When “Global HR” Is Actually Western
I recently came across an article discussing the failure of Western HR models in Asia and the Middle East. It described a sentence that many HR leaders will recognise immediately:
“We rolled out the global framework exactly as designed. Why isn’t it landing?”
The Hidden Assumption Behind Many HR Frameworks
On paper, everything looks impeccable: The engagement survey is globally benchmarked. The competency model is tight. The performance management framework has proven itself in Europe and the United States.
And yet, when these same systems are introduced in the Middle East or Asia, something feels slightly… off.
The typical reaction is operational: Maybe the communication was not strong enough. Or maybe our managers need more training. Or let’s encourage our employees to “speak up” more.
But the real explanation often lies somewhere else. Many so-called global HR models are not actually global. They are Western.
They reflect a worldview shaped by Western societies and Western management thinking. And one of the strongest assumptions embedded in that thinking is the belief that organisations should constantly empower individuals. Encourage employees to challenge decisions, voice their opinion. And promote autonomy, initiative and self-expression.
A Personal Realisation
I have to admit something here: For many years, I have advocated exactly that. In workshops, in consulting work and even in parts of my writing, I have encouraged leaders to empower people more, invite challenge and stimulate ownership.
And in many Western contexts, that approach absolutely makes sense. But once you start working more closely with organisations in the Middle East and Asia, the picture becomes more nuanced.
The Culture Factor
The cultural dimension that helps explain this is something that has been studied for decades. Researchers like Geert Hofstede from The Culture Factor described it through several cultural dimensions, one of the most relevant here being power distance.
Power distance essentially reflects how societies deal with hierarchy and authority. In cultures with lower power distance, employees expect leaders to be approachable and open to challenge. Questioning a manager can even be interpreted as a sign of engagement. In cultures with higher power distance, the expectation is different. Hierarchy provides structure. Leadership offers direction. Respect for authority is often seen as a form of professionalism rather than submission.
In many Western discussions about leadership, hierarchy is sometimes framed as something outdated or even oppressive. In Asia and the Middle East, it is simply seen as clarity.
Individualism and Collectivism
Another cultural dimension that matters here is the difference between individualistic and collectivist societies.
Western HR thinking has largely been shaped in highly individualistic cultures. The underlying assumption is that employees define themselves primarily as individuals. Personal initiative, personal voice and personal ambition are therefore central. But in many Asian societies, and in several parts of the Middle East, the collective dimension plays a much stronger role.
People define themselves more through the groups they belong to: family, organisation, community. In the GCC, this collective dimension is even reinforced by a strong tradition of tribal and relational structures. Loyalty, reputation and group belonging often influence how people interpret authority, responsibility and decision-making inside organisations.
Seen from that perspective, some Western HR practices can feel strangely misaligned. Not because people reject engagement. But because the underlying social contract around work is different.
From Global Best Practice to Cultural Intelligence
The organisations that navigate this complexity well tend to adopt a different philosophy: Instead of imposing identical HR practices everywhere, they work with principles that remain constant, while allowing local leaders to interpret how those principles should come to life.
Certain things remain non-negotiable. But the translation of those principles into daily practices can vary.
Feedback processes may look different.
Performance conversations may follow a different rhythm.
Benefits may reflect different social expectations.
Leadership styles may be expressed in different ways.
Principle-Based, Locally Informed
In other words: principle-based, but locally informed. Localisation, in that sense, is not a compromise. It is a sign of strategic maturity.
And perhaps the most important reminder is this.
People do not disengage from well-designed systems, but from systems that fail to see them.
Engagement may be universal, but the way organisations bring it to life will always be, at least partly, cultural.
That is something I continue to explore in Employee Engagement, What Else?, because the more global organisations become, the more essential this cultural intelligence becomes as well.