International human resource management systems remain as challenging as ever for many multinationals throughout the world. "The challenge of many multinationals is to create a system that operates effectively in multiple countries by exploiting local differences and inter dependencies while at the same time sustaining global consistency" (Dowling, Festing and Engle 2008, p. 208). The need to establish consistencies between the local standards and worldwide standardized HRM practices is increasingly becoming a prerequisite requirement for multinational firms (Featherstone, 2003). Local differences and inter dependencies are mainly determined by local cultures while worldwide standardized practices are determined by globalization forces which, of course, are west driven. The underlying challenges of human resource management systems in different countries are defined by cultural differences (Holfstede, 1991).
[...] In Taylor's model, time and motion studies were used to maximise efficiency and productivity through payment for results, with little regard being given to the potential influence or significance of human factors upon work performance. However, Tyson (2006) warns that “such assumptions inevitably have fundamental effect upon organisational management styles and environment as well as the working arrangements and methods of organisations. Factors Driving Localisation It is very important for any multinational firm seeking to create a system that operates effectively in multiple countries to exploit the local differences in tandem with the cultural aspects of specific target countries. [...]
[...] Conclusion The management models and patterns of the developed western society that are based on the formation of democratic and stable institutions may not always be applicable to other societies in the process of organisational management. It is evident that different countries may progress through different models of management systems. Therefore, standardized HRM practices may not hold the key to providing the ultimate solutions to the human resource management dilemma that multinational corporations face. Standardisation of management systems is a concept that is heavily influenced by liberalism and yet, the complications introduced by the multiplicity of cultural values can never be ignored. [...]
[...] “First, the Confucian tradition, both structurally and ideologically, recognises a sense of authority formed by the dominant power, formed in the immense hierarchy between rulers and the people. The structure of authority and power that creates an elitist culture is founded on social ethos. The conventional Confucian family system is dominant, featuring the obedience of son towards father, the submissiveness of younger brother to elder brother, and the subordination of wife to husband” (Harris p 49). Confucianism has influenced several oriental societies in Asia in areas such as morality, manners, administrative culture, and social norms (Harris, 1991). [...]
[...] Multinational corporations must therefore master the intersection of management systems which result in mutual inter- penetrations, thus engendering responses of appropriation, adaptation and hybridity, rather than just forceful imposition and mere assimilation. Bibliography Brook, T. & Luong, H.V. (1997), Culture and economy: The shaping of capitalism in Asia. UMP: Ann Arbor. Cole, G. (2002), Management theory and practice. London: Thomson Learning Publishers. Cooley, R.C. & roach, D.A. (1984), Theoretical approaches to communication competence: A conceptual framework, In R.N. Boston Competence in communication (p. [...]
[...] As such, human resources management practices based on bureaucratic structures are bound to succeed since bureaucracy clearly stipulates the powers and responsibilities of bosses over their subordinates. Contemporary management theories consist of contingent management theory and systems theory. The two contemporary theories were proposed by modern theorists such as Maslow, Whitehead and Homans. The contingency theory fall under a class of behavioural theories which appreciate diversity of leadership styles and that though leadership styles that are effective may be successful in some situations, they may also be unsuccessful in others (Cole, 2002). [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee