Global HR strategy from Nepal to New York
A global HR system that pretends every market is the same will fail in all of them. The structure I've used to scale across four very different ones — and the data behind it.
The mistake most global HR teams make is treating geography as a translation problem. It isn't. Compensation philosophy, performance norms, conflict tolerance, and the meaning of hierarchy do not translate — they have to be rebuilt locally on a shared global spine.
- Job architecture — one global framework for levels, titles, and scope.
- Compensation philosophy — same principles, different anchors per market.
- Performance language — what "meets" and "exceeds" mean, written down once.
- Code of conduct and reporting paths — non-negotiable, identical, everywhere.
- Data, security, and acceptable-use policy — one standard, audited globally.
- Benefits — health, leave, retirement, family — driven by local norm and law.
- Manager training — the same skills, taught with locally-true examples.
- Recognition — public in some cultures, private in others. Know which.
- Communication style — directness calibrated to context, not to headquarters.
- Working hours and holidays — observed locally, respected globally.
Top reasons global HR programs land in trouble (Mercer 2024 survey of 850 HR leaders).
- Worker classification (contractor vs. employee)+41%
- Pay transparency / equity laws+33%
- Data privacy (GDPR / cross-border)+29%
- Working time and overtime rules+24%
- Termination notice and severance+22%
Nepal taught me that loyalty is built through visible investment in someone's growth — and that promotions matter more than raises. The Philippines taught me that respect for the team is the lens through which any individual feedback is read. Australia taught me that flatness is performed, not real, and that the real hierarchy is competence-based. New York taught me that speed is its own language and silence is mistaken for absence.
"Global is not the absence of local. Global is the discipline of holding many locals coherently at once."
- Headquarters drift — policies quietly start reflecting only HQ's culture
- Benchmark blindness — using one market's pay data to set another's
- Single-channel feedback — assuming the loudest market speaks for the rest
- Quarterly localization audit — every policy reviewed in-market
- Two compensation anchors per role — global band + local market
- Rotating regional voice in every leadership review
Comp philosophy travels. Performance frameworks travel. Career ladders travel. What does not travel: feedback norms, conflict styles, hierarchy expectations, the social weight of a manager's praise, and what a 'good 1:1' looks like. Leaders who export the US playbook unchanged consistently get the same outcome — local talent leaves quietly, and the office becomes a delivery centre rather than a team.
- Layer 1 — global: levelling, comp bands, performance criteria, promotion calibration. One source of truth, one calendar, no exceptions.
- Layer 2 — local: how feedback is delivered, how disagreements surface, what celebrations look like, how onboarding feels in the first week. Owned by local managers, coached by a regional People partner.
Founders treat the second office as 'an extension of HQ' for the first two years, then wake up to attrition and quietly hire a regional Head of People to fix it. By then the culture is set. The right time to invest in a local People leader is when headcount in-region crosses 25 — not 75. Every quarter you delay compounds into a re-build, not a tune-up.