1. Lecture 16
Promoting learning opportunities in the workplace – cultural dimensions

2. LECTURE CONTRACT
1) HOFSTEDE MODEL – cultural dimensions IN DESIGNING LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES
Key principle #9
2) CORPORATE UNIVERSITY:
What is corporate university?
Identify 3 categories of corporate university
Link between corporate university and SHRD
L15 – 9 KEY PRINCIPLES IN DESIGNING LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES
Learning objectives
A well-structured knowledge base
The learning cycle
Learning styles and motivation
Trainer style and expertise
Learning environment (e.g. resources & equipment)
Time & financial resources available
Organizational constraints (e.g. HRD policy)
Age factors & cultural differences

3. A LITTLE TASK: Power is distributed equally or unequally among us?
Live and work alone or with others?
Success or quality of life?
Focus your efforts on past & present or future ?
Comfortable with uncertainty or need for clarity?
Control or indulge in enjoying life?

4. 9. Key Principle in designing learning opportunities
Principles
Descriptions
Age factors & cultural differences
National cultural dimensions (Hofstede,2011):
Power Distance
Uncertainty Avoidance
Individualism/Collectivism
Masculinity/Femininity
Long/Short Term Orientation and
Indulgence/Restraint
Added in 1980s
Added in 2000s

5. VIDEO
10 ways to offend people in other countries

6. HOFSTEDE THEORY/MODEL FOR CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION (2011)
6 dimensions of national cultures:
1. POWER DISTANCE, related to the different solutions to the basic problem of human inequality;
2. UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE, related to the level of stress in a society in the face of an unknown future;

7. 3. INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS COLLECTIVISM, related to the integration of individuals into primary groups; 4.MASCULINITY VERSUS FEMININITY, related to the division of emotional roles between women and men;

8. 5. LONG TERM VERSUS SHORT TERM ORIENTATION, related to the choice of focus for people's efforts: the future or the present and past. 6. INDULGENCE VERSUS RESTRAINT, related to the gratification versus control of basic human desires related to enjoying life.

10. http://geert-hofstede.com/ The Hofstede Centre

11. video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNntW_DA0x0
Compare America and Japan. Note who is high or low in each dimension
America Japan
1. Individual (I) 1. Collectivism (We)
2. OK with ambiguity 2. Do not want uncertainty (want facts)
Power distance = Power distance
Low Masculinity/feminity High masculinity/feminity
*** the last dimension on indulgence or retraint is missing.

12. CORPORATE UNIVERSITY

13. WHAT IS A CORPORATE UNIVERSITY?
(Meister, 1998)
Essentially the in-house training facilities that have sprung up because of:
frustration of businesses with quality and content of post secondary education
Need for life-long learning
They have evolved at many organizations into strategic umbrellas for educating not only employees, but also customers and suppliers

14. CORPORATE UNIVERSITY CATEGORIES
3 categories of corporate university by Walton (1999):
First-generation
Second-generation
Third-generation

15. FIRST-GENERATION CORPORATE UNIVERSITY
Typical features: Narrow training, organization-specific training modules requiring classroom attendance, emphasis on acquisition of corporate values, focus on creation of world-class work-force.
Emphasize on organizational culture and values.
e.g. Disney University and McDonald’s
Hamburger University.

16. SECOND-GENERATION CORPORATE UNIVERSITY
Often originated from desire to embed learning from TQM initiatives.
Gave significant attention to quality oriented training.
e.g. Motorola University.
PLC Corporate University
PLN Corporate University

17. THIRD-GENERATION CORPORATE UNIVERSITY
Reflect technology advancements and move to virtual campus model.
e.g. British Aerospace Virtual University.
(BAE systems company) U.K

20. Virtual reality technology transforms design of UK warships

21. LINK BETWEEN CORPORATE UNIVERSITY AND SHRD
Where do corporate university fits into overall SHRD?

22. ‘THE STEP MODEL’ generated by students of London Guildhall University (1998) used to evaluate corporate universities on two dimensions:
The extent to which corporate universities contributed to strategic direction of organization.
The extent to which they demonstrated a strategic HRD approach - of embedding learning into organization’s processes.

24. CONCLUSION OF THE MODEL:
Most of the universities analyzed, support overall strategic direction.
Differences were identified in term of learning philosophies and a mature approach to SHRD.
Seem that they (corporate universities) being influenced by concept that people and learning processes are the only true source of competitive advantage.
Most corporate universities originated from TQM tradition.