Hrm Culture - Cultural Perspectives

LECTURE 3 – CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES

1)        Introduction

*        In today's lecture we are going to start exploring the most enduring and fundamental debate within the field of international and comparative HRM. In the process we will also introduce some of the major research findings which underpin thinking about comparative HRM and cross-cultural management.

*        The starting point is the observation that the way that people are managed, and indeed the way         that they expect to be managed, varies considerably from one country to another.

*        This has hugely significant consequences for organisations that are based in one country but which         seek to extend their activities overseas by becoming multi-nationals (MNCs).

*        The natural tendency for managers in such corporations is to seek to export into foreign         subsidiaries their accustomed approaches to people management along with their other business         activities. In other words, there is a desire to replicate overseas the 'management formula' that         has helped to make them commercially successful in the context of their home country.  

*        Moreover, there is also a strong and understandable tendency for multi-nationals to try to         standardise the approach to people management that they adopt across their global operations.         This is partly because they want to spread 'good practice' as a means of maximising effectiveness,         and partly because of a desire to treat people fairly and equally.

*        However, the extent to which it is possible for multi-nationals to standardise their people         management         practices at all, let alone to impose the 'home country' regime across global         operations, in practice has proved to be very limited.

*        This is because the customary approaches that are taken in different parts of the world vary considerably and are often very 'sticky' (ie: resistant to change). As a result, in order to be successful international companies are forced to manage people 'within the grain' of local expectations.

*        HR strategy tends to be international in nature, and management across MNCs will always reflect         to a strong degree the approaches that are common in the country in which they are         headquartered. But there is also always a good amount of necessary local variation.

*        Beyond these practical issues lies an enduring and quite fiercely contested academic debate about the extent to which cultural differences satisfactorily explain differences in the way HRM is practiced in different countries.        

*        Opinion here is sharply divided between those who argue that the observed differences are mainly explained by cultural diversity and those who see institutional differences as being primarily responsible.

*        This debate is in many ways the expression in the IHRM field of the ever-present philosophical         debate about "nature v nurture" that rages across the social sciences . One can't readily be         changed, the         other can.

*        It matters very much from a public policy perspective, because culture is much harder to change         than institutions.

*        If the institutionalist perspective is correct, it follows that a government or inter-governmental         body such as the European Union (EU) or the International Labour Organisation (ILO) can         realistically promote         international convergence by altering institutional arrangements.

*        By contrast, if the cultural perspective contains more truth, such attempts to bring about         international convergence / standardisation are likely to meet with resistance and probably fail.

*        In today’s lecture we are going to focus on cultural difference. Next week we will turn our attention to institutional differences and try to reach some conclusions about this debate.

2)        Definitions of culture

*        The term 'culture' in the context of management and organisations can be defined in a number of         different ways. Here are some examples:

• Hofstede (1984) - 'the collective programming of the human mind that distinguishes the members of one human group from those of another'

• Tayeb (2003) – 'historically evolved values, attitudes and meanings that are learned and shared by the members of a community'

• Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner (1997) – 'the way in which a group of people solves problems and reconciles dilemmas'

*        Other writers focus on the idea of 'shared norms' and 'expectations'. Deal and Kennedy (1982) in         their influential book on 'corporate culture' sensibly avoided any precise definition, preferring         instead simply to write about 'the way things are done around here.'

*        When comparing the workplace cultures that tend to prevail in different parts of the world researchers often argue that they do so because the large majority of people working in them have been collectively socialised. Certain ways of seeing the world and behaving in a workplace thus become the norm and are expected. Alternative approaches are then seen by most as ‘deviant’ in that they differ from the established norm.

3)        Cultural variation

*        While it can be plausibly argued that the world is steadily becoming more homogeneous culturally,         all the research indicates that for the foreseeable         future very substantial differences between         different national cultures will continue.