As someone passionate about nutrition, sustainability, and public health, working internationally is exciting and relevant to my goals, and I would strongly consider accepting it if offered a professional role in Sweden, a country known for its progressive food and environmental policies, since Sweden’s national emphasis on sustainability, social equity, and quality of life aligns closely with what I value in both work and society.
From an international HRM perspective, understanding cultural dimensions is key when considering global assignments. According to Hofstede’s cultural model, Sweden scores low in power distance and masculinity, favoring egalitarianism, cooperation, and work-life balance (Hofstede Insights, 2024). In contrast to the more individualistic and competitive U.S. work culture, Swedish workplaces emphasize inclusivity and long-term planning. This would hopefully foster a collaborative environment, ideal for someone working in community nutrition or policy development.
Other factors I’d consider include support for immigrants and the long-term impact on my career. I believe Sweden’s strong social safety net and widespread English proficiency would ease the transition. Still, cultural adaptation, language, and distance from family are real considerations. The benefits, like contributing to forward-thinking public health projects, could far outweigh these challenges.
Ultimately, mission alignment would convince me to take the role, and if the organization’s work supports equitable, sustainable food systems and values employee well-being, I’d feel confident accepting. International experiences can be transformative, and in a globalized world, cross-cultural understanding is an asset (Dowling, Festing, & Engle, 2020).
Citations
Country comparison tool. Hofstede Insights. (2024). https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/sweden,the-uk,the-usa/
Wood, J. F. (2015). Dowling, P. J., Festing, M., Engle Sr., A. D., International Human Resource Management (6th edition), Cengage Learning EMEA, 2013. Management International Review, 55(4), 589–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-014-0236-1