Corporate Learning: Differences Between the US and China
By Jason Walker
While most of the articles I’ve posted in my blog give the indication of similarities between corporate learning needs in the US and China, I’d like to capture some of the DIFFERENCES. Of course, I will have to speak in generalizations. If you find the description does not fit your situation, let us all know. We need you to fill in the gaps.
Differences in Corporate Learning: Leadership
At the strategic level, learning leaders in the US and China give a divergent impression of what it means to have a seat at the executive table. In the US, I hear and see more HR or CLO-type positions who add to the conversation, helping to set company direction, and advising on action. On the China side, I saw more who sat in the official seat and position, but were treated as less than strategic advisor. On their side, they reported on the vital signs of the workforce, and implement the decisions of the other execs.
Perhaps Chinese learning leaders (and potentially US leaders as well) have been relegated to this position because they do not speak the language of the corporate board. In “The Effective Executive”, Peter Drucker points out 3 areas where organizations need results. Businesses need:
1. direct company performance,
2. values that uphold the character of the company and deliver client satisfaction, and
3. developing people, resulting in efficient, sustained operations
These are the same areas to which corporate learning leaders need to pin their results. Are US learning leaders better at speaking the language and connecting their results to business performance?
Difference 2: Cooperation Between Management and Learning
I specifically recall a public training session my company held on maximizing training results. A senior HR manager commented on how it was nearly impossible for her team to get performance reports from business managers. The situation reveals the amount of disconnect that can exist in China business between HR/learning and other management. It makes you wonder the about the amount of respect this kind of manager has for the work of the learning leader.
Also, management I worked with in China felt their individual output weighed more heavily than the performance they drove from subordinates. Granted, this situation can develop when performance is measured on too short a term (i.e. the time investment in coaching and increasing proficiency in subordinates is not worthwhile), or people development is not strongly linked to sustained organizational performance.
Jason Walker is an independent consultant based in NYC. He also has his own website called Corporate Learning in China.
1 Comment » 1 Answer » 
Print
Email
May 21st, 2009 at 5:42 pm
An interesting comparison between the United States and China. While I can’t comment on the practice in the US as I am based in the United Kingdom, I would like to add one or two thoughts (or perhaps, questions) into the subject.
The Chinese culture is based on collectivism rather than individualism with a focus on obedience and harmony of groups than personal achievements. Unless, I presume, a member of staff makes a serious error, which will lead to a review; it goes without saying that all members of staff are expected to give their TOTAL commitment. This expectation (cultural and traditional) may override performance review and/or personal development commonly practised in the West. Of course, it would benefit Chinese companies to measure performance but perhaps, it would be a rather long journey to get there.
Another interesting area is appraisal. As most Chinese people were reserved with compliments and praises, would managers and executives be able to give a balanced, constructive performance review as in the West? Needless to say 360 degree appraisal would be a real challenge.
That said, the scene may change gradually (or rapidly?) with more younger, western-educated Chinese managers and executives coming on board.