The Difference in HRM Practice between Australia and Korea - Essay Example

Topic: Lecturer: Presentation: Introduction Human resource management is an organizational function that acts as a link between the employer and employee and deals with issues concerning employees. A human resource manager performs various tasks related to people in an organization such as; recruitment, performance appraisal, administration of benefits, training and development among others. He/she advices the top management on the best human resource practices as well as matters concerning employees. The function in an organization is executed according to the national laws and regulations governing labour practices although some firms can device their own rules provided they are not against the state laws. Another determinant of human resources function is the culture of the nation. Culture encompasses language, norms, customs and beliefs. Policy development needs to take into consideration the values of the country such as individualism or collectivism. Many in the field of HRM argue that the function depends on organizational structure while proponents believe it is dependent on national culture. This paper presents a critique of the significance of national culture as an explanation for the difference in HRM practice between Australia and Korea based on individualism and uncertainty avoidance, which are contrasting national approaches to HRM. Individualism National culture is a significant determinant of the nature of workplace relations and the human resource management practices. In Australia, the culture of individualism is deeply rooted and people usually focus on personal accomplishments rather than working to accomplish tasks as a group. A person ascends the management hierarchy through working hard to become the leader in terms of performance. This is different in Korea where individualism is minimal, and people tend to focus on teamwork to accomplish their workplace tasks. Holbeche (2001) suggests that the determinant of the level of individualism is the economic well being of a country. This suggestion is supported by Vance & Paik (2006) who view teamwork as the response to the need for people sharing a common problem trying to establish a solution. An example is when a country is confronted by a disaster. The government and stakeholders as well as individuals cooperate to ensure that they acquire the desired strength to cope with the disaster. When it is solved, people find no reason to remain together and each party attends to other matters independently. In essence, Australia is one of the countries that have a thriving economy and therefore people may not worry much regarding the source of their livelihoods. While individualism results in greater worker productivity in Australia, it may not be so in Korea. Boxall & Purcell (2007) argue that people are motivated when they are able to set and accomplish their personal goals. They sacrifice their time and efforts towards achieving the goal without focusing on others to play their part. In other words, the results of engaging in a particular task by an individual are owned by him/her and in most cases he/she is likely to benefit in spite of the fact that the results may also be used for other purposes. In the workplace, a person tends to work hard to gain promotion. Each person therefore aiming at accomplishing high results leads to high organizational performance, which is a major reason why human resource managers tend to be focused on promoting individualism to maintain a significant level of competition among the workers (Hofstede, 2001). On the other hand, most organizations in developing countries emphasize on teamwork to combine the insufficient skills among the employees to increase efficiency. Korea’s collectivist approaches have influenced human resource management in the sense that managers promote teamwork and believe that through it, employees are able to learn from each other to maintain a strong workforce. In essence, teamwork is significant in the workplace due to the fact that it allows understanding by all members regarding each other’s tasks and responsibilities. As a result, members assist each other in identifying the possible failures that may result from performing tasks in a particular way, which enhances the performance of individuals. Harold & Frank (2009) argue that since each team member is focused on the accomplishment of a particular organizational goal, they attach much importance to working together, which makes them more productive. Individualism in Australia allows effective mentorship programs for employees. Since each person has unique desires regarding what he/she would like to accomplish, it is possible to establish a strong relationship with a mentor, which is a significant human resource management practice. The success of a new employee highly depends on the induction and guidance offered after joining the organization. Workplace mentoring in Australian organizations has been significant in helping new employees to discover their potential and apply talent to the fullest (Allan et al. 1999). Individualism has shaped the practice in to the form of personal mentorship. Experienced employees help the newly employed ones to cope with workplace challenges and to become innovative, which is significant in the accomplishment of organizational objectives. Even though mentorship is also offered at individual level in Korea, the idea of group work is emphasized. Employees are encouraged to be team players especially in their youthful stages. The collective approach towards solving workplace issues is significant in developing problem solving skills among the employees. In Australia, individualism is evident in the workplace even in regard to employment contracts, which are not given collectively to enable the employees to bargain as a group (Aycan et al. 2000). In other words, individual competence is the key issue according to the Australian culture. While the employees are encouraged to be competent in the workplace through individualism, they tend to be exposed to the risks of a lower bargaining power than the one needed to negotiate for better terms of employment. In Korea where collectivist ideas are shared in the workplace, managers emphasize on having a workforce composed of knowledgeable individuals rather than one perfect employee to assist the others, the reason being that to build the capacity of one individual is a long process but to loose him/her is simple. For this reason, it is assumed that enhancing collectivism in organizations similar to the national culture helps in maintaining talent in the organization since all the employees can not leave on a single day, contrary to the situation whereby one talented and individualistic employee may lead to a great loss of human resources when he/she leaves the organization (Franke et al. 1991). To promote collective working, organizations tend to select employees based on the basic skills and train them on the job to improve their understanding instead of searching for highly experienced employees with unique capabilities. This leads to many organizations being focused on organizational learning to ensure that all the employees acquire the same knowledge. Uncertainty Avoidance The culture of uncertainty avoidance is exhibited by many countries, especially those with low productivity. People are usually anxious of the possibilities that they are exposed to and therefore avoid risk taking as much as possible. It is high in Korea and it largely affects the country’s human resource management. When people engage in economic ventures, they are usually not certain regarding the outcome. It may either be positive or negative, and some times the results might be adverse. As Delery (1998) observes, the choice of uncertainty avoidance depends on the capacity of the people to cope with it. For example, a large multinational organization may make an outlay without fears of uncertainty since it is capable of coping with any kind of outcome. However, a smaller company operating with a small amount of capital may be unable to engage in such ventures as a result of uncertainty. Compared to Australia, the economy of Korea is smaller and therefore the organizations in the country tend to ascertain that they have made the right choice at any given period. In contrast to South Korean human resource managers, those of Australia are flexible and can adopt new knowledge more quickly. They do not need to maintain bureaucracy in the organizational operations to avoid risks as in Korea where they tend to remain prone to risks. The Korean organizations maintain high levels of bureaucracy in many aspects including decision making. Human resource management tends to be focused on maintaining security rather than performance. In other words, it would be better for the out put to be lower than to expose the organizations to risks that may jeopardize its operations (Heine et al. 2002). For Australia, low uncertainty avoidance helps in the improvement of performance since trials are made on various issues especially implementation of the findings of research. In Korea, Many organizations tend to invest time and resources to enhance order and to build the capacity of the employees to make correct predictions, where as in Australia the details of the predictions may not affect the decision as to whether a decision should be implemented (Christopher, 1998). For example, when a Korea based organization sends part of its sales team to a foreign country, the base pay will be lower than the base pay in the country while the commissions are likely to be more. This is an indicator of the level of uncertainty avoidance in the sense that the employees sent abroad may or may fail to accomplish the sales targets leading to a loss if their base pay is high and therefore their earnings are pegged to the amount of sales through commissions. In Australia, the remuneration may be the reverse. A national culture of low uncertainty avoidance (in Australia) may also determine performance and reward management. Employees are likely to be remunerated depending on the output (Campbell & Brosnan, 1999). Salaries might be flexible depending on the fluctuating nature of the operating environment, especially where competition is high, which means the more the risks an employee is ready to undertake, the higher the salary. High Korean organizations may be unable to offer flexible salaries of this nature. In the case of high uncertainty avoidance, the rules governing the conduct of employees are rigid and every employee is required to adhere to them. This is based on the fact that rules are important in preventing the possibility of undesirable occurrences or disorder. Organizational communication is well defined to avoid break down in the flow of information, which may lead to failure in the accomplishment of tasks. On the other hand, in low risk avoidance the employees are allowed to contribute to decision making as well as to participate in flexible work practices whereby they are allowed to apply their own discretion in approaching issues. They do not always have to consult the top management regarding their intended actions (Monir, 2005). Low uncertainty avoidance facilitates growth in an organization because the employees are able to come up with new ideas and develop better approaches towards workplace tasks. Practically, most of the successful organizations have undergone numerous changes as they try to identify the most suitable practices for them. They take risks and develop better strategies for human resources management. Conclusion National culture is significant in the determination of the country’s human resource management. The organizational culture that applies to companies is most likely that of the particular nation. Australia’s national culture of individualism is exhibited in the local organizations whereby every person strives to accomplish the best, while in Korea, the national culture of collectivism leads to the promotion of teamwork in many of the organizations in the country. Both cultures help the organizations to accomplish their goals, but they may not be interchanged. In other words, none of them is inferior. In regard to uncertainty avoidance, the levels are higher in Korea than in Australia. This indicates that the organizations in Korea are less willing to take risks while it is the opposite in Australia. The differences are exhibited in the remuneration, the application of research and development to improve the productivity of human resources as well as in performance and reward management. References Allan, C., Brosnan, P., Walsh, P. (1999), “Human resource strategies: workplace reform and industrial restructuring in Australia and New Zealand”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 10, 5 pp.828-41 Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R.N., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., (2000). “Impact of culture on Human Resource Management Practices: A 10-Country Comparison”. Applied Psychology: An International Review Vol 49, 1 pp 192-221 Boxall, P. & Purcell, J. 2007. Strategy and Human Resource Management: Management, Work and Organizations, Palgrave Macmillan Campbell, I., Brosnan, P. (1999), “Labour market deregulation in Australia: the slow combustion approach to workplace change”, International Review of Applied Economics, Vol. 13, 3, pp.353-94 Christopher B. M. 1998. “The Impact of Culture on the Management Values and Beliefs of Korean Firms”. Journal of Comparative International Management, Vol. 2, 2 pp 66-28 Delery, J.E. 1998. “Issues of fit in strategic human resource management: Implications for Research”. Human Resource Management Review. Vol. 8, 3 pp 289-309 Harold, E. & Frank P. S. (2009). Value-Driven Project Management, John Wiley & sons.  Heine, S. J., Harihara, M., & Niiya, Y. (2002). “Terror management in Japan”. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 187–196 Holbeche, L. 2001. Aligning Human Resources and Business Strategy, Butterworth-Heinemann Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Franke, R.H. Hofstede, G. and Bond, M.H. (1991). “Cultural roots of economic performance: A research note”. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, 165-173. Monir H. T. 2005. International Human Resource Management: A Multinational Company Perspective, Oxford University Press Vance, C. M. & Paik, Y. 2006. Managing a Global Workforce, M.E. Sharpe Read More