Global People Management Hrm Leadership

GLOBAL PEOPLE MANAGEMENT: HRM & LEADERSHIP

Answer to question 1
Managing global talent is a tough task because of differences in behavior and culture.
Managing global talent needs to adopt a proper approach that can help to achieve desired
organizational objectives. The universalistic approach of HRM evaluates the direct
relationship between the performance of the firm and the different strategic performance of
HRM1. This approach is called the best approach because it only concentrates on solving
different essential HR issues that are essential for a global firm. For example, issues of
employee training, recruitment and selection are some HR issues that are faced by MNCs.
According to this approach, processes like recruitment, training and increasing motivation are
applicable to every organization. Adopting this approach can help the international firm to
concentrate only on the essential HR issues. Thus, different other factors, which can have an
impact on HR practices, are ignored. For example, the unique nature of organizational
policies can have an impact on essential HR practices. On the other hand, social and cultural
influences, which vary globally, are also ignored while adopting this approach during talent
management.
A contextual approach is totally different from a universalistic approach because this
approach considers context as a contingency variable. As the company is looking to become
more international, hence, different factors can be considered while managing global talents.
The contextual approach can help the HR manager of this company to consider different
environmental factors upon which the organization is operating2. These factors show different
characters in different countries. The factors can be social, institutional and political that
needs to be considered while performing HR duties. For example, during the HR process of
training and career development of employees in this organization, government training
policies can be considered to get adhered to government standards. These policies can be
different in different countries. Hence, a large number of stakeholders need to be involved
while the formulation and implementation of HRM strategies in this firm. This is a major
difference between this approach and the universalistic approach.
The universalistic approach only requires internal stakeholders mainly from the HR
department to formulate and implement HR strategies. Different processes like recruitment of
employees, providing training to employees can be done by reviewing organizational policies
and involving internal stakeholders by adopting universalistic approaches3. On the other
hand, adopting a contextual approach requires this firm to involve a broader range of
stakeholders. Hence, this approach can be implemented by firming a multiple stakeholder
framework. For example, recruiting employees by adopting a contextual approach needs to
involve internal stakeholders of the firm like HR managers and executives and external
stakeholders like local agencies, government departments, and others.
Modern human resource management is a challenging task and different factors like
environmental uncertainty, turbulence, cultural imbalance, increased regulation and uneven
economy can impact the performance of the organization. The contextual approach can help
to consider cultural beliefs, political situations of a particular country where the firm
operates4. Understanding these environmental factors can help to design the HR strategies
properly. Moreover, this approach can help to analyze the threats from environmental factors
1 Elaine Farndale, and Karin Sanders. "Conceptualizing HRM system strength through a cross-cultural
lens." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 28, no. 1 (2017): 132-148.
2 Adnan Iqbal. "The strategic human resource management approaches and organisational
performance." Journal of Advances in Management Research (2019).
3 Seung-Wan Kang, and Su-Dol Kang. "High-commitment human resource management and job stress:
Supervisor support as a moderator." Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal 44, no. 10
(2016): 1719-1731.
4 Jaap Paauwe and Elaine Farndale. Strategy, HRM, and performance: A contextual approach. Oxford
University Press, 2017.
2

that can create challenges for HRM. For example, adopting a contextual approach can help to
analyze government directive about the recruitment of disabled individuals. If the global
organization did not provide equal opportunity to disabled employees adhering to company
policies, then this can create legal issues in that particular country. The universalistic
approach requires less time than the contextual approach to solving different HR issues and
formulation strategies for HR operations5. This is because a contextual approach requires the
collection of information from external and internal stakeholders and then the only
formulation of best practices can be done. However, a universalistic approach depends on
organizational objectives and policies. Hence, this firm can adopt a contextual approach for
managing global talent properly and this can enable this firm to mitigate different HR
challenges properly.
Answer to question 2
Schwartz's theory: Schwartz has mentioned the cultural dimensions of values are the
potential to explain the basic issues that can be faced by society. The dimension of
Conservation vs. Autonomy is defining the relationship between individuals and the group.
For example, some of the employees face difficulties to choose between their own benefit
and the benefit for the group. On the other hand, the dimension of Hierarchy vs.
Egalitarianism postulates about the issue of choosing one from the hierarchical system and
equality6. For example, most of the organizations follow a hierarchical structure. However,
managers face difficulties when they feel that focusing on equality can help them to engage
more employees within their way of achieving organizational goals. The dimension of
Mastery vs. Harmony is explaining the dilemma of people to become successful or accept
the current place7. For example, leaders are independent, ambitious and competent. However,
most of their subordinates accept their place and follow the instructions from the leaders
happily. If some of them try to focus on self-development and seek independence, they can
be considered as potential future leaders. Schwartz has compared 7 values including affective
autonomy, conservatism, hierarchy, competency, intellectual autonomy, egalitarian
compromise and harmony through these three pairs of dimensions.
Hofstede’s cultural dimension: Psychologist Hofstede has studied the workers of IBM in
the above 50 countries and concluded by developing 6 cultural dimensions. Scores in each
dimension refer to the specific organizational culture. For example, higher scores in the
Individualism vs. Collectivism dimension refer to the culture where individuals get respect,
privacy, and encouragement to take part in debates8. On the other hand, a high score in the
dimension of Masculinity vs. Femininity mentions about the culture where achievements
and money are the most important and strong egos of people exist. A good organizational
culture never allows the management to distribute tasks according to gender bias. According
to Hofstede's research, the low Uncertainty Avoidance Index is suggested as it allows firms
to be open to innovation, focus on open-ended decision-making and ensure less sense of
urgency. This theory has mentioned about the Long-term vs Short term orientation.
Organizations with long-term orientation hold the culture of modesty and it considers
education and thrift as positive values. However, organizations that are short-term oriented
5 Tanya Bondarouk, and Chris Brewster. "Conceptualising the future of HRM and technology research." The
International Journal of Human Resource Management 27, no. 21 (2016): 2652-2671.
6 Arch G. Woodside et al., "Consequences of National Cultures and Motivations on Entrepreneurship,
Innovation, Ethical Behavior, and Quality-of-Life." The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 35, no. 1
(2020): 40-60.
7 Radwan Mansour and Nicolae Bibu. "The System of Values of the Monotheistic Druze Managers from Israel
Based on the Schwartz Theory of Human Basic Values." Revista De Management Comparat International 20,
no. 4 (2019): 384-395.
8 Carmen A. Vrânceanu and Maria-Cristina Iorgulescu. "a look at hofstede's cultural dimensions in two service
sectors from romania." Amfiteatru Economic, 18, no. 10 (2016): 875-884.
3