Human Resource Development International, Vol. 8, No. 3, 345 – 360, September 2005
Implementing Human Resource Development Best Practices: Replication or Re-creation? JON E. LERVIK, BJØRN W. HENNESTAD, ROLV PETTER AMDAM, RANDI LUNNAN & SØLVI M. NILSEN Norwegian School of Management
ABSTRACT Firms increasingly introduce HRD ‘best practices’ developed somewhere else, but results often fall short of expectations. Much of existing theory fails to guide the implementation of HRD best practices because it does not recognize how introduced practices interact with existing practices in the firm. In this paper, we contrast the dominant perspective ‘Implementation as Replication’ with a perspective of ‘Implementation as Re-creation’. Through four stages of the implementation process, we identify and discuss how these contrasting perspectives yield different implications for how firms go about introducing HRD best practices. First, when firms take up a practice, is this a process of adoption or translation? Second, is it assumed that new knowledge can be implanted directly and lead to new behaviour, or is active experimentation a necessary precondition to gain new knowledge? Third, are deviations from the intended plan considered errors to be corrected or sources for learning? Fourth, are introduced best practices treated in isolation or as integral parts of the firm’s management system? We argue that implementation efforts guided by the re-creation perspective increase the prospects of HRD best practices succeeding as a useful tool in the receiving firm. KEY WORDS: HRD, best practice, implementation process, replication, re-creation
Organizations not only learn from their own experience, but they also try to learn from others. Firms look to competitors, customers, suppliers and other business actors for inspiration to improve their operations, including ways to conduct HRD functions. The business press and consultancies disseminate management concepts or ‘best practices’ for firms to take up, and there are several good reasons why managers and HR directors take an interest in introducing practices developed by others. In the emerging post-modern society, it is of increasing and critical importance to be a quick learner (Kilmann, 1986). Moreover, why reinvent the wheel? Why not learn from the best? Imitation can thus be rational. When firms face ambiguity and it is difficult to assess the pay-off of various decision alternatives,
Correspondence Address: Jon E. Lervik, Norwegian School of Management, Nydalsveien 37, N-0442 Oslo, Norway. Tel: + 47 975 00 161. Fax: + 47 6755 7677. Email:
[email protected] ISSN 1367-8868 Print/1469-8374 Online/05/030345-16 ª 2005 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13678860500149969
346
J. E. Lervik et al.
imitation of other firms may be a viable strategy (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991 [1983]). This ambiguity is particularly prevalent in human resource management and human resource development, since the performance implications of various HR practices are ambiguous and not well established (Huselid, 1995; Delery and Doty, 1996; Purcell, 1999). Therefore, organizations that ‘cope with ambiguity seek to learn from the experience of others by imitating their visible actions’ (Greve, 1995, pp. 447 – 8). Imitation may be difficult though, due to information problems and lack of access to role model firms (Sahlin-Andersson, 2001). The business press and management consultancies aim to alleviate this problem by providing packaged solutions with detailed recipes and implementation advice (Huczynski, 1993; Kipping and Engwall, 2002). Improving HRD through Adopting ‘Best Practices’? There is a stark contrast between the logic of abstract, standardized ‘best practices’ and the current research-based recommendations on how firms ought to organize their HRD activities. The notion of ‘best practices’ implies that organizations can pick and choose predefined tools and blueprints in performing HRD activities within the firm, and that firms can reap the advantages of closely imitating others. However, the HRD literature strongly emphasizes the importance of adapting HRD systems to the focal firm and integrating HRD vertically with the firm’s strategy, as well as horizontally with other management practices (Garavan, 1991). Various authors stress the importance of adapting and integrating HRD with organizational mission and goals (McCracken and Wallace, 2000), organizational values and culture (Williams, 2002), corporate strategy (Dilworth, 2003) and existing systems for training and development (Lee, 1996; McCracken and Wallace, 2000). The prevalence of ‘best practices’ seems grounded in a mechanistic perspective on development in organizations. Lee formulated this perspective eloquently: it ‘assumes that there is something lacking, some weakness or gap, that can be added to or filled by the use of the appropriate tools or blueprint’ (2001, p. 32). She discusses alternative understandings of development. It can be seen as a mechanistic process, but it can also be conceived as a voyage of internal discovery or an emergent process of development through interaction (Lee, 2001). These alternative perspectives on development are highly important when we consider that introduced best practices are abstract and general, and are designed to resonate with firms from many industries and countries (Røvik, 1998). In other words, best practices do not in themselves provide a complete, specified organizational solution on how to conduct human resource development in a firm. Our focus in this paper is on the process where an abstract and universal HRD best practice is changed and concretized into workable practices in the individual firm (Purcell, 1999). Our position is that organizations may gain from taking up HRD best practices, but this depends on the process of ‘unpacking’. This process of ‘unpacking’ is seldom the focus in existing literature. The practitioner literature, with its checklists and ‘how-to’ guidelines, may be overly optimistic and downplay the challenges of implementing a particular best practice. On the other hand, we find critical perspectives that do not grapple with the concrete implementation challenges, such as new institutional sociology that mainly examines firms’ formal adoption of
Implementing HRD Best Practices
347
practices and its legitimating functions (Meyer and Rowan, 1991 [1977]; Powell and DiMaggio, 1991; Deephouse, 1996). In this paper, we call for a more critical and constructive approach to understanding the process of implementing HRD best practices: critical in addressing the problematic and difficult aspects of implementation rarely acknowledged by the practitioner literature and constructive in taking seriously the notion that organizations that adopt best practices aim to learn from the experience of others. We do not simply discount best practices as ‘myth and ceremony’ (Meyer and Rowan, 1991 [1977]). Attempts at implementing best practices often fail or fall short of expectations (Beer et al., 1990), and we argue that the perspectives guiding firms’ implementation efforts are part of the problem. We can identify a set of underlying assumptions that view implementation as a process of replication, which we identify as the dominant perspective. We contrast this with a set of alternative assumptions that taken together constitute what we call a re-creation perspective. While the former replication perspective tends to reify best practice as an object, the alternative assumptions that we draw up view best practices as constructed and implementation as a process of social construction (Cummings and Mohrman, 1987). In this paper we will contrast the replication and the re-creation perspective concerning the underlying assumptions that guide different stages of firms’ implementation processes, and we will relate this to the prospects for firms of making constructive use of introduced HRD best practices. Comparing the two perspectives, the contribution of this paper is both theoretical and practical. We suggest a theoretical framework to understand how the implementation approach affects prospects for constructive use of an adopted best practice. Implementation processes are under-researched (Beyer et al., 1997), and we combine HRD literature with theories from related fields – like diffusion theory, new institutional theory and theory on organizational learning to provide a theoretical basis for understanding how the implementation approach affects firm outcomes in adopting HRD best practices. The paper also has a practical ambition – to develop new insights that may guide practical implementation efforts. Best Practices: Some Critical Remarks The prevalence of best practices and their adoption entails a range of problematic issues. Michael Power described models for practices as ‘an idealized, normative projection of the hopes invested in the practice, a statement of potential rather than a description of actual operational capacity’ (1997: 4). Marchington and Grugulis criticize the rhetoric and inconsistencies in the prescription for high performance work practices, which ‘is more attractive as rhetoric than reality, with individual practices losing much of their appeal when unpacked’ (2000: 1111). Furthermore, there is considerable causal ambiguity concerning the performance implications of adopting best practices. There is some support for a positive relationship between ‘high performance work practices’ and firm performance (Huselid, 1995; MacDuffie, 1995; Huselid et al., 1997; Appelbaum et al., 2000), but the direction of causation is ambiguous. Does firms’ adoption of certain practices lead to superior performance or is it the other way around: that firms with superior performance are more prone to adopt these practices?
348
J. E. Lervik et al.
Empirical cross-sectional research has attempted to establish the adoptionperformance link. However, from a theoretical point of view too, imitation of best practices to gain competitiveness remains somewhat paradoxical. According to resource-based HRM perspectives (Huselid, 1995; Becker and Gerhart, 1996; Delery and Doty, 1996; Gerhart et al., 1996), a unique configuration of HR practices within the firm can yield sustainable competitive advantage if they are valuable, rare, not easily substituted and imperfectly imitable (Barney, 1991). Resources with these characteristics can yield benefits that cannot be duplicated by competitors (Amit and Schumacher, 1993). Gerhart et al. (1996) argue that, while individual practices may be imitable, the objective for firms is to develop complex, unique practices and integrate them in firm culture and with other practices. These perspectives suggest that imitation is not enough. Imitation of other firms’ practices is only one step on the way towards an idiosyncratic, firm-specific HRD system that contributes to organizational effectiveness (Holton, 2002). Replication vs. Re-creation Perspectives Guiding the Implementation Process We contrast two perspectives on implementing HRD best practices, which we call replication and re-creation, and we discuss the implications of these contrasting perspectives in different stages of the implementation process. The replication perspective conceives best practices as immutable objects to be wholly copied by recipients. Szulanski conceive the process of transfer as ‘replication of organizational routines’ (1996: 28), and the process entails imitation of a complex bundle of organizational routines and practices from one location to another. From this perspective, deviations from plans and modifications to ‘best practices’ are seen as resistance and result in a ‘less-than-successful’ transfer. We propose an alternative perspective of re-creation, seeing implementation as a process of social construction and acknowledging that implementation of best practices entails considerable adaptation and integration. In this sense, we reduce the false sense of certainty and of predefined solutions provided by the image of ‘implementation as replication’. We replace this with a more emergent perspective on implementation as ‘re-creation’. This distinction between replication and re-creation perspectives is general, but is especially suited for addressing implementation of HRD practices, which are underspecified, people-dependent and context-dependent, and thus necessitate considerable reworking to bring value to the firm adopting the HRD best practices. To structure a systematic comparison between perspectives, we use Szulanski’s (1995) four-stage model on transfer of best practices, which he developed based on an extensive literature review. In actual implementation processes, the four stages may partly overlap in time, but they still represent separate phases with distinct activities. In the following sections, we identify a critical issue in each stage and contrast literature seeing implementation as replication vs. re-creation. Furthermore, we discuss prospects for constructive use of an introduced best practice. The structure of the argument is summarized in Table 1. 1. Initiation – concerns the processes of discovering needs, benchmarking, search for and identification of a potential solution (Szulanski, 1996: 28). In this stage,
Implementing HRD Best Practices
349
Table 1. Four stages and contrasting perspectives on implementation
Stage 1) Initiation: discover needs, identify solutions 2) Implementation: introduction of practice 3) Ramp-up: resolving unexpected problems 4) Integration: routinization of practice
Critical issues in each Replication stage perspective
Re-creation perspective
How do firms take up a Adoption practice?
Translation
How do organizations Knowledge ? action Action ? knowledge learn? Implementation strategy? Alignment of new practice?
Mechanistic
Organic
Isolation
Integration
we contrast implementation efforts assuming ‘best practices’ to be predefined and to be adopted in an unmodified manner with perspectives emphasizing the translation and adaptation of potential solutions. 2. Implementation – in this stage the practice is actually introduced, and resources flow between the originating organization and recipient organization (ibid., pp. 28 – 9). Different theories describing how organizations learn may inform on this phase – concerning whether dissemination of new knowledge is expected to lead to new behaviours, or the other way around. Active experimentation is seen as a precursor to the development of new knowledge. 3. Ramp-up – begins with the first day of use, and recipients are predominantly concerned with identifying and resolving unexpected problems (ibid., p. 29). Here we contrast mechanistic implementation strategies focusing on error correction with organic implementation strategies that utilize unexpected events as sources of learning. 4. Integration – the final stage of Szulanski’s model describes how the transferred practice gradually becomes routinized and taken for granted (ibid., p. 29). Here we contrast perspectives that focus on the best practices as isolated modules vs. the need for embedding and (re-)creating connections between the introduced practice and existing activities and processes in the recipient organization. Initiation: Adoption or Translation in Taking up a Practice? The initial phase of the implementation process contains how organizations identify needs and search for solutions. The question that concerns us here is whether potential adopters approach popular prescriptions as immutable objects adopted wholly and unmodified or whether adopting firms are less deferential towards best practices, use them selectively and modify them accordingly. We can identify two distinct perspectives with different conceptions of what ‘best practice’ is. In the practitioner literature and much of the research on knowledge transfer, best practice tends to be seen as a predefined set of practices that are to be replicated carefully – what we call adoption. This ‘objectification’ of best practices has a long
350
J. E. Lervik et al.
history (Rogers, 1962, 1995). This tradition has a somewhat pro-innovation bias in that adoption is seen as natural and positive, whereas modifications to received innovations are treated as resistance and irrational behaviour. In hindsight, Rogers (1995) admitted that modifications may be both necessary and good. However, a lot of current research on knowledge transfer is informed by Rogers’ diffusion framework (Kogut and Zander, 1993; Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000), and, in current studies on transfer of best practices, deviations and adaptations are seen as less successful transfer (Kostova and Roth, 2002). Furthermore, this objectification is clear in the practitioner literature, where firms are advised to replicate best practices like performance management and leadership development procedures in order to achieve success. This may be the default assumption guiding firms’ effort in searching for and identifying solutions, and even influencing how they diagnose challenges in the organization. The idea of standardized practices is based on a notion of ‘best practice’ as a pre-specified, complete solution that can readily be adopted and ‘implanted’ in the recipient organization. An alternative approach can be labelled ‘the translation perspective’. Translation in its original meaning refers to seeking the semantic and expressive language equivalent in a practice developed in another language. With translation of a management practice, we refer to the modification of forms/contents of a received practice (Røvik, 1998), as well as to the political persuasion to enrol support and acceptance for a practice (Latour, 1987). In this perspective, firms are not only passive recipients of management knowledge, but are active in shaping and changing the received practices. Managers in the recipient organizations may modify the practice based on calculations of what the rest of the organization might accept (Røvik, 1998) or based on a strong sense of firm identity (Sevo´n, 1996). For example, when introducing a new performance management practice, the calculative evaluation aspect may be downplayed to better fit into the recipient organization’s traditions and values. Also, modifications may be unintended, as information gaps and misunderstandings may arise as organizations try to imitate others (Sahlin-Andersson, 1996). The logic that guides firms’ search and identification of best practices may influence whether and to what extent best practices have an impact on the organization’s operations and management processes. Westphal et al. (1997) studied organizations that closely imitated TQM practices (*adoption) of others compared to organizations that developed locally tailored TQM practices (*translation). Westphal et al. found that organizations with an adoption approach had significantly lower performance in terms of task performance, productivity and return on equity (ROE) compared to organizations that developed tailored versions. It seems that efficiency concerns were given less attention than legitimacy concerns, and the lack of adaptation and customization of TQM to the recipient organization resulted in TQM practices that did not respond to the operational needs of that organization. We sum up this section by proposing that an adoption approach to implementing HRD best practices has lower prospects for constructive use for a firm than a translation approach. A translation approach will to a much higher degree be able to customize the best HRD practice both to meet firm needs better and to meet demands from internal coalitions.
Implementing HRD Best Practices
351
Implementation: Knowledge ? Action, or Action ? Knowledge The second phase, which Szulanski labels ‘implementation’, is from the actual introduction of the best practice until recipients start using it. This often entails distribution of written policies, training sessions, seminars and workshops where the best practice is disseminated. This approach to implementation seems to be based on the assumption that changes in understanding and attitudes lead to changes in organizational behaviours: new kinds of action are understood by being heard and talked about, almost automatically resulting in new action. Beer et al. characterized this approach as the ‘Fallacy of Programmatic Change’ (1990: 159). If the best practice is conceived as an immutable ‘object’ to be transferred, then the learning necessary to transform it into practice becomes an issue of ‘tell-then-do’. In this perspective, implementation efforts often entail minutely detailed procedures of how to conduct appraisals, developmental feedback, succession planning and other HRD activities. Daft and Huber (1987) confront this view by discussing the system-structure perspective vs. the interpretative perspective of learning in organizations. The approach above reflects the system-structure view where it is assumed that people and organizations acquire new understanding from data and rational analysis, resulting in new action. In this way, learning can be seen as the transfer of information. In the interpretative perspective, however, action leads to understanding. Collective understanding is produced both by the enactment of plausible interpretations and by making sense of what happens (Gioia and Poole, 1984), and by creative action and the sanctioning of favoured outcomes (Ford and Ogilvie, 1996). In more practical terms it follows from this logic that a focus on a new HRD best practice will impose new roles, responsibilities and relationships, which in turn ‘force’ new attitudes, new situational understandings and new behaviours upon people. This alternative conception of learning is related to the guiding conception of the ‘best practice’ as an underdeveloped and not concretely specified recipe. In this perspective, active involvement and experimentation with the introduced practice is important for learning and reflection on how the introduced prescription can be put into practice (Lee, 2001). From the interpretative perspective, active experimentation – rather than imposed procedures – leads to learning and development. Leaders on different levels get a better understanding of the ideas behind the change endeavour. This again increases the prospects of new action becoming internalized, as collective thinking evolves through interacting on the new tool (cf. Bate, 1994). Employee motivation is important for best practices to be applied constructively (MacDuffie, 1995). Similarly, Nelson and Winter (1982) argue that new organizational routines emerge through experimentation with new activities, gradually replacing existing organizational routines. Allowing room for experimentation is thus important in order to develop the organization’s capacity to utilize the HRD best practice. An interesting paradox concerns how imposing detailed procedures may actually be counterproductive. People who experience a ‘best practice’ that is forced upon them may resign responsibility and take on a detached attitude, instead of committing themselves to it. The imposed form encourages people involved to
352
J. E. Lervik et al.
‘follow the rules’ passively instead of committing themselves, getting involved and taking initiative (Argyris, 1998). This suggests that organization members should be involved in designing/adapting the introduced HRD practice rather than having detailed procedures of the practice imposed upon them. We sum up this section by proposing that a knowledge-action approach to implementing HRD best practices has lower prospects for constructive use compared to an action-knowledge approach. An action-knowledge approach is more likely to increase motivation and stimulate to a better fit between the practice and the intended use for it. Ramp-Up: Mechanistic or Organic Implementation Strategy? The ramp-up stage of implementing a best practice ‘begins when the recipient starts using the transferred knowledge. . ..The recipient will be predominantly concerned with identifying and resolving unexpected problems’ (Szulanski, 1996: 29). This concerns how the organization deals with ‘errors’, i.e. unexpected or side-effects of the best practice, and we can identify two opposing approaches, a mechanistic and an organic approach. This distinction reflects Lee’s (2001) discussion of whether a process of development is seen to have a fixed endpoint – whether it is a deterministic process of inevitable unfolding or stepwise development towards a predetermined endpoint – or is more of an open and emergent process. One important aspect is who decides: in a mechanistic approach, endpoints ‘are defined by someone or something external to the process of development. The organization is stratified and senior management define the endpoint for junior management – the wishes of the corporate hierarchy create the developmental force’ (Lee, 2001: 332). A mechanistic view on organizations is characterized by the belief that subordinates’ behaviour is controllable and thus predictable (cf. March and Simon, 1958). Hence, when a strategic decision to adopt a HRD best practice is made, consistent implementation is expected and assumed. However, Beyer et al. (1997) show that an organic approach to implementation of standardized TQM techniques is more conducive to producing lasting, institutionalized new ways of working than a mechanistic approach. The mechanistic approach focusing on detailed procedures, control and obedience seemed to produce short-term effects and ritualistic behaviour. Beyer and her colleagues examined two cases of TQM implementation in electronics firms. One firm took a ‘mechanistic’ implementation approach, with a strict implementation policy where sub-units were to adhere closely to corporate guidelines, while the other firm chose an ‘organic’ implementation process, where sub-units had large latitude in choosing the particular elements from the ‘TQM menu’ perceived as useful in their department. This latter organic approach encouraged the employees actively to create their own way of utilizing the introduced practice, and this seems to produce new and better solutions in the organization. An organic approach opening up for local learning based on local needs has many virtues. However, much of the current literature on best practice and transfer treats deviations from the original ‘best practice’ as inferior (Szulanski, 1996; Kostova and Roth, 2002). It is therefore important to question this mechanistic approach on two counts: first, that it is unrealistic, and, second, that its enactment may produce dysfunctional consequences.
Implementing HRD Best Practices
353
It is unrealistic. March and Simon (1958) point out that employees are humans with individual motivations who make decisions independently of superiors. However, the ‘replication’ perspective, which assumes that implementation can be predictably controlled throughout the organization, seems based on simplistic assumptions about organizations as instruments in the hands of top management. Organizational life is rife with issues connected to culture and politics. Implementation of HRD practice is thus a result of complex organizational dynamics. The outcomes of the implemented best practices in terms of learning and development will vary accordingly. It produces dysfunctional consequences. Mechanistic approaches may produce outcomes other than intended. One of the classic outcomes of a mechanistic approach is reflected in McGregor’s (1960) statement in his ‘Theory X’. He points to the issue of self-fulfilling prophecies; for example, the point that if people are treated as if they do not take the initiative and need to be controlled, they will act accordingly. One of the crucial issues for corporations today, which HRD practices are intended to support, is the need for empowered managers (Argyris, 1998). Empowerment depends on the degree to which the firm encourages, permits and enables managers to take independent action when necessary. Empowerment is consequently often a question of ‘de-depowerment’ (Hennestad, 1998). Automatic, controlled implementation of HRD best practices involves a programming that contradicts this autonomy. We sum up this section by proposing that a mechanistic approach to implementing HRD best practices has lower prospects for constructive use compared to a more organic approach. An organic approach secures higher likelihood of a successful implementation of the HRD practice as it secures active involvement and commitment from the employees. Integration – Alignment of New Practices: Isolation or Integration? In the integration stage, the focus moves from introduction of the practice itself to considering more how the practice is to become an integral part of the recipient organization. With integration, we refer to how connections with existing routines and practices in the recipient unit need to be created. This is highlighted as crucial for effective HRD systems (Lee, 1996; McCracken and Wallace, 2000; Holton, 2002). We argue that this issue of aligning an introduced practice in its new recipient context provides an important challenge that is often overlooked in the implementation literature. The dominant vocabulary of adoption conveys an ‘atomistic’ image of the best practice, with ‘transfer’, ‘adoption’, ‘dissemination’ and ‘imitation’. Organizations are seen as modular (Shore, 1996), and implementation is often conceived as adding one more ‘box’. This view is especially prevalent in new institutionalism, where organizations respond to isomorphic pressures by establishing new elements in their formal organization structure (Meyer and Rowan, 1991 [1977]; DiMaggio and Powell 1991 [1983]). An alternative perspective more helpful in facilitating successful implementation is seeing organizations as a nexus of practices (Nelson and Winter, 1982). Introducing best practices involves more than closely enacting a set of prescribed activities. Consider, for example, performance appraisals. If introduction of a new appraisal
354
J. E. Lervik et al.
system is to have an impact on the wider organization, the output from appraisals should be input in other processes, e.g. compensation review, career planning, nominations for promotions and management development programmes (Heneman and von Hippel, 1997). Similarly, appraisals should be based on input from the strategic planning process or budgeting processes (Lawler, 2000). If not, the new appraisal will be only an isolated one-shot event, with few consequences beyond the possibly ephemeral motivational effect in the appraisal setting. Gerhart et al. (1996) compare two guiding logics concerning the adoption and implementation of compensation practices: the institutional and the resource-based logic. In institutional logic, firms imitate practices of other leading firms to gain reputation and legitimacy for fear of falling behind competitors. Here, imitation is the mechanism at play. In resource-based logic, firms strive to create integrated bundles of practices that are valuable, unique, non-imitable and not substitutable (Barney, 1991). In this perspective, integration of different practices is the key as introduced HRD practices are integrated with other HRM practices and strategy (Garavan et al., 1995), with strategy (McCracken and Wallace, 2000) and values of the organization (Williams, 2002). Proponents of strategic HRD (Beer and Spector, 1989; Garavan, 1991; McCracken and Wallace, 2000) emphasize the systemic, interconnected nature of HRD activities. In this sense, implementation is more than ‘copying, moving and installing’, and implies that the re-creation of a local web of practices is important to make the practice work. One example of the challenges in integrating an introduced practice was given by Glimstedt (1998) describing how, in the 1950s, Volvo tried to introduce a US compensation system in Sweden. In addition to cultural challenges, the firm encountered challenges in aligning the practice and making it work in concert with established administrative routines for pay. Integration also has a second aspect, namely ensuring that introduced HRD practices become integrated with line management activities and the core operational tasks of the organization. There is a tension between learning systems and work systems in organizations (Popper and Lipshitz, 1998; Van der Krogt, 1998; Holton, 2002). Looking for advice about how an introduced HRD best practice can become more or less integrated, Popper and Lipshitz (1998) discuss organizational learning mechanisms that can be more or less integrated with the organization’s task performance. They suggest that the probability of new ideas or knowledge being put to use is higher when the learning mechanisms are integrated with the core task performance in the organization, and when these learning mechanisms are conducted by line managers rather than only HR staff personnel. We sum up this section by proposing that implementation of HRD best practices seen as isolated imitation has a lower prospect of constructive use than implementation based on integrating different HRD practices and use of integrated learning mechanisms. Conclusion and implications We have contrasted two perspectives on implementing HRD best practices – as replication or as re-creation. Replication implies a mechanistic process of organizational change towards a fixed, externally given endpoint (Lee, 2001),
Implementing HRD Best Practices
355
whereas a re-creation perspective opens up to emerging local practices and outcomes from implementing a best practice. We identified contrasting approaches in four stages of the implementation process: whether ‘best practices’ constitute predefined, non-negotiable objects which are to be taken up wholly and completely without modification (Rogers, 1995; Szulanski, 1996; Kostova, 1999; Kostova and Roth, 2002) or if implementation of best practices entails considerable modification and adjustments under way (Cummings and Mohrman, 1987; Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996). Is implementation a predictable process of replicating predefined knowledge, implying a high degree of standardization, predictability and control, or is it inherently innovative, where local learning and adaptation is critical? These contrasting assumptions about the nature of ‘best practices’ are highly relevant for all stages of the process when firms implement HRD best practices. We see the dominant perspective in current literature to be replication. The replication perspective suggests that: (1) immutable best practices are to be adopted as is; (2) communication of new knowledge leads directly to new actions; (3) deviations from the best practice ‘blueprint’ are considered errors to be corrected; and (4) best practices tend to be treated as isolated modules that can be ‘implanted’ in the organization. The replication perspective describes implementation of best practices as a straightforward, programmable activity with predictable outcomes. This is in line with Dirkx’s critique that ‘HRD continues to be influenced by an ideology of scientific management’ (1997, p. 42) and that practitioners ‘focus on designing and implementing programs that transmit to passive workers the knowledge and skills needed to improve the company’s overall performance’ (ibid., p. 43). This view of HRD best practices appears in many ways as a ‘quick fix’ to learning (Kilmann, 1986). Our paper, however, highlights some critical issues pointing to why this approach may give disappointing results. Implementing HRD best practices from a replication perspective can be likened to the kind of organizational design that Bate (1994) characterizes as ‘design without development’: formal maps are redrawn but, since mental maps are not changed accordingly and the design is not worked out in necessary detail, the intended development does not happen as planned. We identify a contrasting perspective, as suggested by Lee’s (2001) emphasis that development need not be deterministic towards a fixed, externally defined endpoint, but can be a voyage of internal discovery or an emergent process of development through interaction. We conceptualize the re-creation perspective of implementation as a process of social construction: (1) where received best practices can be adapted and modified to the recipient organization (Geppert, 2002); (2) where implementation entails considerable active experimentation in order to learn how to use the introduced practice; (3) where deviations and surprises are viewed as potential sources of learning; and (4) where ensuring integration of the introduced HRD practice is seen as vital (Holton, 2002, p. 205; Dilworth, 2003). We have argued that implementation processes guided by a re-creation perspective increase the prospects for firms’ constructive use of introduced HRD best practices. This is not to say that best practices are unproblematic but, we argue, undesired consequences are less likely when implementation is guided by the assumptions underlying the re-creation perspective. We state that firms can use ‘imported’ best
356
J. E. Lervik et al.
practices constructively. As such, the message is both good and bad. The bad news is that HRD best practices can rarely be used as quick fixes in a way that directly replicates a predefined blueprint (Lee, 2001: 332). The good news is that it is possible to make use of best practices in a constructive way. This re-creation view of the process implies that you have to ‘grow your own version’ – a version that suits or fits the local context of the organization. Firms embark on an implementation journey with a process that is less programmatic and predictable. Suggestions for Further Research This paper has sought to integrate theoretical perspectives in order to understand how different approaches to implementing HRD ‘best practices’ contribute to organizational outcomes. In order to clarify the research implications, let us return to Marchington and Grugulis’s critique stating that best practices – when unpacked – seem ‘much less ‘‘best’’ than might be hoped’ (2000: 1121). The general message is that, in order to use best practices fruitfully, it is important for research to focus not only on identifying which best practices are good or bad for business (see, e.g., Abrahamson, 1996a, 1996b), but also conduct research on the process of unpacking. Implementation processes are, however, in general under-researched (e.g. Beyer et al., 1997). We have built on studies of diffusion, organizational learning and organizational change to develop an alternative perspective on this process of ‘unpacking’. We suggest two avenues of further research to study ways in which firms unpack imported HRD ‘best practices’. First, the methodological implications call for qualitative, longitudinal studies to grasp the dynamics of implementation processes. Large-scale cross-sectional studies of adoption and transfer are based on an ‘object’ ontology, seeing ‘best practices’ as immutable objects (Rogers, 1995). Thus, studies modelled on these ‘as if’ assumptions uphold this image of best practices as immutable objects. We need studies grounded in an alternative ontology, viewing best practices as socially constructed and emergent; therefore, we argue for more qualitative, longitudinal process studies of implementation process. Future research could aim to capture the evolving dynamics of HRD best practices as they are being taken up by recipient firms. Scandinavian institutionalism provides some case studies in this tradition (Czarniawska and Sevo´n, 1996; Sahlin-Andersson and Engwall, 2002), but these studies have put less emphasis on the internal implementation dynamics of recipient firms. Furthermore, research should not only take the HRD best practices as its unit of analysis, but also examine how and to what degree ‘imported’ practices become integrated in the recipient organization. The best practice rhetoric suggests a ‘plugand-play’ logic, whereas current HRD research emphasizes the importance of adapting and integrating HRD practices with organizational mission and goals (McCracken and Wallace, 2000), organizational values and culture (Williams, 2002), corporate strategy (Dilworth, 2003) and existing systems for training and development (McCracken and Wallace, 2000). In-depth case studies of how introduced practices become integrated (or not) with existing practices could be a valuable contribution to understanding if and how imported HRD practices contribute.
Implementing HRD Best Practices
357
Practitioner Implications If HRD best practices are to be used seriously, the ‘unpacking’ must be given more consideration. Managers who think only in terms of copying and replication may in effect stifle important processes of local learning and experimentation in their quest for ‘best practice’. Our hope is that the article can increase awareness of the options firms face when taking up HRD ‘best practices’, and that the perspective guiding implementation can affect the prospects of putting a practice to good use within the firm. These contrasting perspectives, seeing implementation as replication versus recreation, can be useful categories for managers, consultants or other change agents when doing planned change. Transfer efforts guided by unreflective notions of the replicability of management knowledge may yield disappointing results. Taking the re-creation perspective seriously implies seeing implementation as an act of social creation. HRD best practices can be used as recipes or fruitful guidelines, but in order to work constructively they must be recreated within a particular context. It is necessary that the implementation process taps into the competence and creativity of employees to develop valid local solutions and enhance commitment to these solutions. It is through joint reflection and experimentation that valid local solutions can be created. Does this ‘re-creation’ perspective on implementation processes mean ‘goodbye’ to planning and predictability? As we have said, there was good and bad news, so the answer is yes and no. Yes, because the ambition to copy a HRD best practice ‘blueprint’ is unrealistic and builds on a naı¨ ve notion that ignores the social dynamics of organizations. No, because best practices as guidelines or inspiration can play a constructive role with a reflective approach to implementation. Of course, there are few guarantees that implementation follows predefined plans. However, there may be some comfort in the saying supposedly made famous by Alan Flanders, that ‘the only way to regain control is by sharing it’. References Abrahamson, E. (1996a) Management fashion, academic fashion, and enduring truths, Academy of Management Review, 21(3), p. 616. Abrahamson, E. (1996b) Management fashion, Academy of Management Review, 21(1), pp. 254 – 75. Amit, R. and Schumacher, P. J. H. (1993) Strategic assets and organizational rent, Strategic Management Journal, 14, pp. 33 – 46. Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Kalleberg, A. (2000) Manufacturing Advantage: Why High Performance Work Systems Pay Off (Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute). Argyris, C. (1998) Empowerment: the emperor’s new clothes, Harvard Business Review, 76(3), pp. 98 – 105. Barney, J. B. (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management, 17(1), pp. 99 – 120. Bate, P. (1994) Strategies for Cultural Change (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann). Becker, B. and Gerhart, B. (1996) The impact of human resource management on organizational performance: progress and prospects, Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), pp. 779 – 801. Beer, M. and Spector, B. (1989) Corporate wide transformations in human resource management, in: R. E. Walton and P. R. Lawrence (Eds) Human Resource Management: Trends and Challenges (Boston, MA: Harvard University Press). Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A. and Spector, B. (1990) Why change programs don’t produce change, Harvard Business Review, 68(6), pp. 158 – 66.
358
J. E. Lervik et al.
Beyer, J. M., Ashmos, D. P. and Osborn, R. N. (1997) Contrasts in enacting TQM: mechanistic vs. organic ideology and implementation, Journal of Quality Management, 2(1), pp. 3 – 39. Cummings, T. G. and Mohrman, S. A. (1987) Self-designing organizations: towards implementing qualityof-work-life innovations, in: Research in Organizational Change and Development, 1, pp. 275 – 310 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press). Czarniawska, B. and Joerges, B (1996) Travel of ideas, in: B. Czarniawska and G. Sevo´n (Eds) Translating Organizational Change, 56, pp. 13 – 48 (Berlin: de Gruyter). Czarniawska, B. and Sevo´n, G. (Eds) (1996) Translating Organizational Change de Gruyter Studies in Organization (Berlin: de Gruyter). Daft, R. L. and Huber, G. P. (1987) How organizations learn, in: Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 1, pp. 1 – 36 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press). Deephouse, D. L. (1996) Does isomorphism legitimate? Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), pp. 1024 – 39. Delery, J. E. and Doty, D. H. (1996) Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions, Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), pp. 802 – 35. Dilworth, L. (2003) Searching for the future of HRD, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), pp. 241 – 4. DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1991 [1983]) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields, in: W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio (Eds) New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago, pp. 63 – 82 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press). Dirkx, J. M. (1997) Human resource development as adult education: fostering the educative workplace, in: R. Rowden (Ed.) Workplace Learning: Debating Five Critical Questions of Theory and Practice, pp. 41 – 7 (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass). Ford, C. M. and Ogilvie, D. (1996) The role of creative action in organizational learning and change, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9(1), pp. 54 – 62. Garavan, T. N. (1991) Strategic human resource development, Journal of European Industrial Training, 15(1), pp. 17 – 30. Garavan, T. N., Costine, P. and Heraty, N. (1995) The emergence of strategic human resource development, Journal of European Industrial Training, 19(10), pp. 4 – 10. Geppert, M. (2002) Management learning and knowledge transfer in transforming societies: approaches, issues and future directions, Human Resource Development International, 5(3), pp. 263 – 77. Gerhart, B., Trevor, C. O. and Graham, M. E. (1996) New directions in compensation research: synergies, risk and survival, in: G. R. Ferris (Ed.) Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 14, pp. 143 – 203 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press). Gioia, D. A. and Poole, P. P. (1984) Scripts in organizational behavior, Academy of Management Review, 9(3), pp. 449 – 59. Glimstedt, H. (1998) Americanization and the ‘Swedish model’ of industrial relations: the introduction of the MTM system at Volvo in the postwar period, in: M. Kipping and O. Bjarnar (Eds) The Americanization of European Business, pp. 133 – 148 (London: Routledge). Greve, H. R. (1995) Jumping ship: the diffusion of strategy abandonment, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, pp. 444 – 73. Gupta, A. K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000) Knowledge flows within multinational corporations, Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), pp. 473 – 96. Heneman, R. L. and von Hippel, C. (1997) The assessment of job performance: focusing attention on context, process, and group issues, in: D. Lewin, D. J. B. Mitchell and M. A. Zaidi (Eds) The Human Resource Management Handbook, Vol. 3, pp. 79 – 109 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press). Hennestad, B. W. (1998) Empowering by de-depowering: towards an HR strategy for realizing the power of empowerment, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(5), pp. 934 – 53. Holton, E. F. I. (2002) Theoretical assumptions underlying the performance paradigm of human resource development, Human Resource Development International, 5(2): 199 – 215. Huczynski, A. A. (1993) Management Gurus: What Makes Them and How to Become One (London: Routledge). Huselid, M. (1995) The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity and corporate financial performance, Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), pp. 635 – 72.
Implementing HRD Best Practices
359
Huselid, M. A., Jackson, S. E. and Schuler, R. S. (1997) Technical and strategic human resource management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance, Academy of Management Journal 40(1), pp. 171 – 88. Kilmann, R. H. (1986) Beyond the Quick Fix (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass). Kipping, M. and Engwall, L. (2002) Management Consulting: Emergence and Dynamics of a Knowledge Industry (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1993) Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation, Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4), pp. 625 – 46. Kostova, T. (1999) Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: a contextual perspective, Academy of Management Review, 24(2), pp. 308 – 24. Kostova, T. and Roth, K. (2002) Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: institutional and relational effects, Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), pp. 215 – 33. Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Lawler, E. E. (2000) Rewarding Excellence: Pay Strategies for the New Economy (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass). Lee, M. (1996) The ‘pay forward’ view of training, People Management, 2(3), pp. 30 – 2. Lee, M. (2001) A refusal to define HRD, Human Resource Development International, 4(3), pp. 327 – 41. McCracken, M. and Wallace, M. (2000) Towards a redefinition of strategic HRD, Journal of European Industrial Training, 24(5), pp. 281 – 90. MacDuffie, J. P. (1995) Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry, Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 48(2): 197 – 221. McGregor, D. (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise (New York: McGraw-Hill). March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. (1958) Organizations (New York: Wiley). Marchington, M. and Grugulis, I. (2000) ‘Best practice’ human resource management: perfect opportunity or dangerous illusion? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(6), pp. 1104 – 24. Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B. (1991 [1977]) Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony, in: W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio (Eds) New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, pp. 41 – 62 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press). Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press). Popper, M. and Lipshitz, R. (1998) Organizational learning mechanisms: a structural and cultural approach to organizational learning, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 34(2), pp. 161 – 79. Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds) (1991) The New Institutionalism within Organizational Analysis (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press). Power, M. (1997) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Purcell, J. (1999) Best practice and best fit: chimera or cul-de-sac? Human Resource Management Journal, 9(3), pp. 26 – 40. Rogers, E. M. (1962) Diffusion of Innovations (New York: The Free Press). Rogers, E. M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn (New York: The Free Press). Røvik, K. A. (1998) Moderne organisasjoner: Trender i organisasjonstenkningen ved tusena˚rsskiftet (Bergen: Fagbokforlaget). Sahlin-Andersson, K. (1996) . Imitating by editing success: the construction of organizational fields, in: B. Czarniawska and G. Sevo´n (Eds) Translating Organizational Change, 56, pp. 69 – 91 (Berlin: de Gruyter). Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2001) National, international and transnational constructions of New Public Management, in: T. Christensen and P. Lægreid (Eds) New Public Management: The Transformation of Ideas and Practice, pp. 69 – 91 (Aldershot: Ashgate). Sahlin-Andersson, K. and Engwall, L. (2002) The Expansion of Management Knowledge: Carriers, Flows, and Sources (Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books). Sevo´n, G. (1996) . Imitation and organizational identity, in: B. Czarniawska and G. Sevo´n (Eds) Translating Organizational Change, 56, pp. 49 – 68 (Berlin: de Gruyter). Shore, B. (1996) Culture in Mind: Cognition, Culture and the Problem of Meaning (New York: Oxford University Press).
360
J. E. Lervik et al.
Szulanski, G. (1995) Appropriating rents from existing knowledge: intra-firm transfer of best practice, PhD dissertation, INSEAD, Fountainebleau. Szulanski, G. (1996) Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm, Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter), pp. 27 – 43. Van der Krogt, F. J. (1998) Learning network theory: the tension between learning systems and work systems in organizations, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9(2), pp. 157 – 77. Westphal, J. D., Gulati, R. and Shortell, S. M. (1997) Customization or conformity? An institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM adoption, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), pp. 366 – 94. Williams, S. L. (2002) Strategic planning and organizational values: links to alignment, Human Resource Development International, 5(2), pp. 217 – 33.
