HRDI 6:3 (September 2003), pp.

301–324

1 International HRD alliances in viable knowledge

2
3
migration and development: the Czech Academic
4 Link Project
5
6
7 Paul Iles
8 University of Teesside
9
0 Maurice Yolles
11 Liverpool John Moores University
12
13
14
Abstract: International HRD alliances (IHRDAs) are increasingly popular forms of
15
voluntary co-operation between organizations of different sizes, sectors and international
16 locations to satisfy HRD purposes in increasingly complex business environments.
17 However, IHRDAs may fail, often associated with cultural differences and differences in
18 management, training and learning styles.
19 The paper proposes that we explore IHRDAs through viable systems within a critical
20 theory perspective, especially focusing on knowledge development in IHRDAs, explored
21 through the cognitive interests, cognitive purposes and knowledge migrations involved.
22 The framework is applied to the analysis of one particular IHRDA, the Czech Academic
Link Project (CZALP), involving UK and Czech partners in the university sector.
23
24
25
Keywords: International, HRD alliances, viable systems, Czech Republic
26
27
28
Introduction
29
30
When two or more organizations enter into a voluntary co-operation, they can form
31
what have been variously referred to as joint alliances, ventures or partnerships (e.g. Kelly
32
and Parker 1997; Fitzgerald 2000). Stimulated by host government insistence or the
33
desire to obtain rapid market entry, increased economies of scale and risk spreading,
34
gaining, sharing and transferring knowledge in alliances are becoming increasingly
35
important (Schuler 2001). Alliances are of a different nature from more formal mergers,
36
acquisitions and international joint ventures, legally distinct organizations formed by
37
two or more sponsoring partners originating in two or more countries (Geringer 1991;
38
Muralidharan and Hamilton 1999). For Glaister and Buckley (1997: 200), ‘alliances’
39
are generic forms of co-operation, and we shall refer to generic forms of co-operation
40
between parties involved in international HRD projects as ‘international HRD alliances’
41
or IHRDAs. For example, Arbelaez (1995), in Latin America, found such alliances
42
represented opportunities for joint research, faculty exchange and training, as well as
43
academic assistance, technology development, language learning, economic assistance
44
and curriculum internationalisation.
45
We shall focus here on IHRDAs in Central and Eastern Europe, and develop a
46
general framework for understanding and analysing such alliances. In particular, we
47
 Peer-Reviewed Articles

1 wish to develop a research agenda, identifying factors that may influence IHRDA initial
2 performance and restructuring. Of particular interest are issues of knowledge flows and
3 organizational learning, and we seek to develop a model based on viable systems theory
4 that analyses such processes in terms of knowledge development and migration in
5 IHRDAs and the different cognitive interests, purposes and influences of the parties
6 involved. The case of a particular IHRDA between Liverpool Business School and the
7 Technical University of Ostrava and other Czech partners – termed here the Czech
8 Academic Link Project (CZALP) – will then be explored to illustrate the usefulness of
9 the analytical framework. We shall first review previous theoretical approaches to, and
0 empirical research on, alliances in general before focusing on IHRDAs in Central and
11 Eastern Europe in particular. Both sets of literature will be used to develop a research
12 framework on IHRDAs that identifies knowledge development and migration as key
13 IHRDA processes. A viable systems model of knowledge migration involving
14 consideration of partners’ cognitive interests, purposes and influences will then be
15 developed and applied to CZALP. The aims of the paper are to:
16
17 1. Review general theoretical and empirical studies of alliances and of specific IHRDAs
18 in Central and Eastern Europe in order to develop an analytical framework for
19 understanding IHRDA foundation, formation, development, implementation and
20 restructuring.
21 2. Use this analytical framework to identify a number of factors impacting on IHRDA
22 performance, focusing in particular on the role of actor cognitive interests, purposes
23 and influences in knowledge migration and development in alliance learning.
24 3. Analyse processes of knowledge migration and development and the role of actor
25 cognitive interests, purposes and influences from a viable systems perspective,
26 focusing on the organizing, behavioural and cognitive domains of the IHRDA as
27 a system and the supra-system of actors in an IHRDA.
28 4. Apply this framework and theory to a specific case study of an IHRDA, the Czech
29 Academic Link Project between Liverpool John Moores University, UK, and the
30 Technical University of Ostrava, Czech Republic, in order to explore the usefulness
31 of the framework and identify principles relating to the development of IHRDAs
32 in order to guide further research in this area.1
33
34
35 Theoretical perspectives on alliances
36
37 The perspective developed here challenges existing contributions to the field of alliance
38 formation and development. Most approaches have been based on transaction-cost
39 and resource-based theories or on technology transfer, knowledge diffusion and
40 organizational learning perspectives (Glaister and Buckley 1997). From a transaction-
41 cost perspective, organizations seek partners with knowledge of local culture and
42 markets, given uncertainty and the ability of the alliance to economize on informa-
43 tion requirements by sharing information at lower costs than through hierarchical
44 approaches, such as wholly owned foreign subsidiaries. The resource-based view focuses
45 on motivations for alliance formation, especially needs to exploit excess or idle under-
46 performing resources and acquire or access new resources for growth. Alliances are
47 thus seen as bundles or portfolios of resources contributed by partners, not as coalitions

302
 Iles and Yolles: International HRD alliances

1 of business activities, enabling selective access to required resources and phased

2 approaches to resource acquisition and transfer (e.g. termination with acquisition by
3 one partner – see. for example, Zhai et al. (1999)). Since knowledge is increasingly seen
4 as a key resource, this perspective is aligned with those perspectives emphasizing the
5 ‘transfer’ and ‘diffusion’ of knowledge in alliances, especially technological knowledge.
6 ‘Technology transfer’, first applied to the reconstruction of Europe and Japan after
7 WWII, was later applied to the transfer of technology between ‘developed’ and
8 ‘developing’ countries in the late 1950s (Klauss 2000). Discussion of technology
9 transfer in IHRDAs is dominated by a ‘hardware orientation’, involving the application
0 and transfer of ‘hard’ technologies in relatively unproblematic ways. Even when applied
11 to so-called ‘soft’ technologies, such as the transfer of American-style MBA and manage-
12 ment training programmes into Central and Eastern Europe, ‘transfer of management
13 and educational technology’ metaphors and analyses predominate (e.g. Hull 2000).
14 Such studies fail to question the mission (e.g. to assist economic transformation) or the
15 process (e.g. one-way transfer of modern management and educational technology
16 from the ‘Western’ to the ‘Eastern’ partner in the IHRDA).
17 ‘Knowledge diffusion’ emerged in the 1950s as a way of understanding how alliance
18 formation was driven by knowledge assets, especially technologies and management
19 systems. Unidirectional flows of knowledge are assumed, from the corporation’s
20 home base (e.g. R&D function) to its subsidiaries and alliances, with a rigid separation,
21 as in technology transfer, between knowledge generation and application. Recent
22 ‘knowledge-leveraging’ perspectives (e.g. Grant et al. 2000) focus more on the links
23 between generation and application, forms of productive knowledge other than
24 technology, and the need to acquire and access knowledge from outside the firm’s
25 boundaries. Knowledge is seen as created in many sites and functions and accessed in
26 many locations, and its creation and exploitation are seen as linked or complementary
27 processes. New knowledge needs to be aligned with existing knowledge, a process
28 dependent on the recipient’s ‘absorptive capacity’, thus linking this perspective with
29 organizational learning perspectives (e.g. Hamel 1991).
30 In the knowledge diffusion view, knowledge generation is equated with knowledge
31 creation, and knowledge application with knowledge transfer or diffusion. Grant
32 et al. see alliances as inferior to firms in ‘knowledge integration’: ‘it is the very absence
33 of investment in common language, social norms, organizational routines and
34 institutionalised modes of decision making that limit their capacity to conduct the
35 low-cost knowledge-integration activities that characterise firms . . . in supporting
36 “higher organising” principles, alliances are inevitably inferior to firms’ (Grant et al.
37 2000:113). They also argue that ‘the movement of knowledge between different
38 geographical locations is central’ (2000: 115–16) to the process of adding value in
39 knowledge development; here we conceive of this ‘movement’ of knowledge not
40 as ‘transfer’ but as ‘migration’, and analyse ‘higher organizing principles’ in alliances
41 through the concepts of supra-systems, meta-systems and supra-meta-systems, based
42 on viable systems theory (e.g. Yolles 1999). Our approach seeks to build on resource-
43 based, organizational learning and knowledge-leveraging perspectives by regarding
44 knowledge as a critical resource, and knowledge development and migration rather
45 than transfer or diffusion as key processes in IHRDAs. Knowledge migration has some
46 similarity to the concept of ‘travels of ideas’ in the analysis of Central and Eastern
47 Europe by Czarniawska and Sevon (1996), but has been developed independently.

303
 Peer-Reviewed Articles

1 Empirical perspectives on alliances

2
3 IJVs differ from IHRDAs in often being shorter in duration, founded on a different
4 contractual basis, and less strategic than opportunistic in nature. However, many issues
5 and factors identified as important variables in research on alliances in general may be
6 also of importance to IHRDAs in particular, and useful in developing a framework to
7 guide further research on IHRDAs.
8 A major issue for empirical research has been partner selection, as performance
9 outcomes are influenced by the nature of the partner selected, influencing the mixture
0 of skills and resources available to the alliance, and so its ability to achieve its strategic
11 objectives (Geringer 1991). Partners are likely to have different and/or asymmetrical
12 objectives; alliances may be more likely to succeed when partners possess complementary
13 missions, resource capabilities, managerial capabilities, and other attributes that create
14 a ‘fit’ in which the bargaining power of the partners is evenly matched (Harrigan 1985).
15 This draws attention to issues of power in alliances. Geringer (1991) distinguishes
16 between task-related and partner-related criteria; the latter have often been neglected
17 (Glaister and Buckley 1997). In addition, a central focus of research has been partner
18 strategic interests, especially the strategic interests of the foreign partner; the interests
19 of local partners have often been overlooked, surprisingly since Li and Shenkar (1997)
20 argue that local partners’ strategic objectives also impact on choice of both partner
21 and structure, with potential for conflict if objectives differ. Some partners may engage
22 in alliances where knowledge and competencies match each other (compatibility);
23 others may look to alliances where they add to or build on those of the partner (comple-
24 mentarity). Gray and Yan (1997) found that the institutional environment, the relative
25 bargaining power of the parents, the nature and extent of their prior relationships and
26 the level of initial success of the alliance were all important factors in affecting alliance
27 performance.
28 A particularly important issue is that of trust in alliances. Butler and Gill (1997)
29 distinguish personal, procedural and institutional trust; continuing parent trust was
30 dependent on alliance performance, and developed over time through multiple level,
31 ongoing interactions. Trust was also enhanced by high and increasing levels of
32 autonomy granted to the alliance, its physical separation, its distinct geographical and
33 organizational identity, parent forbearance during problems and their consistent
34 support. As ambiguity and interdependence increased, there was a greater need for
35 personal trust, with the formal contract most useful to alliance partners at foundation,
36 and for developing mutual understanding (Gill and Butler 1996).
37 This review of research on alliances in general has identified a number of factors
38 affecting alliance performance. We next turn to specific studies of IHRDAs in Central
39 and Eastern Europe to analyse issues and factors of particular importance to IHRDAs,
40 especially in terms of knowledge-migration processes
41
42
43 IHRDAs in Central and Eastern Europe
44
45 Since 1989 and the transformation of Eastern and Central Europe, there has been
46 considerable interest in management and management development in the context of
47 a discourse of market fundamentalism and ‘transition’ (Henderson and Whitley 1995).

304
 Iles and Yolles: International HRD alliances

1 Official policy and rhetoric, supported by the IMF and the European Bank for
2 Reconstruction and Development, has favoured free-market ‘restructuring’; however,
3 while enterprise managers may subscribe to the need for technological, financial and
4 structural restructuring, they may not see the need for managerial restructuring (e.g.
5 Kelemen and Lightfoot 1999). Czech and British managers may perceive their identity
6 as managers very differently, with Czech managers highlighting personal qualities and
7 British managers interpersonal skills and development (Pavlica and Thorpe 1995).
8 In Poland, the business press may offer positive images of successful ‘modern’ enterprises
9 contrasted with old, failed enterprises (always Polish) alongside a strongly gendered,
0 idealized and Americanized image of management (Kostera 1995, 2000). ‘Moral
11 crusades’ promoted by Western political and financial institutions, trainers and
12 consultants, adopting an unreflexive ‘knowledge transfer’ view of management devel-
13 opment ‘missionaries’ with unproblematic assumptions about management learning
14 have often neglected or disparaged the heritages of the countries in which they work (e.g.
15 Kostera 1995, 2000; Jankowicz 1994; Henderson and Whitley1995). Host partner
16 trainees or students may ‘comply’ in class with Western models but reject such ideas
17 privately as inappropriate (e.g. Kostera 1995, 2000; Kelemen and Lightfoot 1999).
18 Examples of IHRDAs in this region include the alliance between Cranfield University
19 and the Russian Ministry of Radio Industry to develop Russian managers (Millman
20 and Randlesome 1993) and the Krakow Consortium Initiative, formed between
21 Teesside University, various companies from the north east of England and Polish
22 universities and companies to develop Polish academics as trainers in Polish industry
23 (Jankowicz and Pettit 1993). Holden and Cooper (1994) also describe an alliance
24 between UMIST, Manchester, UK, and a Russian training institute in St Petersburg
25 to develop Russian construction managers.
26 Managerial style can jar such alliances, as can cultural differences (Iborra and Saorin
27 2001; Fedor and Werther 1996) and differences in teaching, training and learning
28 styles are a particular issue for IHRDAs. For example, Jankowicz and Pettit (1993)
29 discuss how both Western trainers and Polish academics may ‘collude’ in accepting
30 directive, ‘expert’ services from Western trainers as functional for both parties.
31 Jankowicz (1994) comments in a similar fashion on Holden and Cooper’s (1994)
32 account of training Russian construction managers, whose tendency to learned
33 helplessness, preference for authoritative exposition and lack of a common managerial
34 vocabulary led the Western trainers to develop a directive, ‘modelling’ approach to
35 training. Such an approach may not best facilitate meaning transfer, self-directed
36 learning or long-term application and transfer of learning in the host country. This
37 contention has received empirical support from Gilbert and Gorlenko’s (1999) study
38 of transplant and process-oriented approaches to international management devel-
39 opment in a Russian–British HRD collaboration. Voros and Schermerhorn (1993)
40 point to the need to build on the strengths of the local system (e.g. in mathematics,
41 critical debate) to avoid the dual traps of ‘dependence’ and ‘local convenience’ in
42 IHRDAs, both of which may inhibit sustainable development of learning.
43 Studies of management education in post-communist Central Europe (e.g. Lee
44 et al. 1996), of managerial learning as a result of Western acquisitions in Hungary
45 (Villinger 1996) and of joint ventures in Hungary (e.g. Simon and Davies 1996) identify
46 various barriers to learning, including language problems, different cultures and
47 attitudes to business, and foreign expatriate managers making little attempt to learn the

305
 Peer-Reviewed Articles

1 local language or familiarize themselves with the country. This importance of language
2 to IHRDAs is emphasized by Cseh and Short (2001) in a case study of a British–
3 Hungarian collaboration between 1994 and 1997 to design and deliver training in
4 change and crisis management and team building in a large Hungarian public-sector
5 organization, using interpreters and translators. Understanding the meaning attributed
6 by participants to their environment is necessary, but more difficult when communi-
7 cation is mediated by a translator, as it is through language that meaning is created and
8 social reality created, managed and shared. Jankowicz (1999) uses metaphors of ‘export
9 sales’ and ‘new product development’ to discuss knowledge transfer across cultural
0 and linguistic boundaries. In the first case, the assumption is made that both parties
11 share the same conceptual background and assumptions, whereas in the second case,
12 the two parties are seen as co-equal collaborators. Every language encodes phenomena
13 differently, so the meaning encoded by one party may be subtly different from that
14 encoded by the other. Jankowicz (1999: 319) argues that, instead of knowledge transfer
15 from change agents possessing ‘correct’ understanding, the term ‘mutual knowledge
16 creation’ is preferable, as it refers to the negotiation of new understanding. This is
17 crucial when different cultures and languages are involved; interpreters face the
18 challenge of ‘mapping the meaning encoded in one language into the meanings that
19 it is possible to encode in another’. Later, Jankowicz (2000) in a discussion of adaptation
20 and learning refers to the importance of language in distinctions between levels of
21 control (involving distinct language domains) and layers of seniority (vertical authority
22 arrangements). Super-ordinate levels are seen as operating in a higher domain of
23 discourse with respect to lower levels. The analysis presented here is sensitive to such
24 issues of language and meaning, but employs the terms ‘supra-system’ and ‘meta-
25 system’ to explore issues of control and discourse in IHRDAs within viable systems
26 theory. It is, like Jankowicz (1999), also particularly interested in knowledge creation
27 and organizational learning, rather than knowledge transfer.
28
29
30 Viable knowledge creation and organizational learning in alliances
31
32 For Schuler (2001), learning is critical to alliances, both at the very foundation of the
33 alliance and, as the parents learn more about each other, from each other, and from the
34 alliance itself. This learning can also be useful for other units and alliances. Competitive
35 alliances appear to be the most challenging, leading to greater priority given to alliance
36 learning: as Pucik says, ‘shifts in relative power in a competitive partnership are related
37 to the need at which the partners can learn from each other’ (1988: 81). Some partners
38 may emphasize learning, others may not; ‘the behaviours and styles of managers in
39 organizations have a significant impact on the ability and willingness of a firm to learn’
40 (Schuler 2001: 317). A lack of openness, a need for control, low cultural awareness and
41 ethnocentricity may reduce the ability of organizations and managers to learn, while
42 flexibility and a willingness to take risks may promote it. HRM and HRD policies and
43 practices may support or inhibit knowledge flow, sharing and development. Asymmetry
44 in learning capability may lead to alliance instability and dissolution, despite short-term
45 gains for one partner. Inkpen and Currall (1997) discuss issues of relative bargaining
46 power and learning asymmetry, and suggest that, if partners learn at equal rates or
47 engage in forbearance, need for control diminishes and trust increases. Learning about

306
 Iles and Yolles: International HRD alliances

1 an alliance partner provides the basis for increased trust, as trust is the vehicle for
2 knowledge migration. Learning from a partner provides the basis for increased
3 bargaining power and reduced dependence. Opportunistic behaviour may lead to
4 instability and greater efforts at control by the other partner.
5 Alliances, including IHRDAs, can therefore provide significant opportunities for
6 organizational learning, especially the transfer of culturally embedded knowledge, if
7 personal, procedural and institutional trust is developed and substantial non-contractual
8 inputs invested (Fitzgerald 2000). Benefits are likely to be appropriated asymmetrically,
9 according to the organizational learning capacity or absorptive capacity of the partners
0 (Pucik 1988); some partners are more able to absorb new knowledge, learn from it,
11 and share and facilitating its migration to other units. Systematic approaches to
12 organizational learning, informational flows and knowledge migration from alliance to
13 parents and vice versa are necessary. A vital part of such a learning infrastructure includes
14 HRM and HRD policies to control the direction of the alliance, especially the
15 accumulation of knowledge and invisible assets (Lorange 1986). HR planning activities
16 may inhibit learning by failing to communicate strategic intent, by adopting short-
17 term and static planning horizons, and by giving learning activities low priority.
18 Employee resourcing activities may allow insufficient lead time for staffing decisions,
19 the adoption of a resource-poor staffing strategy and the assignment of low-quality
20 staff. A lack of cross-cultural competence, one-way secondment programmes, a career
21 structure not conducive to learning and a poor climate for sharing learning may also
22 inhibit learning. Appraisal and reward management may focus on short-term goal
23 achievement, not encourage learning, provide limited incentives for knowledge
24 development and fail to align rewards with the overall strategy. Organization design
25 and control systems may also fail to make the responsibility for learning clear, fragment
26 the learning process and fail to generate insights into the partners’ HR strategy.
27 Organizations in successful alliances may therefore need to encourage organizational
28 learning that matches or surpasses the learning ability of the partner. Early involvement
29 of the HR function, building learning into the partnership agreement, communicating
30 strategic intent to employees, maintaining HR input into the partnership, staffing the
31 alliance in order to learn, setting up learning-driven career plans, using HRD to
32 stimulate learning, specifying responsibility for learning, rewarding learning activities
33 and monitoring partner HR activities may all be useful (Pucik 1988).
34 Schuler (2001) identifies a number of HR issues of relevance to alliance foundation,
35 formation, implementation and restructuring. At the organizational level, parent-to-
36 parent relationships, parent–alliance relationships, alliance–context relationships and
37 parent characteristics are important, while at the individual/group level, staff learning
38 and sharing knowledge, staff competencies, staff attitudes and behaviours, staff
39 motivation and commitment, and recruitment to the alliance are critical issues. At
40 formation, the reasons for the alliance, how its benefits will be utilized
41 (e.g. how knowledge is managed), the selection of managers, the selection of partners,
42 the building of trust and negotiating the alliance are important issues. At the
43 development stage, locating the alliance, establishing the right structure, and getting
44 the right senior managers are crucial. At implementation, establishing alliance vision,
45 mission, values, strategy and structure, developing HR policies and practices, and
46 recruiting, selecting and managing employees are critical, especially in supporting and
47 rewarding learning and knowledge sharing. Finally, learning from the partner, migrating

307
 Peer-Reviewed Articles

1 the new knowledge to the parents and facilitating the migration of the new knowledge
2 to other locations are critical processes in restructuring. Three key issues that need to
3 be addressed are control, trust and conflict. Learning and trust are positively related,
4 while trust and the use of informal and formal controls are negatively related, so
5 establishing mechanisms to enhance trust may benefit the relationship between alliance
6 partners (Schuler 2001).
7 A framework summarizing empirical research and theorizing into IHRDA perfor-
8 mance and identifying a future research agenda is presented in Figure 1, where it is
9 specifically applied to the CZALP case to be discussed later. Of particular importance
0 to this framework are the cognitive interests, purposes and influences of the actors,
11 concepts to be developed in greater depth later. The initial foundation and formation
12 of the alliance, especially its cognitive purposes and interests, is seen as influenced by
13
14
15 Ongoing Inputs to IHRDA

16 Partners e.g.
Liverpool John Moores University
17 Technical University of Ostrava
18 Cognitive interests
19 Cognitive purposes
20 Motives Cognitive influences Support Independence
21 Objectives
22 Contributions
Interaction Forbearance Expectations
23 Knowledge
24 Relative bargaining power
25 Prior relationships
26 Culture
27 Language
28 Management style
29 Teaching and learning style
30 HR practices:
31 absorptive capacity
32
33
34
35 IHRDA e.g. CZALP IHRDA Development IHRDA IHRDA
36 Foundation and Formation and Implementation Restructuring Restructuring
37 Phase 1 e.g. CZALP1 Phase 2 e.g. CZALP2 Phase 3 e.g.
Cognitive purposes CZALP 3,
38 Cognitive interests Knowledge migration Knowledge tracking MBA
39 and development Line involvement
Strategy
Complexity
40 Structure Management
Trust Experience
41 Control systems
Compatibility Alliance champions
42 Processes, e.g. HRM/D
Initial success
43 Learning climate
44 HRD practices
45
46
47 Figure 1 Development and performance in IHRDAs, including CZALP

308
 Iles and Yolles: International HRD alliances

1 the respective partners’ motives, objectives, resource contributions, relative bargaining

2 power, prior relationship, expected returns, organizational and national cultures,
3 management styles, training/learning styles and environmental and organization-
4 specific HR issues. Of particular significance are the cognitive interests and cognitive
5 purposes of the partners. The development and implementation phases of the alliance
6 are seen as influenced by ongoing partner inputs, such as levels of partner interaction,
7 the development of mutual trust, partner capability (e.g. resource complementarity),
8 degree of inter-partner learning and level of knowledge development and migration,
9 as well as the cognitive purposes and interests of the alliance itself. Of particular relevance
0 to knowledge migration are the cognitive influences brought to bear by the actors.
11 Evaluation of alliance performance may then lead to restructuring, such as in phases 2
12 and 3 identified in Figure 1. As Cyr (1995) says, goals and expectations between the
13 parents and between the parents and the alliance change over time, necessitating a
14 process of building relationships, establishing channels of communication and engaging
15 in continuous learning. A decision to restructure is seen in Figure 1 as dependent on
16 knowledge tracking, line management involvement, management experience and the
17 presence of alliance champions in the management team (Muralidharan and Hamilton
18 1999). Inter-partner trust may contribute to successful restructuring, as various changes
19 may affect partners’ incentives to continue with the alliance. A need to restructure may
20 arise because of misrepresentations about respective complementarity or motives and
21 capabilities, because inter-partner learning renders partner contributions redundant, or
22 because environmental changes (e.g. regulations) eliminate the need for a local partner.
23 Partners may of course fail to notice the potential need for restructuring or
24 decide not to restructure. Knowledge tracking is seen here as examining organizational
25 change from a knowledge perspective, and examining interactive change within a
26 knowledge-based frame of reference. Restructuring is likely to be promoted in urgency
27 and feasibility by utilizing a breadth of perspectives to interpret and respond to different
28 issues and by using managers with different levels of experience. Institutionalizing
29 learning by capturing and disseminating best practices through electronic networks,
30 newsletters, seminars, manuals, check-lists, case studies and other knowledge manage-
31 ment practices may also be useful (e.g. Harbison and Pekar 1998). The use of alliance
32 champions in the management team may enhance assessment of urgency, as will the
33 perceived significance of the alliance to overall partner performance, and the absence
34 of legal restrictions on restructuring. The criteria for defining alliance success or failure
35 will depend on the parents’ expectations and motives and the viewpoints of the various
36 stakeholders involved, issues taken up in the case study which will discuss the various
37 phases of CZALP (1, 2 and 3) in more detail to illustrate the applicability of the
38 framework presented in Figure 1.
39 Figure 1 presents a simplified model of an alliance formed between two partners.
40 In reality, of course, there may be multiple partners and numerous restructurings.
41 In addition, a comprehensive model needs to consider the relationship of the IHRDA
42 to funding bodies (e.g. the British Council, EU). Figure 1 highlights the importance
43 of organizational learning, knowledge migration and cognitive interests, purposes and
44 influences. These are discussed in the next section. It also identifies a number of issues
45 and factors important to a future research agenda, especially the analysis of knowledge
46 migration and learning in IHRDAs. These will next be explored through viable systems
47 theory.

309
 Peer-Reviewed Articles

1 The purpose of alliances and viable systems theory

2
3 Alliances, including IHRDAs, are children of complexity, and five types of complexity
4 can be identified that can and will affect them (Yolles 1999): computational, technical,
5 organizational, personal and emotional complexity. Complex situations are particularly
6 susceptible to examination by methodologies from management systems, as they
7 represent structured approaches to inquiry that are capable of reducing complexity
8 (Yolles 1998, 1999). The way in which such methodologies can be used is represented
9 in Figure 2, which explores the relationship in autonomous organizations between
0 cognition and action. The use of methodology is an organizing process that occupies
11 an organizing domain. This model is not only applicable to the use of methodology
12 with its own paradigm that indicates its mission and actions (Yolles 1999). It is also a
13 general model that represents the way in which organizations operate through their
14 normative paradigms. In the cognitive domain there are two types of worldview:
15 weltanschauung and paradigm. Weltanschauungen become paradigms (Kuhn 1970)
16 when formalized (Yolles 1999); this comes about via a formalized or semi-formalized
17 shared weltanschauung stage called a virtual paradigm, which may or may not become
18 a paradigm.
19 Worldviews operate through culture (beliefs, values, attitudes and language),
20 established within ‘rational’ organized structures called propositions and norms. They
21 have a relationship with each other and with the behavioural world. This relationship
22 is shown in Figure 2 (Yolles 1999), where we have collected together types of worldview
23 into a cognitive domain, differentiated from the behavioural domain within which it is
24 defined by the ‘real’ or perceived behavioural world. In order to distinguish between
25 these two domains and the transformations that occur between them, we have also
26 introduced the organizing or transformational domain.
27 The behavioural domain is made up of structures and actions that define the
28 behavioural world and are created within a frame of reference defined by the cognitive
29 domain. Connection occurs between the two domains through a transformational or
30 organizing process that, we say, defines the organizing domain, with attributes that
31
32
33 Organizing domain
of IHRDA
34
Paradigm
35 Behavioural domain representation (formal worldview)
of IHRDA held by IHRDA partners
36
37
38
39 organization of development/ formation/ Cognitive
Behavioural world
40 intervention learning consolidation domain
of
41 interpretation IHRDA
42 Weltanschauung
(informal worldview)
43 held by IHRDA
44 reflection/creation participants
45
46
47 Figure 2 Relationship between types of worldview and behaviour

310
 Iles and Yolles: International HRD alliances

1 relate to self-organization. Each of the three domains has associated with it cognitive
2 properties, first introduced in Figure 1. The behavioural domain has cognitive interests,
3 the organizing domain cognitive purposes and the cognitive domain cognitive
4 influences. We shall return to this shortly.
5 We perceive the behavioural world through our cognitive models, as we inter-
6 act with it through them. It is through the process of cognitive formalization that
7 weltanschauung become manifested as a paradigm that itself changes through a process
8 of cognitive challenge. The behavioural world is represented within the paradigm in a
9 way that conforms to its belief system. Action is manifested in the behavioural world
0 through an organizing process that is in effect a transformation, sometimes subject to
11 perhaps chaotic surprises.
12 The very idea of there being an organizing process is a consequence of the notion
13 of purposefulness, and results in purposeful behaviour. Purposeful behaviour is said to
14 occur because of cognitive purposes that direct the actions of individuals and groups
15 in a given situation. It is worldview determined, and can be expressed in terms of a
16 behavioural mission and goals (Allport 1961; Ackoff 1981). According to viable systems
17 theory (Yolles 1999), all organizations, including alliances, that have behaviour and are
18 purposeful and adaptive have cognitive, organizing and behavioural domains. They
19 can be seen as systems that have structure and behaviour, and have cognitive domain-
20 determined meta-systems from which come decisions.
21 Our interest lies with purposeful adaptable organizations, in interaction in an
22 IHRDA, which can be seen in terms of actors in a supra-system of actors who are
23 themselves in an environment. Each actor has a behavioural system that exists within a
24 behavioural domain, and a meta-system defined in terms of the cognitive domain,
25 within which occur decision-making processes (Figure 3). The meta-system may be
26 simply defined as the ‘cognitive consciousness’ of the system (Yolles 1999), and is
27 culturally driven.
28 The propositional logic of a meta-system associated with one actor is distinct from
29 that of another, including another language. Second, the paradigmatic language (e.g.
30 meta-language) of each actor may represent meanings that are not expressible in that
31
32
33 Supra-system
of interactive stimulation
34 actors in IHRDA
35 (seen as a System
decision
dynamically actor (e.g.) purpose
36 bounded IHRDA
sytem) other Decision norms
37 actors confirmation
(from dominant actor
38 paradigm)
e.g. Western partner
39 representation verification of
learning
40 exemplars
41
Real world Decision making
42 situation
interpretation (weltanschauung)
43
44 Meta-system of IHRDA
45
46 Figure 3 A supra-system of actors in an IHRDA and a decision-making meta-system of
47 one actor (e.g. IHRDA)

311
 Peer-Reviewed Articles

1 of another. Finally, the culture associated with a given meta-system may not allow
2 particular perspectives to develop that may be part of the meta-system of another
3 actor.
4 Actors manifest behaviour when viewed from the perspective of the IHRDA supra-
5 system shown in Figure 3, but internally they display social, cultural and political
6 processes. They also possess an economy that facilitates organized behaviour. In this
7 way economic aspects can also be seen as part of the organizing process, related to the
8 political aspect of actors.
9 With respect to interactive processes, the meta-system aspects that we are interested
0 in relate to policy making and the worldviews of policy makers. They also relate to the
11 classes of decision that can be made, and the types of decision-making systems that can
12 be developed. These characteristics represent cognitive actor models equivalent to a
13 cognitive consciousness associated with beliefs, values and attitudes.
14 Let us now consider the nature of the supra=system involved in an IHRDA. Actors
15 in a supra-system, such as partners in an IHRDA, may interact with considerable
16 frequency according to regularized processes that define a coherent situation. In their
17 mutual interactions, the actors (e.g. partners) display characteristics represented by
18 the types or classes of administrations that actors develop. This analysis is related
19 to Czarniawska’s (1997) discussion of learning organizing in a changing institu-
20 tional order, specifically her study of city management in Warsaw as an example of an
21 undeveloped organization field. Building on new institutional theory, this is identified
22 by its lack of supporting institutions and servicing organizations, which both help and
23 hinder organizational learning. This process involves the translation (rather than
24 diffusion of) managerial philosophies originating in different institutional orders and
25 both ‘local’ and ‘translocal’ learning that is also transtemporal: ‘learning organizing in
26 space and time’ (Czarniawska 1997: 492).
27 Traditionally, the interactive behaviour of actors in a supra-system (e.g. partners in
28 an IHRDA) is explained in terms of actor attributes and needs and the individual
29 characteristics of policy makers. The external environment, and particularly the structure
30 of power and influence in a supra-system, may have profound effects on the general
31 orientations of one actor towards another. Thus, the major characteristics of any
32 supra-system can be used as one set of variables to help explain the typical actions of an
33 actor.
34 While a supra-system such as an IHRDA may simply be a collection of actors in
35 interaction, it can also have a purposefulness associated with it, and be seen as an actor
36 in its own right. In such cases, it is essential that a new supra-meta-system is formed
37 that can act as its ‘cognitive consciousness’ and make decisions for the supra-system.
38 In many cases, such as may occur with IHRDAs, the supra-meta-system does not
39 successfully form, and attempts are made to drive the supra-system from one of the actor
40 meta-systems (e.g. the Western partner). This often causes problems. The assembly
41 of worldviews associated with each actor of the supra-system will be incommensurable
42 to some degree. The degree of incommensurability is likely to be greater if the
43 actors derive from very different host cultures, as is common in many IHRDAs. The
44 nature of this incommensurability is important for the development of a supra-
45 meta-system.
46 A worldview is composed of conceptual extensions associated with cognitive
47 organization, and it defines a set of ‘cognitive strands’ that compose the worldview

312
 Iles and Yolles: International HRD alliances

1 ‘cognitive fabric’. When two or more worldviews come together during attempts for
2 meaning to be shared between a group of viewholders, some cognitive strands
3 become coincident, providing for commonalities of understanding (Yolles 1999). With
4 worldview incommensurability, a cognitive pattern emerges entailing a ‘cognitive
5 turbulence’, becoming a source for conflict manifestation arising from the interference
6 that occurs because of incommensurable differences in cognitive organization and
7 knowledge. The patterns are responsible for arbitrary stable processes of understandings
8 and misunderstandings, and communication and miscommunication, which can
9 become institutionalized in organizations and alliances. Conflict is therefore the
0 manifestation of cognitive turbulence in the behavioural world, and it may be enhanced
11 by each of the dimensions of complexity found in an IHRDA.
12 Metaphorically speaking, if the actors in a supra-system (IHRDA) find themselves
13 with a problem situation due to cognitive turbulence, change can occur by realigning
14 their worldviews to enable a new cognitive pattern to emerge. In this way, the nature
15 of understanding or misunderstanding will shift, perhaps by the creation of new arbitrary
16 stabilities that in turn might lead to new related conflicts. However, in some cases,
17 while a new pattern may not be any more suitable for the group, it may be possible for
18 pattern variations to emerge such that the conflictual manifestation of cognitive
19 turbulence is less eventful.
20
21
22 Application of the viable systems framework to IHRDAs
23
24 IHRDAs often begin life as intended purposeful supra-systems, and fail for a number
25 of reasons, often linked to cultural differences (Kelly and Parker 1997). Their
26 cognitive purposes may be different, or expressed differently because of problems of
27 language. The cognitive interests may also be divergent or misinterpreted. Finally,
28 and perhaps most importantly, they may fail because cognitive turbulence is not dealt
29 with, and so no stable supra-meta-system is able to form. Cognitive turbulence will
30 impact on the organizing and behavioural domains. The organizing domain is the
31 place where worldview differences are contested (Yolles 2001). The contesting
32 process defines a cognitive purpose that will be directly responsible for the
33 manifestation of conflict. In so doing, intention is realized through the creation and
34 strategic pursuit of goals and aims that may change over time, and this enables actors
35 through control and communications processes to redirect their futures. The strategic
36 process derives from a relational logic that derives from actor rationality. This is likely
37 to be different for each of the actors (partners) in a supra-system involved in
38 contesting differences. Each actor may pursue its own missions, goals and aims,
39 resulting in an organization of thought and action that ultimately determines the
40 behavioural possibilities of the actors. Finally, ideology defines the manner of
41 thinking. This intellectual framework enables policy makers to interpret reality
42 politically, involving ethical and moral orientations, and providing an image of the
43 future that enables action through ‘correct’ strategic policy. It also gives a ‘correct’
44 view of the stages of historical development in respect of interaction with the external
45 environment (e.g. Western views of free-market ‘restructuring’ and ‘transition’ in
46 Central and Eastern Europe e.g. Henderson and Whitley (1995), where ‘market
47 fundamentalism’ is commonly found).

313
 Peer-Reviewed Articles

1 In Figure 2 we defined these domains, and each has cognitive properties (Yolles
2 1999), an extension of Habermas’s (1970) idea of cognitive interest. In the behavioural
3 domain, the organized behaviour of actors in the supra-system operates for cognitive
4 interest through work, enabling the achievement of goals. This also involves a technical
5 ability to undertake action in the environment, and the ability to make predictions that
6 ultimately feed back to organize and enable the establishment of control. In situations
7 of cognitive turbulence that lead to conflict, complexity can increase. For instance,
8 computational complexity can develop through circumstantial exigency, when parts
9 of actors develop ‘autonomous’ behaviour, thus increasing the number of interactive
0 parts. In such cases, sub-actors of a given actor can spontaneously emerge, and they
11 adopt patterns of behaviour not sanctioned or supported by the actor. Technical
12 complexity also worsens as control processes are likely to become more entangled,
13 exacerbated by the emergence of sub-actor activity. Predictability becomes more
14 difficult. Organizational complexity increases, as new local rules develop spontaneously
15 with the emergence of sub-actors, and global rules of governance are therefore prone
16 to failure. This can have chaotic impacts on the interactions between the actors in the
17 supra-system. To enable the supra-system to work as a unity and pursue intended
18 purposes, it is essential that the supra-meta-system is stabilized, and this can occur only
19 with the management of complexity and chaos.
20 New paradigms arise through the process of knowledge recognition or develop-
21 ment, or knowledge migration that occurs through the cognitive influences of other
22 paradigms. Cognitive interest relates to the structural/behavioural domain and can be
23 differentiated from the knowledge domain. Cognitive purpose (Yolles 1999) relates to
24 rational and cybernetic processes that can also be differentiated from the knowledge
25 domain.
26 Human beings also possess (Habermas 1970) a technical interest relating to the
27 human endeavour referred to as work and a practical interest in interaction. Another
28 cognitive interest is critical deconstraining that is related to emancipation. This is seen
29 as subordinate to work and interaction because it is associated with exploitation and
30 distorted communication. Habermas’s classification is a cognitive property of the
31 behavioural domain. Yolles (1999) has argued that cognitive purpose is a cognitive
32 property of the organizing domain, because it is through the organizing process that
33 cognitive purposes are made apparent. There are three types of cognitive purposes that
34 correspond to the three types of cognitive interest, and they are cybernetic, rational and
35 ideological.
36 There is also a cognitive property associated with the cognitive domain that we
37 refer to as cognitive influences. The typological dimensions in this are cultural, political
38 and social, and contribute to knowledge migration from one worldview to another
39 in IHRDAs. The cultural dimension has a cognitive organization that is part of a
40 worldview, and, when people perform social roles, they do so through their beliefs,
41 values and attitudes. Cultural elements affect how we interact (practically) and define
42 our logico-relational (rational) understandings. The political dimension is concerned
43 with polity (condition of order), and as such has an interest in attributes that condition
44 the social domain and its situations, involving the creation of power placed at the
45 disposal of some social roles, the use of which is also worldview determined. When
46 conditions (of order) affect the social domain and become issues, political processes are
47 used to address them (e.g. conflict resolution). Political influences affect our manner

314
 Iles and Yolles: International HRD alliances

1 of thinking (ideology), and our degree of emancipation, collusion or resistance (critical

2 deconstraining).
3
4
5 Case study of the Czech Academic Link project (CZALP)
6
7 This case study of an IHRDA involves Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU),
8 UK, and the Technical University of Ostrava, the Czech Republic. Beginning in 1992
9 to develop resource-based learning, it later came to involve other Czech partners. It is
0 termed here CZALP (Czech Academic Link Project) after the fundraising obtained
11 through the UK Government Know-How Fund, and will first be analysed in terms
12 of the framework presented in Figure 1. A later section will explore it more specifically
13 in terms of viable systems theory.
14 The Technical University of Ostrava’s Faculty of Economics offers both
15 undergraduate and postgraduate courses in the region, Moravia. Within the last few
16 years, in association with LJMU, it has been able to develop its management and
17 business activities significantly as an outward-looking institution interested in expanding
18 its campus-based courses to a wider market throughout the region using distance
19 learning. The Faculty has connections with all of the medium-sized and large
20 organizations in the region, and is a provider of education for their employees. For
21 example, it services the needs of Vitkovice s.p., a steel company with about 20,000
22 employees, and the smaller organization Investicni banka, both of which are
23 organizations within the immediate catchment area of the university. Since distance
24 teaching is new to the university, care needed to be taken in how it could manage
25 course delivery for students at a distance. The university is a member of the Czech
26 Association for Distance University Education (CADUE), itself a member of EADTU
27 (European Association of Distance Teaching Universities).
28 The project brought together the expertise of both the Liverpool Business School
29 and the Learning Methods Unit, Liverpool John Moores University. The Business
30 School had a track record in a variety of international developments, including two
31 Know How Fund projects, one with the Russian Federation and another with the
32 Czech Republic.
33 Later we shall refer to the viable systems perspective on knowledge migration
34 discussed above as it relates to the whole CZALP project to identify directions for
35 future research. First, we describe the background to the first phase of the project,
36 phase 1, 1992–5.
37 The long-term goals of the project were directed towards helping the Czech
38 economy in its development, with the realization that, since the socio-political shifts,
39 business-related higher education had a unique and important role to play.
40 The Liverpool team was aware of the need to demonstrate cultural sensitivity in
41 all of its joint activities, and the Czech leadership showed itself to be very aware of
42 its new social roles and responsibilities, and keen on providing guidance on how to
43 provide maximum assistance to the project. This leadership was in addition able to take
44 its staff with it in this enthusiasm, as shown for instance by the good representation
45 at presentations made by the Liverpool partners. This also applied to the managers of
46 their commercial contacts, who have not only attended these presentations, but also
47 visited Liverpool.

315
 Peer-Reviewed Articles

1 During the initial three-year CZALP phase 1 project (1992–5), work focused on the
2 development of management education in three areas, namely banking, information
3 technology and management. This was successful in that new courses were prepared
4 and supported by extensive packs of learning materials suitable for full-time students.
5 In parallel with these developments, LJMU and the Faculty shared ideas and experiences
6 on wider aspects of their activities. In particular, the Faculty was interested in LJMU’s
7 long experience of face-to-face part-time education. In the Czech Republic, regional
8 universities such as Ostrava have had little involvement in this form of education. The
9 constraints of the traditions of curriculum design and delivery and costs mean that
0 continuing education has not been very developed.
11 Through their contacts with Western countries, there was a growing Faculty
12 recognition that reaching the ‘stock’ of current managers should be part of their efforts
13 to underpin economic development. The Faculty now has a part-time degree delivered
14 at weekends, consistent with government policy to encourage this form of access.
15 Another stimulus for development arose from the split of what was Czechoslovakia.
16 Czech Telecom had been developing an in-company programme with a university now
17 in Slovakia. These developments, together with local business contacts, led to a
18 recognition of a demand for both short up-to-date courses and an undergraduate degree
19 to be available throughout the region, to include some face-to-face tuition supported
20 by learning materials. Consequently, the Faculty began setting up an Open Learning
21 Unit, planned to have a full-time member of staff with up to ten associates based in
22 member departments.
23
24
25 Application of the IHRDA framework to CZALP
26
27 In terms of Figure 1, the Czech partners’ motives in CZALP1 included demonstrating
28 how it could play a role in Czech economic development in the 1990s, especially
29 in Moravia. It particularly wished to develop expertise in open and distance learning
30 and in management education, banking and IT in collaboration with its partner, as
31 well as developing part-time courses in business and management education. It offered
32 senior management commitment and financial and staff support to the project, as well
33 as contacts with local enterprise managers.
34 LJMU could offer expertise in part-time education and in open and distance learning,
35 and was interested in applying its expertise in new market opportunities in Central and
36 Eastern Europe. Both partners recognized the impact of their national and professional
37 cultures on their management and training and learning styles, and were committed to
38 understanding and respecting their partners’ respective styles. Frequent interaction,
39 visits and attendance at workshops led to a degree of trust and feelings of compatibility,
40 examples of successful learning and knowledge migration, and successful delivery of
41 project outcomes (e.g. development of a part-time degree, setting up of an Open
42 Learning Unit and development of new courses and open learning packs for full-time
43 students in the areas of banking and IT).
44 Both partners were also committed to knowledge tracking, monitoring and scanning
45 developments in pedagogy, IT and the evolving Czech economic and social situation.
46 CZALP 1 enjoyed alliance champions in the form of the Dean and leadership of the
47 Faculty of the Technical University of Ostrava, on the one hand, and the two authors

316
 Iles and Yolles: International HRD alliances

1 of this paper, on the other. As a result, a need for restructuring the project was
2 recognized, leading to the development of the second phase of the project, CZALP2
3 (Figure 1). Phase 3 of the project, the development of a franchised MBA, is not the
4 subject of the present paper.
5 This restructured phase two had three main objectives. One was to build on work
6 carried out in the three areas of banking, information technology and management by
7 developing open learning modes. The second was to advise and support the nascent
8 Open Learning Unit through sharing experience gained at LJMU. The third was to
9 participate in, and facilitate, the establishment of a network of institutions in Moravia
0 capable of delivering open learning, according to market demands. The broader
11 objectives of CZALP 2 included the creation of staff-centred development groups for
12 resource-based learning in areas relating to managing in a market economy.
13 As part of this process, evaluation of the development needs and schedule of activities
14 as perceived by the Faculty of Economics in Ostrava was necessary. The local envi-
15 ronment demanded part-time education using open learning. Some of these needs had
16 been filled within the previous CZALP1 project, yet there was little provision in most
17 areas. Exploration of ways to satisfy the developing needs of the Faculty in respect of
18 the above was seen as necessary in CZALP 2.
19 A major reorganization of enterprises in Moravia has been taking place, helped by
20 the Faculty and less directly by LJMU. The Faculty enjoyed excellent relations with
21 its local and distant enterprises, and provided courses in various areas to satisfy their
22 needs. It aimed to continue to develop these links and enhance its role in developing
23 management education in respect of its catchment area. Jointly, LJMU and the Faculty
24 intended to take advantage of the best practices available for both effective and efficient
25 course delivery and curricula development.
26 Almost every sector of Czech industry has been facing up to the challenge of
27 competition and liberalization of regulations, with an emphasis on improvements
28 in productivity, value for resources invested and new ways of monitoring performance.
29 All sectors have been involved in a major change of culture. The aim of CZALP2 was
30 to continue to work closely with the partners to identify the training needs for improved
31 enterprise performance within a competitive environment. In addition, this was also
32 intended to relate to the wider European objectives of the Technical University
33 of Ostrava. The next section concludes this discussion by exploring CZALP through
34 viable systems theory and the cognitive interests, purposes and influences involved
35 in knowledge migration and suggests some principles to develop a systemic theory of
36 IHRDAs.
37
38
39 Conclusions: towards a systemic theory of IHRDAs
40
41 IHRDAs, as we have seen, arise in order to satisfy cognitive influences, purposes or
42 interests, developed through establishing a virtual paradigm that (from Yolles 1999) is
43 a formalized non-normative or semi-formalized worldview that can be created in the
44 absence of a paradigm) and may initially be ill formed and unstable. They can be volatile,
45 with many dissolving prematurely; may have limited cognitive influence, purpose or
46 interest; and may have an intended limited life span and domain of action, examples
47 being the single projects described earlier. Alternatively, they may be instances of an

317
 Peer-Reviewed Articles

1 enduring general agreement intended for the long term, as in CZALP. If this occurs,
2 it is usually the case that a paradigm will have developed that will have associated with
3 it recognizable patterns of behaviour. The strategic motivation for alliances varies with
4 the organizations involved and their cognitive purposes and interests (Kelly and Parker
5 1997). We have selected five types of alliance situations applying to IHRDAs, and
6 assessed their capability of becoming viable systems in their own right (Table 1).
7 As a result, we have proposed their associated cognitive properties. We note that, in
8 Table 1, the last column is referred to as knowledge migration, which is cognitive
9 influence dependent. In Table 1, we have also applied these three domains specifically
0 to the three CZALP phases in the latter half of the table.
11 What we are proposing is, first, that viable systems theory can be used to explore the
12 worldviews held by participants and actors in an IHRDA, as depicted in Figure 2. These
13 can impact on the progress and course of an IHRDA. For example, Iles and Wilson
14 (2001) discuss the respective worldviews of Indian and British engineering joint venture
15 partners in terms of their perceived core competences, views of managerial success,
16 perceptions of management effectiveness and attitudes to the gendering of work and
17 to diversity. Second, it can also be used to explore various IHRDA situations in terms
18 of the cognitive interests, purposes and influences involved or expressed, resulting in
19 knowledge migrations of various kinds (Figures 1 and 3). In some cases, actor cognitive
20 interests may be divergent (e.g. one partner wishes to explore the local market, the
21 other to export) or may be misinterpreted (e.g. through shifting agendas, deceptions,
22 changing political dynamics, problems of translation, cultural stereotypes). In others,
23 cognitive purposes may differ – one partner may be interested in developing cybernetic
24 processes, the other in ideological legitimation of existing activities. Purposes may also
25 be expressed differently, leading to possible clashes or conflicts. In the bottom half of
26 Table 1, the three phases of CZALP are discussed in these terms, as well as in terms
27 of the knowledge successfully transferred through cognitive influence. In the first phase,
28 interests centred on developing three management modules, part-time education and
29 an Open Learning Unit in the Faculty in the Technical University of Ostrava. They
30 focused on developing open learning in phase two and on launching a franchised MBA
31 in phase three. Through such knowledge migration processes as staff exchanges, training
32 visits and continual dialogue and communication, these shared interests did not widely
33 diverge throughout the programme’s existence. Similar points could be made with
34 respect to the cognitive purposes expressed in each phase; partners agreed that these
35 involved developing new markets in phase one, new learning approaches in phase two
36 and new company links in phase three. As a result, knowledge of the local market, of
37 part-time education, of open learning and of different MBA modes was successfully
38 shared. These phases were studied in CZALP through intensive participant observation
39 over a decade. Alternative approaches and methodologies, such as using survey
40 instruments, action research, interviews or documentary research, may also be useful
41 in ‘knowledge tracking’ in an IHRDA and in identifying and assessing the development
42 of the cognitive interests, purposes and influences expressed or developed over the
43 course of an IHRDA and their impact on IHRDA performance.
44 We propose therefore that alliances, including IHRDAs, may occur between
45 purposeful adaptive organizations, introducing the conceptual extensions of cognitive
46 influence, purpose and influence. Within alliance theory it is common to talk of project
47 mission and goals. The notion can, however, also be applied to other partnerships, such

318
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Table 1 Example IHRDA situations and their cognitive attributes as viable systems

IHRDA situation Cognitive interest (may be Cognitive purpose (may differ or Knowledge migration through
divergent or mis-interpreted) be differently expressed) cognitive influence

Cooperation in research and Share cost of innovation Lead time to development Share basic knowledge of innovation
development, e.g. on open
learning

New markets in Central Europe, Joint working with host country Developing joint control and Share product and market
e.g. Moravia organization to develop market logico-relational processes with knowledge
host-country organization

Accessing segmented specialist Help in facilitating access to local Share product, market knowledge
local market, e.g. Czech Telecom markets

Guide technical knowledge to Develop new goals, e.g. open Share technical knowledge, e.g. IT
keep up with development in, learning
e.g., technology (OL, IT)

Expand market share in stagnant Help by facilitating market access Develop market share Share marketing knowledge for
or crowded markets, e.g. to new markets given sectors
part-time, in-company degrees

CZALP 1 Management education (IT, Develop new markets. Support Share knowledge of local market
1997 – present banking, management) restructuring of Czech economy Share experience in part-time
Part-time education OL Unit especially in Moravia education
Open learning

CZALP 2 Open learning Develop new approaches Share knowledge of open learning
1997 – present Open learning support network Support Czech Telecom

CZALP 3 Launch franchised MBA. Develop company links. Share knowledge of MBA modes.
1999 – present Develop Ostrava as self-standing Demonstrate Ostrava as mainstream Knowledge migration to facilitate
professional university business school within European autonomous development.
standards.
 Peer-Reviewed Articles

1 Table 2 Possible principles relating to the development of IHRDAs

2
Characteristics IHRDA principles
3
4 Cognitive interests There should be long-term mutual cognitive interests in an alliance
5 Cognitive purposes Cognitive purposes that are seen as strategic aims and objectives of
6 corporate organizations should be compatible
7 Cognitive influence There should be a sharing of knowledge to enable the creation of a
8 new paradigm that rules the alliance and guides its behaviour
9 The whole The competencies of the alliance should be greater than those of any
0 one operating partner
11 Culture Cultural compatibility between partner organizations is important.
12 Trust Trust between organizations is essential, reducing the need to
elaborate procedures
13
Interconnections Open communications between the corporate organizations involved
14 in an alliance is essential
15
Relational change Change in the partner relationships can inevitably involve volatility
16
17
18 as between SMEs and academia (Iles and Yolles 2001). When a cognitive domain is
19 established, it results in the formation of a meta-system that directs the system.
20 We can therefore develop, in order to further a research agenda on IHRDAs, some
21 principles on formulating successful IHRD alliances based on Kelly and Parker (1997).
22 (See Table 2.) Our discussion of CZALP shows how these principles were developed
23 in the course of a particular case study – such principles need further empirical testing
24 with regard to their application and relevance to other IHRDAs, as does the relative
25 influence of the factors identified in the framework presented in Figure 1.
26 However, it is our contention that it is essential that a cognitive interest or purpose
27 exists to facilitate an IHRDA; and that an IHRDA cannot work without the formation
28 of a local frame of reference from which derives a local meta-system. This will be
29 formed through the cognitive influences of all the worldviews involved, and will be a
30 formation of the whole rather than any one part of the actors of the supra-system. It is
31 through the locally defined meta-system that the actors can deal with paradigm
32 incommensurability, and thus cognitive turbulence and manifest conflict. With it, local
33 purposefulness and direction can develop, but, without it, behaviour will be prone to
34 chaos. It is also clear that IHRDAs need development time to enable them to mature.
35 The model provided in Figure 1 is illustrative of this, with the maturation of the project
36 involving three phases in which a level of understanding and trust between the leading
37 participants and their institutions was built up, and the maturing process developed so
38 that the IHRDA evolved an autonomous paradigm that belongs neither to the UK nor
39 to the Czech universities involved in its inception.
40 IHRDAs between organizations are therefore considered to be purposeful adaptive
41 activity systems, analysable in terms of three domains: cognitive, organizing and
42 behavioural, each with the cognitive properties of influence, purpose and interest. This
43 may provide the potential for further developing the theory associated with alliances,
44 enabling us to formulate a more general viable systems theory of alliances, including
45 international HRD alliances such as CZALP, and identify issues and directions for
46 further research.
47

320
 Iles and Yolles: International HRD alliances

1 Addresses for correspondence

2
3 Professor Paul Iles
4 Professor for HRD
5 Teesside Business School
6 University of Teesside
7 Middlesborough TS1 3BA
8 Tel: 0164 234 2807
9 E-mail: paul.iles@tees.ac.uk
0
11 Dr Maurice Yolles
12 Reader in Systems
13 Liverpool Business School
14 Liverpool John Moores University
15 John Foster Building
16 98 Mount Pleasant
17 Liverpool L3 5UZ
18 Tel: 0151 231 3871
19 Fax: 0151 231 3234
20 E-mail: m.yolles@ivjm.ac.uk
21
22 Note
23
24 1 We gratefully acknowledge the funding role of the UK Know-How Fund in assisting the
25 development of this project.
26
27
References
28
29
Ackoff, R. L. (1981) Creating the Corporate Future, New York: Wiley, p. 34.
30
Allport, G. W. (1961) Pattern and Growth in Personality, New York: Holt, Rinehart &
31
Winston, p. 224.
32
Arbelaez, H. (1995) ‘Academic linkages in Latin America: a value added cross-border
33
relationship’, Journal of Transnational Management Development 1(4): 35–54.
34
Butler, R. and Gill, J. (1997) ‘Knowledge and trust in partnership formation’, paper presented
35
36 at the Fourth International Conference on Multi-Organizational Partnerships and
37 Cooperative Strategies, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
38 Cseh, M. and Short, D. (2001) ‘The facilitation of learning in a Hungarian organization:
39 the challenges of training with interpreters and trainers’, Proceedings of the 2nd Conference
40 on HRD, Research and Practice across Europe, University of Twente, Eschede, Netherlands,
41 26–7 January, pp. 41–52.
42 Cyr, D. J (1995) The Human Resource Challenge of International Joint Ventures, Westport,
43 CT: Quorum Books.
44 Czarniawska, B. (1997) ‘Learning organizing in a changing institutional order: examples from
45 city management in Warsaw’, Management Learning 28(4): 475–95.
46 Czarniawska, B. and Sevon, G. (1996) Translating Organizational Change, Berlin: de
47 Gruyter.

321
 Peer-Reviewed Articles

1 Fedor, K. J. and Werther Jr., W. B. (1996) ‘The fourth dimension: creating culturally
2 responsive international alliances’, Organizational Dynamics Autumn: 39–52.
3 Fitzgerald, S. P. (2000) ‘Building personal and procedural trust through Sino-American joint
4 ventures: the transfer of culturally embedded knowledge’, paper presented to the 7th
5 International Conference on Advances in Management, Colorado Springs, USA, July.
6 Geringer, J. M (1991) ‘Strategic determinants of partner selection criteria in international joint
7 ventures’, Journal of International Business 22(1): 41–62.
8 Gilbert, K. and Gorlenko, E. (1999) ‘Transplant and process-oriented approaches to
9 international management development: an evaluation of British-Russian co-operation’,
0 Human Resource Development International 2(4): 335–54.
11 Gill, J. and Butler, R. (1996) ‘Cycles of trust and distrust in joint-ventures’, European
12 Management Journal 14(1): 81–9.
13
Glaister, K. W. and Buckley, P. (1997) ‘Task related and partner-related selection criteria in
14
UK international joint ventures’, British Journal of Management 8(3): 199–222.
15
Grant, R. M., Almeida, P. and Song, J. (2000) ‘Knowledge and the multi-national enterprise’,
16
in C.J.M. Millar, R. M. Grant and C. J. Choi (eds) International Business: Emerging Issues
17
and Emerging Markets, Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 102–14.
18
Gray, B. and Yan, A. (1997) ‘Formation and evolution of international joint ventures:
19
20 examples from U.S.–Chinese partnerships’, in P.W. Beamish and J. P. Killing (eds)
21 Cooperative Strategies: Asian Pacific Perspectives, San Francisco: The New Lexington Press,
22 pp. 57–88.
23 Habermas, J. (1970) ‘Knowledge and interest’, in D. Emmet and A. MacIntyre (eds)
24 Sociological Theory and Philosophical Analysis, London: Macmillan, pp. 36–54.
25 Hamel, G. (1991) ‘Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within
26 international strategic alliances’, Strategic Management Journal 12: 83–103.
27 Harbison, J. R. and Pekar, P. (1998) Smart Alliances: A Practical Guide to Repeatable Success.
28 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29 Harrigan, K. R (1985) Strategies for Joint Ventures, Lexington, MA: Lexington.
30 Henderson, J. and Whitley, R. (1995) ‘Dimensions of transformation in East-Central
31 Europe and Pacific Asia’, British Academy of Management Annual Conference, Sheffield,
32 pp. 180–6.
33 Holden, P. J and Cooper, C. (1994) ‘Russian managers as learners: implications for theories of
34 management learning’, Management Learning 25(4): 503–22.
35 Hull, G. S. (2000) ‘US MBA and management training programs in Central and Eastern
36 Europe’, Journal of Technology Transfer 25: 319–27.
37 Iborra, M. and Saorin, C. (2001) ‘Cultural effects on negotiation process: the
38 interorganizational situation’, Proceedings of the 16th Workshop on Strategic Human
39
Resource Management, EIASM Brussels, 15–16 April, pp. 1–21.
40
Iles, P. A. and Wilson, E. (2002) ‘International joint ventures, HRM, and viable systems
41
theory’, American Society of Business and Behavioural Sciences (Conference Proceedings),
42
August, LSE, London.
43
Iles, P. A and Yolles, M. (2001) ‘Across the great divide: HRD, technology translation and
44
knowledge migration in bridging the knowledge gap between SMEs and universities’,
45
46 Human Resource Development International in press.
47 Inkpen, A. and Currall, J (1997) ‘International joint venture trust: an empirical examination’,

322
 Iles and Yolles: International HRD alliances

1 in P. W. Beamish and J. P. Killing (eds) Cooperative Strategies: Asian Pacific Perspectives,

2 San Francisco: The New Lexington Press, pp. 308–34.
3 Jankowicz, A. D. (1994) ‘Holden and Cooper’s “Russian managers as learners:” a rejoinder’,
4 Management Learning 25(4): 523–6.
5 Jankowicz, D. (1999) ‘Towards a meaningful HRD function in the post-communist
6 economies of Central and Eastern Europe’, Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource
7 Development 318–26.
8 Jankowicz, D. (2000) ‘From “learning organization” to “adaptive organization”’,
9 Management Learning 31(4): 471–90.
0 Jankowicz, A. D and Pettit, S. (1993) ‘Worlds in collusion: an analysis of an Eastern European
11 management development initiative’, Management Education and Development 24(1):
12 93–104.
13
Kelemen, M. and Lightfoot, G. (1999) ‘Discourses of entrepreneurship, pricing and control:
14
the case of Romania’, presented to the British Academy of Management, September.
15
Kelly, A. and Parker, N. (1997) Management Directions: Joint Alliances, Institute of
16
Management Foundation.
17
Klauss, R. (2000) ‘Technology transfer in education – application to developing countries’,
18
Journal of Technology Transfer 25: 277–87.
19
20 Kostera, M. (1995) ‘The modern crusade: missionaries of management come to Eastern
21 Europe’, Management Learning 26(3): 331–52.
22 Kostera, M. (2000) ‘Reclaiming the voice: a reflection on some silenced ones’, Human
23 Resource Development International 3(1): 9–13.
24 Kuhn, S. T. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25 Lee, M., Lecticthe, M., Cranshaw, R. and Thomas, M. (eds) (1996) Management Education
26 in the New Europe, London: International Thomson Business.
27 Li, J. and Shenkar, O (1997) ‘The perspectives of local partners: strategic objectives and
28 structure preferences of international cooperative ventures in China’, in P. W. Beamish and
29 J. P. Killing (eds) Cooperative Strategies: Asian Pacific Perspectives, San Francisco: The New
30 Lexington Press, pp. 22–56.
31 Lorange, P (1986) ‘Human resource management in multinational co-operative ventures’,
32 Human Resource Management 25(1): 133–48.
33 Millman, A. and Randlesome, C. (1993) ‘Developing top Russian managers’, Management
34 Education and Development 24(1): 70–82.
35 Muralidharan, R. and Hamilton, R. D. (1999) ‘Restructuring international joint ventures’,
36 International Journal of Organizational Analysis 7(4): 307–32.
37 Parkhe, A (1993) ‘“Messy” research, methodological predispositions, and theory development
38 in international joint ventures’, Academy of Management Review 18: 227–68.
39
Pavlica, K. and Thorpe, R. (1995) ‘Manager’s perceptions of their identity: a comparative
40
study between the Czech Republic and Britain’. British Journal of Management 9(2), pp.
41
133–150.
42
Pucik, V. (1988) ‘Strategic alliances, organizational learning, and competitive advantage: the
43
HRM agenda’, Human Resource Management 27(1): 77–93.
44
Schuler, R. S. (2001) ‘HR issues in international joint ventures and alliances’, in J. Storey (ed.)
45
46 Human Resource Management: A Critical Text, 2nd edn, London: Thomson Learning,
47 pp. 314–36.

323
 Peer-Reviewed Articles

1 Simon, L. and Davies, G. (1996) ‘A contextual approach to management learning: the

2 Hungarian case’, Organization Studies 17(2): 269–89.
3 Villinger, R. (1996) ‘Post-acquisition managerial learning in Central East Europe’,
4 Organization Studies 17(2): 181–206.
5 Voros, J. and Schermerhorn, J. (1993) ‘Institutional roles in higher education for business and
6 management in Hungary’, Management Education and Development 24(1): 70–82.
7 Yolles, M. I. (1998) ‘A cybernetic exploration of methodological pluralism’, Kybernetes
8 27(4 and 5): 527, 542.
9 Yolles, M. I. (1999) Management Systems: A Viable Systems Approach, London: Financial
0 Times Management.
11 Zhai, P., Shi, Y. J. and Gregory, M. (1999) ‘A resource-based view on the motivation of joint
12 venture formation’, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Multinational
13
Business Management 11: 196–205, Nanjing, PRC, December.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47

324