International and Comparative Employment Relations - Research Proposal Example

International & Comparative Employment Relations Synopsis The article in question is tiled, ‘A comparisonof HRM systems in the USA, Japan and Germany in their socio-economic context’ and it has been produced by Markus Pudelko who is affiliated with the University of Edinburgh. The article was published in the Human Resource Management Journal in 2006 and provides valuable information about the comparative HR related practices of America, Japan and Germany. This information is provided with socioeconomic backgrounds of the countries in order to produce the cultural context in which various HR policies are created in the regions. As it is a comparative study, the comparison between America and Japan shows them to be on completely different sides in terms of HR systems while the position of Germany is somewhere in the middle. With the socioeconomic situation in focus, the writer concludes that socioeconomic factors become highly important for the proper establishment of an HR control system. Using these measures other HR systems can be brought in line with the socioeconomic situation the company is placed in internationally. Results and Findings The results are based on a literature analysis conducted by the researcher where 12 elements of a socioeconomic system are used to place the three countries on a scale. Within each of the 12 elements, there are four HRM related operands which further define the position of the HR systems in each country. As the countries were placed and ranked according to these operands and elements their relative positions became clear within the social context which is prevalent in the country. While some of these elements showed the researcher that the countries are more or less similar when it comes to approaching Human Resource Management, the majority of the elements i.e. more than 70% showed that there are vast differences between them. In these cases, American and Japanese HRM systems were at opposite ends of the scale and the German system was in the middle. In this manner, Germany is considered the middle ground between the polar opposites of Japan and America. The pattern described above became very strong when factors such as social demographics and principles of management were examined. The writer notes that the Germans have a system of co-determination when it comes to industrial relations and this is supported by the evidence presented by Block (1999) who reports that it is common to see union members on the board of a company in Germany. Similarly, Torrington and Hall (2002) note the importance of HR in America which is supported by the information presented by Pudelko (2006). Additionally, the influence of American thinking on Europe and the American management systems on countries such as Germany is highlighted by Pudelko (2006) who shows that Germany is almost exactly halfway between America and Japan. This highlights the American position as a global business force which was examined by Sloman (2004) and Bamber et. al. (2004). However, the differences between the two systems also exist and have been noted by researchers who consider Germany and Europe to have their own systems of human resource management as a third pole when compared to America or Japan (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1998). Methods The research for various socioeconomic factors which allowed the placement of the three countries on the spectrum came from a combined total of 229 journals, books and articles which is certainly a considerable number. However, considering the magnitude of the study perhaps a greater number of total materials could have placed Germany in a better position instead of being almost exactly in the middle between America and Japan. The statements on which the countries were evaluated and the measure of evaluating these statements is very positive since it lends more credibility to the study. Pudelko (2006) notes that the social relations amongst company employees should only be seen as an indicative measure since interpersonal relationships can greatly affect these numbers. Since these may put the results of the findings in doubt perhaps it could have been better had these criteria not been included in the evaluations. However, the author notes that these explanations are meant to be taken as tendency statements and that they have no claim to be taken as definitive explanations. Practical Implications There are two practical implications of the study given by the researcher and the first of which is the further development of the various nations’ models of HRM. Depending on the socioeconomic changes which are expected in these countries for the future, their HR related models can be changed by the managers to make the HR model follow the socioeconomic system in a closer way. Secondly, the author notes that the study can be used by MNCs to better place themselves strategically when it comes to working and dealing with human resources in these countries. Most importantly, the author notes that there appears to be no single best HR model since all three human resource management systems described in the three countries have their advantages as well as disadvantages. In fact, even the idea of the best HR model depends on the context of the discussion since what is best for Japan will certainly be difficult to implement in America since the socioeconomic realities are quite different. Researchers such as Hall and David (2001) would be in complete agreement with this approach since even though the three countries are capitalist; the variety of capitalism being used in the nations will have a drastic affect on the HR policies followed within the country. Moreover Broad (1994) reports that it becomes difficult to take the managerial and human resource related systems followed in a country such as Japan and implement them in a nation such as America since there are vast cultural differences. Pudelko (2006) also supports this argument by saying that best practices for HR can change from time to time and from country to country. Strengths and Weaknesses The primary strength of the article seems to be the matter fo fact way in which Pudelko (2006) places Germany exactly in the middle of Japan and America without seeking excuses for why Germany is not closer to America with regard to its management systems even though both the nations are a part of the western civilization. While he does offer some explanations for why this is so, he does not apologize for it and focuses more on the differences between America and Japan which seem far more interesting. Moreover, the practical implications of the study are defined clearly along with the analysis presented by the writer who reiterates that there may be no single model for HR managers to follow when it comes to making HR policies since no policy may be applicable globally. This is also a recommendation by Eaton (2000) who suggests that local policies may need to be created by a company which is operating in the global arena. In conclusion, the article remains interesting and important since it provides valuable information backed with strong research and excellent presentation. Works Cited Bamber, G. et. al. 2004, International and Comparative Employment Relations: Globalisation and the Developed Market Economies, Sage. Bartlett, C. & Ghoshal, S. 1998, Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution to Managing Across Borders, Hutchinson. Block, F. 1999, ‘New Thinking about Capitalism’, Dollars & Sense, vol. 12, no. 226, pp. 19-25. Broad, G. 1994. ‘The Managerial Limits to Japanization: A Manufacturing Case Study’, Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 52–69. Eaton, J. 2000, Comparative Employment Relations: An introduction, Polity. Hall, P. and David, S. 2001, Varieties of capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Pudelko, M. 2006, ‘A comparison of HRM systems in the USA, Japan and Germany in their socio-economic context’ Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 123-153. Sloman, J. 2004, The Economic Environment of Business, Prentice Hall. Torrington, D. and Hall, L. 2002, Human Resources Management, Prenetice Hall. Read More