2016 GLobal HRD A Systems Perspective UFHRD 2016 ... · PDF fileGlobal Human Resource...
Transcript of 2016 GLobal HRD A Systems Perspective UFHRD 2016 ... · PDF fileGlobal Human Resource...
1
Global Human Resource Development: A Systems Perspective
Dr Alma McCarthy J.E. Cairnes School of Business and Economics
NUI Galway Ireland
Prof Thomas Garavan Edinburgh Napier University
Edinburgh Scotland
Prof Michael Morley Kemmy Business School
University of Limerick Ireland
REFEREED PAPER
Submitted to the Global, Comparative and Cross Cultural Dimensions of HRD Steam at the 17th International Conference on HRD Across Europe
Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK 8-10 June 2016
2
Global Human Resource Development: A Systems Perspective
Abstract
Given the complex and multi-tiered nature of HRD systems (McLagan, 1989), it is
critical to explore how multilevel system elements impact global HRD. Despite the
general acceptance of the need for adopting systems perspectives and system
theory in HRD scholarship, much of the HRD research to-date is narrowly focused
on individual and organisational issues at mostly micro and meso levels of analysis.
This paper addresses this gap by applying the tenets of systems theory to analyse
global HRD systems, processes, actors, institutions, and outcomes. The paper
commences by proposing the dimensions of a global HRD construct which extends
current notions of global HRD. The political, social, economic, and cultural influences
on global HRD are reviewed representing external and input dimensions of systems
theory. HRD institutions, actors, and systems of HRD including VET and
organisational level influences are discussed as the process elements of systems
theory impacting global HRD. The paper sets out some commonalities and
differences in systems of HRD across the globe and enables the identification and
analysis of global issues facing HRD in a global context. One such issue is the
adequate supply of appropriately skilled labour to meet the changing and demanding
needs of business and society in the years ahead. Most countries and regions face
this problem regardless of environmental system elements such as economic
prosperity, social or political systems.
Keywords
Global HRD, systems theory; HRD
3
1. Introduction
There has been an evolution in the Human Resource Development (HRD) field in
recent years towards examining different systemic approaches to HRD to
complement the focus on individual and organisational levels of analysis that has
tended to dominate the literature. Allied to this, there is the debate on globalisation
as a driving force for the spread of ideas and practices which has acted as a
trajectory for the promotion of international and global HRD as a field of enquiry (Kim
& McLean, 2012; Garavan & Carbery, 2012; Wang & McLean, 2007). Global
perspectives, vested in more macro comparative approaches to HRD are less
common, though growing in popularity. As a point of departure, this paper proposes
the dimensions of a global HRD construct which extends the concept of global HRD
beyond the development of competencies and skills for effective management and
leadership in international settings. The latter has tended to dominate concepts of
global HRD to date (Kim and McLean, 2012; Marquardt, Berger & Loan, 2004) but
we argue here that global HRD as a construct should include broader social,
economic and political goals. However, extending the global HRD construct in such
a multilevel manner requires a concomitant multidimensional and contextualised
framework through which to analyse the various influences on global HRD and we
argue here that systems theory provides an appropriate lens through which to do so.
This paper makes a number of important contributions to the literature. First, it
extends our understanding of global HRD by proposing the dimensions of a global
HRD construct. Numerous authors have called for research which furthers our
understanding and differentiation of global and international notions of HRD
(Metcalfe & Rees, 2005; Kim & McLean, 2012) and Garavan and Carbery (2012)
specifically call for more research to illuminate our understanding of a global HRD
construct and its dimensions. Second, we employ a broad systems perspective to
understand HRD policy and practice across the globe addressing calls for (i) more
research on systems theory and HRD and (ii) HRD research that focuses on
multilevel, more expansive and more systems based issues (Ardichvili, 2008;
Jacobs, 2014; McLagan, 1999; Swanson, 1999; Torraco, 2015; Wang et al., 2015;
Yawson, 2012). Much attention in the HRD literature is focused on policy and
practice at organisational level and does not adequately take account of the impact
of the environment. Indeed, Yorks and Nicolaides (2006) observed that much HRD
4
theory and research treat organisational systems as complicated linear systems
rather than dynamic, nonlinear interdependent systems. There is growing consensus
among HRD commentators that the achievement of a true understanding of national
and global HRD must include an analysis of the underlying historical, socio-political,
cultural and institutional context within which HRD has emanated and developed as
well as employing multilevel analyses (Garavan & Carbery, 2012; Lee et al., 2009;
Swanson, 1996; Wang et al., 2015). von Bertalanffy’s (1968;1972) systems theory is
a useful lens to analyse and understand complex adaptive systems comprising many
different components, agents or institutions which interact in non-linear and complex
ways. This theoretical framework is particularly relevant to furthering our
understanding of global HRD because it acknowledges that processes such as HRD
are impacted by the complex interplay of diverse and varied factors in the
environment at national and regional levels. This environment includes economic,
social, contextual and political factors determining HRD practice and recognizes the
multi-level nature of such influences including micro, meso and macro level
influences.
Third, to the authors’ knowledge, it is the first time that a systems analysis of global
HRD is attempted and includes many countries and regions which, heretofore, have
not featured in HRD notions and discussions at an international or global level. To
date, HRD scholarship has been most significantly influenced by US and UK
discourse (Metcalfe and Rees, 2005), with European and Asian contributions being
more visible in recent times. Such traditions have inevitably led to variation in how
HRD is conceptualised, what level of analysis is emphasised, the nature of whom it
is it serves and whether HRD is good for organisations and society. More recent
European contributions emphasise a composite blend of individual, organisational
and national systems concerns and the primacy of learning as an underlying process
of HRD (Tjepkema, Stewart, Sambrook, Mulder, Ter Host and Schwerens, 2002).
This paper includes analysis of global HRD with some seminal insights into regions
and countries either inadequately represented or not represented at all in the
literature. The paper, therefore, extends the HRD debate to include analyses of
under-researched HRD systems.
5
Fourth, this paper enables the identification and analysis of issues facing global HRD
and proposes a number of outcomes of global HRD. While some of the HRD
challenges regions and countries face or regio- or country-specific, in other cases,
issues have relevance across many regions. One such issue is the adequate supply
of appropriately skilled labour to meet the changing and demanding needs of
business and society in the years ahead as an outcome of the HRD system. Most
countries and regions face this problem regardless of environmental system
elements such as economic prosperity, social or political systems. Yawson (2012)
criticises the discourse on HRD and systems theory for failing to move beyond broad
discussions of systems theory to any detailed treatise of specific HRD systemic
elements and their interplay. This paper addresses this criticism by providing a
detailed analysis of environmental, institutional, and organisational system elements
to further our understanding of global HRD and global HRD outcomes.
The paper commences with proposing the dimensions of a global HRD construct. A
review of systems theory and its application to global HRD is then presented. We
then turn our attention to exploring the political, social, economic, cultural,
institutional and organisational influences on global HRD as well as examining global
HRD outcomes. The last section of the paper discusses the value of adopting a
systems perspective to understand global HRD, discusses the key global HRD
themes and challenges to emerge from our analysis of global HRD, and sets out the
limitations of the research.
2. Global HRD
Over the past couple of decades, HRD discourse has extended its focus from
individuals and organisations to incorporate debates about the nature of international
and global HRD. Garavan and Carbery (2012) argue that the focus on international
HRD emanates from globalisation of markets and talent, technological innovation
and changes in organisational structures and forms and argue that globalisation
makes is necessary to consider the emergence of a global HRD construct.
The challenges of defining, scoping and setting construct boundaries for global HRD
are considerable. McLean and McLean (2001) caution that due to challenges in
defining HRD at a national context, understanding international and global HRD is
6
inevitably problematic across different countries and regions. Notwithstanding these
challenges, some progress has been made in advancing our understanding of a
global HRD construct. Garavan, McCarthy and Morley (2016) draw on Morley’s
(2007) distinct but overlapping trajectories of national boundary spanning research to
understand global HRD. First, the international trajectory provides insight into HRD
strategies, systems and practices in MNCs and how they impact the global HRD
field. Second, the comparative trajectory underlines the criticality of context,
systems, institutional and economic regimes in understanding global HRD. Third,
the cross-cultural trajectory focuses on the influence of historical and contemporary
national and societal culture on notions of global HRD.
These research trajectories highlight the complex interplay of multilevel factors
including social, political, cultural, economic and institutional factors in understanding
global HRD as a construct. Indeed, HRD originated from a humanistic and
developmental focus (Ruona, 2000) and criticism has been levelled at the extent to
which the HRD field turned its attention to individual and organisational performance
to the detriment of broader social and human capital development ambitions (Kania
and Kramer, 2011; McGraw and Kramer, 2016). Our concept of global HRD extends
beyond the development of competencies and skills required for staff to operate
effectively in international settings or training and development concerns of
organisations operating at a global level, which has been the focus of much of the
global HRD discourse to date (see, for example, Boxall, 1995; Metcalfe & Rees,
2005; Kim and McLean, 2012). Such broadening of the construct of global HRD
beyond cross-cultural training of managers and expatriates aligns with Metcalfe and
Rees (2005: 456) argument that “global HRD can occur at an international level
(between nations), multinational level (many nations) and regional level (for example,
Asia Pacific and Europe).” We argue here that global HRD is a multilevel construct
operating in an open system which can address multiple objectives including social,
economic and political goals. It is not simply a performance- and organisation-based
construct; it is concerned with human capital development and enhancement across
geographic regions, global communities, countries, organisations and individuals. It
is multilevel in that it is a contextualised concept recognising the unique
characteristics of different countries and regions culturally, economically and
developmentally. It takes account of heritage and historical development of
7
institutions and involves the complex and dynamic interplay of multiple actors and
institutions. Systems theory provides an instructive theoretical lens through which to
examine such a variegated and multilevel construct such as global HRD.
2. HRD and Systems Theory
Systems theory provides an interdisciplinary framework to describe and understand
how elements of complex systems interact in concert to produce outcomes
(Boulding, 1956; von Bertalanffy, 1968; Yawson, 2012). It is concerned with
describing the interactions among a system’s elements and subsystems and how
these interact with the environment. When exploring organisational phenomena,
such systems are multilevel and incorporate elements operating at sub-system level,
for example, units or Departments within an organisation and the organisational
entity itself, the industry or sector within which the organisation operates, the broader
cultural, socio-economic and political system within which the organisation is located
and the ecological system. Torraco (2015: 147) warns that “without systems theory,
we risk overlooking dimensions of human and organisational phenomena
marginalised or omitted by our disciplinary and ideological perspectives”. However,
the challenge of adopting a systems perspective in social science research is
underlined by Boulding (1956) who refers to the inevitable breath and scope of focus
that a systems perspective requires which can be unwieldy. Yawson (2012) argues
that the use of systems theory in HRD is intellectually demanding and needs to take
a wide range of trends, actors, events and patterns into account. Given the
complexity and magnitude of variables of potential relevance to any study of
organisational phenomena, it is, therefore, not surprising that HRD research to date
has not made significant advances in adopting a systems perspective. This paper
aims to address this gap.
In the context of HRD, systems theory has been a key aspect of HRD scholars’
debates on the theoretical foundations of HRD. Jacobs (1999) proposed systems
theory as a unifying theory for furthering our understanding of HRD and McLagan
(1989) proposed a tiered view of systems impacting HRD. While there is growing
consensus on the value of systems theory to advance our understanding of the
theoretical foundations of HRD (Toracco, 2015; Wang et al., 2015), there is a dearth
of research employing a systems perspective, empirically or conceptually, in
8
understanding HRD policy, practice and outcomes at national and global levels.
Metcalfe and Rees (2005: 451) argue that HRD research to-date “has not linked to
broader social theory research which seeks to unravel complex interactions between
culture, institutions, societal norms and government regulations”.
A HRD system can be viewed as a transformation model which receives inputs and
transforms these inputs in some way to produce outcomes. This paper is interested
in the environmental and institutional influences that impact upon global HRD. By so
doing, we address a gap in understanding the broader macro and environmental
influences on HRD beyond individual and organisational effects which have received
greater attention in the research to date. Furthermore, analysing HRD system
elements in different regions and countries across the globe provides a useful
opportunity to learn about system elements which enable more effective global HRD
practice and outcomes. Some of these system elements might be useful for other
regions or countries to learn from and adapt as appropriate.
3. Environment & Inputs: Political, Social, Economic and Cultural Influences
on Global HRD
Garavan and Carbery (2012) argue that HRD is influenced by different cultures,
languages, business environments, physical locations and ways of doing business.
These context and environmental differences are critical elements affecting the
global HRD system as they impact the inputs, processes and outcomes of HRD.
This section focuses on three key macro level environmental factors impacting on
global HRD.
3.1 Socio-Cultural Influences
Metcalfe and Rees (2005) argue that there are many socio-cultural influences that
impact on global HRD. However, the focus on micro and meso issues in HRD
research has resulted in a lack of research on the impact of socio-cultural issues on
HRD. There is a much more developed literature on socio-cultural influences on
HRM with extensive research on international HRM informed by theories of
convergence and divergence, universalism versus contextualism and global mobility
(Brewster et al., 2004; McGaughey & DeCiri, 1999; Morley, 2007). Given the
insights about the importance of socio-cultural influences on notions of HRM in an
9
international and global context, it is important to examine how these influences
impact on global HRD.
One of the most important socio-cultural influences on HR practices is differences in
Western and Eastern approaches to organisational structures, employee motivation,
communication and conflict resolution. An interesting line of inquiry in global HRD is
how socio-cultural differences influence HRD systems across the world. Mohd Rasdi
and Ismail (2016) reviewed the development and current state of play of HRD in East
Asia focusing on Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Their review of the trajectory of
HRD in this region demonstrates the importance of Confucianism for underpinning
the education philosophy in the three countries examined while acknowledging that
there are differences in the East Asia region. Sun and Wang (2016) observe similar
trends in that HRD practices in China and North Korea are deeply rooted in
Confucianism and Taoism with an emphasis on social harmony through hierarchical
order, conservatism, paternalism and the one-party political ruling system. HRD
activity in China and North Korea is primarily focused on ‘thought unification’ (Tsai
and Dean, 2013) rather than Western notions of HRD aimed at human capital and
skills development for individual and economic development. The express focus of
HRD activity is on harmony and ensuring citizens respect hierarchy. Sun and Wang
(2016) argue that the future of China’s economic growth will rely on creativity and
innovation rather than a low-cost imitation model which worked historically. They go
on to question how regimes focused on thought control, such as China and North
Korea, will fare out in a new economic order that will require innovation and creativity
for growth and development.
Alhejji and Garavan (2016a) review HRD in the three North African countries of
Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. All three countries were heavily influenced by France
as either protectorates or full colonies and have focused on developing their human
capital since independence but there is still much progress to be made. The HRD
system in North Africa is influenced by power hierarchy and tribal networks –
especially in relation to who has access to HRD opportunities. Alhejji and Garavan
(2016a, 2016b) argue that ‘political Islam’ acts as a counterforce to the development
of more effective HRD systems in the North African and Middle East regions
because many of the accepted Western-style HRD principles (e.g. value of
10
acquisition of sills and competencies for individual advancement and growth) do not
align with Islamic principles and values. This is not to say that the Western approach
is better – rather, some of the core principles of HRD are based on Western
principles and values which include individual gain and advancement. In furthering
our understanding of global HRD, it is important, therefore, to take into account the
socio-cultural context in the region or country under examination.
Not unlike the Middle East and North Africa, Waight et al. (2016) argue that the
social and cultural values of relationship, status, hierarchy and religion in the Latin
American region do not always align well with key tenets of HRD which emanated
early on from scholars and research located in Western countries and cultures
(Metcalfe & Rees, 2005). Waight et al. (2016) go on to call on the political and
senior government leadership to focus on HRD in policy making and take a longer
term perspective which will deliver better economic and social outcomes for citizens
in the region. Similarly, Azevedo et al. (2016) propose that Brazil should build on the
positives of its relationship-rich culture to determine its own most appropriate HRD
policy and not merely feel compelled to imitate other HRD systems which might
operate in very different social and cultural contexts.
Insights into socio-economic influences on HRD in Western cultures point to a HRD
agenda that is driven by accepted cultural norms of personal growth and
advancement of skills as well as valuing HRD as an antecedent of sectoral and
national economic development. The US and Canada have experienced significant
immigration and experience multicultural societies and both countries are highly
committed to free enterprise (McLean and Budhwani, 2016). Similar socio-economic
influences are reported in Ireland the UK (McCarthy, 2016), and the Nordic countries
(Heidl & Dusoye, 2016). HRD is seen as a key source of economic development at
national level and high levels individualism result in personal advancement and gain
through HRD being accepted cultural norms in Western countries and regions.
3.2 Developmental State, Nature of Economic Management, Political Structures
& Social Conditions
An important systems level environmental influence on global HRD relates to the
economic and political context that prevails including political environments,
11
demographic and migration changes, and economic developmental state (McLean &
McLean, 2001; Metcalfe & Rees, 2005; ILO, 2002). Given the significant variations
in political systems, stability and economic growth across the globe, it is important to
explore how these differences impact global HRD.
In some regions and countries, there has been an integrated strategic approach to
economic development at government level through investment in human capital
enhancement. McGraw and Kramar (2016) argue that, while there are differences in
the paths taken by Australia and New Zealand, the overall impact of political,
economic and social policies have had a largely positive impact for both countries.
HRD systems have adapted well to changing environments in both countries. Ismail
and Mohd Rasdi (2016) argue that Malaysia and Singapore benefit from having
governments who recognised early in the countries’ development the importance of
human capital development for achieving economic and social ambitions. In the US
and Canada, investment in human capital and competence development has been a
priority at federal and state level (McLean & Budhwani, 2016). Evidence from
Western Europe (see for example, McCarthy, 2016; Mulder & Nieuwenhuis, 2016;
Heidl & Dusoye, 2016) reports that the HRD agenda has been driven by a political
focus on economic development through the knowledge-based sector in the majority
of contexts and governments have invested heavily in HRD policies, institutions and
skill development to meet these changing skill needs. While the countries referred to
above have aligned their economic and developmental progression with investment
in human capital, the majority of regions and countries point to challenges in
ensuring adequate supply of human capital to meet future business and industry
needs which is discussed further below.
Other regions report more challenging political and economic contexts which can be
linked with a lack of progression of the HRD agenda. Pandey et al. (2016) review
the development of HRD in eight countries in South Asia: Afghanistan, Bangladesh,
Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. They draw attention to the
challenges of political uncertainty, poor governance, corruption, violation of human
rights and poverty for the HRD agenda in the region. The political and economic
focus of South Asian countries and its link to HRD over the past 70 years moved
from poverty alleviation and literacy in the 1950s to a focus on the achievement of
12
Millennium Development Goals in the 2000s. The latter focuses on the importance
of social well-being as well as economic growth and national governments in the
region have mixed success in managing the various HRD stakeholders. Pandey et
al. (2016) draw attention to the very low level of skilled workers in India at only 2%.
In Russia and the Former Soviet Union, despite positive, and in some cases, very
strong economic growth and prosperity over the last decade, Ardichvili et al. (2016)
point to the challenge of geopolitical issues in the region for the future development
of HRD, especially the political uncertainty in Eastern Ukraine and Russia’s poor
international relations. Tome (2016) analyses HRD in Southern Europe – Italy,
Spain, France, Portugal and Greece and reports that the global financial crisis of
2008 has had a significant and deleterious impact on all countries in the region apart
from France.
The influence of stage of economic development on HRD is illustrated by Garavan
and Akdere (2016) who discuss HRD in the CIVETS cluster - a term used for a
clustering of six emerging economics: Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey
and South Africa. These emerging economies are unified by a number of
characteristics including: a) dynamic and growing economies, b) the adoption of free-
market principles, c) a young and growing population, and d) relative political
stability. They are clustered in many economic and international development
commentaries as a result of their economic similarity rather than their political or
geographic proximity. Garavan and Akdere’s (2016) analysis concludes that the
HRD systems in these six countries are underdeveloped and struggle to produce an
indigenous skilled labour force equipped with the skills needed for their growing
economics and new industries and sectors.
The social conditions across different regions and countries are an important
consideration in global HRD. In many regards, social conditions are related to the
economic developmental state and political structures of a region or country.
Nafukho and Muyia’s (2016) review of HRD in the Sub-Saharan African region,
focusing specifically on the 15 counties in the Sub-Saharan African Development
Community (SADC), points to key social challenges impacting HRD in the region
including poverty, lack of financial or economic infrastructure and food uncertainty.
While the region is diverse given the different countries which are members of
13
SADC, there is, nonetheless, a coherent strategy to harmonise and advance
education, training and development opportunities across the region. However,
there are significant challenges to be overcome in realising the education, training
and development agenda in the region including the need to invest in the second,
third and VET education sectors as well as the leadership and vision required to map
out and deliver HRD policies that will have positive impact. The adverse impact of
poor social conditions is also reported by Waight, Delgado and Lopez’s (2016) in
Latin America which highlights a region characterised by inequality, especially
among indigenous populations, and lack of access for women to education and
training in many countries in the region.
4. Processes: Institutional Actors, Regulation and HRD-Related Systems
The nature, role and effectiveness of various actors and processes impacting global
HRD include institutional actors such as government agencies, unions, international
development bodies, professional associations, and organisations. Metcalfe and
Rees (2005) caution that global HRD research must examine the role of state
intervention and regulation across different regions and contexts. This section
addresses this call and reviews voluntarist versus interventionist approaches,
regulatory impacts, the role, integration and impact of actors including VET systems,
and also examines organisational-level HRD practices across different regions and
countries.
4.1 Voluntarism, Interventionism, Regulation and Legislation
In Australia and New Zealand, McGraw and Kramar (2016) argue that an
Australasian HRD system has emerged in the 20th century which is closely
connected to broader institutional influences in industrial relations and social and
political outcomes. They point out that extensive deregulation and opening up of
markets to international competition in the 1980s brought changes for HRD including
the fact that HRD emerged as a source of competitive advantage. In Australia and
New Zealand, unions play an important role in the HRD agenda. The HRD policy in
Ireland and the UK is a mix of interventionism by the state and voluntarism at
enterprise level (McCarthy, 2016). Mohd Rasdi and Ismail (2016) report that the
government has played a crucial role in influencing HRD policy and practice in the
14
South Asia region taking an interventionist approach. Likewise, training and
education systems in China represent interventionism, governed by the Ministry for
Education aimed to (i) maintain ideological purity of the governing regime and (ii)
develop skills through highly regulated VET systems (Sun & Wang, 2016). In Noth
Korea, the training and education system focuses on maintaining juche ideology
(self-reliance and socialism) and training and education programmes are mandated
to include training in juche in their context. All education and training activity
including curricula is determined centrally.
Ismail and Mohd Rasdi (2016) report strong interventionist approaches to HRD in
Malaysia and Singapore. In Malaysia, the New Economic Policy 1971-1990 focused
on rebalancing injustice among local Malays regarding education and job
opportunities and the creation of business-driven HRD policies to support MNC and
indigenous demand for labour. The New Economic Model (2011-2020) is the current
HRD policy context which focuses on skill development and investment in training
and education. The Human Resource Development Corporation Act (2001) provides
for the collection of a HRD levy from companies for the purpose of establishing and
offering various training and development schemes and programmes.
Alhejji and Garavan (2016b) map out the HRD landscape in the Middle East focusing
on the six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC): Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman,
Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE). One of the challenges for the
region is the ability to diversify the source of economic growth away from oil and gas
reserves which have been the predominant source of wealth and economic activity in
the region. There is concerted effort to increase employment in the private sectors in
the GCC region rather than extensively relying on public sector or government-
owned employment which has been the case in the past. A substantial proportion of
the workforce in the GCC countries are expatriate or immigrant workers. The state is
heavily influencing the HRD agenda which is aimed at nationalisation of the labour
force (Alhejji & Garavan, 2016b).
The analysis above shows some countries and regions have more interventionism
by the state in the development of HRD. In some cases, this intervention includes
legislation and policy to progress HRD aligned with economic goals but where
15
enterprise can influence and determine the nature of HRD activity. In other cases,
state level HRD interventionism is used to ensure adherence to socio-cultural values.
4.2 HRD Actors and Institutions: Centralisation, Integration and Quality
One of the most influential process elements of a systems perspective on global
HRD is the role of HRD actors and institutions and the extent to which systems of
HRD are centralised and integrated, which in turn impacts global HRD outcomes. A
broad array of institutions and government organisations have been established in
South Asia with remits associated with HRD (Pandey et al., 2016). However, their
success has been limited due to a lack of investment in HRD but such investment is
not possible without resources and the economic challenges in the region hamper
any real and meaningful development of HRD policy and practice. Interestingly,
Bhutan has paid particular attention to the importance of knowledge and skill
development for gainful employment in its National HRD Policy for the Kingdom of
Bhutan 2010 report. Likewise, the Maldives focuses heavily on the importance of
HRD and training for its public sector employees in the Maldives Civil Service
Strategic Plan 2011-2017. Pandey et al. (2016) reflect that many HRD activities are
taking place in South Asia through NGOs and the social development sector rather
than being led by national governments or at enterprise level. Thus, international
development organisations including the World Bank, the ILO and the UNDP invest
in various programmes which have HRD objectives and outcomes.
Sheehan and Buchelt’s (2016) assessment of HRD in the Central and Eastern
European (CEE) region (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia) reports that the current VET systems in the region
are fragmented and unregulated, not having the ability to respond to changing labour
market demands, and a lack of institutional links between VET providers and
employers. Similar challenges of integration of HRD institutions and actors are
reported in Russia and the Former Soviet Union. Ardichvili et al. (2016) argue that
the VET systems of these countries lack efficiency and responsiveness as a result of
the Soviet-era systems to effectively cater for the skills and knowledge required in
the new economic and market era. In Russia, a combination of centralised top-down
regulation of the skills formation system is combined with free-market enterprise-
16
level HRD provision. In Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, there is more of a
collaborative model between government and private enterprise regarding HRD
activity however Russia and the FSU have experienced economic, political and
institutional challenges in managing the transition from the centralised USSR
system. Alhejji and Garavan’s (2016a) review of HRD in the three North African
countries of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia reports that VET systems and HRD
institutions in the region are as yet quite underdeveloped and weak in their ability to
effect change. There is a misalignment between the reported needs of industry and
the economy at an organisational level and the skills that are being developed in the
educational and VET institutions.
An analysis of HRD in Canada and the US is provided by McLean and Budhwani
(2016). They argue that HRD in the two countries continues to develop to meet the
changing socio-economic conditions of the region. HRD policy and practice is
influenced by a broad range of actors, institutions and stakeholders including
business and industry, labour unions, government, community groups, non-
government organisations, professional organizations, corporate universities and
educational providers. One of the main differences in how HRD is managed at
government level between the US and Canada is reflected in Canada having a
holistic and systemic approach to HRD for the country whereas HRD in the US is
dominated by state level policy and practice funded at federal level resulting in a
decentralised system that lacks overall national level coordination.
Waight et al. (2016) argue that the VET systems in Latin America are fragmented,
discontinuous and lacking in strategic focus and alignment with business and
industry needs. In Brazil, Azevedo et al. (2016) report that policies to formalise and
provide proper funding for secondary and tertiary education are in their infancy and
that HRD investment and progress in Brazil is very recent. They argue that much
more needs to be done at a policy level nationally to ensure that Brazil can compete
internationally in the 21st century. Many of the CIVETS countries also lack
appropriate HRD institutional frameworks to effectively plan, design and deliver HRD
policies and programmes. Furthermore, due to the cultural, political and social
context in many of these countries, the importance and potential for HRD investment
17
is not readily acknowledged and HRD practices at organisational level are scant
(Garavan & Akdere, 2016).
A number of regions and countries report stronger and better alignment of their HRD
actors and institutions including VET systems. For example, China has invested
extensively in its VET over the past couple of decades and some claim such
investment assisted the three decades of economic growth China enjoyed until
recently (Sung & Wang, 2016). McCarthy (2016) reports well-established education
systems and national qualifications frameworks setting out secondary, tertiary and
VET qualifications and standards in Ireland and the UK. There are many providers
and provisions for skill development from entry- and medium-level skills across
different industries served by the further education sector to more advanced, high-
level skill formation through the higher education sector. VET in Ireland is seen both
in policy and structural terms as one of the main pillars for building and maintaining a
skilled workforce. The VET system in the Ireland and UK region is informed by a
demand-led model and characterised by some common features that indicate its
mature development: a single framework for transparency of competencies and
qualifications; a system of credit transfer for VET; common criteria and principles for
quality in VET; common principles for the validation of non-formal and informal
learning; and information for lifelong learning (McCarthy, 2016). A range of HRD
actors and institutions impact HRD delivery in the region including the government,
employers, education institutions and statutory agencies.
Heidl and Dusoye (2016) review HRD in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway,
Sweden, Finland and Iceland) where the region has had considerable success in
managing a range of HRD actors, institutions and VET and they. The Nordic Council
acts as a central policy lever for the region while acknowledging that each country
has its own political and legislative function. The region benefits from an active
welfare state tradition and strong labour-focused policy which includes a strong focus
on skill development and lifelong learning. Nordic governments invest significantly in
education and skills development in the region.
The review of HRD in Germanic Europe, focusing on Germany, Austria, the
Netherlands, and Switzerland, reveals that VET is the key HRD lever in the region
18
(Mulder & Nieuwenhuis, 2016). VET is highly developed and highly esteemed in the
region with a dual model approach of company-based apprenticeships combined
with school-based education. In the region, HRD is directed through a collaboration
of employers, employees and unions. Such an approach represents a Rhineland
model focusing on collaborative approaches to conflict management where social
partners work with government to support economic progress. The region enjoys
strong economic growth and prosperity. While VET is strong in the region, more
focus is needed to provide further HRD opportunities at organisational level.
4.3 Organisational-Level Influences
The nature, impact and effectiveness of HRD practices at organisation level is an
important process element of the fabric of a global HRD system and is impacted by
other system elements such as the institutional framework discussed above. An
analysis of organisational level influences on global HRD provided in Garavan et al.
(2016) shows disparity across different countries and regions based on organisation
size, sector and politico-economic context. Evidence from many of the Western
country analyses indicates that organisational-level HRD activity is more developed
in large and MNC organisations (McGraw & Kramar; McCarthy, 2016; McLean &
Budhwani, 20016). Pandey et al. (2016) report that large companies and MNCs
operating in India and some of the other countries in the South Asia region have
resources to invest in HRD however the SME sector in the region tend to have no
HRD policies nor resources to invest in them. McCarthy (2016) reports that
significant amount of HRD activity at enterprise-level in Ireland the UK takes places
through government sponsored national training fund and Skillnets programme in
Ireland and the Sector skills Councils in the UK.
As well as organisation size effects, many of the Western countries report significant
changes in HRD at organisational level aligned with sectoral and industry decline
and growth e.g. McGraw and Kramar (2016) report a decline in HRD activity and
investment in the ‘old’ economy of manufacturing and an increase in current growing
sectors such as banking and mining in Australia. At enterprise level, much HRD
occurs within the resource extraction and processing sectors as well as MNCs in
19
Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. In Russia, there is evidence of more
sophisticated HRD systems in sectors such as banking, high tech,
telecommunications and aerospace (Ardichvili et al., 2016). In Taiwan, the focus of
HRD at organisational level is to facilitate the shift from traditional labour-intensive
skills to knowledge-intensive industry skills (Mohd Rasdi & Ismail, 2016).
In some countries, organisations are required to invest in human capital
development funds. Both Malaysia and Singapore established training and
development funds requiring contributions from employers to ensure adequate
national level resources and oversight of workplace HRD policy and practice (Ismail
& Mohd Rasdi, 2016). Malaysia and Singapore have a range of active stakeholders
impacting the HRD landscape and there is good cooperation between government
and employers and, in Singapore, especially with trade unions. Sheehan and
Buchelt (2016) report an upward trend in investment and time devoted to
management development and training at organisational level in all countries in the
Central and Eastern European region which compares favourably with the European
average. In the Nordic region, Heidl and Dusoye (2016) report that, in Norway,
organisations tend to use firm-specific in-house training focusing on skill
development aligned with organisational strategy. In Denmark, organisations rely
more on vocational education for skill development. In Iceland, training is mostly on
the job. In Finland, strong focus on lifelong and continuous learning and
development at organisational level. McLean and Budhwani (2016) argue that while
the number of employees engaged in HRD activity at organisational level is
impressive in the US and Canada, the nature of HRD activity being engaged in is
rather low-level to meet regulatory and compliance requirements rather than being
strategically determined by national economic and social objectives and policy.
There has been recent growth of private sector training in China with HRD aimed at
state-owned (SOEs), private and multinational enterprises. Sun and Wang (2016)
report that foreign MNCs’ HRD practices are impacting other organisations in China.
However, tensions exist about the extent and influence of Western HRD practices
and Western HR consulting firms influence SEO HR practices with the Communist
Party of China (CPC) recently prohibiting the use of Western consulting firms in
20
SOEs. Due to a lack of knowledge or information about HRD activity in the recent
limited free market sector, it is currently not possible to assess organisational-level
HRD practice in North Korea (Sun & Wang, 2016).
In countries with less developed HRD actors and institutions, engagement with HRD
activity at firm level tends to be limited. The significant proportion of low-wage non-
national labour in the private sector is a feature across all six GCC countries with a
focus on low cost labour with a consequent lack of focus or investment in HRD
(Alhejji & Garavan, 2016a). Public sector employment likewise has not focused on
the identification or development of skills. Concern among private sector employers
about the gap between the skills and knowledge needed by national employees is
currently not developed through the education and training system in GCC. In North
Africa, the trend is similar and there is greater investment in HRD by public sector
organisations compared to private sector organisations (Alhejji & Garavan, 2016a).
The focus of HRD in public sector in North Africa tends to be formalised and on
improving the level of basic skills with less emphasis on leadership and management
development training. Focus of HRD in private sector organisations on informal
workplace training and on the job training due to lack of resources (Alhejji &
Garavan, 2016a).
5. Outcomes of Global HRD
The outcomes of global HRD should be considered and analysed using a multilevel
perspective to include individual, organisational, economic, and social outcomes.
This extension of HRD outcomes beyond individual and organisational outcomes
reflects recent moves in the literature arguing that HRD can and should play a role in
shaping national and international economic competitiveness and the overall
advancement of societal well-being (Berman, 2015; Kania & Kramar, 2011; Metcalfe
& Rees, 2005; Marquardt & Berger, 2003). Global HRD outcomes, then, should
include: adequate supply of human capital and skills, indicating a high quality labour
market; national/regional economic attractiveness; advancement of social indicators
including educational attainment, poverty, and literacy; and achievement of
performance and development goals at an individual and organisational level.
21
The regional and country analyses of global HRD provided in Garavan et al. (2016)
signify that regions and countries that adopt more integrated and aligned approaches
to HRD across the various system elements report better HRD outcomes.
A key global HRD outcome is the supply and availability of high quality human
capital in the labour market. Progress on achieving this outcome is varied across the
globe and depends on the input and process dimensions of the HRD system at play
in a region or country. Regions that have achieved better outcomes including
economic growth, social development, and higher levels of human capital include
Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and the Nordic countries. Mohd Rasdi and
Ismail (2016: 58) conclude that the three South Asian countries they examined,
Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, have experienced high growth and the investment
in HRD over the past few decades can be ascribed to that success and “their
undivided commitment to human capital investment” and they enjoy well-developed
VET systems.
Sheehan and Buchelt (2016) call for greater investment in VET and HRD in the CEE
region aimed at boosting productivity and innovation to better align with the
requirements of competing in a global marketplace in the years ahead for the CEE
countries. This sentiment is echoed by many other commentators in other regions
including Ireland the UK where McCarthy (2016) reports that as countries in the
region place significant focus on economic development and prosperity from the
knowledge-based and technology sectors, ensuring HRD policy and investment
focused on providing employees with the requisite skills is a critical issue. High
educational attainment in the Nordic region and strong values based on education,
critical thinking and democracy-oriented learning programmes result in the region
being highly regarded for his human capital outcomes (Heidl & Dusoye, 2016).
There is extensive focus and investment in adult education, training and lifelong
learning and high participation rates. Not unlike other regional and country analyses
reported here, recent commentary about Nordic skills development flags a mismatch
between workforce qualifications and skill demands of emerging sectors.
In less developed regions and countries, investing in more effective HRD systems is
seen as a vehicle to achieve better socio-economic outcomes for citizens. For
22
example, Azevedo, Ardichvili, Casa Nova and Cornacchione (2016) note that the
biggest HRD challenge in Brazil is to increase the functional literacy, skills and
professional competence of the population to enable the country to compete in the
global economy and leverage the rich set of national resources available in the
country. HRD practices in the GCC countries are heavily influenced by a desire to
increase the ratio of nationals to non-nationals in the labour force (Alhejji and
Garavan, 2016b) which seems to be a key outcome for the region. For example, the
Bahraini government introduced a HRD support programme offering financial
incentives to SMEs in the manufacturing sector if they employ at least 30%
Bahrainis. However, focusing merely on quotas of national to non-national
employees without focusing on the calibre of employment is a challenge in
developing a true focus on human resource development in the region. There
appears to be a lack of acknowledgement of the potential that can be gained at an
economic level from investment in HRD and this situation is heavily influenced by the
culture and values of the region. Alhejji and Garavan (2016a: 163) conclude, rather
gloomily, that the current education system in the GCC region is “failing to produce
the right quality and mix of human capital needed for knowledge-based economic
development”.
4. Discussion, Conclusion and Limitations
This paper aimed to propose the dimensions of a global HRD construct which extend
the concept of global HRD beyond the development of competencies and skills for
effective management and leadership in international settings. Building on this
extended global HRD construct, the paper adopts a systems theory perspective to
analyse global HRD systems, processes, actors, institutions, and outcomes. We
argue here that a systems perspective helps us to better understand the global HRD
construct which involves the often complex interplay of interdependent,
multidimensional and multilevel factors at a cultural, socio-economic, political,
institutional, regulatory and organisational level. Toracco (2015) argues that
although we may value broad systems approaches to understanding social and
organisational phenomena, all too often we engage in sub-systems thinking focusing
on discrete elements of a system or adopting a particular level of analysis. Such
approaches inevitably limit our understanding of the complex and dynamic
interrelationships between various elements and levels of the system and
23
environment. Yawson (2012) laments that despite the acceptance of the need for
and value of applying systems approaches to the development of HRD theory and
practice, the predominant ‘systems’ model that exists in HRD merely focuses on
input-transformation-output at a micro level of analysis. This paper broadens our
understanding of the systems impacting global HRD drawing on recent analyses of
HRD across 18 regions and over 85 countries (Garavan et al., 2016).
The regions and countries explored in this paper demonstrate the importance of the
historical, social, economic, cultural and political influences of the region or country
on the development and fabric of HRD in the region. In the more developed
economies, it is not unusual to have advanced and sophisticated education and VET
systems, an array of government-sponsored agencies and departments, and various
actors in the private sector including professional associations with specific HRD,
skills and training remits. However, as can be expected, in the developing
economies, the HRD infrastructure and institutional context tends to be less
developed and poorly resourced by the government or state but other elements of
the system can have an important impact on HRD in the region. For example, in
South Asia, Pandey et al. (2016) underline the importance of the social development
sector for advancing the HRD agenda in that region and Azevedo et al. (2016) report
similar findings for Latin America. From a systems perspective, social development
and non-governmental organisations are an important element or tier of the system
that should be included in the global HRD discourse but have tended to be absent to
date. Extending our analysis of HRD institutions and actors to include the likes of
social development agencies ensures that we do not omit important HRD system
elements impacting the policy, processes, practices and outcomes of global HRD.
Indeed, in some of the developing countries and regions, rather than lament the
absence of what Western countries would consider foundation blocks of effective
national HRD systems (e.g. a national well-resource and state-funded VET policy
and system, enterprise-led HRD investment, strong government departments and
agencies tasked with developing and implementing HRD policy), the development
sector could be leveraged to provide HRD opportunities relevant and applicable to
the citizens’ needs. This approach also reduces the potential for identifying ‘Western
HRD solutions’ which might not be the most appropriate in different regions and
countries that have very different political, social and cultural contexts.
24
Regardless of stage of economic development, the discussion in this paper indicates
that the majority of developing and developed countries are focusing on their human
capital and HRD as a means of ensuring economic growth, development and
prosperity. It is likely, therefore, that HRD will become even more important for the
economic and social development of all regions and countries across the world over
coming decades. Regions and countries that do not invest in their HRD and human
capital development run the risk of having to over-rely on non-nationals to support
their economies. However, the supply of skilled migrant and expatriate workers will
be an issue if there is global demand for similar skills and experience, and this is
likely to happen with many economies focusing on knowledge- and technology-
based sectors as sources of economic prosperity. We should learn from the lack of
HRD investment in the indigenous national workforce in the Middle East over the
past few decades which has resulted in a very substantial percentage of the
workforce populated by non-national immigrants and expatriates who offer skills and
competencies not readily available in the national population. Alhejji and Garavan
(2016b) point out that the GCC countries now have explicit policies and goals to
renationalise their workforces. However, without the adequate investment in skill
development within the national workforce, these employees will not be equipped
with the skills required by business. The issue of lack of investment in HRD in the
GCC and other regions with the consequent over-reliance on foreign national
employees is yet another reason for countries to ensure continued focus and
investment in human capital and HRD. Such investment is a source of economic
growth and a key source of competitive advantage and should be central to all
national and regional discussions about economic and social development planning
and strategy.
A key difference between developed and developing regions and countries is the
question of whose responsibility HRD investment and activity is and how HRD
institutions operate and align. In developed countries with more advanced and
embedded HRD and VET systems, there tends to be a multi-stakeholder approach
to HRD where the responsibility for HRD is shared across a number of actors
including, primarily, the government and its associated HRD agencies, employers,
trade unions and educational providers. In less developed economies, there is a
25
reticence by some stakeholders, employers in particular, to acknowledge the role
they play in advancing HRD and human capital development. In the case of the
latter, there is a general acceptance that HRD is the sole remit of the government or
state. While resources are likely to be a barrier for employers to invest in HRD in
developing countries, it is not the sole reason for lack of engagement in HRD. A
concerted strategy should be set out to encourage, and require if appropriate,
employers to invest in HRD. We can learn from Malaysia and Singapore about how
such an approach could be applied where they provide for national training funds
resourced through employer levies.
Irrespective of region or economic developmental trajectory, there are a couple of
common global HRD system challenges. The first is the lack of an overall coherent
strategy and approach to higher education, VET and other HRD activities. Many
regions and countries are criticised for having HRD systems that are fragmented and
lacking integrative focus. It is challenging for regions and countries to manage the
paradoxical nature of the need to have multiple HRD institutions and actors
operating across different sectors and levels on the one hand, and the challenge of
having coherent and integrated national and regional HRD strategies, policies and
practices across all these organisations on the other hand. It is not surprising that
regions and countries that have taken a holistic or systemic approach to HRD tend to
report better economic and social outcomes. However, all countries and regions
need to further enhance this coherent and integrated approach to HRD and human
capital development going forward.
The second key challenge for most regions and countries explored here is a growing
mismatch and gap between the skills that the HRD system is supplying and what
employing organisations are demanding. The link between the skills economies
require to enable them achieve their long-term goals and ambitions and the
responsiveness and agility of the HRD infrastructure and institutions to provide these
skills is critical. Yet, in many regions and countries, this link and alignment is not
effective. In many countries with growing high-tech and IT sectors, skills shortages
in these areas are consistently reported. It is important for all regions and countries,
regardless of economic development trajectory, to have express focus on ensuring
26
their HRD systems provide the capacity requirements in terms of skills to enable
economic growth and prosperity ambitions aligned to these sectors.
The assessment of HRD in China and North Korea, where Confusion philosophy
prevails, indicates a strong reluctance to engage in or adopt Western or capitalistic
HRD notions, practices or perspectives. Interestingly, Western countries and
cultures are more open to experimenting with ‘Eastern’ practices from countries like
China. For example, mindfulness, mindful leadership and various other workplace
variants are gaining increasing currency and use in Western organisations. An
interesting question for scholars and practitioners who are interested in learning
about global developments and perspectives is what aspects, dimensions and
elements of Western or Eastern HRD can be transferred across different regions and
ideologies to the benefit of various HRD stakeholders? Given more open and
receptive Eastern regimes, are there Western HRD system elements which should
be adopted to accrue benefits to various stakeholders? Likewise, what additional
Eastern HRD system elements, policy and practice might advance Western notions
of HRD?
In adopting a systems perspective as our basic platform for analysis, we are
conscious that several trade-offs relating to breadth and depth had to be made in
pursuing this approach. There is little doubt that a within-country systems
perspective with a sharp focus on national HRD would clearly have afforded more
treatment of actors, interactions and developments within the context of the country
or system under examination. There is a long history within business and social
science literature of this country comparative perspective which “shows a preference
for exploring the landscape, contours and national patterns of management as a
result of the distinctive developmental paths of different countries and their
subsequently idiosyncratic institutional and economic regimes” (Morley, Heraty and
Michailova, 2009: 5). On this occasion we opt not for this well-trodden path as the
point of departure of our analysis, but rather opt for a regio-comparative perspective,
realising that adopting this approach is underscored by trading ‘within-systems’
depth for ‘across-systems’ scope and coverage. Importantly however, our regional
perspective also affords us the opportunity to cast particular light on different aspects
of HRD less emphasised in scholarship heretofore. In particular, it allows for the
27
calling of attention to the unique characteristics of regions, the emergence of clusters
of countries with similar approaches to HRD and the development of an extended
global HRD construct. Regio-comparative perspectives are also valuable in
developing theory about global HRD that takes a broader systems and societally
embedded approach and the development of new theories and models of global
HRD using inductive approaches that are cognisant of institutional and socio-political
contexts and relationships.
5. References
Alhejji, H. and Garavan, T.N. (2016a). Human Resource Development in North
Africa. In Garavan, T., McCarthy, A. and Morley, M. (Eds). Global Human
Resource Development: Regional and Country Perspectives. London:
Routledge.
Alhejji, H. and Garavan, T.N. (2016b). Human Resource Development in the Middle
East. In Garavan, T., McCarthy, A. and Morley, M. (Eds). Global Human
Resource Development: Regional and Country Perspectives. London:
Routledge.
Ardichvili, A. (2008). Can there be a domain-specific knowledge base in HRD?
Reflections on the Lille symposium. Human Resource Development
International, 11, 539-544.
Ardichvili, A., Zavyalova, E. and Tkachenko, O. (2016). Human Resource
Development in Russia and the Former Soviet Union. In Garavan, T.,
McCarthy, A. and Morley, M. (Eds). Global Human Resource Development:
Regional and Country Perspectives. London: Routledge.
Azevedo, R.F.L., Ardichvili,A., Casa Nova, S. and Cornacchione, E.B (2016). Human
Resource Development in Brazil. In Garavan, T., McCarthy, A. and Morley,
M. (Eds). Global Human Resource Development: Regional and Country
Perspectives. London: Routledge.
Berman, E. (2015). HRM in development: Lessons and frontiers. Public
Administration and Development, 35(2): 113–127.
28
Boxall, P. (1995) Building the theory of comparative HRM. Human Resource
Management Journal, 5(5), 5 – 17.
Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theory - the skeleton of science.
Management Science, 2: 197-208.
Brewster, C., Mayrhofer, W., & Morley, M. (Eds.). (2004). Human Resource
Management in Europe. Evidence of Convergence? Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
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), 383-393.
Eastern Europe (CEE). In Garavan, T., McCarthy, A. and Morley, M. (Eds). Global
Human Resource Development: Regional and Country Perspectives.
London: Routledge.
Garavan, T. McCarthy, A. and Morley, M. (2016). Global Human Resource
Development: Regional and Country Perspectives. London: Routledge.
Garavan, T. N., & Carbery, R. (2012). A review of international HRD: incorporating a
global HRD construct. European Journal of Training and Development,
36(2/3), 129-157.
Garavan, T. N., McGuire, D., & O’Donnell, D. (2004). Exploring human resource
development: A levels of analysis approach. Human Resource Development
Review, 3(4), 417-441.
Garavan, T.N. and Akdere, M. (2016). Human Resource Development in CIVETS. In
Garavan, T., McCarthy, A. and Morley, M. (Eds). Global Human Resource
Development: Regional and Country Perspectives. London: Routledge.
Heidl, B. and Dusoye, I. (2016). Human Resource Development in the Nordic
Countries. In Garavan, T., McCarthy, A. and Morley, M. (Eds). Global Human
Resource Development: Regional and Country Perspectives. London:
Routledge.
ILO (2002) Learning for Training and Work in a Knowledge Society, Report 92 IV (1)
(Geneva: ILO).
Ismail. M. and Mohd Rasdi, R. (2016). Human Resource Development in Malaysia
and Singapore. In Garavan, T., McCarthy, A. and Morley, M. (Eds). Global
29
Human Resource Development: Regional and Country Perspectives.
London: Routledge.
Jacobs, R. L. (2014). Systems Theory and HRD. In Chalofsky, N. E., Rocco, T.S.
and Morris, M.L. (2014). Handbook of Human Resource Development. New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation
Review, (4):1, 36–41
Kim, S., & McLean, G. (2012). Global talent management: Necessity, challenges,
and the roles of HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14(4):
566–585.
Lee, J.A., Altman, B.A. & Akdere, M. (2009). A review of the Seventh International
Conference of the Academy of HRD (Asia Chapter) in Bangkok, Thailand
(2008): a system theory perspective, Human Resource Development
International, 12(2), 225-232.
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.
Marquardt, M., Berger, N. & Loan, P. (2004). HRD in the Age of Globalization. New
York: Basic Books.
McCarthy, A.M. (2016). Human Resource Development in Ireland and the UK. In
Garavan, T., McCarthy, A. and Morley, M. (Eds). Global Human Resource
Development: Regional and Country Perspectives. London: Routledge.
McGaughey, S., & DeCieri, H. (1999). Reassessment of convergence & divergence
dynamics: Implications for international HRM. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 10(2): 235–250.
McGraw., P. and Kramar, R. (2016). Human Resource Development in Australia and
New Zealand. In Garavan, T., McCarthy, A. and Morley, M. (Eds). Global
Human Resource Development: Regional and Country Perspectives.
London: Routledge.
McLagan, P.A. (1999). Models of HRD Practice. Training and Development Journal,
41(9), 49-59.
30
McLean, G. and Budhwani, N. (2016). Human Resource Development in Canada
and the United States. In Garavan, T., McCarthy, A. and Morley, M. (Eds).
Global Human Resource Development: Regional and Country Perspectives.
London: Routledge.
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.
Metcalfe, B.D. and Rees, C.J. (2005). Theorizing advances in international human
resource development. Human Resource Development International, 8(449-
65).
Mohd Rasdi, R. and Ismail, M. (2016). Human Resource Development in East Asia.
Morley, M. J. (2007). Of Infants and Adolescents: Progress and Pessimism in the
Development Trajectory of International Human Resource Management.
Keynote Presentation to the 9th Conference on International Human
Resource Management, June 12th-15th. Estonia: Tallinn.
Mulder, R. and Nieuwenhuis, L. (2016). Human Resource Development in Germanic
Europe. In Garavan, T., McCarthy, A. and Morley, M. (Eds). Global Human
Resource Development: Regional and Country Perspectives. London:
Routledge.
Nafukho, F.M. and Muyia, H.M. (2016). Human Resources Development in Sub-
Saharan Africa. In Garavan, T., McCarthy, A. and Morley, M. (Eds). Global
Human Resource Development: Regional and Country Perspectives.
London: Routledge.
Pandey, S., Hewapathirana, G.I., and Pestonjee, D.M. (2016). Human Resource
Development in South Asia. In Garavan, T., McCarthy, A. and Morley, M.
(Eds). Global Human Resource Development: Regional and Country
Perspectives. London: Routledge.
Ruona, W.E. (2000). Core beliefs in human resource development. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 2(3), pp. 1-27.
Sheehan, M and Buchelt, B. (2016). Human Resource Development in Central and
31
Sun, J. and Wang, G. (2016). Human Resource Development in China and North
Korea. In Garavan, T., McCarthy, A. and Morley, M. (Eds). Global Human
Resource Development: Regional and Country Perspectives. London:
Routledge.
Swanson, R. A. (1999). HRD theory, real or imagined? Human Resource
Development International, 2(1), 2-5.
Swanson, R.A. (1996). Analysis for improving performance: Tools for diagnosing
organizations & documenting workplace expertise. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.
Tjepkema, S., Stewart, J., Sambrook, S., Horst, H., Mulder, M., & Scheerens, J.
(2002). The Role of Human Resource Development Practitioners in Learning
Oriented Organisations. HRD Research Monograph Series.
Tome, E. (2016). Human Resource Development in Southern Europe. In Garavan,
T., McCarthy, A. and Morley, M. (Eds). Global Human Resource
Development: Regional and Country Perspectives. London: Routledge.
Torraco, R. (2015). Systems Theory: Relevance to HRD Research and Practice. In
Rob F. Poell, Tonette S. Rocco, Gene L. Roth (Eds.). The Routledge
Companion to Human Resource Development. London: Routledge.
Tsai, W. H., & Dean, N. (2013). The CCP’s learning system: Thought unification and
regime adaptation. China Journal, 69: 87–107.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory: Foundations, development,
applications. New York: Bazillier.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The History and Status of General Systems Theory. The
Academy of Management Journal, (4), pp. 407-426.
Waight C.L., Delgado, J.E.R. and Lopez, J. (2016). Human Resource Development
in Brazil. In Garavan, T., McCarthy, A. and Morley, M. (Eds). Global Human
Resource Development: Regional and Country Perspectives. London:
Routledge.
Wang, G. G., Werner, J., Sun, J. Y., Gilley, W. J., & Gilley, A. (February 2015).
Gateway to new frontier: Reconceptualizing the definition of HRD.
Proceedings of 2015 International Conference of AHRD, St. Louis, MO.
32
Wang, X. & McLean, G.N. (2007). The dilemma of defining international human
resource development, Human Resource Development Review, 6(1), 96-108.
Yawson, R. (2012). Systems Theory and Thinking as a Foundational Theory in
Human Resource Development—A Myth or Reality? Human Resource
Development Review, 12(1), 53–85.
Yorks, L., & Nicolaides, A. (2006). Complexity and emergent communicative
learning: An opportunity for HRD scholarship. Human Resource Development
Review, 5(2), 143-147.