The impact of national culture on a variety of Human Resource

(HR) practices has become one of the most important topics in

management research (Chen et al., 2006; Gahan and
Abeysekera, 2009). From the perspective of institutional theory
(Scott et al., 2003; Westney, 2005) it is suggested that HR
practices are affected by differences in national culture and
that HR practices will be largely dependent on managers'
abilities to understand and balance different cultural values and
practices (Wang et al., 2008). The contingency or external fit
perspective emphasizes the fit between national culture and HR
practices, implying that specific HR policies are affected by
national culture.

According to Alcazar et al. (2008), the theories on Human

Resource Management (HRM) have focused on universalistic
perspectives for number of years. Researchers have put great
efforts in finding a single human resources theory that is
applicable in every situation, in every organization, every
culture, and every country worldwide, therefore a best
practices model. During these expansions it became more and
more clear that this universalistic theory was nonexistent,
and that the solution to the universalistic HRM model should be
sought in a contextual, contingent theory which takes into
account a wide range of factors that influence the fitness of an
HRM model in the given setting. By regarded it, the researchers
admitted that a single outline for HRM practices does not exist.
The further globalization of businesses meant that the
approach HRM takes to her tasks differs from several years ago.
HRM departments need to take more factors in consideration
than before, including cultural differences, different labor laws
in different countries and different views on labor of the
employees (Westerduin, 2010).

So research (Sonja and Phillips, 2004) assumes that managers in

today's multicultural global business community often
encounter cultural differences, which can hinder with
management practices in organizations. Leat and El-kot, (2007)
have emphasized the effect of national culture, a concept that
includes traditions, values, beliefs, attitudes and behavior
which influence HRM practices. Laurent (1986) proposed that
HRM methods in any country are a reflection of the national
culture of that country (Albugamy, 2010). Triandis (1972) and
Schein (1992) defined culture in terms of "shared ways of
thinking, feeling, and reacting; shared socially constructed
environments and commonly experienced events including the
history, language, and religion of their members" (Pellegrini &
Scandura, 2006). National culture is also defined as the ideas,
set of beliefs and norms followed by the people of a certain
country; the country's history, religion and traditions make up
for the national culture (Majeed et al., 2010).

In comparing cultures of different countries, cross-cultural

researchers have focused their attentions on an examination of
a set of cultural value dimensions developed by Hofstede.
These dimensions are based on a large sample of employees
from 40 countries from the large multinational IBM, whom he
studied from 1960's, 70's and 80's. According to Gannon &
Newman, (2002), after investigates, examines, and compares
more than 50 countries; he is regarded as the authority in
culture differences and how culture differences influence
management strategies. He said: "in global economic
integration of the world, the strategies of all companies in the
world are focused on how to meet the largest market to most
customers by products and services; while the study of
different cultures and values, is the key to success of such
strategies" (Jing, 2010).

Leading value systems of different countries can be ordered

along Hofstede's set of cultural value dimensions (Hofstede,
1980; Hofstede & Bond, 1988). People's Dominant value
systems have been crystallized in the institutions these people
have built together: their family structures, religious
organizations, educational structures, associations, systems of
government, work organizations, law and regulations,
literature, settlement arrangements, and buildings. All of these
reflect common beliefs that derive from the mutual culture.
Whereas the value systems affect human thinking, feeling,
action, and the behavior of organizations and institutions in
predictable ways, the value dimensions reflect basic problems
that any society has to cope with but for which solutions differ
from country to country (Hofstede, 1983).

Current study (Gelfand, 2000) concludes that managers in

organizations are recognizing that it is impossible to maintain
bias views while doing business across different cultures.
Cultural knowledge and a global focus are crucial to survive,
and to thrive, within today's business environment. However,
the same literature does not give a global focus that is
accordant with the global reality of business. Discussion and
empirical assessment of culture and HRM practices (Aycan, et
al, 2000) has been focused on specific developed countries and
developing countries have been given little attention
(Nyambegera et al, 2000) which is the gap in the existing
academic knowledge.
Organizations are characterized as the 'principles of the
amusement' in a general public that compel or enable

social activities (North 1990). Administrative organizations for

the most part appear as laws and

controls, which portray the political and legitimate condition of

a nation. They have

certain energy to direct authoritative conduct by compensating

consistence and rebuffing

resistance with lawful approvals. Regulating and subjective

parts of organizations
speak to the social and social condition of a general public. The
previous normally takes the

types of socially acknowledged working systems and the last is

reflected by culturallyembedded tenets and standards (Chao
and Kumar 2010). It is contended that culture supports

both regularizing and intellectual establishments (Kostova

1999) by developing and directing

social conduct. On the premise of the supposition that

countries contrast as far as their

regulative, regularizing and psychological establishments, the

focal contention of institutional

hypothesis is that associations are under weight to adjust to

their institutional condition

by embracing hones that are seen as locally fitting (DiMaggio

and Powell 1991;
Scott 2008). Peng, Wang and Jiang (2008) recommended that in
immature institutional

situations, for example, China, social standards (i.e. Guanxi-

equal relational

systems) play a bigger part than controls in coordinating

business practices. Residential

thinks about in China likewise found that the indigenous

administration hone paternalistic

authority is a result of the Confucian social roots, guanxi-

based social standards

also, comrade belief system (Farh and Cheng 2000).

Power Distance:
Power distance is the degree to which individuals agree that
power should be dispersed unequally in the society (Hofstede,
2001). Hofstede's Power Distance Index tells how much one
country's less powerful people accept and respect the unequal
power distributed. The inequality of the society is followed by
people's earlier different life experiences such as value and
norms. Some cultures present the Power Distance obviously,
some present inconspicuously (Jing, 2010). High power distance
cultures tend to view inequality as normal or natural. In such
cultures, lower-status people are addressed by their first
names, while for higher-status people different prefixes are
added before their first names (Pellegrini and Scandura, 2006).
In low power distance cultures lower-status people are more
likely to believe that they should have voice in decision
processes (Alves et al., 2006), and will be less motivated if this
is withdrawn. Power distance has significant implication for
management styles and practices (Emmerik et al., 2008). In low
power distance cultures there is a preference for leadership
styles that promote flexibility, innovation, job mobility, and
general skills, rather than the specialized skills that are
preferred in high power distance cultures (Dickson et al., 2003).

Power distance plays a role in employees' willingness to accept

supervisory direction, and on their emphasis on gaining support
from those in positions of authority (Taleghani, 2010). People in
high power distance cultures accept more guidance from
superiors, and this extra attention makes high-status
employees more enthusiastic about work. In lower power
distance cultures wage differentials between men and women
are smaller (Hofstede, 2001).

Uncertainty Avoidance:
Hofstede (2001) defines uncertainty avoidance denotes to the
extent to which individuals feel threatened by and try to avoid
vague and uncertain situations. Uncertainty about the future is
a basic fact of human life, extreme uncertainty creates
unbearable anxiety, and human society has created ways to
avoid the uncertainty, for example by the mean of technology,
which helps us defend ourselves against uncertainty caused by
nature and laws, which help us against the actions of others,
religions, which help us accept the uncertainties we cannot
protect ourselves against.

Different societies have different ways to adapt to uncertainty,

how tolerant for the uncertain anxiety a single society has is
talking about the Uncertainty Avoidance Index. The high
Uncertainty Avoidance society has more worries about the
future and anything uncertain, and therefore more ways to
defend against those anxieties; and the low Uncertainty
Avoidance society has fewer fears about the uncertainties, and
therefore such society doesn't care so much about the rules
(Jing, 2010). Dikson claims that in societies high on UA, career
stability, formal rules and the development of expertise tend to
be valued, whereas in low UA cultures, more flexibility in roles
and jobs, an emphasis on general rather than specialized skills
and more job mobility is more typical. People in uncertainty
avoiding cultures are also more expressive, and driven by inner
nervous energy. People in uncertainty accepting cultures may
be more tolerant of different opinions and relatively
unstructured situations. In the work environment, uncertainty
avoidance may lead individuals to try to avoid ambiguous
situations and look for precise alternatives. Within such a
cultural context, there will be many established formal rules or
informal norms controlling the rights and duties of employees
(Chang et al., 2007).

Individualism/Collectivism:
Hofstede (2001) defines individualism against its opposite,
collectivism, as the degree to which the society encourages and
rewards collective action (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006). The
culture inclined to be individualistic is more focused on one's
own desires and values, and serves their own interests by
relying on individual exertion; the relations between people are
regarded less important than oneself. On the other hand,
compared with individualism, the culture inclined to be
collective is more focused on a combination of strong social
organizations, which is divided into "inside the group" and
"outside the group". People cared for by members inside the
group, and pay back by their loyalty; they love their group like
themselves, and they can sacrifice their own likings for the
group (Jing, 2010). In collectivist societies, supervisors rely on
loyalty of staff, reliability and harmonized group relationship
with others while people in individualism culture people enjoy
personal particulars and successes in order to define
themselves. The dimension of individualism and collectivism
has received the most attention in cross-cultural organizational
research (Triandis, 1994).

It has been shown to have major implication for the

motivational as well as employment practices. For example, in
more individualistic societies HR practices tend to differentiate
between employees based on their individual performance.
These societies also use differentiation in the reward system
(Beer and Katz, 2003). At the same time, employees from
collectivistic countries prefer reward systems that are non-
competitive in nature (Chiang and Birtch, 2005). Employees
from more individualistic cultures tend to be more driven by
improving themselves and their own positions in life, and are
also characterized by feeling comfortable in competitive
environments (Probst et al., 1999), whereas employees from
more collectivistic countries tend to be more motivated by the
success of the group as a whole. More individualistic cultures
will tend to emphasize HR practices that stress individual
rewards management (e.g. offering individual bonuses and
perks, promoting on performance) more than in collectivistic
cultures.

Masculinity/Femininity:
Hofstede (2001) refers to masculinity/femininity, as the
distribution of roles between the genders. It is also referred to
as assertiveness (House et al., 1999), which emphases on
competition, success, aggressive social relationships, and
limited emotional involvement with others. His research
showed that women's values differ less among societies than
men's values; and men's values from one country to another
contain a dimension from very assertive and competitive and
maximally different from women's values on the one side, to
modest and caring and similar to women's values on the other.
Hofstede (1998) stated that in high masculine societies, men
are supposed to be firm, tough, and focusing on material
success; woman are supposed to be more modest, affectionate,
and concerned with the quality of life. A man has the obligation
to earn money for his family; he should work hard to be
successful in society, the harder he works, the more respect he
gets from his family and society. Therefore, competition in a
masculinity society is very fierce and people pay attention to
the work performance very much, they believe life is for work.

In high femininity society, both man and woman are supposed

to be concerned with the quality of life. A woman has the
obligation to take care of the house work, such as cooking,
cleaning, and the children, so that her husband can go out and
earn money without any worries (Jing, 2010). Research showed
that the distribution of gender roles has major implications for
HR practices and for career strategies as well as career
opportunities of women. Hofstede (2001) described that
masculine and feminine cultures create different leader hero
types. The heroic manager in masculine cultures is decisive and
aggressive. In feminine cultures, the ''hero'' is less visible, seeks
consensus, and is intuitive and cooperative rather than tough
and decisive. At work, in more feminine societies more weight
is attached to subjective, intuition-oriented conditions such as
care, nurturing and relationships (Alves et al., 2006). At the
same time, in more masculine societies people ascribe greater
value on monetary rewards, while in turn more feminine
societies place greater importance on non-financial rewards
(Chiang and Birtch, 2005).