Practical Applications and Recommendations for HR and OD Professionals in the Global Workplace_15 doc

Work and Family in a Global Context 397 values.. However, in these countries, where the roads and infrastructure tend to be poor and employees spend long hours commuting from home to wor

Work and Family in a Global Context 397 values It seems possible that this finding may be due to the fact that the data come from a multinational company head- quartered in the United States That is, there may be work-life advantages for employees working in the country within which a large multinational organization is headquartered Yet, the find- ings are again consistent with those of Spector et al (2005); in this study, participants were employed in different organizations.

Of the 18 diverse countries included in Spector et al (2005), managers in the United States reported the fourth lowest level

of family pressure This suggests that there is more to life effectiveness than country-level social policy, leaving the door open for individual organizations to have a major impact on the work-life effectiveness of employees.

work-There are a variety of factors for organizations to consider

in terms of the implementation of FWA across the globe For example, in some locations in Latin America and Africa where the number of family members living at home tends to be large, the houses small, and the technology less advanced, it may be especially difficult to implement telecommuting However, in these countries, where the roads and infrastructure tend to be poor and employees spend long hours commuting from home to work, the use of flexible working hours could significantly reduce time-based forms of work-family conflict (Masuda, Poelmans, & Allen, 2008) When implementing FWA policies, a consideration

of commute times, traffic congestion patterns, and access to public transportation can be useful.

The challenge of effectively implementing FWA programs and policies is akin to other organizational change efforts To have a truly agile organization, flexibility is a base organizational requirement It is not enough to develop and set FWA policy; at some level, organizational culture change must occur to facilitate use and acceptance of these programs as vital to the company’s success (Allen, 2001) Understanding the local culture at the country or region level is one way that companies can better enable this change effort However, a tradeoff exists between standardization and customization based on the local culture Standardization of FWA polices across regions and cultural context offers the benefits of efficiency The development of differentiated

HR systems in an effort to fit diverse cultural contexts may have

398 Going Global

its benefits, but often involves costs and a loss of efficiency (Palich

& Gomez-Mejia, 1999; Raghuram et al., 2001) Depending on the size and complexity of the organization, a balance needs to be found between standardization and customization.

Another area of practical importance in dealing with FWA change efforts is performance management Implementing FWA policies and programs offers organizations the opportunity

to reevaluate their performance management practices Without the reliance on face-time as a possible driver for performance evaluations, companies must become more skilled at quantifying performance across different roles, levels, and local cultures

in a global context Traditional performance management systems may be more susceptible to face-time bias, local cultural preferences, and other potentially non-work-related biases The shift to a more agile work environment requires new and different ways of managing performance Having clear guidelines and uniform training for managers about FWA implementation may create less room for cultural biases and immediate manager preferences that may impact the efficacy of FWA policies Ensuring that it is not a matter of immediate manager preference and that an agile workforce is a business strategy will enable broader and more robust adoption of these programs.

Timothy Flynn, chairman and CEO of KPMG, has stated that, ‘‘Providing employees with flexibility and family-friendly programs is more than a ‘nice to have’ fringe benefit; it’s critical

to our success’’ (Forte, 2008) With appropriate caution regarding causal inferences, our data support this line of thought and suggest that the use of FWA can make a positive difference in the work-life effectiveness of employees and can do so within a variety of cultural contexts Understanding the relationship between HR practices and country culture can assist multinational organizations with the development and adaptation of culturally appropriate practices.

References

Allen, T D (2001) Family-supportive work environments: The role

of organizational perceptions Journal of Vocational Behavior , 58,

414–435.

Allen, T D., & Shockley, K M (2009) Flexible work arrangements: Help

or hype? In D R Crane, & E J Hill (Eds.), Handbook of families and

Work and Family in a Global Context 399

work: Interdisciplinary perspectives Lanham, MD: University Press of

Conlon, M (2006) Smashing the clock BusinessWeek, December

11 Retrieved from www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/

06 50/b4013001.htm.

Emrich, C G., Denmark, F L., & Den Hartog, D N (2004) Cross-cultural differences in gender egalitarianism: Implications for societies, organizations, and leaders In R J House, P J Hanges, M Javidan,

P W Dorfman, & V Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and zations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp 343–394) Thousand

organi-Oaks, CA: Sage.

Forte, T (2008) Focus on the 100 Best— Top 10 2008 Working Mother

Retrieved April 17, 2009, from www.workingmother.com/web? service=direct/1/ViewArticlePage/dlinkFullArticle&sp=1658& sp=94.

Frauenheim, E (2004) At tech firms, time again for flextime? public November 15, 2004 Retrieved April 17, 2009, from http://

TechRe-articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100–22 11–5452865.html.

Galinksy, E., & Backon, L (2008) 2008 guide to bold new ideas for making work work New York: Families and Work Institute.

Galinsky, E., Bond, J T., Sakai, K, Kim, S S., & Giuntoli, N (2008).

The 2008 national study of employees New York: Families and Work

Greenhaus, J H., & Beutell, N J (1985) Sources and conflict between

work and family roles Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88 Halpern, D F (2004) Public policy, work, and families: The report of the APA presidential initiative on work and families Washington, DC:

The American Psychological Association Available online from www.apa.org/work-family/.

400 Going Global

Hanges, P J., Dickson, M W., & Sipe, M T (2004) Rationale for GLOBE statistical analyses: Societal ratings and tests of hypotheses In R J House, P J Hanges, M Javidan, P W Dorfman, & V Gupta (Eds.),

Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies

(pp 437–512) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hill, E J., Yang, C., Hawkins, A J., & Ferris, M (2004) A cross-cultural

test of the work-family interface in 48 countries Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1300–1316.

Hofstede, G (1991) Cultures and organizations London: HarperCollins.

House, R J., Hanges, P J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P W., & Gupta, V.

(Eds.), Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp 437–512) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

House, R J., & Javidan, M (2004) Overview of GLOBE In R J House,

P J Hanges, M Javidan, P W Dorfman, & V Gupta (Eds.),

Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies

(pp 9–28) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Javidan, M (2004) Performance orientation In R J House, P J Hanges,

M Javidan, P W Dorfman, & V Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp 437–512).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kabasakal, H., & Bodur, M (2004) Humane orientation in societies, organizations, and leader attributes In R J House, P J Hanges,

M Javidan, P W Dorfman, & V Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp 437–512).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lyness, K S., & Kropf, M B (2005) The relationships of national der equality and organizational support with work-family balance:

gen-A study of European managers Human Relations, 58, 33–60.

Markus, H R., & Kitayama, S (1991) Culture and the self: Implications

for cognition, emotion, and motivation Psychological Review, 98,

224–253.

Masuda, A D., Poelmans, S A Y., & Allen, T D (2008, August) National culture and the use of flexible work arrangements: An analysis of two country clusters Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of

Management, Anaheim, CA.

Palich, L E., & Gomez-Mejia, L R (1999) A theory of global strategy and firm efficiencies: Considering the effects of cultural diversity.

Journal of Management, 25, 587–606.

Powell, G N., Francesco, A M., & Ying, Y (2009) Towards

culture-sensitive theories of the work-family interface Journal of Organizational Behavior , 30, 597–616.

Work and Family in a Global Context 401 Raghuram, S., London, M., & Larsen, H H (2001), Flexible employment

practices in Europe: Country versus culture International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 738–53.

Rau, B L (2003) Flexible work arrangements Sloan online work and family encyclopedia Available from http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclopedia

entry.php?id=240&area=All.

Shockley, K M., & Allen, T D (2007) When flexibility helps: Another look at the availability of flexible work arrangements and work-

family conflict Journal of Vocational Behavior , 71 (3), 479–493.

Spector, P E., Allen, T D., Poelmans, S., Cooper, C L., et al (2005).

An international comparative study of work-family stress and

occu-pational strain (pp 71–86) In Poelmans, S A Y (Ed.), Work and family: An international research perspective Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Spector, P E., Allen, T D., Poelmans, S., Lapierre, L M., Cooper, C L., O’Driscoll, et al (2007) Cross-national differences in relationships

of work demands, job satisfaction and turnover intentions with

work-family conflict Personnel Psychology, 60, 805–835.

Spector, P E., Cooper, C L., Poelmans, S., O’Driscoll, M., Sanchez, J I., Siu, O L., Dewe, P., Hart, P., & Lu, L (2004) A cross-national comparative study of work-family stressors, working hours, and well-

being: China and Latin America versus the Anglo world Personnel Psychology, 57 , 119–142.

Waldfogel, J (2001) International policies toward parental leave and

child care The Future of Children, 11, 99–111.

WorldatWork (2006) Telework trendlines for 2006 Retrieved August

22, 2007, from www.workingfromanywhere.org/news/Trendlines 2006.pdf.

Yang, N (2005) Individualism-collectivism and work-family interfaces:

A Sino-U.S comparison In S A Y Poelmans (Ed.), Work and family: An international research perspective (pp 287–318) Mahwah,

The Editor

Kyle Lundby is a consultant with nearly 15 years experience ing with global organizations Having just completed a multiyear assignment in Asia, he has a unique perspective on the current opportunities and challenges faced by organizational leaders in that part of the world Over the course of his career, Kyle has consulted and facilitated large-scale change efforts, working with leaders from the C-suite down to the line level His clients have included such global organizations as HSBC, ANZ, Medtronic, General Motors, Subaru, and Foster’s, to name a few Kyle has held executive consultant and director positions with a variety of lead- ing consulting firms He holds a Ph.D in industrial/organizational psychology and is the author of numerous publications and pre- sentations in North America and Asia Kyle is a longtime and active member of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) and currently sits on the editorial board for SIOP’s Professional Practice Series.

work-403

Asian countries:

collec-tivism measures in,

390t –391t; employee

dissatisfaction surveys

in, 308; genderegalitarianism in,

386t –387t; GLOBE

study on differences of,304–307; HO (hu-mane orientation) in,

388t –389t; PO

(perfor-mance orientation) in,

393t –394t

Assessment: interculturalcompetence tools for,274–281; internationalassignee performance,348–350; needs, 282,

283t, 285; on-the-job

performance, 279–280Assessment centers: de-scription of, 162;

designing cultural, 162–169;

cross-inbox (IB) simulationused in, 163

Australia and New ZealandBanking Group Lim-ited, 133

Authoritarianism culturaldimension, 33–34Aviva Life Insurance, 125

B

Baby Boomers, 213Back-translation, 16–18BaF¨y BaF¨y simulation, 265Bain, 130

Barings Bank, 147BASIC (Behavioral Assess-ment Scale forIntercultural Commu-nication), 279

Behavior change: lishing conditions forindividual, 310–314;evidence-based psycho-logical theories of, 314;internalization of new,323; Maven-Salesman-Connector pattern of,312–313, 314; POWsresearch on indoctri-nation of, 321–322;predictable stages ofindividual, 324–326;societal variability ininclinations for, 305;TTM (Trans Theoreti-cal Model) of, 324–

estab-326 See also

Organiza-tional changeBehavior modificationtraining, 265, 266Behaviors: Ecological Fal-lacy of applying cul-ture to individual, 306;engaging in multicul-tural team supportive,55–56; establishing set

of team, 70; expatriatecompensation used toelicit, 352–353; FiveFactor Model (FEM)

of personality impact

on, 315–318; oSmithKine’s ‘‘Can-didate Care’’ modelfor, 183–184; internal-ization of new, 323;negotiating to find

Glax-405

Booz Allen Hamilton, 130

Boston Consulting Group,

13, 106

BRIC countries, employee

confidence rates of,

CEEMAN (Central and

East European

Change See Behavior

change; tional changeThe Cheesecake Factory,

Organiza-122, 135Chinese Cultural Revolu-tion, 214

Cisco Systems, 127, 129,

132, 379Citigroup’s NMAP Pro-cess, 192, 193–194CNBC TV 18, 126Coca-Cola, 204Code of Conduct, 18

Coercive Persuasion

(Schein), 321Cognitive interculturaltraining: assessing out-comes of, 275–278,

276t; learning comes of, 268, 269t – 270t, 271

out-Collectivism culture: tracting and, 31; exoge-nous recruitment fac-

mea-of, 389–392 See also

Exclusionism; GrouporientationColonialism legacy, 227Communication: con-text vs content of cul-tural differences in,

180fig –181; language

differences ing, 5–6; multiculturalteam, 54–55, 71–72;post-offer acceptance,184; program imple-mentation and role of,16–18

impact-Community influence,225

Compensation: ing host-countrynationals and expatri-ates, 353–354; culturalimpact on input-outcome ratios usedfor, 354; expatriates,350–356; pay satisfac-tion and, 352; talentmanagement role of,

compar-94–95 See also

Recog-nition systemsCompetency models,92–93

Complementary HR tions, 364

func-Compliance issues,104–105Conference Board, 241Conformity behavior,318–321Confucian Asian society

See Asian countries

Conscientiousness

person-ality domain, 315, 316t,

317Consumer confidence,

240–241fig, 242fig

Contracting norms, 31Corporate LeadershipCouncil, 83, 85,

121, 124, 128, 177,307

Subject Index 407Corporate Leadership

cre-ated by poor, 42;

soci-etal cynicism and, 36;

training for

compe-tent, 256–294;

uncer-tainty avoidance and,

34–35; utilitarian

ver-sus loyal involvement

and, 36 See also

Lan-guage differences

Cross-linking Web sites,

134–135

‘‘Cultural Detection’’

sim-ulation (Royal Dutch

and, 180fig –181;

creat-ing competitive

advan-tage out of, 41–42;

organizational ture impacted by, 6–7;

struc-organizational sus local, 11–12; poormanagement creatingproblems out of, 42;

ver-recruiting complicated

by, 145–147; smith’s frameworkfor understanding,

Rhine-179–180fig ; vacations,

14; within the samegeographical area, 86;

work-life balance and,

13–14 See also

Inter-cultural competence;

Language differences;

Organizational cultureCultural diversity: man-agement of, 38–40;

poor management ating problems out of,42

cre-Cultural intelligence(CQ), 260–262Cultural relativism:

description of, 27;

management lenges of, 40–41Cultural self-awareness, 65Culture assimilator inter-vention, 263–264, 266Cultures: assessment cen-ters for high- andlow- context, 162–169;

chal-cultural relativismissues of, 27; cultureassimilator for expo-sure to different, 263–

264, 266; definition

of, 24–25; establishinghybrid multiculturalteam, 70; individual-ism versus collectivism,

28–33, 117t, 118–121,

382–383; main surable elements of,

mea-25–26; uncertaintyavoidance response

to change and, 34–35;work values shaped by,119–121

Customer loyalty, 243CyberMedia, 134

D

Danone, 32–33Deglobalization trend, 107Deloitte Consulting, 126,130

Denstu, 125Development DimensionsInternational, 132, 134Developmental model ofintercultural sensitivity(DMIS), 280

Disney, 6DNA, 125

‘‘Dream Job’’ (ESPNshow), 125DVF Change Equation(D× V × F > R), 307,

differences of, 304–307; HO (humane

orientation) in, 388t – 389t; PO (performance orientation) in, 393t – 394t

Eastern European ety: collectivism mea-

soci-sures in, 390t –391t;

conformity versus conformity in, 321;gender egalitarianism

non-in, 386t –387t; GLOBE

study on differences of,304–307; HO (humaneorientation) in,

correla-tion with, 240–241fig,

242fig ; framework for,

235fig ; GDP (gross

domestic product)

correlation with, 236t,

238; measuring, 234–

235; metrics and

find-ings on, 235–241fig ;

percentage scores of

specific countries,

237t; premise behind,

233–234;

Unemploy-ment correlation with,

238, 239fig See also

recruit-of turnover ing, 114; HIPOs (highpotentials), 147; orga-nization expenditures

follow-related to, 113 See

also Global selection;

Off-shoring; TalentmanagementEmployee recruitmentcontingencies: endoge-

nous, 117t, 131–136;

exogenous, 117t, 118–

130; overview of,116–118Employee retention:

dual-career familiesand expatriate, 360–

362; mentoring toincrease, 358; reori-entation program for,359; repatriation pro-cess and, 356–360Employee turnover: highrate of, 114, 177; highrates of expatriate, 256;

on-boarding to

dimin-ish, 176t –198

Employees: boomerang,130; engaged, 244; FiveFactor Model (FEM) ofpersonality of, 315–

318; human resourcesdesign framework formanaging, 92–98; IBTs(International Busi-ness Travelers), 149;

Middle East retention

of, 90–91; off-shoring,97–98; on-boarding

in a global workplace,175–198; perceivednorms leading to con-formity by, 318–321;

relocation of new,

184–185; societal ferences in work per-ceptions/expectations

dif-of, 303–307; TNs(transnational), 151–

170 See also

Expatri-ates; Labor market;ManagersEmployment Manage-ment Association, 113Endogenous recruitmentfactors: description of,131; organization size,

117t, 131–133;

techno-logical sophistication,

117t, 133–136

Engaged employees, 244Enron scandal, 147Ernst and Young, 123, 130Ethical issues, 104–105EthicsPoint, 19, 105European Foundation forManagement Develop-ment, 23

European Union (EU):collectivism measures

of, 118; external labor

market, 117t, 122–130;

social-cultural context,

117t, 119–121

Expatriates: assessingintercultural compe-tence of, 274–292;benefits to, 334–336;career progression

Subject Index 409upon repatriation,

Families: conflict between

work and, 380;

expatri-ates and dual-career,

360–362; international

assignees and, 342;

lifestyle counseling

offered to, 359;

Mid-dle East patriarchal,

222–223; tional flexibility prac-tices and, 378–380;

organiza-perceived sacrifice

by expatriates and,

357–358 See also

ExpatriatesFamily businesses (MiddleEast), 227

Femininity cultural sion, 35

dimen-Five Factor Model (FEM)

of personality, 315–318Five Stages of Organiza-tional Decline, 243Flexible work arrange-ments (FWA): Procter

& Gamble data on,383–392; relevant cul-tural dimensions of,381–383; types of orga-nizational, 378–380;

work-family literature

on, 380–381 See also

Work-life effectiveness(WLE)

Flexplace (telework ortelecommunting),378–380

Flextime, 378–380Flextronics Software Sys-tems, 125

Flipping Web sites, 134FSAAR (AARs focused onfailures and successes),73

G

GDP (gross domestic uct): economic fac-tors impacting, 241;

prod-employee confidence

correlation with, 236t,

238Gen X, 213Gen Y, 213Gender egalitarianism(GE), 381–382, 385,

386t, 387t

General Electric (GE):

campus recruiting by,

124; Jack Welch’s ership of, 30; Leader-ship Centers of,

lead-208–209; New

Man-ager Assimilation cess, 192; recruitment

Pro-approach of, 117–118,132

General mental ability(GMA), 156Germanic society: col-lectivism measures

orientation) in,

393t –394t

GlaxoSmithKline’s didate Care’’ model,183–184

‘‘Can-Global marketplace:employee confidencecontext of, 234–244;employees’ work per-ceptions/expectationsdifferences in, 303–307; organizationalambidexterity and,244–245; organiza-tional change andresilience in the,245–249; setting thestage for, 232–233;vitality in the, 231–243,

245–253 See also Labor

marketGlobal mergers & acquisi-tions (M&As), 12–13Global organizations: char-acteristics of transi-tioning, 2–3; culturaldiversity management

by, 38–42; cultural ativism issue and, 27,40–41; defining dif-ferent types of, 2–3;economic dynamism

rel-410 Subject Index

implications for, 37;

HR role in navigating

complexities of, 2;

indi-vidualism versus

of, 42; societal

cyni-cism implications for,

Global selection:

cross-cultural skills required

recent changes in the

rules of, 143–147; types

of, 151–156 See also

Employee recruitment

Global task force, 99–100

Global workplace: five

of, 85–86; inherentcomplexity of, 3–10;

widespread impact of,1–2, 84–85

Globalization ties: cultural im-plications of, 4; ofgovernments and reg-ulations, 5; headquar-ters versus the field

complexi-as, 7–10; HR tion of, 2; importance

naviga-of understanding, 3–4;

languages as, 5–6; nizational structure as,6–7

orga-GLOBE study 1997), 303–304GoldStar Electronics Cor-poration of SouthKorea, 266Google, 124, 134Government regulations:

(1994-cultural differencesimpacting, 5; on HRISpersonal data, 19; pri-

vacy related, 18–20 See

also Legal issues

West-Headquarters center: ters of excellenceimplementing change,8–9; working relation-ship between the fieldand, 7–10

cen-Heineken N.B., 22–23Hewitt Associates, 85, 147

Hewitt’s Global HR Study(2009), 85

High Performance Model,243

High-context culture:assessment centersdesigned for, 162–169;low-context versus,

167t

HIPOs (high potentials),147

Honeywell, 192Honor value, 224Hotbot, 134

HQ practitioners, 9HRIS (Human ResourcesInformation Systems),19

Human Capital, 83, 129Human Resources designframework: compe-tency models usedwith, 92–93; employ-ment law and, 96; HRmetrics used with,96–97; illustrated dia-

gram of, 192fig ;

off-shoring and, 97–98;rewards and recogni-tion systems used with,94–95; strategic/

global, 89fig –90; strategic/local, 89fig,

90–91; tacital/local,

89fig, 91–92; tactical/ global, 89fig, 91; tal-

ent management usedwith, 93–94; technol-ogy used with, 95–96Human Resources (HR):complementary func-tions of, 364; as deci-sion science, 107–108;design framework of,88–98; emergingeconomies of, 106;future of global man-agement of, 105–108;global M&A challengesfor, 12–13; identifyingneeds for, 106–107;

Subject Index 411navigating global orga-

nization

complexi-ties, 2; shifting global

business function of,

83–84, 86–88, 105–106

Human Resources (HR)

metrics: common

lan-guage of, 96; talent

management and role

of, 98–99; global task

forces made up of,

task force for, 99–100;

creating local

champi-ons for, 101; ensuring

functional buy-in to,

of Personal Computerdivision of, 148–149;

masculinity versus ininity cultures ofemployees of, 35; ‘‘val-ues jam’’ initiative

fem-of, 11; work-familyresearch on employees

of, 381IBTs (International Busi-ness Travelers), 149Impetus Technoliges, 125In-group collectivism,382–383Indigo Red, 136Individualism culture:

contracting and, 31;

exogenous

recruit-ment factors in, 117t,

119–121; nepotismand, 29–31; overview

of, 28–29; products,services, and safetynorms of, 32–33; punc-

tuality and, 31–32 See

also Universalist

societiesIndoctrination research,321–322

Infosys, 123, 128, 131Insha’Allah (‘‘If Godwills’’), 226Institute of Managementand Administration,Inc., 125, 128Intel, 125, 135Intercultural assessmenttools: for affectivelearning oucomes,

component of, 259–260; costs related todeficiencies in, 256–257; cultural intelli-gence (CQ)component of, 260–262; description of,257–262; emotionalintelligence compo-nent of, 258; perspec-tive taking component

of, 260; social gence component of,259; tools for assess-ing, 274–292; trainingfor, 262–274, 282–292

intelli-See also Cultural

differ-ences; ExpatriatesIntercultural competencebest practices: 1: needs

assessment, 282, 283t,

285; 2: developingcognitive, skill-based,affective competence,

283t, 286; 3: generic training, 283t,

286–287; 4:

culture-specific training, 283t,

287–288; 5: more plex training with com-

com-plex assignments, 283t,

288–289; 6:

individ-ualize training, 284t,

289–290; 7: use ing theoretical frame-

guid-work, 284t, 290; 8:

use integrated

train-ing approach, 284t,

290–291; 9: ensurelearning occurs during

training, 284t, 291–

292; 10: evaluation ofintercultural compe-

tence training, 284t,

292Intercultural competencetraining: descriptionand purpose of, 262;didactic approaches

to, 263–264; ential approaches to,