The Features of the American HRM System - Coursework Example

? Describe the features of the American HRM system. In what important ways does it differ from the Japanese HRM system Introduction The evaluation of management techniques used worldwide is not an easy task, especially if taking into consideration the different cultural and social characteristics of societies globally. In addition, the particular techniques are expected to be influence by the personal perceptions of people who are responsible for their creation, execution and monitoring. Current paper presents the various aspects of the American HR system; the above system is compared to the Japanese HR system, which has developed certain features that are considered as unique. The paper aims to show that the value of a HR system is depended not only on its effectiveness locally but also on its ability to be easily alternated in order to fit to its environment; the flexibility of the American HR system, as explained below, seems to be the system’s greater advantage towards its major competitor: the Japanese HR system. 2. American HR system – characteristics and differences from the Japanese HR system The appearance of the American HR system is dated back to 1877 (Kaufman 2008). At that year, the Great Railway Strike forced employees to search for a framework that could help them to improve their communication with workers (Kaufman 2008). Through the decades the American HR system has been expanded internationally; however, it was only in western countries that the American HR system has been kept unchanged (Kaufman 2008). In other countries, such as Japan, the HR system was highly differentiated so that it is aligned with local culture and ethics (Kaufman 2008). When referring to the American HR system reference should be made to two important periods: a) at 1920s the system was clearly opposed to unionism, b) from 1933 onwards the system is characterized by a strong unionism, i.e. by the significant increase of the power of workers to fight for their rights (Kaufman 2008). As a concept, the HR management is rather broad incorporating all aspects of the relationship between employer and employee. In this context, a clear description of HR management would be rather difficult; however, the mission and role of HR management can be understood through the following definition: ‘HR management can be characterized using the term labour management’ (Kaufman 2008, p.3). In the context of the American HR system, HR management is considered as ‘one of the most critical organizational activities’ (Price 2007, p.593). In fact, in America, HR management is based on certain principles, such as the use of formal processes, the empowered role of leader, the use of teams for completing tasks (Price 2007). In addition, the American HR system is highly centralized, not leaving particular space for initiatives (Price 2007). Also, communication is not a critical part of the American HR system; rather emphasis is given on the assignment of tasks to employees who are appropriately skilled (Hendry 2012). Moreover, the use of consultation, as a tool for supporting employees is not quite developed in the American HR system; rather, teams are used so that views are exchanged between employees in regard to the needs and the risks of each task (Hendry 2012). As for training, this is not highly valued in American firms and it is used only when it is inevitable for the success of a task (Hendry 2012). The duration of employment and the level of compensation are also key elements of the American HR system: various modes of employment, such as part-time or short employment schemes are used in the system in order to support employers to face the market pressures (Brewster and Mayrhofer 2012). As for the compensation in firms based on the American HR system, this is arranged centrally, i.e. in a firm’s head offices; managers do not have power to take initiatives as of the employees’ level of compensation (Brewster and Mayrhofer 2012). This means that salaries and benefits are part of the organization’s strategy; no differentiations from this strategy are allowed (Brewster and Mayrhofer 2012). The differences between the American HR system and the Japanese HR system seem to be many. The Japanese HR system highly values consultation, as a means for supporting the personal growth of employees (Campbell and Burton 2013). Also, Japanese firms use different approach for organizing the HR departments of their units abroad (Campbell and Burton 2013). While American firms tend to align the HR practices of their international units with the local culture and ethics, the Japanese firms seem to prefer ‘to transfer their HR practices to their overseas affiliates’ (Campbell and Burton 2013, p.179). At the same time, Japanese firms prefer to use long term employment contracts based on the following perception: an employee who works for a firm for a long period of time is expected to develop a family-feeling for its organization, a fact that would lead him to perform high and to remain loyal (Campbell and Burton 2013). It is in this context that salary and benefits in Japanese firms can be decided at unit level; this means that in Japanese firms compensation is not necessarily centrally arranged and can be differentiated from employee to employee according to performance and skills (Campbell and Burton 2013). In general, Japanese firms seek to develop a long time relationship with employees, believing that such approach promotes more effectively the interests of the organizations (Rowley 2012). The extensive use of training and consultation in the Japanese firms are parts of this strategic approach. On the contrary, American firms focus on the success of each task within the shortest possible period of time; the modes of employment and the employment support tools in the American firms are aligned with this approach (Rowley 2012). 3. Conclusion As explained above, the American HR system is highly differentiated from the Japanese HR system. In the former, the use of the corporate strategy as the key criterion for arranging the employment relationship is clear. In opposition, the Japanese HR system seems to promote a more employee-friendly workplace: the use of policies, such as consultation and long time employment contracts, increases the trust of employees to their organization and sets the basis for stable and long-term organizational growth. The need for increased staff in HR departments is possibly a weakness of the Japanese HR system. This weakness should be rather disregarded if considering the system’s expected benefits, even in the long term. References Brewster, C. and Mayrhofer, W., 2012. Handbook of Research on Comparative Human Resource Management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Campbell, N. and Burton, F., 2013. Japanese Multinationals (RLE International Business): Strategies and Management in the Global Kaisha. London: Routledge. Hendry, C., 2012. Human Resource Management. London: Routledge. Kaufman, B., 2008. Managing the Human Factor: The Early Years of Human Resource Management in American Industry. New York: Cornell University Press. Price, A., 2007. Human Resource Management in a Business Context. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Rowley, C., 2012. Human Resource Management in the Asia-Pacific Region: Convergence Revisited. London: Routledge. Read More