The management of people across cultures: Valuing people differently

Introduction

The importance of the contribution to the bot-tom-line and to shareholder value is a keyissue in American and other Western-basedhuman resource management (Becker,Huselid, Pickus, & Spratt, 1997). Yet this as-sumption contains underlying values that mayimpede the successful international transferof management policies and practices. Thecultural perception that human beings are aresource to be used in the pursuit of share-holder value may be challenged by a view thatpeople have a value in their own right (Jack-son, 2002; Jackson & Bak, 1999). For exam-ple, a developmental approach that sees peo-ple as an integral part of the organization, andas a direction of organizational objectives, may

be implicit within Japanese people manage-ment policies and practices (Allinson, 1993).

This may be reflected in practices thatseek to integrate employees as key stakehold-ers in the organization and to gain commit-ment to the corporate endeavor. Hencehuman resource practices identified by Ishido(1986) among corporations in Japan such asemployment security, extensive job rotation,continuous on-job training, evaluation of thetotal person, seniority/ability-based wagestructure and promotions, welfare facilities,and even the provision of “enterprise unions”or labor unions tied to the company, are usedto inculcate a “moral” involvement (in Et-zioni’s, 1975, terms: distinguishing moral,calculative, compliant, and alienative involve-ment) of staff as part of a corporate commu-

THE MANAGEMENT OF PEOPLE ACROSSCULTURES: VALUING PEOPLE DIFFERENTLY

Human Resource Management, Winter 2002, Vol. 41, No. 4, Pp. 455–475© 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/hrm.10054

Terence Jackson

Ethnocentric and parochial human resource systems have been called into question as obstaclesto globalization. This is addressed here by examining the way value is attached to people in or-ganizations across cultures. Western managers and HR practitioners who work with affiliates innon-Western emerging countries should particularly be aware of differences in “locus of humanvalue.” Policies and practices developed in the West along instrumental lines see people prima-rily as a means to an end. This may be directly opposed to a humanistic view of human valuethat sees people as having a value in themselves. To provide support for these assumptions, anexploratory study across seven nations was carried out. Its findings indicate potentially impor-tant implications for global HRM policies and practices. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Correspondence to: Terence Jackson; Centre for Cross Cultural Management Research, ESCP-EAP Euro-pean School of Management, 12 Merton Street, Oxford OX14JH, England; telephone: +44 1865263212; fax: +44 1865 251960; e-mail: [email protected].

456 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Winter 2002

nity. This contrasts with Western practicesthat may only seek to gain a calculative in-volvement of staff based on exchange wherethe organization is seen as a means to an end,and where (in Etzioni’s terms) employees willwork spontaneously and cooperatively if this isseen as benefiting them directly, but will leavethe organization if a more lucrative opportu-nity occurs outside. This is reflected in HRMpractices that take a competencies approach(from Boyatzis, 1982). Job descriptions aredefined by specific duties and by the compe-tencies required to perform them well at thebehavioral level. This reflects operational re-quirements, which, in turn, reflects the strate-gic objectives of the corporation. The best per-son is recruited to the specific position, and isregarded as a resource to achieve the execu-tive ends of the organization. Hence, HRMpractices incorporate competency- and objec-tives-based appraisal systems that determinepay and promotion.

The two “classic” world systems of man-agement, American and Japanese, may pro-vide the archetypal distinction between twoways of valuing people in organizations, andthe basis of the “ideal types” which are re-ferred to in the international management lit-erature as Western, and the converse non-Western management practices: a distinctionthat this article explores in depth by drawingout the value differences inherent withineach world view, and how these should be re-spected when there is interaction betweenthe two. Yet there are differences amongWestern approaches and among non-Westernapproaches that reflect a different balancingof stakeholder interests. In particular, one ofthe issues involved in managing people in or-ganizations is how to resolve the potential forconflict between the world of work and thatof home and community life. Again, it is pos-sible to contrast the contractual relationshipthat may be set up between an American cor-poration and an individual that may seeklargely to separate work from home/commu-nity life, with the relationship of a Japanesecorporation and its employees that seeks tointegrate work and community life. The for-mer may be appropriate within an individual-istic/achievement culture, the latter in a col-lectivistic/obligation-based culture (Jackson,

2002). Differences among these approachesin different countries result through a num-ber of cross-cutting influences that are dis-cussed in this article (shown as “interveningvariables” in Figure 1). Principally, these arethe level of maturity of HRM systems usuallysupported by a strong economy and culturalcrossvergence. Thus, the United States andmost Western countries have advanced in-dustrial economies that support more matureHRM systems that reflect a Human Relations(after Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939 andLikert, 1961) or stakeholder approach. Tran-sitional economies of the former Soviet bloc,or emerging countries of Africa, South Asia,or South America may have shorter-term ob-jectives. So, although cultures in such re-gions may reflect a more collectivistic and hu-manistic view of people, a short-termperspective may seek immediate solutionswith short-term goals. This often involves ac-cepting Western solutions uncritically to fillthe void. Often such solutions will not take awider stakeholder view but may crudely re-flect the interests of owners, shareholders, orother vested interests. There may be noreaching out to the wider community tobridge the gap between the world of work andhome/community life. Within a society that ismore collectivistic and humanistic in nature,this may be entirely inappropriate, leading atbest to the “compliant” level of involvementdescribed by Etzioni (1975) or at worst, the“alienative” level of involvement.

Although there may be hegemonic influ-ences from stronger and more successfuleconomies, such as the United States, thatpropel transitional and emerging countries toadopt inappropriate solutions, crossvergenceor the interaction of different cultural influ-ences in cultures such as South Korea andHong Kong (Priem, Love, & Shaffer, 2000;Ralston, Gustafson, Terpstra, & Holt, 1993)have given rise to successful hybrid manage-ment systems. The level of industrial develop-ment of a country, its cultural values, and thelevel and nature of cultural interactions mayall play a part in the nature of people man-agement systems and their appropriateness tothe economic and cultural context withinwhich they operate. The extent to which theyprioritize stakeholders’ interests and bal-

Management of People Across Cultures • 457

ance—for example, the potential conflicts be-tween work and home/community life—maybe a function of cultural values as much asthe level of industrial development of a coun-try. This may also be a function of the way in-dividual multinational organizations and theirmanagers and HR departments operate intransitional and emerging countries. Often, itis the HR function that takes the lead in de-veloping appropriate policies and practices.

In a special issue of Human ResourceManagement, Pucik (1997) states that the HRfunction is seen as an obstacle to globalizationbecause of the ethnocentric and parochial HRsystems that only focus on their home coun-try. He appeals for the development of a globalmindset by recognizing and valuing culturaldifferences. It is hoped that in the present ar-ticle I can add to that understanding by:

1. Challenging the cultural assump-tions upon which Western HRM isbased and operates in the context ofmanaging internationally.

2. Exploring the relationship betweenthe way people are valued differently

in different cultures, and the waypeople are managed. I do this by de-veloping a concept of locus of humanvalue that distinguishes an instru-mental and humanistic view of peo-ple in organizations. By exploring thecrosscultural literature, focused pri-marily on seven countries, I develophypotheses regarding the relation-ship between these two dimensionsand approaches to managing people.

3. Establishing initial support for theseassumptions and testing hypothesesby reporting an exploratory studyamong managers with special refer-ence to America and Japan to con-trast these two archetypes, and in-cluding five other cultures that Ipostulate would vary on measures ofinstrumentalism and humanism,namely: Australia, Hong Kong,Korea, Poland, and Russia. By in-cluding these five other cultures itmay be possible to explore the dif-ferences among Western and non-Western ideal types.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework for locus of human value.


4. Discussing the implications and short-comings of this exploratory research,and laying the foundations for furtherwork by focusing on the way instru-mentalism and humanism is mani-fested in people management policiesand practices in different countries.

This work draws mainly on evidence fromthe available literature, while the tentative na-ture of the exploratory study gives some confi-dence in the validity of the concepts used, andprovokes further empirical study. Yet the work,which develops the crosscultural concept oflocus of human value and challenges the eth-nocentric basis of HRM, has clear implica-tions for managers and HRM practitionerswho wish to rise to Pucik’s (1997) challengeto be a champion rather than an obstacle toglobalization. To successfully do this by think-ing outside the parochial box, managers firsthave to be aware of the cultural assumptionsof Human Resource Management. It is to thisthat I now turn.

Challenging the Assumptions of HumanResource Management

These assumptions have already been chal-lenged in a limited way within the context ofWestern human resource management(Ellig, 1997; Legge, 1989). A distinction hasbeen made in the strategic human resourcemanagement literature between hard andsoft perspectives. The hard approach reflectsa utilitarian instrumentalism. This sees peo-ple in the organization as a mere resource toachieve the ends of the organization. Thesoft developmental approach sees peoplemore as valued assets capable of develop-ment, worthy of trust, and providing inputsthrough participation and informed choice(Beer & Spector, 1985; Hendry & Pettigrew,1990; Storey, 1992; Tyson & Fell, 1986;Vaughan, 1994).

Yet, Tayeb (2000) quite rightly states thatthe concept of human resource managementis itself a product of a particular Anglo-Amer-ican culture. It is likely that the hard and softapproaches taken within Western organiza-tions are both a reflection of an inherent cul-tural concept that sees human beings in or-

ganizations as means to an end [Blunt andJones (1997) use the term “functionalism”].The two approaches are simply two poles ofa continuum from high to low instrumental-ism. Hence, Lobel (1997), arguing for thesoft side of human resource management(integrating partnership building with com-munities, and balancing work and personallife) in a special issue of Human ResourceManagement, does not break out of the par-adigm. She is compelled to make the busi-ness case for bottom-line consequences. Inthe same issue Ellig (1997) goes somewhatfurther. He states that those who wished todisassociate themselves from the softer sideof personnel and to advocate the business as-pect, coined the term “Human Resources.”He believes the two aspects are better com-bined and called “Employee Resources.”

However, there is a problem if compa-nies operating abroad are unable to break outof this paradigm. The problem arises whenmanagers educated in the Western traditiontry to implement Western human resourcepractices in cultures that have a differentlocus of human value. That is, the valueplaced on people in different cultures may bedifferent to that in the home country. In-compatibilities are likely to be revealedthrough a lack of motivation and alienationof employees leading to low productivity andlabor strife.

The importance of cultural values to theconduct of organizational life is well estab-lished in the literature. Yet, the way culturaldifferences influence how people are valuedin organizations has not been sufficientlydiscussed in the literature. There is a grow-ing interest in the relationship between in-digenous and Western cultures in the prac-tice and development of management andorganization internationally. This is particu-larly the case in the transitional economiesof the former Soviet bloc (Koubrek & Brew-ster, 1995; Lawrence, 1994; Shekshnia,1998), in China (Huo & Von Glinow, 1995;Jackson & Bak, 1998; Sergeant & Frenkel,1998; Wang, 1994) and to a lesser extent inthe so-called “developing” countries of SouthAsia, Africa, and Latin America (Blunt &Jones, 1992; Jaeger & Kanungo, 1990).These issues have also been explored in the


newly industrialized countries of East Asia(Chen, 1994), as well as in the “hybrid”East/West cultures of the economies of HongKong (Priem, Love, & Shaffer, 2000) andSingapore (Gill & Wong, 1998). This litera-ture challenges the assumptions upon whichhuman resource management is based in theWestern world, and questions its applicabil-ity to managing people in countries whoseeconomies have more recently beenlaunched into the global market place.

If we are to constructively challengethese assumptions and re-think how we doHRM internationally, we first need to under-stand the relationship between cultural dif-ferences and the way people are valued dif-ferently in organizations. We can do this byfocusing on the dimensions of humanismand instrumentalism.

Locus of Human Value

My main proposition herein is that acrosscultures people are valued differently ashuman beings within work organizations. Asa result, companies operating overseas mustre-assess their HRM policies and practicesand modify or change their practices accord-ingly; better still to try to break out of thecultural assumptions implicit within WesternHRM. This proposition rests on the conceptof locus of human value. Here I discuss whatthis means, provide evidence for this propo-sition within the available literature, and de-velop a number of hypotheses about thisconcept that can be tested empirically. Spe-cific implications can be drawn from this forthe HR specialists working internationally, aswell as for future research. The first hypoth-esis focuses on the relationship between thetwo potentially opposing loci of humanvalue; these are as follows.

• An instrumental view of the utilitar-ian value of people in organizations(managing people as a resource),whereby people are seen as a meansto an end: Human resources are usedto meet the executive objectives of theorganization (Jackson, 1999); and

• A humanistic view of the intrinsicvalue of people in their own right

(developing the potential of peoplein organizations as an end in itself),whereby people are seen as having avalue for who they are, rather thanwhat they can do for the organization(Jackson, 1999; Koopman, 1991;Lessem, 1994; Saunders, 1998).

Yet, these two apparently opposing viewsmay also contain similarities, as both can beseen as fulfilling the objectives of the organi-zation. Logically, a humanistic organizationcould also be objective-seeking in nature. Theobjective of the organization could be to fulfillthe needs and requirements of people withinthat organization. The difference between aninstrumental perspective and a humanisticone may be that the former is more represen-tative of a systems approach to organizing, andthe latter a phenomenological approach. Al-though it is the executive that defines objec-tives, a systems or functionalist view appearsto reify the organization: It is seen as a con-crete entity (Silverman, 1970). Everybody inthe organization is assumed to pursue theseobjectives, or they are considered dysfunc-tional. Hence, it is logical that employees areutilized to pursue executive objectives. Undera phenomenological view (Silverman, 1970)of organization, people construct the reality(including its objectives) of an organizationthrough a process of negotiation, albeit withina number of power relations.

Logically, therefore, the two loci ofhuman value may not be incompatible, asthey can both be contained within objective-seeking organizations, and employees withinboth approaches could be seen as fulfillingthe objectives of the organization. We canthen logically expect that cultures that arehigh in humanism could also be high in in-strumentalism. This does not mean that wecan predict the level of instrumentalismbased on the level of humanism. This logicalassumption, however, indicates that human-ism and instrumentalism are not negativelycorrelated (although they could be positivelycorrelated), and that one is not a predictor,nor an explanation of the other. Thus,

Hypothesis 1. Humanism and instrumental-ism will be moderately positively correlated.


This possible correlation may also be anaspect of “crossvergence,” or the intermixingof cultural systems, and the maturity ofHRM systems within any one country. Aswell as considering these factors (which areshown as “intervening variables” in Figure 1)it is also necessary to consider how locus ofhuman value in organizations relates to cul-tural values within the wider society.

Cultural Factors

It may be tempting to assume that instru-mentalism–humanism is similar to an indi-vidualism–collectivism dimension. Thereseems to be a simple split between the indi-vidualistic Western cultures and the collec-tivistic non-Western cultures. The lifetimeprotection of people within collectivist soci-eties (Hofstede, 1980) would seem to indi-cate a valuing of people in their own right aspart of a collective. The expectation of peo-ple in individualistic cultures that they lookafter themselves (Hofstede, 1980) wouldseem to indicate a more instrumental view ofpeople in organizations.

However, this may be too simplistic.First, collectivism is target-specific andobligatory in nature (Hui, 1990). Japanesemen may be more psychologically involvedwith their organizations, and Chinese moreinvolved with their families, but at the ex-pense of those outside the collective. Hence,those outside the in-group may be regardedinstrumentally as a means to an end. Sec-ond, the cultural values work of Schwartz(1994) and Smith, Dugan, and Trompenaars(1996) contrasts “conservatism” and “egali-tarian commitment”: the former correlatingnegatively with Hofstede’s (1980) individu-alism, and the latter correlating positivelywith it.

The sociocentric values attached to con-servatism are those that we would expect tobe associated with collectivism. Egalitariancommitment, however, expresses a transcen-dence of selfish interest (loyalty, social jus-tice, responsibility, and equality; Schwartz,1994), but places a voluntary aspect on thisrather than an obligatory one toward the in-group: People are selfless because they wantto be, not because they have to be.

Cultural Factors Giving Rise toInstrumentalism

Instrumentalism and humanism may there-fore not relate in a direct way to the level ofindividualism and collectivism in a society(Figure 1). There may be different pro-pelling cultural influences in different soci-eties. These may lead to a diminution of ahumanistic locus of human value within theorganization and/or a softening of an instru-mental locus.

For example, Australia is an individualis-tic (Hofstede, 1980) Western culture, yet hasalso been seen as having a humanistic orien-tation (England, 1975, 1978). Westwood andPosner (1997) argue that this leads to a con-cern for the well being of the workforce andfor quality of work life. More accurately thismay reflect a moderately high level of egali-tarian commitment (Schwartz, 1994; Smithet al., 1996) and the “mateship” of Australiansociety often identified in the literature(Encel, 1997).

More recent research has suggested thatAmericans are not as individualistic as Hofst-ede’s (1980) study has suggested (Bond, Fu,& Pasa, 2001). This view is reflected in themoderately high scores on Schwartz’s (1994)and Smith et al.’s (1996) egalitarian commit-ment. Yet with Australia’s higher historicallevels of protectionism of both business andof the labor market, American work culturemay be expected to be higher in achievementorientation than that of Australia. However,both countries have similar moderately highscores on Hofstede’s (1980) masculinity di-mension, which, in part, measures the levelof competitiveness and results focus. Also,Australia has more recently gone through aphase of economic liberalization and in-crease in competitiveness and freer labormarkets (Boxall, 1999; Edwards, O’Reilly, &Schuwwalow, 1997; Tixier, 2000).

Both Australian (Karpin, 1995) andAmerican (Wheeler & McClendon, 1998)organizations have been shown to have acommand and control orientation with a top-down management approach. Again this maybe a factor that promotes a view that em-ployees may be used instrumentally towardthe objectives of the organization’s executive.


Factors Modifying Instrumentalism andHumanism

Apart from what we may understand fromthe recent contribution of egalitarian com-mitment in the crosscultural literature, thereare other reasons (intervening variables inFigure 1) why the harder forms of instru-mentalism are being modified and softenedin the Anglo-Saxon countries and probablyalso in Western Europe. Similarly, there areother reasons why the harder versions arebeing adopted uncritically in the rathershort-term orientation of transitional coun-tries in the former Soviet bloc and in thenewly industrialized countries of East Asia.

The moderate relationship between in-strumentalism and humanism proposed abovein Hypothesis 1 is represented in Figure 1 asa logical convergence of these two loci ofhuman value. This may be influenced by bothcrossvergence, or the intermixing of culturalsystems [for example, the continued influenceof Japanese policies on Western managementthought and practices from the time of Pas-cale and Athos’s (1981) and Ouchi’s (1981)groundbreaking work], and the maturity ofHRM systems under these and Western in-digenous influences such as Human RelationsTheory (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939; Lik-ert, 1961). These two influences may give riseto the softer instrumentalism in HRM policyand practice. Hence,

Hypothesis 2. The level of instrumentalismwill be negatively related to the level of ma-turity of human resource management ap-proaches so that the Anglo-Saxon countries,such as the United States and Australia, willexhibit a “softer” instrumentalism.

Similarly, with crossvergence operatingon hybrid East/West management cultures, ahumanistic locus of human value in organi-zations may take on harder manifestations.For example, a study of crossvergence inHong Kong by Priem et al. (2000) foundHong Kong managers closer in their valuesto American managers than to those fromGuangzhou in China.

Instrumental approaches to managingpeople may also feature in this type of hy-

bridization. For example, Hui (1990) notesthe differential treatment of employees of in-group members and out-group members inChinese family firms similar to McGregor’sTheory Y and Theory X, respectively. HongKong society is culturally complex—as theinterface of Eastern and Western society formany years. The evidence in the literature interms of its level of individualism-collec-tivism and the way it is changing is contra-dictory (Ho & Chiu, 1994). As a result ofboth crossvergence (Priem et al., 2000) anddifferential treatment of employees within a“hybrid” collectivist management, it is likelythat instrumentalism and humanism will bemodified by the influence of the other. Thisleads to the next hypothesis.

Hypothesis 3. In historically hybrid collec-tivist cultures such as Hong Kong, man-agers will exhibit a harder humanism and asofter instrumentalism.

The influence of instrumentalism ontransitional and newly industrialized coun-tries should also be taken into account. Forexample May, Bormann, Young, and Ledger-wood (1998) identify in Russia a tendencyof corporations to adopt uncritically im-ported HRM solutions. They state thatthere is an underestimation of the complex-ities of the free-market economy within theRussian situation. They also note the lackof commitment to the organization, a lackof managerial responsibility, disregard forhealth and safety issues, and strainedlabor–management relations. This wouldseem to indicate a high level of instrumen-talism. Srica (1994) also suggests that thismay be the case in Eastern and Central Eu-ropean post-Soviet countries.

Yet countries such as the Czech Repub-lic and Poland may be historically differentfrom Russia, with traditions of pre-Soviet in-dustrialization and entrepreneurship, andrelative efficiency under the Soviet system(Koubek & Brewster, 1995). They may be farcloser to Western Europe than Russia intheir cultural orientation, yet suffer from alack of maturity of their HRM systems.

Russia may also have a stronger traditionof collectivization, and perhaps even more


“Asiatic” humanistic orientations thanPoland and the Czech Republic. In Smith etal.’s (1996) conservativism–egalitarian com-mitment dimension, Russia is much higheron conservatism (which is related to Hofst-ede’s collectivism) and lower on egalitariancommitment (which is related to individual-ism) than Poland. In this exploratory study,the sample of managers is taken from AsiaticRussia. This may contrast even more stronglyfrom the sample taken from Poland.

The newly industrialized countries ofEast Asia are also likely to be influenced bythe older industrialized countries to adoptshort-term measures that have been success-ful elsewhere, to effectively compete in theglobal economy. In the case of Korea (anddistinguishing it from the transitional coun-tries of the former Soviet bloc) these influ-ences may come from both Japanese modelsof industrialization and from American mod-els (Chen, 1995).

Bae and Chung (1997) have shown Ko-rean organizations to be different from thoseof Japan in terms of the level of solidarityshown toward co-workers. Korean employeesexpect a higher level of commitment fromtheir companies toward them. They also ex-pect to show a higher level of commitment tothe company. Yet, Korean corporations showa lower level of solidarity to workers thanboth their Japanese and American counter-parts. Chen (1995) depicts Korean peoplemanagement as being less consultative thanthat of Japanese firms, and having a lowerloyalty downward. However, loyalty is ex-pected upward. This represents a more au-thoritarian system than that of Japan.

Hard instrumentalism may therefore bea feature in the newly industrialized coun-tries of East Asia as well as in the post-Soviettransitional countries. Hence,

Hypothesis 4. Newly industrialized coun-tries, such as Korea, and countries goingthrough a transition toward a free-marketeconomy, such as Russia, will exhibit fea-tures of a “hard” instrumentalism.

There will also be other humanistic in-fluences on people management in suchcountries.

Cultural Factors Giving Rise to Humanism

If organizations are regarded as fulfilling col-lective social needs such as providing fullemployment [as in the case of the former So-viet bloc; Koubek & Brewster (1995)], orserving the needs of people as part of a col-lective in-group [as in the case of Japan andKorea, Chen (1995)], this may be reflectedin the level to which organizations are seento be fulfilling the needs of their people.Going against this type of view within indi-vidualistic societies may be a belief that thecorporation has only a contractual obligationto its employees. In a society with collectivis-tic sociocultural values, individuals may bevalued as part of the wider collective.

This may be different from the valuesimplicit within egalitarian commitment andthe Human Relations school in Western so-ciety. Here, people may well be valued. Yetthis valuing may be toward a particular endthat is separate from the individual. In acollectivist society, the end may not be sep-arate from the individual. Also, the rela-tionship between collectivism (as a culturalantecedent shown in Figure 1) and a hu-manistic locus of human value may bemore straightforward than the relationshipbetween individualism and instrumental-ism as previously discussed.

Managers in Japan, Korea, and HongKong in Smith et al.’s (1996) study all scorerelatively high on the measure for loyal in-volvement on the dimension utilitarian in-volvement-loyal involvement. This is a dimen-sion associated with individualism–collectivism and which contrasts a contractual(utilitarian or instrumental) involvement witha moral (loyal) involvement with the organiza-tion. I have already referred to the differencenoted in the literature between the lower loy-alty of Korean corporations and the higher loy-alty of Japanese corporations. This may impacton the extent to which managers value em-ployees for themselves rather than as a re-source. Unlike corporations in other collec-tivist cultures such as India (Rao, 1996) andAfrica (Blunt & Jones, 1992; Jackson, 1999),Japanese corporations have been successful inharnessing collectivism in the wider society tothe corporation. They have done this by “uti-


lizing social and spiritual forces for the organi-zation’s benefit, and in accepting the responsi-bilities to their employees” (Pascale & Athos,1981, p. 25). Although people managementpractices associated with this (e.g., lifetimeemployment, payment by seniority) have comeunder increasing pressure (Chen, 1994), therestill seems to be a people and relationshipfocus that is important in obtaining employees’moral commitment to the organization (Gill &Wong, 1998). This relationship-focus is alsofound in Chinese business organizationswhere familial relations are important bothwithin the organization and in guanxi relationsin business dealings with others (Chen, 1994).There are differences in the ways corporationsrelate to and capture this societal collectivism.These differences are reflected in the way peo-ple identify with the corporation and the waythe corporation identifies with its people. Yetthe mindset or locus of human value is stilllikely to be humanistic in a collectivist society.

Where corporations cannot or do notharness this wider collectivism, alienation islikely to ensue between people’s home cul-ture and the alien culture they step intowhen they go to work in the morning. Hence,

Hypothesis 5. The level of humanism willbe positively related to the level of collec-tivism in a society, such that managers inKorea, Japan, and Asiatic Russia will ex-hibit high levels of humanism.

An Exploratory Empirical Study

So far, I have explored the literature to de-velop the concept of locus of human valueand to propose relationships between cul-tural factors and instrumentalism–humanism, and to look at the role of inter-vening factors that moderate and reinforcethe influences of cultural factors. There isstill some way to go in examining all the re-lationships developed in the model in Figure1, and especially how locus of human valuemay manifest in different HRM policies andpractices. However, it is first necessary toprovide some evidence of the validity of theconcepts that I have so far introduced. Byemploying a relatively small-scale question-naire-based study across seven countries, it

is possible to establish if there is an empiri-cal basis for the idea of locus of humanvalue, and whether it justifies further study.By selecting the cultures discussed in the lit-erature review, which are considered to varyin their relative levels of instrumentalismand humanism, it is possible to determine ifthere is support for the five hypotheses thatI propose. If the study provides support, it isthen possible to extend the discussion tosuggest relationships between locus ofhuman value and HRM policies and prac-tices. Because the empirical study does notinclude an investigation of these relation-ships between instrumentalism–humanismand policies and practices posited in Figure1, areas of further research can be indicatedas well as implications for HR practitioners.I now discuss the methods used for the ex-ploratory study.

Methods

The six countries, and the Special Adminis-trative Region (SAR) of Hong Kong inChina, incorporated in the review abovewere selected to provide sufficient culturaldiversity (Table I). Thus, the United Statesand Japan vary on a number of value dimen-sions including individualism–collectivism(Hofstede, 1980), and may provide a mainbenchmark for instrumentalism and human-ism, respectively. The other cultures were se-lected to represent variation along both con-tinuums and to enable the hypotheses aboveto be tested. Hence, Australia could be as-sumed to cluster in an Anglo-Saxon group(Ronen & Shenkar, 1985) with the UnitedStates, although with some differences asdiscussed previously.

Korea may be close to Japan in terms oflevel of collectivism (in fact, it is muchhigher in collectivism than Japan in Hofst-ede’s 1980 study), although it was muchlater industrialized than Japan (Chen, 1994)and perhaps subject to the different influ-ences discussed above. Hong Kong was im-portant to include because of its “hybrid”management culture described above. Itwould be useful in a further study to includeand compare results from mainland Chinaand Britain, the two main historical influ-


ences on Hong Kong. This was beyond thescope of the present study.

Poland and Russia in the study representcountries of the former Soviet bloc that areundergoing rapid economic transition. Thisincludes greater Western management influ-ence yet differing in terms of historical andcultural backgrounds as discussed above. Forexample, they differ on Smith et al.’s (1996)conservatism–egalitarian commitment dimen-sion with Russia showing a higher level ofconservatism (associated with collectivism).

To conduct this exploratory study I re-cruited co-researchers in the target countriesfrom associates involved in previous interna-tional research cooperation through contactsmade at conferences, and (to broaden the ge-ographical spread in each county or region)associates of the original co-researchers.

Co-researchers were briefed to collectdata from managers in full-time managerialpositions who were working in their homecountry, and who were attending part-timeMBA and MBA-equivalent courses in the co-researchers’ institutions. Attempts weremade to match the (good) standing of eachinstitution across the countries to obtain, asfar as possible, equivalent samples. To mini-mize the effects of sampling error from theseconvenience samples, data were obtainedfrom participants in a number of different in-stitutions in each country. Co-researcherswere recruited as follows: three in the UnitedStates from schools in Massachusetts andMichigan; nine in Japan from six institutionsacross the country; two from two institutions

in Korea; two from two institutions in SouthAustralia and Queensland, Australia; onefrom the industrial city of Lodz, Poland; andone co-researcher from Hong Kong. The co-researcher in Asiatic Russia was an Americanworking out of Alaska, and working withpart-time MBAs in Siberia and the RussianFar East in the gold mining areas aroundMagadan and the city of Yakutsk.

Sampling from these populations ofmanagers was seen as legitimate and perti-nent to this study as it provided matchedsamples across the countries surveyed (vande Vijver & Leung, 1997). It provided simi-larly educated individuals who have the po-tential to occupy key positions of influencein their organizations. It also avoided self-se-lection by companies and individuals. Thiscan often militate against the matching ofsamples across countries. It also ensured agood spread of managers across industrialsectors and functions. Most would be juniorto middle managers. Data collection was byquestionnaire administered by a co-researcher during class time, allowing 30–45minutes for individual completion.

The questionnaire was translated intothe respective language by a native-speakingteam member and subsequently independ-ently back-translated into English to checkon equivalence. The questionnaire was con-structed by writing items assumed to repre-sent aspects of two scales, one for instru-mentalism and one for humanism, that werederived from concepts discussed in the liter-ature review above. Items were distributed

Descriptive Statistics

Nationality Mean # N % Female of Subordinates Management position %

Junior Middle Senior American 105 33.3 5.35 49.0 39.6 11.5Hong Kong 34 79.4 6.97 55.9 44.1 0 Japanese 137 5.1 64.58 45.7 31.8 22.5 Korean 40 2.5 233.23 9.8 19.5 70.7 Polish 50 38.0 19.20 48.0 30.0 22.0 Russian 115 67.0 24.35 49.5 40.2 10.3 Australian 39 28.2 20.37 33.3 46.2 20.5

Total 520 34.0 48.88 44.2 35.9 20.0

TABLE I


randomly in the questionnaire. Managerswere asked to respond to each item on a Lik-ert-type scale on the basis of “what I think”(1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree).

Results and Reliability of the Constructs

Table I shows that this process provided onlymodest sample sizes in the cases of HongKong, Korea, Poland, and Australia. Initially,the reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha)for the instrumental scale were below con-ventionally accepted levels. Subsequent fac-tor analysis suggested a three-factor struc-ture for the 20 items. The first two factorswere readily interpretable as humanism andinstrumentalism (Table II).

Item 1 (“People should be regarded pri-marily as a resource in an organization just

like any other resource, such as money, ma-chinery, and buildings”) was assumed to be akey concept in instrumentalism. Yet it loadedhighly on a third factor, and relatively low onFactor 2. It was possible that managers hadresponded in what they assumed was a so-cially acceptable way. However, item analysisrevealed a highly discriminating item (Meanfor all = 3.55, SD = 1.47; ANOVA for na-tional groups: F = 25.68, p < .001). Itseemed, therefore, that this item did notform part of the factor labeled “instrumen-talism” (Factor 2 in Table II) in the minds ofrespondents. For this reason, and because ofthe unreliability of single-item measures incrosscultural studies, it was not included insubsequent analysis.

The structure of the two scales used insubsequent analysis is shown in Table II. The

Factor Solution for Humanism and Instrumentalism

Factor 1 2 3

Scale 1: Humanism (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.798)12. An organization should be mainly concerned with people (H). .7118. It is the people in an organization which are the most important factor (H). .6862. The main objective of any organization should be the fulfillment of the people within it (H). .6766. A person in an organization should be valued mainly as a person in her or his own right (H). .668

15. Organizations should be completely democratic (H). .65710. The whole point of an organization is to benefit its members (H). .6184. An organization should be seen primarily as a means of obtaining the objectives of the .563 .219

people who work in it (H).13. Employees should always be consulted about important decisions which affect them (H). .524 –.320

Scale 2: Instrumentalism (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.692, excluding items 16 & 20)7. It is the results of an organization which are the most important factor (I). .688

11. An organization should be mainly concerned with productivity (I). .64117. Organizations should be primarily concerned with results (I). .6055. The main value of a person in an organization is to achieve results for the organization (I). .6019. The whole point of an organization is to make money (I). .5383. An employee in an organization should be seen primarily as a means of obtaining the .504

objectives of the organization (I).19. People should be rewarded in organizations for achieving results (I). .207 .49116. There is no place for democracy in organizations (I.) –.269 .30220. People should be rewarded in organizations according to their loyalty (H.) .273

14. It is always best to tell employees about decisions which will affect them (I). .190 –.7271. People should be regarded primarily as a resource in an organization just like any other .210 .620

resource, such as money, machinery, or buildings (I).18. Organizations should be seen primarily as a network of human relations (H). .323 .515

Note: Items indicated by (H) were written for a humanistic scale, and (I) for an instrumental scale. Items 16 & 20 have been excluded from thefinal instrumental scale.

TABLE II


humanism scale is robust within each na-tional group (Cronbach’s alphas for each na-tional group are American = .758, HongKong = .684, Japanese = .726, Korean =.764, Polish = .766, Russian = .685, andAustralia = .778). The instrumental scale isnot as robust when all nine items (Table II)are included.

Independent factor analysis for each na-tional group shows that Item 20 (“Peopleshould be rewarded in organizations accord-ing to their loyalty”) loads either on an in-strumental factor (American, Hong Kong,and Russian groups) or on a humanistic fac-tor (Korean groups), or on a third factor(Japanese, Polish, and Australian groups).Similarly, Item 16 (“There is no place fordemocracy in organizations”) loads either onan instrumental factor (American, Korean,Polish, and Russian groups for which it loadspositively, and Australian group for which itloads negatively) or a humanistic factor(Hong Kong and Japanese groups). This mayindicate important differences in the way in-strumentalism and humanism may be con-ceptualized for each of these countries thatcould be further investigated in a larger scalestudy, it may also be a function of the lowersamples sizes. Indigenous conceptualizationsthat do not transfer across cultures mayoften only be investigated through a largerscale in-country study and through qualita-

tive methods (see, for example, Peterson &Pike, 2002).

The two items, 16 and 20, which areshown in italic in Table II, are consequentlynot included in the subsequent analysis be-cause of their instability within the factorstructures when comparing across nationalgroups. Cronbach’s alphas for the subsequentseven-item scale for instrumentalism (TableII) for each national group are as follows:American = .729, Hong Kong = .643, Japan-ese = .721, Korean = .514, Polish = .729,Russian = .615, Australian = .501. It is alsopossible that the lower alphas, as well as thedifferences in factor loadings above for HongKong, Korea, Australia, and perhaps Russiamay be a function of the lower sample sizes,as well as of the different “mindsets” withineach culture. Again, this indicates that alarger-scale investigation may be useful.

Comparisons may be made among na-tional groups on the basis of these revisedscales (Table III and Figure 2). The predom-inance of males in the Japanese and Koreansamples reflects the predominance of malesin the general managerial population forthese countries. For these, and other coun-tries, the predominance of one sex in mana-gerial positions is also part of the manage-ment culture. The samples for Russia andHong Kong show higher proportions of fe-males than males, and may, in part, reflect

Results for Humanism and Instrumentalism by National Groups

Humanism InstrumentalismMean SD Mean SD

All 3.59 0.70 All 3.73 0.61American 3.09 0.65 Polish 3.52 0.57Australian 3.18 0.69 American 3.56 0.63Polish 3.21 0.58 Japanese 3.62 0.62Hong Kong 3.51 0.61 Australian 3.70 0.47Korean 3.70 0.68 Hong Kong 3.86 0.58Japanese 3.78 0.53 Korean 3.99 0.52Russian 4.11 0.52 Russian 4.00 0.54

F. Stat. 36.81 F. Stat. 9.02Sign. .000 Sign. .000Tukey Am Au Pol < Kor Jap Rus Tukey Pol Am Jap < Kor Rus

Am < HK Kor Jap RusHK < Rus

TABLE III


the higher levels of females in managementpositions compared with the other countries.The Korean and Japanese samples also rep-resent managers from higher managerial lev-els (Table I). Across the national samples sig-nificant differences exist between male andfemale for the humanism scale (F = 4.27,sign. = .039; Mean female = 3.71, Meanmale = 3.52). However, an analysis of covari-ance reveals no interaction effect for sex andnationality (F = 0.877, sign. = .511, df = 6,512). Also, there are no significant differ-ences in mean scores on this scale amongmanagement positions. No significant differ-ences exist between male and female oramong management positions for the instru-mental scale. There is a significant positivecorrelation (p < .01) of .193 between the twoscales at the individual level and an indica-tion of association of the two scales (r =.729, p = .063) at the national level.

Validity of the Concept of Locus of HumanValue

One of the purposes of undertaking this ex-ploratory study was to investigate the validity ofthe concept of locus of human value. Resultsfrom the study would have to indicate a positiveanswer to each of the three questions to justifymore research and discussion on the relation-ship between locus of human value and HRMpolicies and practices in different countries.

1. Do the items that make up the mea-sures for humanism and instrumen-talism reflect the theoretical con-structs I have described anddiscussed above?

2. Is there a relationship between thecountry scores for instrumentalismand humanism as I hypothesizedabove?

Figure 2. Relative position of countries on humanism and instrumentalism dimensions.


3. Is there a relationship between thecultural factors thought to impact onthe locus of human value (I call theseantecedent contextual variables in Fig-ure 1) and variation on the measuresfor instrumentalism and humanism?

An inspection of the items contributingto the humanism scale (Table II) indicates adimension that reflects a valuing, fulfillment,and involvement of people by the organiza-tion: seeing people as having a value in them-selves (particularly Items 6, 2, 10, and 4).The items contributing to the instrumentalscale (Table II) indicate a results orientationas well as an instrumental view of people inachieving organizational results. Hence, thisscale represents a dimension that reflects avalue placed on people in organizations as ameans to the ends of the organization (par-ticularly Items 5 and 3). This therefore an-swers the first question positively.

Results indicate that these two loci ofhuman value have a small yet significant cor-relation, and this supports Hypothesis 1.This may also further support an assumptionof crossvergence or intermixing of culturalsystems. Hence, Russian and Korean man-agers both score relatively highly on human-ism and on instrumentalism. Their relativelyhigh mean scores on humanism also sup-ports Hypothesis 5 that higher levels of hu-manism will relate to higher levels of collec-tivism. At the same time their comparativelyhigh scores on instrumentalism supports Hy-pothesis 4 and the assumption that high lev-els of instrumentalism will be found in man-agers from newly industrialized andtransitional economies.

American managers score relatively lowon instrumentalism. This supports Hypothe-sis 2, which posits a relationship betweensofter instrumentalism and the maturity ofHRM systems. They also score low on hu-manism. This supports Hypothesis 5, thatthere is a positive relationship between col-lectivism and humanism. Australian man-agers’ relatively low mean scores on human-ism also supports Hypothesis 5. Theirmoderately low scores on instrumentalismprovide support for Hypothesis 2. HongKong managers have relatively moderate

mean scores on both humanism and instru-mentalism. This provides some support forthe assumption of Hypothesis 3 that man-agers from such hybrid collectivist cultureswill exhibit both a harder humanism and asofter instrumentalism.

The Japanese managers score relativelyhighly on humanism. This supports the as-sumptions of Hypothesis 5 and a positive re-lationship between collectivism and human-ism. At the same time they score relativelylow on instrumentalism. This may providesupport for an archetypical view of Japanesepeople management principles in having ahigh humanism and low instrumentalism.

The position of Polish managers is closeto the Anglo-Saxon countries in both lowerinstrumentalism and humanism. This maybe a result of closer interaction with thesecountries, particularly as compared with Asi-atic Russia, and may need further study. It isworth noting the high levels of German in-vestment in the Polish economy, and thismight suggest a particular Western influenceon Polish managers. It would be useful tocompare results from a German manage-ment sample in a future study.

So, this exploratory study provides pos-itive answers to Questions 2 and 3 and (atleast tentatively) supports the hypothesizedrelationships between instrumental andhumanism, and between cultural factorsand these two dimensions. In so doing ithas provided support for the validity of theconcept of locus of human value, by indi-cating variation among the cultures onscores on these two dimensions, as I hy-pothesized. It has indicated support for ex-planations of this variation based on cul-tural antecedents and intervening variables(Figure 1). Figure 2 represents the relativepositions, which are indicated by the re-sults of the study, of the seven nationalsamples on the two scales. This suggestsfundamental cultural differences in theway people in organizations are seen.

As I have warned above, the study wasintended to be exploratory. Results shouldbe taken as indicative rather than definitive,and as providing a basis for further investi-gation. For example, these results supportthe assumption that different approaches to


managing people and different HRM prac-tices would be advised if American or Aus-tralian managers were operating in Japan,Korea, or Russia. The utility of the conceptof locus of human value will be in informingHRM practices abroad. Having discussedthe basis of the concept of locus of humanvalue, and having provided some support forits validity, I now go again to the availableliterature. Here we can find evidence for theway the two different loci of human valuemanifest themselves in policies and prac-tices, in accordance with the hypotheses andresults above.

Locus of Human Value in Policies andPractices

To have predictive value for researchers, andfor this to benefit the practice of managingpeople effectively across cultures, the con-cept of locus of human value must be ex-plored in terms of its manifestations in spe-cific cultural contexts (Figure 1). Thisexploration is premised on an assumptionthat there are both tensions between an in-strumental locus and a humanistic locus ofhuman value and potential synergies.Through these tensions and synergies, hybridsolutions to a fundamental problem are de-veloped. This problem is how to reconcilethe inherent contradiction between life out-side and life inside the world of work organ-izations. This is an aspect that has been in-vestigated in various guises since theIndustrial Revolution in the West: from theconcept of alienation in the Marxian litera-ture through Etzioni’s (1961) concepts ofmoral, calculative, compliant, and alienativeinvolvement.

Organizations in different cultural set-tings may have different responses to thiscontradiction. For example, American HRMsystems may respond in a calculative/con-tractual way. They recognize and work withinthe instrumental relationship between em-ployer and employee. While firmly focusingon the bottom-line, they attempt to human-ize this through quality-of-work life initia-tives and employee involvement (Ehrlich,1997; Ellig, 1997). This may be contrastedwith the moral, spiritual (Pascale & Athos,

1981), and obligatory responses (such as cre-ating an internal labor market: Chen, 1994)of traditional Japanese organizations thatcapture the collectivistic and humanistic ori-entations within the wider society.

These different approaches (of human-ism and instrumentalism) vary across cul-tures, but also policies and practices seem tobe shared across cultures. This may not bethrough cultural convergence (the coming to-gether of value systems). As noted above, thismay be better described as a process ofcrossvergence (developing of hybrid valuesystems as a result of cultural interactions).Hence, raw Taylorism with high levels of con-trol (the extreme form of instrumentalism de-picted in Figure 1) may not be a feature of themature HRM systems in the United Statesand Australia as a result of the influences dis-cussed above. But this hard form of instru-mentalism may be evident in the recently de-veloped HRM policies of organizations inRussia and other post-Soviet countries.Hence, Lawrence (1994) identifies in thepost-Soviet system a move towards greater ef-ficiency, higher workforce discipline, less pa-ternalism and more instrumentalism, and adecline in human contact; while Srica (1994)notes a short-termism and deterioration inemployee–manager relations.

In HRM practices this means borrowingfrom the West. Hence, in Russia, Shekshnia(1998) notes that HRM systems are builtmore explicitly around business objectives.They have formal systems of staffing, careerplanning, management development, skillstraining, and appraisal and MBO systems.This may also be evident in HRM policiesand practices in Korea. For example, Chen(1995) notes that Korean workers put astrong emphasis on extrinsic rather than in-trinsic factors of motivation. Some Koreanorganizations have MBO systems and focusmore on wages and conditions, with perfor-mance being seen as an important factor. Yetthere is retention of seniority systems. Whileappraisal systems are present, they includeother considerations apart from perfor-mance. They have an emphasis on harmonythat militates against negative judgments andwhich reflects tolerance and appreciation ofpeople’s best efforts.


Figure 1 shows policy manifestation, andtheir implications for practice. These runfrom the raw instrumentalism of Taylorismand Theory X management (high levels ofcontrol and job measurement), through con-tractual employment relations and paymentby results, a balancing of task and results ori-entation (perhaps more specifically delin-eated in individual contractual job descrip-tions) and quality of work life and employeeinvolvement initiatives.

Policies and practices emanating from aninstrumental locus of human value are bestexplained by referring to the competencesapproach to HRM. Constable (1988; follow-ing Boyatzis, 1982) defines competency as“the ability to demonstrate a system or se-quence of behavior as a function related toattaining a performance goal.” As such, therequired competences are determined by op-erational objectives. These are related tostrategic objectives, and link the varioushuman resource functions such as selection,training, and reward, in seeking organiza-tional objectives (Jackson, 1991). The com-petences approach is also underpinned by asystems concept of organization (Silverman,1970). People (as resources) are organized inthe best way, having the best skills to ensureefficient throughput through the system. Forexample, job descriptions would identify ap-propriate persons for particular positionswithin the system, ensuring the requiredcompetences.

This may be one of the more fundamen-tal implications and manifestations of an in-strumental locus of control, which may re-main from hard through soft approaches.Certain features, however, of a softer instru-mentalism (such as quality of work life inFigure 1) may resemble those of a harder hu-manism. This may be an appropriate re-sponse of HRM policies in obtaining higherlevels of mutual contractual involvement ofemployees in cultures that exhibit an instru-mental locus of human value.

In cultures that have a humanistic locusof human value, the development of a moralcommitment (Figure 1) may be more appro-priate. Japanese firms may exhibit a highercommitment to people and community wel-fare by retaining (in-group) employees

through economic downturns. This, in turn,encourages stability, commitment, and asense of belonging (Beardwell, 1994; Gill &Wong, 1998). This element of social welfareand responsibility was also exhibited in theSoviet countries, where commitment ofworkers was obtained through ideologicalmeans as well (Kornai, 1992; Koubek &Brewster, 1995). However, it is likely that thetwo systems diverge on the level of commit-ment to developing people, although similaropportunities may have presented them-selves through longer term planning and alack of pressure from a concern for share-holder value in the case of Japan (Chen,1995) and the Soviet economy (Kossov &Gurkov, 1995).

A competences approach links individu-als into the operational and strategic objec-tives of the organization. In contrast, a devel-opmental approach is based on job flexibilityand rotation (rather than fitting a person to ajob), and promotion based on experiencethrough seniority (Kuwahara, 1998). Thisseems to reflect a more holistic approach tothe person. The organization, and the experi-ence opportunities that lie within, are gearedto developing the person as a committed partof the human organization.

Implications for Management and FutureResearch

The concept of locus of human value maytherefore be helpful in understanding an in-herent contradiction between life outsideand life inside the world of work organiza-tions, and the differing attempts at reconcil-ing these two worlds. The effects of crossver-gence, through global cultural interaction,may bring these two loci (opposing instru-mentalism and humanism) into conflict orcontradiction. This may be the case whenWestern HRM systems are introduced un-critically into transitional or emerging coun-tries. Yet these two loci of human value havethe capacity to meld into a hybrid peoplemanagement system. This may be the case inthe more successful economies of the newlyindustrialized countries such as Korea. Thelack of success in integrating these two sys-tems may be a feature of the least successful


economies normally referred to as the devel-oping world.

Yet through crossvergence it is the man-agement systems that are borrowed andadapted. The cultural orientations of thosebeing managed may not substantiallychange. Hence, it is the managers fromemerging and transitional economies whoare trained and influenced by Western tradi-tions, rather than workers who staff the en-terprises. Similarly, the literature on interna-tional and comparative HRM practices indifferent countries reflects those policies andpractices being introduced, rather thantelling us very much about how employeesreact to such policies (Jackson, 2002). Theyalso do not tell us how successful they mightbe in the long term. This should be the sub-ject of future investigation.

The wholesale adoption of Western (in-strumental) HRM methods in Russia, for ex-ample, may ultimately be ineffective. Theymay simply represent inappropriate ways tomanage people within a cultural context thatmay be altogether more humanistic. This iscurrently suggested by May et al.’s (1998)work on Russia.

This view is also being reflected in thegrowing management literature in at leasttwo parts of the world: South Africa andIndia. In practice this is reflected in theubuntu movement in South Africa (e.g.,Mbigi, 1997). Here, enlightened corpora-tions are attempting to integrate indigenousAfrican approaches within their people man-agement systems. In India (e.g., Rao, 1996)an Indian approach to Human Resource De-velopment is providing a synthesis for West-ern and Indian approaches. It may also bethe case that the so-called K-type manage-ment of Korea (Chen, 1995) may reflect aneffective synthesis of indigenous Korean withJapanese and American approaches. Thesethree areas of the world may well be worthyof further study.

To rise to the challenge for Westernhuman resource management set by Pucik(1997), to be a champion rather than an ob-stacle to globalization, there is a need to beaware of the different perceptions of humanvalue within organizations across cultures. Indeveloping effective international and cross-

cultural systems, managers should learn tothink outside the parochial box. Blindly in-troducing Western HRM practices that re-flect an instrumental view of people may notonly be ineffective; this may also be an af-front to the humanity of people outside aWestern tradition.

Yet managing globally goes further thansimply adapting practices effectively fromone culture to another. Managers should askthemselves what could be learned from thehumanism of South Asia and from Africa inmanaging global enterprises successfully?What can be learned from the attempts toreconcile instrumental and humanistic ap-proaches in the countries where this is be-coming more successful? As developedherein, below is a summary of what man-agers and HR professionals should incorpo-rate into their global thinking.

• Regarding people in organizations asmerely a means to an end may be anaffront to human dignity in manynon-Western countries includingJapan, Korean, and Asiatic Russia.This may also be generalized to in-clude other transition countries inCentral Europe and Asia, and emerg-ing countries in Africa and SouthAsia (which may justify further re-search).

• Inappropriate HR policies and prac-tices in countries with humanisticcultures may lead to alienation, poormotivation, and labor strife wherestaff see themselves as stepping outof their own culture into an alien onewhen they go to work in the morning(this has been reported, for examplein Africa: Blunt & Jones, 1992).

• Human resource practices based onthe competences approach may beinterpreted in humanistic cultures asfitting a person to the requirementsof the job and the organizational ob-jectives, rather than developing aperson around a number of jobs anddeveloping him or her holistically.This may be contrary to practices re-ported in Japanese organizations,and may lead to a lack of identifica-


tion with the organization and a lackof commitment.

• Payment by results and performance-related reward may also be inappropri-ate in humanistic cultures, and maybe seen as reflecting an instrumentalperception of people. It may be betterto reward people on the basis of theircommitment to the group and the or-ganization, and their development as avalued group member.

• Instrumental approaches may be ap-propriate in instrumentally orientedcultures, but humanism also hasvalue as a concept and approach to-ward people. Developing moral com-mitment and involvement, aimingcorporate resources towards the ad-vancement of its people, focusing onthe whole person rather than as a re-source with a set of competencesmay also bring positive results in in-strumental cultures (although thismay need more research).

• A soft instrumental approach doesnot equal a humanistic approach.To break out of the parochial boxneeds an understanding of the cul-tural differences between an instru-mental and a humanistic locus ofhuman value. This represents thedifference between aiming peopleas a resource toward executivegoals of the organization, and aim-

ing the resources of the organiza-tions towards achieving the devel-opment of human capacity of peo-ple with a value in their own right.To understand this and to be able totranslate this into people manage-ment practice is to become a cham-pion rather than an obstacle toglobalization.

Acknowledgments

I gratefully acknowledge the assistance ofthe following in data collection: CindyDavid, EAP European School of Manage-ment; Satish Deshpande, Western MichiganUniversity; Janice Jones, The Flinders Uni-versity of South Australia; Jacob Joseph, Uni-versity of Alaska—Fairbanks, K.F. Lau, Ling-nan University, Hong Kong; Ken Matsuno,Babson College; Chiaki Nakano, ReitakuUniversity; Hun-Joon Park, Yonsei Univer-sity; Joanna Piorunowska-Kokoszko, Univer-sity of Lodz; Iwao Taka, Reitaku University;Hideki Yoshiwara, Kobe University; YasuakiKido, Sangyo Noritsu University; TadeoMiyakawa, Reitaku University; YukihiroOkawa and Toshihiro Yono, Japan Productiv-ity Centre; Akihiro Okumuru, Keio Univer-sity; Tomoaki Sakano, Waseda University;Lee Chong-Yeong, Korea Industrial and De-velopment; Paula Tidwell, University ofSouthern Queensland; and Robert Markus,Babson College.

Terence Jackson holds a bachelors degree in Social Anthropology (University ofWales, Swansea), a masters in Education (University of Keele, UK), and a doctoratein Management Psychology (Henley Management College, UK). He is Professor andDirector of the Centre for Cross Cultural Management Research at ESCP-EAP Eu-ropean School of Management (Oxford-Paris-Berlin-Madrid). He edits, with ZeynepAycan, Ph.D., the International Journal of Cross Cultural Management (Sage Publica-tions) and has just published his sixth book, International HRM: A Cross Cultural Ap-proach. He has published numerous articles on cross-cultural management ethics,management learning, and management in developing countries in such journals asHuman Relations, Journal of Management Studies, and Asian Pacific Journal of Man-agement. He is currently directing a major research project on Management andChange in Sub-Saharan Africa.


REFERENCES

Allinson, R. (1993). Global disasters: Inquiries intomanagement ethics. New York.

Bae, K., & Chung, C. (1997). Cultural values andwork attitudes of Korean industrial workers incomparison with those of the United States andJapan. Work and Occupations, 24(1), 80–96.

Beardwell, I. (1994). Human resource managementand Japan. In I. Beardwell & L. Holden (Eds.),Human resource management: a contemporaryperspective. London: Pitman.

Becker, B.E., Huselid, M.A., Pickus, P.S., & Spratt,M.F. (1997) HR as a source of shareholdervalue: Research and recommendation. HumanResource Management, 36(1), 39–47.

Beer, M., & Spector, B. (1985). Corporate widetransformations in human resource manage-ment. In R.E. Walton & P.R. Lawrence (Eds.),Human resource management: Trends andchallenges (pp. 219–253). Boston, MA: Har-vard Business School Press.

Blunt, P., & Jones, M.L. (1992). Managing organi-zations in Africa. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Blunt, P., & Jones, M.L. (1997). Exploring the lim-its of Western leadership theory in East Asiaand Africa. Personnel Review, 26(1/2), 6–23.

Bond, M.H., Fu, P.P., & Pasa, S.F. (2001). A decla-ration of independence for editing an interna-tional journal of cross cultural management. In-ternational Journal of Cross CulturalManagement, 1(1), 24–30.

Boxall, P. (1999). Editorial introduction. Asia PacificJournal of Human Resources, 37(2), 1.

Boyatzis, R.E. (1982). The competent manager. NewYork: Wiley.

Chen, M. (1995). Asian management systems. NewYork: Routledge.

Constable, C.J. (1988). Developing the competentmanager in a UK context. Report for the Man-power Services Commission. Sheffield: Man-power Services Commission.

Edwards, R.W., O’Reilly, H., & Schuwwalow, P.(1997). Global personnel skills: A dilemma forthe Karpin committee and others. Asia PacificJournal of Human Resources, 35(3), 80–89.

Ehrlich, C.J. (1997). Human resource management:A changing script for a changing world. HumanResource Management, 36(1), 85–89.

Ellig, B.R. (1997). Is the human resource functionneglecting the employees?, Human ResourceManagement, 36(1), 91–95.

Encel, S. (1970). Equality and authority. London:Tavistock.

England, G.W. (1975). The manager and his values.Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co.

England, G.W. (1978). Managers and their valuesystems: A five country comparative study. Co-lumbia Journal of World Business, 13(2),33–44.

Etzioni, A. (1975) A comparative analysis of complexorganizations. New York: The Free Press.

Gill, R., & Wong, A. (1998). The cross-culturaltransfer of management practices: The case ofJapanese human resource management prac-tices in Singapore. The International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, 9(1).

Hendry, C., & Pettigrew, A. (1990) Human resourcemanagement: An agenda for the 1990s. Inter-national Journal of Human Resource Manage-ment, 1(1), 17–44

Ho, D. Y-F., & Chiu, C-Y. (1994). Component ideasof individualism, collectivism and social organi-zation: An application in the study of Chineseculture. In U. Kim et al. (Eds.), Individualismand collectivism: Theory, method and applica-tion (pp. 137–156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: Inter-national differences in work-related values.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hui, C.H. (1990). Work attitudes, leadership stylesand managerial behaviour in different cultures.In R.W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-culturalpsychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Huo, Y. P., & Von Glinow, M.A. (1995). On trans-planting human resource practices to China: Acultural driven approach. International Journalof Manpower, 16(9), 3–15.

Ishido, H. (1986). Transferability of Japanesehuman resource management abroad. HumanResource Management, 25(1), 103–120.

Jackson, T. (1991). Measuring management perfor-mance. London: Kogan Page.

Jackson, T. (1998). Managing change in SouthAfrica: Developing people and organizations.International Journal of Human Resource Man-agement.

Jackson, T. (2002). International HRM: A cross-cul-tural approach. London: Sage.

Jackson, T., & Bak, M. (1998). Foreign companiesand Chinese workers: Employee motivation inthe People’s Republic of China. Journal of Or-ganizational Change Management, 11(4),282–300.


Jaeger, A.M., & Kanungo, R.N. (1990). Managementin developing countries. London: Routledge.

Karpin, D.S. (1995). Enterprising nation: RenewingAustralia’s managers to meet the challenge ofthe Asia-Pacific century. Report of the Indus-trial Task Force on Leadership and Manage-ment Skills (Karpin Report). Canberra, Aus-tralia: AGPS.

Koopman, A. (1991). Transcultural management.Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Kornai, J. (1992). The socialist system: Politicaleconomy of communism. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Kossov, V., & Gurkov, I. (1995). The system of man-agement in modern Russia. International Studiesof Management and Organization, 25(4), 9–25.

Koubek, J., & Brewster, C. (1995). Human resourcemanagement in turbulent times: HRM in theCzech Respublic. The International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, XX, 223–247.

Kuwahara, Y. (1998). Employment relations inJapan. In G.J. Bamber & R.D. Lansbury (Eds.),International and comparative employment re-lations (pp. 249–274). London: Sage.

Lawrence, P. (1994). German management: At theinterface between Eastern and Western Europe.In R. Calori & P. De Woot (Eds.), A Europeanmanagement model: Beyond diversity (pp.133–164). London: Prentice Hall.

Legge, K. (1989). Human resource management: Acritical analysis. In J. Storey (Ed.), New per-spectives on human resource management.London: Routledge.

Lessem, R. (1994). Four worlds: The SouthernAfrican businessphere. In P. Christie, R.Lessem, & L. Mbigi (Eds.), African manage-ment: Philosophy, concepts and applications.Cape Town: Knowledge Resources.

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lobel, S.A. (1997) In praise of the soft stuff: A visionfor human resource leadership. Human Re-source Management, 36(1), 135–139.

May, R., Bormann Young, C., & Ledgerwood, D.(1998). Lessons from Russian human resourcemanagement experience. European Manage-ment Journal, 16(4), 447–459.

Mbigi, L. (1997). Ubuntu: The African dream inmanagement, Cape Town: Knowledge Re-sources.

Ouchi, W.G. (1981). Theory Z. Reading, MA: Addi-son-Wesley.

Pascale, R.T., & Athos, A.G. (1981). The art ofJapanese management. New York: Simon &Schuster.

Peterson M.F., & Pike, K.L. (2002). Emics and eticsfor organizational studies: A lesson in contrastsfrom linguistics. International Journal of CrossCultural Management, 2(1), 5–19.

Priem, R.L., Love, L.G., & Shaffer, M. (2000). In-dustrialization and values evolution: The case ofHonk Kong and Guangzhou, China, Asia Pa-cific Journal of Management, 17(3) 473–492.

Pucik, V. (1997). Human resources in the future: Anobstacle or a champion of globalization. HumanResource Management, 36(1), 163–167.

Ralston, D.A., Gustafson, D.J., Terpstra, R.H., &Holt, D.H. (1993). The impact of managerialvalues on decision-making behavior: A compar-ison of the United States and Hong Kong. AsiaPacific Journal of Management, 10(1), 21–37.

Rao, T.V. (1996). Human resource development: Ex-periences, intervention, strategies. New Delhi:Sage.

Roethlisberger, F.J., & Dickson, W.J. (1939). Man-agement and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Har-vard University Press.

Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering coun-tries on attitudinal dimensions: A review andsynthesis. Academy of Management Review,10(3), 435–454.

Saunders, E. (1998, February). Leadership theSouth African way. People Dynamics, XX,31–34.

Schwartz, S. (1994). Beyond individualism and col-lectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. InU. Kim et al. (Eds.), Individualism and collec-tivism: Theory, method and applications. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sergeant, A., & Frenkel, S. (1998). Managing peoplein China: Perceptions of expatriate managers.Journal of World Business, 33(1), 17–33.

Shekshnia, S. (1998). Western multinationals’human resource practices in Russia. EuropeanManagement Journal, 16(4), 460–465.

Silverman, D. (1970). The theory of organizations.Aldershot: Gower.

Smith, P.B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. (1996).National culture and values of organizationalemployees: A dimensional analysis across 43 na-tions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,27(2), 231–264.

Srica, V. (1995). Managing people in Central Eu-rope. In T. Garrison & T. Rees (Eds.), Managing


people across Europe (pp. 92–110). Oxford:Butterworth-Heinemann.

Storey, J. (1992). Developments in management ofhuman resources. Oxford: Blackwell.

Tayeb, M.H. (2000). The internationalisation ofHRM policies and practices: The case of Japan-ese and French companies in Scotland, 11émeCongrés de l’AGRH, 16–17th November 2000,ESCP-EAP, Paris.

Tixier, M. (2000). Communication and managementstyles in Australia: Understanding the changingnature of its corporate affairs. Cross CulturalManagement: An International Journal, 7(1),12–22.

Tyson, S., & Fell, A. (1986). Evaluating the person-nel function. London: Hutchinson.

Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and

data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Vaughan, E. (1994). The trial between sense and sen-timent: A reflection on the language of HRM.Journal of General Management, 19, 20–32.

Wang, Z.M. (1994). Managerial psychologicalstrategies for Chinese-foreign joint ventures.Journal of Managerial Psychology, 7(3), 10–16.

Westwood, R.J., & Posner, B.Z. (1997). Managerialvalues across cultures: Australia, Hong Kong,and the United States. Asia Pacific Journal ofManagement, 14, 31–66.

Wheeler, H.N., & McClendon, J.A. (1998). Employ-ment relations in the United States. In G.J.Bamber & R.D. Lansbury (Eds.), Internationaland comparative employment relations (pp.63–88). London: Sage.

The management of people across cultures: Valuing people differently

Documents

Transcript of The management of people across cultures: Valuing people differently