Unpacking Approaches to Performance Improvement within Different Cultures

The research about national cultural differences suggests that the drivers or motivators of individual performance are likely to vary in different national contexts.  Yet, all approaches to performance improvement—HRD, HPT, and OD—reflect cultural assumptions that may or may not be effective in other national cultures.

The first assumption of an HRD or HPT intervention is that performance goals can be set and manipulated.  This suggests that the individual has some generalized control over the environment, whether that is control over time or control over larger organizational objectives.  But in some cultures, power differences and hierarchy may be of greater concern, such that employees feel neither the right nor the duty to determine their own performance goals.  Hindus, Buddhists, and some Muslims believe that destiny, or fate, determines what happens to a person.  Even in some Latin American cultures the idea of "God willing" may prevail, such that setting performance goals seems futile.

A second assumption of both HRD and HPT is that what the performer does is more important than who the performer is. This is apparent in performance appraisal sessions where feedback focuses on results and not on an employee's personality.  In Asian and some Latin cultures, people expect to be judged on their integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit, and not on their ability to perform or to achieve a goal.  In some French organizations, both positive and negative feedback may be considered offensive, and the appraisal process may appear to question a person’s honor and being rather than his or her actions. 

A third assumption which applies to HRD and HPT is the value of an individual’s expertise or expert power, over his or her cadre association, social standing, or referent power.  HRD and HPT approaches suggest that selection, rewards, and career development depend on the individual’s achievement and technical ability.  It is common for Latin American organizations to reward upper level managers by sending them to training sessions.  In this case, training is used as an affirmation of status rather than an intervention to increase the skill level of a performer.  In France, becoming a manager is largely determined by having attended an elite school—a grande école—and therefore being part of the cadre to begin with.  In contrast, German organizations are more in line with the North American HRD/HPT approaches because they value technical competence and expert power as most necessary for advancement.

A fourth assumption which applies only to HRD is that individual performance is the prime determinant of organizational success, rather than the performance of the collective work group. Even in Western organizations where work teams and quality circles are used widely, team members are generally rewarded individually in addition to any group-earned bonus. In many Danish and most Japanese organizations, incentive pay that favors certain individuals over the group is considered unacceptable, reflecting a preference for equal pay for all, over equity pay to the highest contributors.  

The training component of HRD highlights a fifth assumption, which is a student- or learner-centered mode of instruction, as opposed to a company-focused instruction.  HRD-based instruction is largely determined by the performer in function of his or her individual job goals.  In cultures where people are not used to taking as much responsibility for their own development or where training is provided as a confirmation of managerial potential rather than a means to develop it, people may resist the trainee-centered approach.  A top-down system may be more common in French organizations, for example, where the line manager of the company tends to nominate a person for a course.  A French employee of a U.S. company in Europe seemed confused that he was being asked to choose which training initiative to attend, rather than his supervisor telling him which course and therefore what kind of training he needed.  The author once trained a group of Thai technicians.  One of the first tasks the technicians were given was to develop their own learning goals.  A half day later, the trainees returned empty-handed, much to the author's puzzlement.  It was later explained to her that the Thais were not used to conducting such a self-initiated task nor to receiving such a lack of direction from the trainer who they perceived as their superior.