Cross-national learning from best practice and the convergence-divergence debate in HRM

Abstract

The chief objective of this paper is to develop suggestions as to how to learn from best practices in HRM across national borders. The analysis is based on survey data gathered from 232 HRM managers from American, Japanese and German top 500 companies. The managers provide information on how the HRM model of their respective country is characterized and from which of the other two country models they seek inspiration. The concrete attributes of the models considered worth adopting are described in detail and future developments with regards to convergence of the HRM models explored. The empirical data suggest that HR managers from all three countries expect a partial convergence towards a hybrid model. Curiously, the model that comes closest to this hybrid -the German one -is also the one that rates lowest as a source of inspiration. An argument is made that in order to better understand learning from best practice and resulting convergence tendencies, research should seek more insights regarding the knowledge of managers about foreign management models, their perceptions of these models, and how these perceptions are generated.

The Contemporary Career: A Work–Home Perspective

“…Research might also examine whether multinational corporations should standardize their career and work-life systems across countries or customize them to fit local cultural norms, which is a specific instance of the broader convergence (standardize)-divergence (customize) distinction discussed in the management literature (Geppert et al 2003, Pudelko 2005. Finally, as Richardson (2004) argued, the global career literature has overproblematized family as a career barrier, and more multifaceted perspectives are needed to determine the conditions under which families can be a source of support to employees pursuing global and multicultural careers.…”

What Factors May Make Flexibility a Positive Thing for Employers and Employees?

“…Pudelko (2005Pudelko ( , p. 2050 in his study reveals that outcomes on flexibility for employers and employees are varied owing to 'inadequate labor laws and regulations, lack of contractual agreements with unions, and limited participation rights in context of works councils'. On the other hand, a joint study of Gamble et al (2004) shows that low-trust and low-commitment human resource management (HRM) policies and practices are problematic to have mutual flexibility.…”

“…Furthermore, Martin (2001) emphasizes on increasing competence of firms and worker representations. Besides, Pudelko (2005Pudelko ( , p. 2050) draws attention to 'the extent of labor laws and regulations, contractual conformities with trade unions, and partaking rights in regards to works councils'. These literal evidence indicate that list of general factors can be asymmetric.…”

“…Based on existing literature (Uddin, 2010;Chung, 2007;Walby, 1989;Hunter et al, 1993;Michie and Sheehan-Quinn, 2001;Gellatly et al, 2009;Delson, 2004;Reilly, 2001;Yanadon and Kato, 2009;Tikos, 2009;Atkinson, 1984 and1985;Kalleberg, 2003;Pudelko, 2005;Knorringa and Pegler, 2006;Guzman, 2000;Toledo, 2007;Tayeb, 1998) on employers' strategies concerning flexibility and their impacts on employees' flexibility, indicators that may best capture flexibility not only for employers but employees also could be structured under the following framework:…”

“…Whether flexibility is a positive thing for both employers and employees is thus still debated. Even factors or conditions responsible to the ambiguity are also debated (Humphrey, 1994;Martin, 2001;Pudelko, 2005;Gamble et al, 2004). Therefore, the main research question of this study is what factors or conditions may make flexibility a positive thing for both employers and employees?…”