The Cultural Differences Between the Human Resource Management Practices of China and US

A Comparison of HRM Systems: USA and China
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date
A Comparison of HRM Systems
Human resource management is critical in ensuring that these workers optimise their potential and operate effectively. The world has become increasingly globalised, forcing organisations to adapt to different environments (Kolb, 2018). While the objective of human resource management (HRM) remains the same in every place, its practices vary from one nation to another. The Chinese and the US human resource management systems differ on various cultural dimensions. This paper uses Hofstede’s cultural framework to focus on the cultural differences between the HRM practices of China and the US in terms of training and education, employee participation, and performance appraisal.
Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1: A comparison between the US and China using Hofstede’s cultural framework
Education and Training
In the US, employee education and training are emphasised more compared to China. Developing employee knowledge and skills is considered a vital HRM practice (Sheeba & Christopher, 2020). In the era of globalisation, businesses are competing on a global scale. Companies strive to maintain their competitiveness by investing in their workforce to enhance sustainability and maintain a competitive advantage (Hamadamin & Atan, 2019). The high score on individualism (91) in the US allows individuals to be self-reliant and display initiative (Hofstede Insights, 2021). Hence, most American companies have recognised the importance of investing their money and time heavily in training programs (Jehanzeb & Bashir, 2013).
This is not the case with most Chinese companies because they provide limited opportunities for workers to develop. The individualistic score of 20 in China indicates that employee commitment to the organisation is low (Hofstede Insights, 2021). Instead of the comprehensive training that American companies offer to their staff, Chinese companies focus on short-term training. When joining an American company, it is common for employees to be oriented comprehensively (Bauer, 2010). Later, they are assigned to qualified supervisors to give them further training during the probation period. In China, most of the training for new employees occurs while working. Orientation is short, usually a week, and the employees are assigned to their respective departments (Lin & Sun, 2018).
Employee Participation
The level of employee participation is high in the US than in China. The differences in participation can be based on the power distance in the two countries. Hofstede’s research demonstrates that the power distance index of China is 80, while that of the US is 40 (Zhao & Yu, 2017). The high power distance in China indicates a society that believes that inequalities among the population are acceptable (Hofstede Insights, 2021). Consequently, the subordinate-superior relationship tends to be polarised (Hofstede Insights, 2021). It is common for superiors to abuse their power in such a setting, and there is no defence against it. The subordinate-superior gap is minimal in the US because of the low power distance (Lam & Xu, 2019). Subordinates can question th...