SEMINAR ARTICLE 6 National Models of HRM Europe and USAGroup: Chi ying, Jiawei Nadiah

Article 1 Brewster, C.(2007) Comparative Hrm: European Views & Perspective, international journal of human resource management

Introduction Paper argues HRM seen differently in Europe Different approaches taken for research 1st Part of Article:

US origin of the concept and conceptual differences in European context

US concept of 2 cores Inter alia (freedom) and strategic HRM (SHRM) HRM in Europe with different antecedents HRM Europe a Different Concept

Introduction 2nd part of Article: Key Happenings in HRM in Europe Replica of US model European context is a matter

of empirical evidence and opinion Different model of HRM offered by European researches Common factors of HR strategy and practice in different models seen as part of HRM

HRM IN America 2 assumptions 1) State dont interfere with business.

-minimal influence from trade union. -Low levels of state subsides, support and legislative control2) The way Organization's manage human resource.

-HRM -> purpose to improve the organization -SHRM -> HR is managed strategically by organization's corporate strategy leading to improved performance.

Limitation: - Research often prescriptive, narrow as it focuses on tightly

designed questions with structure of testing leading to prediction - Research base is mostly centered around small number of private

sector leading edge exemplars of good practice often large MNC in the manufacturing or even specifically the high tech sector.

HRM IN EUROPEAN CONTEXT Europe has always been divided by regional cultural

clusters. Each countries remains clearly distinctive in how they manage their HRM. In the diverse range of HRM models and operational practice there is difference between sectors, between organizations within a sector and site of each organization. Hence we observed clear difference of European and

American HRM model based upon the government support, legal constraint, trade union influence as well as the way HRM is conceptualized, researched and understood. *note: individual states within American do have differences

in approach to HRM as well.

Key difference in mindset US culture more individualistic and achievement-oriented.

America view as land of opportunity that rewards success Business owners freely runs the business as they see fit and

individuals have to take responsibility for their situation. Reward systems emphasizes on individual performance-based

rewards with hire-and-fire mentality.

Europe Culture widespread feeling that business needs to be

controlled and expected to treat their employees in a socially responsible way.

Role of the state American: Legislation on equality or health and safety.

European: It varies as there is 27 countries at present but

legislation might include or not Equality Health & safety Recruitment & dismissal Formalization of educational certification Pay Number of work hours Employment contact Right to trade union representation Requirements to establish and operate consultation

Role of the state Employment protection has 3 main dimensions: 1) The length of the notice period to be given to workers 2) The amount of severance pay to be paid according to the nature of the

separation 3) The nature and complexity of the legal process involved in laying off workers US offers less protections for workers compare to Europe Italy, Spain,

Portugal in particular International labor organization reports that whereas in Europe legislative developments have ensured that average hours worked have fallen over the last two decades, in the USA they have risen. Governments in Europe tend to have more of a controlling (through legislation) & supporting (though finance & institutions) role in HRM than is the case in America. (note however study was done in 2007)

Role of state recent developments Higher proportions of GDP are spent by the state on

labor market programs to help younger people and the long-term unemployed get into the labor market. Substantial proportions of employment are in public sector. EU reflect clear intentions to reduce restrictions on

national level Restrictions on number of hours employees can work Larger firms are required to set up work councils where employee representatives meet with senior managers on regular basis to debate a series of subjects laid down in the legislation

Role of trade unions & consultation Collective bargaining coverage is considerably more

widespread than union membership. Europe tradition of collectivism and consensus building and trade unions is much more widespread than in the America In all European union countries, the law requires the

establishment of employee representation committees in all organizations except the smaller firms. 2 common means in Europe: - Immediate Individualized communication though

management lines - Though trade union or work council channel

Patterns of ownership Southern Europe large companies still in hands

of single families Germany a tight network of a small number of

substantial banks owns a substantial proportion of companies

4 issue In Europes model of HRM1) Nature of HRM

2) Levels of HRM3) Focus of HRM 4) The research paradigm

Nature of HRM Americans has greater consistency bout good HRM practices

high performance work system, where regeneration and financial rewards for high performing members of the work force. European however every item is a source of debate. Networks is main source of recruitment - argued to be cheaper

means of approach Sharing of information with individuals differs from sharing with trade union representatives skilled in debating the organizational strategy. Rather than copy solutions which result from other cultural

traditions, we should consider the state of mind that presided in the search for responses adapted to the culture - (albert 1989)

Level of HRM European are more likely to apply best fit approach

HRM at variety of levels. The scope of HRM may vary from countries, utilizing

false universalism

FOCUS OF HRM More critical aspect of HRM than US expert Critique of that literature from those writing in the

universalist paradigm has been concerned with weakness in the empirical and statical data

RESEARCH PARADIGM Universalistic vs contextual Contextual doesnt assume that everyone in the

organization will be the same or any experience that an organization will have a strategy that people within the organization will support. Europe operating in the contextual paradigm seem more likely to challenge the declared corporate strategy and approach to HRM laid down by senior management by asking whether these have deleterious consequence for individuals within the organization, for the long term health of the organization and for the community and country within which the organization operates.

Practices of HRM IN EUROPE1) NATURE OF WORK

2) TRAINING & DEVELOPMEENT3) MANAGERIAL ROLE 4) COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION WITH

EMPLOYEES

Conclusions Europe tendency towards labour market deregulation;extensive training and development of staff; increased flexibility; greater line management influence. Many aspects of HRM practices are different.(EG. Those adopting a universalist viewpoint)

European evidence suggest management see unions associal partners.

Conclusions Empirical differences have important implications forpractioners Gerhat argued; it seems unlikely that one set of HRM will work equally well no matter what the context (Gerhat ,2005) Beyond empirical evidence of difference paper has

argued compared to the US (country of origin HRM), there are conceptual difference in the way HRM is viewed in Europe.

Article 2

Sparrow, P. And J-m Hiltrop (1997)redefining The Field Of European Hrm : a battle between national mindsets and forces of business transition , hrm.

Objective of article Seeks to examine conflict between cultural heritage and

current forces of global competition in Europe European HRM vs. HRM in Europe Identifies factors that have created and influenced national patterns of HRM within Europe To explore and develop a dynamic and comparative Force Field Framework of HRM to understand the managerial frames of reference currently guiding the field This force field framework consists of 4 major sets of factors: Cultural Factors Institutional Factors Differences in business structure and systems Factors relating to the roles and competence of HRM professionals

European patterns of hrm

Differential business structures & systems Powerful Public Sectors Relative size and strength of private and public sectors Differences in integration between the 2 sectors Spain & Italy vs. Denmark, Norway, Netherlands & Sweden

Small Family-Owned Business Organisations are likely to make a more formalised

approach to HRM if they employ 200 employees Britain & Sweden less significant Greece has extremely small size of organisations Denmark, Netherlands, Spain half working population in this area Italy

Institutional context Includes Role of State, Financial Sectors, Labour

Relations Systems 2nd forcefield Despite increasing internationalisation of European organisations, national differences in institutional systems (social, legislative, welfare) still exist Heightened importance of trade unions Relative burden of social security payments on individuals compared to organisations shapes patterns in HRM

Impact of national culture 3rd forcefield Links between national culture and HRM in Europe: Attitudes & definitions of what makes an effective manager Giving of face-to-face feedback, levels of power distance,

uncertainty avoidance Readiness to accept international assignments Expectations of manager-subordinate relationship

Differential Managerial Qualities Distinctive Career Maps Perceptions of Manager-subordinates relationship

Distributive Justice & Socially Healthy Pay Difference in mindsets about organisation structure

Differences in professional allegiance, role and structure of hrm functions Role & Structure of domestic HRM functions HR managers re-interpret organisation agendas at local level Focus of functional activity varies across Europe: 4 different resourcing models

Germanic model Scandinavian model Central European model Latin American model Not always possible to tell whether differences in HR approaches are steeped in national cultural constraints or whether they represent different stages of the industrialization process

Transitions in the nature of EUROPEAN ORGANIZATIONS 2 IMPERATIVES A pan-European requirement to create organizational

structures and HRM systems that are capable of surviving rapid and discontinuous change The need to respond to these strategic pressures by reshaping national patterns of HRMTENSIONS!

Changing Professional Frames of Reference Increased Competitiveness vs. Social Protection and

Welfare State Subsidies vs. Rising Cost of Unemployment Higher Flexibility and Productivity vs. Commitment Age Wars

Forces of integration in Europe 3 main forces of integration are bringing about

new patterns of convergence with HRM in Europe HRM changes triggered by intra-European foreign direct

investment Strategic Integration through Mergers and Acquisitions Transnational Coordination The emergence of international cadres of management with new mindsets The emergence of generic organizational forms in response to competitive pressures

New Competencies and New Patterns of HRM

conclusion Business literature + academic literature = Single European Market as unifying force Despite clear links between national culture and patterns of HRM, available culture bound research findings should not be accepted without thinking and questioning.

Deep problem of research focus

Thank you.