the chinese learning organization -...

The Chinese Learning Organization: New Concepts for International HRD

The Chinese Learning Organization

New Concepts for International HRD

James Keating


The concept of learning and organizational attempts to capitalize on information

predates any attempts to study it as a model within a Human Resource Development

(HRD) framework. HRD began with apprenticeship training programs in the

eighteenth century and developed into “factory schools” by the late 1800s. (Werner &

DeSimone, 2009) Today, many large corporations have corporate universities that

customize employee education programs to meet organizational requirements. In

organizational development (OD), learning takes place in dynamic organizations that

must adapt to a changing environment. A learning organization acquires, organizes,

manages, and uses knowledge to “move beyond solving existing problems to gain the

capability to improve constantly” and includes organization learning and knowledge

management. (Cummings & Worley, 2009)

The learning organization concept can be traced back to the research of Senge

(1990) and his colleagues who defined the learning organization as “a group of people

continually enhancing their capacity to create what they want to create." Senge (1990)

also described “five disciplines” representing fundamental attributes of a learning

organization, which included systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models,

building a shared vision, and team learning. KFC Corporation cited “becoming a

learning organization” as one of its five competitive advantages allowing it to

establish a dominant presence in the Chinese market. (Bell & Shelman, 2011)

Gephart and Marsick (1996) describe a learning organization with a “focus

primarily on systems-level organizational learning” in which “learning processes are

analyzed, monitored, developed, managed, and aligned with improvement and

innovation goals” Studies conducted in China (Zhang, Zhen, & Baiyin, 2004) have

supported the learning organization concept within the Chinese context. Existing

literature suggests that building a learning organization is necessary to enhance

organizational performance. ( Xiaohui, Baiyin, & McLean, 2007) Watson and Marsick

(1996) identified seven dimensions of a learning organization:promoting inquiry and

dialogue; encouraging collaboration and team learning; establishing systems to

capture and share learning; empowering people toward a collective vision; and

connecting the organization to its environment.


Although definitions and models establish the field of HRD, these constructs “do not

capture variations in practice or, for that matter, the diversity of empirical reality.”

(Kuchinke, 2003) Thus, it becomes necessary to further understanding of such

abstract characteristics of HRD by qualifying these topics according to the industries,

strategies, markets, and even the cultures within which these various HRD concepts

are being employed. Models must be consistent across an entire spectrum of factors

while definitions, although requiring flexibility within an abstract academic model,

must eventually be operationalized in practice and customized to a changing

socio-economic context with cultural and strategic constraints requiring measurable,

tangible, and socially acceptable outcomes.

In addition, these definitions and models have over weighted the Western cultural

contextual factors potentially skewing results leading to bias. This could be because

Communication has not received much attention in organizational literature (Daft &

Huber, 1987). There is also a lack of organizational change communication research

(Frahm & Brown, 2005). However, international HRD research depends on including

culture as a “major influencing factor and to account for culture's influence on

phenomena under investigation” which requires “a better understanding of our own

and others' culturally conditioned perspectives and assumptions.”(Ardichvili &

Kuchinke, 2002)

Communication and participation, important characteristics of a learning

organization (Agarwal,2005; Khadra & Rawabdeh, 2006; Skerlavaj & Dimövski,

2006; Lim, et al., 2006; Kantabutra, 2006; Heath & Brown, 2007), are affected by

cultural values (Lei et al. (2011); Hofstede, 1984). (Barker & Camarata 1998)

conclude that communication is at the core of the learning organization and

empowerment is a prerequisite for personal mastery, one of Senge’s (1990) five

disciplines. Cummings & Worley (2009) state that a learning organization is where

“empowered members take responsibility for changing the organization and learning

how to do this better and better.” A learning organization “facilitates the learning of all

its members and continuously transforms itself’ (Pedler et al. 1991). This ability to

transform itself not only depends on open communication and empowerment of

employees, but also on “a culture of collaboration.” (Slotte, Tynjala, & Hytonen,

2004)

The Chinese learning organization is a subject that has received relatively little

attention in the field of HRD despite China’s increasing social, political, and

economic influence in the world. If cultural factors affect learning and organizational


development then it comes to reason that the cultural dimension must be considered

when prescribing interventions, designing organizations, or managing employees. The

Chinese learning organization represents a unique aspect of the learning organization

concept and one that will become increasingly important in the future of HRD

research.

Researchers have realized that Chinese social, economic, and organizational

change not only provides a rich context for testing existing theories, but also

offers the potential for discovering new or unique ways of organizing and

managing in China

(Zhao & Jiang, 2009)

China has emerged as the manufacturing and economic center of the world in the

post 2008 financial crisis environment, passing Germany in 2009 and Japan in 2010 in

GDP terms. China is expected to pass the US in GDP terms measured by purchasing

power parity (PPP) by 2018. (The Economist, 2011) The lack of mainstream academic

literature involving HRD practices in China presents researchers with an opportunity

to analyze cultural differences and test the validity of general assumptions in social

sciences, which have historically developed from studies involving Western

organizational activities. As China, and Asia in general, develops and establishes a

firm position in a multipolar sphere of economic and cultural influence, Organization

Development (OD) should logically balance best practice ideology based on a global

context that exceeds the boundaries of Western culture.

There are documented differences between Chinese and Western adult students’

learning styles in the classroom (Cheng, Andrade, & Yan, 2011; Heffernan et.al 2010).

Asians and Western adults also have different ways of “perceiving and acting in the

world.” (Quintero, 1994) In general, Chinese thinking is complex, circular, and can

tolerate opposing thoughts and ideas (Li, 2008; Wang, Cui, & Zhou, 2005) Although

Chinese adult learners have been characterized as passive learners who rely on rote

learning and memorization compared to their active learning Western counterparts,

these stereotypes have been challenged. (Jie, 2009; Kennedy, 2002) Regarding active

learning, ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius (551-479 BC) once said, “I hear, I

know. I see, I remember. I do, I understand.” Confucius also warned, “He who learns

but does not think is lost. He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger.”


Yang and Lu (2002) concluded that HR theory in China is very different from that

of the US. Confucian values continue to have an impact on Chinese culture and,

consequently, organizational practices in China. Jia, Wang, Ruona, & Rojewski,

(2005) argue, “Cultural assumptions underlying Western management theories may

make their applications less appropriate to Chinese organizations.” In addition, “given

the profound influence of Confucian values, international HRD practitioners should

realize the importance of ensuring that Western management practices are adopted

critically in China.” (Jia et al, 2005)

Hofstede and Bond (1988) summarized Confucian teaching as

1. The stability of society is based on unequal status relationships between people.2. The family is the prototype of all social organizations.3. Virtue with regard to one’s tasks in life consists of trying to acquire skills and

education, working hard, not spending more than necessary, being patient, and

persevering.

(Jia et al, 2005) explain Confucian ideology as being represented by five virtues: ren

(humanity-benevolence), yi (righteousness), li (propriety), zhi (wisdom) and xin

(trustworthiness) Chinese culture is steeped in ancient traditions and symbolism.

These values embedded in Chinese culture have a significant impact on every aspect

of life in Chinese culture.

Continuous Change in Chinese Organizations

Learning Organizations operate under and adapt to conditions of continuous change.

Continuous change involves fast-paced environments “where timing is critical,

technological change is rapid, and competitive pressures are unrelenting and difficult

to predict.” (Cummings & Worley, 2009) The Chinese economy has been growing at

an extraordinary rate and is expected to continue growing over the next two decades

while undergoing dynamic transformation (Lin, 2012)


Chinese Organizational Context

Culture is often analyzed using Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture: power

distance; uncertainty avoidance; individualism versus collectivism; and masculinity

versus femininity; and long- term versus short-term thinking. Hofstede and Bond

(1988) included the fifth dimension after studying Chinese cultural values.

Figure 1: Chinese culture through the lens of Hofstede’s 5D model

(source: http://geert-hofstede.com/china.html)

According to Hofested:

“At 80 China sits in the higher rankings of PDI – i.e. a society that believes that

inequalities amongst people are acceptable. The subordinate-superior relationship

tends to be polarized and there is no defense against power abuse by superiors.”

“At a score of 20 China is a highly collectivist culture where people act in the

interests of the group and not necessarily of themselves. In-group considerations

affect hiring and promotions with closer in-groups (such as family) are getting

preferential treatment. “

“At 66 China is a masculine society –success oriented and driven. The need to ensure

success can be exemplified by the fact that many Chinese will sacrifice family and

leisure priorities to work.”

“At 30 China has a low score on uncertainty avoidance. Truth may be relative…

adherence to laws and rules may be flexible to suit the actual situation and

pragmatism is a fact of life. The Chinese are comfortable with ambiguity”

“With a score of 118 China is a highly long term oriented society in which persistence

and perseverance are normal. Relationships are ordered by status and the order is

observed. Nice people are thrifty and sparing with resources and investment tends to

be in long term projects such as real estate. Traditions can be adapted to suit new

http://geert-hofstede.com/china.html


conditions. Chinese people recognize that government is by men rather than as in the

Low LTO countries by an external influence such as God or the law. Thinking ways

focus on the full or no confidence, contrasting with low LTO countries that think in

probabilistic ways.”

(source: http://geert-hofstede.com/china.html)

The implications for organizational development are:

Power Distance

Chinese organizations can accept more hierarchical systems with less empowerment

than Western counterparts can. This most likely affects areas of hiring and promotion,

motivation, and ambition. It also implies that Chinese are less likely to find

gratification in perceived opportunities for upward mobility in an organization.

Chinese managers tend to make decisions “regardless of the standardised HR policies

and practices and the low power distance organisational culture.” (Fu & Kamenou,

2012)

Collectivism

Chinese organizations rely more on teamwork and collective goals rather than

individual aspirations. This affects areas of motivation and perceived individual value.

The objectives of the organization are just as important, if not more so, than

individual aspirations.

Masculine Society

Chinese employees are likely to sacrifice family life and leisure for work and

achievement. This may be an advantage when meeting project deadlines or working

overtime but become a liability if overwork leads to stress and absenteeism.


Uncertainty Avoidance

In China, laws exist in so much as they can serve people. When laws fail to serve

people they are abandoned or even ignored. Chinese do not require that everything be

explicitly verbalized or written. Compared to the US system, which faces potential

collapse due to having about 50% of the world’s lawyers and only 5% of the world’s

population (Black, 2011), the Chinese settle most differences out of court and often do

not require formal documents to establish obligations.

When formal documents exist, they are often considered flexible outlines rather

than a mandatory guideline. The context is more important than words and

documents. Organization development in China should emphasize context over

policy. According to the Confucian tradition “the conduct of people’s affairs is based

on morality or the law of the gentleman .Enacted laws and regulations are not

necessary.”(Ye, Tweed, & Toulson, 2011)

Long Term Orientation

In Chinese organizational development, more time must be spent in preparing

interventions. Relationships should be cultivated and sources of contention worked

out very early. For a learning organization, this may involve more time spent on

environmental analysis and understanding the larger role of the organization rather

than focusing too much on current events.

Transferring Western Concepts to China

The idea of a one-size fits all product has long since become obsolete in today’s

consumer driven rapidly changing marketplace. Just as one would expect to find

products with specifications conforming precisely to their needs, concepts in HRD

must also conform to the organizations that will be applying them.


(Fu & Kamenou, 2012) confirmed some of Hofstede’s findings but were equally

critical by claiming, “Cultural values appeared to be richer and more complex than the

cultural dimensions and norms that are conceptualised in the existing literature”. The

samples were only based on university students from 22 countries not just China and

the findings may be out of date, as China has undergone significant cultural changes

since Hofestede’s original studies over 20 years ago. Hofstede’s work also attempts to

place a complex subject like culture into a “cultural dimension box.”

Even if Hofestede’s characterization of the differences between Eastern and

Western culture overly generalizes and the criteria are too narrow, it still provides an

analytical tool to conceptualize cultural differences and gives the Westerner a lens to

view Asian culture. Obviously, the subject remains an opportunity for researchers to

investigate in international HRD and will most likely receive more attention in the

future.

Transferring education policies to China has revealed several issues. Some

generic determinants for transferring educational policy were proposed by De Jong

and Xi, (2002). Models are sometimes based on one example or set of circumstances

requiring a “synthesis of various models” instead of focusing on one. Interpreting

models freely is preferable to duplicating them. A strong sense of urgency must exist

and there must be some adjustment to structural or cultural differences. Also, policy

initiatives should be “pulled in” by adopters within the organization rather than

“pushed” by donors outside of the organization. (Fu & Kamenou, 2012) argued that

transnational corporations “may need to navigate through the distinctive cultural

values when practising the HR policies which could support specific strategies and

develop organisational culture.”

Chinese organization culture is also defined by moral and ethical standards,

which are unwritten rules manifest through outward displays of humility and

humbleness. Even though there may be respect for roles and positions within a

company, the CEO may be indistinguishable from a common worker in appearance

and habits.

Dejong and Xi (2007) listed specific determinants for successfully transferring

Western educational policy to China. They also argue that awareness of these factors

is necessary for successful policy transfer according. The Western focus is on task

orientation while the Chinese focus is on personal trust. Westerners focus on ethical

standards versus Chinese attachment to good intentions and lasting commitments.


Westerners have an inclination to act while Chinese prefer to wait for the right

opportunity. Westerners focus on interpersonal equality and open communication

while Chinese prefer to respect roles or positions and save face. (De Jong & Xi, 2007)

Within the context of cultural ramifications and policy transfer between cultures,

the Chinese learning organization exists as an independent form of HRD structure.

Although a derivative of the Western model, it remains a unique organization form/

Unique combination of culturally influenced components separate it from its Western

counterpart.

The learning organization takes on different characteristics in China due to the

aforementioned factors and assumptions. Of course, many ideas, concepts, and

definitions can be transferred seamlessly across cultures while others risk being

neutralized by differences in perceptions, translation, and cultural mismatches. Ways

of learning in Chinese culture may also differ from Western practices.

In a survey of the literature on learning in China some of the key beliefs about learning that guide learning behaviour that emerged were: the idea of lifelong learning to discover and achieve one’s life purpose; a focus on character traits thatwill facilitate this process including resolve, diligence, enduring hardship, perseverance and concentration; an aim to deepen understanding through the integration of knowledge to improve moral character and the emotional commitment to this project which requires passion, humility and shame/guilt.

(Elkin, , Haina, & Cone, 2011)

The Chinese learning organization represents a truly international concept, an

idea developed and propagated in the West but one that HRD practitioners must

customize to ensure that localization conforms to cultural boundaries and contexts.

The global shift in polarity of socio-economic factors has introduced deficiencies in

previous models that were developed using Western examples. Before analyzing the

cultural factors and their impact on the strategic development of a learning

organization, the concept must be further refined.

According to one study, HRD practitioners’ perspective of learning at the

organizational level “embraced structural, managerial, cultural and business aspects

and the processes by which they can be transformed in organizations.” (Slotte,

Tynjala, & Hytonen, 2004)


Agyrus (1978) described learning as a single loop or double loop process where

the single loop learning is the discovery of problems and correcting deviations from

expected performance standards while achieving a fixed objective. Second loop

learning is the questioning of the overall paradigm within which systems and

processes operate and determining if there is a need to change. Second loop learning

involves changing or modifying processes or systems to meet challenges in a

turbulent environment. Appelbaum and Reichart (1998) described organization

learning as a series of stages.

Cummings and Worley(2009) described learning organizations as being

composed of two components; organizational learning and knowledge management.

Organizational learning has characteristics such as structure, information systems,

human resource practices, culture, and leadership. Although the idea of a learning

organization is relatively new in OD, the concept of organization learning was already

well established. Argyris and Schön (1978) defined organization learning as: " the

detection and correction of error" Cummings and Worley (2009) explain organization

learning as a process involving discovery of error or performance gaps, invention or

creating new solutions, production or implementing solutions, and generalizing or

adapting the solutions in other areas of the organization.

An organizational structure involving teamwork is consistent with the Chinese

collective work ethic. The collective aspect of cultural values involves working as a

group to achieve common objectives. Since the structure of organization learning is

dependent on teamwork (Cummings and Worley, 2009) this may enhance the Chinese

firms competitive advantage. However, Cummings and Worley (2009) also point out

that learning organizations also involve “lesser number of layers” which may conflict

with Hofested’s (2012) assertion that power relations tend to be “polarized” and

“inequalities amongst people are acceptable.” The challenge in implementing

organization learning interventions in Chinese enterprises may rest in implementing a

process of bureaucratic delayering to facilitate organization learning.

Information Systems in Chinese organizations

In organization learning, information systems “facilitate rapid acquisition, processing,

and sharing of rich, complex information and enable people to manage knowledge for

competitive advantage.”(Cummings & Worley, 2009) Importing advanced technology

is a priority in the Chinese government (chinadaily.com, 2011) China is even seen by

some as becoming a leader a technological innovation. (Bräuner, 2011)


However, it was found in 2007 that obstacles to Chinese information systems

development remained such as centralized decision-making, mandatory management

style, and less experience with information technology and information systems

applications.(Guoqing et al, 2007)

Cummings and Worley (2009) indicate the human resources practices should

“reinforce the acquisition and sharing of new skills and knowledge.” The process of

sharing knowledge is facilitated through the attributes of collective culture where

people often collaborate with others before arriving at decisions and decisions are

often made in the interests of the group or team. According to one study, Chinese

employees prefer to “develop and maintain a positive and personal guan-xi

(relationship) with their colleagues and managers.” However, “one needs to respect

seniority when developing guan-xi with others. “( Fu &Kamenou,2012) Guanxi

focuses on personal relations and the exchange of favors rather than impersonal

commercial networks. (Fu, Tsui &Dess, 2006)

Organization Culture

Cummings and Worley (2009) indicate that learning organizations have “strong

cultures, that promote openness, creativity, and experimentation among members” and

“nurture innovation.” Chinese innovation is defined by geographic and regional

boundaries.

In general, provinces and municipalities with provincial status on the east coast

are more innovative than the provinces in the central and western parts of China.

Regional levels of innovativeness are highly correlated with their GDP per capita

and their contribution to high-technology exports, but less with their shares in

national R&D expenditures.

(Arbolino, 2011)

The rising number of Chinese patents (Rebić,2011) and the Chinese government’s

science and technology initiative’s strategic four pillar plan including “indigenous

innovation” as a key component (Arbolino, 2011) have also been cited as

contributing factors to China’s improvement in innovation. Moving from imitation to

innovation will certainly remain the trajectory of Chinese HRD initiatives in the

future as business search for new ways to motivate and encourage employees to be

creative and innovative.


Leadership

Effective leadership is essential for the learning organization to develop in terms

of the other characteristics; structure, information systems, human resources practices,

and organization culture. Open communication between leaders and employees

promotes learning (Argyris and Schon ,1978, 1996)

According to one Chinese study of firms recruited in Shanghai, Wong, Tjosvold,

and Jiafang (2010) found that “leader commitment to participation, people, and

productivity were found to predict psychological safety among team members” and

“predicted learning.”

Figure 2

(source: Wong, Tjosvold, and Jiafang ,2010)

This may conflict with Hofestede’s (2012) assertion that Chinese have low

uncertainty avoidance and can tolerate ambiguity. Nevertheless, Edmondson (1999)

has identified psychological safety as a necessary condition for team learning.

Team psychological safety should facilitate learning behavior in work teams

because it alleviates excessive concern about others' reactions to actions that have

the potential for embarrassment or threat, which learning behaviors often have.

(Edmondson 1999)

Psychological safety may be especially important in the Chinese context. Dejong

and Xi (2007) indicated that Chinese prefer to respect roles and save face to

maintaining open communication and interpersonal equality. For Chinese, it may be

more beneficial to learn within a team framework where mistakes and achievements

can be shared.

Knowledge Management


Besides organization learning, knowledge management represents another key

component of the learning organization. (Cummings & Worley, 2009) Confucius

broadly defined knowledge by saying, “ When you know a thing, to hold that you

know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it - this is

knowledge." Knowledge can be found by studying historical events and trends.

Confucius explained, “"I am not one who was born in the possession of knowledge; I

am one who is fond of antiquity, and earnest in seeking it there." Knowledge can be

explained in terms of its absence as Confucius pointed out in saying, “Real knowledge

is to know the extent of one's ignorance.” Knowledge is a source of competitive

advantage as ancient Chinese general and military strategist Sun Tzu succinctly

articulated, “He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be

victorious.”

Contemporary academics have explained knowledge in terms of tacit and explicit

knowledge. Tacit knowledge is abstract implicit knowledge such as experience

derived from skill, judgment, and practice (Polanyi, 1967) while explicit knowledge is

quantifiable and can be communicated easily through language or signals.

Knowledge creation is a process of making tacit knowledge explicit and the value

of new knowledge is measured not only by economic indicators but also by how well

the knowledge contributes to a company’s vision and strategic goals, as well as

develops “potential to build the company’s organizational knowledge network.”

(Nonaka, 1991)

Knowledge is created between firms in dynamic contexts where tacit knowledge

is transmitted between active participants in a network. Knowledge is initiated

(initiation), transacted through collaboration (encounter), and developed into a higher

level cooperation and organizational commitment (intimacy). (Corno, Reinmoeller, &

Nonaka, 1999)

Both internally and externally, knowledge creation within a Chinese context could be

affected by factors such as collectiveness, guanxi, and power relations. Also, there is

less regard for intellectual property in china than in Western countries so knowledge

may be also be held to the same collective standards as shared goals and

achievements.


Nonaka (1991) contended that Western tradition views knowledge management

in terms of quantifiable facts while Japanese managers were able to harness the tacit

knowledge of their employees through the use of anoligies, metaphors, and other

abstract visualization activities.

This could also be the case in China which is a high context culture meaning that

it is more socially oriented, confrontation avoiding, and complacent with existing

ways of life than Western countries. (Kim, Pan, & Park1998) Hall (1977) recognized

differences in ways cultures communicate proposed the high/low context continuum.

Low context cultures are considered to require more explicit meaning in the form

verbal or written communication while placing less value on contextual

circumstances. Despite various models and definitions, which cannot be explicitly

defined, the ambiguity of abstract conceptual theory may be welcome in China.

Perhaps China will play a role in the next round of iterations in a process of continual

refinement of these abstract HRD concepts.

Conclusion

Chinese culture is constantly changing and has been heavily influenced by

Confucianism. (Wang, Wang, Ruona, & Rojewski, 2005) The Chinese learning

organization will continue to be an area of study for future HRD practitioners. A

learning organization composed of organization learning and knowledge management

develops differently in China than in Western countries. A Confucian tradition, high

context culture, long term perspective, and differences in styles of engaging in

relationships are sure to ignite debate and investigation into this unique model.

The Chinese learning organization can be defined as a learning organization with

uniquely identifiable cultural aspects grounded in Confucian tradition, respect for

roles or position, and communication. These aspects include the way knowledge is

distributed through network relationships and the functioning of teams. The world

will remain diverse and the Chinese learning organization will continue to evolve into

a uniquely Asian form of business, learning, and cultural expression. In the future, the

Western companies could be looking to China to better understand tacit knowledge,

leading by protecting and safeguarding, reducing relationship barriers through the

concept of guanxi, and managing highly effective teams despite inequality among

members. The Chinese learning organization is a unique model derived from earlier


Western concepts. Today it has developed into an identity of its own and merits

further research as a differentiated form of learning organization.

References

Agarwal A. 2005. Learning Organization. Retrieved from

www.hrfolks.com/ARTICLES/Learning%20Organization/Learning

%20Organization.pdf

Arbolino, R. (2011). Innovation in China: Evidence From the Provincial Data.

Chinese Business Review, 10(10), 855-867.

Appelbaum, S. H. and Reichart, W. R. (1998) ‘How to measure an organization’s

learning ability: the facilitating factors – Part II’, Journal of Workplace Learning 1:

15 – 28

Ardichvili, A. and Kuchinke, P. K. (2002) The concept of culture in international and

comparative HRDresearch: methodological problems and possible solutions.

Human Resource Development Review, 1(2),pp. 145-66.

Argyris, C. and Scho ¨n, D. (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action

Perspective,Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.


Argyris, C., and D.A. Schon. 1996. Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and

practice. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.

Barker, R. T., & Camarata, M. R. (1998). The Role of Communication in Creating and

Maintaining a Learning Organization: Preconditions, Indicators, and Disciplines.

Journal Of Business Communication, 35(4), 443-467.

Bell, D. E., & Shelman, M. L. (2011). KFC's Radical Approach to China. Harvard

Business Review, 89(11), 137-142.

Bräuner, O. (2011). EU and China’s Tech Rise [blog]. Retrieved from

http://the-diplomat.com/new-leaders-forum/2011/07/26/eu-and-china

%E2%80%99s-tech-rise/

Black, C. (2011). Collapse of US Justice System in Shambles. Retrieved March 31,

2012, from

http://www.nysun.com/opinion/collapse-of-us-justice-system-into-a-shambles/8758

7/

China Should Prioritize Technology Import: Vice-Premier. (2011). Retrieved March

31,2012, from

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-06/22/content_12747901.htm

Cheng, H., Andrade, H. L., & Yan, Z. (2011). A cross-cultural study of learning

behaviours in the classroom: from a thinking style perspective. Educational

Psychology, 31(7), 825-841. doi:10.1080/01443410.2011.608526

Corno, F., Reinmoeller, P., & Nonaka, I. (1999). Knowledge Creation within

Industrial Systems. Journal Of Management & Governance, 3(4), 379-394.

doi:10.1023/A:1009936712733

Daft, R. L. & Huber, G. P. (1987) How Organizations Learn: A Communication

Framework. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 5, 1-36.

Elkin, G., Haina, Z., & Cone, M. (2011). The Acceptance of Senge's Learning

Organisation Model among Managers in China: An Interview Study. International

Journal Of Management, 28(4), 354-364.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-06/22/content_12747901.htm

http://www.nysun.com/opinion/collapse-of-us-justice-system-into-a-shambles/87587/

http://www.nysun.com/opinion/collapse-of-us-justice-system-into-a-shambles/87587/


Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2009). Organization development and change (9th

ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.

Edmondson A. Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.

Administrative Science Quarterly [serial online]. June 1999;44(2):350-383.

Available from: Business Source Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed March 30,

2012.

Frahm, J. A., & Brown, K. A. (2005). BUILDING AN ORGANIZATIONAL

CHANGE COMMUNICATION THEORY. Academy Of Management Annual

Meeting Proceedings, C1-C6. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2005.18781296

Fu P, Tsui A, Dess G. The Dynamics of Guanxi in Chinese High-tech Firms:

Implications for Knowledge Management and Decision Making. Management

International Review (MIR) [serial online]. 2006 3rd Quarter 2006;46(3):277-305.


2012.

Fu Y, Kamenou N. The impact of Chinese cultural values on human resource policies

and practices within transnational corporations in China. International Journal Of

Human Resource Management [serial online]. October 2011;22(16):3270-3289.


2012.

Gephart, M. A., & Marsick, V. J. (1996). Learning organizations come alive. Training

& Development, 50(12), 34.

Guoqing C, Ruipeng W, Xunhua G. Key issues in information systems management

in China. Journal Of Enterprise Information Management [serial online]. February

20, 2007;20(2):198-208. Available from: Business Source Complete, Ipswich, MA.

Accessed March 30, 2012.

Hall, Edward T. 1977. Beyond Culture, Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Heath, R.S. and Brown, Jr., J. F. (2007), A Re-Examination of the Effect of

Job-relevant Information on the Budgetary Participation. Job Performance Relation

during an Age of Employee Empowerment. Journal of Applied Business Research,

1st Quarter, 23(1), pp.111-124.


Heffernan, T., Morrison, M., Basu, P., & Sweeney, A. (2010). Cultural differences,

learning styles and transnational education. Journal Of Higher Education Policy &

Management, 32(1), 27-39. doi:10.1080/13600800903440535

Hofstede, G., & Minkov, M. (2010). Long- versus short-term orientation: new

perspectives. Asia Pacific Business Review, 16(4), 493-504.

doi:10.1080/13602381003637609

Hofstede, Gert (1980) Cultures Consequences. Sage Publications.

Hofstede, Geert (1997). Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York:

McGraw-Hill (ch7).

How to get a date: The year when the Chinese economy will truly eclipse America’s is

in sight. (2001). Retrieved March 31, 2012, from

http://www.economist.com/node/21542155

Jia, W., Wang, G. G., Ruona, W. A., & Rojewski, J. W. (2005). Confucian Values and

the Implications for International HRD. Human Resource Development

International, 8(3), 311-326. doi:10.1080/13678860500143285

Jie, Liu. 2009. "From learner passive to learner active? The case of Chinese

postgraduate students studying marketing in the UK." International Journal Of

Management Education 7, no. 2: 33-40. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost

(accessed March 29, 2012).

Jie, Y. (2011). The determinants of corporate growth: evidence from Chinese high

technology firms. International Journal Of Technology Management, 56(1), 40-52.

Kantabutra, S. (2006), Leader and Follower Factors in Customer and Employee

Satisfaction: It takes Two to Tango. Journal of Applied Business Research, 4th

Quarter, 22(4), pp.33-46.

Kennedy, P. (2002). Learning cultures and learning styles: myth-understandings about

adult (Hong Kong) Chinese learners. International Journal Of Lifelong Education,

21(5), 430-445. doi:10.1080/02601370210156745

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0071439595/bigdogsbowlofbis/

http://www.geert-hofstede.com/geert_hofstede_resources.shtml


Khadra, M,F. and Rawabdeh, I,A. (2006), Assessment of Development of the

Learning Organization Concept in Jordanian Industry Companies. The Learning

Organization, 13(5), pp.455-474.

Kim, D., Pan, Y., & Park, H. (1998). High- Versus Low-Context Culture: A

Comparison of Chinese, Korean and American Cultures. Psychology & Marketing,

15(6), 507-521.

Kuchinke, Peter K. Contingent HRD: Toward a Theory of Variation and

Differentiation in Formal Human Resource Development Human Resource

Development Review September 2003 2: 294-309, doi:10.1177/1534484303256885

Lei, C., Miranda C. K., M., Tong, L., Bao Pei, W., Bin Bin, C., & Hui Jing, L. (2011).

Cultural Adaptations to Environmental Variability: An evolutionary account of

East-West differences. Educ Psychol Rev (2011) 23:99–129

Li, Y., Yang, Z., & Wang, L. 2008. Developing theory from the context of Chinese

management practice: An integrative perspective. Chinese Journal of Management,

5(4): 469–472.

Lin J. China and the global economy. China Economic Journal [serial online].

February 2011;4(1):1-14. Available from: Business Source Complete, Ipswich, MA.

Accessed March 29, 2012.

Lim, L.L.K.; Laosirihongthong, T. and Chan, C.C.A. (2006), A Case Study of

Learning in a Thai Manufacturing Organization. Journal of Applied Business

Research, 2nd Quarter, 22(2), pp.49-60

Nonaka I. The Knowledge-Creating Company. Harvard Business Review [serial

online]. November 1991;69(6):96-104. Available from: Business Source Complete,

Ipswich, MA. Accessed March 30, 2012.

Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. D. and Boydell, T. (1991) The Learning Company, London: McGraw-Hill.

Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday Anchor.


Quintero, E. (1994F). Valuing diversity in the multicultural classroom.

Rebić M. DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY OF PR CHINA: INNOVATION AND THE

ROLE OF PATENTS IN RAISING THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THE

ECONOMY. (English). Zbornik Radova Ekonomskog Fakulteta U Istocnom

Sarajevu [serial online]. January 2011;:119-144.

Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning

Organization, New York: Currency Doubleday

Slotte, V., Tynjala, P., & Hytonen, T. (2004). How do HRD practitioners describe

learning at work? Human Resources Development International, 7, 481–499.

doi:10.1080/1367886042000245978

Skerlavaj, M. and Dimövski, V. (2006), Social Network Approach to Organizational

Learning. Journal of Applied Business Research, 2nd Quarter, 22(2), pp89-98.

Wang, D., Cui, H., & Zhou, F. 2005.Measuring the personality of Chinese: QZPS

versus NEO PI-R. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 8(1): 97–122.

Wang, J., Wang, G. G., Ruona, W. E. A., & Rojewski, J, W. (2005). Confucian values

and the implications for international HRD. Human Resource Development

international, 8, 311-326.

Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V.J. (1996), In Action: Creating the Learning

Organization, American Society for Training and Development, Alexandria, VA.

Werner, J.M., & DeSimone, R.L. (2009). Human resource development (5th ed.).

Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage.

Wong A, Tjosvold D, Jiafang L. Leadership values and learning in China: The

mediating role of psychological safety. Asia Pacific Journal Of Human Resources

[serial online]. April 2010;48(1):86-107. Available from: Academic Search Premier,

Ipswich, MA. Accessed March 30, 2012.

Xiaohui, W., Baiyin, Y., & McLean, G. N. (2007). Influence of demographic factors

and ownership type upon organizational learning culture in Chinese enterprises.

International Journal Of Training & Development, 11(3), 154-165.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2419.2007.00278.x

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/HRD


Yang, B. and Lu, F. (2002) Succession management in China and America: a

theoretical comparison and implications for developing global human resources, in:

T. M. Egan and S. A. Lynham (Eds) Proceedings of the Academy of Human

Resource Development International Research Conference,pp. 201-8 (Honolulu,

HI).

Zhang, D., Zhen, Z., & Baiyin, Y. (2004). Learning organization in mainland China:

empirical research on its application to Chinese state-owned enterprises.

International Journal Of Training & Development, 8(4), 258-273.

doi:10.1111/j.1360-3736.2004.00213.x

Figure 1

Hofstede, G. (2012). Hofstede’s 5 Cultural Diminions [Chart]. Retrieved from http://geert-hofstede.com/china.html

Figure 2

Wong A, Tjosvold D, Jiafang L. Leadership values and learning in China: The mediating role of psychological safety. Asia Pacific Journal Of Human Resources

http://geert-hofstede.com/china.html

the chinese learning organization -...

Documents