Summary

The research here is based on the idea of understanding through identification the training
practices adopted by MNCs based in Asia. The nature, expenditure of training programs is also
of concern in this research. The hypothesis of this study is not what benefit can be procured of
employee training but rather if training employees are viewed as an integral part of
organizational development deriving from the fact that how much MNCs in Asia actually invest
in such operations. This Research is primarily based on a range of five hypotheses. Research in
this topic earlier seems to produce primarily information on the fact that training investments are
emphasized on expatriates and international management. Researches focusing on training
programs of locals working in MNCs subsidiary operations are too vague to be noticed.
Researchers have gathered information stating that non-Asian owned MNCs spent more on
training their staff then Asian MNCs. And these local MNCs have the tendency to poach these
trained employees form their competing foreign counterparts. Researchers have considered the
idea of a globally converged approach to HRM practices in MNCs but concluded them to be
unrealistic and difficult to accommodate because of institutional constraints. Experts have also
acknowledged the fact that the diversity of international workforce and their different attitudes
toward work and hierarchical authority would create constraints in adopting a globally uniform
approach HRM. Training practices differ from Asian to non-Asian MNCs. It is noted that nonAsians are expected to spend more on training practice than their counterparts. In Asia education
level becomes a prominent factor in employee training. In some cases it has been noted that
education and training has a negative relationship whereas others have a strong positive
relationship. Nonetheless it concludes down to the fact that employees in a managerial level
with greater learning ability gets more training then a clerical level worker. It has also been noted
that the type industry plays a prominent role when it comes to training. It is stated that people in
the manufacturing sector acquire less training than of service sector personnel. With work place
innovation as a prominent driving tool of training and service organizations having a compelling
need to adapt to work place changes we can conclude that service organization do spend more on
training than its relative sector. It is a common idea that larger firms would be able to spend more

on training initiatives than smaller ones bringing in the aspect that firm size does matter when it
comes to training development. Another notable fact would be that firms that are involved in
international trade are more likely to spend heavily on human capital development. This mean
that Asian owned MNCs that are reluctant to spend more on staff development will comply
when it competes internationally. So, the extent to which a firm exports is linked to the extent it
is involved in training. The higher portion of export a MNC has the more the need to provide
training. Along with the rapid economic growth in the Asian region more prominence is given on
human resource development to ensure successful cross border operations of MNCs. Previous
researches only focused on expatriate trainings for parent country nationals in MNCs; with this
paper concerned researchers intend to answer questions relating to type of training offered, sum
of expenditure incurred, people involved etc. in MNCs in the Asian region.

Findings:
The first hypothesis can be verified with the info that non-Asian owned MNCs spent
significantly higher on employee per annum in contrast to their Asian counterparts. Although
some Asian MNCs have spent more on training similar to that of non-Asian MNCs suggesting
that

they are starting to acknowledge the benefits of adapting to global HR standards.

Information gathered have also showed that difference between the two is not that significant.
So, hypothesis 1 is partially agreeable. Hypothesis 2 is confirmed by the fact that the number of
people working in managerial positions are rather limited compared to those of other work levels
and eventually got more training programs. It was also noted that in Asian MNCs there is also a
shortage of skilled labor. Hypothesis 3 is maybe supported by the fact that studies showed that
service related MNCs do spend more on training then their manufacturing counterparts.
Although the support may be proven partial by the fact that the larger manufacturing MNCs are
more prone to training and are likely to provide to their production levels, which further states
that differences in sector may not be of major relevance when it comes to training levels.
Examination have also noted that firm size does play a role as larger firms tend to spend more on
training than smaller ones comparatively which is the proving point for hypothesis 4. Lastly
hypothesis 5 is proved contradictory because mostly the Asian headquartered MNCs tend to
export more in the region and mostly these are manufacturing MNCs. And the number of service
firms in the sample size was significant. These services MNCs are more into serving local

customers then exporting their offerings which makes compliance with the given hypothesis
rather complicated.

Introduction
Our chosen article was on Training practices of Multinational Companies in Asia. The article
contains five hypothesis and findings of hypothesis according to Asia pacific context. Selected
Asian country was Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Taiwan which are
highly culturally diversified, culture oriented. The fact is that people from different countries act
or behave differently, some of these countries are cultural responsive, some are highly local
responsive. So the outcome of training and development results differently also. Non-Asian
MNEs effort behind providing training to Asian host country will not be fruitful until non MNCs
get to understand which approach is best to apply on which country, are the non-Asian MNEs
needed to integrate their HRM practice to Asian MNCs practice or is it wise keep local
responsiveness.
It is quite difficult to decide or make a standard for all MNCs whether it is Asian or non-Asian
MNEs. Because different MNEs follow different approaches like ethnocentric, polycentric, and
geocentric. Focusing on this approach it is difficult to get desired output from non-Asian MNEs.
Many researchers suggest that to get good outcome company needs to universalize some
practices which are necessary to be similar all around world. Some also argued that same types
of practices are not going to affect same way on different countries, on local culture responsive
people. Both convergence and divergence have advantages and weakness, they have few limiting
facts whichs May result alternative or unexpected result. It is hard to put a solution of which
theory is the best for both PCNs and HCNs.
Giving importance on these facts it seems that it is a challenge for non-Asian MNEs to balance
local responsiveness and global integration. Focusing on training practice issue of non-Asian
MNE in Asian countries we have chosen our critical question that is: How to overcome the

Challenge of balancing the conflicting needs of global integration and local responsiveness or
divergence.

Critical Analysis
HRM Practice Issue in Asia:
In Asia Pacific region there have been significant economic and political developments in recent
times. Political and economic difficulties in several countries in the Asia Pacific region provide
examples of the influence of externals factors on various aspects of management at national and
global levels. Every Asian-Pacific country has its own identity and culture, each presenting its
own set of opportunities and challenges. For human resources professionals tasked with
maximizing competitive advantage through the management of human and intellectual resources,
this means coming to terms with individual local HR practices. But MNCs especially from
European and other Western countries are designing more relevant and better quality training
programs to the employees working in Asia located companies. Here the conflict starts. This
conflict is all about convergent and divergence. Because MNCs are shaped by institutions
existing in their country of origin and the attempt to introduce these parent-country-based HRM
practices in their foreign subsidiaries. Before balancing these two factors of between HRM and
IHRM we have to understand meaning of Convergent and Divergent in terms of IHRM.

Convergence in terms of domestic HRM and international HRM:

Convergence is the act of joining two different things together as one thing. In terms of IHRM
we can say it globalizing the practices which are proved best or practicing the standard. In term
of convergence theory it is believed that all countries are subject to these forces, with similar
governmental roles in providing the workforce, infrastructure and competition for the same
international investment. Convergence of HRM across national borders is, clearly, not a foregone
conclusion. Globalization and international trade and finance may place substantial pressure on
firms to standardize practices and policies. Local customs, institutions, and labor forces do,
however, provide serious constraints on the degree of convergence and may well lead to
increasing levels of divergence. Usually it is easier for organizations to have convergent policies

or a universalistic approach as it helps maintain uniformity & does away with the cost & effort of
designing place specific policies. It may also be easier to implement integration, but much more
difficult to internalize, certain HRM practices like training and development. Therefore, even if
there are best practices, they may not bring positive effects until people fully accept and
approve them. Thus, It is easier to change the HR policies than it is to change the behavior of
employees.

Reasons for Increasing Similarity:

Convergence or globalization is the only method to practice the best things across organization to
achieve the goal by removing barriers and confusions among managers and workers. It is the best
practice to improve the cultural, societal, personal and economical value of an organization as
well as of a country. A key concern for organizations is how they manage the individual units.
The extent to which each units management can be consistent across different countries and
cultures depends on where on the continuum between global and multidomestic industries the
organization lies. This is a major differentiator of domestic and international HRM. Although the
term management is present all over the world, its meaning can be somewhat different from
one country to the next, in order to understand it in each country, one must first have an
understanding of the culture, history, processes, philosophies and problems in that society. This
means that to assume management practices are the same all around the world, would be utterly
foolish; careful analysis of particular countries in question first need to be undertaken before
such assumptions can be justified.

Divergence in terms of domestic HRM and international HRM

Divergence is a variation that deviates from the standard or norm or we can say it difference. As
we have mentioned earlier that the main difference between domestic HRM and international
HRM is, the complexities of operating in different countries and employing different national
categories of workers. That is, practicing HRM internationally is more complicated than
practicing domestically. Many organizations tend to use traditional tools to manage human
capital on global scenarios, based on the mere transfer of HRM solutions from the home country
to the international markets. This choice often leads the firm to face several problems that may

affect its economic results in the foreign market. Cultural determinants still have a deep influence
on the Chinese society, and by means of shaping individuals behavior and their ways of thinking
and acting, they also affect business and organizational relationships.

Problems with Convergence:

From the above we can distinguish two polar views (with a variety within them) that attempt to
explain national HRM systems. While many expect HRM practices to universalize and converge
over time, others would argue that practices are varied and specific, and they expect them to
remain so or even to diverge. Indeed, even convergence at the global level in terms of economic
forces and technologies may result in divergence at the national and intra-national level, as these
forces are mediated by different institutions with their own traditions and cultures. Overall, for a
number of reasons the prospects for convergence would appear to be low. These
'Limiters' are:
(1) Countries are at different stages of industrial and economic development,
(2) Distinctive political-economic frameworks,
(3) Unique value systems, cultural features and institutions,
(4) Intra-national system heterogeneity (increasing with organizational decentralization and
flexibility),
(5) Different choices at macro (society) and micro (organization) levels on the nature, content
and process of employment relationships,
(6) Divergence between stated institutional frameworks and reality of practice,
(7) Variations in the spread, take-up and operation of technology, and
(8) Alternative solutions to common problems.

Balancing Global Integration and Local Responsiveness

The challenge of MNEs is to create a system that operates effectively in multiple countries by
exploiting local differences and interdependencies and at the same time sustaining global
consistency. There are three issues that need to be addressed: finding the balance between global
integration and local responsiveness, understanding the cultural embedded ness of HRM

practices and assessing the underlying power dynamics .The dual need refers to the need for inter
unit linkages (integration) and the challenges faced by each affiliate in order to operate
effectively in its local environment (responsiveness or differentiation), sometimes referred to as
the internal and external fit of a MNC. In one of the most recent SIHRM models, Taylor and
colleagues' (1996) have identified three different SIHRM orientations in MNCs: i) Adaptive, ii)
Exportive and iii) Integrative. These orientations determine the company's overall approach to
managing the tension between integration or the pressure for internal consistency and
differentiation or the pressure for external consistency.
Adaptive: An adaptive SIHRM orientation is one in which the affiliates' HRM systems reflect
the different local environments. Differentiation is being emphasized with almost no transfer of
HRM philosophy, policies or practices either from the parent firm to its international affiliates or
between international affiliates. Researchers propose that this orientation is more likely to be
adopted by MNCs who follow a multidomestic strategy, or if top management perceives that
HRM competence is context specific.
Exportive: An exportive SIHRM orientation is one in which the parent firm's HRM system is
being transferred to its different affiliates. Integration is being emphasized with high internal
consistency among all units and reflects as previous literature described an ethnocentric
approach.
Integrative: An integrative SIHRM orientation attempts to take 'the best' approaches and uses
them throughout the organization in the creation of a worldwide system The focus here is on
substantial global integration with an allowance for some local differentiation.
Researchers propose that both an exportive and integrative orientation is more likely to be
adopted by MNCs who follow a global strategy, or if top management perceives that HRM
competence is context generalized.

Degree of local Difference

The cultural component:
Besides the dual need for global integration and local responsiveness, another crucial factor,
mentioned in almost all SIHRM models, is the cultural context of HQ and the different affiliates.
The cultural component of IHRM is the main reason that the same HRM policies will not
produce the same effects in different subsidiaries. Practices with respect to selection,
socialization, training, performance appraisal, reward systems and career development are all
being influenced by differences in cultural assumptions, beliefs and values. Who to train? What
kind of training practices is acceptable? How to improve practices of training quality? How
important is individual versus team effort and result? All these questions are very likely to be
answered differently in individualistic than in collectivistic cultures. Differences in cultural
values reflect different assumptions about the nature of the relationship between employers and
employees and therefore lead to different interpretations and employees' experiences of what
'good' HRM practices are.
Consequently, cultural differences are main drivers in deciding which HRM practices can be
globally used and which HRM practices need to be locally adjusted. Understanding the cultural
embedded ness and appropriateness of HRM practices is therefore a first vital step in avoiding
the possible alienation or low morale which comes from imposing HR policies that are ill-suited
to the local culture.

The political component

Besides culture as a critical factor in deciding the degree of local differentiation, the discussion
of the need for local responsiveness is likely to hide a political subtext. Since each party wants to
reserve the power and autonomy to do things as they see fit, cultural differences may be used as
an excuse, a pretext for retaining local control. Such underlying power dynamics will especially
drive the discussion if power relationships between the parties are changing. Consequently,
important skills for international HR managers are to assess not only the cultural implications of
HR practices but also the underlying political concerns.

The Implementation of Integration IHRM

In any organization, the primary objective of the human resource management (HRM) function
is to ensure that the most effective use is made of its human resources. To achieve this, HR
professionals undertake a range of activities around sourcing, training, development, reward and
performance management, HR planning, employee involvement and communications. If the
organization has a strategic HR function, these activities will support and inform organizational
strategy. HR professionals are also used extensively in organizational change and development
initiatives. For international organizations, these HR activities need to be co-coordinated across
both the home country and different national subsidiaries and to take into account the needs of
both parent country nationals (PCNs), host country nationals (HCNs) and third country nationals
(TCNs). Now it is questions that how do managers decide on appropriate IHRM policy choices?
A critical challenge for all international organizations is the need to achieve best fit in relation to
the competing demands of global integration and co-ordination versus local responsiveness, the
global versus local debate. From a business perspective, forces for global integration include
operational requirements, strategic co-ordination and multinational customers. In contrast, forces
for local responsiveness include highly diverse consumer requirements, tailored distribution
channels and broader social and political constraints to market entry. From an HR perspective,
there are many factors constraining the use of standardized HR practices including differing
national business systems, labor laws, national HR practice, education systems and national
cultural norms. Organizations may, however, still want to implement standardized HR systems
globally. Their choice depends to a great degree on their stage of internationalization and
international mindset.

Models of Cultural Synergy

One way of experimenting with creative variations as a way to achieve a balance between global
integration and local adaptation may be grounded in models of cultural synergy. According to
Adler (1997, p. 108): "culturally synergistic organizations reflect the best aspects of all members'
cultures in their strategy, structure and process without violating the norms of any single culture."
Synergies are the benefits resulting from a decision that integrates differences and creates a
resolution that has more value than would be produced by a compromise solution. Managers in

synergistic organizations do not ignore cultural differences nor do they approach culture as a
problem to be solved. Instead, they use the cultural diversity as a key source in solving problems
or achieving outcomes. Implementing an integrated IHRM approach according to the philosophy
of cultural synergy may therefore be a useful way to achieve an IHRM system that supports the
organizational strategy as well as is acceptable to all affiliates.
The idea of cultural synergy can be found in the work of both Adler (1997) and Hoecklin (1995).
While Adler takes a problem-solving approach to cultural synergy, Hoecklin adopts a valueadded perspective on culture. Adler's synergistic approach to problem solving involves three
fundamental steps: cross-cultural situation description, cultural interpretation, and cultural
creativity. Global managers first define the problem or describe the situation from the
perspectives of all cultures involved. Second, they culturally interpret the situation by analyzing
and explaining the patterns that make each culture's behavior logical from within its own
perspective. Third, they develop new culturally creative solutions that foster the organization's
effectiveness and productivity without violating the norms of any culture involved. Another
researcher Hoecklin

argues that managers from each culture must jointly work through the

following steps: 1) agreeing on the specific outcomes that are desired from the interaction; 2)
understanding each culture's way of doing things in trying to achieve the outcome; 3) agreeing to
an approach or create new alternatives, blending approaches which will lead to achieving the
desired outcomes; 4) implementing the solution and reviewing the impact from a joint
perspective; and 5) refining the solution based on multicultural feedback.
While the two models differ from each other in terms of starting the synergy process with a
problem to be solved or a desired outcome, their overall philosophy seems very similar. Both
authors stress the creative potential of cultural differences leading to new solutions and
approaches that transcend the existing differences. Important in this process of developing
culturally synergistic solutions are the assumptions of equifinality and cultural contingency.
Employees and managers using synergistic approaches believe that 'there are many culturally
distinct ways of reaching a same goal (equifinality), but neither is inherently superior to the other
(cultural contingency). They believe that creative combinations of all different ways produce the
best approaches to organizing and working. So, only in those cases in which organization
members explicitly recognize the concept of culture can the response to cultural diversity be
synergistic. Furthermore, finding creative combinations that transcend differences requires

flexibility and open mindedness. It is through a flexible mind that one has the ability to benefit
from local thinking and to reemploy these ideas in other parts of the world, adapting them to new
circumstances.

Implementing such a synergistic approach is a systematic process at an

operational level. An organization might address cultural differences at a strategic level by taking
decisions that signal the importance of culture. Examples of such strategic decisions are
internationalizing the management team, selecting expatriates from all over the company instead
of only from headquarters, or setting up cooperation between affiliates. Such strategic
interventions are important and valid steps since they encourage the meeting of two or more
cultures. But companies are advised to move beyond such type of tolerance and cooperation and
to begin to build cultural synergies at an operational level. While operational, this process of a
synergistic approach is not a quick fix, but instead a systematic process.
In introducing culturally synergistic problem solving or value adding to an organization for the
first time, the process must be addressed explicitly and formally through workshops, seminars
and structured meetings. The process should also be seen as a continuing, evolving process rather
than an isolated event to solve a particular problem. Later, such synergistic processes will
become more implicit, more informal, and considerably less time-consuming since the learning
acquired during initial sessions will become part of the organization's increasingly global
perspective and cross cultural competence.
Going back to the three different IHRM orientations of an exportive, adaptive and integrative
approach, it is only an integrative approach that may have the potential of a culturally synergistic
approach to HRM. The two other approaches, an exportive and an adaptive orientation, seem to
ignore the possibility of cultural learning.

A Culturally Synergistic Approach to an Integrated IHRM

The purpose of this approach is to offer IHR managers guidelines of how to implement
a process through which an integrated IHRM system may be realized. Since the implementation
of a culturally synergistic approach to IHRM will take place at the operational level by
workshops and meetings, the studies on international teams will help in identifying the
conditions of how to ensure a meaningful participation among the different HR managers. The
principles relevant for a fair global strategic decision making process will offer us additional

insights in how to set up a fair decision making process. The culturally synergistic IHRM model
distinguishes two basic cycles of activity - one that occurs prior to any decision or action, and
one that occurs after a decision to act has been taken. The first cycle consists of five stages: 1)
felt need for an integrated IHRM practice, 2) Developing an super ordinate goal, 3) exploring
best practices of different cultures, 4) Assessing the cultural appropriateness of solutions, and 5)
decision making by consensus. The second cycle then involves 6) taking action steps, and 7)
evaluation of the outcomes of the action steps. In each stage there are common traps. Awareness
of these traps can help IHR managers to focus on conditions and interventions that overcome
these traps and that stimulate constructive working relationships leading to creative combinations
of HRM practices.

Conclusion
An integrated IHRM approach is confronted with the challenges of finding a balance between
global integration and local responsiveness, understanding the cultural embedded ness of HRM
practices, and correctly assessing the political concerns of the affiliate units. The underlying
logic of the culturally synergistic approach as well as the suggested interventions when trying to
implement this approach seem to provide a possible way of dealing with these three challenges.
Most scholars in IHRM tend to link the global-local duality to the discussion of HRM
competences and practices that are context generalizable or context specific. When HRM
practices are generalizable, affiliate practices can be transferred to the parent company and vice
versa. When HRM practices seem to be context specific, no transfer can occur. Following this
logic, an integrated approach of IHRM combines both characteristics of the parent company's
HRM system with those of its affiliates. In contrast, a cultural learning model stresses the
possibility of mutual dialogue leading to creative variations of HRM practices. Instead of simply
transferring practices, a culturally synergistic approach to IHRM can create new practices by
recognizing and transcending the individual cultures. IHR managers may find a balance between
global integration and local responsiveness when they explore best practices of different cultures,
try to understand how these practices lead to the desired outcome and then try to create new
alternatives by blending and combining practices. So, the challenges of the dual global-local
need and the cultural embedded ness of HRM practices can be dealt with exactly by utilizing and
valuing cultural differences instead of approaching these cultural differences as a problem to be
solved.

Additional Part
As the verdict of the article states that Foreign owned MNCs do indeed have the financial
backing to emphasize more on training and development of the human resource.
In relevance to that knowledge lets look at the first HYPOTHESIS, which states the assumption
that concludes the above verdict. We have companies like Uniliver and Telenor present along
with many others. For obvious standards, these companies do have more financial backing to
train their employees. Then again, another factor may have some relevance to the findings
concerned. The fact that these companies are coming from developed first world countries.
Based on their standard of living and the stage they are in, according to their economic
development, these companies will be more obliged to emphasize on HRM development. Where
as in Bangladesh our organization still dont consider HR systems with that much prominence.
This is where the second HYPOTHESIS comes in which states managerial and professional level
staffs get more training then clerical level staff. Again as a third world country we have a surplus
of the clerical and production level worker and the organizations here that has a surplus of such
worker are the garments industry which consist a majority of our export nowadays. So we can
conclude that is accordance to the majority working population in our country we do have more
workers in the labor class. In reference to some local companies they are relactant to spend much
on training that class of worker but more on the managerial level.
One of the key findings came from HYPOTHESIS 3. Which states that service industry are more
likely to better train their employees than manufacturing firms. And findings showed that to be
true in most cases. The same thing happens in our country. Lets look at this way would you
train a garments worker in charge of stitching more than a restaurant waiter who has to deal with
clients head on in certain except able manners.

References:
CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE IN ASIAN HUMAN RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT BY Chris Rowley and John Benson
A CULTURALLY SYNERGISTIC APPROACH TO INTERNATIONAL HUMAN
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT: IMPLEMENTING AN INTEGRATED APPROACH By M.
JANSSENS
International Human Resource Management: Asia Pacific Challenges By Helen De Cieri