- Email: [email protected]
Management Development in Europe:
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 649–658, 2004 Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain 0263-2373 $30.00 doi:10.1016/j.emj.2004.09.028
Management Development in Europe: Do National Models Persist? ALAIN KLARSFELD, Groupe ESC Toulouse Business School CHRISTOPHER MABEY, Birkbeck College, University of London Explaining the way organizations go about identifying and developing their managers will require some understanding of internal priorities and decision processes, as well as more macro factors like the national institutional context. We might also expect cultural factors to play an important part, but applying a cross-cultural analysis to management development policies and practices is relatively rare. One exception is an enduring framework which identifies the cultural characteristics of Germanic, Anglo-Dutch and Latin models [European Management Journal 5(2) (1987) 72; The Global Challenge Frameworks for International Human Resource Management, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Chicago]. Drawing upon a sample of 300 European firms, this paper tests the empirical validity of these three models and finds that some, but not all, of the features originally identified continue to hold true for firms in the countries concerned. Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Management development, cultural models, European firms
Cross-
way countries identify and develop managerial talent? While there is a good deal of literature dealing with cultural values and how they might be applied in the work context, relatively few authors have taken this approach to analysing HRD practices. One notable exception is a theoretical framework proposed by Evans et al. (1989, 2002), originally derived from that proposed by Derr (1987). This distinguishes between Latin, Germanic, Anglo-Dutch and Japanese cultures of management and career development in corporate settings. However this framework has remained substantially unchanged since 1987, and although it has received inferred support from a few related studies, it remains quantitatively untested. In this paper we set out to assess the empirical validity of this framework and draw conclusions about the way managers are developed in different parts of Europe. Drawing upon a larger European data-set of management development policies and practices, we test these hypotheses for 300 German, French and British companies and explore the findings and implications for firms operating across national borders in Europe.
Introduction
Cross-cultural Research and Human Resource Practice
What do cross-cultural studies tell us about the practice of human resource development (HRD) in Europe? In particular, what can be learnt about the
A number of large scale survey research projects of cultural-level values have been published in recent years (Schwartz, 1992, 1999; Trompenaars, 1998;
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 649–658, December 2004
649
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE: DO NATIONAL MODELS PERSIST?
Smith et al., 1996; Inglehart et al., 1998; HampdenTurner and Trompenaars, 2000). These models are based upon studies of attitudes or values of respondents derived from large samples in different countries. Typically, respondents are asked to agree or disagree with sentences or adjectives. For example, if we take the work of Schwartz (1992), respondents rate, on a one to seven point scale, the importance of 56 single values ‘‘as guiding principles in my life’’. Each value is followed in parentheses by a short explanatory phrase (‘‘wealth material possessions, money’’) (Schwartz, 1999). This approach is similar to Hofstede’s earlier work, where respondents express their agreement with such statements as: ‘‘employees are afraid to disagree with their employer’’ (Hofstede, 1997, 2001). Despite its obvious interest, values-based research aims to provide general frameworks in order to understand how cultures differ in all settings and not just the corporate one. Hence, these models tend to lack specificity when it comes to predicting and understanding specific human resource management practices.
A Cultural Perspective However, writers have sought to apply a cultural lens to work related issues. As d’Iribarne (1989) and Hofstede (2001) have shown, perceptions of management practice, and management practices themselves, differ widely between countries. Others have argued that there are differences between countries in relation to HR practices such as selection and development (Laurent, 1986), perceptions of career management (Derr and Laurent, 1989), hiring strategies (Segalla, Sauquet et al., 2001) and terminations (Segalla, Jacobs-Belschak et al., 2001). Sparrow (1996), building on Hofstede’s dimensions, found that national values, such as individualism-collectivism influence the social cues that managers use to decode information in their psychological contract. Also, Budhwar and Sparrow (1998), using their own five aspects of national culture, note the influence of culture on socialization of managers into British and Indian organizations, and the role of social relationships and political connections on selection, promotion and transfer decisions. Laurent investigated what qualities managers from different countries consider essential in order to get promoted in their particular work context (Laurent, 1986). He found that ‘‘being labelled a high potential’’ was key to French respondents, while ‘‘a creative mind’’ was a high priority for German respondents, ‘‘skills in interpersonal communication’’ was favoured by the British respondents and ‘‘drive’’ and ‘‘ability’’ were the US respondents’ favourites. However, despite the examples of cultural differentiation gleaned from these studies, surprisingly little research has been undertaken to investigate manage650
ment and career development practices from a cultural perspective. One exception is the work of Derr (1987). In his research on potential identification and development at major European corporations (including subsidiaries of Japanese multi-national enterprises), he finds four types of management development model. In Figure 1 we summarize the key features of the three European models. The authors also describe a fourth Japanese or elite cohort approach, which we do not pursue here, since it is beyond the European focus of our study. In the Latin or elite political model, there is little human resource planning for managers. Instead there is a propensity for French top managers to privilege ‘‘political games’’ over bureaucratic rules when it comes to promote managers towards top positions. Another explanation is the reliance on nepotistic networks to fill positions, rather than using a more textbook skill-based approach. Such a practice makes it difficult for top managers in firms to overtly admit they may give precedence to outside candidates over internal candidates; and planning the external recruitment of graduates from preferred colleges will not be formalized. Therefore in the Latin model, reluctance to plan goes hand in hand with a preference for Grandes Ecoles and external candidates, as opposed to skills built within the firm. In this model, preference is given to graduates from Grandes Ecoles; this goes together with the notion of selecting potential managers rather than the development of an internal pool of managers with the help of various training and development tools. In other words, Latin enterprises prefer to hire high potentials rather than develop them. This notion of identifying potential first, and then developing managers later (often more as a symbolic reward) is corroborated by a recent multiple-case study of French organizations (Delamare et al., 2003). The same authors also indicate that greater attention than elsewhere is paid to formal qualifications that are unrelated to the job and of a general nature, whereas less attention is paid to qualifications specifically related to the job held. In contrast, the Germanic or functional model is characterized by the internalization of the competence-building process and an internal labour market perspective. Career development, management development and succession planning are seen as long-term management tools and require advance planning. There is also more willingness to retain managers over a long period of time and to win their commitment through processes of internal promotion (Maurice et al., 1989). Potential is not seen to be acquired once and for all upon completion of initial study, but rather gradually developed through training and development actions and experience (and eventually detected). If there is interest for formal qualifications, it is in those that are developed through and related to the job rather than through general degrees as in the Latin model.
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 649–658, December 2004
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE: DO NATIONAL MODELS PERSIST?
Figure 1 Models for Leadership Identification and Development (Adapted from Evans, Lank et al. (1989) and Evans et al. (2002))
Much as the Latin and the Germanic model seem in total opposition to one another, the Anglo-Dutch model may appear to somehow borrow features of both Latin and Germanic models. It has, in common with the Latin model, a weaker interest in formal human resource planning activities. This may be explained not so much by the difficulty of overtly admitting preference for ‘‘old boys’’ networks over internal candidates as is the case in France, but more by the market-like nature of the job market in the Anglo-Dutch countries (typified by the US and the UK). This manifests itself by lower levels of employee and
employer loyalty towards the other party (Louart, 2003; Stiles et al., 1997). In such a context, manpower planning appears more difficult, more costly, and of little relevance, given the higher uncertainty of commitment at both ends of the employment relationship. Internal promotions are less necessary as the external market is expected to supply the necessary skills in professional markets. However, when it comes to the management of potentials, Anglo-Dutch model firms prefer developing potential over selecting potential as in Germanic countries. Management development may here be used as both a selection
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 649–658, December 2004
651
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE: DO NATIONAL MODELS PERSIST?
and a development tool, rather than as a reward that comes after potential identification or a scheme applied across the board in order to develop every manager’s potential. An example of this is development centres, a development tool widely used in Anglo-Dutch countries. Finally, the Anglo-Dutch model displays a distinctive feature: a weaker interest given to formal qualifications, be they related to the job as in the Germanic model or not as in the Latin model, and, conversely, greater emphasis placed upon job experience. It should be noted that in their later formulation (Evans et al., 2002: 374) the authors de-couple this approach from a specific country model and re-label it as the multinational corporation model. Several observations can be made about this typology. First, the descriptions of the different country models have high face validity, but appear to be based on limited case study and interview evidence. For instance Derr (1987) conducted interviews with just 60 companies in France, Germany, Britain, Sweden and Germany; the organizations ranged in size from 2,000 to 350,000 employees. Second, there has been little if any quantitative analysis to confirm and/or amplify the original classification. Third, given that the later publication (Evans et al., 2002) simply re-iterates the typologies with no updating except to provide new labels, a testing of these fifteen year old cultural stereotypes of management development is well overdue.
An Institutional Perspective A further source of research which helps to explore national differences is that which takes an institutional approach by comparing training models between countries. The few studies published tend to confirm the typology in Figure 1. For instance, Lane (1989) has pointed out that in Germany, managers receive extensive training once they have joined the organization, to strengthen their already strong vocational and technical knowledge. In contrast, she notes that in the UK there is extensive reliance on external education and comparatively weak career structures. This raises the question as to whether education and training is sufficiently embedded in the organization and translates into improved performance. A study by Maurice et al. (1989) contrasts French and German practices in education and employment and shows that there are two distinctive means of articulating training provision in the labour market. In Germany, firms invest more in the training and development of their newly recruited workforce, taking a longerterm view and paying more attention to the building of internal competences. They work in close conjunction with educational institutions that provide courses. Education and employment are thus a shared preoccupation between educational institutions and firms at the sector level. There is a consen652
sus among employers not to ‘‘free-ride’’, or take advantage of one another: businesses all more or less invest in the training of their own new recruits rather than hiring workers trained by their competitors. In France, there is more separation between education and employment. Education is mainly the remit of the State. Educational institutions on the one hand are reluctant to see the business community too much involved in the management and design of training programmes. Professionals hold a minor and consultative role when it comes to the design of educational programmes. Businesses, on the other hand, are unwilling to invest time in education and training of young workers, as they fear this might ultimately benefit their competitors. They are quite content to hire reasonably qualified workers provided freely by the State system, especially at the high end of the job market. They can thus take a more short-term, opportunistic view when they want to hire workers suited to their needs, be it at the expense of the State or of other businesses, with or without the help of head-hunters. Comparative research, that includes the UK, complements that undertaken by Maurice et al. (1989). Louart (2003), for instance, shows that in contrast with the German approach (importance of sector-level regulation and high degree of investment and ‘selfdiscipline’ at the level of the firm) and the French system (importance of provision by the State, weak investment by the firms), development and training in the UK is very much a matter to be dealt with by the individual, through gaining a diversified portfolio of experience through his/her working life. It is in this country that experience (however acquired) is valued as a training and development tool; and this tends to have a higher premium rather than job-specific formal qualifications as favoured in Germany or externally acquired qualifications as sought after in France. In summary, we find that despite a voluminous literature devoted to exploring cultural values at a general level, the application of this cultural perspective to HRM has been limited. This is surprising given the central importance of cultural sensitivity when dealing with issues of recruitment, socialization, performance management and career progression and the increasing need to manage multicultural teams and/or across borders. In particular, we have noted the dearth of empirical research to uncover different cultural approaches to the training and career development of managers in organizations. Of the few published studies, the most promising typology is that of Derr (1987), and, Evans et al. (1989, 2002) which identifies three prevailing approaches in Europe to identifying and developing managerial talent. These models receive general support from institutional research but have not been explicitly tested. Therefore our study aims to address the empirical collection of evidence for a test of the models.
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 649–658, December 2004
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE: DO NATIONAL MODELS PERSIST?
The Study Drawing on the above work, we can identify four HR policy areas where cultural difference might be expected to express itself: human resource planning (career development and succession); manager internalization (building an internal labour market by retaining managers and promoting them internally); management of potential (selecting and developing potential managers); and use of formal qualifications and job experience to form/enhance management competencies. Using variables within each of these domains, we will describe and test a Latin, a Germanic and an Anglo-Dutch model of managing and developing managers. Hypotheses Here we apply the three models of Derr (1987) and Evans, Doz et al. (1989), which we recognize may overlap to some extent, to these four HR areas. These can be formulated as the following sets of hypotheses. 1. Human Resource Planning Hypothesis 1a. Germanic firms have a more long-term perspective as regards the development of their managers than Latin and Anglo-Dutch firms. Hypothesis 1b. Germanic firms plan more in advance to fill vacancies at senior levels than Latin and Anglo-Dutch firms. Hypothesis 1c. Germanic firms plan more the careers of their managers than Latin and AngloDutch firms. 2. Manager Internalization Hypothesis 2a. Germanic firms promote internally more than do Latin and Anglo-Dutch firms. Hypothesis 2b. Germanic firms expect to retain their managers over the long term more than do Latin and Anglo-Dutch firms. 3. Management of Potential Hypothesis 3a. Latin firms tend to select high potential prior to providing training to their managers more than do Germanic and Anglo-Dutch firms. Hypothesis 3b. Anglo-Dutch and Germanic firms try to develop their managers’ potential through training provision more than do Latin firms. 4. Formal Qualifications Hypothesis 4a. Germanic firms regard formal qualifications related to the job as more relevant to develop a good manager than do French and Anglo-Dutch firms.
Hypothesis 4b. Latin firms regard formal qualifications not related to the job as more relevant to make a good manager than do Germanic and Anglo-Dutch firms. Hypothesis 4c. Anglo-Dutch firms regard job experience in the workplace as more relevant to develop a good manager than do Germanic and Latin firms.
Sample The results upon which this analysis is based were collected as part a larger project researching management training and development systems in Europe (Mabey and Ramirez, 2004). In order to test the hypotheses in this study, we focus here on the data concerning management development derived from three of the seven countries: UK, France and Germany. These are taken to represent or to typify the Anglo-Dutch, the Latin and the Germanic models respectively. A stratified sampling frame was agreed by country partners which provided a reasonable representation of organizations by size, sector and annual turnover, within an overall design constraint of 100 firms per country. Using local databases, contact was made by each partner with the HRD manager or equivalent, targeting only host-country owned companies and omitting public/not-for-profit organizations. Of the 531 contacted in the UK, France and Germany, 300 agreed to participate, representing a response rate of 57%. The sector distribution across the total sample was as follows: manufacturing 31%, transport and distribution 21% and the services sector (including financial, and insurance companies as well as legal, business and management consultancy firms) 44%. Each country broadly mirrored this breakdown, with the exception of Germany where the services sector was over represented at the expense of transport and distribution. Given the focus of the study, which was structured management development activities (formal or informal) initiated by the employer, it was decided to include only companies with 20 staff or more. The eventual sample achieved our goal of being evenly spread across four size categories: 20–99 employees (26%); 100–249 (23%); 250–499 (22%); 500 or more (29%). Organizations employing more than 5000 staff were over-represented in the highly industrialized German sample (43%). The interviews, which were arranged in advance, were conducted by host country nationals in their native language. These were conducted by telephone, following a structured format, and lasted between 20–30 minutes. Questions were asked about industrial and management structure, the organization’s HR strategy and management development policy, its preferred methods and practices for management and career development and mechanisms for evaluation.
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 649–658, December 2004
653
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE: DO NATIONAL MODELS PERSIST?
Measures
Table 1 HR Planning: A Comparison of the Three Country Models
From the questionnaire, those items were selected which best reflected the four HR domains under scrutiny. These were the following: Human resource planning (Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 1c) Long term MD perspective: We are primarily concerned with the long term development of managers (2 years or more) (1 to 5 point Likert scale) Avanced succession planning: My organization plans well in advance when filling vacancies at senior levels (1 to 5 point Likert scale) Career planning: Do you plan managers’ careers in your organization? (dichotomous Yes/No)
Long term MD Planning in advance Career planning
France
Germany
UK
3.45 3.02 0.52
4.06*** 3.28 0.81***
3.61 3.22 0.52
***
F significant at the 0.001 level
Table 2 Manager Internalisation: A Comparison of the Three Country Models
Use internal promotion Manager retention
France
Germany
UK
4.12 3.48
4.18 4.38***
4.21 4.09
***
Manager internalization (Hypotheses 2a and 2b) Internal promotions: When filling management vacancies, we promote from within the organization whenever possible (1 to 5 point Likert scale) Manager retention: We expect to retain most of our managers for 5 years or more (1 to 5 point Likert scale) Management of potential (hypotheses 3a and 3b) Potential selection: The emphasis of training in this organization is to develop individual potential (1 to 5 point Likert scale) Potential development: Do you select high potential managers for more intensive development? (dichotomous Yes/No) Use of formal qualifications (hypotheses 4a, 4b, 4c) In your view what makes an effective manager? Can you rate each of the following factors on a 5 point scale where 1 equals ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 represents ‘strongly agree’: (i) Formal qualifications or training related to the job, (e.g. vocational degree) (ii) Formal qualification or training not specifically related to the job, (e.g. a general degree) (iii) Job experience in the workplace One-way ANOVA was used to test the effect of the country on the dependent variables under study.
F significant at the 0.001 level
to retain their managers (hypothesis 2b). Here our results lead us to reject hypothesis 2a.: UK respondents obtain higher scores than German respondents. However, the difference between German and UK responses is not significant (see Table 2). On the other hand, hypothesis 2b receives strong support: German respondents scored significantly higher than those of the other two countries as to the intention to retain their managers over the next five years. Confirming our hypotheses 3a and 3b, French firms are significantly more likely to select managers for development based on prior potential. They are also less likely to develop potential through training than their UK and German counterparts. The ANOVA tests show results significant at the 0.01 and at the 0.05 significance levels respectively (Table 3). We hypothesized that French HR respondents would value general formal training more than UK or German firms (hypothesis 4b). Our results depicted in Table 4 strongly confirm this hypothesis (F = 23.114, Table 3 Potential Management: A Comparison of the Three Country Models France Select potential Develop potential
**
0.77 3.41*
Germany
UK
0.68 3.69
0.57 3.68
*
F significant at the 0.05 level F significant at the 0.01 level
Results
**
For all three variables relating to HR planning, Germany has the highest score, consistent with our expectations. However, the ANOVA F-test proved only significant for hypotheses 1a and 1c (see Table 1). Our results therefore support hypotheses 1a and 1c but not hypothesis 1b. We hypothesized German firms would promote more from within than their French and UK counterparts (hypothesis 2a), and that they would plan more 654
Table 4 Formal Qualifications: A Comparison of the Three Country Models France Germany UK Formal qualifications related to job 3.21 General formal qualifications 3.16*** Job experience in the workplace 3.95
3.31 2.35 4.16
3.21 2.66 4.06
***
F significant at the 0.001 level
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 649–658, December 2004
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE: DO NATIONAL MODELS PERSIST?
significant at the 0.001 significance level). Similarly, in line with our expectations, German respondents value more formal qualifications related to the job than do French and UK respondents. However, the difference between Germany and the other two countries is not significant (F = 0.398). Therefore we have to reject hypothesis 4a. Finally, we expected firms from the UK to value job experience in the workplace more highly than their counterparts in France or in Germany. In fact, we find that work experience is actually more valued among German respondents than among the British ones. F-statistics show however that differences between the three countries are insignificant with respect to this last variable. We therefore have to reject hypothesis 4c. We set out to show evidence of the persistence of three theoretically driven models of management development of managers. Out of our initial 10 hypotheses, four did not receive support based on one-way ANOVA F-tests. The remaining six, however, were confirmed as significant relationships.
Discussion Overall, we found mixed support for the hypotheses generated from earlier work by Derr (1987). First, succession planning appears no more popular in Germany than in France and the UK. This may be due either to the fact that succession planning has become more popular in France and the UK through the sheer diffusion of ‘‘good practices’’ in processes of institutionalization. For example, the results may reflect a move towards ‘‘risk management practices’’ which are part of a comprehensive package of ISOendorsed practices. Such practices state the need to anticipate competence needs at all levels of the organization. It may also well be that the routine of planning to fill vacancies for senior managerial positions has become more evenly distributed throughout Europe. As far as France is concerned, this would be termed ‘gestion pre´visionnelle des emplois’ (anticipated management of jobs). Second, internal promotion appears no more widespread in Germany than anywhere else. Indeed results show a slightly greater (though not statistically significant) perception of internal promotion occurring in the UK. This could be explained by a convergence of practices across Europe that pushes firms into adopting flat organizations, thus leaving less room for internal career progressions in a country such as Germany. It may also well be that, faced with the increased turnover of a tighter job market, firms in the UK have been led, at least temporarily, to adopt more internal promotion schemes, thus evolving to a form of adoption of the Germanic model. Third, the insistence on formal qualifications related to the job, usually regarded as a strong feature of
German HRM, is not supported by our results even though Germany comes ahead of the other two countries albeit insignificantly. This may be due to German companies turning away from the traditional apprenticeship model where people gradually acquire a specialized qualification closely tied to the job, and moving towards the more Anglo-Dutch type of boundaryless career where experience gained anywhere is more valued than narrowly defined qualifications. On the other hand, one could also argue there has been more specialized training and development undertaken both in France and the UK in the past ten years; prior to this, these two countries traditionally valued general education (France) or a mix of general education gained prior to an early entrance into the job market and job experience (the UK). National Vocational Qualifications in the UK and Certificats de Qualification Professionnelle in France are good examples of the rise of job-based or at least sector-based professional qualifications, designed in close collaboration between the corporate world and educational institutions in order to match specific jobs. Fourth, the three countries under study display no strong difference with respect to the importance given to job experience acquired in the workplace. In fact this last criterion is by far the one preferred by employers in all three countries, even France. This again suggests convergence or consensus on the relevance of work experience as the best development tool. This could be explained by the fact that formal qualifications be they general or specific—are regarded as screening criteria rather than as final selection criteria. Therefore despite the value accorded to qualifications, companies continue to place more of a premium upon a manager’s track record of experience. We find however that the predicted differences in the other six variables were confirmed as statistically significant by our data. Thus we may propose the persistence of a societal effect on career and management development of managers in Europe. The details of these effects are summarized in Table 5. So we find, in support of the Anglo-Dutch model, a great deal of emphasis being placed upon a single practice: the grooming and development of managers within the firm. Two distinct features of the Latin model are also confirmed: the identification of high potential external candidates and, linked to this, the value ascribed to non-vocational qualifications. Finally, certain aspects of the Germanic model are also supported by our findings: namely the importance placed on long-term, internal development of managers within the firm, aided by technically-specific qualifications. It should be remembered that Table 5 depicts a relative picture, so a minus does not indicate that no attention is paid to this practice, rather that it is given less prominence compared to the other countries.
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 649–658, December 2004
655
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE: DO NATIONAL MODELS PERSIST?
Table 5
The Persistence of Cultural Models in European Management Development: A Summary Latin
Germanic
Anglo-Dutch
HR planning Developing for the longer term Career planning
Short term
Long term + +
Short term
Manager internalization Retention
Low
High +
Low
Potential management Potential selection Potential development
Selection +
Development
Development
+
+
Interest in formal qualifications Formal qualifications unrelated to the job
Unrelated to the job +
Related to the job
No interest in formal qualifications
What are the consequences of these findings for those attempting to create and sustain management talent in different parts of Europe? German managers appear to develop their managerial skills almost wholly in-house. Although this can be a source of strength for training and development, one of the risks is that there exist few national institutions to regulate and distinguish between good and bad service providers or provide recognized accreditation for the training and development for specifically management as opposed to technical skills. Similarly, too heavy a reliance upon internal organizationally-funded development, exposes management development to economic trends. An example is the collapse of the Internet bubble in high technology industries, which occurred at the time that German managers needed to become more flexible, innovative and adaptive in the face of environmental complexity. Like many countries, France has suffered an economic slowdown since 2001 and our findings suggest that, compared to other European countries, there exists a rather pessimistic view of managerial retention and long-term development, with a strong emphasis continuing to be placed upon appropriate entry decisions from a small elite pool. This may lead to inflexibility, particularly as firms seek to or are forced to internationalize their operations. This is exactly what happened in the 1990s, with the French State retreating from its interventionist role and allowing large firms the autonomy to restructure; this, in turn, has led to a dismantling of large conglomerates, greater foreign ownership of French firms and strategies based on acquisition and selling off of subsidiaries. In some ways, the situation in the UK is no more encouraging. Within a context of discontinuity at a national policy level (Thomson et al., 2001), our analysis shows a somewhat expedient approach, with companies apparently unable or unwilling to take a longerterm view when cultivating management talent. Linked with this, they also lack the processes to promote from within and retain their managers over time and, are unlikely to undertake career planning. But although French companies supposedly compensate with sophisticated entry-level selection of managers, British firms also place comparatively little emphasis 656
on potential selection. The one ‘strength’ of the British model is the relative weight accorded to job experience in the workplace. However, not only is this accompanied by an undervaluing of formal qualifications, it also assumes those identifying and developing managerial talent have the skills to do so in a way that is seen to be fair, transparent and effective.
Conclusion In this paper we set out to test a model of international human resource development derived from previous research based on the link between specific HR (management and career development) practices and national cultures. What we find is the persistence of national specificities as regards HR planning, manager internalization, the management of potential and the weight given to formal qualifications when it comes to deciding what constitutes a ‘‘good manager’’. However, there is a possible convergence of practices as regards the planning of succession at senior levels, the use of internal promotions, and the perceived role of formal qualifications related to the job and as well as that of job experience as an equally valid criteria for determining the worth of a manager. Reporting the results of an extensive survey of international HR practice, Brewster et al. (2004) note that there is evidence of directional convergence (countries are moving in the same direction) but no evidence that there are trends towards final convergence (that countries are becoming more alike). Our findings, focusing on the identification and development of managers in European firms, lend tentative support to this notion. Whilst we detected convergence within the three featured countries on specific issues like succession planning, internal promotion and the nature of management training favoured by firms, this was not the case for several other dimensions of management development. Indeed, the fact that the British, French and German firms continue to pursue distinctive approaches (in the areas of HR planning, manpower
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 649–658, December 2004
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE: DO NATIONAL MODELS PERSIST?
internalization, potential management and the use of formal qualifications) fifteen years after such national patterns were identified, lends testimony to the persistence of cultural influence. Having said this, we recognize that our country samples are relatively small and the results reported here do not account for control variables such as size and sector. Second, we have relied on a single country to represent each of the models identified by Derr (1987). The research design could be generalized to other Latin, AngloDutch and Germanic countries, provided equivalent samples of organizations in each model can be secured. Finally, further research could usefully explore management and career development in other cultures such as those of Asia, Latin-America and Africa.
Acknowledgement 1. The findings of this paper arise from a study funded by the European Commission Leonardo da Vinci Procedure C, Ref RF 81505. We are most grateful for their sponsorship. 2. The authors thank Cordula Barzantny, Professor at ESC Toulouse, for her comments on this paper.
References Brewster, C.G.P., Mayrhofer, W. and Morley, M. (2004) Human Resource Management in Europe: Evidence of Convergence. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford. Budhwar and Sparrow, P. (1998) National factors determining Indian and British HRM practices: An empirical study. Management International Review 38(2), 105–121. Delamare, F., Dutech, A., Klarsfeld, A., Lafoucriere, C., & Winterton, J. (2003). Final Report on Management Training and Development in France, Leonardo da Vinci Manager Training Database Programme, Dec. Derr, C.B. (1987) Managing high potential in Europe: Some cross cultural findings. European Management Journal 5(2), 72–79. Derr, C.B. and Laurent, A. (1989) The internal and external career: A theoretical and cross-cultural perspective. In The Handbook of Career Theory, eds Arthur, Laurence and Hall, pp. 454–471. Cambridge University Press. Evans, P., Doz, Y. and Laurent, A. (1989) Human Resource Management in International Firms. Macmillan, London. Evans, P., Lank, E. and Farquhar, A. (1989) Managing human resources in the international firm. In Human Resource Management in International Firms, eds P. Evans, Y. Doz and A. Laurent. Macmillan, London.
Evans, P., Pucik, V. and Barsoux, J.-L. (2002) The Global Challenge Frameworks for International Human Resource Management. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Chicago. Hampden-Turner, C. and Trompenaars, F. (2000) Building Cross-Cultural Competence. How to Create Wealth from Conflicting Values. Yale University Press, New Haven & London. Hofstede, G. (1997) Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind. (revised 2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill, London, New York. Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences. Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. (2nd ed.). Sage, London. d’Iribarne, P. (1989) La Logique de l’honneur. Le Seuil, Paris. Inglehart, R., Basanez, M. and Moreno, A. (1998) Human Values and Beliefs: A Cross-Cultural Sourcebook. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Lane, C. (1989) Management and Labour in Europe. Elgar Publishing, Hants, UK. Laurent, A. (1986) The cross-cultural puzzle of human resource management. Human Resource Management 25(1), 91–102. Louart, P. (2003) L’impact des syste`mes e´ ducatifs sur la gestion des compe´ tences, une comparaison internationale. In Ge´rer les compe´tences: des instrumentsaux processus, eds A. Klarsfeld and E. Oiry. Vuibert, Paris. Maurice, M., Sellier, F. and Silvestre, J.-J. (1989) Politique d’e´ducation et organisation industrielle en France et en Allemagne. PUF, Paris. Mabey, C. and Ramirez, M. (2004) Developing Managers: A European Perspective. Chartered Management Institute, London. Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries, In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, (p. 165). New York: Academic Press. Schwartz, S.H. (1999) A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review 48, 23–47. Segalla, M., Jacobs-Belschak, G. and Muller (2001) Cultural influences on employee termination decisions: Firing the good, average or the old. European Management Journal 19(1), 58–71. Segalla, M., Sauquet, A. and Turati (2001) Symbolic vs functional recruitment: Cultural influences on employee recruitment policy. European Management Journal 19(1), 32–41. Smith, P.B., Dugan, S. and Trompenaars, F. (1996) National culture and the values of organizational employees. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 27, 231–264. Stiles, P., Gratton, L., Truss, C., Hope Hailey, V. and McGovern, P. (1997) Performance management and the psychological contract. Human Resource Management Journal 7(1), 57–66. Thomson, A., Mabey, C., Storey, J., Gray, C. and Iles, P. (2001) Changing Patterns of Management Development. Blackwell, Oxford. Trompenaars, F. (1998) Riding the Waves of Culture. Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. (2nd ed.). Nicholas Brealey, London.
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 649–658, December 2004
657
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE: DO NATIONAL MODELS PERSIST?
ALAIN KLARSFELD, Group ESC Toulouse Business School, CREERCentre de Recherche Europe´enne sur L’Emploi et les Ressources Humaines, 20, Boulevard Lascrosses, Boˆite Postale, 7010, F31068, Toulouse Cedex 07, France. E-mail: a.klarsfeld@ esc-toulouse.fr Alain Klarsfeld is Professor of HRM at ESC Toulouse. His primary research interests are in the management of competences, industrial relations, and international HRM.
658
CHRISTOPHER MABEY, Department of Organizational Psychology and Management, Birkbeck College, University of London, Malet St., Bloomsburg, London. E-mail: [email protected] Chris Mabey is Reader in HRM in the Department of Organizational Psychology and Management, Birkbeck College, University of London. He currently leads an international project team examining management development policies and practices from a cross-national perspective. The team includes nine European partners.
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 649–658, December 2004
Management Development in Europe: Do National Models Persist? ALAIN KLARSFELD, Groupe ESC Toulouse Business School CHRISTOPHER MABEY, Birkbeck College, University of London Explaining the way organizations go about identifying and developing their managers will require some understanding of internal priorities and decision processes, as well as more macro factors like the national institutional context. We might also expect cultural factors to play an important part, but applying a cross-cultural analysis to management development policies and practices is relatively rare. One exception is an enduring framework which identifies the cultural characteristics of Germanic, Anglo-Dutch and Latin models [European Management Journal 5(2) (1987) 72; The Global Challenge Frameworks for International Human Resource Management, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Chicago]. Drawing upon a sample of 300 European firms, this paper tests the empirical validity of these three models and finds that some, but not all, of the features originally identified continue to hold true for firms in the countries concerned. Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Management development, cultural models, European firms
Cross-
way countries identify and develop managerial talent? While there is a good deal of literature dealing with cultural values and how they might be applied in the work context, relatively few authors have taken this approach to analysing HRD practices. One notable exception is a theoretical framework proposed by Evans et al. (1989, 2002), originally derived from that proposed by Derr (1987). This distinguishes between Latin, Germanic, Anglo-Dutch and Japanese cultures of management and career development in corporate settings. However this framework has remained substantially unchanged since 1987, and although it has received inferred support from a few related studies, it remains quantitatively untested. In this paper we set out to assess the empirical validity of this framework and draw conclusions about the way managers are developed in different parts of Europe. Drawing upon a larger European data-set of management development policies and practices, we test these hypotheses for 300 German, French and British companies and explore the findings and implications for firms operating across national borders in Europe.
Introduction
Cross-cultural Research and Human Resource Practice
What do cross-cultural studies tell us about the practice of human resource development (HRD) in Europe? In particular, what can be learnt about the
A number of large scale survey research projects of cultural-level values have been published in recent years (Schwartz, 1992, 1999; Trompenaars, 1998;
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 649–658, December 2004
649
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE: DO NATIONAL MODELS PERSIST?
Smith et al., 1996; Inglehart et al., 1998; HampdenTurner and Trompenaars, 2000). These models are based upon studies of attitudes or values of respondents derived from large samples in different countries. Typically, respondents are asked to agree or disagree with sentences or adjectives. For example, if we take the work of Schwartz (1992), respondents rate, on a one to seven point scale, the importance of 56 single values ‘‘as guiding principles in my life’’. Each value is followed in parentheses by a short explanatory phrase (‘‘wealth material possessions, money’’) (Schwartz, 1999). This approach is similar to Hofstede’s earlier work, where respondents express their agreement with such statements as: ‘‘employees are afraid to disagree with their employer’’ (Hofstede, 1997, 2001). Despite its obvious interest, values-based research aims to provide general frameworks in order to understand how cultures differ in all settings and not just the corporate one. Hence, these models tend to lack specificity when it comes to predicting and understanding specific human resource management practices.
A Cultural Perspective However, writers have sought to apply a cultural lens to work related issues. As d’Iribarne (1989) and Hofstede (2001) have shown, perceptions of management practice, and management practices themselves, differ widely between countries. Others have argued that there are differences between countries in relation to HR practices such as selection and development (Laurent, 1986), perceptions of career management (Derr and Laurent, 1989), hiring strategies (Segalla, Sauquet et al., 2001) and terminations (Segalla, Jacobs-Belschak et al., 2001). Sparrow (1996), building on Hofstede’s dimensions, found that national values, such as individualism-collectivism influence the social cues that managers use to decode information in their psychological contract. Also, Budhwar and Sparrow (1998), using their own five aspects of national culture, note the influence of culture on socialization of managers into British and Indian organizations, and the role of social relationships and political connections on selection, promotion and transfer decisions. Laurent investigated what qualities managers from different countries consider essential in order to get promoted in their particular work context (Laurent, 1986). He found that ‘‘being labelled a high potential’’ was key to French respondents, while ‘‘a creative mind’’ was a high priority for German respondents, ‘‘skills in interpersonal communication’’ was favoured by the British respondents and ‘‘drive’’ and ‘‘ability’’ were the US respondents’ favourites. However, despite the examples of cultural differentiation gleaned from these studies, surprisingly little research has been undertaken to investigate manage650
ment and career development practices from a cultural perspective. One exception is the work of Derr (1987). In his research on potential identification and development at major European corporations (including subsidiaries of Japanese multi-national enterprises), he finds four types of management development model. In Figure 1 we summarize the key features of the three European models. The authors also describe a fourth Japanese or elite cohort approach, which we do not pursue here, since it is beyond the European focus of our study. In the Latin or elite political model, there is little human resource planning for managers. Instead there is a propensity for French top managers to privilege ‘‘political games’’ over bureaucratic rules when it comes to promote managers towards top positions. Another explanation is the reliance on nepotistic networks to fill positions, rather than using a more textbook skill-based approach. Such a practice makes it difficult for top managers in firms to overtly admit they may give precedence to outside candidates over internal candidates; and planning the external recruitment of graduates from preferred colleges will not be formalized. Therefore in the Latin model, reluctance to plan goes hand in hand with a preference for Grandes Ecoles and external candidates, as opposed to skills built within the firm. In this model, preference is given to graduates from Grandes Ecoles; this goes together with the notion of selecting potential managers rather than the development of an internal pool of managers with the help of various training and development tools. In other words, Latin enterprises prefer to hire high potentials rather than develop them. This notion of identifying potential first, and then developing managers later (often more as a symbolic reward) is corroborated by a recent multiple-case study of French organizations (Delamare et al., 2003). The same authors also indicate that greater attention than elsewhere is paid to formal qualifications that are unrelated to the job and of a general nature, whereas less attention is paid to qualifications specifically related to the job held. In contrast, the Germanic or functional model is characterized by the internalization of the competence-building process and an internal labour market perspective. Career development, management development and succession planning are seen as long-term management tools and require advance planning. There is also more willingness to retain managers over a long period of time and to win their commitment through processes of internal promotion (Maurice et al., 1989). Potential is not seen to be acquired once and for all upon completion of initial study, but rather gradually developed through training and development actions and experience (and eventually detected). If there is interest for formal qualifications, it is in those that are developed through and related to the job rather than through general degrees as in the Latin model.
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 649–658, December 2004
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE: DO NATIONAL MODELS PERSIST?
Figure 1 Models for Leadership Identification and Development (Adapted from Evans, Lank et al. (1989) and Evans et al. (2002))
Much as the Latin and the Germanic model seem in total opposition to one another, the Anglo-Dutch model may appear to somehow borrow features of both Latin and Germanic models. It has, in common with the Latin model, a weaker interest in formal human resource planning activities. This may be explained not so much by the difficulty of overtly admitting preference for ‘‘old boys’’ networks over internal candidates as is the case in France, but more by the market-like nature of the job market in the Anglo-Dutch countries (typified by the US and the UK). This manifests itself by lower levels of employee and
employer loyalty towards the other party (Louart, 2003; Stiles et al., 1997). In such a context, manpower planning appears more difficult, more costly, and of little relevance, given the higher uncertainty of commitment at both ends of the employment relationship. Internal promotions are less necessary as the external market is expected to supply the necessary skills in professional markets. However, when it comes to the management of potentials, Anglo-Dutch model firms prefer developing potential over selecting potential as in Germanic countries. Management development may here be used as both a selection
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 649–658, December 2004
651
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE: DO NATIONAL MODELS PERSIST?
and a development tool, rather than as a reward that comes after potential identification or a scheme applied across the board in order to develop every manager’s potential. An example of this is development centres, a development tool widely used in Anglo-Dutch countries. Finally, the Anglo-Dutch model displays a distinctive feature: a weaker interest given to formal qualifications, be they related to the job as in the Germanic model or not as in the Latin model, and, conversely, greater emphasis placed upon job experience. It should be noted that in their later formulation (Evans et al., 2002: 374) the authors de-couple this approach from a specific country model and re-label it as the multinational corporation model. Several observations can be made about this typology. First, the descriptions of the different country models have high face validity, but appear to be based on limited case study and interview evidence. For instance Derr (1987) conducted interviews with just 60 companies in France, Germany, Britain, Sweden and Germany; the organizations ranged in size from 2,000 to 350,000 employees. Second, there has been little if any quantitative analysis to confirm and/or amplify the original classification. Third, given that the later publication (Evans et al., 2002) simply re-iterates the typologies with no updating except to provide new labels, a testing of these fifteen year old cultural stereotypes of management development is well overdue.
An Institutional Perspective A further source of research which helps to explore national differences is that which takes an institutional approach by comparing training models between countries. The few studies published tend to confirm the typology in Figure 1. For instance, Lane (1989) has pointed out that in Germany, managers receive extensive training once they have joined the organization, to strengthen their already strong vocational and technical knowledge. In contrast, she notes that in the UK there is extensive reliance on external education and comparatively weak career structures. This raises the question as to whether education and training is sufficiently embedded in the organization and translates into improved performance. A study by Maurice et al. (1989) contrasts French and German practices in education and employment and shows that there are two distinctive means of articulating training provision in the labour market. In Germany, firms invest more in the training and development of their newly recruited workforce, taking a longerterm view and paying more attention to the building of internal competences. They work in close conjunction with educational institutions that provide courses. Education and employment are thus a shared preoccupation between educational institutions and firms at the sector level. There is a consen652
sus among employers not to ‘‘free-ride’’, or take advantage of one another: businesses all more or less invest in the training of their own new recruits rather than hiring workers trained by their competitors. In France, there is more separation between education and employment. Education is mainly the remit of the State. Educational institutions on the one hand are reluctant to see the business community too much involved in the management and design of training programmes. Professionals hold a minor and consultative role when it comes to the design of educational programmes. Businesses, on the other hand, are unwilling to invest time in education and training of young workers, as they fear this might ultimately benefit their competitors. They are quite content to hire reasonably qualified workers provided freely by the State system, especially at the high end of the job market. They can thus take a more short-term, opportunistic view when they want to hire workers suited to their needs, be it at the expense of the State or of other businesses, with or without the help of head-hunters. Comparative research, that includes the UK, complements that undertaken by Maurice et al. (1989). Louart (2003), for instance, shows that in contrast with the German approach (importance of sector-level regulation and high degree of investment and ‘selfdiscipline’ at the level of the firm) and the French system (importance of provision by the State, weak investment by the firms), development and training in the UK is very much a matter to be dealt with by the individual, through gaining a diversified portfolio of experience through his/her working life. It is in this country that experience (however acquired) is valued as a training and development tool; and this tends to have a higher premium rather than job-specific formal qualifications as favoured in Germany or externally acquired qualifications as sought after in France. In summary, we find that despite a voluminous literature devoted to exploring cultural values at a general level, the application of this cultural perspective to HRM has been limited. This is surprising given the central importance of cultural sensitivity when dealing with issues of recruitment, socialization, performance management and career progression and the increasing need to manage multicultural teams and/or across borders. In particular, we have noted the dearth of empirical research to uncover different cultural approaches to the training and career development of managers in organizations. Of the few published studies, the most promising typology is that of Derr (1987), and, Evans et al. (1989, 2002) which identifies three prevailing approaches in Europe to identifying and developing managerial talent. These models receive general support from institutional research but have not been explicitly tested. Therefore our study aims to address the empirical collection of evidence for a test of the models.
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 649–658, December 2004
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE: DO NATIONAL MODELS PERSIST?
The Study Drawing on the above work, we can identify four HR policy areas where cultural difference might be expected to express itself: human resource planning (career development and succession); manager internalization (building an internal labour market by retaining managers and promoting them internally); management of potential (selecting and developing potential managers); and use of formal qualifications and job experience to form/enhance management competencies. Using variables within each of these domains, we will describe and test a Latin, a Germanic and an Anglo-Dutch model of managing and developing managers. Hypotheses Here we apply the three models of Derr (1987) and Evans, Doz et al. (1989), which we recognize may overlap to some extent, to these four HR areas. These can be formulated as the following sets of hypotheses. 1. Human Resource Planning Hypothesis 1a. Germanic firms have a more long-term perspective as regards the development of their managers than Latin and Anglo-Dutch firms. Hypothesis 1b. Germanic firms plan more in advance to fill vacancies at senior levels than Latin and Anglo-Dutch firms. Hypothesis 1c. Germanic firms plan more the careers of their managers than Latin and AngloDutch firms. 2. Manager Internalization Hypothesis 2a. Germanic firms promote internally more than do Latin and Anglo-Dutch firms. Hypothesis 2b. Germanic firms expect to retain their managers over the long term more than do Latin and Anglo-Dutch firms. 3. Management of Potential Hypothesis 3a. Latin firms tend to select high potential prior to providing training to their managers more than do Germanic and Anglo-Dutch firms. Hypothesis 3b. Anglo-Dutch and Germanic firms try to develop their managers’ potential through training provision more than do Latin firms. 4. Formal Qualifications Hypothesis 4a. Germanic firms regard formal qualifications related to the job as more relevant to develop a good manager than do French and Anglo-Dutch firms.
Hypothesis 4b. Latin firms regard formal qualifications not related to the job as more relevant to make a good manager than do Germanic and Anglo-Dutch firms. Hypothesis 4c. Anglo-Dutch firms regard job experience in the workplace as more relevant to develop a good manager than do Germanic and Latin firms.
Sample The results upon which this analysis is based were collected as part a larger project researching management training and development systems in Europe (Mabey and Ramirez, 2004). In order to test the hypotheses in this study, we focus here on the data concerning management development derived from three of the seven countries: UK, France and Germany. These are taken to represent or to typify the Anglo-Dutch, the Latin and the Germanic models respectively. A stratified sampling frame was agreed by country partners which provided a reasonable representation of organizations by size, sector and annual turnover, within an overall design constraint of 100 firms per country. Using local databases, contact was made by each partner with the HRD manager or equivalent, targeting only host-country owned companies and omitting public/not-for-profit organizations. Of the 531 contacted in the UK, France and Germany, 300 agreed to participate, representing a response rate of 57%. The sector distribution across the total sample was as follows: manufacturing 31%, transport and distribution 21% and the services sector (including financial, and insurance companies as well as legal, business and management consultancy firms) 44%. Each country broadly mirrored this breakdown, with the exception of Germany where the services sector was over represented at the expense of transport and distribution. Given the focus of the study, which was structured management development activities (formal or informal) initiated by the employer, it was decided to include only companies with 20 staff or more. The eventual sample achieved our goal of being evenly spread across four size categories: 20–99 employees (26%); 100–249 (23%); 250–499 (22%); 500 or more (29%). Organizations employing more than 5000 staff were over-represented in the highly industrialized German sample (43%). The interviews, which were arranged in advance, were conducted by host country nationals in their native language. These were conducted by telephone, following a structured format, and lasted between 20–30 minutes. Questions were asked about industrial and management structure, the organization’s HR strategy and management development policy, its preferred methods and practices for management and career development and mechanisms for evaluation.
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 649–658, December 2004
653
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE: DO NATIONAL MODELS PERSIST?
Measures
Table 1 HR Planning: A Comparison of the Three Country Models
From the questionnaire, those items were selected which best reflected the four HR domains under scrutiny. These were the following: Human resource planning (Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 1c) Long term MD perspective: We are primarily concerned with the long term development of managers (2 years or more) (1 to 5 point Likert scale) Avanced succession planning: My organization plans well in advance when filling vacancies at senior levels (1 to 5 point Likert scale) Career planning: Do you plan managers’ careers in your organization? (dichotomous Yes/No)
Long term MD Planning in advance Career planning
France
Germany
UK
3.45 3.02 0.52
4.06*** 3.28 0.81***
3.61 3.22 0.52
***
F significant at the 0.001 level
Table 2 Manager Internalisation: A Comparison of the Three Country Models
Use internal promotion Manager retention
France
Germany
UK
4.12 3.48
4.18 4.38***
4.21 4.09
***
Manager internalization (Hypotheses 2a and 2b) Internal promotions: When filling management vacancies, we promote from within the organization whenever possible (1 to 5 point Likert scale) Manager retention: We expect to retain most of our managers for 5 years or more (1 to 5 point Likert scale) Management of potential (hypotheses 3a and 3b) Potential selection: The emphasis of training in this organization is to develop individual potential (1 to 5 point Likert scale) Potential development: Do you select high potential managers for more intensive development? (dichotomous Yes/No) Use of formal qualifications (hypotheses 4a, 4b, 4c) In your view what makes an effective manager? Can you rate each of the following factors on a 5 point scale where 1 equals ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 represents ‘strongly agree’: (i) Formal qualifications or training related to the job, (e.g. vocational degree) (ii) Formal qualification or training not specifically related to the job, (e.g. a general degree) (iii) Job experience in the workplace One-way ANOVA was used to test the effect of the country on the dependent variables under study.
F significant at the 0.001 level
to retain their managers (hypothesis 2b). Here our results lead us to reject hypothesis 2a.: UK respondents obtain higher scores than German respondents. However, the difference between German and UK responses is not significant (see Table 2). On the other hand, hypothesis 2b receives strong support: German respondents scored significantly higher than those of the other two countries as to the intention to retain their managers over the next five years. Confirming our hypotheses 3a and 3b, French firms are significantly more likely to select managers for development based on prior potential. They are also less likely to develop potential through training than their UK and German counterparts. The ANOVA tests show results significant at the 0.01 and at the 0.05 significance levels respectively (Table 3). We hypothesized that French HR respondents would value general formal training more than UK or German firms (hypothesis 4b). Our results depicted in Table 4 strongly confirm this hypothesis (F = 23.114, Table 3 Potential Management: A Comparison of the Three Country Models France Select potential Develop potential
**
0.77 3.41*
Germany
UK
0.68 3.69
0.57 3.68
*
F significant at the 0.05 level F significant at the 0.01 level
Results
**
For all three variables relating to HR planning, Germany has the highest score, consistent with our expectations. However, the ANOVA F-test proved only significant for hypotheses 1a and 1c (see Table 1). Our results therefore support hypotheses 1a and 1c but not hypothesis 1b. We hypothesized German firms would promote more from within than their French and UK counterparts (hypothesis 2a), and that they would plan more 654
Table 4 Formal Qualifications: A Comparison of the Three Country Models France Germany UK Formal qualifications related to job 3.21 General formal qualifications 3.16*** Job experience in the workplace 3.95
3.31 2.35 4.16
3.21 2.66 4.06
***
F significant at the 0.001 level
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 649–658, December 2004
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE: DO NATIONAL MODELS PERSIST?
significant at the 0.001 significance level). Similarly, in line with our expectations, German respondents value more formal qualifications related to the job than do French and UK respondents. However, the difference between Germany and the other two countries is not significant (F = 0.398). Therefore we have to reject hypothesis 4a. Finally, we expected firms from the UK to value job experience in the workplace more highly than their counterparts in France or in Germany. In fact, we find that work experience is actually more valued among German respondents than among the British ones. F-statistics show however that differences between the three countries are insignificant with respect to this last variable. We therefore have to reject hypothesis 4c. We set out to show evidence of the persistence of three theoretically driven models of management development of managers. Out of our initial 10 hypotheses, four did not receive support based on one-way ANOVA F-tests. The remaining six, however, were confirmed as significant relationships.
Discussion Overall, we found mixed support for the hypotheses generated from earlier work by Derr (1987). First, succession planning appears no more popular in Germany than in France and the UK. This may be due either to the fact that succession planning has become more popular in France and the UK through the sheer diffusion of ‘‘good practices’’ in processes of institutionalization. For example, the results may reflect a move towards ‘‘risk management practices’’ which are part of a comprehensive package of ISOendorsed practices. Such practices state the need to anticipate competence needs at all levels of the organization. It may also well be that the routine of planning to fill vacancies for senior managerial positions has become more evenly distributed throughout Europe. As far as France is concerned, this would be termed ‘gestion pre´visionnelle des emplois’ (anticipated management of jobs). Second, internal promotion appears no more widespread in Germany than anywhere else. Indeed results show a slightly greater (though not statistically significant) perception of internal promotion occurring in the UK. This could be explained by a convergence of practices across Europe that pushes firms into adopting flat organizations, thus leaving less room for internal career progressions in a country such as Germany. It may also well be that, faced with the increased turnover of a tighter job market, firms in the UK have been led, at least temporarily, to adopt more internal promotion schemes, thus evolving to a form of adoption of the Germanic model. Third, the insistence on formal qualifications related to the job, usually regarded as a strong feature of
German HRM, is not supported by our results even though Germany comes ahead of the other two countries albeit insignificantly. This may be due to German companies turning away from the traditional apprenticeship model where people gradually acquire a specialized qualification closely tied to the job, and moving towards the more Anglo-Dutch type of boundaryless career where experience gained anywhere is more valued than narrowly defined qualifications. On the other hand, one could also argue there has been more specialized training and development undertaken both in France and the UK in the past ten years; prior to this, these two countries traditionally valued general education (France) or a mix of general education gained prior to an early entrance into the job market and job experience (the UK). National Vocational Qualifications in the UK and Certificats de Qualification Professionnelle in France are good examples of the rise of job-based or at least sector-based professional qualifications, designed in close collaboration between the corporate world and educational institutions in order to match specific jobs. Fourth, the three countries under study display no strong difference with respect to the importance given to job experience acquired in the workplace. In fact this last criterion is by far the one preferred by employers in all three countries, even France. This again suggests convergence or consensus on the relevance of work experience as the best development tool. This could be explained by the fact that formal qualifications be they general or specific—are regarded as screening criteria rather than as final selection criteria. Therefore despite the value accorded to qualifications, companies continue to place more of a premium upon a manager’s track record of experience. We find however that the predicted differences in the other six variables were confirmed as statistically significant by our data. Thus we may propose the persistence of a societal effect on career and management development of managers in Europe. The details of these effects are summarized in Table 5. So we find, in support of the Anglo-Dutch model, a great deal of emphasis being placed upon a single practice: the grooming and development of managers within the firm. Two distinct features of the Latin model are also confirmed: the identification of high potential external candidates and, linked to this, the value ascribed to non-vocational qualifications. Finally, certain aspects of the Germanic model are also supported by our findings: namely the importance placed on long-term, internal development of managers within the firm, aided by technically-specific qualifications. It should be remembered that Table 5 depicts a relative picture, so a minus does not indicate that no attention is paid to this practice, rather that it is given less prominence compared to the other countries.
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 649–658, December 2004
655
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE: DO NATIONAL MODELS PERSIST?
Table 5
The Persistence of Cultural Models in European Management Development: A Summary Latin
Germanic
Anglo-Dutch
HR planning Developing for the longer term Career planning
Short term
Long term + +
Short term
Manager internalization Retention
Low
High +
Low
Potential management Potential selection Potential development
Selection +
Development
Development
+
+
Interest in formal qualifications Formal qualifications unrelated to the job
Unrelated to the job +
Related to the job
No interest in formal qualifications
What are the consequences of these findings for those attempting to create and sustain management talent in different parts of Europe? German managers appear to develop their managerial skills almost wholly in-house. Although this can be a source of strength for training and development, one of the risks is that there exist few national institutions to regulate and distinguish between good and bad service providers or provide recognized accreditation for the training and development for specifically management as opposed to technical skills. Similarly, too heavy a reliance upon internal organizationally-funded development, exposes management development to economic trends. An example is the collapse of the Internet bubble in high technology industries, which occurred at the time that German managers needed to become more flexible, innovative and adaptive in the face of environmental complexity. Like many countries, France has suffered an economic slowdown since 2001 and our findings suggest that, compared to other European countries, there exists a rather pessimistic view of managerial retention and long-term development, with a strong emphasis continuing to be placed upon appropriate entry decisions from a small elite pool. This may lead to inflexibility, particularly as firms seek to or are forced to internationalize their operations. This is exactly what happened in the 1990s, with the French State retreating from its interventionist role and allowing large firms the autonomy to restructure; this, in turn, has led to a dismantling of large conglomerates, greater foreign ownership of French firms and strategies based on acquisition and selling off of subsidiaries. In some ways, the situation in the UK is no more encouraging. Within a context of discontinuity at a national policy level (Thomson et al., 2001), our analysis shows a somewhat expedient approach, with companies apparently unable or unwilling to take a longerterm view when cultivating management talent. Linked with this, they also lack the processes to promote from within and retain their managers over time and, are unlikely to undertake career planning. But although French companies supposedly compensate with sophisticated entry-level selection of managers, British firms also place comparatively little emphasis 656
on potential selection. The one ‘strength’ of the British model is the relative weight accorded to job experience in the workplace. However, not only is this accompanied by an undervaluing of formal qualifications, it also assumes those identifying and developing managerial talent have the skills to do so in a way that is seen to be fair, transparent and effective.
Conclusion In this paper we set out to test a model of international human resource development derived from previous research based on the link between specific HR (management and career development) practices and national cultures. What we find is the persistence of national specificities as regards HR planning, manager internalization, the management of potential and the weight given to formal qualifications when it comes to deciding what constitutes a ‘‘good manager’’. However, there is a possible convergence of practices as regards the planning of succession at senior levels, the use of internal promotions, and the perceived role of formal qualifications related to the job and as well as that of job experience as an equally valid criteria for determining the worth of a manager. Reporting the results of an extensive survey of international HR practice, Brewster et al. (2004) note that there is evidence of directional convergence (countries are moving in the same direction) but no evidence that there are trends towards final convergence (that countries are becoming more alike). Our findings, focusing on the identification and development of managers in European firms, lend tentative support to this notion. Whilst we detected convergence within the three featured countries on specific issues like succession planning, internal promotion and the nature of management training favoured by firms, this was not the case for several other dimensions of management development. Indeed, the fact that the British, French and German firms continue to pursue distinctive approaches (in the areas of HR planning, manpower
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 649–658, December 2004
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE: DO NATIONAL MODELS PERSIST?
internalization, potential management and the use of formal qualifications) fifteen years after such national patterns were identified, lends testimony to the persistence of cultural influence. Having said this, we recognize that our country samples are relatively small and the results reported here do not account for control variables such as size and sector. Second, we have relied on a single country to represent each of the models identified by Derr (1987). The research design could be generalized to other Latin, AngloDutch and Germanic countries, provided equivalent samples of organizations in each model can be secured. Finally, further research could usefully explore management and career development in other cultures such as those of Asia, Latin-America and Africa.
Acknowledgement 1. The findings of this paper arise from a study funded by the European Commission Leonardo da Vinci Procedure C, Ref RF 81505. We are most grateful for their sponsorship. 2. The authors thank Cordula Barzantny, Professor at ESC Toulouse, for her comments on this paper.
References Brewster, C.G.P., Mayrhofer, W. and Morley, M. (2004) Human Resource Management in Europe: Evidence of Convergence. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford. Budhwar and Sparrow, P. (1998) National factors determining Indian and British HRM practices: An empirical study. Management International Review 38(2), 105–121. Delamare, F., Dutech, A., Klarsfeld, A., Lafoucriere, C., & Winterton, J. (2003). Final Report on Management Training and Development in France, Leonardo da Vinci Manager Training Database Programme, Dec. Derr, C.B. (1987) Managing high potential in Europe: Some cross cultural findings. European Management Journal 5(2), 72–79. Derr, C.B. and Laurent, A. (1989) The internal and external career: A theoretical and cross-cultural perspective. In The Handbook of Career Theory, eds Arthur, Laurence and Hall, pp. 454–471. Cambridge University Press. Evans, P., Doz, Y. and Laurent, A. (1989) Human Resource Management in International Firms. Macmillan, London. Evans, P., Lank, E. and Farquhar, A. (1989) Managing human resources in the international firm. In Human Resource Management in International Firms, eds P. Evans, Y. Doz and A. Laurent. Macmillan, London.
Evans, P., Pucik, V. and Barsoux, J.-L. (2002) The Global Challenge Frameworks for International Human Resource Management. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Chicago. Hampden-Turner, C. and Trompenaars, F. (2000) Building Cross-Cultural Competence. How to Create Wealth from Conflicting Values. Yale University Press, New Haven & London. Hofstede, G. (1997) Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind. (revised 2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill, London, New York. Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences. Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. (2nd ed.). Sage, London. d’Iribarne, P. (1989) La Logique de l’honneur. Le Seuil, Paris. Inglehart, R., Basanez, M. and Moreno, A. (1998) Human Values and Beliefs: A Cross-Cultural Sourcebook. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Lane, C. (1989) Management and Labour in Europe. Elgar Publishing, Hants, UK. Laurent, A. (1986) The cross-cultural puzzle of human resource management. Human Resource Management 25(1), 91–102. Louart, P. (2003) L’impact des syste`mes e´ ducatifs sur la gestion des compe´ tences, une comparaison internationale. In Ge´rer les compe´tences: des instrumentsaux processus, eds A. Klarsfeld and E. Oiry. Vuibert, Paris. Maurice, M., Sellier, F. and Silvestre, J.-J. (1989) Politique d’e´ducation et organisation industrielle en France et en Allemagne. PUF, Paris. Mabey, C. and Ramirez, M. (2004) Developing Managers: A European Perspective. Chartered Management Institute, London. Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries, In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, (p. 165). New York: Academic Press. Schwartz, S.H. (1999) A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review 48, 23–47. Segalla, M., Jacobs-Belschak, G. and Muller (2001) Cultural influences on employee termination decisions: Firing the good, average or the old. European Management Journal 19(1), 58–71. Segalla, M., Sauquet, A. and Turati (2001) Symbolic vs functional recruitment: Cultural influences on employee recruitment policy. European Management Journal 19(1), 32–41. Smith, P.B., Dugan, S. and Trompenaars, F. (1996) National culture and the values of organizational employees. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 27, 231–264. Stiles, P., Gratton, L., Truss, C., Hope Hailey, V. and McGovern, P. (1997) Performance management and the psychological contract. Human Resource Management Journal 7(1), 57–66. Thomson, A., Mabey, C., Storey, J., Gray, C. and Iles, P. (2001) Changing Patterns of Management Development. Blackwell, Oxford. Trompenaars, F. (1998) Riding the Waves of Culture. Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. (2nd ed.). Nicholas Brealey, London.
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 649–658, December 2004
657
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE: DO NATIONAL MODELS PERSIST?
ALAIN KLARSFELD, Group ESC Toulouse Business School, CREERCentre de Recherche Europe´enne sur L’Emploi et les Ressources Humaines, 20, Boulevard Lascrosses, Boˆite Postale, 7010, F31068, Toulouse Cedex 07, France. E-mail: a.klarsfeld@ esc-toulouse.fr Alain Klarsfeld is Professor of HRM at ESC Toulouse. His primary research interests are in the management of competences, industrial relations, and international HRM.
658
CHRISTOPHER MABEY, Department of Organizational Psychology and Management, Birkbeck College, University of London, Malet St., Bloomsburg, London. E-mail: [email protected] Chris Mabey is Reader in HRM in the Department of Organizational Psychology and Management, Birkbeck College, University of London. He currently leads an international project team examining management development policies and practices from a cross-national perspective. The team includes nine European partners.
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 649–658, December 2004