Conceptualising Global Human Resource Development: A Systems ...

1

Global Human Resource Development: A Systems Perspective

Dr Alma McCarthy J.E. Cairnes School of Business and Economics

NUI Galway Ireland

[email protected]

Prof Thomas Garavan Edinburgh Napier University

Edinburgh Scotland

[email protected]

Prof Michael Morley Kemmy Business School

University of Limerick Ireland

[email protected]

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


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


Heidl, B. and Dusoye, I. (2016). Human Resource Development in the Nordic

Countries. In Garavan, T., McCarthy, A. and Morley, M. (Eds). Global Human


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.

Conceptualising Global Human Resource Development: A Systems ...

Documents

Transcript of Conceptualising Global Human Resource Development: A Systems ...