European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 8, Number 4 (2009)

Modelling HRD Practices in Malaysian Manufacturing Firms

Haslinda, Abdullah
Faculty of Economics & Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia
43400 Selangor, Malaysia
E-mail: drhaslinda@gmail.com

Ong Mek Hiok

Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia
43000 Selangor, Malaysia
E-mail: cecilia_omh@hotmail.com

Abstract
Theorizing and modelling Human Resource Development (HRD) worldwide is a complex
task and varies between countries due to the economic, political, culture, labour market and
educational systems of each individual country. Specifically, Malaysia, a developing
country in the midst of achieving knowledge-economy status with a knowledge-based
workforce, is likely to differ from other developing countries in terms of modelling its
HRD practices. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to examine the extent and nature of HRD
and to model HRD in manufacturing firms in Malaysia. This study employed a mixed-
method approach of questionnaires and interviews for data collection. The findings showed
that HRD practices in manufacturing firms in Malaysia are strongly associated with the size
of firms. Theoretically, HRD in manufacturing firms in Malaysia is strongly influenced by
and associated with Government interventions and economic and market changes, such as
the requirement for ISO certification to compete in business, which influences the way
human resources are managed and developed.

Keywords: Human Resource Development; training and development; practices; models,

manufacturing industry; Malaysia;

1. Introduction
In an attempt to explain human resource development, numerous authors have debated the theoretical
concepts of HRD, yet a distinctive conceptual and theoretical identity has not been established.
Researchers believe that the debates are complicated by the beliefs and understanding of individual
stakeholders and HRD practitioners (Garavan et al, 1999; Garavan et al, 2000; Hatcher, 2000;
McGoldrick et al, 2002). Although somewhat debatable, several studies in both developed and
developing countries have been undertaken to develop a descriptive framework of HRD practices.
These studies found that the nature and extent of HRD varies from one country to another and is
influenced by the economic, political, cultural, labour market and educational systems of each
individual country (see for example, Ardichvili & Gasparishvili, 2001 in Russia; Elbadri, 2001 in
Poland; Budhwar et al, 2002 in Oman; Sambrook, 2001 in UK; Heraty & Morley, 2002 and Kjellberg
et al, 1998 in Sweden; Morrow, 2001 and Nolan, 2002 in Ireland; Mishra, 2002 in India;
Yadapadithaya & Stewart, 2003 in UK and India).
Specific to the case of manufacturing firms in Malaysia, developing human resources is an
important thrust in the Government’s strategies to achieve knowledge-economy status with a
knowledge workforce by the year 2020. As such, HRD in Malaysia may differ from other countries,
640
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 8, Number 4 (2009)

particularly other developing countries, due to the Government’s support and initiatives as well as the
influence of culture, economic and political issues, the labour market and educational systems on HRD
practice in Malaysia. Moreover, there is limited empirical evidence on HRD in Malaysia, even though
other developed countries such as the UK, Europe and the USA have differing concepts and
assumptions of HRD; this has intensified the need to conceptualise and model HRD in Malaysia,
particularly in the context of a developing country. Indeed, it has been posited by Harrison & Kessels
(2004) that “in a rapidly emerging knowledge economy, organisations rely on human resources’
capability to adapt to the changing environment and be knowledge-productive; and that the HRD
process is key to ensuring that capability”. Hence, this paper sets out to present the nature and extent
of HRD and to model HRD in manufacturing firms in Malaysia. However, as the manufacturing firms
include both large-scale industries (LSIs) and small and medium-scale industries (SMIs), and the
findings of study reveal extensive variations between these industries, the discussion of findings will
deal with LSIs and SMIs separately.

2. Theoretical Foundations and Models of HRD

The field of HRD is complex and evolving, which makes it difficult to identify a specific model and
theory for HRD (Lee, 2003). Most writers believe that the underlying theory in HRD is psychological
in its basic assumptions because HRD is intended to make changes or improve individuals’ learning,
behaviour, work performance, attitudes and cognitive skills (see, for example, Swanson & Holton III,
2001). However, a set of psychological, system and economic theories has been proposed to support
and develop a more inclusive theory of HRD (see for example, Swanson, 1999). This multiple-based
theory is presented as a three-legged stool model (see Figure 1) and has been suggested to provide the
more integrated support that is required in HRD. The first element, which is fundamental to the
survival of organisations, is economic; second, the notion of connectivity and relationships that can
maximise the integration of subsystems and systems requires a system theory; and thirdly,
psychological theory acknowledges that employees improve productivity, make changes and influence
development within organisations through training, learning and development (Swanson & Holton III,
2001). However, this three-foundation theory has been criticised in that psychological theories lacks
the leverage to improve performance, whereas economic theories have their limitations in interpreting
the pressures for human capital and diverse workforces in a rapidly changing work environment
(Torraco, 1998).

Figure 1: The Three-Legged Stool Model (Swanson & Holton III, 2001)

Organisation,
Process & Individual
PERFORMANCE

Economic Psychological
System

However, system theory has also been identified as a strong influence on HRD in organisations
(Ruona, 1998). Indeed, system theory is often deployed to describe the complexity of HRD and
organisations, as it has the ability to capture the complex and dynamic interaction of environments,
organisations and work processes, as well as groups or individuals, as illustrated in the input-
641
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 8, Number 4 (2009)

transformation-output system model (see Figure 2). The system model is a five-phase system which
includes the processes of analysing, proposing, creation, implementation and assessment, paralleling
the other processes in an organization (Swanson, 2001c: 18-19). Moreover, system theory has even
been proposed to serve as the underlying theory to access other theories in HRD, such as general
systems theory, chaos theory, futures theory and the domains of cybernetic systems and complex
adaptive systems. For instance, firstly, general systems theory explains how HRD and other
subsystems connect and disconnect; secondly, chaos theory proposes that an organisation has the
ability to retain its purpose and effectiveness in the face of chaos; thirdly, futures theory proposes that
an organisation has the ability to shape the future; fourthly, cybernetic system theory explains that
systems function through communication, feedback and control within a system and also with its
environment; and finally, complex adaptive system theory proposes that systems function in an area of
complexity between chaos and order. Hence, system theory has been claimed as the unifying theory of
HRD (Swanson & Holton III, 2001). Nonetheless, it is still argued that it has its limitations (Iles &
Yolles, 2003).
Indeed, Iles & Yolles (2003) emphasise the increased influence of organisational development
(OD) on HRD, which was absent in the traditional input-transformation-output system model. This
opinion has also been supported by Grieves and Redman (1999), who described the influence of OD on
HRD as ‘HRD living in the shadow of organisation development’. Moreover, the systems model has
been criticised as being outdated and ‘planned’ and its simplistic systems thinking is incapable of
dealing adequately with the complexity of the relationships of systems and environments. Moreover,
elements of power, politics, culture and potential for change in organisations are not clearly specified
in the systems models (Iles& Yolles, 2003).

Figure 2: The Input-Transformation-Output System Model (Swanson, 2001c)

ENVIRONMENT
Economic Forces Political Forces Cultural Forces
ORGANISATION
Mission & Strategy, Organisation Structure, Technology, Human Resources
Inputs Outputs
Processes
1 2 3 4 5
Analyse Propose Create Implement Assess
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Therefore, it has been suggested that complexity theory, which incorporates the concept of
organisational development, may be a more appropriate way to understand the complex environment of
HRD. This is because complexity theory takes into consideration organisations’ dynamic reactions
with their environments and incorporates notions of power and organisational control (Iles & Yolles,
2003). Complex theory is illustrated as an evolving model (see Figure 3) working in a cycle, adopting a
recursive, viable systems model of HRD. The sequential process in the complex evolving model
defines a cycle of inquiry that begins with an identification of the current and future states of an
organisation (Step 1 to Step 3). The cycle than continues to step 4, in which the system is within

642
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 8, Number 4 (2009)

control of the stakeholders. In this step, the notions of power, structure, conflict and resistance
determine the stability of the action stage, and if this is not stable, recursion occurs in the cycle. Steps 5
and 6 are described as the action stage or the process of synthesising, selecting and evaluating HRD
activities, which is similar to the processes in the systems model. Finally, step 7 provides a
comprehensive mapping of the dynamics of change and organisational development. Therefore, the
complex evolving theory has been proposed to be more appropriate to explain the strategic nature of
HRD and provide a better understanding in managing the complex systems and change involved.
Moreover, it has been argued that since the methodological principle in this model is based on
feedback, the cybernetic aspect present in systems theory is enhanced and the control aspect, which
was absent in the input-transformation-output system model, is clearly highlighted (Hatcher, 2003; Iles
& Yolles, 2003).

Figure 3: The Complex Evolving Model (Iles & Yolles, 2003)

Identify targets &

Design models

Synthesis
S5
Conceptualisation Constraint
Felt needs of
participants
effectiveness

Control Evaluation/selection
System form Analysis Assess contexts S3 Choice of models
Stakeholder Relevant systems S2 S6
Participation Exploration/Purposes S1
S4
Change & Development S7

Action
Control
On action S3

While various HRD models have been produced to theorise HRD - from the simple three-
legged stool to the complex evolving model - it can still be argued that HRD does not really have its
own theories per se but applies theories from its base disciplines such as education, general systems
theory, economics, organisational behaviour and human relations theory (McGoldrick et al, 2002;
Hatcher, 2003). Moreover, these theories and models may not be applicable to all HRD practices
worldwide, although they may be adapted and their base disciplines may be used as a basis for all HRD
practices

3. Research Methods
The data obtained for this study were gathered using a mixed methodology approach, combining both a
questionnaire survey and interviews with HR managers or personnel in charge of HRD in the
participating organizations. A questionnaire was sent to the whole population of 2,135 manufacturing
firms registered with the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers and 50 face-to-face interviews were
conducted covering all five regions of Malaysia.
The mixed-method concurrent triangulation strategy was used, due to its ability to corroborate,
confirm and cross-validate data findings. The questionnaires were sent to HRD managers or personnel

643
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 8, Number 4 (2009)

in charge of HRD, and in the absence of a specific HRD function or personnel, were directed to the HR
manager. The questionnaire covered all aspects of HRD, such as training and development, career
management, performance management and change management in manufacturing firms. Out of a total
of 2,135 questionnaires sent out, 365 responses were returned after three stages of delivery: postal,
electronic mail and hand delivery.
In the qualitative aspect of the study, HR managers or personnel in charge of HRD were
initially sent a letter inviting them to participate in the study, and upon acceptance, an appointment was
made to conduct the interview. A semi-structured questionnaire was used as an interview guide in an
attempt to corroborate and confirm the questionnaire survey findings and to gain further insights into
the subject matter. The questionnaire data were analysed statistically and the interview data were
analysed according to themes and categories. This combination of qualitative and quantitative methods
produced rich and valid information.

4. Results
HRD in the SMIs is typically viewed as ‘Training and Development’ (‘T&D’) and their T&D activities
take a more informal, reactive, ad-hoc and practical approach rather than adopting the normative
perspective. As has been noted in studies of HRD in most developing countries, the findings in this
study revealed that HRD in the SMIs is highly influenced by the Government’s HRD policies (see, for
example, Osman-Gani & Tan, 2000; Ardichvili et al, 2001; Elbadri, 2001; Budhwar et al, 2002;
Harrison & Kessels, 2004). In addition, HRD in the SMIs is seen as reacting to changes in the business
environment, and the International Standards of Operations (ISO) are adopted as a strategy to maintain
competitive advantage. Therefore, HRD activities in the SMIs are planned and carried out mainly to
conform to the ISO policy guidelines and merely as a tool to solve and prevent problems, as has been
inferred in other research studies (see, for example, Sadler-Smith, Sargeant & Dawson, 1998; Sadler-
Smith, Down & Field, 1999; Heraty & Morley, 2000; Yadapadithaya & Stewart, 2003; Vinten, 2000).
Indeed, it was revealed by the interview statements that conforming to the ISO standards is an
important issue (indicated in Figure 4 as Step 1 and Level one of importance). For instance, it was
indicated that, “we already have the ISO standards to conform to”. Therefore, it may not be necessary
for the SMIs to have their own company-specific HRD policies, as they are already adapting to the
International Quality Standards with specific requirements for employees’ training and development.
Moreover, formulating a policy for HRD in the SMIs may not be practical, as they are small in nature,
with few employees, and already have the Government’s HRD policy to adhere to.
The findings revealed that a vast majority of the SMIs do not identify HRD needs before any
training initiatives are carried out. However, in the light of business competition from the external
environment, their businesses processes and needs are likely to be analysed (Step 2 in Figure 4), but
this occurrence is generally on a reactive and ad-hoc basis. This is evident from the survey and was
supported by the interview statements. For instance, it was indicated that “needs analysis is not
necessary” as it is a “very costly process” and that SMIs “lack internal expertise in HRD”. However, it
follows that employees in the SMIs are sometimes provided with training in the advent of change, such
as the introduction of new technology and new working methods or work processes. Thus, the
evidence suggests that production employees (mainly composed of technical, supervisors and shop
floor staff), who are viewed as the core assets for productivity, are provided with higher levels of
training provision than operational staff (senior and middle managers and clerical support staff). This
finding is in contrast to the situation in the UK, in which production employees are provided with low
levels of training (Kerr & McDougall, 1999; Taylor, Shaw & Thorpe, 2004). Training is still delivered
to these employees using more conventional methods, such as classroom-based and outdoor
experiential training, as well as on-the-job instruction training, although the use of more advanced
technology is increasingly popular (Read & Kleiner, 1996; Wognum & Mulder, 1999; Dilworth, 2003).
Moreover, the findings revealed that training activities in the SMIs are mainly outsourced to external

644
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 8, Number 4 (2009)

providers (indicated by Steps 3 and 4 at Level 2 of importance), due to the absence of a separate
function for HRD and a lack of HRD knowledge and expertise, as also inferred in other research
studies (Eidgahy, 1995; Sadler-Smith et al, 1998; Buyens et al, 2001, Chermack et al, 2003).

Figure 4: Model of HRD in the SMIs

Government HRD Plans, Policies, and SMI Action Plans

HRD Funds

OWNER-MANAGERS

Budget
Constraints: HRD expertise, HRD structure, strategies

Plan & Policy

ISO Policy SX
Level of Training Provision Outcomes
Production employees 1. Individual & team development

Decreasing level of importance

Operational employees 2. Performance & work process
improvement Level 1

Design & Develop Deliver & Implement

SZ S[
Outsourced Level 2

Needs Analysis Evaluation & Assessing Performance

SY S\
Informal Observation & feedback Level 3

Market Changes

Generally, the findings in the SMIs imply that unless the owner-managers provide full support
and commitment to HRD, and unless line managers become more involved in the HRD process, needs
analysis and evaluation will remain a neglected process in HRD, as these processes are regarded as the
least important (indicated by Level 3 in Figure 4). Owner-managers and line managers are evidently
more concerned about productivity and outputs than about the formal training and evaluation of
employees. This is evident from the survey and is supported by the interview statements. For instance,
it was indicated that “training is not important”, as the “main focus is production”. Nevertheless, the
HRD activities implemented in the SMIs aim to develop individual employees and teams to improve
performance and work processes. However, with the dearth of long-term HRD plans and performance
appraisals, employees’ longer-term development is neglected.
Overall, it appears that HRD practitioners in the SMIs are not focusing on the systematic
process of HRD and the formality it involves, but appear to be more focused on the realities of learning
acquisition without strict formal boundaries. This contrasts with the norms of the normative HRD
models. Nonetheless, the SMIs do indeed require some form of institutional support and structurally
legitimised expertise in HRD; otherwise, they may not be able to compete with the larger organisations
in a rapidly emerging knowledge-economy environment.
The development of this model is based on the input and output process of HRD and developed
on the concept that HRD in the SMIs is informal and is only focused on the process of training
employees to encourage behavioural change and improve productivity. In this model, the inputs in
HRD signify that HRD in the SMIs is driven by the Government’s HRD plans and policies, and that
the SMIs are conforming to the ISO policy to provide training to their employees. On the other hand,
645
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 8, Number 4 (2009)

the outputs signify the outcomes of HRD activities implemented in this industry. Therefore, as seen
from the model, HRD activities implemented in the SMIs are described in their order of importance.
Analysing HRD needs and the evaluation of training are regarded as being least important because
needs analysis in the SMIs is reactive to changes in the environment, whereas the evaluation of training
is almost entirely neglected in this industry. However, the design, development, delivery and
implementation of HRD activities are important in the SMIs, as they represent the central process of
employees’ training and development and they are mainly outsourced to external providers. Therefore,
from the theoretical and empirical findings of this study, a model of HRD in the SMIs is developed to
document the process of HRD in the SMIs and permit a better understanding of the nature of HRD in
this part of the manufacturing industry.
On the other hand, the findings revealed that the overall model of HRD in the LSIs is a
recursive and evolving process (see Figure 5). The HRD function in the manufacturing sector in
Malaysia has experienced considerable change in recent years and this has affected the LSIs. A
majority of the manufacturing companies, including the LSIs, reported that continuous pressure for
increased quality, innovation and productivity, as well as the apparent need to improve employees’
capabilities, have been the driving forces for HRD initiatives. Therefore, employees are provided with
HRD activities to enable them to cope with the new technology and working processes.

Figure 5: Model of HRD in the Large Scale Industries

Government’s HRD Plans and Policies

HRD Funds

Top Management
HR/Personnel Dept HRD Dept INPUT
Structure, Strategies

Corporate Budget
1) ISO Policies
2) Internal HRD Plans,
Policies & Strategies

X Planning
Formal & Informal
OUTPUT Change, Organisation Production Level
Development 1) Supervisory Staff
1) Individual & team
2) Technical Employees
development Performance Management
3) Shop floor Employees
2) Performance & work Career Progression
process improvement Y Market Changes

Needs
Constraints: HRD expertise,

Formal &
\ Evaluation
Line Informal Analysis
Informal
Observation & Mgrs

Outsourced
feedback
Z
[ Outsourced
Deliver & Design &
Implement Internal Trainers Develop

Even though the provision of HRD plans and policies has been suggested to be an important
component of strategic HRD (Clutterbuck, 1989; Howitz, 1999), only one third of the LSIs have any
form of plans and policies for HRD, and these are mostly short-term plans and informal policies.
However, some companies have also adopted the formal ISO policy and the Government HRD policy
(indicated by Input in Figure 5); other than this, most companies do not see the importance of having

646
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 8, Number 4 (2009)

any policy for HRD. This is evident from the survey and is supported by the interview statements. For
instance, it was stated that, “having another policy for HRD is not necessary, as employees’
requirements for training have been stated in the ISO standards”. These findings are consistent with
those of other research studies (for example, Heraty & Morley, 2000; Yadapadithaya & Stewart, 2003).
Therefore, HRD in large firms is observed as more of a process to solve and prevent problems,
particularly in the context of conforming to the ISO quality standards.
Traditionally, training and development has been the sole responsibility of the Personnel or HR
department, and it has often been viewed as an elusive activity without any real strategic focus
(Garavan et al, 1995; Heraty & Morley, 2000). This phenomenon still exists in the SMIs, but HRD in
the LSIs is changing. The structure of HRD in the LSIs has been found to be somewhat strategic. The
study findings revealed that one-third of these firms have separate departments responsible for HRD
and these departments are generally labelled ‘Training’ rather than ‘HRD’. However, in those
companies without training departments, the HR department is responsible for their HRD activities.
Generally, the structure of HRD in the large-scale industries involves direct communication with top
management, and some companies even have a separate budget for HRD within the corporate structure
(see Figure 5). This reflects the importance of HRD in their corporate structure and is also indicative of
top management commitment to HRD, which is an important aspect (Garavan, 1991; McCracken &
Wallace, 2000; Harrison, 2002).
The HRD process in the LSIs is reasonably systematic, but not totally formal and
comprehensive, with most companies adopting a more informal approach. The survey findings suggest
that HRD needs assessments (Step 2) are regularly conducted, but mainly by means of managers’
direct observation and informal feedback rather than the more formal methods of needs analysis. The
same applies to the evaluation of training activities and the assessment of performance improvement
(Step 5). These findings were supported by the interview statements. However, these rather informal
methods of analysing training needs and evaluation have been criticised as being the least effective
approaches (see for example, Heraty & Morley, 2000; Budhwar et al, 2002). However, further analysis
of the findings revealed that HRD needs analysis and the evaluation process in the LSIs are restricted
by a number of constraints, ranging from human expertise to time and financial limitations, and this
can have implications for the effectiveness of the HRD activities implemented in organisations.
However, in spite of these restrictions, the production employees in this industry are observed as being
highly valued, in that they are provided with high levels of training, particularly in terms of new
employees’ induction training, preparatory training before upgrading and promotion and on the advent
of change in the business environment, such as during the introduction of new technology, working
methods and processes. This finding is in contrast to studies in the UK, where production employees
are generally given less training, even in the high skills sector (see, for example, Tregaskis & Dany,
1996; Lloyd, 2003).
Turning to the methods by which training is delivered in the LSIs, conventional classroom-
based training and on-the-job instruction, as well as outdoor experiential learning, are commonly
deployed, even though outdoor experiential learning has been criticised as being relatively ineffective
(Wagner & Campbell, 1994). However, the more advanced method of virtual and technological
training, which has been used globally, is not in evidence in Malaysia, according to this study (Read &
Kleiner, 1996; Wognum & Mulder, 1999; Mulder & Tjepkema, 1999; Marquardt et al, 2000; Dilworth,
2003). This suggests that advanced technological training and other related training methods are not
incorporated into the delivery of training and learning. This may have implications for the development
of e-learning and computer-based training in the manufacturing sector. The training activities in this
industry are either outsourced to external training providers or organised in-house and in organisations’
individually owned training centres (Steps 3 and 4 in Figure 5), depending on the type of training and
the level of employees. Indeed, most organisations are seen as lacking in internal expertise and are
under-resourced in terms of training professionals; thus, the outsourcing of HRD activities is

647
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 8, Number 4 (2009)

increasingly becoming a global phenomenon (Kjellberg et al, 1998; Madsen & Larsen, 1998; Mulder et
al, 1999; Morrow, 2001; Budhwar et al, 2002; Gainey & Klaas, 2005).
These findings suggest that this lack of formality also extends to the performance appraisals
systems, in which the main approach to appraising employees’ performance improvement is by
analysing employees’ acquired skills, knowledge and attitudes by means of informal observation and
feedback rather than through structured and formal intervention. Even though employees’ performance
appraisals are in evidence to some extent in these companies, they are not associated with reward
strategies such as salary increments or high performance bonuses. This finding was supported by the
interview statements, wherein it was indicated that the LSIs “do not have a special reward scheme for
their high performing employees” and that “performance bonuses were awarded equally between all
employees” in the organisation. This has implications for employees’ motivation and long-term
development. For instance, the evidence suggests that HRD practitioners find it difficult to develop a
positive learning environment due to employees’ lack of motivation. This suggests that performance
appraisals in this industry have no real purpose or objective (indicated by the dotted box in Figure 5);
this proposition has been endorsed by Behn (2003), who argues that performance appraisals performed
in organisations are merely a trend and are not effective. The findings in this study also revealed that
organisations are not planning for their employees’ career advancement (indicated by the dotted box in
Figure 5), and this supports the view that HRD practitioners are no longer responsible for employees’
career advancement, as individual employees are now taking control of their own career progression
(Swanson & Holton III, 2001; Lloyd, 2003). It is apparent that the LSIs implement the necessary
activities to support HRD, but these activities are generally lacking in objectivity and formality.
Nevertheless, HRD activities carried out in the LSIs contribute to individual and team development,
and to performance and work process improvement. Indeed, it has been argued that these outcomes are
part of the central tenet of HRD efforts (Schein, 1970; Stewart & McGoldrick, 1996; Gourlay, 2001).
The evidence in this study indicates that the HRD system is lacking in specialised HRD
professionals. This certainly has implications for the effectiveness of HRD in developing a skilled,
knowledgeable and competent workforce. It has been observed that HRD practitioners in the
manufacturing sector in Malaysia are faced with the challenges of coping with the demand for
knowledge workers and fostering employees’ learning and development in the workplace. These
challenges are critical for the development of human resources in the manufacturing sector in
Malaysia. This finding has been endorsed by other studies, indicating that the complicated and
evolving field of HRD is continuously being challenged by the lack of human expertise in a rapidly
changing environment (McGoldrick & Stewart, 1996; Schmidt & Lines, 2002; Lee, 2003). This
suggests that employers and HRD practitioners have to improve their organisational expectations and
strategies in relation to HR management, development and change in order to cope with the
challenging competitive environment and the emerging knowledge economy.
As a whole, the nature of HRD in this industry is observed as complex and complicated but
systematic. Therefore, due to the complexity of HRD in the LSIs, and building on Iles & Yolles’s
(2002) complex evolving model, a model of HRD in this industry is developed to show a clear picture
of HRD and its associated processes. This model of HRD in the LSIs also incorporates the concept of
inputs and outputs of the HRD process. As seen in the model, the inputs in HRD denote the
Government’s interventions, such as HRD plans and policies, funds and other initiatives, and also the
adoption of the ISO policy by most LSIs. The outputs denote the outcomes of HRD efforts in this
industry. The evolving model suggests that HRD in the LSIs is systematic in its processes, but the
hexagonal boxes in the evolving model suggest that HRD needs identification is carried out regularly,
and that needs are also analysed in reaction to changes in the business environment. The hexagonal
boxes incorporating the processes of design and implementation of HRD denote that these processes
are either carried out internally or outsourced to external providers, depending on the availability of
HRD expertise or the competencies required for training. Therefore, based on the findings in this

648
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 8, Number 4 (2009)

research and the development of the HRD model, this study contributes to a better understanding and
provides a clear picture of HRD and its processes in LSIs in Malaysia’s manufacturing sector.

5. Conclusion
HRD practices in the SMIs and LSIs were shown to have vast disparities, but also some similarities.
Therefore, one model could not be used to generalise HRD in all manufacturing firms in Malaysia. As
seen in the two models above, size had an impact on ISO and quality-related factors, with similarities
in that HRD activities are associated with achieving higher standards of productivity, quality and
effectiveness in order to survive in a competitive environment of constant change and intense domestic
competition. In this context, both SMIs and LSIs are seen to value their production employees,
providing them with more training and development than employees at other levels, and this training
and development is associated with greater spending. However, both SMIs and LSIs adopt mainly
informal approaches to the analysis of HRD needs and the evaluation of training effectiveness, as
opposed to formal methods. Nonetheless, the outcomes of HRD activities and the major challenges in
HRD are generally similar across the two industry groups. At the same time, in both the SMIs and
LSIs, there is at least some involvement on the part of line managers in carrying out certain
responsibilities in HRD, and to a certain extent, both have top management support for their HRD
processes.
Nevertheless, it is worth noting that compared to the SMIs, the LSIs tend to at least have a
separate function for HRD. Despite the similarities in their levels of training provision and spending
for employees’ training, the LSIs are not totally dependent on external providers for employees’
training, as some companies have their own internal trainers to provide in-house training, while the
SMIs are at a disadvantage in this regard. Furthermore, some of the LSIs seem to be quite apprehensive
about managing employees’ performance improvement for longer-term development and assessing the
business results from HRD activities. In the latter context, at least a handful of companies do ensure
that they have some kind of return on their training investments. As such, it may be argued that even
though only a few of the LSIs associate HRD activities with business results and employees’ longer-
term development, this is reflected in a systematic approach to implementing HRD activities in the
LSIs, which accounts for the differences in the nature of HRD between the SMIs and the LSIs. Overall,
HRD in manufacturing firms in Malaysia is highly influenced by and associated with political,
economic and market changes, such as the requirement for ISO certification to compete in the business
arena, which influence the way human resources are managed and developed.
Indeed, it was found in this study that the activities implemented are more similar to T&D than
to HRD in their nature and extent. This is in contrast to the theoretical context of HRD, as the role of
HRD extends far beyond T&D (Stead and Lee, 1996; Harrison, 2000). This has implications for HRD
theory and for normative HRD models. The theoretical and empirical findings in this study imply that
the concept of HRD is yet to be established and accepted, and practitioners’ views of HRD are still
seen as synonymous with T&D

6. Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research

The first limitation of this study is associated with the fact that it examined only in manufacturing
sector in Malaysia, and the other private sectors (such as hospitality and services, construction, finance,
transport, agriculture and mining) were not included due to time constraints. Therefore, the findings of
this study cannot be generalised to the national HRD context, as the other private sectors and the
Government services were not covered. As this is the first empirical study of HRD in Malaysia’s
manufacturing sector, there were limitations in covering all the sectors. Hence, in order to generalise
the study at the national level, a nationwide study should be conducted to represent HRD in Malaysia
on a national scale.
649
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 8, Number 4 (2009)

The second limitation of this study relates to the respondents selected to participate. The
respondents selected for this study were personnel in charge of HRD or T&D activities in their
organisations, who were chosen for the purpose of obtaining accurate information about their
experiences of carrying out and managing human resource development. The limitation in this method
is that HRD practitioners’ perceptions of HRD did not represent the perceptions and understandings
held by top management and other employees Therefore, it is recommended that questionnaire and
interview surveys should be performed with top management and also with frontline employees, to
explore their understanding of HRD and to gather further insights into their perceptions of the nature of
HRD in their organisations. In this way, HRD practitioners’ perceptions and understandings of HRD
could be validated through the perspectives of top management and employees.

References
[1] Ardichvili, A. and Gasparishvili, A. (2001) Human resource development in an industry in
transition. Human Resource Development International, 4 (1): pp. 47-63.
[2] Behn, R. D. (2003) Why measure performance? Different Purposes Require Different
Measures. Public Administration Review, 63 (5): pp. 586-606
[3] Budhwar, P.S., Al-Yahmadi, S. and Debrah, Y. (2002) Human resource development in the
Sultanate of Oman. International Journal of Training and Development, 6 (3): pp.198
[4] Buyens, D., Wouters, K. and Dewettinck, K. (2001). Future challenges for HRD Professionals
in European learning-oriented organizations. Journal of European Industrial Training, 25 (9):
pp. 442.
[5] Chermack, T.J., Lynham, S.A. and Ruona, W.E.A. (2003) Critical uncertainties confronting
human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5 (3): pp. 257-271
[6] Clutterbuck, D. (1989) Developing customer care training programmes. Marketing Intelligence
and Planning, 7 (1-2): pp. 34-37
[7] Dilworth, L. (2003) Searching for the future of HRD. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 5 (3): pp. 241-244
[8] Eidgahy, S. Y. (1995) Management of diverse HRD programs: Challenges and opportunities.
Personnel Management, 46 (3): pp. 15-20
[9] Elbadri, A. N. A. (2001) Training practices of Polish companies: An appraisal and agenda for
improvement. Journal of European Industrial Training, 25 (2-4): pp. 69-79
[10] Gainey, T. W. & Klaas, B. S. (2005) Outsourcing relationships between firms and their training
providers: The role of trust. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16 (1): pp.7-25
[11] Garavan, T. N. (1991) Strategic human resource development. International Journal of
Manpower, 12 (6): pp. 21-34
[12] Garavan, T. N. (1995) HRD Stakeholders: Their Philosophies, values, expectations and
evaluation criteria. Journal of European Industrial Training, 19 (10): pp. 17-30
[13] Garavan, T.N., Heraty, N., and Barnicle, B. (1999) Human resource development literature:
Current issues, priorities and dilemmas. Journal of European Industrial Training, 23 (4-5): pp.
169-179
[14] Garavan, T.N.; Morley, M.; Gunnigle, P. and McGuire, D. (2002). Human resource
development and workplace learning: Emerging theoretical perspectives and organizational
practices. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26 (2-4): pp. 60-71.
[15] Gourlay, S. (2001) Knowledge management and HRD. Human Resource Development
International, 4 (1): pp. 27-46.
[16] Grieves, J. and Redman, T. (1999) Living in the shadow of OD: HRD and the search for
identity Human Resource Development International, 2 (2): pp. 81-103
[17] Harrison, R. and Kessels, J. (2004) Human Resource Development in a Knowledge Economy:
An Organisational View. New York: Palgrave MacMillan

650
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 8, Number 4 (2009)

[18] Harrison, R. (2002) Learning and Development. (3rd ed) London, CIPD
[19] Hatcher, T. (2000) A study of the influence of the theoretical foundations of human resource
development on research and practice. Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource
Development, North Carolina.
[20] Hatcher, T. (2003) Worldviews that enhance and inhibit HRD’s social responsibility in Lee, M.
HRD in a Complex World. London and New York: Routledge Heraty & Morley, 2000
[21] Heraty and Morley (2002) Management development in Ireland: The new organizational
wealth? Journal of Management Development, 22 (1): pp. 60-82
[22] Holton, III, E.F. (2000) Clarifying and defining the performance paradigm of human resource
development. Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development. North Carolina
[23] Horwitz, F.M., Falconer, A.B. and Searll, P. (1996) Human resource development and
managing diversity in South Africa. International Journal of Manpower, 17 (4-5): pp.134-151
[24] Iles, P. and Yolles, M. (2003) Complexity, HRD and organisation development: Towards a
viable systems approach to learning, development and change in Lee, M. HRD in a Complex
World. London, New York: Routledge
[25] Kerr, A. and McDougall, M. (1999) The small business of developing people. International
Small Business Journal. London. 17 (2): pp. 65-74
[26] Kjellberg, Y., Soderstrom, M. and Svensson, L. (1998) Training and development in the
Swedish context: Structural change and a new paradigm. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 22 (4-5): pp. 205-216
[27] Lee, M. (2003) HRD in a Complex World. London: Routledge
[28] Lloyd, C. (2003) Training and development deficiencies in ‘high skill’ sectors. Human
Resource Management Journal, 12 (2): pp. 64-81
[29] Madsen, P. and Larsen, H.H. (1998). Training and development in the Danish context:
Challenging education? Journal of European Industrial Training, 22 (4-5): pp.158-170.
[30] Marquardt, M. J., Nissley, N., Ozaq, R. and Taylor, T.L. (2000) Training and development in
the United States. International Journal of Training and Development, 4 (2): pp.138-149
[31] McCracken, M. and Wallace, M. (2000) Towards a redefinition of strategic HRD. Journal of
European Industrial Training, 24 (5): pp. 281-29
[32] McGoldrick, J. and Stewart, J. (1996) The HRM-HRD nexus in Stewart, J. and McGoldrick, J.
(eds) Human Resource Development: Perspectives, Strategies and Practice. London: Prentice
Hall.
[33] McGoldrick, J., Stewart, J. and Watson, S.. (2002) Understanding Human Resource
Development: A research-based approach. London, Routledge
[34] Mishra, P. B. G. (2002) Human resource development climate: An empirical study among
private sector managers. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 38 (1): pp. 66-80
[35] Morrow, T. (2001) Training and development in the Northern Ireland clothing industry.
Journal of European Industrial Training, 25 (2-4): pp. 80-89
[36] Mulder, M.M. and Tjepkema, S. (1999). Training and development in the Netherlands.
International Journal of Training and Development, 3 (1): pp. 63-73.
[37] Nolan, C. (2002) Human resource development in the Irish hotel industry: The case of the small
firm. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26 (2-4): pp. 88-99
[38] Osman-Gani, A.A.M. and Tan, W.L (2000) Training and development in Singapore.
International Journal of Training and Development, 4 (4): pp. 305-323
[39] Read, C.W. and Kleiner, B.H (1996) Which training methods are effective? Management
Development Review, 9 (2): pp. 24-29
[40] Ruona, W.E.A. (1998) Systems theory as a foundation for HRD. In. R. Torraco (Ed.),
Proceedings of the 1998 Academy of Human Resource Development
[41] Sadler-Smith, E., Down, S., and Lean, J. (2000) “Modern” learning methods: Rhetoric and
reality. Personnel Review, 29 (4): pp 474-490

651
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 8, Number 4 (2009)

[42] Sadler-Smith, E., Sargeant, A. and Dawson, A. (1998) Higher level skills training and SMEs.
International Small Business Journal, 16 (2): pp. 84
[43] Sambrook, S. (2001) HRD as an emergent and negotiated evolution: An ethnographic case
study in the British National Health Service. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12 (2):
pp.169-193
[44] Schein, E. H. (1970) Organizational Psychology (2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[45] Schmidt, J. & Lines, S. (2002) A measure of success. People Management, 8 (9): pp.32
[46] Stewart, J. and McGoldrick, J. (eds) (1996) Human Resource Development: Perspectives,
Strategies and Practice. London: Prentice Hall
[47] Swanson, R. A. and Holton, III, E. F. (2001) Foundations of Human Resource Development.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.
[48] Swanson, R.A. (1999) HRD Theory: Real or imagined? Human Resource Development
International, 2 (1): pp. 2-5
[49] Taylor, S., Shaw, S. and Thorpe, R. (2004) Neither market failure nor customer ignorance: The
organisational limitations of employee training and development in Stewart, J. & Beaver, G.
HRD in Small Organisations: Research and Practice. London and New York: Routledge
[50] Torraco, R. J. (2005) Work Design Theory: A review and critique with implications for human
resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16 (1): pp. 85-109
[51] Tregaskis, O. and Dany, F. (1996) A comparison of HRD in France and the UK. Journal of
European Industrial Training, 20 (1): pp. 20-30
[52] Vinten, G. (2000) Training in small and medium-sized enterprises. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 32 (1): pp. 9-14
[53] Wagner, R. J. & Campbell, J. (1994) Outdoor-based experiential training: Improving transfer of
training using virtual reality. Journal of Management Development, 13 (7): pp. 4-11
[54] Wognum, A. A. M. and Mulder, M. M. (1999) Strategic HRD within companies. International
Journal of Training and Development, 3 (1)
[55] Yadapadithaya, P. S. and Stewart, J. (2003) Corporate training and development policies and
practices: A cross-national study of India and Britain. International Journal of Training and
Development. Oxford. 7 (2): pp.108-123

652