Critically discuss using examples and academic theory, the relationship between National and Organizational culture
National and organizational cultures are symbiotic thus they form a fabric in shaping the culture in most organizations. To strengthen its applicability in organizations, Geert Hofstede’s came up with a theory of how national and organizational culture is anchored in an organization. In his view, the differences that exist among people result from their level of appreciation of the six value dimensions including power and inequality, collectivism and individualism, uncertainty avoidance and tolerance, masculinity and femininity, indulgence and restrain, as well as on temporal orientation.
Hofstede’s theories have continued to redefine the national and organizational structure of most organizations. For example, Hofsedes illustrate that to understand how the national and organizational culture forms part of an organization, it is important to explicate the nature of typical organizational culture. And thus, these comprised of four types; that is, the task culture, the role culture, the person culture, and the power culture. Task cultures facilitate members to work on particular issues for which they are formed, as a result of this, members within the group tend to be proficient in their work since they both use the matrix reporting structure. However, role culture, on the other hand, exhibits a situation in which members have the autonomy to decide under a highly bureaucratic environment. Also, individuals are found to possess varying capacities in as far as their positions are concerned.
Therefore, the environment is generally managed by the various mechanisms in place. Closely connected with this the power culture, this type of organization culture elevates the role of regulations and rules and power extended from the senior leadership down the hierarchy, However, the power culture in organizations does not embrace much bureaucracy. Therefore, because culture tends to be the most influential aspect in organizational performance, a link between national and organizational aspects is aligned in the membership of the organization thus ensuring the organization comfortably owns the organizational culture based on their own cultural backgrounds.
A number of elements can influence national and organizational culture. These elements are composed of; the paradigm, control systems, the structures within the organization, symbols, routines, and rituals, and myths and stories. The aforementioned elements play an integral role in enabling organizations to grow and they may work simultaneously depending on the nature of the systems in control within the organization
Critically discuss with the use of examples how cultural differences around the globe affect HR practices and processes within a Multi-national corporation in the following roles:
Culture constitutes collective approaches and behaviors that determine an individual. Thus, the culture of an organization determines the rewards schemes executed to its employees. Multinational companies have enhanced employee compensation schemes anchored on various elements. One of the elements in the environment. The environment in this case designates the total cluster of noticeable psychological, physical, and behavioral facets at the workplace. This element constitutes the physical exhibition of organizational culture. Environment establishes the attitude as an employee is absorbed in an organization reacts either deliberately or intuitively. This is due to the fact that they are directly noticeable and measurable.
Precise essentials of the environment can be purposely be changed. The exterior environment in which multinational organizations do their operations influences the internal environment hence it illustrates the contextual basics on the type of reward scheme which the organization can apply to its employees. Also, the retention attitude of an organization plays an important role in administering reward schemes. The ability of an organization to retain its valued employees contributes to organizational success. Hence, multinational organizations are tasked with locating the determinants or the “attractors” anchored on the rewards programs to retain talents that enhance organizations’ productivity. Consequently, Motivation enhances the way in which employees behave in terms of steering organizations’ strategic goals. Rewards packages are pegged on extrinsic motivation which includes good pay which encourages commitment, engagement, and satisfaction for the employee.
Recruitment and Selection
Culture theorists, Hofstede has greatly recognized diverse dimensions existing in the national culture in most organizations. The dimensions identified between cultures have affected how recruitment and selection of employees and the management of stakeholders in multi-national companies are performed. The differences arising from recruiting and selecting from diverse cultures have contributed to challenges that HRM encounters such as the new environment. However, by recruiting people from diverse cultural backgrounds, a multinational company may profit from accruing a unified organizational culture, this suggests that employees selected from diverse national cultures are socialized into the corresponding culture of the recruiting company. Thus, this facilitates learning the practices and corporate culture of the organization.
Training and Development
Multinational organizations operate in diverse cultural backgrounds. Thus, training and development are essential in aligning its strategic goals towards achieving its strategic goals. Training is executed in tandem with organization culture; hence, to achieve effective utilization of HRM, training, and development serve the chore role of enhancing organizations’ traditions of delivering quality services and strengthening individual goals. Besides, the development of HRM resources provides broad opportunities for developing behavioral and technical expertise desired in the organization.
Human Resource Planning
Managing and planning human resource activities in a multinational organization is a challenging issue. Challenges of planning revolve around the availability of resources needed to efficiently plan and execute its strategic organization’s goals. However, effective planning in tandem with organization traditions ensures a reliable and skilled workforce exists and capable of satisfying organizational needs. Planning practices such as forecasting plays a significant role in enabling the organization to thrive in a multicultural environment.
Critically argue the case that a universal approach to HRM is the best option for Multi-National Corporations in the 21st Century
The economic environments in which present businesses operate have been altered from conventional practices. This has been the due establishment of global economies and the growth of technology thus, this has surged efficiency and encouraged competition across the industries participating in market economies. Firms are no longer relying on competing bellicosely on unswerving preferences of realizing economies of scale and establishing “barriers” within their market niche’ and so on. Hence, the universality approach taking place in the 21st century has necessitated business to be market-oriented in contrast to production-based. This has been a growth in tertiary segments of present businesses.
The universality of the HRM approach has created a globally dynamic environment for multi-national organizations has led to HRM shift rather than production. Besides, the trend has created HRM in organizations globally to align themselves with the changing times in management strategies in order to remain relevant and competitive. Implementing strategic alternatives to achieve these goals seems to be favorable and supportive towards organizations’ success in the 21st century.
In the 21st century, the business culture in terms of strategic management tends to fit every segment of strategy in the complete strategy of multi-national organizations and hence this has been regarded as a trend. The HRM has evolved and the integration of core activities in strategic management through the modern discipline of strategic HRM has widely been embraced.
HRM possesses both soft and hard dimensions. Soft HRM practices view an employee as an important asset with importance anchored on an individual and improvement. The employees are a key player in enhancing the competitive advantage and thus HRM in embracing the universal approach has focussed largely on “people management”. In contrast, the hard approach focuses on the organization’s performance and thus tends to value the organization’s interests rather than employees. The hard approach emphasizes the outcome of the organization’s success when incorporated with HRM strategy. In a nutshell, the universality of the HRM approach seems the best for multi-national organizations in the 21st century.