INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3356
www.rsisinternational.org
From China to Singapore: Strategizing Recruitment Through
Glocalization
Mr. Yang Yang
1
, Dr. Mazuwin Bt Haja Maideen
2
, Mr. Zining Zhu
3
*
123
Azman Hashim International Business School, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100268
Received: 10 November 2025; Accepted: 20 November 2025; Published: 06 December 2025
ABSTRACT
Purpose – This conceptual paper examines the complexities of international talent management through the
lens of glocalization, focusing on a Chinese herbal tea company expanding into the Singaporean market. It
aims to explain how foreign firms can reconcile strategic cohesion with localized recruitment practices amid
challenges such as limited qualified local talent and cultural incongruence between Chinese leadership and
Singaporean employees.
Design/Methodology/Approach – Adopting a conceptual and integrative approach, the paper synthesizes
interdisciplinary scholarship from cross-cultural management, labor economics, and organizational behavior. It
develops a glocalized human resource management framework that distinguishes between strategic-level
continuity and operational-level cultural adaptation, supported by insights from hybrid leadership models and
intercultural competence development.
Findings – The analysis highlights that a combination of hybridized leadership practices, culturally responsive
HR mechanisms, and localized recruitment strategies can collectively strengthen workforce cohesion and
improve organizational fit in culturally pluralistic markets. The glocalized approach offers a pathway for
balancing corporate identity with local responsiveness.
Research Implications – This study contributes to the literature on international HRM by articulating a
structured framework that foreign enterprises can adopt when navigating culturally diverse labor markets. It
underscores the strategic necessity of aligning leadership style, cultural intelligence, and localized HR
practices to enhance talent attraction, retention, and organizational sustainability in global expansion contexts.
Keywords: Glocalization; International Recruitment; Cross-Cultural Management; Chinese Enterprises
Abroad.
INTRODUCTION
In an increasingly interconnected global marketplace, internationalization strategies have become critical for
growth-oriented enterprises seeking to expand their operational footprints beyond domestic borders (Okonkwo
et al., 2023). This trend is particularly pronounced among Chinese companies, driven by market saturation at
home, supportive governmental policies, and strategic ambitions for global brand recognition. However, the
internationalization journey of Chinese enterprises is frequently complicated by economic policies such as
trade tariffs, geopolitical tensions, and protectionist measures in host countries. Such external challenges
demand heightened strategic flexibility and cultural adaptability from Chinese enterprises (He et al., 2024).
Successful entry into foreign markets requires more than just economic and operational considerations; it
necessitates a nuanced understanding and strategic integration of local cultural contexts, particularly in human
*Correspondent Author. Level 10, Menara Razak, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Jalan Sultan Yahya Petra, 54100 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia. TEL: (86)13425155514 Email: zhuzining@graduate.utm.my
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3357
www.rsisinternational.org
resource management (HRM) (Kormakova et al., 2023) This conceptual paper addresses these complexities
through an exploration of international talent management from the perspective of glocalization, focusing
explicitly on the recruitment challenges faced by AURORA BLOOM, a Chinese herbal tea company
strategically positioning itself in the Singaporean market.
AURORA BLOOM, originally established within China's expansive and culturally homogeneous market, now
faces a dual challenge in Singapore: a shortage of qualified local candidates who align with its organizational
values and a pronounced cultural incongruence between its Chinese leadership approaches and the diverse
Singaporean workforce. As Singapore represents a pluralistic society characterized by a blend of Asian and
Western cultural norms, this context poses specific challenges and opportunities for AURORA BLOOM
(Stratton, 2018). Therefore, this paper critically investigates how glocalization—conceptualized as the
integration of global strategic imperatives with culturally responsive local HR practices—can provide a robust
framework to address these recruitment challenges effectively.
Drawing upon multidisciplinary perspectives from cross-cultural management, labor economics, and
organizational behavior, the paper aims to construct a comprehensive conceptual model of glocalized HRM.
Within this framework, hybrid leadership practices, intercultural competence development, and contextually
adapted HR frameworks are identified as pivotal elements enabling strategic continuity at leadership levels
while ensuring cultural responsiveness at operational levels. By doing so, this conceptual exploration
contributes to existing literature by providing theoretically grounded propositions for effectively navigating
talent management in culturally diverse markets.
The relevance of this study is underscored by its potential implications for both theory and practice. For
international businesses like AURORA BLOOM, strategically adapting recruitment and talent management
approaches through glocalization not only enhances organizational cohesion but also supports sustainable
business growth and competitive advantage in multicultural environments.
LITERATURE REVIEW
To establish a robust theoretical foundation for a glocalized human resource management (HRM) strategy, this
paper adopts a systematic literature review (SLR) approach, synthesizing conceptual insights from the fields of
international HRM, cross-cultural leadership, and organizational behavior. Given the growing complexity of
global talent mobility and the increasing need for strategic cultural alignment in multinational enterprises, a
structured review of extant theoretical frameworks is essential to elucidate the mechanisms by which firms can
achieve both global integration and local responsiveness. This review engages with the constructs of
glocalization, hybrid leadership, and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to uncover their interrelationships and
explanatory power in the context of international recruitment.
Glocalization in Human Resources Management
The concept of glocalization merges globalization with localization, emphasizing that global expansion must
be tempered by local realities (Burgner, 2022). Sociologist Roland Robertson, who popularized the term,
describes glocalization as ‘the simultaneity – the co-presence – of both universalizing and particularizing
tendencies’ in social systems (Robertson, 2012). In a business context, this is often captured by the maxim
‘think globally, act locally,’ highlighting that multinational firms should pursue global strategies while
adapting to local cultures and markets (Chitsa et al., 2022). For a company expanding abroad, glocalization
means that corporate practices and offerings are not transplanted wholesale; instead, they are adjusted to fit the
host country’s cultural norms, regulatory environment, and consumer or employee expectations (Xi, 2011).
This approach is particularly crucial in human resource management, where one must reconcile the parent
firm’s global HR standards with local workforce values. A glocalized HRM approach retains a core strategic
consistency but allows significant local flexibility in implementation. In practice, this means HR policies (from
recruitment and training to rewards systems) are globally integrated for alignment with corporate objectives,
yet they are tailored to resonate with local cultural nuances and institutional conditions (Chung & Sparrow,
2024).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3358
www.rsisinternational.org
Such a glocal approach acknowledges that “an organization and its HR functions must be global in scale but
local in implementation,” combining worldwide best practices with local sensitivity. By balancing global
integration and local adaptation, glocalization provides a conceptual foundation for international talent
management that is both globally coherent and locally relevant.
International Human Resource Management: Global Integration vs. Local Responsiveness
International Human Resource Management (IHRM) addresses the management of people in multinational
enterprises and inherently grapples with the tension between global standardization and local responsiveness
(Chung, 2018). IHRM involves extending core HR functions – staffing, development, performance
management, compensation, etc. – across national borders, which introduces complexities of divergent
cultures, laws, and business practices. A central theoretical issue in IHRM is how to achieve efficiency and
consistency on a global scale while remaining adaptive to each host country’s context. Classic frameworks
describe different strategic orientations: an ethnocentric approach (home-country oriented), polycentric (host-
country oriented), and geocentric (truly global orientation) (Lee et al., 2021).
A geocentric orientation is especially aligned with glocalization, as it ‘does not show a bias to either home or
host country preference’ but instead focuses on whatever best serves the organization’s global goals. The goal
of a geocentric IHRM strategy is to ‘unite both headquarters and subsidiaries’ such that each part of the firm
works toward worldwide objectives and addresses local needs, with each subsidiary making a unique
contribution within an integrated whole (Ceil, 2018). This perspective mirrors the glocal principle of
concurrent global alignment and local adaptation. From an IHRM standpoint, adopting a glocalized strategy
means that corporations deliberately adapt their global HR practices to local conditions – including cultural
norms, labor market dynamics, and legal requirements – rather than enforcing a rigid one-size-fits-all policy
(Cavusgil et al., 2004). Scholars argue that successful international HRM systems build in responsiveness to
local culture and institutions, ensuring that local employees’ values and expectations are respected within the
overarching HR framework (Smerek et al., 2021).
For example, a Chinese company expanding to Singapore may maintain its core talent development model
(ensuring strategic continuity), but it would modify training methods, communication styles, or motivational
tools to fit Singapore’s workplace culture and regulations. Indeed, effective global talent management requires
‘developing consistent yet adaptable talent strategies’ – aligning workforce practices with global objectives
while respecting local cultural nuances and labor laws. This balance between consistency and flexibility is
essential to address the dual pressures on IHRM: achieving global integration of HR policies for corporate
cohesion, and allowing local differentiation for cultural fit and regulatory compliance (Brewster et al., 2016).
The IHRM literature thus provides a conceptual foundation for glocalized talent management, underscoring the
need to balance standardization and localization in managing a multinational workforce.
Hybrid Leadership in Cross-Cultural Contexts
As companies internationalize, leadership practices must also transform to bridge home and host country
cultures. The idea of hybrid leadership has emerged to describe leadership styles that integrate elements from
multiple cultural contexts to be effective globally (Tomas et al., 2022). In cross-cultural settings, no single
national leadership prototype is sufficient; instead, leaders often blend global best practices with local
leadership expectations, creating a ‘hybrid’ model. Hybrid leadership is defined as ‘a simultaneous blending of
leadership differences and similarities from multiple cultures, modified by the global and local conditions’
(Ogunbukola, 2024). In essence, hybrid leaders flexibly combine leadership attributes and behaviors drawn
from different cultural traditions, tailoring their approach to fit the situational context (Sant’Anna, 2024). This
process is ‘contextual, personal, and dynamic,’ as leaders continually adjust their style in response to shifting
global-local influences.
For a Chinese firm operating in Singapore, hybrid leadership might entail fusing Chinese leadership traits (for
instance, a Confucian-influenced emphasis on paternalistic guidance or collective harmony) with leadership
practices more common in Singapore’s cosmopolitan environment (such as consultative decision-making or
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3359
www.rsisinternational.org
egalitarian team management). Rather than being confined to either a “Chinese” or “Western” leadership style,
hybrid leaders develop a glocal mindset – the capacity to understand and reconcile both global and local
perspectives (Park et al., 2018).
Research has observed that Chinese executives with international exposure often “integrate or hybridize
leadership approaches, perspectives, and attributes attained globally and locally” to meet both global and local
expectations (Fang, 2023). This dynamic integration allows them to navigate cultural incongruities and lead
effectively in a foreign environment. The hybrid leadership framework complements traditional leadership
theories by highlighting the importance of cultural agility: leaders must be able to ‘hybridize the global and
local in their leadership’ to achieve effective results in multicultural contexts (Mariyono et al., 2025).
In practice, this may involve switching between high-context and low-context communication styles, adjusting
power distance in leadership approach, or balancing relationship-oriented and task-oriented behaviors
depending on the cultural mix of the team (Tsai, 2022). Hybrid leadership theory thus provides a conceptual
basis for preparing leadership in an internationalizing Chinese company to maintain strategic continuity while
being culturally adaptive – a critical aspect of a glocalized HRM strategy.
Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and Cultural Incongruence
To effectively implement glocalization in HRM and leadership, it is vital to understand the cultural gaps that
may arise between the home country and host country. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory offers a useful
lens for examining such cultural incongruence. Geert Hofstede’s framework identifies several fundamental
dimensions along which national cultures differ (Żemojtel-Piotrowska & Piotrowski, 2023).
Originally, four key dimensions were outlined – Power Distance (the acceptance of unequal power
distribution), Uncertainty Avoidance (tolerance for ambiguity and risk), Individualism vs. Collectivism (the
emphasis on individual achievement versus group loyalty), and Masculinity vs. Femininity (the dominance of
competitive, achievement-oriented values vs. caring, quality-of-life values) (Nickerson, 2023). Later, two
additional dimensions were introduced: Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation (pragmatic future-oriented
versus tradition and short-term focus) and Indulgence vs. Restraint (the allowance of free gratification of
desires versus strict social norms) (Wale, 2023).
These dimensions serve as a conceptual toolkit to compare the cultural profile of a Chinese organization with
that of Singapore. Using Hofstede’s lens, one can anticipate areas of cultural incongruence that a glocal HRM
strategy needs to address. For instance, China scores relatively high on Power Distance, reflecting a cultural
expectation of hierarchy and respect for authority. Singapore also has a higher-than-average Power Distance
culture, though its history as a diverse, modern city-state means employees there may be somewhat more
accustomed to egalitarian practices than a traditional Chinese workplace (Sebastian, 2022). If Chinese
managers impose a very hierarchical, top-down leadership style, Singaporean employees (who might expect a
slightly more consultative approach due to exposure to Western management styles) could feel less
empowered – a misalignment rooted in power distance incongruence. Similarly, China’s culture is markedly
collectivist, prioritizing group harmony and loyalty, whereas Singapore – while influenced by collectivist
Asian values – is a melting pot with some individualist tendencies (encouraging personal initiative and
multicultural openness). This suggests potential friction if a headquarters expects group conformity while local
employees value a degree of individual expression. Other dimensions can be considered as well: differences in
Uncertainty Avoidance, for example, might affect how rules and procedures are perceived. Both Chinese and
Singaporean cultures are known to have low uncertainty avoidance (tolerating ambiguity and pragmatic rule-
following), so they may align on flexibility and risk-taking, but they might diverge on Masculinity (China’s
culture traditionally emphasizes competition and achievement more than Singapore’s, which is somewhat more
balanced).
The key insight from Hofstede’s theory is that misalignment in cultural values can lead to misunderstandings,
employee dissatisfaction, or reduced effectiveness if not proactively managed. In other words, when an
overseas leader’s style or a company’s HR policy clashes with local cultural expectations, a form of cultural
incongruence occurs. Such incongruence can manifest as differing interpretations of company policies,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3360
www.rsisinternational.org
communication breakdowns, or conflicting working norms between expatriate managers and local staff
(Aithor, 2025).
Research suggests that when leaders and teams have significantly different cultural value orientations, they
may even interpret the fundamental aspects of a business strategy in diverging ways (Hartog & De Hoogh,
2023). Over time, unaddressed cultural gaps can erode trust and engagement: ‘the wrong culture setting will
lead to a weaker image in public and unstable motivation for employees’, as misaligned values create internal
tension and confusion. Therefore, Hofstede’s dimensions provide a theoretical basis for identifying where a
glocalization approach should focus its adaptive efforts. In sum, Hofstede’s framework acts as a diagnostic
lens in this literature review, underlining the cultural variables that a glocalized HR strategy must account for
to ensure a cohesive workplace despite cross-cultural differences (Kotiloglu et al., 2023).
Theoretical Foundations Underpinning Glocalized HRM Strategy
To consolidate the theoretical insights discussed, a structured synthesis of key themes was developed through a
systematic literature review. The following table 2.1 presents a thematic overview of the core conceptual
domains, associated scholars, and their strategic contributions to the formation of a glocalized HRM
framework. This classification not only clarifies the intellectual foundations of the proposed model but also
highlights how each strand of literature collectively informs the integration of global strategy with culturally
responsive HR practices in the context of international expansion.
Table 2.1 Summary Table of Literature Review
Thematic Domain
Core Concept
Key Theorists / References
Glocalization
Integration of global strategy with
local responsiveness in HRM
practices.
Robertson (1995); Bartlett
& Ghoshal (1998);
Prahalad & Doz (1987)
International Human
Resource Management
(IHRM)
Balancing global HR consistency
with local cultural, legal, and
institutional adaptation.
Perlmutter (1969);
Schuler, Jackson &
Tarique (2011)
Hybrid Leadership
Combining leadership styles from
different cultural contexts to lead
across borders.
Javidan et al. (2006);
House et al. (2004); Stahl
et al. (2012)
Hofstede’s Cultural
Dimensions
Understanding and managing
cultural incongruence through
measurable cultural dimensions.
Hofstede (1980, 2001);
Minkov & Hofstede
(2011)
These four theoretical lenses provide a robust foundation for the development of a glocalized HRM
framework. This integrated literature base enables the articulation of a conceptual model that is both
theoretically coherent and practically relevant for Chinese enterprises like AURORA BLOOM navigating the
cultural complexity of international expansion into Southeast Asia.
PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Grounded in the systematic literature review conducted earlier, this section proposes an integrated conceptual
framework to navigate recruitment challenges faced by Chinese enterprises—specifically AURORA
BLOOM—as they expand into culturally complex markets like Singapore. This framework synthesizes the
constructs of glocalization, hybrid leadership, and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions within the broader domain
of international human resource management (IHRM). The objective is to align strategic global imperatives
with operational cultural responsiveness in a way that facilitates recruitment effectiveness, employee
engagement, and organizational cohesion.
At its core, the framework adopts a bifurcated model of glocalization that distinguishes between global
strategic continuity and local operational adaptability. Strategic continuity refers to the preservation of
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3361
www.rsisinternational.org
AURORA BLOOM’s core values, leadership philosophies, and organizational objectives across all
international subsidiaries. This strategic consistency is necessary for maintaining brand identity and coherence
across borders (Balmer & Podnar, 2021). In contrast, cultural adaptability functions at the local level, where
human resource practices—ranging from recruitment and onboarding to performance evaluation—are
calibrated to fit the cultural, regulatory, and institutional contexts of the Singaporean labor market. Hofstede’s
dimensions serve as a diagnostic tool in identifying cultural incongruence that may arise between Chinese
leadership norms and local employee expectations, particularly in areas such as power distance, individualism
versus collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance (Żemojtel-Piotrowska & Piotrowski, 2023).
To mediate these potential frictions, the framework integrates hybrid leadership as a central dynamic
capability. Hybrid leaders, who are culturally agile and globally attuned, play a pivotal role in interpreting and
operationalizing corporate strategies in ways that are culturally congruent with local norms (Ogunbukola,
2024). Such leaders draw on both Confucian-based hierarchical leadership traditions and more egalitarian,
participatory practices found in Singapore’s pluralistic work environment. By blending these elements, they
foster a climate of psychological safety, trust, and cross-cultural understanding—conditions essential for
attracting and retaining local talent.
Three key propositions are articulated within this conceptual model:
Proposition 1: The implementation of a glocalized HRM strategy enhances recruitment outcomes and
employee engagement in culturally diverse host countries.
Proposition 2: Hybrid leadership acts as a mediating variable that strengthens the translation of global HR
strategies into locally resonant practices.
Proposition 3: The extent of cultural incongruence moderates the effectiveness of hybrid leadership in
aligning global strategy with local HR execution.
Methodologically, this conceptual study is anchored in a systematic literature review (SLR) approach. Drawing
on scholarly sources published between 2020 and 2025 in Scopus-indexed journals, the literature was
examined through thematic analysis, allowing for the identification and integration of relevant theoretical
constructs. This rigorous methodological design ensures transparency, replicability, and academic robustness.
The selected sources span disciplines including cross-cultural management, IHRM, and organizational
behavior, thereby enabling the construction of a cross-disciplinary conceptual model. Although empirical
validation remains a future endeavor, the current framework offers a theoretically rich and practically
grounded foundation for both academic inquiry and managerial application.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The systematic literature review conducted earlier provides a robust theoretical foundation from which this
conceptual paper derives its results. The key outcome is the articulation of a comprehensive Glocalized Human
Resource Management (HRM) Framework, specifically developed for Chinese enterprises like AURORA
BLOOM expanding into the culturally diverse Singaporean labor market. The framework distinctly integrates
principles of glocalization, hybrid leadership capabilities, and cultural incongruence diagnostic factors derived
from Hofstede's dimensions, synthesizing global strategic coherence with culturally responsive local practices.
Figure 3.1 below visually represents the developed Glocalized HRM Framework, clearly illustrating its
components and their interrelationships:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3362
www.rsisinternational.org
Figure 3.1 Integrated Glocalized HRM Framework for International Talent Strategy
The Integrated Glocalized HRM Framework for International Talent Strategy provides a theoretically
grounded model for reconciling global strategic imperatives with local cultural responsiveness, particularly for
Chinese enterprises such as AURORA BLOOM expanding into culturally diverse environments like
Singapore. At the foundation of the framework lies Global Strategic Continuity, encompassing core
organizational values, long-term vision alignment, and strategic goals. This component ensures coherence
across international operations and preserves the firm's identity amidst global expansion. Moderating this
foundation is the Cultural Incongruence Diagnosis, derived from Hofstede’s cultural dimensions—including
power distance, individualism versus collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity—which helps
identify value misalignments between the home (Chinese) leadership and the host (Singaporean) workforce.
These cultural gaps moderate how effectively global strategies can be implemented at the local level. Central
to bridging this divide is Hybrid Leadership Capability, which serves as a mediating mechanism by enabling
culturally agile leaders to translate global strategies into contextually appropriate local practices. Leaders with
cross-cultural integration skills and dynamic leadership styles play a crucial role in aligning strategic intent
with cultural sensitivity. This mediation facilitates Local Operational Responsiveness, where tailored
recruitment, localized training programs, and adaptive employee engagement strategies are deployed to meet
host-country expectations and norms. The effective interplay among these components leads to favorable
Organizational Outcomes, including improved recruitment effectiveness, enhanced employee engagement,
increased organizational cohesion, and long-term sustainable performance. The framework also illustrates how
hybrid leadership mediates the translation of global vision into localized action, while cultural incongruence
moderates the impact of global strategies on local execution. Overall, this integrative model offers a dynamic
and strategic pathway for multinational firms to harmonize global consistency with local adaptation,
reinforcing the critical role of HRM in navigating the complexities of international talent strategy.
This conceptual framework offers a strategic lens for navigating glocalization in international HRM. By
integrating cross-cultural theory, leadership agility, and strategic alignment, it provides a pathway for
multinational enterprises to resolve the “standardization vs. localization” paradox. In doing so, it elevates
recruitment and talent management from mere administrative functions to core strategic enablers of global
success.
Proposition and Conceptual Framework
The suggested Integrated Glocalized HRM Framework is a direct theoretical embodiment of the three
propositions derived from the systematic literature review, translating conceptual insights into a structured
model that illustrates the interplay of global strategy, cultural dynamics, and leadership adaptability in
international talent management. Each component of the framework corresponds to and operationalizes one or
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3363
www.rsisinternational.org
more of the propositions, thereby ensuring coherence between theory and conceptual structure.
Proposition 1, which states that implementing a glocalized HRM strategy significantly improves recruitment
effectiveness and employee engagement in culturally pluralistic markets, is reflected in the framework's dual
core: Global Strategic Continuity and Local Operational Responsiveness. This proposition is validated through
the model's emphasis on maintaining globally consistent strategic vision while adapting recruitment, training,
and engagement practices to local cultural norms. The outcomes—effective recruitment and enhanced
employee engagement—are explicitly represented as distal outcomes in the framework, thereby supporting the
empirical relevance of the first proposition.
Proposition 2, which asserts that hybrid leadership capabilities mediate the successful integration of global
HR strategy with local employee expectations, is structurally represented through the Hybrid Leadership
Capability component situated between strategic direction and local practice. This mediating role highlights
how leaders equipped with cultural agility and dynamic cross-cultural skills serve as critical agents in
translating corporate objectives into culturally resonant local HR activities. The vertical and horizontal arrows
in the diagram visually affirm the flow of influence, validating the mediating logic proposed in the literature.
Proposition 3, which posits that cultural incongruence—diagnosed through Hofstede’s dimensions—
moderates the effectiveness of hybrid leadership in translating global strategies into localized practices, is
directly integrated into the Cultural Incongruence Diagnosis block. This element functions as a moderator in
the framework, identifying key cultural gaps that influence how effectively hybrid leadership can bridge
global-local tensions. As suggested in the literature, when cultural misalignments are high, the demands on
leadership agility intensify; the framework captures this dynamic through both structural positioning and
annotated directional flows.
The framework transforms the three theoretical propositions into a logically sequenced and visually supported
model. It not only reflects the literature’s key arguments but also demonstrates how strategic continuity,
cultural diagnostics, leadership mediation, and localized HR practices interact to produce desirable
organizational outcomes in a glocalized recruitment strategy.
RESULTS
Based on the systematic literature review, this conceptual paper proposes an integrated framework that
operationalizes glocalization in international human resource management (HRM), specifically targeting
Chinese enterprises expanding into culturally pluralistic environments such as Singapore. The framework
synthesizes theoretical contributions from glocalization theory, hybrid leadership, international HRM, and
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions into a coherent model that guides recruitment and talent strategy.
As illustrated in Figure 3.1: Integrated Glocalized HRM Framework for International Talent Strategy, the
model begins with Global Strategic Continuity, encompassing vision alignment, core values, and corporate
goals that ensure coherence across borders. This strategic foundation is moderated by a Cultural Incongruence
Diagnosis, informed by Hofstede’s dimensions (e.g., power distance, individualism vs. collectivism,
uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity), which identifies potential cultural misalignments between the Chinese
home office and the Singaporean host context. These misalignments influence how effectively global strategies
can be localized. Bridging this divide is Hybrid Leadership Capability, a mediating component emphasizing
cultural agility and cross-cultural integration, enabling leaders to adapt global strategy into locally resonant
practices. This translation process supports Local Operational Responsiveness, which includes tailored
recruitment, localized training, and adaptive engagement strategies customized to Singapore’s workforce
context. These elements together yield desirable Organizational Outcomes such as effective recruitment,
enhanced employee engagement, and long-term organizational cohesion.
The framework thus embodies and visually affirms the three theoretical propositions derived from the
literature. Collectively, the framework presents a dynamic and integrative approach to glocalized talent
strategy, offering theoretical depth and practical guidance for multinational firms navigating cross-cultural
recruitment challenges. It also serves as a strategic reference model for future empirical validation and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3364
www.rsisinternational.org
organizational application.
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SUGGESTED DIRECTIONS
This conceptual paper has developed an Integrated Glocalized HRM Framework to address the persistent
tensions faced by Chinese enterprises—such as AURORA BLOOM—in reconciling strategic coherence with
cultural responsiveness during international expansion. While international HRM literature often emphasizes
either global integration or local adaptation, this study situates its contribution within the underexplored
intersection of glocalized talent management, offering a comprehensive model that articulates how
organizations can sustain strategic vision while engaging effectively with culturally pluralistic labor markets
such as Singapore.
The framework foregrounds three critical components—Global Strategic Continuity, Hybrid Leadership
Capability, and Local Operational Responsiveness—each embedded within a context moderated by cultural
incongruence and mediated by leadership agility. In contrast to traditional models that treat localization as a
reactive adjustment, this study emphasizes glocalization as a proactive strategic alignment process in which
hybrid leaders play a central role. These leaders act as both interpreters of corporate vision and translators of
cultural nuance, ensuring that recruitment, training, and engagement strategies are both globally consistent and
locally resonant.
Crucially, this model makes explicit the relational and contextual nature of leadership effectiveness in
international HRM. Much like recent work differentiating trust and respect in leader-follower dynamics, this
study affirms that organizational success in foreign markets cannot be reduced to policy replication or
procedural alignment. Instead, the embeddedness of HRM in local socio-cultural fabrics demands a new
orientation—one where leadership is not merely strategic but also empathetic, culturally agile, and
situationally aware. The integrated model reflects this shift, showing that cultural incongruence is not a barrier
to strategy execution but a diagnostic tool for more intelligent adaptation.
A significant contribution of this framework lies in its practical applicability. For Chinese firms entering
complex markets like Singapore, the model offers guidance on customizing recruitment messaging to appeal to
local job values, developing hybrid leadership pipelines through targeted coaching and cultural exposure, and
designing engagement strategies that are aligned with host-country motivational and communication
preferences. Moreover, the model encourages a rethink of HR’s role—from procedural executor to strategic
intermediary—capable of maintaining fidelity to global priorities while acting as a bridge to local practices. In
doing so, HRM becomes a site of cultural intelligence and competitive differentiation.
Nevertheless, like the emerging literature on respect in leadership, this framework should be understood as an
invitation to future empirical exploration rather than a closed theoretical system. Several broader thematic
directions emerge. First, there is a need for longitudinal research on how glocalization processes evolve across
time and markets. How do firms refine their HR strategies after initial cultural frictions? Does leadership
agility deepen with continued exposure, or are there limits to adaptation? Second, further research should
interrogate the institutional and affect-based antecedents that shape local perceptions of legitimacy, respect,
and alignment. Similar to how organizational structure affects the source of respect in leader-follower
relationships, the formality or flexibility of the firm’s HR policies may influence how glocal strategies are
received by host-country employees.
Third, the role of digital transformation in glocal HRM merits attention. As firms deploy AI-driven
recruitment, remote onboarding, and cross-border performance tools, new tensions may arise between
algorithmic standardization and cultural customization. Investigating how technology mediates or disrupts the
glocal balance will be vital to sustaining cultural cohesion. Finally, there remains considerable scope for
examining comparative glocalization strategies across different cultural clusters, including the Middle East,
Southeast Asia, and Latin America. Just as respect and trust are shaped by their cultural milieu, so too is the
effectiveness of hybrid leadership and HRM strategies. Cross-national studies can reveal not only best
practices but also context-specific insights that enrich the generalizability of the framework.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3365
www.rsisinternational.org
In conclusion, this paper takes a foundational step toward reframing international recruitment as a glocally
strategic and relationally embedded practice. It suggests that organizational success lies not in the wholesale
transplantation of HR models, but in the intelligent adaptation of leadership and workforce strategies grounded
in cultural insight. By offering a conceptual framework that is both actionable and adaptable, this study
contributes to a deeper, more nuanced understanding of how organizations can thrive at the intersection of
global ambition and local authenticity. Much like the call for renewed attention to respect in leadership, the
call here is for HRM to evolve into a cross-cultural competency in its own right—a bridge between vision and
voice, headquarters and host country, strategy and soul (Gutterman, 2023).
REFERENCE
1. Balmer, J. M., & Podnar, K. (2021). Corporate brand orientation: Identity, internal images, and corporate
identification matters. Journal of Business Research, 134, 729–737.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.016
2. Ban, A. (2024, August 26). Same ethnicity, different realities: A Chinese experience in Singapore.
ThinkChina - Big Reads, Opinions & Columns on China. https://www.thinkchina.sg/society/same-
ethnicity-different-realities-chinese-experience-singapore
3. Brewster, C., Mayrhofer, W., & Smale, A. (2016). Crossing the streams: HRM in multinational
enterprises and comparative HRM. Human Resource Management Review, 26(4), 285–297.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.04.002
4. Burgner, R. (2022, December 27). Globalization and Localization: Glocalization - Business Translation.
Business Translation. https://www.truelanguage.com/glocalization-is-globalization-and-localization/
5. Cavusgil, S., Yeniyurt, S., & Townsend, J. D. (2004). The framework of a global company: A
conceptualization and preliminary validation. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(8), 711–716.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.01.001
6. Ceil, C. (2018). Importance of Adapting HRM Practices to Local Conditions. SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3520594
7. Chitsa, M., Sivapalan, S., Singh, B. S. M., & Lee, K. E. (2022). Citizen Participation and Climate
Change within an Urban Community Context: Insights for Policy Development for Bottom-Up Climate
Action Engagement. Sustainability, 14(6), 3701. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063701
8. Chung, C. (2018). Making sense of global integration and local responsiveness in international HRM
research. International Journal of Multinational Corporation Strategy, 2(2), 153.
https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmcs.2018.10010737
9. Chung, C., & Sparrow, P. (2024). Exploring the configuration of international HRM strategies for global
integration and local responsiveness in MNEs. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 35(11), 1943–1969. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2024.2320768
10. Fang, F. (2023). Corporate innovation and internationalization: Evidence from China. Finance Research
Letters, 56, 104087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.104087
11. Gutterman, A. S. (2023). Cross-Cultural Human Resources Management Research. ResearchGate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373627155_Cross-
Cultural_Human_Resources_Management_Research
12. Hartog, D. N. D., & De Hoogh, A. H. (2023). Cross-Cultural leadership: what we know, what we need to
know, and where we need to go. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 11(1), 535–566. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-033711
13. He, C., Li, J., Wang, W., & Zhang, P. (2024). Regional resilience during a trade war: The role of global
connections and local networks. Journal of World Business, 59(5), 101567.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2024.101567
14. Huang, J. I. (2022). A conceptual framework for developing a glocalized school-based curriculum.
International Journal of Chinese Education, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2212585x221112526
15. Kormakova, I., Kruhlyanko, A., Peniuk, V., Ursakii, Y., & Verstiak, O. (2023). Actual Strategies for
Businesses Penetrating Foreign Markets in the Modern Economy: Globalisation Aspect. International
Journal of Professional Business Review, 8(5), e02148.
https://doi.org/10.26668/businessreview/2023.v8i5.2148
16. Kotiloglu, S., Blettner, D., & Lechler, T. G. (2023). Integrating national culture into the organizational
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 3366
www.rsisinternational.org
performance feedback theory. European Management Journal, 42(3), 327–347.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2023.01.003
17. Lee, H., Yoshikawa, K., & Harzing, A. (2021). Cultures and Institutions: Dispositional and contextual
explanations for country-of-origin effects in MNC ‘ethnocentric’ staffing practices. Organization Studies,
43(4), 497–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211006247
18. Manekar, A. U. (2024). Impact of Organizational Culture on Human Resource Management: A Critical
Analysis. International Journal of Innovations in Science Engineering and Management., 106–112.
https://doi.org/10.69968/ijisem.2024v3i2106-112
19. Mariyono, D., Kamila, A. N. A., & Hidayatullah, A. N. A. (2025). Unity in diversity: navigating global
connections through cultural exchange. Deleted Journal, 2(1), 114–137. https://doi.org/10.1108/qea-10-
2024-0122
20. Mızrak, F. (2023). A Comparative Analysis of Domestic vs. International Human Resources
Management (HRM). In Advances in human resources management and organizational development
book series (pp. 74–98). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-9172-0.ch004
21. Nickerson, C. (2023, October 24). Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory & Examples. Simply
Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/hofstedes-cultural-dimensions-theory.html
22. Ogunbukola, M. (2024). Evolving Dynamics in Global Leadership: Recent Insights. ResearchGate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385554078_Evolving_Dynamics_in_Global_Leadership_Rece
nt_Insights
23. Okonkwo, I., Mujinga, J., Namkoisse, E., & Francisco, A. (2023). Localization and Global Marketing:
Adapting digital strategies for diverse audiences. Journal of Digital Marketing and Communication, 3(2),
66–80. https://doi.org/10.53623/jdmc.v3i2.311
24. Park, S., Han, S. J., Hwang, S. J., & Park, C. K. (2018). Comparison of leadership styles in Confucian
Asian countries. Human Resource Development International, 22(1), 91–100.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2018.1425587
25. Robertson, R. (2012). Globalisation or glocalisation? Journal of International Communication, 18(2),
191–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/13216597.2012.709925
26. Sant’Anna, A. (2024). Leadership Styles Across Cultures: A Comparative Study of Western and Asian
Contexts Through Hofested and. . . ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18214.54083
27. Schotter, A. P. J., Meyer, K., & Wood, G. (2021). Organizational and comparative institutionalism in
internationalHRM: Toward an integrative research agenda. Human Resource Management, 60(1), 205–
227. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22053
28. Sebastian. (2022, March 30). Hofstede Cultural Dimensions: Singapore, the Unique Cultural Hub.
Inkmypapers. https://inkmypapers.sg/hofstede-cultural-dimensions-singapore/
29. Smerek, L., Vetrakova, M., & Šimočková, I. (2021). International Human Resource Management
System. ResearchGate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350654148_International_Human_Resource_Management_Sys
tem
30. Stratton, I. a. a. J. (2018). The Singapore Way of Multiculturalism. Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in
Southeast Asia, 33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26531808
31. Tomas, C. M. M., Pinto-López, I. N., & Amsler, A. (2022). Hybrid Leadership Styles Then and Now. In
Advances in human resources management and organizational development book series (pp. 161–187).
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-3453-6.ch012
32. Tsai, C. (2022). Cross-cultural leadership behavior adjustment and leader effectiveness: a framework and
implications. International Studies of Management and Organization, 52(3–4), 205–225.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2022.2131232
33. Wale, H. (2023, October 19). Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory. Corporate Finance Institute.
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/management/hofstedes-cultural-dimensions-theory/
34. Xi, K. K. (2011). Integrating the Global with the Local: Performance Measurement in Multinational
Corporations. Transnational Corporation Review, 3(4), 54–68.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19186444.2011.11658309