Cross-Cultural Issues Affecting HRM Strategies - Case Study Example

Cross-cultural issues affecting HRM strategies: Comparison between Europe and Saudi Arabia BY YOU YOUR ACADEMIC ORGANISATION HERE HERE DATE HERE Cross-cultural issues affecting HRM strategies: Comparison between Saudi Arabia and Europe Introduction Certain cross-cultural issues, such as how social groups view other social groups, can impact how human resources efforts are coordinated. Gender role expectations can also impact foreign HR models which should be used to make the business more efficient and close to local values and beliefs. There is evidence that workers in Saudi Arabia are much different than their European colleagues in terms of social values and work ethic, but in some ways also similar. These two countries will be compared and contrasted in order to determine which HR strategies would be most effective in these two regions. Differing international values Many of the HR models available which describe diversity would be usable in Saudi Arabia as it has been cited that workforce diversity is becoming a more important part of the value system in this country (Budhwar and Yaw, 2007, p.141). Saudis are looking for people with different attitudes, desires, and personal values as part of their new focus on diversity. One HR model, the Harvard model, generally speaks to aligning a performance management system to building a diverse workforce in order to achieve competitive advantage (McGraw-hill.com, 2008). If the Saudi value system already embraces diversity as part of their normal organisational culture, this would be of very high advantage to an employee from Europe as they would be celebrated as having different skills and values in a positive, Westernised environment. However, if this European employee were to be transferred to Saudi Arabia, even though they will be entering a diverse workforce the expatriate will have adjustment issues related to the different values and customs of the Saudi environment (Al-Rajhi, Altman, Metcalfe and Roussel, 2006). For example, there is research evidence that many Saudi Arabian managers have a tendency to use sarcasm and destructive criticism when assessing employee work (Sadi and Al-Dubaisi, 2008). In this case, likely a different human resources model should be used when attempting to deal with the European employee frustrations in their new, foreign job role. When using methods to help this expatriate adjust, they will need to consider mentioning that the receipt of manager criticisms, though harsh, are a part of their cultural values and should not be treated as personal assaults on their work ethic. This would call for a soft model of expatriate adjustment where considering the impact on Arab versus Westernised values is likely to create a negative emotional response in the European. Also, Saudi Arabian managers are very high on Hofstede’s Power Distance scale, which identifies a very strong need to keep social distance between different levels of authority in the Saudi business environment (Noer, Leupold and Valle, 2007). Under power-distance, the Saudis would likely not enjoy an afternoon lunch with subordinate employees but would rather stay close to their same-level peers or superiors instead. In Europe, where power distance is lower, the employee might enjoy a lunch with his or her superiors on a routine basis and no long-term impact to the organisation and its efficiency would be experienced. Therefore, in Saudi Arabia, there would be less team-oriented HR models used because having different power levels working together in long-time teams might create more social conflict and uncomfortable situations than the project is worth. Any model which spotlights having different authority ranks working side by side should be examined carefully before setting up a new HR model with teamwork as a focus. Saudis also require the need to avoid uncertainty in decision-making (Noer, et al). These foreign workers would prefer a comfortable and structured environment over that of heavy risk taking or autonomous job tasks. This is much different than the European worker who is praised for risk-taking and this is often seen in many business models as part of innovation and creativity in the job role (Mathis and Jackson, 2005). Because of this, this also reinforces why the Saudi Arabian worker would likely not enjoy being a part of a heavy teamwork-focused HR model because it would interrupt their structured, comfortable and predictable work environment. However, this behavior of avoiding uncertainty could be a large advantage to the HR coordinator in this country because it would give HR more control over administration of policy and process regarding people management. Having specific policies, and ensuring compliance would be easy because workers would likely appreciate having their rules clearly spelled out and also know exactly what to expect for reaching performance targets. Therefore, it would seem that virtually any HR model would work well in Saudi Arabia so long as it is not vague and hard to understand. There is also evidence that workers in Saudi Arabia score highly in the areas of challenging workers and supporting them (Dedoussis, 2004). It seems that managers in this environment like to provide opportunities for workers to improve and actively mentor their development. This is another reason why a good HR model which puts performance first would be beneficial in this environment. A total performance management system links organisational goals to employee contribution toward these goals. Since employees in Saudi Arabia prefer to be challenged and developed, a rewards scheme would seem to be the best model for performance-related motivation and achievement recognition. Much like their European colleagues, Saudis like to learn, grow and contribute and seem to appreciate praise from their managers in return for reward. This is supported by Alanazi and Rodrigues (2003) who offer that Saudi Arabian workers seem to comply more when it is to avoid loss and punishment. It would seem that setting achievable performance targets and setting a reward scheme, while also outlining punishments for not meeting targets, would be a good motivational HR model in Saudi Arabia. The role of women in Saudi Arabia, on a different topic, is much different than in Europe. Women are much more socially-acceptable and part of the culture in Europe whereas Saudi Arabian women still have a somewhat ambiguous status in this country (Pharaon, 2004). This would be highly important in the organisation if there is not a focus on gender diversity when choosing which model of HR to use. It would seem that other than focusing on helping others to recognise the value of the female worker, it would be difficult to define the right HR model for this situation. The recruitment and selection of workers would likely be affected but it would probably depend on the level to which Saudis had embraced gender diversity in this particular environment. In Europe, this gender problem is rarely even an issue it would seem. Saudi Arabian workers are also very high-scoring on the collectivism scale, meaning that they prefer group orientation over individual orientation (Noer, et al). Because of this group-minded philosophy many organisational cultures in Saudi Arabia are probably closely linked toward a collective whole and a group thinking process. For HR professionals, when developing a new vision or mission statement, it might be easy to get the whole organisation to adopt these principles because they like to share thoughts and values as a group whole. In European countries, however, the Westernised worker seems to prefer to be recognised more for their individual contributions, therefore team-based models might not work in all European environments (kwintessential.co.uk, 2008). Saudi Arabian workers would seem to not be driven by individual recognition for reward, therefore any HR model which offers loyalty to the individual rather than the group might be rejected by the local culture (Glazov, 2005). Fitzsimmons (2001) argues that interpersonal skills and patience are two of the most superior competencies for today’s HR professionals. These would represent the ability to establish relationships and show concern for others. Interesting, Saudi Arabian workers tend to score higher in femininity on Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions scale, which identifies that they are more focused on having close personal relationships and care for others (Noer, et al). This would be unexpected in an environment where gender diversity has not yet come out of being ambiguous and heavy criticism is often used. However, with this in mind, a good HR model to use for Saudi Arabians might be to develop stronger colleague relationships with managers in same levels to meet their social needs and also strengthen competitive advantage with human capital. Same-level work groups might enjoy being given opportunities to socialise in non-business environments so that they can enjoy the rewards of their culture in the business. In the European environment, this might be considered a non-value-added activity which does not identify individual talent. The fact that same-level managers and workers would score higher on relationship-oriented aspects of Hofstede’s scale would be of great advantage to the HR manager over that of European cultures. It is said that Saudi Arabians prefer decision-making styles which continuously reinforce group consensus (Dedoussis), therefore there would be more value for any HR model which can make group work, within same level ranks, more common. Part of the feminine characteristics on Hofstede’s scale also involve quality of life as being important to this social group, therefore giving employees, as a reward scheme, opportunities to socialise as colleagues would be highly beneficial. Further discussion The largest differences between Saudi Arabia and Europe seem to be culturally-related, therefore any HR model which is going to be used would need to represent this. There are strict hierarchies of command in Saudi Arabia and it seems to be a cultural problem to step outside of one’s organisational rank to interact with superior managers. However, this seems to work because employees are used to stricter and more rigid organisational structures so any HR professional would not want to begin changing this centralised hierarchy right away. There would likely be problems with staff adjustment and managers who feel animosity for being forced to work with lower-level staff members. This would seem to represent a challenge for the HR manager not used to working in Saudi Arabia because there is evidence that managers like to coach, but do not like socialising in the lower ranks of the business. This might be an opportunity for an innovative HR manger to create a new model for HR which outlines how to keep power distance whilst also mentoring effectively. In collectivist societies, there is also a need for obedience and shared responsibility (Dedoussis). In Saudi Arabia, this would be highly beneficial for the HR manager because senior-level reward programmes would be developed and if a system of accountability and monitoring were created to measure progress, it would likely be accepted and would improve efficiency in the organisation. In Europe, such a programme would likely be considered an invasion of autonomy and rejected by workers or they would be less motivated to succeed and perform. Conclusion The main difference between the Saudi environment and the European environment is how people consider their authority to be directly related to their social needs. This is not necessarily saying that power distance is a negative situation, however it would seem to create the largest difficulties for the HR manager. There seems to be a great deal of focus in business education about the importance of teamwork and cooperation in most human resources models, however when high power distance is important to organisational and social stability, no existing HR model would seem to do the job 100 percent effectively for the Saudi Arabian work environment. In Europe, team-based projects are common, everyday aspects of the business world and do not pose a large threat to existing models of HR for European countries. It seems that the main advantage in Saudi Arabia is the collectivist nature which would be highly effective in getting new goals adopted and socially-accepted by the group, who also likes to reach performance targets and develop. This has always been a problem in European countries, it would seem, in relation to getting workers to develop the vision or mission of the company. These are the biggest differences in both countries and both call for new models of HR. Bibliography Alanazi, F. and Aroldo, R. (2003). “Power bases and attribution in three cultures”. The Journal of Social Psychology, Washington. 143(3), 375. IBI/INFORM Global database. (accessed 8 Apr 2009). Al-Rajhi, I., Altman, Y., Metcalfe, B. and Roussel, J. (2006). “Managing impatriate adjustment as a core human resource management challenge”. Human Resource Planning. 29(4), 15-27. Budhwar, P.S. and Yaw, D.A. (2007). Human Resource Management in Developing Countries. Routledge Research in Employment Relations, 141. Dedoussis, Evangellos. (2004). “A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Organizational Culture: Evidence from Universities in the Arab world and Japan”. Cross Cultural Management, Patrington. 11(1), 15-34. Fitzsimmons, Gerard. (2001). “Willingness to Challenge – What makes a good administrative manager?”. The British Journal of Administrative Management, Orpington. 26(9), p.1. Glazov, Jamie. (2005). “Symposium: Murdering women for hire”. Frontpage Magazine Online. http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=8314 (accessed 8 Apr 2009). Kwintessential.co.uk. (2008). “Individualism”. http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/intercultural/individualism.html (accessed 7 Apr 2009). Mathis, Robert and Jackson, John. (2005). Human Resource Management, 10th ed. United Kingdom: Thompson South-Western. McGraw-hill.com. (2008). “The role of human resource management”. http://highered.mcgrawhill.com/sites/dl/free/0077109686/392055/ SampleChapter_01.pdf. (accessed 7 Apr 2009). Noer, D.M., Leupold, C.R. and Valle, M. (2007). “An Analysis of Saudi Arabian and U.S. Managerial Coaching Behaviors”. Journal of Managerial Issues, Pittsburg. 19(2), 271-289. Pharaon, Nora A. (2004). “Saudi Women and the Muslim State in the 21st Century”. Sex Roles, 51(5/6), 349. Sadi, Muhammad A. and Al-Dubaisi, H. (2008). “Barriers to organizational creativity: The marketing executives’ perspective in Saudi Arabia”. The Journal of Management Development, Bradford. 27(6), p.574. Read More