Content area
Full text
Keywords
Comparative tests, Employment, Globalization, Governance, Human resource management
Abstract
Heuristically oriented for pedagogic purposes, globalisation and international personnel management and development trajectories are examined from a comparative perspective. The paper concludes that a nomative operational definition of the human resource management (HRM) paradigm may be partnered with attempts to diffuse a neo-liberal inspired corporate governance regime internationally. However, caution is expressed against uncritical determinism. There is evidence from emergent studies that institutional factors offer scope for diverse interpretations of international HRM (IHRM) experimentation observable across different jurisdictions. Throughout, the paper enquires as to the empirical research questions interrogation of this material give rise to, with implications for those associated with international training and development.
Introduction: attributing meaning to "global" development
The eponymous topic of "globalisation" may be interrogated from several angles: its implicit grounding in unitarist and neoliberal ideology; its status in relation to socially embedded institutions; and its assumed universalism and "run away" power (Giddens, 1999; Rowley, 2000). As the same may be argued in relation to the HRM paradigm, there is merit in exploring emerging parallel trends in both areas. Can HRM internationally be perceived as globalisation's junior partner? Human resource management as an international discipline (IHRM) is an emerging area of academic study, development of which is presently deficient in integrating theory and practice (Cheng and Cooper, 2003). Every organisation is faced with the problem of utilising, and hence managing in some way human resources, from which it may be inferred that "Numan resource management (HRM) is universal" (Brewster, 2001, p. 255). Adopting a comparative perspective, do "globalising" tendencies imply a business organisation trajectory in the direction of a convergence of practice around a specific ideology or paradigm informing HRM, therefore? Alternatively, in spite of a universalising ideology, or "rhetorics", of HRM (Legge, 1995), is the presence of contextually embedded tendencies (Cheng and Cooper, 2003; Schuler et al., 2002) likely to sustain a local character in IHRM practice, even where the organisational thrust is towards a common set of corporate governance norms? In synthesis, do "effective global HR strategies" ultimately depend on "the ability to judge the extent to which an organisation should implement similar practices across the world or adapt them to suit local conditions" (Brewster et al.,...