Extended Readings

by

Vadivelu, R. N. and Klein, J. D. (2011). The influence of national and organizational culture on the use of performance improvement interventions. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 24: 97–115. 

Vadivelu and Klein’s study focuses on the effectiveness of different human performance technology interventions across cultures. Their research, inspired by existing literature and the increasing requirements of corporations dealing with a global economy, consisted of a survey sent to HPT professionals in the United States and South Asia. 100 respondents completed this survey, offering information about their organizations (size, budget, location) and how often they use certain performance interventions.  Their research found compelling cultural implications for the two cultures. For instance, respondents in South Asian countries indicated that they seldom used 360-degree feedback, largely due cultural attitudes toward superiors and a resistance to criticizing them. These interventions, the authors argue, must be analyzed closely before being used in any organization.
In many regards, the study’s diversity is impressive. Respondents came from a number of educational backgrounds, companies, and experience levels. The authors reached out to members of a number of formal and informal organizations, and the survey itself measured their use of dozens of HPT interventions. However, while intriguing, their findings are limited to American and South Asian cultures. This fulfills the purpose of their study and makes a number of interesting points, but expanding the use of their survey tool to other cultures could provide critical information on the implementation of these interventions on a larger scale.
Further interesting would be a discussion on the application of the authors’ findings to the field. Now that they have noted how differently these HPT interventions are used, how can this be employed in practice? This would be especially applicable to the growing number of companies who have offices in multiple locations. Also to be considered is that such cultural differences aren’t limited to location; that is, within individual states, cities, and companies, human performance professionals are consistently developing interventions that are used by individuals of diverse backgrounds. Vadivelu and Klein mention this in their study, though no further consideration of it is given.
          Overall, the authors’ findings have definite implications on how practitioners should look at the interventions they use and how they are employed in their organizations. From small companies to larger ones, Vadivelu and Klein’s work goes a long way in demonstrating that if we are to select interventions that will appropriately enhance performance, we must consider the diverse cultures that will be affected by the interventions chosen.