Ability of HR Management to Affect Cultural Changes within Corporations - Essay Example

? Ability of HR management to affect cultural changes within corporations is limited Strategic Human Resource Management or strategic HRM in the context of current globalisation and corporate modernisation is being used to show a system oriented intervention, which connects HRM to strategic business planning and cultural changes within a corporation (Molineux, 2010). During the process, however an emphasis is placed on implementing the ‘hard’ model of HRM, which focuses more on the aspect of ‘management,’ instead of emphasising on ‘human’ aspect of a firm. Various business strategies that aim at improving the financial position of a firm within a highly competitive market may achieve success, but in turn may produce adverse effects on its employees, especially when the latter are viewed as labour commodities. A study of the Australian workplace scenario shows that strategic HRM are often faced with issues when trying to affect cultural changes as lack employee focus, leading to increased work related insecurities and a persistently decreasing job satisfaction (Leah, 1999). Culture, which fundamentally relates to the meaning an individual deciphers about the world around him and an understanding of the tools with which he must deal with this world, the primary objective of cultural changes within a workplace is associated with conscious and active processes aimed at developing capabilities that enable individuals to find new methods of working. It makes way for new processes, beliefs, thoughts, and measures that help to bring about organizational success. Owing to current large-scale globalisation, business strategies have become more intricate, making it necessary that workplace culture within an organisation becomes more complex in order to implement various modifications. This paper will study the role of HRM as regards affecting cultural changes within an organisation and will derive that implementing cultural changes is a complex and difficult process, and HR management has a limited role in affecting these changes. Human resource management can be defined collectively as comprising of “all concepts, strategies, policies and practices which organizations use to manage and develop the people who work for them” (Rudman, 2002, 3). The current function of HR is to manage long-term goals, and to take a wider and more balanced approach, instead of convening only on internal issues pertaining to human resource management. Modern HR managers emphasise more on future-based goals, long-term strategies, value adding leadership roles with focus on global integration, primarily in terms of economic and socio-cultural integration (Adler and Gundersen, 2008, pp.7-9). Fig 1: Human resource activities of a modern business firm (International HRM and organizational behavior learning guide, 2010). Ulrich (1996) delineated HRM roles and divided them into four categories based on their functions. These are Change Agent, Strategic Business Partner, Administration, and Employee Champions (Ulrich, 1996, pp. 19-20). Besides these, HR managers must be knowledgeable about the socio-cultural effects of globalization and be technologically oriented. In context of HR functions as a change agent and a strategic business partner, which encompass bringing in strategic cultural changes within an organization, these are associated with guiding and assisting in creating an overall business strategy and framing of HR plans and activities, keeping in mind the current globalization. If human resource strategies are incorrectly planned and implemented, an organization is likely to face failure within the global market that is highly competitive in nature (Belcourt and McBey, 2010). Here, the human resource managers help to formulate overall business strategies and set goals for a firm, while bringing in suitable workplace cultural changes within an organization that would assist in achieving success in overall business outcome. The word ‘organisational culture,’ which became popular during the 1980s, is often considered as one of the most signi?cant aspect in the concept of organisational change process, even in instances where there are no objectives for changing the workplace culture of a firm (Alvesson and Sveningsson, 2008). A review of the various cultural studies conducted on the topic of organizational research, shows that most of the de?nitions of the term relate to personal interpretations or perspectives, shared meanings, norms and values. Thus, it can be assumed that culture does not merely refer to social behaviours and structures but is more of a mental process, based on thought processes and values of individuals functioning within a group, and their similarities and differences from individuals functioning within another group. Geert Hofstede, from his researches on organizational culture identified four dimensions of the term that could be applied globally, across different cultures, later adding a fifth dimension to increase its applicability (Hofstede, 2001, 24-31). Each dimension is given its own origin and a possible outcome for HR management comportment. Power distance: this dimension reveals the extent to society is ready to accept a power structure that is unequal or hierarchical in form. Some societies favor a hierarchical social order where the relationship (or the social gap) between a subordinate and his superior is stringently maintained with a great deal of reverence and rigidity, while some societies tend to be more democratic in nature. Observations revealed that firms in the US, Australia, Norway and Sweden culturally show low degrees of power distance (less of rigid hierarchy), while those in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and south Europe culturally follow a social order that maintains condescension and hierarchy (Hofstede, 2001, 24-31). Avoidance of uncertainty or risk: Another important cultural aspect is the social tendency to avoid uncertainty, which shows the extent to which a society is willing to go and accept risks and ambiguity in any venture. In corporations that are averse to taking risks, rules and institutional framework are framed in a manner that alleviates any threat of vagueness and uncertainty and have complex processes that frame rules and regulations and bureaucracy dominates the working arena (Hofstede, 2001, 24-31). Such a scenario is apparent in corporations based in countries like Italy, France and Germany, while Australia and the UK are more open towards taking risks (An Australia–USA Free Trade Agreement: Issues and Implications, 2001, 140). Collectivism and Individualism: In corporations (or nations) that are culturally collectivist in nature, there are shared responsibilities and a sense of faithfulness amongst extended team members and intricate social networks (Asia and other emerging economies). On the other hand nations that are culturally oriented towards individualism the chief concern is to achieve personal well-being of an individual or his close relations (the USA, and Australia) (Hofstede, 2001, 24-31). Feminine and Masculine values: This aspect displays a society’s inclination to cling to the stereotyped masculine values like high salaries, individual recognition and competitive career and give them more importance than the stereotyped ‘feminine’ values like well-being of an employee, strong personal relationships, employee satisfaction, general consensus of employees in decision making processes, sharing and fostering (Hofstede, 2001, 24-31). Short-term and long-term orientation: This fifth dimension was taken into consideration in to integrate specific Asian (oriental) values, like constancy and persistence, thus promoting strategic plans with a long-term orientation, in direct contrast to western values that emphasize short-term orientation demanding immediate results (Hofstede, 2001, 24-31). Changing the organizational culture, keeping in mind aspects delineated by Hofstede, is a difficult process, taking into consideration the fact that organizational culture is developed over many years, through team interaction within an organization.  Organizational cultures are created owing to various reasons. A specific organizational culture might build up that matches the founder’s style. Often organisational culture reflects the current management approach, while in some cases managers hire people who are similar to themselves, thus establishing an organizational culture, which is reinforced through new employees. Considering changing the culture that has been in place for a long time, is a difficult process, takes time, and is often considered only under extreme situations, like impending bankruptcy. In this context, the role of HRM, which primarily plays the role of an advisor and a trainer of business leaders, has an important yet limited role for affecting organisational cultural changes. In most organizations, HRM act as business partners doing both strategic and tactical work, dealing with HR related data and administrative work. Affecting organisational cultural requires more close interaction with the employees and greater strategic planning, which under current circumstances many of HR professionals working in firms that are more traditional in their workplace culture. Allowing HRM to take active part in affecting organisational cultural change is a relatively new process and has started only after globalisation has set in, therefore being more popular in the MNCs. In Australia, the market being oligopolistic, is more broad yet shallow in nature, thus making the firms more suitable for domestic markets than the global arena (hence the lack of active participation of HRM in wider strategic roles). However, in the current context of stiff completion and globalisation the real value of the HRM as change agents and business strategic partners lie in their abilities to play the role of a mentor, trainer, strategist and a guide. As Peter Acheson from Peoplebank opined, “People need to understand why it’s important, they need to understand the urgency behind it, their role in it, the organisation’s commitment to it, and also why it will be better for them in the future”(HC Online, 2012). Thus, the role of HRM is limited to that of a guide, an adviser and a strategist in the context of affecting organisational cultural change, while actual implementation lies in the hands of business leaders who are more in direct contact with other employees. References Adler, N., and Gundersen, A., 2008. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior (3rd edition). Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing. Alvesson, M., and Sveningsson, S., 2008. Changing Organizational Culture. NY: Routledge. An Australia–USA Free Trade Agreement: Issues and Implications, 2001. Annex 5, Business cultures. Retrieved from  http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/aus_us_fta_mon/Annex5.pdf. [23rd august 2012] Belcourt, M., and McBey, K., 2010. Strategic Human Resources Planning (4th edition). US: Cengage Learning. HC Online, 2012. HR in the driver’s seat of cultural direction. Retrieved from http://www.hcamag.com/resources/Change-Management/hr-in-the-drivers-seat-of-cultural-direction/128642/ [22nd August 2012] Hofstede, G., 2001. Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. International HRM and organizational behavior learning guide, [2010], Human Resource Management and the Environment-International HRM Challenge. Retrieved from, http://finntrack.co.uk/learners/int_hrm_org_behaviour.html#wk1 [accessed 23rd August 2012] Leah, K., 1999. Strategic human resources management in Australia: the human cost. International Journal of Manpower 20 (8), 577 – 587. Molineux, J., 2010. Enabling organisational cultural change using systemic strategic human resource management - a longitudinal study. ANZAM 2010: Refereed Papers of the 24th Annual Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference, ANZAM, (Adelaide, S. Australia).  Rudman, R., 2002. Human Resources Management in New Zealand (4th ed.). Auckland: Prentice Hall. Read More