1

Human Resource Management

Name

Institution

Course

Date
 2

Statement 1: Recruitment and selection as the most important factor in IHRM

Recruitment and selection can be deemed as the fundamentalism of IHRM as it is

crucial for forming an organizational international labor force. This view’s main advocates

argue that skillful staffing must be successful in understanding and managing different

countries’ business ecosystems. According to Vitolla, et al (2021), recruitment that focuses on

candidates with a “ global mindset ” is crucial when the multinational corporation has to deal

with different cultural environments.

The advantages of prioritizing recruitment and selection in IHRM are manifold. Firstly,

it enables organizations to develop multicultural human capital that enhances organizational

creativity and innovation (Ely and Thomas 2020). This raises the potential of developing better

problem-solving abilities and decision-making processes in global markets. Secondly, efficient

international selection means anticipated knowledge exchange between the various units of an

MNC, organizational learning, and enhanced competition.

Furthermore, IHRM can benefit by developing strategic recruitment and selection,

which can in turn avoid problems that may arise from expatriate dysfunction which could cost

an organization both, fiscally and in terms of reputation. Since technical skills, cultural

sensitivity, and flexibility are difficult to teach and learn midstream, the right employee

selection will go a long way in improving organizational international assignments success rate

and decreasing employee turnover (Louahabi et al. 2020). Also, recruitment and selection

management advances allow an organization to ensure its human capital is consistent with the

company’s international strategy. Such an alignment is particularly importance in the

achievement of strategic organizational objectives and the sustenance of long-term competitive

advantage in the global market.

Recruitment and selection are two vital elements of IHRM, that is, however; they are

not without challenges, particularly in the international context. Mention has been made of

language barriers and another significant challenge is cross-cultural employee recruitment

which due to cultural differences, there may be preconceived notions or misconceptions relating

to the selection or rejection of a candidate (Shen and Edwards 2020). For instance, what may be

deemed a good resume or interview performance may not be the same from one culture to the

other, thus automatically disqualifying good candidates from the process.

The last significant problem is the legal and regulatory discrepancies of the countries.

The contemporary workplace is governed by a composition of labor laws, work permit

regulations, and anti-discrimination policies that may differ from one nation to another (Cioclei

2020). This just makes the process of recruitment take a longer period and becomes costly as

well. In addition, evaluating the candidate in terms of his or her ability to fit into new cultures

presents a challenge that has not been solved. These methods may not capture all the behavior

patterns of an employee and as such frustrate expatriate performance.

Nonetheless, other factors of IHRM also have a responsibility of the same intensity as

the recruitment and selection. Some of the training needs include; Training and development,

for example, to empower employees or develop their competencies to work in the global

environment. Another factor linking expatriate success with cross-cultural training is

performance management, which brings out best practices on how to work towards

organizational objectives, especially for those working within different cultural settings.

(Bergman (2022) notes that performance management systems if designed to consider cultural

differences in the working environment can help boost employee morale as well as productivity.

The last is the compensation and benefits management in IHRM. Ensuring that there

exists fair remuneration structures being implemented across the various countries while at the

same time contending with local market trends and cultural demands, is crucial in the

recruitment and retention of employees, globally (Gromova 2022). Lastly, employee relations

and labor relations management play a critical role especially because human resource

professionals will be dealing with diverse employee groups and varying labor laws within

diverse countries.
 4

Statement 2: Challenges created by cultural differences in a diverse workforce

People from different cultures and diverse workforces create a problem for

organizations practicing international business. The first and very important source of the

challenge is the communication barrier Though this barrier causes misunderstandings and

effectively decreases output, Stahl and Maznevski, (2021) rightly asserted that language

differences could create an in-group and out-groups forming ‘us versus them’ mentality which

in essence dwarfs knowledge sharing with multinational teams. The discrepancies in

communication, for instance, direct and indirect communication between members of different

cultures make employees misunderstand the intentions and expectations, which may lead to

conflict and increased work dysfunction. These communication problems can slow down

teamwork and decision-making in different organizations considerably.

Another important conflict stems from different work-related values and norms around

the globe. Using data collected through surveys, questioning, observation, and other scientific

methodologies Hofstede (1980) demonstrates that the following parameters of work are

radically different in different cultures: power distance; individualism versus collectivism; and

long-term versus short-term orientation. Such disparities may cause tensions in presumptions

about leadership roles, particularly the degree of assertiveness in decision-making and

acceptable blurring of the work-life boundary (Ely and Thomas 2020). For instance, power

distance predicts that subjects from the high power distance cultures will be satisfied with the

high power distance structures, strong top-down control, and direction from the superior while

those from the low power distance cultures will prefer lower power distance structures,

structural participation, and decision making. Such differences can lead to lower organizational

commitment, high turnover, and problems with the general enforcement of homogenous

managerial policies in different departments.

Moreover, a major field of diversity management concerns performance assessment and

career development processes. Culture plays a role in managers’ perception of employee

performance and because culture has its implicit determinants, one can deduce that culture has

an inherent determinant concerning employee performance. These can cause the organization to

practice discrimination in the process by sidelining some people leading to almost always

ending up in legal cases (Wilbur 2020). Furthermore, people working in diverse teams are likely

to experience increased conflict, especially during the initial team formation, because of

paradigmatic dissimilarity and approach to work. Although this conflict might be productive

here and lead to more creative solutions it can cause a low cohesiveness in the team and low

satisfaction among the team members if not well dealt with.

A multicultural employee population has several advantages when adopted by

organizations, especially in the current globalized Workplace. The first one is an increase in

innovation and creativity of solutions. The diverse groups pool together employees with

different characteristics, skills, and outlooks on things, making the team much more stimulating

in terms of innovation and solutions to organizational issues. Inegbedion et al. (2020) prove that

diversity leads to better results in comparison with homogeneity for the tasks associated with

creativity enhancement. It can create better and broader decision-making as a result of including

various ideas that usually other personalities assume are proven right. Additionally, a diverse

workforce may offer organizations competitive market perspectives and cultural sensitivity to

custom market niches and adapt effectively to international environments (Hampden-Turner et

al. 2020). This increased cultural sensitivity can foster a real competitive edge because

organizations are better placed to position their product, services, and promotional messages

within the required cultural environment.

Another major advantage of a diverse workforce is in recruiting and retaining the right

talents in various organizations. Such organizations end up being preferred employers, always

receiving the best talents from among a more diverse talent base (Li 2022). This allows

companies to pick from a larger pool of skills, experiences, and ways of doing things which in

turn means that a company may source for a more competent and versatile workforce.
 6

Furthermore, diverse organizations experience higher levels of employee engagement and

satisfaction since such employees feel that they are hired because of their differences (Vitolla, et

al. 2021). Organizations can therefore experience increased productivity, low turnover over, and

ultimately, improved organizational performance as a result of this increased engagement. Also,

diverse teams tend to have more experience and understanding of the various challenges of

operating businesses in different cultures and hence can help organizations run flexible

operations to suit different contexts.

Statement 3: The accuracy of Hofstede's six dimension model of national culture

The most widely used and probably the most elaborate one is Hofstede’s six-dimension

model of national culture. The model partitioned into Power Distance,

Individualism/Collectivism, Masculinity /Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance, Long Term

Orientation, and Indulgence Restraint serve as the metric standards to compare cultures (Taras

et al. 2023). Supporters state that one of the paper’s main strengths is that the research has a

large sample size – IBM employees from many countries. These instruments make it possible to

conduct a systematic analysis of differences between countries; in other words, the dataset

preserves relativity as a key aspect of cultural difference (Minkov & Kaasa 2021). Additionally,

many dimensions of this model have also established associations with congruent economic,

social, and political processes endorsing its capability to explain modern society.

The limitations of Hofstede's model are contested as they argue that it reduces the

multifaceted nature of culture to a smaller number of dimensions. Critiques of the model

suggest that its dependence on national limits needs reconsideration in the context of ongoing

globalization and cultural blending. Researchers such as Gerlach and Eriksson (2021) are

doubtful about the method used in the original study's focus on a single corporation (IBM)

which could not represent the entire culture of a nation. The model's unchanging nature has

drawn its inability to monitor cultural evolution through time and might extend outdated
 7

viewpoints (Louahabi et al. 2020). These difficulties lead to doubts about the model's

effectiveness in identifying the lively and varied aspects of cultural habits within nations.

Hofstede's six-dimension model faces criticism from its critics who claim it leads to

considerable misrepresentations of national cultures. The model's choice of nation-state as the

analysis unit results in the assumption of cultural uniformity across borders. Such an analysis

dismisses the important cultural heterogeneity that typically persists in countries notably in

multicultural nations or those with strong regional identities. In regions like India and the

United States, numerous cultural distinctions exist that are overlooked by Hofstede's country-

wide scores. Skepticism looms regarding its practicality and appropriateness since the model is

based on data from one multinational business from several decades back. Bearing the bias of a

focused business culture and a specific demographic profile could poorly represent the

extensive national culture.

The second important criticism is related to the model’s lack of dynamism, and its

failure to explain cultural evolution. Culture is fluid and changes depending on technological,

economic, or social changes. Thus, Hofstede’s model can be accused of portraying cultures as

especially static, which can strengthen stereotype representations instead of noticing new

cultural changes (Minkov and Kaasa 2022). This is especially so where the research is being

done in a society that is fast liberalizing or in the global village where culture interacts like an

open book. In addition, the model has been especially critiqued for adopting numbers to culture

cumulating numerous complications about the definition of culture (Bojadjiev et al. 2023). As

much as the work recognizes culture as a multi-faceted factor that can impact organizational

behavior, the model reduces culture to a sum of numerical scores along six parameters. This

approach hinders the determination of assemblage of broad cultural related features, hence

portraying a reduced cultural difference magnitude than it is.

Statement 4: The benefits of implementing similar organizational policies and

practices globally

The situation where various countries apply similar policies and practices provides powerful

opportunities for dominating multinationals in terms of efficiency and coherence. This

approach, commonly known as global standardization, helps companies to minimize many

methods that could take a lot of time, and gain economies of scale (Al Aina and Atan, 2020). By

implementing standards across the corporation concerning aspects like human resource

management, product quality and control, and corporate governance it becomes possible to

achieve corporate image and culture. This means that knowledge and best practices could be

more easily transferred from one unit of the company to the next, which will benefit the entire

operation in the long run. Furthermore, the consistency of policies would also make it easy to

deal with legal requirements as well as international regulations and standards hence reducing

on legal risks of international operations (Azeem et al. 2021). On a similar note, this approach

has the potential to reduce internal conflict as well as bring multinational employees into the

same paradigm potentially improving the International workforce solidarity.

Nevertheless, the opportunities of organizing similar policies and practices at the

international level must be considered in terms of the difficulties and some risks concerning this

activity. Another issue of concern is that it is easier to provide standardized policies without a

good understanding of cultural differences. That which may produce positive outcomes in one

country may potentially yield negative results in another owing to variance in cultural norms,

regulations, or business environment (Lasserre and Monteiro 2022). For instance, methods of

performance appraisal or incentives that are ideal for people of one type of culture may not hold

water for people of another type of culture. Also, standardized policies may be unresponsive to

the local market demands or competition, which would only give the company a tiny advantage

over other competitors better aligned to local contexts (Montiel et al. 2021). Such a conflict
 9

between integration and responsiveness is one of the most compelling propositions in the field

of international management as described in the Integration-Responsiveness framework.

The main difficulties and risks for MNCs arise from the fact that introducing the same

policies and standards in different countries can be very difficult. This is due to the many

unfavorable cultural differences and expectations that the societies have in their conduct of

affairs. Measures that are helpful in one culture can in another culture be non-functional, or

even harmful (Bilderback 2024). For instance, performance management systems rewarding

individual performance might be effective in the individual work culture but can be

counterproductive in the collectivist work culture mainly because it compromises group

harmony. Similarly, the leadership and decision-making patterns, which will work well in low

power distance cultures will appear weak and ineffective in high power distance cultures

(Kulkov et al. 2024). These cultural conflicts may reduce the level of employee commitment,

restrain their performance, and cause higher turnover rates, thus threatening the organization

with poor performance in some markets.

The fourth and most difficult task is to influence legal and regulatory frameworks in

various countries for investment in human capital. Local laws in different countries may dictate

that certain policies be standardized, yet this can propel a company into legal problems and

potential penalties for non-compliance with labor or tax laws or industry standards. For

instance, remuneration structures that are legally acceptable in one country may be below the

standard in another, or may sometimes rise to the level of legal illegality (Agu et al. 2024).

Hybrid environments are also unsuitable for the centralization of IT and data management

policies due to the vast difference in data protection and privacy laws from one jurisdiction to

another. These legal disparities can impose upon firms what are essentially ad hoc and change

explicit or implicit standardized company policies around the world, canceling out any

rationalization advantages found in the unification in the first place. Furthermore, it is necessary

to follow the local business practices and dynamically changing market conditions to level with
 10

rival corporations (Amir et al. 2023). Lack of sensitivity to market realities denies a company

local responsiveness and market opportunity in the face of stiff competition from monolithic

global and efficient locally grounded competitors.

References

Agu, E.E., Iyelolu, T.V., Idemudia, C. and Ijomah, T.I., 2024. Exploring the relationship

between sustainable business practices and increased brand loyalty. International Journal

of Management & Entrepreneurship Research, 6(8), pp.2463-2475.

Al Aina, R. and Atan, T., 2020. The impact of implementing talent management practices on

sustainable organizational performance. Sustainability, 12(20), p.8372.

Amir, M., Deshmukh, R.G., Khalid, H.M., Said, Z., Raza, A., Muyeen, S.M., Nizami, A.S.,

Elavarasan, R.M., Saidur, R. and Sopian, K., 2023. Energy storage technologies: An

integrated survey of developments, global economical/environmental effects, optimal

scheduling model, and sustainable adaption policies. Journal of Energy Storage, 72,

p.108694.

Azeem, M., Ahmed, M., Haider, S. and Sajjad, M., 2021. Expanding competitive advantage

through organizational culture, knowledge sharing and organizational innovation.

Technology in Society, 66, p.101635.

Bergman, N., 2022. Standardization and customization of the international recruitment and

selection process: A study from the cultural and institutional perspective.

Bilderback, S., 2024. Integrating training for organizational sustainability: the application of

Sustainable Development Goals globally. European Journal of Training and

Development, 48(7/8), pp.730-748.

Bojadjiev, M., Mileva, I., Misoska, A.T. and Vaneva, M., 2023. Entrepreneurship Addendums

on Hofstede’s Dimensions of National Culture. The European Journal of Applied

Economics, 20(1), pp.122-134.

Bouderbala, R., Eljammi, J. and Gherib, J., 2020. Relevance of Hofstede's model in identifying

specific national cultural character: the case of a North African country. Social

Business, 10(3), pp.247-279.

Cioclei, C.L., 2020. HOW GLOBALIZATION AFFECTS PERSONNEL RECRUITMENT

AND SELECTION. IDENTITIES IN GLOBALISATION. INTERCULTURAL

PERSPECTIVES, p.406.

Ely, R.J. and Thomas, D.A., 2020. Getting serious about diversity. Harvard Business

Review, 98(6), pp.114-122.

Gerlach, P. and Eriksson, K., 2021. Measuring cultural dimensions: external validity and

internal consistency of Hofstede's VSM 2013 Scales. Frontiers in Psychology, 12,

p.662604.

Gromova, K., 2022. Aspects of Intercultural Recruitment and Selection of Highly Skilled

International Female Staff in Slovenia. Research in Social Change, 14(1), pp.78-93.

Hampden-Turner, C., Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C., 2020. Riding the waves of

culture: Understanding diversity in global business. Hachette UK.

Huang, C.J., Liu, H.Y., Lin, T.L. and Lai, J.Y., 2024. Revisiting Hofstede's dimensions of

national culture and environmental sustainability. Energy & Environment, 35(3),

pp.1251-1269.

Inegbedion, H., Sunday, E., Asaleye, A., Lawal, A. and Adebanji, A., 2020. Managing diversity

for organizational efficiency. Sage Open, 10(1), p.2158244019900173.

Kulkov, I., Kulkova, J., Rohrbeck, R., Menvielle, L., Kaartemo, V. and Makkonen, H., 2024.

Artificial intelligence‐driven sustainable development: Examining organizational,

technical, and processing approaches to achieving global goals. Sustainable

Development, 32(3), pp.2253-2267.

Lasserre, P. and Monteiro, F., 2022. Global strategic management. Bloomsbury Publishing.
 12

Li, L., 2022. Reskilling and upskilling the future-ready workforce for industry 4.0 and

beyond. Information Systems Frontiers, pp.1-16.

Louahabi, Y., Moustaghfir, K. and Cseh, M., 2020. Testing Hofstede’s 6-D model in the North

and Northwest regions of Morocco: Implications for human resource

development. Human Systems Management, 39(1), pp.105-115.

Minkov, M. and Kaasa, A., 2021. A test of Hofstede's model of culture following his own

approach. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 28(2), pp.384-406.

Minkov, M. and Kaasa, A., 2022. Do dimensions of culture exist objectively? A validation of

the revised Minkov-Hofstede model of culture with World Values Survey items and

scores for 102 countries. Journal of International Management, 28(4), p.100971.

Montiel, I., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Park, J., Antolín-López, R. and Husted, B.W., 2021.

Implementing the United Nations’ sustainable development goals in international

business. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(5), p.999.

Okolie, U.C., 2020. Effect of diversity management on human resource management:

Recruitment and selection in focus. Annals of Spiru Haret University. Economic

Series, 20(2), pp.63-86.

Shen, J. and Edwards, V., 2020. Recruitment and selection in Chinese MNEs. In Human

Resource Management in China Revisited (pp. 198-219). Routledge.

Stahl, G.K. and Maznevski, M.L., 2021. Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A

retrospective of research on multicultural work groups and an agenda for future

research. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(1), p.4.

Taras, V., Steel, P. and Stackhouse, M., 2023. A comparative evaluation of seven instruments for

measuring values comprising Hofstede's model of culture. Journal of World

Business, 58(1), p.101386.

Vitolla, F., Raimo, N., Rubino, M. and Garegnani, G.M., 2021. Do cultural differences impact

ethical issues? Exploring the relationship between national culture and quality of code

of ethics. Journal of International Management, 27(1), p.100823.

Wilbur, K., Snyder, C., Essary, A.C., Reddy, S., Will, K.K. and Saxon, M., 2020. Developing

workforce diversity in the health professions: a social justice perspective. Health

Professions Education, 6(2), pp.222-229.