NBS-6105B-24-SEM2-B

GLOBALISATION AND PEOPLE MANAGEMENT - SEM2 - B

Student ID：

Word count:

Introduction

This report critically explores key issues in contemporary global human resource management, focusing on emerging trends in global work, cultural differences in international workplaces, and unethical labour practices within global supply chains. It uses theoretical and empirical analysis to examine the areas above from multiple structural, cultural, and ethical perspectives and proposes strategic recommendations for sustainable human resource management (HRM) practices.

Section 1: global work

From Expatriation to Flexible Global Work Arrangements

In the past, the typical feature of global work models was expatriation, where employees were dispatched to overseas subsidiaries and subjected to a strict hierarchical system. However, as the global economy evolves, this model is no longer adaptable to new demands.

In contrast, modern global work is characterized by decentralized collaboration, the operation of cross-border teams, and flexible role allocation. Reiche et al. (2019a) demonstrate that this transformation means the work structure is moving towards distribution, deterritorialization, and flexibility. Such a structure challenges traditional assumptions about organizational control.

While this structure enhances work flexibility and expands access to talent, it also creates ambiguities in leadership roles, team collaboration, and the definition of responsibilities. This aligns with the concept of "meta-teams," which function as dynamic, intermediate structures supporting flexible coordination across global teams (Santistevan and Josserand, 2019).

Furthermore, work processes are trending towards decentralization, while decision-making remains mainly controlled by the dominant region or headquarters. This inconsistency underscores the need to critically examine whether the concept of borderless collaboration is actually translated into fair global work practices.

Power Asymmetries and Discursive Dominance in Global Work Environments

Global work is often described as a decentralized and inclusive model of collaboration, but in reality, inherent power structures remain in effect and continue to dominate the level of participation and influence in the work. Reiche et al. (2019b) argue that global teams have not effectively addressed structural inequalities.

In practical operations, the authority to make key strategic decisions and prioritize resource allocation is mostly concentrated in the core regions. Despite the globalization of talent distribution， members in dominant regions or close to headquarters still occupy an overwhelmingly dominant position in deciding the direction and development of team matters.

This imbalance in the distribution of power remains significant. This aligns with Vance et al. (2024) description, which indicates that organizations implicitly enhance the centralization of decision-making power and authority through internal norms. In the communication process, Anglo-American-centric rules have long been dominant, providing a clear advantage to native English speakers and those who identify with the dominant culture.

Although language is generally recognized as an objective and neutral medium of communication, it is actually a highly influential symbolic capital by its nature. Those who are adept at utilizing specific linguistic styles and cultural discourses are more likely to gain attention in communication and thus gain an advantage in the workplace (Lazarova et al., 2023). The design of global work platforms often centres on Western interaction models. This design approach makes it difficult for employees from alternative communication cultures to fully leverage their strengths.

Moreover, as Sparrow et al. (2017) suggest, the historical legacy of administrative systems has resulted in the continued concentration of strategic control at headquarters. Consequently, organizations often pursue decentralization initiatives that mostly remain superficial and fail to achieve substantial power dispersion. These trends show that global teams may appear flexible in structure, but they still struggle to overcome long-standing power inequalities. This reality compels us to think deeply about how HRM can be made more inclusive and culturally adaptive in the context of globalization.

The Limits of Virtual Teamwork

With the development of digital tools, the global collaboration model has undergone a radical transformation, allowing teams in different regions to work instantly across time zones. This shift has made multinationals use more flexible and responsive organizational structures without requiring personnel to relocate physically for smooth task integration. Reiche et al. (2019a) suggest that this collaboration model can be categorized as a distribution and deterritorialization structure.

Technology is the core driving force that makes this structure work. It helps companies coordinate work across different countries more flexibly. However, the reality of virtual work has contradictions. Although team members might seem closely connected, individuals are actually more prone to intense psychological isolation, culture clashes, and communication fatigue.

Lazarova et al. (2023) argue that the absence of “physical co-presence” can make it challenging to build a trusting and inclusive team atmosphere. In a multicultural context, informal modes of communicating information, such as body language and tone of voice, are crucial to teamwork. The communication rules in digital platforms like Zoom, Teams, and Slack mostly follow Western standards, including Linear Agendas, Direct Expression, and Synchronous Responses. This makes it challenging for members from diverse cultures to use. Sparrow et al. (2017) highlight the continuation of administrative heritage. Organizations may appear decentralized and try to promote equal collaboration.

However, traditional power and control mechanisms still operate covertly. Technology is not entirely neutral. It reflects the dominant culture's communication style, such as a preference for direct and fast communication. This “efficiency-first” design may make people not used to this style feel excluded. This indicates that technology alone makes it difficult to achieve truly fair and inclusive global cooperation.

For HRM, this means not only focusing on whether the tools work. They need to think more deeply about how to help employees work together efficiently in a virtual environment and feel accepted and a sense of belonging.

Global HRM Implications

The preceding analysis shows that globalized work environments are increasingly affected by decentralized management, cultural differences and technological communication challenges, making HR management more complex. This means that HR cannot just be an “administrative department” dealing with paperwork and processes.

Instead, it should be a strategic designer responsible for building an inclusive, diverse and culturally-understanding workplace environment. In a multinational workplace, HR professionals must not only set policies but also take a proactive role in building digital tools, optimizing communication methods, and improving team support systems to help multinational employees find a sense of belonging in remote environments.

Lazarova et al. (2023) emphasize that psychological support and a sense of "being present" are critical to whether employees feel accepted in virtual teams. Meanwhile, Vance and Paik (2024) argue that developing culturally appropriate global leadership is critical to the sense of acceptance among multicultural employees.

Furthermore, to effectively address workplace exclusion, HRM should not only focus on the visible organisational hierarchies but also pay attention to the "invisible power rules". These factors influence the employees’ opportunities for engagement, the distribution of leadership roles, and the extent to which opinions are valued. As Sparrow et al. (2017) suggest, if we want global teamwork to be genuinely inclusive rather than just appear decentralised, we must ensure that different cultures and voices are really involved. To achieve this, we must break down administrative heritage.

Fundamentally, global HRM must strike a balance between flexibility and fairness in how we work, and between efficiency and true respect for multicultural participation. This helps companies achieve sustainable growth and prosperity in an era of globalization, despite the continued unequal distribution of resources.

Section 2: Cultural Differences

2.1 Cultural Dimensions: Benefits and Limitations

The "Cultural Dimensions Models" proposed by Hofstede and the GLOBE study are now commonly used tools for understanding cultural differences in different countries. They help people anticipate the values, communication patterns, and leadership styles of diverse cultures. For example, managers from high-power-distance cultures are usually more accustomed to hierarchical management and expect respect from their subordinates. In contrast, in low-power-distance cultures, people advocate for flat organisational structures and prefer equal dialogue and open communication (Vance and Paik, 2024).

Recognizing these cultural differences can be helpful in HRM, such as in leadership training, team building, and resolving cross-cultural conflicts, especially in managing multinational teams. However, while these cultural models have significant cultural values, they are also prone to misuse. Using a country's average value to represent an entire culture can actually ignore the significant multicultural differences within the same country.

It may also lead people to falsely assume that culture is static and homogeneous and ignore its dynamic and diverse nature. As McSweeney (2002) and Lazarova et al. (2021) argue, simplifying complex cultural differences into numerical scores can hide the underlying factors that truly influence employee behaviour. Vance and Paik (2024) also draw attention to the "cultural shortcut" effect: some managers often attribute misunderstandings in management directly to the notion of national cultural differences but tend to overlook the organisational structures or interpersonal dynamics that influence real-world interactions.

This way of thinking deepens the one-sided perception of culture and prevents people from deeply understanding and reflecting on the real reasons behind cultural differences. Moreover, using cultural dimension models too rigidly tends to overlook the reality of hybrid identities, sub-cultures, and global workers who are not easily categorized.

Overall, while these models are a good starting point for understanding cultural differences, they need to be combined with a more nuanced and specific analytical approach. As d'Iribarne et al. (2020) state, to truly manage cross-culturally, one needs to understand how the meaning of culture is gradually shaped in the workplace through symbols, emotions, and institutions.

2.2 Power and Bias in Cross-Cultural Communication

Cultural differences are often viewed as neutral variations in values or communication styles. However, they are closely related to power structures and discourse control in reality. In global work teams, dominant cultural norms shape the distribution of voice among members, determining who has the opportunity to express themselves and be heard, whose behaviour is acknowledged, and whose viewpoints are ignored.

Vance and Paik (2024) highlight that communication styles considered “professional” in Western cultures, such as directness, organisation, and firmness of tone, may put people from cultures that emphasise politeness, relationships, and harmony at a disadvantage. In multicultural workplaces, this implicit standard of “communicative legitimacy” tends to create inequalities in the influence and visibility of employees.

Lazarova et al. (2021) further emphasise that many HRM practices, including performance appraisals and leadership assessments, often imply a culturally specific criterion for the ‘ideal employee’. However, such standards are not necessarily appropriate in all situations. Some employees behave differently but are misinterpreted as incompetent because they do not conform to these implicit rules. These mechanisms often operate quietly under the appearance of being “neutral”, reinforcing dominant cultural narratives as the only correct perspective.

As Vaara et al. (2021) further explain, multinational companies are not just places with different cultures. They are also spaces where people debate national identity. This can lead to power differences and exclusion. As d'Iribarne et al. (2020) argue, effective cross-cultural management requires a deeper understanding of the symbolic and institutional contexts of workplace interactions. This means we must reflect on: Who sets the standards for “professionalism”? What behaviours constitute “leadership”? How do informal power relations affect inclusiveness?

Without such critical reflection, multicultural efforts may not truly include differences, but may instead absorb them into mainstream standards—thereby continuing the cycle of exclusion. Therefore, HRM should go beyond simply learning cultural skills and develop a more critical understanding of structural issues in order to create an organisational environment where multiculturalism can truly exist with equality.

2.3 Culture Does Not Define a Person

“Essentialist” views of culture often equate culture simply with national identity, assuming that each individual possesses a fixed set of values and behaviours consistent with their nationality. However, in a globalised work environment, this view ignores the complexity of individual identity, which is often shaped by a combination of factors such as educational background, multilingualism and transnational experiences.

Vance and Paik (2024) highlight that reducing employees to stereotypes based on nationality ignores the mobility and diversity of professionals in their cultural expressions. Lazarova et al. (2021) similarly argue that cultural identities are not fixed but continually shaped and redefined as individuals navigate different situations, roles, and interpersonal relationships. For example, an employee educated in one country, grew up in another, and works in a third may be influenced by multiple cultures at once, yet no single culture fully defines them. Such hybrid identities present challenges for HRM, especially when HR professionals rely on "national cultural profiles" to predict employee behaviour or design training programmes, as this approach overlooks the cultural complexity within individuals.

Furthermore, cultural expressions are often context-dependent. People may adapt their communication styles and behaviours based on organisational expectations, team dynamics or power relations. As d'Iribarne et al. (2020) argue, identities are co-constructed through interpersonal interactions and are also influenced by institutional rules and symbolic meanings.

By ignoring this complexity, HR managers may misinterpret employee behaviour, provide inaccurate assessments or fail to support employees who do not fit into the “national cultural profile”. Instead of blindly assuming an employee's cultural identity, HRM should create spaces for employees to express their values and work styles. This shift from “cultural categorisation” to “cultural dialogue” can help organisations view diverse identities as a dynamic resource for unlocking potential.

2.4 summary

This section critically explores cultural differences in the global workplace. It points out that they involve not only values or communication styles, but also structural power relations, discursive legitimacy, and the multiplicity and complexity of identities.

From the oversimplification of cultural dimensions models, to the prioritisation of dominant cultural norms, and to the frequent misinterpretation of hybrid identities, traditional HR practices often struggle to grasp the shifting and context-dependent nature of culture in real work settings.

To build a more inclusive and equitable workplace environment, HRM should go beyond simply “managing differences” and instead focus on uncovering the underlying mechanisms of exclusion and engaging in deeper reflection.

Section 3: Unethical labour practices

3.1 The Human Cost of Global Supply Chains

Many transnational corporations rely on outsourced supply chains to reduce costs, but this model often conceals systemic labour rights violations. So-called “unethical labour practices” include excessive overtime, poverty wages, forced labour, child labour, and unsafe working conditions.

These issues do not occur by accident, but are structural outcomes of multilayered outsourcing systems and weak regulation across global value chains. Although HR functions often claim to have no direct connection to outsourced employment practices, their responsibilities in cost control, supplier management, and compliance review mean they cannot fully absolve themselves of ethical responsibility.

This section analyses the root causes of these unethical labour practices and critically examines the role of HRM in promoting ethical and sustainable labour management systems.

3.2 How Global Supply Chains Enable Exploitation

Unethical labour practices within global value chains are not simply the actions of individual “bad” suppliers; they are rooted in deeper systemic conditions. As Ritzer and Dean (2015) argue, globalisation has exacerbated inequality on a global scale at the structural level. It has also contributed to developing complex production systems that externalise costs. This makes it difficult to define and hold corporations accountable for their responsibilities.

One key factor is the “multi-tiered outsourcing structure,” where brands outsource production to first-tier suppliers, who then subcontract to second- or even third-tier factories. This fragmented structure lacks transparency and accountability, allowing labour violations to persist beyond the brand's direct oversight (Reinecke et al., 2018). The problem is exacerbated by legal fragmentation: on the one hand, labour laws in many countries fail to protect informal or migrant workers; on the other hand, transnational regulatory mechanisms lack effective enforcement with coercive power (Hughes et al., 2023). This situation creates “legal but unethical” exploitation, particularly in the Global South.

In industries such as garment manufacturing and medical supplies, debt bondage, low wages, and unsafe working conditions continue to exist, even when masked by a façade of “legal compliance” (Hughes et al., 2023). For instance, evidence from South-East Asia suggests that migrant workers in glove factories often endure unsanitary and unsafe working conditions, despite formal legal compliance (Hughes et al., 2023).

These structural conditions promote violations of ethical standards by all parties at a systemic level, making it difficult to truly regulate behaviour, even when firms have established corporate social responsibility (CSR) frameworks. Therefore, unethical labour practices are the result of how the global capitalist system distributes risk, value, and power. They are not just mistakes made by individual people or suppliers (López et al., 2022).

3.3 HR and Hidden Harm

HR managers aren't usually part of outsourcing hiring. But they help create rules that affect how work is done. It can influence labour practices when deciding how to cut costs, choose suppliers, or check if things follow the rules. These choices might stop unfair work practices or make them worse. Reinecke et al. (2018) argue that audit mechanisms are often just formal procedures; they are not designed actually to protect workers but are used to provide legitimacy to the outsourcing relationship. Hughes et al. (2023) demonstrate that although some Malaysian glove factories passed audits and were deemed compliant, exploitative issues such as forced labour persisted, reflecting a huge gap between formal oversight and the actual work environment.

These cases show that CSR frameworks are often used to demonstrate moral responsibility without truly addressing the underlying structural issues. McCarthy et al. (2021) further reveal that in supply chains, power hierarchies, especially at the gender and managerial levels, determine which labour issues receive priority attention and which workers' voices are ignored.

As López et al. (2022) explain, in the fast-fashion supply chain, the pursuit of efficiency often marginalises social responsibility, resulting in the systemic neglect of workers’ rights and well-being. Consequently, HRM operates in a paradoxical space, tasked with cost control on the one hand and ethical responsibility on the other.

To address this challenge, HR professionals must go beyond basic compliance and actively embed worker-centred values into procurement and governance practices, recognising that ethical oversight is a non-transferable core duty.

3.4 How HR Can Lead Ethical Change

To address unethical labour practices, HRM needs to shift from a governance approach that relies on compliance to a proactive strategy that truly prioritises workers' well-being. Instead of relying on auditing mechanisms that tend to be formalities and have limited effectiveness, HR managers should establish new governance frameworks based on direct worker engagement and transparent oversight (Reinecke et al., 2018). According to Hughes et al. (2023), procurement systems are more likely to drive real change when they explicitly incorporate labour standards into business decisions and bind suppliers through contractual obligations, rather than relying solely on voluntary compliance. López et al. (2022) further suggest that the value of digital technologies should not be limited to productivity gains, but should also be used to increase transparency and real-time monitoring of labour conditions within supply chains. Additionally, McCarthy et al. (2021) emphasise the need to break down irrational power structures in supply chains, especially gender bias and management over-dominance, since these structures have long neglected the needs of frontline workers.

If HRM actively constructs an institutional framework that empowers workers to have a say, it will enable workers to truly participate in negotiating and shaping employment conditions. Fundamentally, ethical governance should not merely be an additional task for HRM; instead, it should become its core focus. Protecting labour rights and preserving human dignity can become an essential foundation for organisational success.

3.5 Summary

This analysis highlights that structural problems, ineffective compliance mechanisms, and persistent power inequalities are the root causes of unethical labour practices within global value chains. To address these issues, HRM needs to move away from relying on formalised auditing processes to a more proactive, worker-centred governance model focusing on transparent management, direct worker participation, and ethical accountability provisions.

Conclusion

This report critically analysed emerging trends in global work, cultural differences in international workplaces, and unethical labour practices within global value chains. It points out that HRM needs to take a more proactive, culturally aware, and ethically responsible approach, shifting from formal compliance to real worker empowerment and transparency in operational structures. Integrating ethical principles, cultural awareness, and sustainability into daily operations is key for organisations that aspire to long-term growth on a global scale.

Reference

d’Iribarne, P., Chevrier, S., Henry, A., Segal, J.-P. and Tréguer-Felten, G., 2020. Cross-Cultural Management Revisited: A Qualitative Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hughes, A., Brown, J.A., Trueba, M., Trautrims, A., Bostock, B., Day, E., Hurst, R. and Bhutta, M.F. (2023) ‘Global value chains for medical gloves during the COVID-19 pandemic: Confronting forced labour through public procurement and crisis’, Global Networks, 23(2), pp. 132–149.

Lazarova, M., Caligiuri, P., Collings, D.G. and De Cieri, H., 2023. ‘Global work in a rapidly changing world: Implications for MNEs and individuals’, Journal of World Business, 58(3), Article 101365.

Lazarova, M., Thomas, D.C. and Farndale, E. (2021) Essentials of International Human Resource Management: Managing People in a Multinational Context. 2nd edn. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

López, T., Riedler, T., Köhnen, H. and Fütterer, M. (2022) ‘Digital value chain restructuring and labour process transformations in the fast‐fashion sector: Evidence from the value chains of Zara & H&M’, Global Networks, 22(4), pp. 684–700.

McCarthy, L., Soundararajan, V. and Taylor, S. (2021) ‘The hegemony of men in global value chains: Why it matters for labour governance’, Human Relations, 74(12), pp. 2051–2074.

McSweeney, B. (2002) ‘Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith – A failure of analysis’, Human Relations, 55(1), pp. 89–118.

Reiche, B.S., Lee, Y.-T. and Allen, D.G. (2019b) ‘Actors, structure, and processes: A review and conceptualization of global work integrating IB and HRM’, Journal of Management, 45(2), pp. 359–383.

Reiche, B.S., Lee, Y.-T., Allen, D.G., Stahl, G.K. and van Zyl, A. (2019a) ‘A framework for understanding global work in multinational enterprises: The structure, process, and context of global work’, Journal of International Business Studies, 50(9), pp. 1474–1496.

Reinecke, J., Donaghey, J., Wilkinson, A. and Wood, G. (2018) ‘Global supply chains and social relations at work: Brokering across boundaries’, Human Relations, 71(4), pp. 459–480.

Ritzer, G. and Dean, P., 2015. Globalization: A Basic Text. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. Chapter 7.

Santistevan, D. and Josserand, E., 2019. Meta-teams: Getting global work done in MNEs. Journal of Management, 45(2), pp.510–539.

Sparrow, P., Brewster, C. and Chung, C., 2017. Globalizing human resource management. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

Vaara, E., Tienari, J. and Koveshnikov, A. (2021) ‘From cultural differences to identity politics: A critical discursive approach to national identity in multinational corporations’, Journal of Management Studies, 58(8), pp. 2053–2073.

Vance, C.M. and Paik, Y., 2024. Managing a global workforce: Challenges and opportunities in international human resource management. 4th ed. New York: Routledge.