HRM 7610 Module 1 Discussion: Culture and the Limits of a Global HR Policy Example

Module 1 Discussion: Can One HR Policy Fit Every Country?

When a Feedback Policy Meets a Different Culture: Notes From a Global HR Rollout

At Lenape Surgical, where I work in HR, we introduced a 360-degree feedback program two years ago in which employees rate their peers and managers anonymously each year. It worked well in our Parsippany headquarters and our Cork, Ireland, plant: response rates were above 80 percent and managers said the comments were useful. In our Tokyo sales subsidiary, the response rate was 34 percent, and most ratings clustered at the midpoint with almost no written comments.

Dowling et al. (2013) explain that culture shapes how HR practices are received, and this case fits. Japan scores high on uncertainty avoidance and lower on individualism than the United States and Ireland on the dimensions measured by Hofstede (2001), and Japanese workplaces often place a high value on harmony within the group and on respect for seniority. Rating a senior colleague critically, even anonymously, conflicts with those norms, and employees may doubt that anonymity will hold in a small office of 40 people. The midpoint ratings look like a reasonable response to a tool that asks people to do something their workplace culture discourages.

The case also connects to the debate about convergence. Some argue that globalization and multinational firms are pushing HR practices toward a common model, while others argue that national culture and institutions keep practices divergent. My experience suggests both are partly right. Our younger employees in Tokyo were more willing to participate than older ones, and the subsidiary uses the same performance software as headquarters. But the deeper practice of open peer criticism did not transfer. Pudelko and Harzing (2007) found that subsidiaries' practices reflected their home and host countries but also a pull toward practices seen as globally dominant, often American ones, which may explain why our performance software traveled while peer criticism did not.

I think the answer is to standardize the purpose and adapt the method. In Japan we could gather feedback through facilitated group discussions led by an outside consultant, focus on development rather than ratings and let managers receive summarized themes instead of individual scores. The goal of helping managers improve stays global; the tool becomes local.

Comment on Nadia's Post

Nadia, your company's global dress code is an interesting contrast to my example, because dress codes involve visible symbols rather than private judgments. You mentioned that employees in your Dubai office accepted the code but asked for changes during Ramadan. That seems like a case where a global standard can work if it allows local exceptions for religious and cultural practices. Did headquarters approve the exceptions centrally, or could the local HR manager decide?

Comment on Greg's Post

Greg, you suggested that generational change will eventually make cultural differences less important, since younger employees everywhere share similar technology and media. My Tokyo data partly support that, because younger employees participated more. But I wonder whether they participated because their values differ or because they had less to lose than senior employees. Research on convergence suggests institutions such as employment law and career systems change slowly, even when attitudes shift.

References

Dowling, P. J., Festing, M., & Engle, A. D. (2013). International human resource management (6th ed.). Cengage Learning EMEA.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.

Pudelko, M., & Harzing, A.-W. (2007). Country-of-origin, localization, or dominance effect? An empirical investigation of HRM practices in foreign subsidiaries. Human Resource Management, 46(4), 535-559. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20181