Chow et al (1991) and Shackleton and Ali (1990) supported the Hofstede’s (1980) application dimensions of cultural value because the empirical outcomes of Hofstede will be represented at national level in 3 regions and 50 countries. Unlike the approach of Hofstede on the other hand, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) approach of value orientations’ does not unite preference of work across a collection of discrete variables of psychology such as work values, satisfaction sources and attitudes.
Hence the involvement of job is a particular belief based on an individual identification of worker with her or his present job. Triandis (1982) argues that the cultural structure of Hofstede’s has been accepted as reasonable and necessary for denoting variations among nations. Thus little empirical research has used the dimensions of Hofstede to investigate the cultural effect on practices of SHRM and hence on operations in various groups of culture (Sondergaard 1994). Finally the dimensions of culture can be classified into two such as motivational orientations and relations between people (Hofstede, 2000).
Relationship between people:
The following are the various types of relationship that exist in a multicultural environment among people working in it.
Chow等人（1991）和沙克尔顿和阿里（1990）支持Hofstede（1980）应用层面的文化价值因为Hofstede的实证结果，将代表在3区和50个国家级。不像Hofstede另一方面的做法，Kluckhohn和Strodtbeck（1961）价值取向”的方法不统一的偏好的工作集合在一个心理如工作值的离散变量，满意度的来源和态度。
因此，工作的参与是基于他或她的工作人员个人识别一个特定的信念。Triandis（1982）认为，Hofstede的文化结构已被公认为是合理的和必要的表示国家间的差异。因此，小的实证研究已经使用Hofstede的维度探讨实践战略性人力资源管理的文化效应，因此在不同群体的文化活动（皮特1994）。最后，文化的维度可分为两如动机取向和人与人之间的关系（霍夫斯泰德，2000）。
人与人之间的关系：
以下是关系中存在的一个多元文化的工作环境中人与人之间的各种类型。
