Personnel management has taken centre-stage in many organizations; the move has been triggered by the realization of employees’ vital role in corporate goals and objectives attainment. However, in contemporary business environments, business leaders at team and corporate level are facing challenges managing employees from different parts of the globe.
Diversity in human capital is facilitated by globalization and increased transfer of factors of production (French, 2010). According to Seyed-Mahmoud Aghazadeh, to fully and aggressively compete modern hospitality industry, business leaders have to be sensitive of multiculturalism among their employees.
Human resources management has to enact effective strategies to attract, recruit, develop, and retain a winning workforce.
In the process of socialisation, human beings adopt a certain culture; culture is defined as commonly experienced attributes and traits that can be seen in a homogenous group of people mostly living within the same locality.
Socialization tools are responsible for passing of culture from one generation to another; culture is not static, it undergoes various adjustments and changes (Kossek and Lobel, 2010). Personal values, attributes, ideologies, beliefs, and religion are elements of culture (Ayoun and Moreo, 2008).
One sector in the international economy that has benefited greatly from globalization and improvement of international relation is the hospitality industry. The hospitality industry, being a service industry, need to have well-managed human capital who can offer quality services to customers.
When operating domestically or internationally, management has to be sensitive of diversity issues and how they can affect attainment of their corporate goals and objectives.
With the growth of diversity concerns, different human resources management gurus have developed theories from research and experience to offer guidelines on how to manage diverse human capital (Devine, Baum, Hearns and Devine, 2007). This paper compares and contrasts Hofstede and Trompenaars theories of culture diversity.
Hofstede model of Culture differences management
Hofstede model is the most recent theory of culture management, according to the theory; culture is taken as being collective but often intangible. Hofstede is keen advising managers that they need to understand their stakeholders, may they be employees, customers, shareholders, or the external environment.
Although the theory has emphasis on the socialization differences that personnel might have had, there is much emphasis on the culture that grows within an organization. The theory suggests that different parts of the globe have different cultures thus there can never be a single method of managing cultural diversity in an organization.
Hofstede model tries to prove that work values by people in an organization are not universal but can be molded to fit a certain organization.
The point of augment brought about by Hofstede model rhymes with Devine, Baum, Hearns and Devine, 2007, advocacy that states that differences in human backgrounds and orientation can be challenging for management; however when well handled can be the source of competitive power within the firm (Brodbeck ,2000).
Hofstede model suggests four cultural dimensions through which management can see its human capital through, the dimensions are as follows:
Power Distance Dimension
Under the power dimension, Hofstede model finds some cultures to believe that large disparities in power are normal and acceptable among them. What creates much of differences is the amount or degree of power someone has; in such communities leaders are the sole decision makers and the subordinates are more likely to follow the instructions given (Fleury, 1999).
People in leadership positions from power distance cultures are more likely to make decisions that favor them and increase the power gap; they find power as the tool of success. When having employees with high power difference culture, there is tendency that leaders (the high power difference one) will adopt management-by-objectives (MBO) system or other forms of participative goal setting.
The conflict to manage in such an organization is not to have subordinates that tend to raise their voice to challenge decisions of leaders. In the even an organization has such a culture, and then management should use experts and professionals to lay strong operating paths.
The challenge with such firms is that growth within the firm is limited as subordinates are hardly given the chance to voice out their concerns (Gröschl and Doherty, 2006).
In those cultures that have low power differences, leaders within such organizations are open to discussion with their subordinates on the right path to success; the people tend not to follow any structured leadership model, risking the likelihood of being tossed in different direction in the firm.
When having such kind of cultured people, human resource management should embrace team-management method of doing business; the teams should be structured with directional leadership strategies developed failure to which performance may be hampered.
Cultures with low power difference have better communication strategy among them, they can easily share ideas and participation in decision making is high (Gröschl and Doherty, 2006).
Hofstede model in the power distance dimension suggest that human resources need to understand the composition of their teams so that they can blend them effectively for the good of the company. In the even an organization is operating in a low power distance territory, the management should embrace team management style but be keen to offer fast guidelines to avoid delayed decisions.
In high power dimension environment, the management should have strict deadline and have clear guideline on decision making; such firms are also likely to have de-motivated staffs so the management should consider motivational elements (Horwitz and Horwitz, 2007).
Individualism versus collectivism
According to individualism culture, people with the culture have the tendency of making decisions without much consultation; the people seems to have high regard on their own experiences, professionalism, and creativity. They are people with much believe and high esteem on the decisions they make; extreme individualisms are likely to defend their positions even when they are on the wrong.
The notion and self believe portrayed by individualism culture leads to organizations with people taking different stands on the same issue. It is always a challenge to harmonize the environment (Hall, 1976).
Departments are seen to compete with each other as every leader needs to prove his worth in the firm. With an organization, individualism people tend to enjoy individual-based performance appraisals and incentive systems; human resources management should understand these attributes and keen these people in such positions where success or failure can directly relate to someone.
To manage such kind of people it is important to place them in areas that need personal input. When in such places blame and praises are expected to accrue to them; in most individualism cultured people, the main motivator is outdoing themselves, thus when planning the structure of an organization, such people should be placed in areas where their decisions can be felt directly.
The main challenge that faces these people is their degree of expertise and experience (Barrows and Powers, 2008).
In collectivism cultured people, they tend to enjoy completing tasks as a team; they are high team players who tend to be motivated by seeing their teams work effectively; when in the teams, decisions are likely to be reached with some set of mutual agreement among the players.
When having people with such a culture, the management should take advantage of their favorable attitudes toward teamwork and team spirit. The mode of motivation and rewarding should be group oriented; they tend to enjoy outdoor activities like team buildings (Mead, 2009)
Uncertainty avoidance
Some cultures tend to have high degrees of risk taking, they are not comfortable with the way things are normally are. Some management gurus have argued that these kinds of employees are the drivers of creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship; however they are impatient with their current status quo.
When having such kind of employees, it is important to place them in challenging areas where they get challenging new environments that can trigger their innovativeness. For example in the banking industry, there is much challenge that is offered by the internet; such employees can perform well when managing such areas as they are likely to look and seek solutions to the changing environments (Iverson, 2000).
Achievement versus quality of life
Cultures that have high emphasis on achievement tend to value competition, assertiveness and materialism; they are people who want to be on the lead always. When having such employees’ managers should place them in areas where their performance can be directly attributed to the gains they get from their employment. They tend to be motivated by bonuses, allowances, and promotions.
People who values quality of life are challenging to handle, however they are people who like set goals and objectives and know the end results of their performances. When having such employees decisions should be made on long term basis and the expected personal gain from performance noted in advance (Kaynak, 1986).
Trompenaars Model
Trompenaars model as identified by Fons Trompenaars creates an insight understanding to business leaders on how culture affects their organisational decisions; according to the model, there are people who believe that they have the capability of making decisions and develop rules and standards for everyone; he referred to these people as universalisms.
When having such kind of employees it is important to place them in areas that require fast and quick decisions; some countries whose people have been noted to have such culture include US, Australia, Germany and Switzerland. In contract with the universalisms are particularisms that are peopling who like having wide consultation before making a decision.
Trompenaars model recognizes about three main culture extremes that a company should observe and manage; Affective versus neutral, Achievement versus ascription, and universalism versus particularism (Holcomb, Upchurch and Okumus, 2007).
Fons Trompenaars model designs how people of different nationalities can interact and use their experiences differences for a common good. According to the theory, people from different nationalities, religions, regions, and continents have differences in culture.
According to the model, when managing human capital from different cultural orientations, business leaders need to be sensitive differences that prevail originating from differences in sexual orientation, cultural beliefs, attitudes, perceptions and the exposure that someone has had.
One factor that management theorist have accepted is that the differences among people from different nationalities and ethnical background can be used for the good of an organization.
To benefit from diversity, management has the role of enacting effective business policies and strategies to enhance harmony within the organization and the growth of favorable working environment that can nature talents, enhance skills development, and development of winning teams (Philip , 1996).
The following are the dimensions that Fons Trompenaars developed to understand cultural differences among people of different nationalities.
Universalism vs. particularism according to the theory, those societies that adhere to universalism have the rule of law as supreme, there is the belief that set rules can cut across all situations. On the other hand, particularism communities belief that the prevailing situation determine the rules of the case; relationship of the parties takes centre stage when determining the rule of the contract. United States is seen as a country with much advocacy on universalism system while that of China is seen as particularism. Hospitality industry players in universalism societies should ensure that they have clear cut rules guiding their every operation without leaving room of negotiation. In the case of particularism, the management should leave flexible leeway that can allow negotiation and adjustments.
Individualism vs. collectivism: according to Fons Trompenaars there are communities that are likely to address issues independently (individualism communities); when operating in such communities, hospitality industry managers should ensure they deploy experts, experienced and highly qualified personnel. Collectivism communities have team spirit and embrace the need collective decision making. When making motivating, rewarding, and appraising policies, it is crucial to involve the larger team as an appraisal for a team is likely to offer better results than when one is handles as an individual (Gudykunst, 1998).
Neutral vs. emotional: there are communities that express their emotions openly while others do not; for instance, in neutral communities, people are selfish with the information they hold thus sharing and team spirit in such communities is a challenge. When a hospitality company is operating in such a community, the management should ensure they deploy expatriates and people of high moral standings to facilitate good business. In emotional communities, people express their emotions more freely thus management can learn how someone feels about a situation without much of struggle (Hofstede, 1991)
Specific vs. diffuse: when hospitality businesses management work with employees from specific communities, they find their workforce more particular and makes decisions outright. In diffuse communities Fons Trompenaars is of the opinion that people in the communities take long before making a conclusion on a particular issue.
Achievement vs. Ascription: the definition of success varies among people of different regions; those people with an achievement orientation have the self drive to attain high success in their works. Status is accorded according to how well people attain their successes; for instance in the hospitality industry, some countries may have high regard in political posts, thus when in such a company, the management should have a facilities that differentiate and accord different services being them on power. There are other communities that feel superior and unique not necessary for any particular reason
Sequential vs. Synchronic: if a hospitality industry company is operating in an environment with sequential cultural system, the management should be very keen on the finer details as this is likely to win them high business and competitiveness. In synchronic communities, the management in such environments should ensure that people get services above their expectations.
Internal vs. external control: internally controlled culture have the belief that they can make internal rules and regulations to manage issues facing them; while on external controlled communities have the belief of external influence (Seyed-Mahmoud, 2004).
Conclusion
Fons Trompenaars and Hofstede cultural theories agree that globalization has affected the way organizations manage their human capital. Both theories are of the opinion that when handling contemporary diverse personnel, care should be taken to consider their cultural orientation and background.
One method that has been recommended by human resources management gurus to manage diverse human capital is international human resources strategic management (IHRM). IHRM looks into employees considering their cultural, political, ethnical, economical, and social orientation (Hall, 1976).
Well managed human resources is an asset to an organization; when right policies have been enacted, the personnel are willing to use their intellectual capacity for the good of their organization and risks associated with in-effective human resources are drastically reduced (Tipper, 2004).
To develop orchestrated teams; human resources management departments should enact strategies that facilitate staff development, training, intellectualism development, and talent management. Fons Trompenaars and Hofstede cultural theories are of the opinion that when an organization has managed to control and manage diverse human capital, it is likely to benefit from different intellectual capacities and strengths.
People from different areas have different exposures; when their intellectual capacity is tapped effectively, they can be of great benefit to an organization.
The quality of human capital in an organization is dependent on the effectiveness of its human resources planning, recruitment, selection, appraisal, and motivation. In contemporary business environment, managers are required to have policies incorporate diversity issues (Selmer, 2003).
References
Ayoun, B. and Moreo, P. ,2008. The influence of the cultural dimension of uncertainty avoidance on business strategy development: a cross-national study of hotel managers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(1), pp.65-75.
Brodbeck, F. ,2000. Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 European countries. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 73(1), pp.1-30.
Barrows, C. and Powers, T. ,2008. Introduction to Management in the Hospitality Industry. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Devine, F., Baum, T., Hearns, N. and Devine, A., 2007. Managing cultural diversity: opportunities and challenges for Northern Ireland Hoteliers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(2), pp.129-32.
Fleury, M.,1999. The management of culture diversity: lessons from Brazilian companies. Industrial Management & DataSystems, 99(3), pp.109-14.
French, R, 2010. Cross-Cultural Management in Work Organisations. London: CIPD.
Gröschl, S. and Doherty, L. ,2006. The complexity of culture: using the appraisal process to compare French and British managers in a UK-based international hotel organization. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(2), pp.313-34.
Gudykunst, K.,1998. Theories in Intercultural Communication. Newbury: Sage.
Hall, E. ,1976. Beyond Culture. New York: Doubleday.
Hofstede, G.,1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. United Kingdom: McGraw-Hill.
Horwitz, S. and Horwitz, I., 2007. The effects of team diversity on team outcomes. Journal of Management, 33(6), pp. 987-1015.
Holcomb, J., Upchurch, R. and Okumus, F.,2007. Corporate social responsibility: what are top hotel companies reporting. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(6), pp.461-75.
Iverson, K. ,2000. Managing for effective workforce diversity. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 1(2), pp.31-8.
Kaynak, E.,1986. International Business in the Middle East. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Kossek, E., Lobel, S., 2010. Managing Diversity. Cambridge :Blackwell Publisher.
Mead, R., 2009. International Management: Cross-Cultural Dimensions. Blackwell Publishers: Oxford.
Philip, G., 1996. Managing workforce diversity – a response to skill shortages. Health Manpower Management, 22(6), pp.34 -37.
Selmer, J., 2003. Adjustment of Western European vs North American expatriate managers in China. Personnel Review, 30(1), PP. 6-25.
Seyed-Mahmoud, A., 2004. Managing workforce diversity as an essential resource for improving organizational performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 53 (6), pp.521 – 531.
Tipper, T., 2004. How to increase diversity through your recruitment practices. Industrial and Commercial Training, 36I(4), pp.158 – 161.