Differences in Hr Process Between Australian and Chinese Firms

Topic Two

Differences in HR process between Australian and Chinese firms

When doing business in international joint venture, good understanding in cultural differences will improve working performance and efficiency. Such as using Hofstede's theory of cultural differences, manager should pay attention on discrimination between Australian and Chinese firms. Moreover, the human resource process such as recruitment, selection, career planning and development, performance management, and compensation would also be affected significantly by Hofstede's theory dimensions (Dowling & Welch, 2008).

Power Distance:

Hofstede has analyzed both countries and illustrated figures of Australia and China.

According to Luthans and Doh, Power distance is as the extent to less powerful members of firms with a country expect that power is distributed unequally (Luthans & Doh, 2009). China sits in the high ranking of power distance at 80 which country trust that unequal rights among different group of people could be different and acceptable. Subordinate has little rights to be against superior level group which has most powerful position. Individuals are influenced by higher-level authority and always are optimistic about their own capacity and positions, without completing about the rank. In the different way, Australia scores lower in the dimension at figure of 36 ((Luthans & Doh, 2009). Compared with Chinese organizations, hierarchy in Australian firms seems to be established more equally. The communication between superiors and subordinates is direct and participative. Managers and employees would share information more frequently and equally, further more, in many times, mangers will make decisions based on the employee individuals and the whole teams' expertise.

In the real fact, the different scores of power distance between Australian and Chinese HR practices such as performance management will require different approaches. In China, the firms focus on "democratic" opinions, which directly linked to the Chinese culture which is called harmonious. Therefore, the firms are set performance criteria such as sound moral practices, party-loyalty, and personal relationships (Jie, 2004, p.547-563). Rude arguments are avoided and the firms are willing to minimize the chaos in the workplace. Further more, the method of performance appraisal, two-way communications, which is not accepted by the Chinese culture. Such as Wal-Mart in China, because of the high power distance, the evaluation of performance appraisal is less subjective and the participation is forced. The salaries of employees in Chinese Wal-Mart are fixed no matter how well they have done while wages of superiors are related to the performance (Chuang, James, Ganon, Wei, 2011, P.443-463). In contrary, Australian organizations are using performance appraisals related to the development in individual career and job description. Due to its lower power distance figure, constructive criticism seems to be a nice form of performance management accepted by the staff to indentify gaps in learning and developing. The famous model, 360 degree feedback, is well-applied in Australian firms' management. It will provide a flow of feedback to employees from all the directions (Garavan, Michael, Marry, 1997, p134-147).

Uncertain Avoidance and Masculinity:

The next part is about Uncertainty Avoidance. China has a low point of 30, which states the same level of Australia, whose score is 51. The Chinese are comfortable with ambiguity, and the Chinese businesses tend to be small size and family owned. However, Australian firms are focus on a larger degree of acceptance for new ideas. They are more willing to try new and different innovations related with business and technology (Luthans & Doh, 2009).

The scores of dimension Masculinity are more similar for both Australia and China, separately 61 and 66 (Luthans & Doh, 2009). That figures implicates that both Chinese and Australian are proud of their achievements and success in the life, they will sacrifice families to work. Employees are desirous to seek for hiring and promotion in the workplace.

Though two countries get the same level of Masculinity, career planning and development are affected in different countries' firms. In Australia, employees' career development and planning is well structured and everyone has a clear career road. One good example, Toyota in Australia, the staff's will be supported with a wide range of studying and developing programs to increase their capabilities and knowledge. Employees will be evaluated by the superiors after training. As a result of learning, staff surely enhance their abilities in skills and efficiency, so that career objectives are recognized and acknowledged (Toyota, 2012). A little contradiction to Australia, Chinese employees seems to be acceptable with less structured approach to career planning and development and expect they career will progress in time. Such as Siemens in China, the managers create plans for lower-level employees to ensure staff's profits, performance and interests. However, companies have to consider some career-related activities such as work career orientation relating with employees' aspirations (Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, 2004).

Individualism:

When coming to the dimension of Individualism, China gets a score of 20, which means a highly collectivist culture where people act in the purpose of group interests. They will promote strong relationships with everyone (Luthans & Doh, 2009). In contrast, Australia's individualism is ranked significantly high with a score of 90. The highly individualistic culture figures out that people are supposed to look after their direct family and themselves only. Employees in Australia are expected to be self-reliant and display initiative (Luthans & Doh, 2009).

Specifically compensation of human