Competencies Needed by Korean HRD Master s Graduates: A Comparison Between the ASTD WLP Competency Model and the Korean Study

Transcription

1 Competencies Needed by Korean HRD Master s Graduates: A Comparison Between the ASTD WLP Competency Model and the Korean Study Yonghak Lee The primary purpose of this study was to identify competencies needed by current human resource development (HRD) master s degree graduate students in Korea. The study used a quantitative method, the Delphi technique, in combination with a qualitative method consisting of a series of in-depth interviews. The Delphi technique was conducted using a survey questionnaire instrument based on a list of competencies analyzed by means of median scores and standard deviation that was developed for the ASTD study. The in-depth interviews were conducted with the Delphi panelists. The study found that both faculty and professional respondents rated all the ASTD competencies as quite important, and there were considerable gaps between the importance and expertise level of each competency for Korean HRD master s graduates. In the qualitative portion of the study, respondents suggested several additional competencies that were relevant to the Korean cultural context. The world is becoming a global village with a borderless and knowledgebased economy. Globalization can have far-reaching implications for human resource development (HRD) and management practices in general (Bae & Rowley, 2001). The importance of systematically developing human resources in today s highly complex and dynamic organizational environments is increasingly recognized in practice (Holton & Trott, 1996; Robinson & Robinson, 1995). Therefore, HRD, as a promoter of various forms of learning possibilities in the HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 20, no. 1, Spring 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience ( DOI: /hrdq

2 108 Lee workplace, has been taking on importance in changing work organizations (Valkeavaara, 1998). In Korea, as in many other countries in the world, finding ways to maintain and develop human resources that are capable of being adaptable and flexible in today s turbulent business world has been a major issue, at both the organization level and the national level (Yoo, 1999). However, the IMD s World Competitiveness Yearbook for 2004 (IMD, 2004), which ranks countries in terms of how their environment creates and sustains competitive enterprises, ranks Korea 59th out of 60 countries on the question of the relevance of higher education programs to the country s social and educational needs. In these circumstances, private companies in Korea are forced to bear the burden and inefficiencies of providing separate programs of reeducation and training (Yoo, 1999). Following his presentation of cases both for and against degrees for HRD professionals, Kaeter (1995) suggested that preparation of HRD practitioners within academic institutions was too theoretical and not realistic enough. His research revealed that Korean degree programs did not help students prepare for their multidisciplinary roles or provide them with the whole set of skills they needed (p. 68). In Korea, HRD academic graduate programs are thus implemented without a proper grasp of the competencies actually required in the profession (Park, 1997). This is largely due to Korean academic institutions and professional training centers never having been able to develop systematic and specialized curricula targeted at the actual needs of HRD practitioners (Yang, 1994). Korean HRD graduates do not have a full understanding of their roles and competencies at the time of graduation. Consequently, it is clear that the Korean academic community needs to examine the value and relevance of degree programs that prepare HR persons to take their place in business and industrial environment (Baylen, Bailey, & Samardzija, 1996; Dare & Leach, 1999). Determining which competencies should be taught in the degree programs is a question that needs to be answered ongoing. Validating what is important to include in preparing HRD practitioners for the real world and modifying existing curricula to respond to changes and needs of the workplace are challenges for Korean HRD researchers. Thus the purpose of this study was to determine the specific competencies to be required of practicing HRD graduates who would be performing in organizations in the next five to 10 years and to compare them with the set of competencies that they are presently receiving. Research Questions The primary purpose of this study was to identify key competencies that HRD master s degree students in Korea should and could master before completion of their degree program. The central question deriving from this was, Which competencies do Korean HRD faculty and the graduates of Korean HRD programs now working in that field perceive to be the most

3 A Comparison Study of HRD Master s Degree Competencies 109 important for M.S. graduate students to master before beginning or continuing their careers in the field? An additional question was, What competencies do HRD practitioners and university professors in Korea perceive to be most important both at present and in the near future (within five to 10 years) for currently enrolled HRD M.S. degree students to master before their entry into the labor market, and how do the two groups assess the actual level of competence of current graduates? The study concluded by taking into consideration several suggestions that were offered concerning modifications and improvements to be made to the curriculum and organization of HRD M.S. degree programs in Korea. Literature Review What Is Competency? Parry (1996, 1998) defined competency as a cluster of related knowledge, attitudes, and skills that (1) affect a major part of one s key roles or responsibilities; (2) correlate with performance on the job; (3) can be measured against well-accepted standards; and (4) can be improved via training and development. Woodruffe (1993) defines competencies in terms of the sets of behaviors that a person must display in order to be competent, while others refer to an underlying characteristic of a person that might be a motive, trait, skill, aspect of one s self-image or social role, or a body of knowledge (Albanese, 1989; Boyatzis, 1982). Many other definitions based on various perspectives on competency are commonly found in the literature (Horton, 2000; Woodall & Winstanley, 1998). These definitions can be categorized into three particular approaches to the definition process: (1) a worker-oriented approach, (2) a work-oriented approach, and (3) a multidimensional approach (Horton, 2000). In this study, competency is defined as a cluster of related knowledge, skills, abilities (KSA), and behavior patterns that affect a major part of one s job (a role or responsibility), that correlate with performance on the job, that can be measured against well-accepted standards, that can be improved via training and development, and that the incumbent needs to bring to a position in order to perform its tasks and functions with competence (Woodruffe, 1993; Parry, 1996). The Purpose and Characteristics of Competency. The main purpose of identifying competencies is to define standards of behavior in the workplace. Competencies may reflect the graduation requirement of academic institutes or training cycles for future professionals (Williams, 2003). To improve the skills of the workforce, many countries started to adopt standard competencies (Brady & Associates, 2001; Valkeavaara, 1998). Well-defined competencies can help an organization align its strategic development with HR planning using various HR processes such as effective recruiting, training, coaching, and rewarding (Garavan & McGuire, 2001; Gonzales & Nelson, 2005; Yelden & Albers, 2004). In their review of competency modeling procedures, Shippmann et al. (2000) also found that competency modeling was felt to

4 110 Lee provide more direct information related to business goals and strategies than other methods. Many researchers have identified the underlying components of competencies. Nalbandian and Nalbandian (2003) attribute four characteristics to the notion of competence: context, rooted in a knowledge base and in analytical skills, interdependence between competence and values, and involving the whole person. Metcalfe, Wilson, and Joham (2002) suggest three: value, rarity, and appropriability. Biemans, Nieuwenhuis, Poell, Mulder, and Wesselink (2004) derived six common characteristics of competencies from their review of the literature: context-bound, visible, changeable, connected to activities and tasks, required learning and development process, and interrelated. The competency characteristics identified in these previous studies shared the common features of being context-bound and relating to work skills and to workplace learning. Furthermore, some researchers have noted that technological advance may also revolutionize the workplace situation and affect which competencies are to be adopted (Berge, Verneil, Berge, Davis, & Smith, 2002). Also, competency models are valued because they offer a consistent framework for integrating human capital management systems, and they help align employee actions with common strategic organizational goals (Moinat, 2003). Although the main purposes of competencies are in HR practice, other areas are also using them for more efficiency of evaluation in higher education or general management (IDS, 2001; Klink & Boon, 2002). Morrison (2003) suggests a number of signals of a major transformation in higher education such as competency-based degree award. Also, Williams (2000) and Kupper and van Wulfften Palthe (2001) viewed competency-based curriculum as a way of preparing graduate students to function in a fast-changing environment. Competency can be used in the area of human resource management and human resource development (Jothen & Kunin, 2004; Richey, Fields, & Foxon, 2001; Stone, 1997). Competency Studies Related to HRD Practice. There have been many studies conducted on HRD roles and competencies in the United States and in European and Asian countries. Typically, ASTD (the American Society for Training and Development) conducted several major studies related to HRD competencies. Also, the International Board of Standards for Training, Performance, and Instruction (IBSTPI) identified competencies for training managers (Foxon, Richey, Roberts, & Spannaus, 2003) and instructional design competencies (Richey et al., 2001). A few HRD competency studies have also been conducted in regions of Asia other than Korea and in Europe as well (Chen, 2003; Chen, Bian, & Hom, 2005; Klink & Boon, 2002; Lee, 1994; Peerapornvitoon, 1999; Valkeavaara, 1998; Xie, 2005). Several HRD-related role and competency studies have been conducted in Korea based on McLagan s ASTD competency model (Lee, 1994; Yang, 1994; Yoo, 1999; You, 1993; see also McLagan, 1989; McLagan & Suhadolnik, 1989). All of these

5 A Comparison Study of HRD Master s Degree Competencies 111 studies carried out surveys that relied on the original survey instrument used in the 1989 or 1999 ASTD studies. However, there have been few studies, if any, on the competencies of graduate students anywhere, including the Korean context. The 2004 ASTD Competency Study and the Korean Cultural Context. The issue of cross-cultural differences manifested in management style between developed and developing countries and whether convergence is occurring between them in the global economy has long been the subject of debate among scholars. The cultural context does influence social implementation of HRD. In a turbulent business environment, it is important that leaders of transnational corporations who intend to transplant some of their HRD systems into different contexts be sensitive to the issue of the local culture. Bae and Rowley (2004) conclude that the economic development of Korea is largely based on HRD, which generated a vast pool of skilled Human Resources. Thus it is very important to develop HRD competencies that are culturally relevant. The most recent competency study that focused on performance was the 2004 ASTD study. It was conducted in three phases: needs assessment and data collection, new model development, and model validation. The purpose of the study was to identify trends and drives with the greatest impact on the current and future practice of the profession and to describe a competency model that is comprehensive, inspiring, and future-oriented. The study used various sources of data to fulfill the purpose. It identified four roles for professionals involved in workplace learning and performance: learning strategist, business partner, project manager, and professional specialist. Also, 12 competencies and nine areas of expertise for HRD professionals were identified. The competencies were categorized into three clusters: business and management competencies (five), interpersonal competencies (five), and personal competencies (two). The ASTD study is one of the best among existing and recent studies on competencies needed in HRD practice. The study data show very high reliability and can be regarded as an international model. But it is not validated in the Korean cultural context. The characteristics of Korean organizational culture have often been expressed in terms of Confucian values and heritage such as harmony and tradition, despite the 20th-century influences of Japan and the United States, which also remain important and strong in Korean culture and are reflected in Korean HRD practices (Bae & Rowley, 2001). Jeong (2005) regards Confucianism as the dominant philosophy that provides guidelines for virtually every aspect of Korean society (p. 80). Confucianism emphasizes hard work, respect for elders, strong family ties, and passion for learning, which mean that any imported HRM system will need to accommodate such traits (Rowley, Benson, & Warner, 2004, p. 929). Among the values, Koreans have been greatly concerned about family matters, such as family fame and family prosperity, because Korea has a patriarchal society (Shin & Koh, 2005). Also, human relationships occupy the central place in Confucianism. Jeong

6 112 Lee (2005) states that Woori (we) represents collective consciousness, and cheong is the affective bond that consolidates woori members together (p. 80). The Confucian tradition stresses the teacher s role in education. Teachers, also called masters, are considered to be dispensers of knowledge and molders of character for students (Shin & Koh, 2005). The familybonded students are normally highly motivated by a strong desire to upgrade their own as well as their family s socioeconomic status. Thanks to a college examination system that is closely related to limited opportunities for decent employment, education functions as a selection mechanism. So rote learning is one of the most popular basic education methods in the Korean education system. Rote learning and fragmentary knowledge acquisition wiped out creativity and diversity almost entirely from the classroom, such that superficial instruction has spread out all over the schools and universities. Therefore, Kim (2005) argues that as globalization progresses, the current Korean educational system will not be viable in terms of ensuring the continuity of public education and of producing a flexible and versatile workforce and a cadre of highly-trained professionals (p. 17). Korean corporate culture is formed by three major forces: cultural legacy, social climate, and corporate leadership (Rowley, Bae, & Sohn, 2002). Korean companies have a very hierarchical structure due to the long-lasting influence of Confucianism on Korean culture. Top management leadership is the key variable in terms of surviving and developing in the future of their companies. They learned foreign advanced skills from the original equipment manufacturing (OEM) by strenuous in-house efforts, by trial-and-error investments and by on-the-job training (Hanson, 2006, p. 633). However, Korean business experienced a crisis of failure in 1997, which affected corporate management practices nationwide because they failed to adjust to the rapidly changing business environment. Methods To answer the research questions, this study employed a Delphi technique and in-depth interviews. The Delphi technique is a technique for systematic solicitation and collation of judgments on a particular topic from expert groups, called Delphi panels, using a set of carefully designed sequential questionnaires interspersed with summarized information and feedback of opinions derived from earlier responses (Custer, Scarcella, & Stewart, 1999; Delbecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafson, 1975; Ludwig, 1996). The method is particularly useful for aggregating judgments and soliciting convergence of opinion from several dispersed individuals (Bass, 1983; Ludwig, 1996, 1997). The anonymity of participants should be maintained, especially when electronic mail is used (Ludwig, 1997; Wellman, 2003). The decision to use the Delphi technique in the research was based on the purpose and objective

7 A Comparison Study of HRD Master s Degree Competencies 113 of the research because it was to obtain the most reliable consensus of opinion of a group of experts (Wellman, 2003). The research questions in this study were highly appropriate for Delphi in that they required a high degree of expert opinion and because use of statistical methods was inappropriate (Rowe & Wright, 2001). Several previous researchers have used the Delphi technique to identify competencies in various fields (Birdir & Pearson, 2000; Cicek & Demirhan, 2001; Reddick, 1997; Watkins & Bacon, 2004; Wilhelm, 1999). In the original Delphi technique, the procedure begins with an openended questionnaire given to a panel consisting of experts of a studied field or area to solicit specific information about a subject or content area (Custer et al., 1999). A modified version of the Delphi technique was used for this study. Many Delphi studies have used the modified version of the Delphi method (for example, Campbell, Cantrill, & Roberts, 2000; Custer et al., 1999; Meijer, Ihnenfeldt, Vermeulen, De Haan, & Van Limbeek, 2003; Sori & Sprenkle, 2004; Watkins & Bacon, 2004). The major modification consists in using a structured questionnaire during the first round and asking panels to rate items prepared by the researcher (Martino, 1983). The structured questionnaire allows the panel to pay immediate attention to the study issues and saves the researchers time and expense (Murray & Hammons, 1995; Uhl, 1983). As Armstrong (2001) mentioned, even though the modified Delphi with structured questionnaire often has less iteration, the number of rounds seldom goes beyond one or two. Also, this study protocol could be defined as a focus Delphi because the respondents were asked to focus on a list of HRD practitioners competencies based on the 2004 ASTD list of competencies for Workplace Learning and Performance (Bernthal, Colteryahn, Naughton, Rothwell, & Wellins, 2004). However, it could be broader in one respect than a traditional Delphi process: the protocol included an open-ended portion designed to elicit, and then consolidate, participants feelings about adapting international lists of HRD competencies to the Korean environment. This study also employed semistructured follow-up interviews as a data collection method. It was useful to explore how Delphi panelists perceived which ASTD competencies should be modified to fit different cultural or organizational contexts, such as that of Korea. Therefore, the purpose of the interview was essentially twofold: (1) to confirm and elaborate on results gathered from Delphi rounds, and (2) to determine aspects of cultural relevance of ASTD competency lists within the Korean cultural context. Because of the nature of the in-depth interview, the sample selection may be emergent over the course of the interview, rather than completely developed at the start of the interview process (Mason, 1996). This allowed inviting research participants who might be able to supply additional information for emerging constructs and categories as the interview process progressed. Six interviewees were selected. The interviews were conducted by telephone for

8 114 Lee a length of about 90 minutes and recorded into an electronic device (MP3 recorder) by the researcher. The interview questions were listed prior to the interview. Most of the interviews covered all the questions. If needed, some follow-up questions and clarifications were added during the interviews. The audio files were transcribed by the researcher. Instrument. The 2004 ASTD competency study (Bernthal et al., 2004) was used to develop the survey instrument for three reasons; (1) as stated above, it is the most recent Workplace Learning and Performance (WLP, or HRD) competency list; (2) the data show very high reliability; and (3) the identified competency lists can be regarded as an international model. The identified competencies demonstrated extremely high reliability (Bernthal et al., 2004). The study underwent a validation process thanks to a validation survey that was carried out. The validation results indicated that the margin of error for conclusions is 2.9 percent and the content and face validity were both excellent (Bernthal et al., 2004, p. 94). The survey questionnaires were developed by using the ASTD competency list, translated into Korean by the author. To improve the quality of the translation, the researcher chose to use a modified direct translation from among six translation techniques (Guthery & Lowe, 1992), which enabled him to make improvements in the translation following a meeting with panel experts. The researcher met Korean HRD professionals who had more than five years of experience in this field and discussed the wording with them until agreement was reached. Through this procedure, the accuracy of the translation became more satisfactory. The questionnaire concluded with three open-ended questions aiming to determine: (1) whether the sample of experts felt that additional or different competencies were needed for HRD practice in Korea; (2) in what specific ways they believed the original list should be modified, edited, or supplemented to better fit the Korean context; and (3) what new ways or directions might be needed to improve current Korean HRD graduate programs. Delphi Panel Sampling. The target population for this study consisted of Korean faculty at higher educational institutions teaching in HR-related fields, and Korean HR professionals holding at least a master s degree in one (or more) of these fields: career development, human resource management, training and development, organizational development, instructional system design, and adult or lifelong education in Korea. Names were obtained from major HRD/HRM-related academic associations, among them the Korean Society for Human Resources Development (KHRD), the Korean Society for Corporate Education (KSCE), and the Korean Society for Training and Development (KSTD). After obtaining the member lists from the associations, all of the identified experts were contacted by and asked to participate in the study. The notice indicated that the researcher was specifically seeking people holding at least a master s degree in an HRD-related field and having more than two years of experience in HRD either as practitioner or as faculty. A literature

9 A Comparison Study of HRD Master s Degree Competencies 115 review revealed that most Delphi studies identifying competencies of various occupations had a range of 20 to 60 panelists (Birdir & Pearson, 2000; Boath, Mucklow, & Black, 1997; Cicek & Demirhan, 2001; Larson & Wissman, 2000; Roberts-Davis & Read, 2001; Thorpe & Loo, 2003; Wilhelm, 1999), although a few had more than 100 panel members (Campbell et al., 2000; Wang et al., 2003). Thus, the panel of 43 HRD experts, including 18 faculty members and 25 practitioners selected for this study, was deemed to have an adequate size. Data Analysis. The data from both rounds were analyzed by computing mean scores, standard deviations, and the value of Spearman s rank-order coefficient (rho). The quantitative measurements employed in this study are measurements of central location. A value of 3.75 was assigned to the mean scores when the competencies were important in the Korean context and the current graduate students had enough expertise on the competencies on a fivepoint Likert scale. The literature demonstrated that the level of agreement or disagreement should be considered (Deffield, 1993; Hanafin, 2004; Williams & Webb, 1994). Several previous Delphi studies suggested that consensus be assumed to have been achieved when a certain percentage of the votes fell within a prescribed range (Linstone & Turoff, 1975). Further, some of the researchers suggested that the acceptable consensus level be set to a standard deviation below 1.00 on a five-point Likert scale (Saranto & Leino-Kilpi, 1997; Williams & Webb, 1994) Therefore, consensus would be deemed to be achieved on that item if the standard deviation was less than 1 for an item s mean score. Internal consistency of the two rounds of survey data was very high; overall reliability (Cronbach s a) achieved was and 0.934, respectively. The main objective of the interviews was to validate or extend conceptually a theoretical framework or theory on the topic of HRD competencies in Korea. Transcripts from interviews produced a certain amount of material that had to be condensed, categorized, and interpreted. Once the interviews were completed, the information was analyzed by qualitative content analysis methods. Grounded theory was used as a primary data analysis method to analyze the interview data concerning the characteristics of Korean HRD practices and the ways of adapting the ASTD competency list to the Korean cultural situation (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The raw data were also analyzed using the content analysis method. It is regarded as a flexible method for analyzing text data (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Through content analysis the researcher was able to classify all the material derived from the interviews and classify it into categories. From the coding procedures and analysis of the results, the commonalities and differences were found by comparing the text passages. Thus finding a relationship among codes and categories was not necessary in this study. Only an open coding skill was used to find the categories and their similarities and differences.

10 116 Lee Results Delphi surveys were undertaken with the participation of 43 experts that is, Korean faculty of HRD and alumni of Korean HRD graduate programs now practicing in the field. Sixty-five percent of the panelists were males, ranging in age between 31 and 55. The average length of HRD experience for all panelists was 9.9 years. The panelists were therefore considered to have enough expertise in the HRD domain. Importance and Expertise Level of Competencies. Forty-three HRD experts participated in the first-round Delphi survey. All of the 21 competencies reached consensus level (below 1 of standard deviation score) in perceived importance. Meanwhile three of them did not reach the consensus level in the graduates expertise (M 1.0). Also, all of the ASTD competences were perceived as important in Korea (m 3.5). This means the Korean experts perceived that all of the ASTD competencies were very important (five points) or at least more than moderately important (three points). Only six competencies were rated below 4.0 on mean score. The highest mean score was on the analyzing needs and proposing solutions competency (4.73), while the lowest one was applying business acumen (3.65; see Table 1). The mean scores on expertise level were considerably low compared with importance mean scores. The highest mean score was 3.43 (designing and learning) and the lowest mean score was 2.08 (applying business acumen) on expertise level. The two competencies ranked first and last on mean scores were similar to the perception-of-importance scale. The designing-andlearning competency was ranked second and applying business acumen was ranked last on the level of importance. On the expertise level, the Delphi panelists perceived that the graduates did not have good expertise on each of the competencies upon their graduation in Korea. They were perceived to have only a basic concept or intermediate skills on the competencies. Therefore, all of the ASTD competencies were perceived as important, but the graduates were not well prepared for their workplace performance. The Response Results from Open-Ended Questions. The panelists were asked to list additional competencies for HRD graduate level students, if any. Their answers were compiled into 13 categories. Among these, foreign language skill and identifying foreign HRD trends were most frequently listed by panelists. Another main competency suggested was problem-solving and information technology (IT) competencies; both were listed by six panelists. Four panelists suggested the IT competency because of close relation to e-learning competency. Additionally, basic knowledge of adult learning and HRD theories, problem solving, and generating creativity were also included among the main competencies listed. The 13 additional competencies: Analysis of organizational and management environment Foreign language and foreign HRD trends

11 A Comparison Study of HRD Master s Degree Competencies 117 Table 1. The First-Round Descriptive Statistics Competencies N Min. Max. Mean SD Analyzing needs and proposing Importance solutions Expertise Designing learning Importance Expertise Communicating effectively Importance Expertise Thinking strategically Importance Expertise Delivering training Importance Expertise Modeling personal development Importance Expertise Measuring and evaluating. Importance Expertise Planning and implementing Importance assignments Expertise Improving human performance Importance Expertise Building trust Importance Expertise Networking and partnering Importance Expertise Driving results Importance Expertise Managing organizational knowledge Importance Expertise Managing the learning function Importance Expertise Facilitating organizational change Importance Expertise Demonstrating adaptability Importance Expertise Career planning and talent Importance management Expertise Coaching Importance Expertise Influencing stakeholders Importance Expertise Leveraging diversity Importance Expertise Applying business acumen Importance Expertise

12 118 Lee Understanding and capturing international standard indicators related to HRD Educational program evaluation techniques Accommodating HRD theories to real workplace Informational technology (IT) Problem solving Educational training program design and development Creative thinking and flexibility Legal, institutional knowledge related to education and training Leadership Foundation of HRD theory Collecting, analyzing, and processing information The panelists responses to two other open-ended questions are presented below. The panelists suggested six ways of effecting cultural adaptation and modification of the competencies: Specification of HRD area Reconstruction of HRD competencies on the basis of characteristics of organizations Case-analysis-centered discussion and developing application methods education Assessing organizational current situation and actively developing alternatives Consideration of humanistic trust building Narrowing down the gap between HRD and HRM They also suggested some needed additions to master s degree programs in Korea. Six of the panelists suggested practical training as one of the most important and needed additions in HRD graduate programs. They indicated that industry-related training or internship would be important to prepare graduate students for their future workplace performance. Some of them insisted on the need to substitute a master s thesis for the internship program. English training, e-learning-centered curriculum, and instructional design training were also suggested by several panelists. The detailed list: Education and training system design (ISD, or instructional systems design) Statistical methodology Practical training (six) Nursing systematic, synthetic thinking on HRD Specialization of major area Basis of HRD: foundations of adult education E-learning and practical-centered education English program (six months) and globalization mind Leadership development

13 A Comparison Study of HRD Master s Degree Competencies 119 Table 2. Comparison of the Relative Importance Given to Individual Competencies in the ASTD and the Korean Study ASTD Study Korean Study Difference ASTD Competencies Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Ten most important Competencies for ASTD Building trust Communicating effectively Demonstrating adaptability Analyzing needs and proposing solutions Modeling personal development Designing learning Networking and partnering Applying business acumen Thinking strategically Driving results Average for remaining competencies Overall average Value of Spearman s rho: 0.273, p A Comparison of the Results of the Korean Study and the Original ASTD Study. Table 2 presents comparative data from the ASTD and current studies concerning the 10 most important individual competencies, rank-ordered. The competencies occupying a similar rank in both studies were communicating effectively and modeling personal development. The rank differences of both of these competencies in the two studies were 13 in each case. They were ranked as highly important in the ASTD study, but not in the Korean study. Spearman s coefficient was 0.273, which is statistically significant. The reason there are such differences between the ASTD ratings and those from this study bears examination. The contrast may be due to differing conceptions of HRD among general ASTD respondents and our Korean ones. In Korea, HRD has been greatly influenced by instructional systems design (ISD), and this may explain why ISD-related competencies such as analyzing needs and proposing solutions or designing learning have such a high profile. Also, the fact that applying business acumen and demonstrating adaptability were ranked low suggests that the concept of HRD as a business is still not widespread in Korea. The Results of the Second Delphi Round. A total of 32 panelists returned the survey questionnaires. All surveys were completely filled out by all panelists.

14 120 Lee Table 3. The Second Survey Results Importance Expertise Mean SD Mean SD Competencies Designing learning Analyzing needs & proposing solutions Communicating effectively Thinking strategically Delivering training Measuring and evaluating Managing organizational knowledge Planning and implementing assignments Building trust Facilitating organizational change Modeling personal development Managing the learning function Networking and partnering Improving human performance Demonstrating adaptability Driving results Coaching Career planning and talent management Influencing stakeholders Applying business acumen Leveraging diversity Additional Competencies Educational training program design and development Accommodating HRD theories to real Foundation of HRD theory Educational program evaluation techniques Problem solving (6) Leadership (2) Informational technology (IT) Foreign language (10) and foreign HRD trends Analysis of organizational and management environment Creative thinking and flexibility Information gathering, analysis, and processing Legal, institutional knowledge related to education and training Understanding and capturing international standard related to HRD

15 A Comparison Study of HRD Master s Degree Competencies 121 Table 3. (Continued) Cultural Adaptation and Modification Specification of HRD area Reconstructing HRD competencies based on organizational characteristics Case-centered discussion and developing application methods education Assessing organizational needs and actively developing alternatives Consideration of humanistic trust building Narrowing down the gap between HRD and HRM Needed Curriculum Education and training system design (ISD) Statistical methodology Practical training (6) Nursing systematic, synthetic thinking on HRD Specialization of major area Basis of HRD: foundations of adult education E-learning and practical centered education English program (6 months) and globalization mind Leadership development No skipped responses appeared in the Likert-type importance scales; nor were there any in expertise level scales. In the second round (Table 3), panelists were requested to assign importance and expertise ratings using a five-point Likerttype scale, as they did in the first round to each competency item on the main ASTD competency list and an additional 13 competencies proposed by other panelists in the first-round survey. All of the competencies from the 2004 ASTD study and the additional ones suggested by panelists in the first-round survey were perceived as important (m 3.5) in Korea. Also, the results showed that the students expertise level with regard to the competencies was perceived to be below intermediate (m 3.0), just as occurred in the first-round results. Only five out of 21 competencies were rated over the intermediate level on the expertise scale. This was an indication that the graduate students were not prepared well during their coursework for their future jobs. Only a few competencies were acquired at the intermediate level, which means they were capable of working within coaching, in simple and repetitive situations. These results are similar to those of the first round. The highest mean score on the importance scale was 4.72, for the designing and learning competency (SD 0.79), which was rated second highest in the first round. The lowest scores on the

16 122 Lee importance scale were 3.66 for both the leveraging diversity competency (SD 0.76), which was ranked second lowest in the first round, and the applying business acumen competency (SD 0.72), which was ranked lowest in the first round. The highest mean score on the expertise scale was 3.41 for the designing and learning competency (SD 0.81), which was also ranked first in the first round. The competency for which there was the least preparation was applying business acumen (m 2.21, SD 0.86). The analysis results were consistent with the first-round results. An additional 13 competencies were suggested in the second instrument. The panelists were asked to assign levels of importance and expertise to each of them. These competencies were perceived as important (m 3.5), except the lowest one, understanding and capturing international HRD standard indicators (m 3.41). The highest mean score was for educational training program design and development competency (m 4.69). Furthermore, accommodating HRD theories into the field, informational technology, educational program evaluating techniques, and problem solving competencies were also perceived as important (m 4.0). Graduate students were perceived to be best prepared with regard to the foundation of HRD theories competency (m 3.6, SD 0.97), but not quite as well with regard to the other competencies whose mean scores were below 3.5. The panelists perceived developing educational training program as a very important element required of HRD professionals. This result could be related to the fact that accommodating HRD theories in the workplace also had a high mean score (4.66). Furthermore, given that Korea now leads the world in terms of informational technology (IT), the analysis results showed that many of the HRD experts perceived IT as very important in the workplace with many instructional applications such as e-learning, Webbased instruction, distant digital communication, and technical educational methods. Additionally, the foundation of HRD theories was perceived to be the basic skills needed by the graduate students. The panelists proposed six ways of adapting or modifying ASTD competencies in the Korean cultural context. They were asked to rate the degree of agreement of these directions. Overall, the results showed that the directions gained enough agreement among the panelists. The mean scores ranged from 3.17 (3 neutral) to 4.03 (4 agree), which showed that the panelists barely agreed or were in neutral positions. Only one direction (caseanalysis-centered education) got over 4.0 in mean score (m 4.03). The proposed curriculum needed by HRD graduate programs was suggested and categorized. The panelists were also asked to rate the categories in terms of their agreement level. There was solid agreement (m 4.0) among the panelists on four of the categories. The education and training system design (ISD) got the highest mean score (m 4.55), which means most of the panelists agreed or strongly agreed to install the curriculum into graduate programs. It seems most of the Korean HRD experts perceived ISD as a

17 A Comparison Study of HRD Master s Degree Competencies 123 central part of HRD. Furthermore, statistical methodology, specialization of major area, and foundation of HRD curriculum reached agreement level. Gaps Between Importance and Mastery of Competencies. The data presented in Tables 4 and 5 deal with the differences or gaps between the level of importance that respondents attributed to the competencies included in both the ASTD and the supplemental list, and the level of mastery over these competencies they felt HRD graduates had currently attained. The overall gap average was The competencies for which the greatest overall gaps appear are thinking strategically (1.75), facilitating organizational change (1.75), analyzing needs and proposing solutions (1.71), and managing organizational knowledge (1.63). These competencies were rated highly important, which helps to explain why the gaps are greater for these competencies than for others: the bar is set higher. All discrepancies involved competencies for which ratings of importance exceeded ratings of level of actual mastery by recent Korean HRD graduates, never the reverse. Another analysis involved comparison of the magnitude of gaps with regard to the supplemental competencies suggested by first-round survey respondents. The average overall gap between importance and mastery of the supplemental competencies was The greatest gaps for individual supplemental competencies are observed with respect to educational program evaluation (1.80), accommodating HRD theories (1.60), and personal-levelrelated competencies such as problem solving (1.27) and leadership (1.17). Table 4. Comparison of the Magnitude of Gaps Perceived by Faculty and Practitioner Respondents Between Importance and Mastery of Individual ASTD Competencies Total Faculty Practitioner OVERALL Rank Gap Rank Gap Rank Gap Ten competencies for which discrepancy greatest Thinking strategically Facilitating organizational change Analyzing needs and proposing solutions Improving human performance Managing organizational knowledge Applying business acumen Measuring and evaluating Networking and partnering Coaching Managing the learning function Average for remaining competencies OVERALL AVERAGE

18 124 Lee Table 5. Comparison of the Magnitude of Gaps Perceived by Faculty and Practitioner Respondents Between Importance and Mastery of Supplemental Competencies Discrepancy, Importance-Expert Overall Faculty Practitioner (Ranked by Average Overall Score) Rank Gap Rank Gap Rank Gap Educational program evaluation techniques Accommodating HRD theories to real workplace Problem solving Educational training program design Leadership Creative thinking and flexibility Foundation of HRD theory Analyzing organizational management environment Legal, institutional knowledge related to HRD Foreign language and foreign HRD trends Understanding international HRD indicators Informational technology (IT) Information gathering, analysis, and processing OVERALL AVERAGE The score was also remarkable. Analysis of the results suggests that the greater the gap, the greater the perceived need for remediation or improved training in graduate HRD programs. Results from Interviews: Important Competencies for Korean HRD. All of the interviewees concurred with respondents in the Delphi phase of the research on the primary importance of conducting needs assessments and proposing solutions, considered to be the key competency. They unanimously asserted that needs assessment constitutes the basis of HRD activities. As one interviewee put it, In fact, needs assessment is tremendously important in HRD program development, but it has been very seldom implemented. One practitioner claimed that needs assessment is the foundation for organizations to work effectively and the rest of HRD work follows from there. Yet another person said, Because HRD practitioners are responsible for designing programs, they must know how to design them. Needs assessment is a natural requirement in the process of developing individual program designs, just as it is in the process of developing human performance improvement systems. All of those interviewed also endorsed the other main results of the importance portion of the Delphi survey, that is, the critical nature of skills

19 A Comparison Study of HRD Master s Degree Competencies 125 such as strategic thinking, communicating effectively, and designing learning for Korean HRD professionals, both now and in the future. An interviewed practitioner said, I think effective communication is just as important as needs assessment, because HRD managers must contact staff in other offices, discuss procedures and results with them... learn the jargon that they use, and incorporate this material into the design of training programs. Assessment and evaluation were also referred to as important competencies. The other interviewed practitioner said, HRD professionals should have evaluation skills to enable them to gather the data and knowledge that will be persuasive for company management. The Expertise Level of Current HRD Professionals in Korea. According to the Delphi survey results, present HRD professionals are below, but relatively close to, desirable levels in the most important competencies they should possess. The interviewees confirmed these results. However, they indicated that the level of mastery of recent graduates could vary considerably depending on the context: the individual company, the function of the person concerned, or the graduate school that she or he had attended. A practitioner interviewee stated emphatically that he could not answer the Delphi surveys and questions related to the expertise level of HRD practitioners, because he thought there might be very different perspectives on this matter according to circumstances. He said, Just what competencies are needed and what the expertise level is for the competencies of HRD graduate students is not an easy thing to answer. There are a lot of differences among students and among graduate schools. Part of the problem, they indicated, stems from the vague job descriptions of Korean HRD staff. As one interviewee put it, They are constantly transferred here and there [to different functions within the company], so they have few chances to develop their expertise based on on-the-job experience. This appears to be due to the strong Confucian seniority system in Korean organizations, where advancement is obtained not by technical specialization but by moving from one grade to another in the hierarchy, even if it means as it usually does changing the technical branch or area of specialization entirely and repeatedly. As another interviewee said, For example, the position-based system has been well adapted and used in the U.S, so they have a clear job description... they have developed HRD professionals with 20 to 30 years of professional experience. But job transfers are so frequent within Korean organizations that this kind of career path never gets established. Most interviewees said these results were just about what they would have expected. One practitioner said, Most Korean HRD professionals have been doing administrative jobs such as handling training budgets, supporting training and development programs, covering logistic needs, and so forth. Another practitioner put the matter a bit more strongly: Frankly speaking, graduate programs have been developed based on what the faculty s major area happened to be rather than the results of needs assessment. As a consequence, Most programs consist of traditional disciplines and neglect the issues of