This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
Over last few decades, the business world and emerging of new markets and competitions between organizations worldwide has analyzed the eminence importance of human resource management. Constantly, employees among the organization are important and considered to become very important asset. So all managers, to consider themselves as good managers, needs to understand the special importance of these people and needs effective management of them. Besides analyzing the todays HRM with the old personal management or people management shall outline a difference in people's way of understanding the management system during the era. Individually understanding each management style and analyzing the outcome shall be considered as important findings for this essay.
The comparative and integrative HRM is used in this essay to analysis the western and non-western HRM contemporary work situations. Comparative HRM insists that human resource management practices are best understood as societal phenomena, shaped by institutional, cultural and political context of their occurrence. But it is also argued that management process, activities and views could be integrated across geographical boundaries in order to share resource and knowledge. According to UKessay.com, the main difference between integrative HRM and comparative HRM is comparative HRM seeks to explain the differences arising between different business systems whereas integrative HRM downplays the importance of host and home country differences.
Between the transformation of individuals, organizations and societal are to be considered too in order to keep pace with the increasing changes day by day. Individual transformation is needed for managers and leaders to be proactive leaders, open to change and flexible enough to adapt to constantly shifting demands from their organizations. Organizational transformation is needed to shift to global market place, increased competitiveness and the rapid acceleration of change. Societal transformation is needed due to environmental degradation, shifts in economic power, inequalities in distribution of wealth and unsolved social problems such as discrimination and illiteracy (By J. A. Neal and B.M Bergmann Lichtenstein).
The term HRM was being used by Peter Drucker and others during 1950s in North America. But then term didn't consider having special meaning but just labeled for personnel management or personnel administration. And from 1980s the HRM came into existence with different meanings with approach of management of people at work with an emphasis on performance, workers commitment and rewards based on individual or team contribution, differing significantly in all of these from the corresponding aspects of traditional personal management (By Iain Henderson, page 2).
But the evolution of people management started during nineteenth century with the first Industrial Revolution. With extreme pain of long working hours in unhygienic conditions being unbearable, several labor riots, the most famous being of 1811 Ludds riots in Nottingham, precipitate by reduced wages, made the government intervene to provide basis rights and protections for workers (By N.Nayab, Bright Hub PM). The factory Acts of 1840s put restrictions on the capitalism of initial industrialization within the favor of workforces in some instant. Rowntree and Cadbury, the enlightened Capitalist convictions, appointed welfare officers to improve and monitor the conditions and lives of worker s(By Iain Henderson, page 6).
In the twentieth Century, with the rise of industrial trade unionism the role of people management was evolved with distinct change. Now there was a shop steward, the work place and a full time paid trade union officials who would negotiate and communicate on the behalf of the organization.
The Growth of personnel management started during First World War because of need of huge numbers of employees in ammunition industry. So to handle the employee, the welfare officers were also increased. Engineering industry and other industries in 1920 hired labor managers or employment managers to handle the employee absence, recruitment, queries over business and so on. During the mid19th century many companies started to create their own specialist personal department to unify with different policies and manage absence and recruitment with the objective of improving productivity. But there were concerned with hourly paid works only. But during 1930s, due to rapid pace in corporations they feel to improve value of employee benefit like different kinds of allowance as a measure of retaining motivating employee. So with the second world ware, the importance of personnel management increased (ByYasmeen Begum, article base 2009).
From 1945 to 1979, the industrial revolution started, which increased the working rules and regulation due to increase in large number of employees. The small role of personnel management during war time was now to change because of its limited rules and policies for workers. During 1960s the bargaining power of unions had increased, which caused into unnecessary official and unofficial strikes in UK manufacturing industry. But since then the personnel management profile was improved with improvement in selection training appraisal and new management techniques to improve the performance of the employees. They had a collective bargaining role, implementation of legislation role, Bureaucratic role, social conscience of the business role and growing performance improvement role (By Yasmeen Begum, Articlebase).
The role of HRM started during late 1970s and early 1980s. This was a complete shift from post war collectivism towards individualism. This brought new management thinking into existence. Japanese work organization and manufacturing processes, the realization of the impact of new technology on work practices was considered as the main example (By Iain Henderson, Page 7).
Western countries considering USA and Europe, has their own ways in practicing the HRM. Most likely, they emphasis the area of pay for performance. The western countries assumes that the pay for performance work well (By Ed O'Brien). According to G.Elkin and R. Sharma paper, the modern west treats people at work as if they are object. They used the articles of Morgan (1996) who used analogies to understand organizations and the people there in. Morgan based the theories of management and organization on implicit images organization. He groups metaphors in categories such as machines, organism brains, systems of domination and psychic prisons. According to G. Elkin and R. Sharma paper, the west is broadly understood as machine because the business organizations are rational, orderly, stable and predictable.
The concepts of HRM came to Europe from USA. From C. Brewster (2007) articles, the concepts and ideas about HRM have followed the, "Gulf streamâ€¦drifting in from the USA and hitting UK first, then crossing the Benelux countriesâ€¦and Germany and France and proceeding finally to Southern Europe" (Defielto and Slater 2001, page 281).
So the USA and Europe has the same tendency towards labor market deregulation more extensive training and development of staff, increasing individual communication and reducing trade union membership. But in practice and as well as conceptually many aspects of HRM practice in Europe is different than found in USA. That is employers in Europe are increasing communication through trade Union influenced consultation structures and that it is employee representation that ensures that HR issues are included in strategic decision making. The European evidence suggests, for example that managements, particularly in Nordic countries can see the unions as social partners with a positive role to play in HRM (By C Brewster, 2007).
HRM practice was imitated by USA from Japanese practice. Japanese success in automobiles industry was something to be evaluated and analyzed for all the western industries. Japanese companies used the concepts of life time employment working wonders out there. Japanese life style and culture was found of importance of bonds being very high. They had very strong family ties and a strong sense of community. These upbringings helped and made them feel at home when they could see bonded style of management on the job. These were the reasons of Japanese companies being successful (By A, Chaudhuri).
Likewise, India is culturally diverse country with many ethnicities and different religions. Indian are characterized by strong sense of communal tradition. Indian cultures rounds up on family ties and a sense of belongingness. This bondness keeps them secured and safe. They expect indigenous management styles, which revolves around their cultures roots and upbringing. They consider work as scared and should be done with the utmost dedication and not for material gains but for spiritual growth. Similarly, the Maori, a New Zealand society is communal and highlights people as measure concern but not individuals. The western model does not suit to Maori, who find the division of self into separate parts very difficult. They emphasis interpersonal relationship and history in contemporary response to everyday of life. A Wakatu corporation, a tribally based business organization describing themselves as " A business of the land and sea, for profit, social and cultural growth through professionalism, honesty, diligence and embracing out tikanga(people of birth)(By G. Elkin and R.Sharma 2007).
African views that humanity can only be defined through interaction. In G. Elkin and R. Sharma's article, the African believed that persons becomes wholly human through other people, which means that the whole people and relationships between them should be the key of organization. It was described that Ubuntu as morality, humaneness, compassion, care, understanding and empathy that lead to giving and receiving in relationship. It is a belief that the group is as important as the individual and individual's most effective behavior is with others in a group. Rank meant nothing to Africans unless one's spirit and humanity are of same stature.
It is inevitable to not take China's HRM practice into consideration when in contemporary time, it stands to be one of the leading strongest economy of world. According to G. Elkin and R sharma, China follows the concept of Guanxi or relationships that lead to long term trust between individuals comes from the Confucian principle of protecting reputation, honors and prestige. It begins between individuals in within and between families and extends to the wider community. They states that it is essentially about people in long term relationship.
Mostly all the countries has been adopting US HRM practice because of its economic influence and also of the research and theories, all most of them made by the Americans. Companies from countries like China, India, Africa and New Zealand has been using the USA HRM practices, which in many circumstances is opposite to the countries itself. More likely the companies have failed to operate or a conflict has arisen due to management styles considering their culture and spiritual beliefs.
Western countries follows the HRM style , which are state oriented, not following the religion and religious considerations, following the approach from highest level and working down to the lowest level, north centric, clockwork considered as dehumanizing at work and universalist approach considered as one best way. But contrasts to western styles, non-western are more concerned about a cross cultural spiritual and shared value perspectives.
The approach coming from western world to non-western world has arisen contrasting and conflicting question. Has any company from non-western countries following western countries HRM practice has run successfully? Has the western HRM practice ever worked for the non-western companies and employees? These questions are something to evaluate and understood for many researchers and scholars.
Some papers of scholars like G. Elkin and R. Sharma, A Chudhuri theory i management, and the African Ubuntu explains that western HRM practices were being used in non-western countries and that was bad. They explained that western views are not appropriate to countries like India, Africa and New Zealand (using Maori views). They conclude that explaining that Maori, Indian and African views should be integrated with the western views rather following western views into their territory.
Few examples are used to analysis the west HRM practices into non-western. First if we look at Indian call centers, it sounds like the work is of long night shifts, lack of physical movements, targeting incredibility high work, loss of identity, disruption of normal life and intrusive surveillance place enormous stress an employee. This was outlined as Burnout Stress Syndrome (BOSS) and seemed common. But these characteristics of human work are not made for Indian cultural and spirituality working condition. These call center can be highlighted as technology work rather human being works. These kind of work cause personal damage of identity and of isolation, breakup in relationship, family life being disrupted and break up in contacts with families (By G.Elkin &R.Sharma). So more a like these working condition does not fit for countries like India. Similarly A. Chaudhuri explained in his one articles that IBM of USA was going in losses but IBM of Japan was going in profit. As IBM of USA tried to adapt the Japanese practices to see if the things turn around. But the result was more increase in losses. So this made a pretty certain conclusion that using one country of management practices does not suit to other countries due to their difference of peoples, cultural difference and of different life styles.
Now contrary to these examples above, we can see many US multinational companies being successfully when they adapt the HRM practices of local territory. We can see example of Mc. Donald in India approach of selling hamburger does not fit to Indian holy market. Despite that many US multinational companies has been operating very effectively in India. Companies like Procter and Gamble and Sports Company like Nike etc. This is because applying practices in views of Indian context.
But there are some disadvantage of not practicing US HRM in non-western countries like India and most African countries still believes and lives in superstition. Considering the woman at work or women working in top management level is considered to be inappropriate in countries like India and Africa. In some Indian states people believes in caste difference and does not appreciate low caste people working. This mentality is something counted as much disagreed in the contemporary time.
A case study from a book of Julie Beardwell and Tim Claydon is taken as an example to analyze how the difference of western HRM practices into non- western countries, which states about the UK snack manufacturer, Yumme Biscuits. They came in joint venture with China in 1995. The Chinese partner set up the land deal and chooses Chinese managers to run the factory. But within two years, problems like, quality control, stock control and failing to deliver order to customers on time started to arise in factory. It was considered that all these problems were due to lack of managerial skills and poor coordination between departments. The fault was realized that indigenous Chinese managers couldn't run the factory to British standards with little support or trainings. Later managers were put to management development training like leadership skills, communication skills, time management skills and dealing with conflicts. All these trainings were adapted from programs, which was delivered in UK. This resulted into slightly improvement in the performance of the subsidiary in one year. This explains that HRM practices needs to have a transformation process too considering its prerequisites.
Today human resource management is considered very important for industries and companies in contemporary time. It is understood that for last few decade companies are using different HRM practices on the basis of their own territory. But it also concludes that one HRM practices; let's say US HRM practice may not work to non-western countries like India, Africa or New Zealand. This could be due to the cultural/spiritual beliefs and peoples upbringings. Most of multinational companies have to apply the local HRM practices in order to run successfully in the local countries. It also concludes that HRM practices needs to follow individual, organizational or societal transformation considering the prerequisites of countries.
From all these above mentioned theories and scholars explanations, I recommend that today in contemporary time every company should follow the comparative HRM views compare to integrative HRM. It is necessary to understand how an employee in different national setting responds to similar concepts within their particular functions. Integrated HRM are most a like to reduce the impact of national culture and national employment practice against corporate culture and practices. I believe, ability to attract, developed and deploy talented employees in a multinational settings and to get them to work effectively despite differences in cultures, language and locations does not work in today's world. It is necessary to consider the cultural/spiritual roots and upbringings of human beings to make the work done.