Comparative,study,on,Corporation,University,Between,China,and,USA

Comparative study on Corporation University Between China and USA

Yang Zhao

(International Business School, Beijing Foreign Studies University, Beijing 100089, China)

Introduction

China’s rapid economic growth and movement toward a knowledge-based workforce have led to an increasing need for skilled labor at all levels. However, large quantities of workforce in China is related with low quality of workforce, resulting in contradiction of the small volume of skilled labor supply and large demand (China’s Employment White Paper, 2004). Vocational training in China is generally not well-developed compared with developed countries, but a clear trend in recent decades is the strengthening of vocational training, especially training sponsored by employers (Tsang, 2004).

After Motorola established first Corporation University (CU) in China in 1993, the last twenty years has seen the number of corporate universities grow rapidly in China. In general, these CUs can be categorized into two types: the first type of CUs are established by Multinational Corporations, such as Motorola University, GE China Technology Center, Siemens Learning Campus China and so on. Another type of CUs in China are established by local corporations, like Haier, Lenovo, Huawei, Tencent, Aokang and so on.

In discussion paper three, Tencent Corporation University is analyzed and how Tencent University’s training system facilitates employee career development is also discussed. The purpose of this paper it to compare Chinese Corporation University and American Corporation University. Specifically, three goals are expected to achieve in the following essay: （a）briefly introducing Corporation University in China; (b) comparing Chinese CUs and American CUs from the perspective of curriculum system, trainer management system and evaluation system; (c) briefly discussing why there retains a high level of interest on CUs in China compared with a diminished emphasis in USA.

Corporation University (CU) in China

Jeanne Meister (1998) defined CU as a centralized strategic umbrella for the education and development of employees which is the chief vehicle for disseminating an organization’s culture and fostering the development of not only job skills, but also such core workplace skills as learning-to-learn, leadership, creative thinking, and problem solving (p.38). American Productivity and Quality Center also defines CU as “a process, by which all levels of employees participate in learning experiences necessary to improve job performance and enhance business impact” (APQC, 2000, p. 6).

Although the concept of CU has existed for more than eight decades in the Western world, it has been a recent phenomenon in China. According to the research by Keylogic consulting center (2007), 90% CUs in China are developed from traditional training department of corporation. Many Chinese scholars think CU is a company-driven initiative that integrates personal and group development processes behind a strategic vision, and CU is always aligned with corporation strategies (Sham, 2007). It is evident that the establishing of CUs is based on the corporation strategic needs. CUs are embedded in the organization’s culture and seek to optimize learning through commitment to strategic intent in order to support organizational objectives. Take COFCO (ChinaOilandFoodImportandExportCorporation) as an example, in order to manage multinational business better, corporation has an urgent need for senior managers with good cultural competency and for a perse working environment. Therefore, COFCO University aims to spread corporation culture and cultivate potential senior managers by training their management ability and cultural competence.

CUs in China vs. CUs in the USA

1. Curriculum system

Curriculum system is often viewed as the core of a CU, so both Chinese CUs and American CUs pay great attention to establishing effective curriculum system. Famous American CUs, like GE, HP and Motorola, generally develop their curriculums based on corporations’ actual development needs. For example, Motorola University mainly focuses on technical training, and trainees’ practice and operation are paid great attention; considering market needs for high-quality management curriculums, HP business school successfully designs and sells a series of curriculums aiming at external market rather than only aiming at internal employees.

Similarly to American CUs, Chinese CUs also pay a great attention to practicability, and how to meet actual needs in workplace is their main concern. For example, Pingan University’s curriculums are focusing on improving employees’ sales skills and enhancing their financial knowledge; technical training are the main content of Hisense University and Haier University; and Huawei University’s training system contains new employee training, management training, technical training and sales training. Huawei University’s technical curriculums are outstanding in information technology industry in China, however, Huawei University’s management training is relatively weak compared with its technical training curriculums (Wang, 2013). In a word, the Chinese CUs’ curriculum system is not as well developed as that in the American CUs, and curriculum quality and systematisms still need to be improved compared with USA.

It is worth to note that some famous CUs’ curriculum system is increasingly developed into an intellectual product which is embedded with corporation brand, and these curriculums are often sold to society to make profits. These corporations are using the university model to brand their curriculum system, training programs, and courseware, to effectively manage training investment (Meister, 1998). Take Tencent University as an example, its online learning and testing platform is open to society and external learners will have to pay for the courses. After learners successfully finish a certain number of courses, Tencent will award them with a certificate. Since Tencent has good reputation in industry, the certificate can be viewed as a proof of ability to a certain degree. According to the 2014 annual report of Tencent, the return on investment of Tencent University is about 13% by selling online courses to society (Tencent, 2014). In terms of internal, Tencent University is responsible for training Tencent’ employees and facilitate employees career development. In term of external, Tencent University is more than a training center, it is more like an intellectual products sold to society.

2. The management of trainer

In terms of quantity of the trainers, differences exist among different American CUs. For example, the number of trainers in Motorola University had increased to more than 1500 in the year of 2010, which was more than that of some traditional academic universities and colleges (Wang, 2013). These trainers are mainly from corporation top management, traditional universities, consulting companies and academic institute, and more than 85% trainers had obtained master degree (Wang, 2013). Compared with American CUs, there are more trainers in Chinese CUs because there is a larger number of trainees and a larger demand for skilled employees in China. However, the quality of trainers in Chinese CUs is relatively low, and the percentage of trainers who have master degree is less than 50% (Wang, 2013).

In terms of certification system, most of the trainers are from top management of enterprise in American CUs, while most of the trainers are from college and university in China because of national vocational qualification certificate system. In Chinese CUs, only less 12% national certificated teachers are from enterprises, and more than 80% trainers are from college or university without practical working experience (Ministry of Education, 2011). In China, TVET teacher education and training basically employs the school-based model designed for general education teachers. This model means that education and training mainly occurs at school, and courses are more about the theory rather than about the work, for the work, or through the work (Stone, 2001).This causes the common phenomenon that new trainers in CUs are less familiar with the actual work environment, thus lack the specialized knowledge and practical skills in workplace (Jia & Norton & Xiao, 2014). In addition, most Chinese CUs lack its internal trainer certification system (Norton, He & Gao, 2013). The existing national certification system can only ensure a basic quality of the trainers, but it is unable to reflect the special requirements from different corporations.Last but not least, the assessment of practical operation ability is ignored in current trainers’ certification system, and the written exam is designed based on the general education, which leads to the common problem of TVET teachers lacking practical andragogic skills, operational skills, and professional development competencies (Norton, He & Gao, 2013).

3. Evaluation system

In fact, lacking of effective and thorough evaluation part is the major weakness of most of Chinese CUs compared with USA. In the USA, most CUs have their own effective evaluation system. For example, GE establishes an evaluation system aiming at improving trainees’ performance, and the system contains four parts based on different training objects: reaction, knowledge, behavior, and performance. Motorola University develops a competency model, and the model is categorized into two types: basic competency model aiming at cultivating front-line and secondary leaders, while senior competency model is designed to train top manages (Li. 2007). In general, the major methods used in evaluating training in American CUs are Kirkpatrick five level, four-level model, return-on-investment, CIRO training evaluation model (Sham. 2007).

However, most Chinese CUs lack effective and thorough evaluation system. For example, there is only qualitative evaluation in Haier University based on two principles: developing employees’ talent and improving employees’ competency. In Hisense University and Tencent University, there is only an after-training satisfaction survey to evaluate (Wang, 2013). In addition, evaluation criteria is not unified among different training courses. More importantly, there is no evaluation to prove the value of CUs in improving corporation performance and increasing corporation attraction. Meister (1998) indicates that inability to prove the value of the corporate universities is one of the key obstacles to running a corporate university. Following this logic, evaluation on CUs should be measured at two levels: the micro level to evaluate the effect of the training programs, and at the macro level to measure the impact of corporate universities on overall business performance.

Therefore, Chinese CUs should significantly improve in training evaluation aspect. To be specific, it is advised to develop consistent and routine evaluation mechanism, and more effective evaluation methods should also be developed. Through effective evaluation, it is clearer to show how great return-on-investment of CU can bring to a corporation. It was also recommended that evaluation systems should be aligned with reward systems to motivate employees and trainers.

Conclusion

After comparison, it is concluded that there is still a gap between Chinese CUs and American CUs in terms of curriculum system, management of trainer and evaluation system. Although both Chinese and American CUs pay attention to developing practical curriculums aiming at corporation’s actual needs, Chinese CUs are still required to make further development, especially in developing internal trainers’ qualified certification system and establishing effective and thorough evaluation system.

It is interesting that there seems to remains a high level of interest on CUs in China during the recent years, while there is a diminished emphasis in USA. This situation may result from the shortage of qualified skilled employees and large demand for training on vast unskilled employees in China. It appears that national and local vocational and technical education providers in China fail to produce adequately well-trained labor force to meet industry’s needs. (Shaw, 2005; Meister, 1998). It seems like that CUs are better at providing training aiming at corporation actual needs and helping employees to develop their career planning (Dealtry, 2000). Through the CU, the concept of “training” has had to be redefined. Its key role is to facilitate both inpiduals and organization in becoming efficient learners in order to maintain competitiveness in the ever-changing business environment (Sham, 2007). Of course, whether the functional extension of current CUs is too far away from its original training function and the negative effects of CUs can also be discussed in further research.

Reference

Li, J. and Alagaraja, M. (2007). Emergence of HRD issues: A Conceptual Framework for Corporate University in the Context of Chinese Organization. Online Submission.

Tsang M. C., The costs of adult education and training. In Xiao, J. and Tsang, Mun c. (1999). Human capital development in an emerging economy: The experience of Shenzhen, china. China quarterly, (157), 72-114.

Meister, J. (1998). Extending the short shelf life of knowledge.Training and Development. 52 (6),52-53.

Meister, J. (1998). Ten steps to creating a corporate university.Training and Development. (52) (6), 38-43.

American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC). (2000). The Corporate University: Measuring the Impact of Learning, APQC International Benchmarking Clearinghouse, Houston, TX.

Sham, C. (2007). An exploratory study of corporate universities in China. Journal of Workplace Learning.19 (4), 257-264.

Qiao, J. X. (2009). Corporate Universities in China: Processes, Issues and Challenges.Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(2), 166-174.

Keylogic. (2007). The age of netizen: talent cultivatioin in mobile internet era. Keylogic Corporation University Research White Report. Keylogic consulting center.

Ministry of Education, pision of Vocation and Adult. (2011). Notice on the List of qualified National Key TVET teacher training bases and professional skills training demonstration units. Retrieved from http://www.tech.net.cn/ web/articleview.aspx?id=20111123141511406&cata_id=N003.

Norton, R.E., Zhen, H. & Gao, S. Y. (2013). DACUM research chart for Chinese vocational technical teacher. Retrieve from DACUM Research Chart Bank, Center on Educationand Training for Employment, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

Wang, X. (2013). The comparison between Chinese Corporation University and American Corporation University: suggestions for Chinese Corporation University. Capital Normal University dissertation journal, 4-56.

Dealtry, R. (2000). Case research in the evolution of corporate university development process.

Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today. 12 (8), 342-357.

China’s Employment White Paper. (2004). Retrieved Nov 17, 2015 from http://www.china.org.cn/e-white/20040426/

1