ejss_8_4_11

8/8/2019 ejss_8_4_11

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ejss8411 1/13

European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 8, Number 4 (2009)

640

Modelling HRD Practices in Malaysian Manufacturing Firms

Haslinda, Abdullah

Faculty of Economics & Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia

43400 Selangor, MalaysiaE-mail: [email protected]

Ong Mek Hiok

Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia

43000 Selangor, Malaysia

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Theorizing and modelling Human Resource Development (HRD) worldwide is a complex

task and varies between countries due to the economic, political, culture, labour market andeducational systems of each individual country. Specifically, Malaysia, a developing

country in the midst of achieving knowledge-economy status with a knowledge-based

workforce, is likely to differ from other developing countries in terms of modelling its

HRD practices. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to examine the extent and nature of HRDand to model HRD in manufacturing firms in Malaysia. This study employed a mixed-

method approach of questionnaires and interviews for data collection. The findings showed

that HRD practices in manufacturing firms in Malaysia are strongly associated with the sizeof firms. Theoretically, HRD in manufacturing firms in Malaysia is strongly influenced by

and associated with Government interventions and economic and market changes, such as

the requirement for ISO certification to compete in business, which influences the wayhuman resources are managed and developed.

Keywords: Human Resource Development; training and development; practices; models,manufacturing industry; Malaysia;

1. IntroductionIn an attempt to explain human resource development, numerous authors have debated the theoreticalconcepts of HRD, yet a distinctive conceptual and theoretical identity has not been established.

Researchers believe that the debates are complicated by the beliefs and understanding of individual

stakeholders and HRD practitioners (Garavan et al, 1999; Garavan et al, 2000; Hatcher, 2000;

McGoldrick et al, 2002). Although somewhat debatable, several studies in both developed anddeveloping countries have been undertaken to develop a descriptive framework of HRD practices.

These studies found that the nature and extent of HRD varies from one country to another and isinfluenced by the economic, political, cultural, labour market and educational systems of each

individual country (see for example, Ardichvili & Gasparishvili, 2001 in Russia; Elbadri, 2001 in

Poland; Budhwar et al, 2002 in Oman; Sambrook, 2001 in UK; Heraty & Morley, 2002 and Kjellberget al, 1998 in Sweden; Morrow, 2001 and Nolan, 2002 in Ireland; Mishra, 2002 in India;

Yadapadithaya & Stewart, 2003 in UK and India).

Specific to the case of manufacturing firms in Malaysia, developing human resources is an

important thrust in the Government’s strategies to achieve knowledge-economy status with aknowledge workforce by the year 2020. As such, HRD in Malaysia may differ from other countries,

8/8/2019 ejss_8_4_11



641

particularly other developing countries, due to the Government’s support and initiatives as well as the

influence of culture, economic and political issues, the labour market and educational systems on HRD

practice in Malaysia. Moreover, there is limited empirical evidence on HRD in Malaysia, even thoughother developed countries such as the UK, Europe and the USA have differing concepts and

assumptions of HRD; this has intensified the need to conceptualise and model HRD in Malaysia,

particularly in the context of a developing country. Indeed, it has been posited by Harrison & Kessels(2004) that “in a rapidly emerging knowledge economy, organisations rely on human resources’

capability to adapt to the changing environment and be knowledge-productive; and that the HRD process is key to ensuring that capability”. Hence, this paper sets out to present the nature and extentof HRD and to model HRD in manufacturing firms in Malaysia. However, as the manufacturing firms

include both large-scale industries (LSIs) and small and medium-scale industries (SMIs), and the

findings of study reveal extensive variations between these industries, the discussion of findings willdeal with LSIs and SMIs separately.

2. Theoretical Foundations and Models of HRDThe field of HRD is complex and evolving, which makes it difficult to identify a specific model and

theory for HRD (Lee, 2003). Most writers believe that the underlying theory in HRD is psychological

in its basic assumptions because HRD is intended to make changes or improve individuals’ learning,behaviour, work performance, attitudes and cognitive skills (see, for example, Swanson & Holton III,

2001). However, a set of psychological, system and economic theories has been proposed to support

and develop a more inclusive theory of HRD (see for example, Swanson, 1999). This multiple-basedtheory is presented as a three-legged stool model (see Figure 1) and has been suggested to provide the

more integrated support that is required in HRD. The first element, which is fundamental to the

survival of organisations, is economic; second, the notion of connectivity and relationships that canmaximise the integration of subsystems and systems requires a system theory; and thirdly, psychological theory acknowledges that employees improve productivity, make changes and influence

development within organisations through training, learning and development (Swanson & Holton III,2001). However, this three-foundation theory has been criticised in that psychological theories lacks

the leverage to improve performance, whereas economic theories have their limitations in interpretingthe pressures for human capital and diverse workforces in a rapidly changing work environment

(Torraco, 1998).

Figure 1: The Three-Legged Stool Model (Swanson & Holton III, 2001)

Organisation,Process & Individual

PERFORMANCE

Economic

System

Psychological

However, system theory has also been identified as a strong influence on HRD in organisations(Ruona, 1998). Indeed, system theory is often deployed to describe the complexity of HRD and

organisations, as it has the ability to capture the complex and dynamic interaction of environments,

organisations and work processes, as well as groups or individuals, as illustrated in the input-

8/8/2019 ejss_8_4_11



642

transformation-output system model (see Figure 2). The system model is a five-phase system which

includes the processes of analysing, proposing, creation, implementation and assessment, paralleling

the other processes in an organization (Swanson, 2001c: 18-19). Moreover, system theory has evenbeen proposed to serve as the underlying theory to access other theories in HRD, such as general

systems theory, chaos theory, futures theory and the domains of cybernetic systems and complex

adaptive systems. For instance, firstly, general systems theory explains how HRD and othersubsystems connect and disconnect; secondly, chaos theory proposes that an organisation has the

ability to retain its purpose and effectiveness in the face of chaos; thirdly, futures theory proposes thatan organisation has the ability to shape the future; fourthly, cybernetic system theory explains thatsystems function through communication, feedback and control within a system and also with its

environment; and finally, complex adaptive system theory proposes that systems function in an area of

complexity between chaos and order. Hence, system theory has been claimed as the unifying theory of HRD (Swanson & Holton III, 2001). Nonetheless, it is still argued that it has its limitations (Iles &

Yolles, 2003).

Indeed, Iles & Yolles (2003) emphasise the increased influence of organisational development

(OD) on HRD, which was absent in the traditional input-transformation-output system model. Thisopinion has also been supported by Grieves and Redman (1999), who described the influence of OD on

HRD as ‘HRD living in the shadow of organisation development’. Moreover, the systems model has

been criticised as being outdated and ‘planned’ and its simplistic systems thinking is incapable of dealing adequately with the complexity of the relationships of systems and environments. Moreover,

elements of power, politics, culture and potential for change in organisations are not clearly specified

in the systems models (Iles& Yolles, 2003).

Figure 2: The Input-Transformation-Output System Model (Swanson, 2001c)

OutputsProcesses

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Inputs

ENVIRONMENTEconomic Forces Political Forces Cultural Forces

ORGANISATION

Mission & Strategy, Organisation Structure, Technology, Human Resources

1 2 3 4 5Analyse Propose Create Implement Assess

Therefore, it has been suggested that complexity theory, which incorporates the concept of organisational development, may be a more appropriate way to understand the complex environment of

HRD. This is because complexity theory takes into consideration organisations’ dynamic reactions

with their environments and incorporates notions of power and organisational control (Iles & Yolles,

2003). Complex theory is illustrated as an evolving model (see Figure 3) working in a cycle, adopting arecursive, viable systems model of HRD. The sequential process in the complex evolving model

defines a cycle of inquiry that begins with an identification of the current and future states of an

organisation (Step 1 to Step 3). The cycle than continues to step 4, in which the system is within

8/8/2019 ejss_8_4_11



643

control of the stakeholders. In this step, the notions of power, structure, conflict and resistance

determine the stability of the action stage, and if this is not stable, recursion occurs in the cycle. Steps 5

and 6 are described as the action stage or the process of synthesising, selecting and evaluating HRDactivities, which is similar to the processes in the systems model. Finally, step 7 provides a

comprehensive mapping of the dynamics of change and organisational development. Therefore, the

complex evolving theory has been proposed to be more appropriate to explain the strategic nature of HRD and provide a better understanding in managing the complex systems and change involved.

Moreover, it has been argued that since the methodological principle in this model is based onfeedback, the cybernetic aspect present in systems theory is enhanced and the control aspect, whichwas absent in the input-transformation-output system model, is clearly highlighted (Hatcher, 2003; Iles

& Yolles, 2003).

Figure 3: The Complex Evolving Model (Iles & Yolles, 2003)

Identify targets &

Design models

Synthesis

S5

Conceptualisation ConstraintFelt needs of participants

effectiveness

Control Evaluation/selection

System form Analysis Assess contexts S3 Choice of models

Stakeholder Relevant systems S2 S6

Participation Exploration/Purposes S1

S4Change & Development S7

ActionControlOn action S3

While various HRD models have been produced to theorise HRD - from the simple three-legged stool to the complex evolving model - it can still be argued that HRD does not really have its

own theories per se but applies theories from its base disciplines such as education, general systems

theory, economics, organisational behaviour and human relations theory (McGoldrick et al, 2002;Hatcher, 2003). Moreover, these theories and models may not be applicable to all HRD practices

worldwide, although they may be adapted and their base disciplines may be used as a basis for all HRD

practices

3. Research MethodsThe data obtained for this study were gathered using a mixed methodology approach, combining both a

questionnaire survey and interviews with HR managers or personnel in charge of HRD in the

participating organizations. A questionnaire was sent to the whole population of 2,135 manufacturingfirms registered with the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers and 50 face-to-face interviews were

conducted covering all five regions of Malaysia.

The mixed-method concurrent triangulation strategy was used, due to its ability to corroborate,

confirm and cross-validate data findings. The questionnaires were sent to HRD managers or personnel

8/8/2019 ejss_8_4_11



644

in charge of HRD, and in the absence of a specific HRD function or personnel, were directed to the HR

manager. The questionnaire covered all aspects of HRD, such as training and development, career

management, performance management and change management in manufacturing firms. Out of a totalof 2,135 questionnaires sent out, 365 responses were returned after three stages of delivery: postal,

electronic mail and hand delivery.

In the qualitative aspect of the study, HR managers or personnel in charge of HRD wereinitially sent a letter inviting them to participate in the study, and upon acceptance, an appointment was

made to conduct the interview. A semi-structured questionnaire was used as an interview guide in anattempt to corroborate and confirm the questionnaire survey findings and to gain further insights intothe subject matter. The questionnaire data were analysed statistically and the interview data were

analysed according to themes and categories. This combination of qualitative and quantitative methods

produced rich and valid information.

4. ResultsHRD in the SMIs is typically viewed as ‘Training and Development’ (‘T&D’) and their T&D activities

take a more informal, reactive, ad-hoc and practical approach rather than adopting the normative

perspective. As has been noted in studies of HRD in most developing countries, the findings in this

study revealed that HRD in the SMIs is highly influenced by the Government’s HRD policies (see, forexample, Osman-Gani & Tan, 2000; Ardichvili et al, 2001; Elbadri, 2001; Budhwar et al, 2002;

Harrison & Kessels, 2004). In addition, HRD in the SMIs is seen as reacting to changes in the business

environment, and the International Standards of Operations (ISO) are adopted as a strategy to maintaincompetitive advantage. Therefore, HRD activities in the SMIs are planned and carried out mainly to

conform to the ISO policy guidelines and merely as a tool to solve and prevent problems, as has been

inferred in other research studies (see, for example, Sadler-Smith, Sargeant & Dawson, 1998; Sadler-Smith, Down & Field, 1999; Heraty & Morley, 2000; Yadapadithaya & Stewart, 2003; Vinten, 2000).

Indeed, it was revealed by the interview statements that conforming to the ISO standards is an

important issue (indicated in Figure 4 as Step 1 and Level one of importance). For instance, it wasindicated that, “we already have the ISO standards to conform to”. Therefore, it may not be necessary

for the SMIs to have their own company-specific HRD policies, as they are already adapting to theInternational Quality Standards with specific requirements for employees’ training and development.

Moreover, formulating a policy for HRD in the SMIs may not be practical, as they are small in nature,with few employees, and already have the Government’s HRD policy to adhere to.

The findings revealed that a vast majority of the SMIs do not identify HRD needs before any

training initiatives are carried out. However, in the light of business competition from the externalenvironment, their businesses processes and needs are likely to be analysed (Step 2 in Figure 4), but

this occurrence is generally on a reactive and ad-hoc basis. This is evident from the survey and was

supported by the interview statements. For instance, it was indicated that “needs analysis is not

necessary” as it is a “very costly process” and that SMIs “lack internal expertise in HRD”. However, it

follows that employees in the SMIs are sometimes provided with training in the advent of change, such

as the introduction of new technology and new working methods or work processes. Thus, theevidence suggests that production employees (mainly composed of technical, supervisors and shop

floor staff), who are viewed as the core assets for productivity, are provided with higher levels of

training provision than operational staff (senior and middle managers and clerical support staff). This

finding is in contrast to the situation in the UK, in which production employees are provided with lowlevels of training (Kerr & McDougall, 1999; Taylor, Shaw & Thorpe, 2004). Training is still delivered

to these employees using more conventional methods, such as classroom-based and outdoor

experiential training, as well as on-the-job instruction training, although the use of more advancedtechnology is increasingly popular (Read & Kleiner, 1996; Wognum & Mulder, 1999; Dilworth, 2003).

Moreover, the findings revealed that training activities in the SMIs are mainly outsourced to external

8/8/2019 ejss_8_4_11



645

providers (indicated by Steps 3 and 4 at Level 2 of importance), due to the absence of a separate

function for HRD and a lack of HRD knowledge and expertise, as also inferred in other research

studies (Eidgahy, 1995; Sadler-Smith et al, 1998; Buyens et al, 2001, Chermack et al, 2003).

Figure 4: Model of HRD in the SMIs

Plan & Policy

ISO Policy S

Evaluation & Assessing Performance

S

Government HRD Plans, Policies, and SMI Action Plans

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

OWNER-MANAGERS

HRD Funds

Needs Analysis

S

Budget

Outsourced

Design & Develop

S

Deliver & Implement

S

Level of Training ProvisionProduction employees

Operational employees

C o n s t r a i n t s : H R D

e x p e r t i s e , H

R D s t r u c t u r e , s t r a t e g i e s

Market Changes

Informal Observation & feedback

D e c r e a s i n g l e v e l o f i m

p o r t a n c e

Outcomes1. Individual & team development

2. Performance & work process

improvement

Generally, the findings in the SMIs imply that unless the owner-managers provide full support

and commitment to HRD, and unless line managers become more involved in the HRD process, needs

analysis and evaluation will remain a neglected process in HRD, as these processes are regarded as theleast important (indicated by Level 3 in Figure 4). Owner-managers and line managers are evidently

more concerned about productivity and outputs than about the formal training and evaluation of

employees. This is evident from the survey and is supported by the interview statements. For instance,it was indicated that “training is not important ”, as the “main focus is production”. Nevertheless, the

HRD activities implemented in the SMIs aim to develop individual employees and teams to improve

performance and work processes. However, with the dearth of long-term HRD plans and performance

appraisals, employees’ longer-term development is neglected.Overall, it appears that HRD practitioners in the SMIs are not focusing on the systematic

process of HRD and the formality it involves, but appear to be more focused on the realities of learningacquisition without strict formal boundaries. This contrasts with the norms of the normative HRDmodels. Nonetheless, the SMIs do indeed require some form of institutional support and structurally

legitimised expertise in HRD; otherwise, they may not be able to compete with the larger organisations

in a rapidly emerging knowledge-economy environment.The development of this model is based on the input and output process of HRD and developed

on the concept that HRD in the SMIs is informal and is only focused on the process of training

employees to encourage behavioural change and improve productivity. In this model, the inputs in

HRD signify that HRD in the SMIs is driven by the Government’s HRD plans and policies, and thatthe SMIs are conforming to the ISO policy to provide training to their employees. On the other hand,

8/8/2019 ejss_8_4_11



646

the outputs signify the outcomes of HRD activities implemented in this industry. Therefore, as seen

from the model, HRD activities implemented in the SMIs are described in their order of importance.

Analysing HRD needs and the evaluation of training are regarded as being least important becauseneeds analysis in the SMIs is reactive to changes in the environment, whereas the evaluation of training

is almost entirely neglected in this industry. However, the design, development, delivery and

implementation of HRD activities are important in the SMIs, as they represent the central process of employees’ training and development and they are mainly outsourced to external providers. Therefore,

from the theoretical and empirical findings of this study, a model of HRD in the SMIs is developed todocument the process of HRD in the SMIs and permit a better understanding of the nature of HRD inthis part of the manufacturing industry.

On the other hand, the findings revealed that the overall model of HRD in the LSIs is a

recursive and evolving process (see Figure 5). The HRD function in the manufacturing sector inMalaysia has experienced considerable change in recent years and this has affected the LSIs. A

majority of the manufacturing companies, including the LSIs, reported that continuous pressure for

increased quality, innovation and productivity, as well as the apparent need to improve employees’

capabilities, have been the driving forces for HRD initiatives. Therefore, employees are provided withHRD activities to enable them to cope with the new technology and working processes.

Figure 5: Model of HRD in the Large Scale Industries

Formal &

Informal

Formal & Informal

Informal

Observation &

feedback

Outsourced

Outsourced

Government’s HRD Plans and Policies

C o n s t r a i n t

s : H R D

e x p e r t i s e ,

S t r u c

t u r e ,

S t r a t e g i e s

HRD Funds

Top Management

HRD DeptHR/Personnel Dept

1) ISO Policies

2) Internal HRD Plans,

Policies & Strategies

INPUT

Production Level1) Supervisory Staff

2) Technical Employees 3) Shop floor Employees

Market Changes

Performance Management

Career Progression

Change, Organisation

Development1) Individual & team

development

2) Performance & work

process improvement

OUTPUT

Planning

Line

Mgrs

Needs

Analysis

Corporate Budget

Evaluation

Internal Trainers

Design &

Develop

Deliver &

Implement

Even though the provision of HRD plans and policies has been suggested to be an importantcomponent of strategic HRD (Clutterbuck, 1989; Howitz, 1999), only one third of the LSIs have any

form of plans and policies for HRD, and these are mostly short-term plans and informal policies.

However, some companies have also adopted the formal ISO policy and the Government HRD policy

(indicated by Input in Figure 5); other than this, most companies do not see the importance of having

8/8/2019 ejss_8_4_11



647

any policy for HRD. This is evident from the survey and is supported by the interview statements. For

instance, it was stated that, “having another policy for HRD is not necessary, as employees’

requirements for training have been stated in the ISO standards”. These findings are consistent withthose of other research studies (for example, Heraty & Morley, 2000; Yadapadithaya & Stewart, 2003).

Therefore, HRD in large firms is observed as more of a process to solve and prevent problems,

particularly in the context of conforming to the ISO quality standards.Traditionally, training and development has been the sole responsibility of the Personnel or HR

department, and it has often been viewed as an elusive activity without any real strategic focus(Garavan et al, 1995; Heraty & Morley, 2000). This phenomenon still exists in the SMIs, but HRD inthe LSIs is changing. The structure of HRD in the LSIs has been found to be somewhat strategic. The

study findings revealed that one-third of these firms have separate departments responsible for HRD

and these departments are generally labelled ‘Training’ rather than ‘HRD’. However, in thosecompanies without training departments, the HR department is responsible for their HRD activities.

Generally, the structure of HRD in the large-scale industries involves direct communication with top

management, and some companies even have a separate budget for HRD within the corporate structure

(see Figure 5). This reflects the importance of HRD in their corporate structure and is also indicative of top management commitment to HRD, which is an important aspect (Garavan, 1991; McCracken &

Wallace, 2000; Harrison, 2002).

The HRD process in the LSIs is reasonably systematic, but not totally formal andcomprehensive, with most companies adopting a more informal approach. The survey findings suggest

that HRD needs assessments (Step 2) are regularly conducted, but mainly by means of managers’

direct observation and informal feedback rather than the more formal methods of needs analysis. Thesame applies to the evaluation of training activities and the assessment of performance improvement

(Step 5). These findings were supported by the interview statements. However, these rather informal

methods of analysing training needs and evaluation have been criticised as being the least effective

approaches (see for example, Heraty & Morley, 2000; Budhwar et al, 2002). However, further analysisof the findings revealed that HRD needs analysis and the evaluation process in the LSIs are restricted

by a number of constraints, ranging from human expertise to time and financial limitations, and this

can have implications for the effectiveness of the HRD activities implemented in organisations.

However, in spite of these restrictions, the production employees in this industry are observed as beinghighly valued, in that they are provided with high levels of training, particularly in terms of new

employees’ induction training, preparatory training before upgrading and promotion and on the adventof change in the business environment, such as during the introduction of new technology, working

methods and processes. This finding is in contrast to studies in the UK, where production employees

are generally given less training, even in the high skills sector (see, for example, Tregaskis & Dany,1996; Lloyd, 2003).

Turning to the methods by which training is delivered in the LSIs, conventional classroom-

based training and on-the-job instruction, as well as outdoor experiential learning, are commonly

deployed, even though outdoor experiential learning has been criticised as being relatively ineffective(Wagner & Campbell, 1994). However, the more advanced method of virtual and technological

training, which has been used globally, is not in evidence in Malaysia, according to this study (Read &Kleiner, 1996; Wognum & Mulder, 1999; Mulder & Tjepkema, 1999; Marquardt et al, 2000; Dilworth,2003). This suggests that advanced technological training and other related training methods are not

incorporated into the delivery of training and learning. This may have implications for the developmentof e-learning and computer-based training in the manufacturing sector. The training activities in this

industry are either outsourced to external training providers or organised in-house and in organisations’

individually owned training centres (Steps 3 and 4 in Figure 5), depending on the type of training andthe level of employees. Indeed, most organisations are seen as lacking in internal expertise and are

under-resourced in terms of training professionals; thus, the outsourcing of HRD activities is

8/8/2019 ejss_8_4_11



648

increasingly becoming a global phenomenon (Kjellberg et al, 1998; Madsen & Larsen, 1998; Mulder et

al, 1999; Morrow, 2001; Budhwar et al, 2002; Gainey & Klaas, 2005).

These findings suggest that this lack of formality also extends to the performance appraisalssystems, in which the main approach to appraising employees’ performance improvement is by

analysing employees’ acquired skills, knowledge and attitudes by means of informal observation and

feedback rather than through structured and formal intervention. Even though employees’ performanceappraisals are in evidence to some extent in these companies, they are not associated with reward

strategies such as salary increments or high performance bonuses. This finding was supported by theinterview statements, wherein it was indicated that the LSIs “do not have a special reward scheme for

their high performing employees” and that “ performance bonuses were awarded equally between all

employees” in the organisation. This has implications for employees’ motivation and long-term

development. For instance, the evidence suggests that HRD practitioners find it difficult to develop apositive learning environment due to employees’ lack of motivation. This suggests that performance

appraisals in this industry have no real purpose or objective (indicated by the dotted box in Figure 5);

this proposition has been endorsed by Behn (2003), who argues that performance appraisals performed

in organisations are merely a trend and are not effective. The findings in this study also revealed thatorganisations are not planning for their employees’ career advancement (indicated by the dotted box in

Figure 5), and this supports the view that HRD practitioners are no longer responsible for employees’

career advancement, as individual employees are now taking control of their own career progression(Swanson & Holton III, 2001; Lloyd, 2003). It is apparent that the LSIs implement the necessary

activities to support HRD, but these activities are generally lacking in objectivity and formality.

Nevertheless, HRD activities carried out in the LSIs contribute to individual and team development,and to performance and work process improvement. Indeed, it has been argued that these outcomes are

part of the central tenet of HRD efforts (Schein, 1970; Stewart & McGoldrick, 1996; Gourlay, 2001).

The evidence in this study indicates that the HRD system is lacking in specialised HRD

professionals. This certainly has implications for the effectiveness of HRD in developing a skilled,knowledgeable and competent workforce. It has been observed that HRD practitioners in the

manufacturing sector in Malaysia are faced with the challenges of coping with the demand for

knowledge workers and fostering employees’ learning and development in the workplace. These

challenges are critical for the development of human resources in the manufacturing sector inMalaysia. This finding has been endorsed by other studies, indicating that the complicated and

evolving field of HRD is continuously being challenged by the lack of human expertise in a rapidlychanging environment (McGoldrick & Stewart, 1996; Schmidt & Lines, 2002; Lee, 2003). This

suggests that employers and HRD practitioners have to improve their organisational expectations and

strategies in relation to HR management, development and change in order to cope with thechallenging competitive environment and the emerging knowledge economy.

As a whole, the nature of HRD in this industry is observed as complex and complicated but

systematic. Therefore, due to the complexity of HRD in the LSIs, and building on Iles & Yolles’s

(2002) complex evolving model, a model of HRD in this industry is developed to show a clear pictureof HRD and its associated processes. This model of HRD in the LSIs also incorporates the concept of

inputs and outputs of the HRD process. As seen in the model, the inputs in HRD denote theGovernment’s interventions, such as HRD plans and policies, funds and other initiatives, and also theadoption of the ISO policy by most LSIs. The outputs denote the outcomes of HRD efforts in this

industry. The evolving model suggests that HRD in the LSIs is systematic in its processes, but thehexagonal boxes in the evolving model suggest that HRD needs identification is carried out regularly,

and that needs are also analysed in reaction to changes in the business environment. The hexagonal

boxes incorporating the processes of design and implementation of HRD denote that these processesare either carried out internally or outsourced to external providers, depending on the availability of

HRD expertise or the competencies required for training. Therefore, based on the findings in this

8/8/2019 ejss_8_4_11



649

research and the development of the HRD model, this study contributes to a better understanding and

provides a clear picture of HRD and its processes in LSIs in Malaysia’s manufacturing sector.

5. ConclusionHRD practices in the SMIs and LSIs were shown to have vast disparities, but also some similarities.

Therefore, one model could not be used to generalise HRD in all manufacturing firms in Malaysia. As

seen in the two models above, size had an impact on ISO and quality-related factors, with similaritiesin that HRD activities are associated with achieving higher standards of productivity, quality andeffectiveness in order to survive in a competitive environment of constant change and intense domestic

competition. In this context, both SMIs and LSIs are seen to value their production employees,

providing them with more training and development than employees at other levels, and this trainingand development is associated with greater spending. However, both SMIs and LSIs adopt mainly

informal approaches to the analysis of HRD needs and the evaluation of training effectiveness, as

opposed to formal methods. Nonetheless, the outcomes of HRD activities and the major challenges inHRD are generally similar across the two industry groups. At the same time, in both the SMIs and

LSIs, there is at least some involvement on the part of line managers in carrying out certain

responsibilities in HRD, and to a certain extent, both have top management support for their HRD

processes.Nevertheless, it is worth noting that compared to the SMIs, the LSIs tend to at least have a

separate function for HRD. Despite the similarities in their levels of training provision and spending

for employees’ training, the LSIs are not totally dependent on external providers for employees’training, as some companies have their own internal trainers to provide in-house training, while the

SMIs are at a disadvantage in this regard. Furthermore, some of the LSIs seem to be quite apprehensive

about managing employees’ performance improvement for longer-term development and assessing thebusiness results from HRD activities. In the latter context, at least a handful of companies do ensure

that they have some kind of return on their training investments. As such, it may be argued that even

though only a few of the LSIs associate HRD activities with business results and employees’ longer-term development, this is reflected in a systematic approach to implementing HRD activities in the

LSIs, which accounts for the differences in the nature of HRD between the SMIs and the LSIs. Overall,HRD in manufacturing firms in Malaysia is highly influenced by and associated with political,

economic and market changes, such as the requirement for ISO certification to compete in the businessarena, which influence the way human resources are managed and developed.

Indeed, it was found in this study that the activities implemented are more similar to T&D than

to HRD in their nature and extent. This is in contrast to the theoretical context of HRD, as the role of HRD extends far beyond T&D (Stead and Lee, 1996; Harrison, 2000). This has implications for HRD

theory and for normative HRD models. The theoretical and empirical findings in this study imply that

the concept of HRD is yet to be established and accepted, and practitioners’ views of HRD are stillseen as synonymous with T&D

6. Limitations and Recommendations for Further ResearchThe first limitation of this study is associated with the fact that it examined only in manufacturing

sector in Malaysia, and the other private sectors (such as hospitality and services, construction, finance,transport, agriculture and mining) were not included due to time constraints. Therefore, the findings of

this study cannot be generalised to the national HRD context, as the other private sectors and the

Government services were not covered. As this is the first empirical study of HRD in Malaysia’smanufacturing sector, there were limitations in covering all the sectors. Hence, in order to generalise

the study at the national level, a nationwide study should be conducted to represent HRD in Malaysia

on a national scale.

8/8/2019 ejss_8_4_11



650

The second limitation of this study relates to the respondents selected to participate. The

respondents selected for this study were personnel in charge of HRD or T&D activities in their

organisations, who were chosen for the purpose of obtaining accurate information about theirexperiences of carrying out and managing human resource development. The limitation in this method

is that HRD practitioners’ perceptions of HRD did not represent the perceptions and understandings

held by top management and other employees Therefore, it is recommended that questionnaire andinterview surveys should be performed with top management and also with frontline employees, to

explore their understanding of HRD and to gather further insights into their perceptions of the nature of HRD in their organisations. In this way, HRD practitioners’ perceptions and understandings of HRDcould be validated through the perspectives of top management and employees.

References[1] Ardichvili, A. and Gasparishvili, A. (2001) Human resource development in an industry in

transition. Human Resource Development International, 4 (1): pp. 47-63.[2] Behn, R. D. (2003) Why measure performance? Different Purposes Require Different

Measures. Public Administration Review, 63 (5): pp. 586-606

[3] Budhwar, P.S., Al-Yahmadi, S. and Debrah, Y. (2002) Human resource development in the

Sultanate of Oman. International Journal of Training and Development , 6 (3): pp.198[4] Buyens, D., Wouters, K. and Dewettinck, K. (2001). Future challenges for HRD Professionals

in European learning-oriented organizations. Journal of European Industrial Training, 25 (9):

pp. 442.[5] Chermack, T.J., Lynham, S.A. and Ruona, W.E.A. (2003) Critical uncertainties confronting

human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5 (3): pp. 257-271

[6] Clutterbuck, D. (1989) Developing customer care training programmes. Marketing Intelligence

and Planning, 7 (1-2): pp. 34-37

[7] Dilworth, L. (2003) Searching for the future of HRD. Advances in Developing Human

Resources, 5 (3): pp. 241-244[8] Eidgahy, S. Y. (1995) Management of diverse HRD programs: Challenges and opportunities.

Personnel Management , 46 (3): pp. 15-20[9] Elbadri, A. N. A. (2001) Training practices of Polish companies: An appraisal and agenda for

improvement. Journal of European Industrial Training, 25 (2-4): pp. 69-79[10] Gainey, T. W. & Klaas, B. S. (2005) Outsourcing relationships between firms and their training

providers: The role of trust. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16 (1): pp.7-25

[11] Garavan, T. N. (1991) Strategic human resource development. International Journal of

Manpower , 12 (6): pp. 21-34

[12] Garavan, T. N. (1995) HRD Stakeholders: Their Philosophies, values, expectations and

evaluation criteria. Journal of European Industrial Training, 19 (10): pp. 17-30[13] Garavan, T.N., Heraty, N., and Barnicle, B. (1999) Human resource development literature:

Current issues, priorities and dilemmas. Journal of European Industrial Training, 23 (4-5): pp.

169-179[14] Garavan, T.N.; Morley, M.; Gunnigle, P. and McGuire, D. (2002). Human resource

development and workplace learning: Emerging theoretical perspectives and organizational

practices. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26 (2-4): pp. 60-71.

[15] Gourlay, S. (2001) Knowledge management and HRD. Human Resource Development

International, 4 (1): pp. 27-46.

[16] Grieves, J. and Redman, T. (1999) Living in the shadow of OD: HRD and the search for

identity Human Resource Development International, 2 (2): pp. 81-103[17] Harrison, R. and Kessels, J. (2004) Human Resource Development in a Knowledge Economy:

An Organisational View. New York: Palgrave MacMillan

8/8/2019 ejss_8_4_11



651

[18] Harrison, R. (2002) Learning and Development . (3rd ed) London, CIPD

[19] Hatcher, T. (2000) A study of the influence of the theoretical foundations of human resource

development on research and practice. Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource

Development , North Carolina.

[20] Hatcher, T. (2003) Worldviews that enhance and inhibit HRD’s social responsibility in Lee, M. HRD in a Complex World . London and New York: Routledge Heraty & Morley, 2000

[21] Heraty and Morley (2002) Management development in Ireland: The new organizational

wealth? Journal of Management Development , 22 (1): pp. 60-82[22] Holton, III, E.F. (2000) Clarifying and defining the performance paradigm of human resource

development. Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development . North Carolina

[23] Horwitz, F.M., Falconer, A.B. and Searll, P. (1996) Human resource development and

managing diversity in South Africa. International Journal of Manpower , 17 (4-5): pp.134-151[24] Iles, P. and Yolles, M. (2003) Complexity, HRD and organisation development: Towards a

viable systems approach to learning, development and change in Lee, M. HRD in a Complex

World . London, New York: Routledge

[25] Kerr, A. and McDougall, M. (1999) The small business of developing people. International

Small Business Journal. London. 17 (2): pp. 65-74

[26] Kjellberg, Y., Soderstrom, M. and Svensson, L. (1998) Training and development in the

Swedish context: Structural change and a new paradigm. Journal of European IndustrialTraining, 22 (4-5): pp. 205-216

[27] Lee, M. (2003) HRD in a Complex World . London: Routledge

[28] Lloyd, C. (2003) Training and development deficiencies in ‘high skill’ sectors. Human Resource Management Journal, 12 (2): pp. 64-81

[29] Madsen, P. and Larsen, H.H. (1998). Training and development in the Danish context:

Challenging education? Journal of European Industrial Training, 22 (4-5): pp.158-170.

[30] Marquardt, M. J., Nissley, N., Ozaq, R. and Taylor, T.L. (2000) Training and development inthe United States. International Journal of Training and Development , 4 (2): pp.138-149

[31] McCracken, M. and Wallace, M. (2000) Towards a redefinition of strategic HRD. Journal of

European Industrial Training, 24 (5): pp. 281-29

[32] McGoldrick, J. and Stewart, J. (1996) The HRM-HRD nexus in Stewart, J. and McGoldrick, J.(eds) Human Resource Development: Perspectives, Strategies and Practice. London: Prentice

Hall.[33] McGoldrick, J., Stewart, J. and Watson, S.. (2002) Understanding Human Resource

Development: A research-based approach. London, Routledge

[34] Mishra, P. B. G. (2002) Human resource development climate: An empirical study amongprivate sector managers. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 38 (1): pp. 66-80

[35] Morrow, T. (2001) Training and development in the Northern Ireland clothing industry. Journal of European Industrial Training, 25 (2-4): pp. 80-89

[36] Mulder, M.M. and Tjepkema, S. (1999). Training and development in the Netherlands. International Journal of Training and Development , 3 (1): pp. 63-73.

[37] Nolan, C. (2002) Human resource development in the Irish hotel industry: The case of the smallfirm. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26 (2-4): pp. 88-99

[38] Osman-Gani, A.A.M. and Tan, W.L (2000) Training and development in Singapore. International Journal of Training and Development , 4 (4): pp. 305-323

[39] Read, C.W. and Kleiner, B.H (1996) Which training methods are effective? Management

Development Review, 9 (2): pp. 24-29

[40] Ruona, W.E.A. (1998) Systems theory as a foundation for HRD. In. R. Torraco (Ed.),Proceedings of the 1998 Academy of Human Resource Development

[41] Sadler-Smith, E., Down, S., and Lean, J. (2000) “Modern” learning methods: Rhetoric and

reality. Personnel Review, 29 (4): pp 474-490

8/8/2019 ejss_8_4_11



[42] Sadler-Smith, E., Sargeant, A. and Dawson, A. (1998) Higher level skills training and SMEs. International Small Business Journal, 16 (2): pp. 84

[43] Sambrook, S. (2001) HRD as an emergent and negotiated evolution: An ethnographic casestudy in the British National Health Service. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12 (2):

pp.169-193

[44] Schein, E. H. (1970) Organizational Psychology (2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.[45] Schmidt, J. & Lines, S. (2002) A measure of success. People Management , 8 (9): pp.32

[46] Stewart, J. and McGoldrick, J. (eds) (1996) Human Resource Development: Perspectives,Strategies and Practice. London: Prentice Hall

[47] Swanson, R. A. and Holton, III, E. F. (2001) Foundations of Human Resource Development.

San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.

[48] Swanson, R.A. (1999) HRD Theory: Real or imagined? Human Resource Development

International, 2 (1): pp. 2-5

[49] Taylor, S., Shaw, S. and Thorpe, R. (2004) Neither market failure nor customer ignorance: The

organisational limitations of employee training and development in Stewart, J. & Beaver, G. HRD in Small Organisations: Research and Practice. London and New York: Routledge

[50] Torraco, R. J. (2005) Work Design Theory: A review and critique with implications for human

resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16 (1): pp. 85-109

[51] Tregaskis, O. and Dany, F. (1996) A comparison of HRD in France and the UK. Journal of European Industrial Training, 20 (1): pp. 20-30

[52] Vinten, G. (2000) Training in small and medium-sized enterprises. Industrial and Commercial

Training, 32 (1): pp. 9-14[53] Wagner, R. J. & Campbell, J. (1994) Outdoor-based experiential training: Improving transfer of

training using virtual reality. Journal of Management Development , 13 (7): pp. 4-11

[54] Wognum, A. A. M. and Mulder, M. M. (1999) Strategic HRD within companies. International

Journal of Training and Development , 3 (1)[55] Yadapadithaya, P. S. and Stewart, J. (2003) Corporate training and development policies and

practices: A cross-national study of India and Britain. International Journal of Training and

Development . Oxford. 7 (2): pp.108-123

ejss_8_4_11

Documents

Transcript of ejss_8_4_11