Select at least one of your peers’ posts (that has not yet been addressed). Think critically about the position they have taken. What was the least compelling part of the argument presented? What evidence was lacking? What viewpoints were ignored or misconstrued? And, of course, what was convincing about the argument? What swayed your opinion? How do you see the issue in a new light, based on what your classmate has presented?

Here’s one of my peer’s post:

“When choosing the strategy best suited for a company in regards to international human resource management, the leadership must look at the culture and philosophies within the business. There are four IHRM orientations that could be considered:

1. Ethnocentric-the employees in this orientation tend to follow the parent organizations home country HRM practices that are already in place. Key upper level positions are usually filled with people from the home country while all other lower level positions are filled locally as well. Choosing these types of people to fill the positions benefits the company by easy recruitment, loyal employees, training is kept to a minimal and decisions are made internally on site.

2. Polycentric- the employees in this orientation use home country nationals for top management and most technical positions. Mid-level positions are chosen by past level performance in home country. Adapts IHRM practices to the country. A polycentric orientation can reduce costs in training, alleviates language barriers and keeps hiring and relocation costs to a minimum.

3. Regiocentric-Similar to the polycentric, employees for top positions in management and technical positions are chosen from the home country. Mid-level employees are also chosen by past performance in their home country. The main difference between polycentric and regiocentric is that while polycentric adapts the IHRM practices to the country, regiocentric adapts them to the region. Regiocentric has the same benefits as polycentric.

4. Global-the global orientation in IHRM focuses more on choosing the most qualified individual for the position, rather than relying on the country or location having the best people suited for the position. A global search will be held and the most qualified person will fill the position. The benefits of the global orientation are that it opens up the talent pool immensely, creates a multinational employee with expertise ranging far beyond a single country or region and the employee can focus more on the business culture rather than the local culture.

Luthans, F., Marsnik, P. A., & Luthans, k. W. (1997). A CONTINGENCY MATRIX APPROACH TO IHRM. Human Resource Management, 36(2), 183-199.

Von Glinow, M. A., Drost, E. A., & Teagarden, M. B. (2002). CONVERGING ON IHRM BEST PRACTICES: LESSONS LEARNED FROM A GLOBALLY DISTRIBUTED CONSORTIUM ON THEORY AND PRACTICE. Human Resource Management, 41(1), 123.”

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.