Theorizing Human Resource Development Practices in Extended Contexts: Invited Reaction 1

I want to begin by thanking the editor of Human Resource Development Review for the opportunity to write this reaction; and I thank the authors (Wang & Doty, 2022) for their fascinating and challenging manuscript. An important part of a reaction paper is to identify those aspects of the manuscript that seem reasonable and helpful and those aspects of the manuscript that seem problematic. At the same time, I want to clarify that these comments come from my perspective as a person born and raised in the United States and as a researcher who has spent most of her time dealing with organizations in North America and Europe.

On the positive side, the Wang and Doty (2022) manuscript identifies that the ways in which human resource development (HRD) activities and interventions are enacted and can differ depending upon the society and the culture of that society and the organization. Certainly, other researchers and scholars have determined cultural characteristics and differences (e.g., Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Hofstede & Bond, 1988; Hofstede et al., 2010; House et al., 2004). That these cultural characteristics might affect HRD interventions seems quite reasonable, and there should be more studies to identify the ways in which different cultures and contexts affect HRD interventions and their outcomes.

Another very useful idea appearing in Wang and Doty (2022) involves the differences between shaping and skilling. My own work in researching and evaluating leadership development suggests that such development involves not only the imparting and honing of certain skills but also the shaping of attitudes towards one’s work, one’s colleagues, and one’s subordinates (Bergmann et al., 1999; Boehme et al., 2018; Russ-Eft & Brennan, 2001; Russ-Eft et al., 2002; Russ-Eft & Hurson, 1997; Russ-Eft & Ravishankar, 1995; Taylor et al., 2005, 2009). Indeed, it can be the case that the leader’s attitude, developed through shaping, has a greater impact on subordinates than that of the leader’s skills.

Furthermore, beyond shaping and skilling, Wang and Doty (2022) also identify the usefulness of unlearning and de-skilling; and one must assume de-shaping. Both individual and organizational unlearning, de-skilling, and perhaps de-shaping must take place for new learning, skills, and attitudes to develop. Gagne (1983) recognized the importance of unlearning, particularly with regard to “extinguishing” incorrect responses as a part of learning mathematics. Indeed, Hedberg (1981) provided some of the initial ideas on the importance of organizational unlearning. More recently, others have discussed the importance of such unlearning as a part of onboarding or simply learning new workplace skills (Becker & Bish, 2021; Kim & Park, 2021; Klammer & Gueldenberg, 2019; Sharma & Lenka, 2022).

Having discussed some of the contributions of the manuscript, I would like to turn to some areas of concern. One major issue involves that of definitions. Although the manuscript in its title and in its content focuses on what is called “open” and “closed” systems, and it uses China as an example of a closed system, the manuscript does not provide a clear definition of all the dimensions of an open system or of a closed system. Without any clear definition, it is then not complete clear as to what might be example of an open or of a closed system or whether the examples provided really fit that definition.

Let us then turn to the governance dimensions of the host institution system (HIS), for example as depicted in Figure 1. The figure suggests that the closed HIS is characterized by centralized power, conformity in decision making, loyalty in accountability, and censorship in information flow. In contrast, Wang and Doty (2022) claim that the open HIS displays decentralization in power, autonomy in decision-making, competency in accountability, and transparency in information flow. One might argue, though, that such entities as the military or the secret service in open societies, function in a manner similar to the closed HIS. Indeed, as a citizen of a rather open society, I do feel that some censorship in information flow should be used with agencies, such as the Secret Service.

Wang and Doty (2022) make some rather bold statements concerning the open and closed environments. As already mentioned above unlearning, de-skilling, and de-shaping happen all the time for individuals and organization in the “open” Western societies. There is, in addition, the assertion that individuals in more open organizations and societies voluntarily acquire knowledge, skills, and attitudes, in contrast to more closed societies. Specifically, they state:

Toward the open end of the continuum, the acquisition of KSAs (knowledge, skills, and attitudes) is primarily voluntary on the part of the individual and ownership of the KSAs vests in the individual. Toward the closed context, ownership of an individual’s KSAs is primarily vested in the HIS (host institutional system) rather than the individual because the acquisition of KSAs is mandated by the HIS … (Wang & Doty, 2022, pp. 343-356)

Unfortunately, the authors fail to acknowledge that, even within the “open end of the continuum” there are many examples of KSAs being mandated by the HIS. Public schools, for example, “mandate” that students acquire certain knowledge and skills in order to graduate. Institutions such as the Army, Navy, Air Force, etc. have mandated training. Furthermore, those who chose to practice medicine or to become an airline pilot, for example, have mandated training and strict certification requirements.

The second and third theorems of HRD appear to be overly prescriptive in suggesting that “open systems create open-shaping environments and closed HISs enforce closed shaping conditions” (Wang & Doty, 2022, pp. 343-356) or that the skill mix is determined by the “host’s shaping requirements in the closed context or by innovation capability in the open context” (pp. 343-356). These statements, when applied to China, appear to overlook the impressive innovations that have emerged there in recent years, indeed some of which rival the more-open United States.

My last personal comment involves the authors’ insistence on using a mathematical formulation as an “explanation of the theory.” Other previous reviewers of the manuscript have also suggested that this detracts from the meaningfulness and usefulness of the work. Such formulations can limit how many or even if any practitioners would want to undertake or make use of the manuscript and its implications. My early experiences with learning research involved the various mathematical formulations by Hull (1950); and these were certainly elegant. According to Allen (2007), Hull developed more than 100 hypotheses about learning. Fortunately, or unfortunately (depending upon one’s perspective), the work of cognitive psychology completely overtook and supplanted such formulations and reductionist views of learning; and such approaches are today mostly rejected or relegated to minor efforts. One wonders how long such mathematical formulations will withstand the emergence of new perspectives in the future.

Given my position as a Western scholar, I felt that it was important to obtain the perspective of a Chinese scholar. So, I requested a colleague (Xingxing Wang) who currently lives and works in China to review the manuscript and provide her perspective. She disagreed with the suggestion that the mainstream HRD theories would not work in China, “because China has employed these theories to achieve good performance, especially in the innovation field (X. Wang, personal communication, August 4, 2022).” She further took exception to the statement: “Therefore, in a closed HIS context, HRD is destined to be a fear-based and punishment-oriented process for the individual (Wang et al., 2022).” Here she suggested that this may have characterized “China’s previous NHRD policy, around 1980s, not today” (X. Wang, personal communication, August 4, 2022). Indeed, she concluded that “China is a semi-closed system rather than a closed system based on my own perspective.” (X. Wang, personal communication, August 4, 2022).

Finally, she turned to the last proposition that suggested that closed shaping and negative skilling-in a closed HIS context will produce negative national innovation capability and capacity (NICC) outcomes. She then wrote the following:

I tried to take examples in China and in my company to check it. I found it is possible for this mix to produce positive outcomes. After thinking about it, I found it is because this paper does not consider the role of individuals. (X. Wang, personal communication, August 4, 2022)

In conclusion, I want to commend the authors for their work and hope that it may lead to some productive conversations and further theory development and research. At the same time, I suggest that the authors reconsider the over-reach of some of the statements concerning China and the conditions of being opened and closed. Given the concerns raised in this reaction about the applicability of those statements and conjectures, one also wonders about some of the theoretical conclusions and the mathematical formulations as well.