Are Western Management Concepts (Like Hrd) Applicable Worldwide?
Are western management concepts (like HRD) applicable worldwide?
“Every aspect of a firm's activities is determined by the competence, motivation and general effectiveness of its human organization. Of all the tasks of management, managing the human component is the most important task because all else depends upon how well it is done.”(Likert 1967). Although this quote has already over 40 years of age, the core statement has not changed in any way. Still, managers have to focus on the people working in their companies, need to take differences among them into account and especially when it comes to managing in various countries, cultural, natural and unavoidable differences have to be taken into consideration ( Hofstede 1987). Regarding the latter, management ideas or management concepts differ a lot. This is why those concepts, in particular Human Resource Development, have different definitions and approaches depending on what country you are looking at, on the focus of interest and on who is giving the definition. Several attempts to define HRD have shown that there is no general definition of the term (Haslinda Abdullah 2009). For this reason, it can be kind of confusing and unclear to get an appropriate definition as many practitioners, academics and researches all have different opinions on what the term should include (Haslinda Abdullah 2009). A very good overview of all the different approaches can be found in the literature of Weinberger (1998), which shows in a very understandable way how the term HRD was rewritten several times over the last decades to fit the newest ideas and the different underlying theses. It starts with the definition of Nadler (1970) who claims HRD to be “a series of organized activities conducted within a specified time and designed to produce behavioral change”. It was Craig (1976), six years after Nadler, who said “The HRD focus is on the central goal of developing human potential in every aspect of lifelong learning.”. McLagan
“Every aspect of a firm's activities is determined by the competence, motivation and general effectiveness of its human organization. Of all the tasks of management, managing the human component is the most important task because all else depends upon how well it is done.”(Likert 1967). Although this quote has already over 40 years of age, the core statement has not changed in any way. Still, managers have to focus on the people working in their companies, need to take differences among them into account and especially when it comes to managing in various countries, cultural, natural and unavoidable differences have to be taken into consideration ( Hofstede 1987). Regarding the latter, management ideas or management concepts differ a lot. This is why those concepts, in particular Human Resource Development, have different definitions and approaches depending on what country you are looking at, on the focus of interest and on who is giving the definition. Several attempts to define HRD have shown that there is no general definition of the term (Haslinda Abdullah 2009). For this reason, it can be kind of confusing and unclear to get an appropriate definition as many practitioners, academics and researches all have different opinions on what the term should include (Haslinda Abdullah 2009). A very good overview of all the different approaches can be found in the literature of Weinberger (1998), which shows in a very understandable way how the term HRD was rewritten several times over the last decades to fit the newest ideas and the different underlying theses. It starts with the definition of Nadler (1970) who claims HRD to be “a series of organized activities conducted within a specified time and designed to produce behavioral change”. It was Craig (1976), six years after Nadler, who said “The HRD focus is on the central goal of developing human potential in every aspect of lifelong learning.”. McLagan
References: Abdullah, H. (2009) Definitions of HRD: Key Concepts from a National and International Context; European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 4 pp.486 Craig, R. (1976): Training and Development Handbook, New York, McGraw-Hill. Cunningham, H. (2005) Children and Childhood in Society since 1500 London Hofstede, G. (1987) The Applicability of McGregor 's Theories in South East Asia; Journal of Management Development -Volume 6, Number 3 pp.9-18 Joy-Matthews, J. and Megginson, D. and Surtees, M. ( 2004) Human Resource Development: pp.45 Kamoche, K. (1997) Knowledge creation and learning in international HRM; International Journal of Human Resource Management Volume 8 – Number 2 Lane, I.M. and Handler, C.A.(2005) Career planning and expatriate couples; Human Resource Management Journal Volume 7 – Number 3 Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value, New York: McGraw-Hill McLagan, P. (1989) Models for HRD Practice. Alexandria, VA: ASTD McLean, G. N. 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. 313-326 Nadler, L. (1970) Developing Human Resources Houston Weinberger, L.A. (1998) Commonly held theories of human resource development; Human Resource Development International, 1 (1): pp. 75-93 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_theory_Y