Does national culture really matter? Predicting HRM preferences of Taiwanese employees
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425459810369823 |
| Date | 01 February 1998 |
| Pages | 26-56 |
| Published date | 01 February 1998 |
| Author | Paul Sparrow,Pei‐Chuan Wu |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Employee
Relations
20,1
26
Does national culture really
matter? Predicting HRM
preferences of Taiwanese
employees
Paul Sparrow
University of Sheffield Management School, Sheffield, UK, and
Pei-Chuan Wu
Manchester Business School, Manchester, UK
Introduction
HRM has achieved significant importance in the last decade both in terms of
practice and academic debate, but as our understanding of the field has
developed, so have concerns about its relevance in a cross-national context.
Classic HRM functions – such as recruitment, socialisation, training, and
development – are determined by different conceptions of the role and nature of
management effectiveness, and these conceptions are underpinned by related
cultural values (Lawrence, 1992; Sparrow, 1998). When the concept of HRM was
discussed in a European context, it was subject to significant criticism, broadly
on the grounds that the US theoretical models reflected that country’s value
system (Guest, 1990). Within continental Europe, it is argued that, as an Anglo-
Saxon construct, HRM has been “grafted on” to management thinking rather
than “taken root”. There are growing concerns about the extent to which both
theoretical models of HRM and specific practices are capable of being
transferred from one country to another. Considerable historical and cultural
insight into local conditions is needed to understand the processes, philosophies
and problems of national models of HRM (Hofstede, 1993).
National differences can have the single greatest impact upon cultural value
orientations and represent the highest level of cultural aggregation (Ford and
Honeycutt, 1992). Adler (1991) defines three aspects of national culture: it is
shared by all or almost all members of some social group; older members of the
group try to pass on to the younger members; and it shapes behaviour or
structures one’s perception of the world (as in the case of morals, laws, customs
and values). Cultures are developed within countries as a product of national
patterns of early childhood and formative experiences and education, language ,
religion and geography (Derr and Laurent, 1989). Paradoxically, national
cultures play a stronger role in the face of strong corporate cultures, as they
seem to magnify cultural differences, with employees maintaining culturally
specific ways of working even when employed within the same multinational
organisation (Adler, 1983; Laurent, 1983; Schneider, 1989). Therefore cultural
Employee Relations,
Vol. 20 No. 1, 1998, pp. 26–56
© MCB University Press, 0142-5455
Received March 1997
Revised December 1997
Does national
culture really
matter?
27
differences have become central to cross-national management research
(Brewster and Hegewisch, 1994; Dowling and Schuler, 1990; Gronhaug and
Nordhaug, 1992; Pieper, 1990; Schuler et al., 1993).
However, the literature often does not give a clear meaning or distinction
between cross-cultural management research (CCMR) and cross-national
management research (CNMR). Comparative HRM researchers note that
national differences do not equate with cultural differences and that “culture” is
an extremely difficult concept to define (Brewster and Hegewisch, 1994:
Easterby-Smith et al, 1995). On a normative basis CNMR has until recently been
largely confined to studies within the western nations whilst CCMR has focused
on contrasting cultures (such as India or Confucian-orientated regions). CCMR
also tends to look for similarities rather than differences, i.e. it tries to show that
a particular theory developed in one cultural environment applies also in one or
more different cultural environments. CNMR, on the other hand, tends to look
for differences rather than similarities, i.e. it tries to demonstrate the extent to
which the functioning of organisations is affected by their culture (defined in
broad terms). CNMR therefore tends to cluster many constituent variables (such
as legislation, trade union influence, educational and vocational set-up and
business structure) under the heading of “culture”.
Moreover, Tayeb (1988) points out that whilst the impact of culture and its
influence on work-related attitudes and the organisation is considerable, there
are limitations to a total focus on culture and models of multivariate causation
between organisational variables, political economy variables and cultural
variables are needed. When considering HRM from a European perspective
Sparrow and Hiltrop (1997) identified four sets of CNMR variables which shape
policy and practice at the organisational level. HRM practices are located within
an external environment of national culture value systems, varying
institutional factors, national business systems, structures and labour market,
and variations in the role and competence of HRM decision makers. We believe
that is possible to tease out cross-cultural factors from the broader pattern of
cross-national differences. Once this is done it becomes possible to elucidate the
linkages between culture per se and HRM.
Researchers note that cultural assumptions and values answer questions for
group members in relation to the types of interactions and behaviours that lead
to societal effectiveness and the most appropriate relationships between people
in organisations. This determines the information that managers notice,
interpret and retain, and therefore leads to different ways of seeing the same
event, and to different approaches to problem resolution and solution. Cultural
assumptions also frame the particular sets of organisational values, norms and
artefacts that managers perceive as being consistent with their basic
assumptions and so influence the process of organisation decision making
(Hofstede, 1980; Schneider, 1989). Cultural value orientations, it is argued, are
linked to a range of organisational behaviours, such as: the norms that are
endorsed, tolerance of deviant behaviour, types of conflict, preferred leadership
styles, extent of social loafing, and problem solving and thinking styles (Smith,
To continue reading
Request your trial