Comparative HRM: European Views and Perspectives - Essay Example

COMPARATIVE RESEARCH IN HRM INTRODUCTION If there is one thing that is unique with the contemporary world, it is the fact that people across the world have easier access to the goods and products of other countries. This reality has been made possible by globalization. For globalization allows “greater interdependence among countries and their citizens.” (Fischer 2003, p 2) Normally, the idea of greater interdependence connotes economic interdependence which in turn entails “an increasing amount of cross border trade in goods and services, the increasing volume of international financial flows and increasing flows of labour.” (Fischer 2003, p 8) However, it should be noted that implicit in globalization is a change in the management of resources, specifically, human resources as companies and organizations respond to the demand posited by the global market. In the context of globalization, lean management provides the paradigm with which human resource management can be understood as “the acknowledgement, development and systematic use of the skills and knowledge of employees.” (Ramirez et al 2007, p 496) Thereby, recognizing the integral and necessary role of employees in the survival of the organization in the global economy, global market. Being such, there is a continuous demand to undertake studies that will address questions pertinent to human resource management and employee relations as it is an accepted truism in human resource practices “that high performance work systems, the focus is on more than simply information sharing; they also involve the decentralization of decisions and work enrichment, that is providing employees with opportunities for involvement in decision-making and innovation.” (Wood & de Menezes 2008, p 639) In this regard, this paper intends to focus on the question in what way has comparative research improved our knowledge of the strengths and limitations of established national patterns of employee relations and human resource management? The author will primarily draw his claims from UK HRM and employee relations framework. In the end, it is the hope of the author that this paper may provide a clearer perspective on the important role that comparative research plays in the understanding of employee relations and human resource management. COMPARATIVE RESEARCH IN HRM Comparative research is basically comparison across different countries and culture. The research methodology, in itself, is compounded with difficulties as “it requires a cumbersome selection of equivalent keyword indicators across languages and national idiosyncrasies...Moreover, cultural readings vary dramatically with the habitus of the recipients within nations.” (Koenig 2006, p 76) This concern is carried over in the application comparative research in human resource management and employee relations studies. According to Brewster et al (1996) and Clark et al (2000), comparative research in HRM is confronted by challenges of marginal interest on the subject, geographical constrained, cultural parochialism, and ethnocentric bias among researchers themselves. However, in the same study they have also noted that there is a “considerable progress in the field” (p 17) even if these challenges posit serious difficulties. Thus, there is no reason for one to hesitate in asking the question in what way has comparative research improved our knowledge of the strengths and limitations of established national patterns of employee relations and human resource management? BENEFITS OF COMPARATIVE RESEARCH IN HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT The presence of certain difficulties in comparative research in HRM does not daunt the fact that there are certain benefits and advantages that can be attained from such studies. These are: First, through comparative research we gain access to the pattern of approach, appreciation and understanding of HRM in different countries which in turn can be utilized in our own context to further improve our way of ascertaining human resource management and employee relations. Take the case of the comparative research done between HRM in the United States and HRM in Europe. According to Brewster (2007) “HRM in the US typically focuses on the firm. In Europe, the nature of HRM is broader providing better explanation of potential differences in view about the topic and a better fit with the concerns of the specialists, by including national, institutional and cultural issues.” (p 778) Furthermore, they have noted that HRM in US is more individualistic while those in Europe are more socially oriented recognizing the important role of collective responsibility, integrating the important role of the state and trade unions. As such, in the study, these various points have been raised to clearly manifest the difference in the appreciation and approach of HRM between US and Europe. In the same article, Brewster (2007) has claimed that these mark differences are to be understood in the light of the context with which HRM responds. Being such, via comparative research, the differences in approach is deemed as a result of the “context with which it operates” (Brewster 2007, p 780). Thus, in comparative research, as differences are highlighted the importance of the condition and context with which human relations management are at play the condition which it responds to are given predominant significance. As such, it can be claimed that comparative research provides a better and fuller picture of the reality with which HRM and employee relations are employed. This particular condition is clearly made visible by the study conducted in UK telecommunications wherein the authors highlighted the fact that “for both company and union, strategic choices about work practices should be regarded as contingent not only on exogenous environmental factors or other elements of the organization’s own strategy, but also on the strategy of its negotiating partner. While environmental factors play an important role in narrowing the sets of feasible strategies and of possible outcomes, strategies (and hence outcomes) are also contingent on historically embedded expectations, and on the choices made by various actors.” (Ramirez et al 2007 p 496) Being such, it can be claimed that in UK, HRM is seen as interconnected with other factors that drive organizations and businesses as it points to one of the strengths of HRM in UK – “presence of a strong communitarian infrastructure that manifest themselves in the form of strong social bonds, trust, reciprocity and co-operation.” (Wolfgang & Brewster 2005, p 38) Second, knowledge gained from comparative research serves as the jump board from which other researches on human resource management and national employee relations are undertaken. This advantage is raised base on the notion that since most theories which are utilized in HRM are taken from theories and studies done by private sectors, the public sector HRM can benefit from these studies by utilizing it in the conduct of the study even if there is an intrinsic difference between the private sector and the public sector. As such it can be maintained that private sector HRM provides the starting point with which public sector HRM can be understood. As pointed by Vandenabeele and Hondeghem (2008) the theories that have been gained in the private sector HRM are being utilized in order to gain a better understanding of the HRM in the public sector. This particular sentiment is shared by Morris and Farrell (2007). In their article, they have noted that at the onset UK public sector have undertaken organizational reforms in response to the impetus of reforms provided by the private sector. However, they argued that there is a misappropriation of drivers for change in the public sector. They have claimed that the changes in the HRM of the public sector are brought about by policy agendas and cost pressures and not for” reasons for flexibility, as the private sector guru literature would suggest.”(p 1585) And that the implementation of these changes comes in three forms namely “downsizing (as a rough proxy for concentrating on core activities), delayering (which points to flatter, more responsive, organizations) and shifting boundaries of the organizations (which again points to core activity concentration).” (Morris & Farrell 2007, p 1585) These changes have created a perceptible weakness in the HRM of the public sector in UK - complex human resource management that threatens the job security, payment systems, careers, works and roles while at the same time creating a more work intensive environment, at least, for the managers. Again, this highlights the fact that although most studies are being undertaken in the private sector which has a different framework, still, it enables a better glimpse and knowledge on how the public sector human resource management can be furthered even if the nature of the public sector is basically different from that of the private sector. In this light, the comparative research provides the path with which human resources management, regardless of its alignment, can be explained. Third, comparative research improves knowledge by providing points wherein converges and divergences in particular study or field are given emphasis. In a study conducted by Wood and de Menezes (2008) they have analysed the three human resource management perspectives that are being employed in UK. They have claimed that complimentary perspective which is “complement of practices consists of all those practices that individually have a positive association with performance” (p 641), synergistic perspective which is “practices are those that enhance the effect on performance of another.” (p 641) and orientation perspective which is the “organizing principles for guiding people’s judgements and behaviour, with high involvement management reflecting an organization-wide concern for employee involvement. The core of this orientation is thus a philosophy, but it also entails the adoption of practices that are consistent with the high involvement concept” (p 642) are the three basic perspectives that are at play in the understanding of employee relations and HRM in UK. Utilizing comparative research, they have come up with the conclusion that orientation perspective and the role of managers have definitive impact in employee relations and human resource management. And they have recommended that “a deep-seated change in the orientation of managers, perhaps particularly senior managers, is necessary, and that relying on third parties like consultants or the human resources department to design and introduce a set of practices is not likely to succeed.” (Wood & de Menezes 2008, p 676). The important point of this advantage is that through comparative analysis the similarities and differences are pitted together enabling the researcher to see the strengths and weaknesses of the theories and concepts at the same time. As shown in the article of Wood and de Menezes (2008), although there is a continuous effort to clarify perspectives on HRM in UK which is a good in itself, they have likewise raised the weakness that not all perspectives are indeed responsive to the current trends in HRM. Thus, they support the key role of managers as they highlighted one of the weak points in HRM in UK- the lagging behind of managers in human resource management. Finally, the fourth benefit that can be derived from comparative research in HRM is that through this methodology the prospect of coming up with new theories that may address essential and crucial questions are always in the horizon. As shown in the article of Kelliher and Deirdre (2008) the concept of flexible working practices is interpreted and understood at different levels. Thus, their study was able to show that although conceptually “employee-friendly flexibility provides employees with choice over the way in which they do their jobs” (p 620), there are still many negative consequences in terms of promotion, job security and self-development among employees that avail it. Thus, the crucial function of comparative research is not only limited in addressing current issues in HRM and employee relations but that it also proffers the probability of new theories, new explanations attained. CONCLUSION Comparative research in human resources management and employee relations opens the way with which companies, organizations, businesses, academicians and practitioners of HRM in the global society will gain access to various answers and clarifications regarding queries in this dynamic field. Although recent in development and hounded by problems of marginalism, geographical constraint, cultural parochialism and ethnocentric bias among researchers themselves, the contribution of comparative research in HRM and employee relation in the articulation and explanation of the issues in the field of human resource is undeniable as it continues to progress and develop. Being such, it is acknowledged that we derive from comparative research in HRM and employee relations with knowledge of the similarities and differences of the cross-cultural and cross national appreciation and approach on HRM and employee relations, it provides us the jump board with which public sector HRM can be analysed and further explained though private sector HRM and public sector are inherently different, it opens for us convergences and divergences within the field itself and finally, it serves as an impetus for the coming of possible new theories that may address the issues and concerns of HRM and employee relations. In the end, the recognition of the significance and important role that employees perform in achieving the goals of the organization is one of the surest ways that will enable an organization to survive and create its niche in the global market. Thus, there is a strong need for comparative research in HRM and employee relations. REFERENCES: Brewster, C. (2007) “Comparative HRM: European views & perspectives”. The International Journal of Human Resources Management, 18:5, pp 769 – 787. Brewster, C., Tregaskis, O., Hegewisch, A. & Mayne, L. (1996) “Comparative research in human resource management: a review and an example”. The International Journal of Human Resources Management, 7:3, pp 585 – 604. Clark, T., Grant, D., & Heijltjes, M. (2000) “Researching comparative and international human resource management”. International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. 29, N0 4, pp 6 – 23. Fischer, S. (2003) “Globalization and Its Challenges”. The American Economic Review, Vol. 93, No 2, pp. 1 – 30. The International Journal of Human Resources Management, Vol. 19, No 3, pp 419 – 431. Kelliher, C. & Anderson, D. (2008) “For better or worse? An analysis of how flexible working practices influence employees perception of job quality” Koenig, T. (2006) “Compounding mixed-methods problems in frame- analysis through comparative research”. Qualitative Research, Vol. 6 (1), pp 61 – 76. Morris, J & Farrell, C. (2007) “The ‘post-bureaucratic’ public sector organization. New organizational forms and HRM in ten UK public sector organizations”. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18:9, pp 1575 – 1588. Ramirez, M., Guy, F., & Beale, D. (2007) “Contested resources: Unions, employers and the adoption of new work practices in US and UK telecommunications”, British Journal of International Relations, 45: 3, pp 495 – 517. Vandenabeele, W & Hondehem, A. (2008) “No easy path to HRM Performance measurement systems: Exploring the introduction of the US human capital assessment and accountability framework and the Flemish management”. Public Personnel Management, Vol. 37, No 2, p 243 - Wood, S., & de Menezes, L.M. (2008) “Comparing perspectives on high involvement management and organizational performance across the British economy”. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19, No 4, pp 639 – 682. Wolfgang, M. & Brewster, C. (2005) “European human resource management: Reaching developments over time”. Management Revue, Vol. 16, Issue 1, pp 36 – 64. Read More