Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
resource management
Peter J . Kidger
Introduction
unifying corporate culture (Deal and Kennedy, 1982). This is normally the
predominant management culture, determined by the CEO or top
Downloaded By: [The University of Manchester] At: 14:03 8 February 2008
management team. The founder has often had an important role in shaping
corporate culture (Schein, 1984), and this can be seen in businesses like
Marks & Spencer (Sieff, 1984). The dominant value system (normally that
of executive management) may be considered as a mediator between
national and corporate culture. Corporate culture will be affected by the
social culture, but other contingencies mean that there are differences
between the cultures of organizations in the same country.
Despite, or perhaps because of, a multitude of attempts there is not a
universally agreed definition of culture. Schein (1985) describes a culture
model in three layers: behaviour and artefacts; beliefs and values;
underlying assumptions. He sees, culture as the 'assumptions which lie
behind the values and which determine the behaviour patterns'.
In contrast Adler, Dokter and Redding (1986) distinguish between
(a) the shared ideas which shape and influence social action and
(b) the action itself as played out in the social system.
They note that 'culture' is generally defined as the former, but suggest that
progress in understanding the relationship between culture and manage-
ment practice will be more likely if culture is accepted as being:
While corporate culture has sometimes been expressed simply as 'the way
we do things around here', it is important to recognize what is in the mind
as well as what can be observed. Cultural differences become more
significant as they are manifest in different behaviour patterns. while
behaviour cannot be fully understood without reference to beliefs, values
and underlying assumptions.
culture but does not necessarily mean a complete unification of beliefs and
assumptions. An alternative to the unitarist view of organizational culture
is the suggestion that the challenge for HRM specialists is to develop
policies which are accommodative of multiple value systems, cultural
diversity and differing interests (Horwitz. 1990).
In the multinational. management philosophies or principles may appear
in mission statements and be quoted world-wide as part of the cullure
'glue' which maintains corporate unity. This is despite the problem that all
value statements are potentially culture affected, and may as a result be
differently interpreted in different subsidiaries. The underlying values of
equal opportunity. reward based on performance. individual participation.
selection on merit and so on are all culturally biased. Indeed the whole idea
of an organizational culture which can be created and imposed may itself
be culture bound (Adler and Jelinek. 1986).
Schneider (1988) illustrates how underlying beliefs about man's relation-
ships with others and with nature may affect the acceptability and potential
successfulness of key human resource management practices. She contrasts
particularly Western and Eastern beliefs and discusses them in relation to
planning and staffing, appraisal and compensation. selection and social-
ization. Schneider poses the question: 'To what extent can corporate
culture override national culture differences to create a global company?'
Reviewing some of the evidence she concludes that what may be created is
a cultural mosaic rather than a melting pot. and that national culture may
provide a counter to the creation of international organization man.
differences, there will be a best management style for the future (Prentice,
1990).
Levitt (1983) descrihed technology as 'a powerful force [that] drives
the world towards a converging commonality'. He was referring to the
global market-place and the converging demands of consumers, but one
could similarly refer to a converging comnionality of management.
Greater international competition and the recognition of world-wide
environmental problems have begun to build a common context. Inter-
national best sellers. international conferences and the influence of
international organizations all contribute to the establishment of an
international management culture. Hanaoka (1986) suggests:
Japanese methods being adapted not imported wholesale. In fact the main
policy seemed to be to introduce personnel practices which will best fit the
main business strategy.
Support for a view that the differences between the internationally
orientated and other companies is as important as differences between
countries can be drawn from the comparisons made by Purcell et ul. (1987)
between the industrial relations practices of UK and foreign-owned plants
in Britain. The foreign-owned plants were more likely to employ personnel
specialists, have written policy statements, use job evaluation, operate
briefing groups, organize quality circles and generally devote more
resource to personnel management. In other words, they followed what
textbooks would generally regard as good practice in HRM.
While it would be restrictive to see international human resource
management solely as something that exists in the multinational organiza-
tions, it is reasonable to acknowledge that MNOs are key players in the
international transfer of ideas. At the present time, American, Japanese,
and European organizations are emerging that share some characteristics
that might be deemed international HRM. Good practice models can be
built from what is happening in the global firms (Evans er ul., 1989).
The extent of convergence should not be exaggerated nor should
'superficial resemblances [be] pressed into support for minimising cultural
differences' (Brooke, 1987). What is required is to become clearer ahout
what aspects of organizational life vary because of cultural difference and
what aspects are, despite culture, converging. Adler er (11. (1986) suggest
that it is structures that will become similar while people's behaviour will
show culturally based dissimilarities so that 'we should probably expect to
observe the most profound differences at the informal rather than the
formal organizational level'.
The distinction between structures and behaviour may be over-
simplified, but a reminder of the importance of the informal level in
organizations is useful in this context. The world-wide convergence of
human resource management concepts may result in similar sounding
espoused policies while operational policies are more reflective of cultural
and other differences.
A study of convergence
The Hong Kong textile company was more paternalistic in a way consistent
both with its being a family firm and with Hong Kong culture. Personnel
priorities were to maintain organizational stability. The British firm had its
welfare provision and valued long service but its personnel priorities were
more directed at change. ii reflection of a less stable environment. As is
common in its industry in the U K , the British company recognized unions,
and this obviously affected aspects of practice and priorities.
By contrast. the HR executives of the two electronic subsidiaries were
more concerned with issues of culture, employee involvement and their
contribution to business strategy. Both saw the organization's culture as
not entirely compatible with the values of the local society from which their
labour force is drawn, so that one of the H R M tasks was to promote
assimilation and build commitment to the company. Recognition of
individuals was part of the corporate culture which was reflected in similar
forms of individual consultation, and in this they were different from the
other organizations. Other similarities that could be ascribed to the
common industry/technology included remuneration policy and work
patterns. Both saw themselves as 'upper quartile' companies in terms of
pay and benefits. The American parent had an international mission
statement of employment policy, and this formed one of the constraints
within which their own policies were formed. The parent also shaped the
broad role of the HR function, which had to understand the business and
commercial constraints but was also expected to be the 'corporate
conscience' in personnel matters.
Corporate policy however was not so detailed as to produce complete
uniformity. Differences between the electronic companies emerged in the
kind of welfare provision felt appropriate, and in the tendency for the
Hong Kong executive to refer to their conformity to corporate policy while
the British executive quoted several instances of where they had resisted or
changed proposals from corporate HQ. The latter difference should not be
Downloaded By: [The University of Manchester] At: 14:03 8 February 2008
identifiable HR function.
team.
One of the key issues in defining HRM in the U K has been the role of
trade unions (Fowler, 1987; Guest, 1989). HRM has been seen as
embodying unitarist and individualist values which may not see any reason
why employees would want the protection of union membership. This
aspect of HRM may be considered a reflection of its American and
Japanese origins. The power and effectiveness of unions, and their legal
standing, varies greatly between countries. The union context will in many
situations be important while in others it will be non-existent. A rhodel of
H R M that completely ignores the potential for conflict and differing
employer-employee objectives would seem unrealistic. Of course manage-
ments may establish non-union consultation and procedures to deal with
conflict. but pragmatically international HRM should allow for the union
dimension.
Looking to the future in the European context, Thurley (1990) has
identified four principles as likely building blocks for a European personnel
management model. These arc: the need for dialogue between the social
partners of the organization; the need to build organizations on a multi-
cultural basis; the need to provide opportunities for participation in
decision making; the need to provide for continuous learning by staff and
objective evaluation of results. Although Thurley has carefully related
these principles to the EEC context and specifically to the Social Charter,
they could easily form part of the agenda of international HRM.
The building of multi-cultural organizations in particular will be a major
challenge for human resource management. Despite the claimed ad-
vantage of a strong company culture, i t may be better for organizations
wanting to be adaptive for the future to aim for Schneider's mosaic rather
than the melting pot. The cultural context is important when translating
principle into practice, and successful international managers may be those
who see cultural differences as an opportunity rather than a threat.
Conclusion
adoption of ideas.
Forces of divergence are also at work. Within the current body of
practices there are differences between organizations arising out of their
differing sizes, technologies, histories, organizational cultures and com-
petitive positions. These differences exist within and across national
boundaries. National culture is an important part of the external context.
and its influence should be neither ignored nor exaggerated.
A full picture of international HRM must include both the common and
the different. lnternational HRM will not consist of identical practices
since HRM is not identical within a single industry in one country, let alone
on a world-wide stage. Rather it will be about choices which managers
must make to meet objectives within given contexts.
One aim of future research should be to discover not just whether an
international body of practices is emerging but whether practices have the
same significance in different countries. Where there are differences the
aim should be to see if they relate to specified cultural, educational or
political differences in such a way that a knowledge of the societal culture
will enable one to predict if and when the introduction of practices from
other countries will be successful.
lnternational human resource management is emerging both as a body
of practices and as a field of study into those practices and the theory and
principles that underpin them. If it is recognized on a world-wide basis that
'success goes to those organizations which arc able to recruit and develop
the right people and not just at the top' (Tirnpcrlcy and Sisson, 1989), t h e n
international HRM will continue to grow in significance.
Lecturer in Hirmun Resolrrce Murtagemet~t
University of Solford, 1lK
References
Adlcr. N.J., Doktcr, R. and Rcdding. S.G. (19x6) 'From the Atlantic to Ihe Pacific Ccntrc:
Cross-Cultural Managcnicnt Rcvicws', JortrtrctloJ'Mnt~c~gc~tt~c~t~~. 12 (2): 295-318.
Adler, N.J. and Jclinck. M . (19x6) 'Is "Orgitnizi~tionCulturc" Culture-Bound'?'. Htrr?rcor
Revourcc. Mutrrtgot~~trr,25 ( 1): 73-90.
Armstrong, M. (19x8) A Hutrclhook oJ'Hrtt?~urr Revorrrcc, Mrrtrugetnetrr. London: Kogan Page.
Brookc. M.Z. (1987) Itrrc~rtrcrrior~al A Rrvicw oj'S~rrr~egics
Matrcrgc~t~rc~trr: (rtrrl 0l~porrrrtririe.s.
London: Hutchinson.
Child, J. (19x1) 'Culture, Contingency and C,~pitillismin the Cross-National Study of
Organizations'. In Sti~w.B . M . itnd Cummings. L.L. (cds) Rc,sc,rrrch itr Orgtrt~izct~iotrtrl
Bclruviorrr. Vol. .l. London: Jai Prcsh.
Peter Kidger