The Cultural Context of Human Resource Development

Over the years, there has been considerable interest in the foundational areas of human resource development (HRD). Swanson (1995, 1999) has argued for a restricted number of foundational areas (economics, psychology, systems), whereas McLean (1998, 1999) has argued for a greatly extended set of foundational areas, including anthropology. Yet, searches of databases for “anthropology” and “HRD,” combined, yielded only two articles, neither of which was of much use in writing this chapter. All other results of the searches, including my articles, simply listed anthropology as one of many possible additional foundation areas to those offered by Swanson.

Although myths may often exceed reality, they, nonetheless, consciously and unconsciously influence the work paradigms that frame decision-making, values, perceptions, situational evaluation, and communication styles (Campbell, 1964; Otte, 1991). Occupational groups are culturally influenced by such assumptions (Hansen & Kahnweiler, 1997; Mapstone, 1993; Van Maanen & Barley, 1984). Like all belief systems, work myths are additionally influenced by societal cultures (d’Iribame, 1989; Hofstede, 1984; Laurent, 1986) and so the archetypes that shape occupational beliefs are vulnerable to misunderstanding and rejection when working with foreign colleagues (Hofstede et al., 1990). This reasoning led me to examine the cross-cultural transferability of HRD models where the belief systems embedded in the human side of work play a major role.

In the most recent French encyclopedia of human resources (Allouche, 2006), which includes over 200 entries, the phrase “Human Resource Development” does not appear. HRD has not formed into a well-established and clear concept or set of practices in France. This does not mean that French companies are not concerned With training, career development, and organizational development; they simply do not actively separate these activities from human resource management at large. Human resource developers are present in organizations, but their job includes a broad scope of tasks; generally, they are responsible for managing human resources in conjunction with organizational change. Beyond some differences in the scope of practices that may be included in the function, variations across countries are mainly concerned with meaning. Cultural contexts frame the interpretations and thus the implementations of organizational practices. To illustrate this diversity, this chapter focuses on empowerment and compares its meaning and implementation in the United States and France. Empowerment inherently involves HRD practitioners because it cannot be implemented without enabling people through training, and adjusting the organization through organizational development.

This chapter describes the evolution of HR practices in Spain, particularly the strategic management of HR. Prompted by recent political, economic, and social change, we have seen considerable and growing interest in a more holistic and systematic view of developing individuals and their organizations. In this chapter, note that we refer to HR or HRM, which are terms used in the Spanish business community. However, our focus is on the developmental side of the HR function. Key to understanding Spain’s recent transformation is the cultural malleability of its business system (Dickman, 1999; Ferner et al, 2001; Muller-Camen et al., 2001; Quintanilla, 1998). The concept of malleability is synonymous with the notion of flexibility; that is, Spanish managers are very open to new and sophisticated “best practices” from afar.

In May 2005, The NonProfit Times noted a landmark occasion: the Internal Revenue Service reported the registration of over 1.5 million nonprofit organizations. Today, just a few years later, reports (including those nonprofit organizations that operate without an official designation) estimate the total to be closer to 2 million. Moreover, research shows that nonprofit organizations have been growing at a rate of approximately 90,000 organizations per year, and the total number has double over the past ten years (Colin, 2005).

Training has never been more critical for organizations determined to achieve and maintain a competitive advantage (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001). Yet, despite a century of research on learning and training (Ford, 1997), effectiveness often is elusive (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 20011. The extent of failure is unknown because lew companies adequately plan or evaluate training (Roberson, Kulik, & Pepper, 2003; Saari, Johnson. McLaughlin, & Zimmerle, 1988), but one of the more optimistic estimates suggests no more than 15 percent of learning transfers to the job (Cromwell & Kolb, 2004). Along with wasting immeasurable time and billions of dollars, failed interventions contribule to the persistent undervaluing of the HRD/training profession (Shank, 1998), costly litigation (Eyres, 1998; Mitchell & Tetluck, 2006), and growing cynicism about the worth of any organizational change (Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2000).

Today’s organizations are faced with many multifaceted executive leadership challenges. These include competing in a more globalized work world, combating breaches in ethical and moral decision-making, retaining and developing talent, and leading within a more diversified structure. Furthermore, organizations realize that to maneuver these turbulent, deep, and unknown waters, they must have an experienced and qualified captain at the helm. Yet, the process of succession planning can create a situation that is tricky, extremely expensive, and disruptive, particularly in terms of performance and morale (Charan, 2004, 1994). Charan and Colvin (1999) as well as Conger and Nadler (2004) suggest that the problem is not in the plan itself, but in the execution of the plan. Execution problems may exist as a result of our underestimation of the importance of organizational culture and the role of members, top management, the incumbent, and the board (Cannella Jr & Lubatkin, 1993; Denis, Langley, & Pineault, 2000; Kets de Vries, 1988; Schein, 1992).