Cultural Impacts On HR Activities - Essay Example

Running Head: Cultural impacts on HR activities Cultural impacts on HR activities [Institute’s Cultural impacts on HR activities Abstract The culture is one factor that affects everyone in many ways. The definitions and the importance of culture need to be elaborated in several ways. The ways in which culture affects the lives of people of every race and from every corner of the globe need to be analyzed. It is a clearly established fact that culture is one thing that has the most important role in business forms and organizations as well. Introduction According to W. B. Gudykunst (1997) culture is the only term now which is highly misunderstood as well as highly misused in many cases. This is the only term which is in need of elucidation. Culture refers to the ways of living life. That means, the definition of culture includes the many ways in which life is spent. However, couture is not limited to these. Williamson (2002) says that culture includes every symbolic thing that we learn in daily lives. These are the symbols that represent the thoughts and beliefs that one has in society. Symbols are always meaningless and they are always in need to be understood in a proper manner. Individuals need to give meanings to symbols. Schneider (2000) says that the dimensions of cultures are inclusive of values that human beings have as good or bad as well as right or wrong. When the dimensions of culture are taken into account it can be said that they are just like mathematical dimensions in space as they are usually counted as being very analytical in nature. Removal of just one of the dimensions can result in the removal of others. Different cultures are defined by a set of values that they have. Values can create many kinds of conflicts within culture. There are six dimensions of culture. In the same culture there are many communities and these communities can have many different kinds of technologies as well as economies. S. Shane, S. Venkataraman, and I. MacMillan (1995) have argued that the economics and values are just two of the main dimensions of culture. There are many other examples that can show that the ways in which dimensions operate are incompatible with each other and yet they are the most important part of culture. These are the incompatible ways because of which cultural conflicts can arise in several ways. The first most important dimension of culture is technology. The technological dimension of a community can be regarded as the tools and capital that a community has. These are the tools and the kits that are used to deal with the physical environment of a society. Peterson (2007) says that this is generally regarded as the interface between humanity and nature. According to some of the critics development is the only one factor that can be taken as a part of technology. Here development means increases in the sophistication of technology. Here another point that has been added is that in this case this is the only one factor that shows that the development of changes in the community. Economy is the second dimension of culture. In this case the production and distribution of the wealth is to be considered. Anything and any item that has value can be regarded as wealth and it is worthwhile till its value is lost and it becomes scarce. This category can also include the goods and services. However, in this case the goods are considered until they provide the services that they are supposed to. OReilly III, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991) discuss that like the other main and important five dimensions of culture, the economic dimension is the logical construct of culture as well as the society. Thereby the social institution always has the economic dimension as well as the financial scales. Money cannot be considered as wealth. However, it can be considered as the means to measure the exchange of wealth; in many cases as the goods and services. In this case the point that needs to be elaborated is that wealth does not include business being run in a country or around the globe. McSweeney (2002) argues that the third important dimension is the political dimension and this relates to power as well as influence. The political dimensions are inclusive of authority as well as power. There is a difference that has been given for politics and ideologies as the ideologies are a part of the values dimensions. Markus and Kitayama (1991) say that the institutional dimension refer to the patterns of social interaction and presentation of self and the roles. The aesthetic values are applied by the individuals during judgments made within life. Hofstede and McCrae (2004) have discussed the cultural dimensions by saying that cultural differences can be a disaster. Geert Hofstede has discussed the cultural dimensions in relation to business strategies and dealing with the employees as well as employers at the workplace. In this case the main responsibilities fall on the shoulders of human resource managers as they need to learn the tactics to deal with the employees and the employers from different cultures. Hofstede (1984) adds that the best example of cultural differences in business can be given by the employees of the United States and from Middle Eastern countries. The western countries believe in working together after all the negotiations have been done. Here the important point is the mutual understanding and agreement. Comparatively, in the eastern countries dialogues are the beginning of the more dialogues. G. Casimir, D. A. Waldman, T. Bartram, and S. Yang (2006) discuss that as the first part of the cultural dimension presented by Geert Hofstede, power distance index is the dimension reflecting power distribution in an organization. As in the Chinese culture, distance is higher; therefore the employers at higher posts do not make decision by consulting the employees. Fernández, Junquera, and Ordiz (2003) say that in individualism versus collectivism, collectivism is the dimension reflecting the formation of strong groups within societies supporting each other since the start whereas in individualism, an individual has to look after his or herself. The dimension of masculinity versus femininity reflects the distribution of the roles between the genders within a society. Detert, Schroeder, and Mauriel (2000) have argued that the success of any organization is truly reflected by innovative minds that it has. For the innovation the main factor that works is the risk taking minds or uncertainty. In this case the dimension of uncertainty avoidance is shows how innovative or successful an organization can be in the coming time. The uncertainty avoidance index is higher if the employees and employers avoid taking any risks. It is noticed that the uncertainty avoidance index in China is higher. C. Dimmock and A. Walker (2000) say that the dimension of short term orientation versus short term orientation refers to the following of moral values including social relation obligations as well as respect for the tradition that is reflected in individuals with short term orientation. Critics to Hofstede’s work McSweeney (1999) has evaluated the Geert Hofstede cultural dimension using the alternative depictions of national cultures, including the rich concepts of culture. McSweeney has added that the dimensions that have been given by Geert Hofstede can be rejected on the basis of making a failure attempt to measure the immeasurable dimensions of culture. Findings and conclusions made by being unable to be judged on the basis of predictive values that his findings hold and the smaller scale replications need to be reviewed. Geer Hofstede has not taken the main point of national uniformity into account. This has been done in the case of the national versus the micro national culture. Without taking into account the idea of national uniformity of culture, the arguments have been made by Hofstede treating national culture as local. In addition to this the organizational and occupational cultures are defined as being uniform by Hofstede. In this case McSweeney adds that if Hofstede had taken the third concept into consideration, that concept would have been included to be the uniform one. Here according to McSweeney, the third concept is representative of the fact that individuals within an organization share the same national culture. McSweeney (2002) says that all the individuals have tendencies of behaving as individualists as well as collectivists. These are considered to be the incompatible versions within a society. But if Hofstede’s dimensions are taken into account, such coexistence in one personality is not considered. Therefore, as McSweeney adds here, the dimensions that have been given by Hofstede are ignoring the major cultural qualities. Confucian Dynamism or Long- versus Short-Term Orientation’ is the dimension that had been added by Hofstede after some time and it has been criticized here that this is the dimension that adds more to the national culture model of Hofstede. Therefore, in this case the identification that has been made by Hofstede is not the national culture but is, in fact, the average of the opinions generated from situations which are inferred in an unjust manner. Dimensions of culture: Trompenaar’s dimensions Axelrod (1997) says that the cultural dimensions in regard to the organizations have also been given by Trompenaar. One of the dimensions is universalism versus particularism. Within universalism the rules and regulations are being applied on everyone. The contracts are the basis of doing businesses. However, in the case of particularism, an emphasis is placed on the personal relationships and taking into consideration the ethics for dealing with a situation. Here dealings and agreements are based on personal relationships and thereby they are prone to change. Individualism versus collectivism is the dimension that deals with the fact that an individual takes all the responsibilities without sharing it with the others. Group interaction is kept to a minimum as compared to collectivism where the delegates make organizational decisions. Neutral versus affective relationships is the dimension that makes use of the fact of the use of hidden emotions and the avoidance in sharing feelings with the employees including a lack of any physical contact or gestures. Comparatively, the affective relationships are characterized by proper verbal or non verbal display of thoughts as well as feelings. As Adler has included there are three main aspects to national culture which are inclusive of the fact that national culture is shared by all members of a group whereas the older people pass the culture to the younger people. This is the national culture that helps people to construct behaviors as well as shape up the perception of the world. A. T. Church and W. J. Lonner (1998) say in the case of attitudes and behaviors it has been found by Hofstede that 50% of the differences in multinational companies were revealed in this mechanism. These differences were defined by national cultures as compared to the age and professionalism in the employees within an organization. Dimensions of the HRM According to W. B. Gudykunst (1997) the role of HRM needs to be defined in the context of the international markets. The managers at the HRM should be provided with the instruments that let them take on the roles to understand the roles of cross cultural communication. The developmental process of the multinational companies needs to be kept in mind as these are the factors that transfer the best available knowledge of the countries and the cultures to the managers. HRM provides a competitive advantage for the companies who are aware of the importance of the cross cultural communication. The strategies decision that is made but eh managers should be made after taking the people into trust. The strategic role that the HRM is reflected by the integration of the global strategies as this is the one fact the decides the success of the HRM strategies. The human resources activities should be related to the processes that have been developed by the company. Employee relations Williamson (2002) says that the British unions since many years have been known for their behavior that can be said as being reluctant to see the state intervening in the industrial relations. By the mid 1990s however there had been some changes in the legislations as the introduction of the individual and the collective rights. From here the British face of the employee relations has been seen to be improved as many of the companies have introduced the employee consultation. This is the change that has introduced the freedom for the employee and the employer to have better relationships the employee consultation has been introduced to manage the workplace change through cooperation. A. T. Church and W. J. Lonner (1998) say that the pluralistic approach has been applied in the British workplaces that believes in the mechanisms must be designed to avoid the inescapable arguments that occur between the employers and the employees. It makes use of the collective bargaining with the unions at the workplace where the issues are sought out by the compromises. And here in 1980s and the 1990s the efforts of the human resource management made changes at the workplace emphasizing the team work. The new idea of the partnership between the employer, the employee and the trade unions has emerged recently on the global scale. In this case the trade unions are supportive of the idea of the long term business relationships. Here the common interest is the success and the mutual understanding as well as to secure the competitiveness. The role of the cooperative unions in this case is the provision of a voice to the employees where the feedback on the managerial policies is given to the employers as well as delivering the commitment to the employees with devotion. Roles of the trade unions have changed since long and here they participate in the social models which specifically involve the pluralistic models in the organizations. The definition of the union participation has been changed in the international business so as to make the progress better. Detert, Schroeder, and Mauriel (2000) say that the world is a global village and this is emphasized in the fact that there are many cultural factors that have an effect on communications between employers and employees that take place within an organization. These factors are inclusive of the personal traits that are shaped up by culture. These traits include the contracts, social customs, space, friends or the associates, time, class or the caste of an employee or the employer, individualism, and competition including privacy. Multinational organizations are the planners to reach the market place on a global level. The human resource managers are the ones who need to understand the fact that they cannot confine themselves to their own cultures as well as the countries’ so as to make progress. International market means that the targets are the various countries as well as the various cultures related to these countries. Development/training and the cultural influences Williamson (2002) says The strategic practices need to be explored in the case of training and development of the employees in the cross cultural practices. The recruitment, selection, compensation and the training process is the one challenge that needs to be understood in case of the influence of culture on the training practice. The multicultural international work force needs to be created for the international operations. The specific example that can be quoted here is that of the multinational firms having their headquarters in the united states. The American managers are sent to the overseas countries to carry out the overseas assignments where they face the cross cultural challenges. Culture here plays the strongest role as the cultural backgrounds teach the managers the manners and the ways to react to a situation. Beliefs and the behaviours are the end products of the culture. The human resource training is being given to the mangers to understand the facts and the sensitivities related to the different cultures. Detert, Schroeder, and Mauriel (2000) say that the training that is being given to the employees in the multinational firms should be considering the multicultural nationalities of the employees. The difference in the culture can create the difference of opinion in regards to the opinions in the training making the training and the development process difficult. Strategies should be designed so as to accommodate all the employees with different cultures. The training does not only help on dealings with the overseas operations buy also makes the business easy within the work place. Conclusion The appropriate and the most suitable intercultural services is the need that should be realised by human resource managers in modern times as here the right selection will be a determinant of the organizations’ success. The global village has opened newer and better opportunities for the organizations to grow by making more intercultural contacts that lets these organizations grow. References A. T. Church., and W. J. Lonner. (1998). The Cross-Cultural Perspective in the Study of Personality: Rationale and Current Research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(1): 32 – 62. Axelrod , Robert. (1997). The Dissemination of Culture: A Model with Local Convergence and Global Polarization .The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41 (2), 203-226 . C. Dimmock and A. Walker. (2000). Cross-Cultural Values and Leadership. Management in Education, 14(3): 21 – 24. Detert, R. James., Schroeder, G. Roger., and Mauriel, J. John. (2000). A Framework for Linking Culture and Improvement Initiatives in Organizations . The Academy of Management Review, 25 (4), 850-863. Fernández, Esteban., Junquera, Beatriz., and Ordiz, Mónica. (2003). Organizational culture and human resources in the environmental issue: a review of the literature. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(4), 634-656. G. Casimir, D. A. Waldman, T. Bartram, and S. Yang. (2006). Trust and the Relationship Between Leadership and Follower Performance: Opening the Black Box in Australia and China. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12(3): 68 - 84. Hofstede, Geert. (1984). Hofstedes Culture Dimensions . Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15 (4), 417-433. Hofstede, Geert., and McCrae, R. Robert. (2004). Personality and Culture Revisited: Linking Traits and Dimensions of Culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(1), 52-88. J. G. Blodgett, L.-C. Lu, G. M. Rose, and S. J. Vitell. (2001). Ethical Sensitivity to Stakeholder Interests: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(2): 190 - 202. Jain, C. Harish., Lawler, J. John., and Morishima, Motohiro. (1998). Multinational corporations, human resource management and host-country nationals. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9 (4), 553 -566. Markus, Hazel R., and Kitayama, Shinobu. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253. McSweeney , Brendan. (1999). Essentials of scholarhips: a reply to Geer Hofstede. Human relations, 55(11), 1363-1372. McSweeney , Brendan.(2002). Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith - a Failure of Analysis. Human Relations, 55 (1), 89-118. McSweeney, Brendan. (2002). Hofstedes model of national cultural differences and their consequences: a triumph of faith - a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55( 1), 89-118. OReilly III, A. Charles., Chatman, Jennifer., and Caldwell, F. David. (1991). People and Organizational Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit .The Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3), 487-516. Peterson, M. F. (2007). The Heritage of Cross Cultural Management Research: Implications for the Hofstede Chair in Cultural Diversity. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 7(3): 359 - 377. S. Shane, S. Venkataraman, and I. MacMillan. (1995). Cultural Differences in Innovation Championing Strategies. Journal of Management, 21(5): 931 – 952. Schneider, C. Susan. (2000). National vs. corporate culture: Implications for human resource management . Human Resource Management. 27 (2), 231 – 246. W. B. Gudykunst. (1997). Cultural Variability in Communication: An Introduction. Communication Research, 24(4): 327 - 348. Williamson, Dermot. (2002). Forward from a Critique of Hofstede’s Model of National Culture. Human Relations, 55 (11), 1373-1395. Read More