Achieving Organisational Change through Project‐based Training: A Cross‐cultural Experiment
| Published date | 01 March 1984 |
| Date | 01 March 1984 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb055500 |
| Pages | 22-28 |
| Author | John Hayes,Jack Butterworth |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Achieving Organisational Change
through Project-based Training:
A Cross-cultural Experiment
by John Hayes and Jack Butterworth, Department of Management Studies,
University of Leeds
Introduction
Hessling[1] defines training as "a sequence of experiences
or opportunities designed to modify behaviour in order to
attain a stated objective". The operative word in this defini-
tion is "designed". As Hamlyn[2] points out, people can learn
to modify their behaviour as a result of all kinds of ex-
perience, but when they are being trained they are being put
through an experience or given an opportunity which has
been deliberately designed to make them learn.
The design of effective training programmes is not easy.
It can be difficult enough within a single organisation where
the training officer is thoroughly familiar with the organisa-
tion's training objectives and the people to be trained. It is
considerably more difficult when the training is offered by
an external training organisation and even more difficult still
when the training is being offered by a training organisa-
tion based in a different culture from that of the client
organisation. Too often cross-cultural training is designed
without sufficient attention being given to the consequences
of cultural differences.
There is wide agreement that one of
the
most urgent needs
in developing countries
is
to raise the capacity of
local
human
resources. Training is a
key
element in any strategy to develop
human resources but, as Youker[3] notes, the record from
training has been spotty. He reports that reviews of World
Bank training projects indicate that in many cases learning
was not transferred to improved on-the-job behaviour.
Transfer of Learning
An important objective in training design must be to ensure
that learning is transferred from the training to the back-
home work situation. This article describes a cross-cultural
training programme offered by the Department of Manage-
ment Studies at the University of Leeds. The design of the
programme is briefly outlined and special attention is paid
to those elements of programme design intended to facilitate
the positive transfer of learning. An assessment of the pro-
gramme's effectiveness is also presented. An account of how
the ideas were developed and why Jack Butterworth pro-
moted cross-cultural training more then eight years ago at
Leeds University is presented elsewhere[4].
The twelve-week programme on Improving Efficiency
through Training and Internal Consultancy (TIC) was in-
troduced in 1982 when, after offering a refresher course for
the heads of training units in the Indian public sector for
five years, it was felt that more attention should be focused
on bringing about beneficial changes in the participants'
organisations rather than on the more limited objective of
providing them with an update on recent developments in
training. When designing the new programme attention was
given to a number of factors.
The Relevance of
Learning
Transfer of learning is not limited to those cases where there
are identical or near-identical elements in the training and
work situations (as for example with flight simulators). So
long as training focuses on appropriate general principles
there
is
a high probability that trainees can be taught to apply
these principles to solve problems in their back-home situa-
tions.
However it
is
important that training does indeed focus
attention on "appropriate" general principles if positive
transfer is to be ensured.
After comparing the beliefs and values of employees in
40
countries Hofstede[5] was able to develop a set of cultural
maps which showed wide variations between countries. He
argued that these cultural differences resulted in people be-
ing conditioned to see the world in different
ways.
This con-
ditioning has important implications for the ways they think
and feel about things, the ways in which they relate to each
other and the
ways
they structure and manage work organisa-
tions.
Theories developed in one country reflect that coun-
try's cultural environment and may not be useful in helping
to understand or predict behaviour in a different culture.
Hofstede's work raises serious doubts about the universal
validity of management theories and suggests that cross-
cultural training programmes will be of limited value if they
are designed around theories and principles developed and
validated only within the home culture of the training
organisation. Unfortunately the relevance of much of what
is taught in developed countries may be low and in some in-
stances the inappropriateness of the theories and concepts
used may even lead to negative transfer. Badly designed train-
ing may do more harm than good.
On the Training and Internal Consultancy (TIC) pro-
gramme this cultural issue was confronted on the first day
and the debate of what constituted appropriate theories and
principles was pursued throughout the twelve weeks. The
training philosophy was non-prescriptive. The trainers did
not see themselves as experts who "knew best". The ap-
plicability of
theories,
concepts and particular management
techniques was thoroughly discussed and wherever possible
a "grounded-theory" approach to searching for understan-
ding through an analysis of delegates' own experience was
pursued. For example the Indian culture, as presented by
delegates on the TIC programme, appeared to be less in-
dividualistic and more collective than the British culture. This
was reflected in the kind of relationship people expected to
have with their organisation. In India the individual
22 • PR 13,3 1984
To continue reading
Request your trial