2005). As an example, one recently published 499-page edited text on IHRMcontains eighteen chapters written by many high-profile authors in the field, suchas Chris Brewster, Richard Hyman, Terence Jackson, Hugh Scullion, Keith Sissonand Malcolm Warner (Harzing and Ruysseveldt, 2004). Within these eighteenchapters, there is just one indexed reference to government (Government subsidies:p. 17), only two indexed references to state involvement/regulation (Stateinvolvement: pp. 175 – 6, 181), and no indexed references to the InternationalMonetary Fund, the World Bank or any UN agency, such as the InternationalLabour Organization (ILO). At a more general level, it does seem appropriate toquestion whether there is a widespread underlying assumption that IHRM is theprovince of private industry and associated employer organizations, perhapsreflecting the ‘free-market’ Reagan/Thatcher economic approach that underpinsmuch IHRM thinking. Yet even if correct for liberal democracies in the West, theaccuracy (or desirability) of this assumption is open to question in relation todeveloping and transitional economies.

The tendency in IHRM literature to eschew the necessity for state intervention andregulation in areas such as human capacity building is problematic. The traditionalfree-market anti-intervention position with which IHRM has become associated has,in practice, been challenged by many and, in some cases, in unlikely quarters. Thatis, global institutions, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), theInternational Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, while on the one handespousing the values of the free-market concepts, such as privatization andliberalization of trade, have, in recent times, found it necessary to recommenddirect state intervention in, for example, countries that are attempting to reconstructcivil society following war (for example, Iran and Iraq), civil war (for example,Sudan and Rwanda) and famine (for example, Sudan). Similarly, in situations of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

15:

57 2

9 A

pril

2013

political and economic upheaval, such as those faced by many of the former Sovietstates, global institutions, such as the UNDP and the World Bank, have workedclosely with state governments to improve what, in development management terms,is often referred to as a state’s ‘human capacity’.2 The IMF and World Bank, forexample, played a key advisory role in skills development policy for the Asian TigersSingapore, South Korea and Taiwan in the late 1980s and early 1990s (World Bank,1993). In fact, the World Bank report entitled, The State in a Changing World (WorldBank, 1997), specifically counters the view that a minimalist state is an optimalsolution for transitional economies. It describes this view as an extremist positionthat is at odds with the evidence of the world’s development success stories:‘Experience shows that the state is central to economic and social development, notas a direct provider of growth, but as its partner, catalyst, and facilitator’ (WorldBank, 1997, p. 5). We would go as far as to propose that a so-called ‘international’outlook on HR that fails to recognize the influence and activities of stategovernments and global institutions, such as the IMF and the World Bank (seeStiglitz, 2002), is not just incomplete but flawed. Thus, in seeking to drawenlightenment from the conceptual development of IHRM, we highlight the fact thatIHRM literature has, in the main, overlooked the necessity for and reality of stateintervention and regulation in IHRM processes. It is our proposition that thisrepresents a deficiency in IHRM literature that can be avoided when mapping outthe terrain of IHRD. The need to avoid a similar deficiency in IHRD research canbe, inter alia, highlighted specifically by considering the emergence of professionalHRD associations that attempt, as part of their remit, to influence state policy. Theseassociations have begun to organise and share best practice and managementknowledge, as well as to influence government policy (see Kuchinke, 2002). Threegood examples of this are the Kenyan Institute of Personnel Management, whichwas formed in 1995, the Bahrain Society for Training and Development formed in1989 and the Indian Academy of HRD, which was established in 1987.

The Social and Political Context of Learning and Development

While a great deal of HRD literature is concerned with learning processes and thelearners themselves, our view is to open further the terrain of IHRD inquiry toincorporate societal dimensions. In valuing the diversity of the IHRD researchagenda and its blurred intellectual boundaries, our view of IHRD is in essenceholistic. HRD can be conceptualized beyond its effects on individuals andorganizations; it has the potential to contribute at the societal level. We draw onhuman capital theory (see Nafukho et al., 2004) to help explain our reasoning here.Human capital theory addresses the macroeconomics relations of production andeconomic development. Its origins are rooted within Gary Becker’s (1993) concept ofhuman capital in economic development, that is, human competence, and theconsequences of investments in human competence. The theory portrays humancapabilities, including knowledge, skills and efforts, as integral parts of the capital ofa country, along with financial and natural resources (ILO, 2002; Zidan, 2001).

The theory of human capital is seen as central to debates about globalization(Stiglitz, 2002). The premise of this theory is that investments made in educating anddeveloping the workforce and developing their skills will pay dividends to a country


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

15:

57 2

9 A

pril

2013

that is seeking to improve its economic viability and industrial development.Similarly, the purpose of certain (though not all) elements of HRD is to train,educate and develop people within the social relations of the organization, with aview to enhancing employee productivity and organizational effectiveness. Aspreviously noted, the view that economic studies are important to understandingHRD processes has been raised by Swanson (1990, 1995) and Hatcher (2003). Thisperspective is embedded within the development economics and developmentsociology literature (see, for example, Sklair, 2001; Kuruvilla et al., 2002) and is alsoprevalent in the United Nations programme of human development. The humandevelopment index measures the average achievements of a country in relation tohealth, knowledge and education and standard of living (UNDP, 1990). Recentscholarship in development economics has focused on the significance of educationsystems and on a state’s ability to foster a learning society (ILO, 1997, 2002; OECD,2000). Within development sociology scholarship there has been a significant interestin learning environments in a broad societal context since they are interrelated withthe concepts of empowerment and transfer of knowledge (World Bank, 2003). It isargued that fostering developments that promote leaning in civil society andimproving educational opportunities will enable citizens to help establish governancesystems that embrace the philosophy of fairness, equity and advancements for all(Lewis, 2001; OECD, 2000).

The global terrain of IHRD is, therefore, complex and multi-faceted and bringstogether a range of scholarly disciplines and stakeholders in organizations,government and society. In the following we attempt to sketch a model that canpotentially be used to unravel IHRD processes and activities. However, first, weneed to define our intellectual territory; rather than wanting to establish boundaries,we want to try to surface inter-connections between existing literature andknowledge bases.

Theorizing International HRD

Given the above discussion, we propose that IHRD is a broad term that concernsprocesses that address the formulation and practice of HRD systems, practices andpolicies at the global societal and organizational level. It can concern itself with howgovernments and international organizations develop and nurture internationalmanagers and how they develop global HRD systems; it can incorporatecomparative analyses of HRD approaches across nations and also how societiesdevelop national HRD policies. In Figure 1 below we have shown these activities andrecognize that they are not necessarily distinct, but rather overlapping and mutuallysupportive. The dominant stakeholders represent those who have normally beenassociated with the area in terms of research and policy development.

Defining the Terms

Global HRD.3 This can be characterized as primarily being concerned with thestrategic development of HRD and OD systems and practices in the globalorganization. As Boxall (1995) stated, this amounts to ‘HRD on a larger scale’.Successful MNCs cite the importance of the need to train staff in an international


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

15:

57 2

9 A

pril

2013

environment. Global training and development has several benefits, includingincreased competitiveness, improved job satisfaction and retention of overseas staff,development of business in respect of sensitivity to cultural norms and values andimproved efficiencies in diverse business environments. Global HRD can occur at aninternational level (between nations), multinational level (many nations) andregional level (for example, Asia Pacific and Europe). The development oftransnational HR interventions is seen as especially important in policy areas ofglobal management development and in knowledge sharing and internationallearning communities (OECD, 2000). The differences of IHRD and domestic HRDare subtle but place additional demands on the management of the HRD system,including issues such as relocation, cultural reorientation and language translations(see Marquardt and Berger, 2003).

Comparative HRD. This field of study is much more broad-ranging and involvesanalysis of the institutional frameworks in which HRD and education practices are

Figure 1. Mapping the boundaries of IHRD


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

15:

57 2

9 A

pril

2013

culturally located. Here investigations will consider the interrelationship betweenlabour market institutions, such as the nature of collective bargaining, the systems ofvocational education and skills acquisition, plus the division of labour within theenterprise. Comparative studies can focus on private- and public-sector managerialand cultural practices but there can also be comparative assessments of governmentinitiatives and national HRD programmes. One example of such a study involves acomparison of EU and APEC HRD initiatives. The investigation highlighted howAPEC and the EU had developed institutional frameworks to support nationalvocational frameworks and lifelong leaning strategies (Haworth and Winterton,2004). IHRM scholars have also undertaken comparative assessments of globalmanagement MNC policies (Edwards and Kuruvilla, 2005). Hence, while we havepresented a structured model, we want to re-emphasize that these knowledgeboundaries are helpful as heuristic devices.

There is a limited amount of literature that addresses HRD professionals workingin different cultural environments. Studies have tended to focus on different trainingmethods and methodologies rather than on the cultural influences on the forms andrelations of HRD processes in different countries. An exception is the recent specialedition of Advances in Developing Human Resources (2004). The shortage ofcomparative HRD literature is an obstacle to understanding the role and nature ofHRD in various regions globally (see Paprock, 2003; Marquardt and Berger, 2003).

National HRD. This refers to the development of a ‘national’ policy of skillsdevelopment and is normally devised by governmental administration departments.HRD initiatives can be regionally oriented within a nation state or incorporatepartnerships with other governments. The partnership of APEC governments onvarious training and development projects (e.g. APEC cyber-education project) is agood example. The key point it is that it is the national government that hasresponsibility for HRD strategy implementation (ILO, 2003). Government admin-istrative agencies, especially within developing and transitional societies have alsodrawn on international codes for learning and training prepared by bodies such asthe ILO and OECD, which help form a blueprint of how nations, societies andcommunities can devise HRD policies and systems to support lifelong learning andemployability (see Kuruvilla et al., 2002; Ashton et al., 2002). Learning and Trainingfor Work in a Knowledge Society (ILO, 2002) and Knowledge Management in theLearning Society (OECD, 2000) are good examples of strategy documents that haveinfluenced national policy development. Both these policy documents stress theimportance of countries working to establish national frameworks for HRD andtraining that provide overall guidance on reform of education and training systems. Inthe Middle East, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman and the United Emirates all havenational human resource development programmes as part of their responses toglobalization processes (see UNDP, 2003b). It is important to stress that internationaldevelopment agencies like the ILO and UNDP are primarily advisory and researchfocused, establish international codes and guidelines that nations sign up to4 and alsoassist national governments with policy development. They are not responsible forimplementing national HRD policies. The ILO recently, in partnership with theKingdom of Bahrain, helped draft a new employment and training plan (Kingdom ofBahrain and ILO, 2002). Some countries have codified HRD frameworks in national


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

15:

57 2

9 A

pril

2013

legislation, such as theMalaysiaHRDAct (1992) and South Africa Skills DevelopmentAct (1998). These frameworks provide for the establishment of institutions to integrateHRD efforts and the nurturing of a common culture of learning and training between allstakeholders, governments, social partners, enterprises, individuals and civil society(ILO, 2002). The Korean Government, for example, places great emphasis ondeveloping an HRD national policy:

Talented human resources and a strong base of advanced knowledge andtechnology are the main sources of industrial competitiveness. Without a national-level effort at strategic and systematic management of human resources, it will bedifficult for Korea to catch up with the advanced industrial countries. If a highquality workforce can be secured, Korea will be able to overcome the limitationsimposed by geography and the economy of scale by importing raw materials fromoverseas and attracting foreign investment’

(Republic of Korea, 2004, p. 3)

Thus, while it should be acknowledged that international agencies such as the WTO,ILO and OECD have varying roles and interests in the global political economy inrelation to learning and education, and also have different socio-political relationswith governments (for detailed critique, see Stiglitz, 2002), our point is to highlightthat these agencies play a crucial role in assisting governments’ national humanresource development planning and policy development, something which tends tohave been glossed over in substantive HRD writings.5

Another group of organizations that have been ignored in both IHRM and IHRDwritings are NGOs and INGOs. Often financed and staffed (but not always) byinternational development agencies, NGOs support the development of nationalskills and development policies through, for example, expert consultant advice intraining and development (Lewis, 2001). Indeed, the role played by NGOs inbuilding civil society and engendering learning and change is widely recognizedwithin development sociology and development economics literature (Lewis, 2001;Sklair, 2001; Stiglitz, 2002). Employment in NGOs, especially in developing andtransitional economies, represents a significant labour market share, and thedevelopment focus of their activities represents important aspects of HRD oftenignored. At the Asian HRD conference, for example, there have been a sizeablenumber of delegates from the NGO sector, as well as a significant number ofacademics who are involved in NGO development practices. The Academy of HRDin India, for example, has undertaken team development training as part of anorganization restructuring strategy for Oxfam International. In addition, they arecurrently managing a programme for hundreds of Asian NGO’s entitled ‘Organiza-tion Renewal’ that aims to develop NGO leaders’ awareness of organizationdevelopment and succession planning. Another example is Action Aid in Pakistanwhich has a dedicated HRD/OD division to act as change management advisersacross NGO offices in Asia, as well as having responsibility for designing anddelivering, inter alia, training in women’s rights, capacity building and globalization.

A significant difference of IHRD in comparison to IHRM writings is, therefore,the community and social development orientation, and the fact that HRD is oftenincluded in national policy agendas. These national frameworks are also likely to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

15:

57 2

9 A

pril

2013

promote partnership relationships for learning between government, industry,NGOs and professional and labour institutions. The commitment to a nationalHRD policy to aid social and economic development is significant for many reasons,three of which we highlight here. First, skills requirements are continuously changingwith market conditions. This is not only the case in technologically driven economiesas evidenced in Asia, but also in other developing nations, for example, where theshift from an agricultural economy to a technological one is only just starting tohappen (for example, in South Africa). Second, as we have highlighted, there is agrowing recognition of the need to value and promote partnership approaches totraining and learning. Government and international development agencies inpartnership with industry can expand access opportunities for the socially margin-alized (ILO, 2002), and together address a broader social development reformagenda that includes poverty reduction, democratization and empowerment. It issuggested that these institutional frameworks and partnerships provide for a moreholistic approach to HRD planning (Ashton et al., 2002; Fitzgerald, 2000). Third,there are increasing calls for critical reviews of HRD relating to research and policy(Short et al., 2003). Thus, while it is assumed that investor strategies in training anddevelopment are important aspects of economic development, there needs to be morerigorous analyses of the ways in which government/international developmentinterventions, allied with public and private industry and social partnerships, havecontributed to societal development.

A Model for Investigating International HRD

In Figure 2 we have sought to integrate these ideas into a model for investigatingHRD from an international perspective. It is stressed that the model includesexamples of organizational factors that impact upon HRD effectiveness; as such, themodel is intended to be indicative rather than definitive. Thus, while Figure 1 isintended to identify and represent broad divisions, outlooks and dominantstakeholders associated with international HRD, Figure 2 is intended to portray amodel which could provide a basis for investigating the effectiveness of HRDstrategies with reference to these divisions, outlooks and stakeholders. Hence, if aresearch focus was placed upon an aspect of global HRD in a specific developingcountry (see Figure 1), we anticipate that this would be reflected in attention tofactors such as relevant UNDP strategies and policies, the history, economy andlegal framework of the country, the sector under scrutiny and the nature and featuresof the organizations in question. These organizations could be private or publicspecific to the country or MNCs. The implication is that assessment of HRD shouldincorporate the political economy of development (Sklair, 2001) and assessment ofdifferent business systems (Sklair, 2002; Whitley, 1999). This would involveevaluation of the economic power relations where the organization is operationalin many geographical regions since one of the findings of IHRM research has beenthe inconsistency in global HRM interventions, especially where countries have lessstrict regulatory environments. Thus, while there is much rhetoric about theuniformity of global management systems of MNCs, they vary significantlyaccording to socio-cultural and geo-political region (Legge, 2004). Research hasshown, for example, that the diversity and gender management policies of MNCs are


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

15:

57 2

9 A

pril

2013

less likely to be enforced in regions where there is little legislative protection, forexample most nations in Asia (see Hearn et al., 2005).

It is apparent from Figure 2 that we see attempts to define effective HRDstrategies as inextricably incorporating contextual international, national andorganizational variables; indeed, we propose that the term ‘effective HRD strategies’is highly situation-dependent. That is, we propose that the effectiveness of HRDstrategies must be investigated with reference to factors such as the policies ofinternational agencies and institutions, national culture (including legal frameworksand the labour market) and the sector in which an organization is operating, as wellas the mission, management and resources of an organization. We are aware thatthis may be a controversial statement in an era that has included attempts to produceinternational as well as national standards and frameworks for various professions.Nevertheless, despite the subsequent difficulties that may be attached to research inthis area, we maintain our position that standards for, and hence analysis of, HRD

Figure 2. A model for investigating international human resource development


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

15:

57 2

9 A

pril

2013

strategies have to be considered with reference to context-specific factors, such asthose referred to in Figure 2. Using vocabulary often associated with writings onethics, we argue that attempts to investigate international HRD should be basedupon relative as well as absolute criteria.

Conclusion

The foregoing discussion has attempted to map the global terrain of HRDintellectual inquiry. A central tenet of this discussion is that HRD can play a role indeveloping and shaping industrial competitiveness and overall advancement ofsocietal well-being. As Marquardt and Berger stated, ‘HRD significantly influencesthe local and national economy through the development of workforce skills andintellectual capital’ (2003, p. 286).

In our discussion we have not sought to place limitations upon the scope of HRD.In fact, we see HRD as encompassing a diverse range of activities that affect the livesof people both in terms of their experiences as employees and, as importantly, as theyaffect fundamental human rights. Thus, we see a developing country’s educationpolicy, designed to improve national literacy levels (Rees, 2004), as a mainstreamHRD initiative. As UNDP (1990) has argued, literacy is a fundamental human right;it is a person’s first step in learning and knowledge building. Our stanceacknowledges the socio-cultural and political context within which learning anddevelopment occur, as opposed to a purely organization-bound learning environ-ment. It also supports commentators who stress the importance of the HRDprofession having a social responsibility beyond tightly defined employment-relatedboundaries: ‘HRD has a responsibility to create a profession that is morallyresponsible, beyond economic short sighted economic gain, behaviourally orientedpsychological fulfilment or bounded or limited worldviews’ (Hatcher, 2003, p. 53). Itis our view that, at this early stage of the development of the discipline, IHRDtheorists and practitioners can engage in vicarious learning by recognizing mistakesthat others have made, particularly in the field of IHRM, where economicdevelopment has, on occasions, been treated discretely from social development.

In this paper we have sought to highlight the role played in IHRD by a widevariety of institutions such as UN agencies, the World Bank and national HRDprofessional bodies. It follows that a variety of social and industrial frameworks caninfluence corporate advancement (Ashton et al., 2002; Fitzgerald, 2000; Whitley,1999). Significantly, the examples cited here in relation to, for example, Asia suggestthe importance of continuing people management and development analyses. Asianeconomies are signalling the importance of the interdependence and interrelation-ships between HRD practices at firm, national and international levels, alongside co-operation with employer/industry sectors, and these relationships must beinvestigated further (Han, 2001). Complementing these moves is the need forHRD practitioners and professional associations to lead skills development tosupport fair and globalizing work practices (Kuchinke, 2002; Hatcher, 2003;Marquardt and Berger, 2003). We have sought to take these analyses further byarguing that any ‘international’ brand of HR theory that is so wedded to economicadvancement that it neglects wider social factors and concerns is both partial anddeficient. In this sense, we would rephrase the question ‘Is HRD a subset of HRM or


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

15:

57 2

9 A

pril

2013

an independent – albeit linked domain?’ (Walton, 2003, p. 319) to incorporateanother hypothesis, that is, is ideologically charged HRM a subset of HRD?

Within the spirit of continuing professional development, we are not hesitant tostate that the thinking that underlies this paper has questioned our own outlook onIHRD. As authors who have worked in and published research about a range ofnon-Western countries, we have been challenged to consider how much of ouractivity, in itself, is genuinely international in focus. One of the major futurechallenges for IHRD researchers, including us, is to synthesize the valuable body ofnational and comparative scholarship that has emerged in recent years in order todevelop both the clarity and contribution of the field of IHRD. Future researchagendas should therefore focus on filling the knowledge gaps identified in this paperand this primarily involves further broadening out the knowledge terrain of HRDscholarly inquiry. There should be increasing acknowledgement that internationalHRD as a discipline is multidisciplinary, and needs to engage actively with, andintegrate literatures from, the social sciences, including economics, sociology, genderstudies and politics, as well as incorporate mixed method research approaches(Kiessling and Harvey, 2005). Unravelling the fabric of global phenomena shouldinclude assessment of the complex interactions of culture, institutions, societal normsand government regulations (see Edwards and Kuruvilla, 2005; Stiglitz, 2002). Thisis perhaps a challenge for USA-based research where HRD is often positionedwithin adult education university departments comprised primarily of educationspecialists. It is also a challenge in Europe and Asia where HRD researchers arelikely to be affiliated to business schools. While business schools often unite manyacademic experts in international economics, sociology, business strategy and so on,they often lack expertise in, for example, adult education.

Finally, in terms of advancing the research base of IHRD: first, there is a need forscholars to continue investigating cross-cultural differences in HRD systems andpractices. Second, there is a need to examine further the HRD strategic priorities ofinternational development agencies, specifically partnership arrangements withnational governments and professional agencies and NGOs. Relatedly, a critiqueof the role of INGOs and NGOs and their importance in learning and capacitybuilding is required. These themes resonate with development sociologists anddevelopment economists, some of whom are aiming to unpack global trade systemsand power relations that continue to reaffirm ‘uneven’ patterns of developmentglobally (Stiglitz, 2002). If we are to advance theorizing in IHRD we need tointerrogate these networks and interrelations. Above all, international HRDresearch needs to move beyond exploring learning encounters that are organizationbound, to examining the socio-cultural contexts and political and economicenvironments in which learning is experienced, produced and reproduced.

Notes

1 Please note we use the more common term MNC rather than TNC. In most cases MNCs are privately

owned though some international/region corporations also have controlling government influence (for

example, Saudi Aramco). TNC is the preferred term in developmental sociology and, according to

Sklair (2002), is the major locus of transnational economic practices. TNCs provide ‘the material base

for a transnational capitalist class that unquestionably dictates economic transnational practices, and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

15:

57 2

9 A

pril

2013

is the most important single force in the struggle to dominate political and culture-ideology

transnational practices’ (Sklair, 2002, p. 9). In other words TNCs have more power than governments.

2 It is noteworthy that, in the case of the UNDP, country-specific publications on human capacity (for

example, see UNDP, 2003a) are issued under a general series title of National Human Development

Report.

3 It is important to stress conceptual debates that have evolved in IHRM writings. In the early stages of

HRM theorizing there was a tendency for any research paper that discussed HR systems outside

Western corporations to be seen as international (Sparrow et al., 2004). To rectify this conceptual

confusion there is acknowledgement of global/transnational research that incorporates analysis of

international organizations management systems in many countries and comparative HRM, involving

detailed socio-cultural assessment of one or more nations (Brewster et al., 1996). The current Academy

of Management Division of International Business, for example, specifies that international research

must include at least two countries.

4 In 1975 the ILO agreed its first HRD policy document (Convention No. 142 and Recommendation

No. 150) which represented ‘a valid blueprint to guide countries in developing their training policies

and systems’ (ILO, 2002: 3). The recommendations are regularly updated and the Learning and

Training for Work in the Knowledge Society Report IV (2002) is the most recent which is relevant to

IHRD.

5 As previously highlighted, discussion of IHRM has tended to assume a Western capitalist mode of

development. Economic structures in Asian and Middle Eastern countries are significantly different with

substantial sectors controlled and owned by government.

References

Akaraborworn, C. T., Osman-Gani, A. M. and McLean, G. (2003) Human Resource Development in Asia:

National Policy Perspectives (Thailand: AHRD/NIDA).

Ashton, D., Green, F., Sung, J. and James, D. (2002) The evolution of education and training strategies in

Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea: a development model of skill formation, Journal of Education and

Work, 15(1), pp. 5 – 30.

Becker, G. (1993) Human Capital (New York: Columbia University Press).

Beardwell, I. and Holden, L. (2001) HRM: A Comparative Perspective (London: Pitman).

Beer, M. and Cannon, M. D. (2004) Promise and peril in implementing pay for performance, Human

Resource Management, 43(1), pp. 49 – 67.

Bierema, L. L. and Cseh, M. (2003) Evaluating AHRD using a feminist research framework, Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 14(10), pp. 5 – 26.

Boxall, P. (1995) Building the theory of comparative HRM, Human Resource Management Journal, 5(5),

pp. 5 – 17.

Brewster, C., Tregaskis, O., Hegewisch, A. and Mayne, L. (1996) Comparative research in HRM: a review

and an example, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(3): 585 – 604.

Budhwani, N. N., Wee, B. and McLean, G. (2004) Should child labour be eliminated? Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 15(1), pp. 107 – 16.

Cho, E. and McLean, G. N. (2004) What we discovered about NHRD and what it means for HRD,

Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(3), pp. 382 – 93.

Easterby-Smith, M. P. V. and Cunliffe, A. (2004) From reflection to practical reflexivity: experiential

learning as lived experience, in: P. M. Reynolds and R. Vince (Eds) Organizing Reflection (Aldershot:

Ashgate), pp. 30 – 46.

Edwards, T. and Kuruvilla, S. (2005) International HRM: national business systems, organizational

politics and the international division of labour in MNCs, International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 16(1), pp. 1 – 21.

Fitzgerald, R. (2000) Asian business systems and economic development: trade, finance and

industrialisation, Asia Pacific Business Review, 7(2), pp. 1 – 16.

Garavan, T. N., McGuire, D. and O’Donnell, D. (2004) Exploring human resource development: a levels

of analysis approach, Human Resource Development Review, 3(4), pp. 417 – 41.

Han, S. (2001) Creating systems for lifelong learning in Asia, Asia Pacific Education Review, 2(2), pp. 90 –

105.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

15:

57 2

9 A

pril

2013

Harzing, A. and Ruysseveldt, J. V. (Eds) (2004) International Human Resource Management, 2nd edn

(London: Sage).

Hatcher, T. (2003) World views that inhibit HRD’s social responsibility, in: M. Lee (ed.) HRD in a

Complex World (London: Routledge).

Haworth, N. and Winterton, N. (2004) HRD policies and the supra-state: a comparative analysis of EU

and APEC experience. Paper presented to the Fifth Conference on HRD Research and Practice across

Europe: International, Comparative and Cross Cultural Dimensions, Limerick, 27 – 8 May.

Hearn, J., Metcalfe, B. and Piekarri, R. (2005) Gender and international human resource management, in:

I. Bjorkman and G. Stahl (Eds) Handbook of International HRM (London: Edward Elgar).

Huselid, M. A. (1995) The impact of HRM practices on turnover, productivity and financial performance,

Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), pp. 635 – 72.

ILO (1997) HRD in Asia and Pacific in the 21st century. Paper presented to ILO workshop on Employers’

Organizations in Asia Pacific, Turin, 5 – 13 May.

ILO (2002) Learning for Training and Work in a Knowledge Society, Report 92 IV (1) (Geneva: ILO).

ILO (2003) Lifelong Learning in Asia and Pacific, ILO Regional Tripartite Meeting, Bangkok, Thailand,

11 – 13 December (Geneva: ILO).

Kessels, J. (2002) Perspectives of HRD in Europe. Third Conference on HRD Research and Practice

across Europe: Creativity and Innovation in Learning, Edinburgh, 25 – 6 January.

Kiessling, T. and Harvey, M. (2005) Strategic global human resource management research in the twenty-

first century: an endorsement of the mixed-method research methodology, International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 16(1), pp. 22 – 45.

Kingdom of Bahrain and ILO (2002) Employment, Social Protection and Social Dialogue (Geneva: ILO).

Kuchinke, P. (2002) Comparing national systems of HRD: role and function of post-baccalaureate HRD

course of study in the UK and US. Third Conference on HRD Research and Practice across Europe:

Creativity and Innovation in Learning, Edinburgh, 25 – 6 January.

Kuruvilla, S., Erickson, L. and Hwang, L. (2002) An assessment of the Singapore skills development

system: does it constitute a viable model for other developing countries?, World Development, 30(4),

pp. 1461 – 72.

Lee, M. (Ed.) (2003) HRD in a Complex World (London: Routledge).

Legge, K. (2004) HRM: Rhetorics and Realities, anniversary edn (Basingstoke: Palgrave).

Lewis, D. (2001) The Management of NGOs (London: Routledge).

Lien, Y. H. and McLean, G. N. (2001) What it is like to be a Taiwanese practitioner performing HRD

tasks, in: Academy of HRD Conference Proceedings, pp. 11 – 17 (Baton Rouge, LE: AHRD).

Lynham, S. (2000) Theory building in the HRD profession, Human Resource Development Quarterly,

11(2), pp. 159 – 78.

McGoldrick, J., Stewart, J. and Watson, S. (2002) Researching HRD: philosophy, process and practice, in:

Understanding HRD: A Research Based Approach (London: Routledge).

McGuire, D., O’Donnell, D., Garavan, T., Saha, S. and Murphy, J. (2002) The cultural boundedness of

theory and practice in HRD?, Cultural Management, 9(2), pp. 25 – 44.

McLagan, R. A. and Suhadolnik, D. (1989) Models for HRD Practice (Alexandra, VA: ASTD).

McLean, G. (2003) National HRD keynote lecture. 2nd Asian Academy of HRD Conference, National

Institute of Development Administration, Bangkok, 30 November–2 December, Thailand.

McLean, G. (2004) National human resource development: what in the world is it? Keynote lecture. 5th

International Conference on HRD Research across Europe, Limerick, 27 – 8 May, University Forum of

HRD Conference Proceedings.

McLean, G. and McLean, L. (2001) If we can’t define HRD in one country, how can we define it in an

international context?, Human Resource Development International, 4(3), pp. 313 – 26.

Marquardt, M. and Berger, N. O. (2003) The future: globalisation and new roles for HRD, Advances in

Developing Human Resources, 5(3), pp. 283 – 96.

Metcalfe, B. D. and Rees, C. J. (2004) A critical review of gender and HRD research. Paper presented to

the fifth Conference on HRD Research and Practice Across Europe, Limerick, 27 – 8 May.

Nafukho, F. M., Hairston, N. R. and Brooks, K. (2004) Human capital theory: implications for human

resource development, Human Resource Development International, 7(4), pp. 545 – 51.

Paprock, K. (2003) A review of HRD research in East Asia, unpublished paper.

Pareek, U., Osman-Gani, A. M., Ramnarayan, S. and Rao, T. V. (Eds) (2002) Human Resource

Development in Asia: Trends and Challenges (New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

15:

57 2

9 A

pril

2013

Pieper, R. (1990) Human Resource Management: An International Comparison (Berlin: de Gruyter).

OECD (2000) Knowledge Management in a Learning Society (Paris: OECD).

Republic of Korea (2004) Human Resource Knowledge: New Take-Off (Seoul: Ministry of Education and

Human Resource Development).

Rees, C. J. (2004) Illiteracy, in: T. Forsyth (Ed.) Encyclopedia of International Development (London:

Routledge).

Rees, C. J., Jarualt, J. and Metcalfe, B. D. (2005) Career management in transition: HRD themes from the

Estonian Civil Service, Journal of European Industrial Training, 29(7), pp. 572 – 92.

Scullion, H. and Brewster, C. (2001) The management of expatriates: messages from Europe, Journal of

World Business, 36(4), pp. 346 – 65.

Short, D. C., Bing, J. W. and Kehrhahn, M. T. (2003) Will human resource development survive?, Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 14(3), pp. 239 – 43.

Sklair, L. (2002) Globalisation: Capitalism and its Alternatives (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Sparrow, P. and Marchington, M. (1998) HRM: A New Agenda (London: Financial Times Pitman).

Sparrow, P., Harris, H. and Brewster, C. (2004) Globalising Human Resource Management (London:

Routledge).

Stiglitz, J. (2002) Globalization and its Discontents (New York: Norton).

Swanson, R. A. (1990) Experience: a questionable teacher, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 1(1),

pp. 1 – 4.

Swanson, R. A. (1995) HRD: performance is the key, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6(2),

pp. 207 – 13.

UNDP (1990) Human Development Report: Defining and Measuring Human Development (New York:

UNDP).

UNDP (2003a) Human Capacity of Belarus: Economic and Social Responses (New York: UNDP).

UNDP (2003b) Arab Human Development Report (New York: UNDP).

Walton, J. S. (1996) The provision of learning support for non-employees, in: J. Stewart and J.

McGoldrick (Eds) Human Resource Development: Perspectives, Strategies and Practice, pp. 120 – 37

(London: Pitman).

Walton, J. S. (2003) How shall a thing be called? An argument on the efficacy of the term HRD, Human

Resource Development Review, 2(3).

Whitley, R. (1999) Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change of Business Systems (Oxford:

Oxford University Press).

Woodall, J., Alker, A., McNeil, C. and Shaw, S. (2002) Convergence and divergence in HRD across

Europe, in: J. McGoldrick, J. Stewart, and J. Watson (Eds) Understanding HRD (London: Routledge).

World Bank (1993) The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy, World Bank Policy

Research Report (New York: Oxford University Press).

World Bank (1997) World Development Report 1997: The State in a Changing World (New York: Oxford

University Press).

World Bank (2003) Trade, Investment and Development in the Middle East and North Africa (Washington,

DC: World Bank).

Zidan, S. S. (2001) The role of HRD in economic development, Human Resource Development Quarterly,

12(4), pp. 437 – 43.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

15:

57 2

9 A

pril

2013

Documents

Theorizing advances in international human resource development