Onsider the HR activities of selection, performance management and training/development .

Using academic journal articles critically evaluate how you might expect national culture influence these activities

Consider the HR activities of selection, performance management and training/development. Using peer reviewed academic journal articles only critically evaluate, how you might expect national culture influence these activities.

The Essay:
Emphasis must be given to analysis, evaluation and critique with the content inclusive of models, perspectives and frameworks relevant to the study of international Human Resources.

It should be referenced using the Harvard Reference System. It should be written in an academic style and should not include description, personal views or experiences but should be based on a review of the academic literature.


This is one article to use sorry for how it was sent but i did not know any other way.


European perspectives on human resource management
Chris Brewster
Henley Management College, Greenlands, Henleyon-Thames, RG9 AU Oxfordshire, UK
Abstract
This paper argues that the concept of human resource management was created and has been developed in the
United States of America. The relevance of that model in other parts of the world is open to exploration,
conceptually and empirically. Looking at Europe, the paper examines successively the differences between the US
and European HR management systems; the differences between regional groupings within Europe; and then the
differences at national level. Finally, the article looks at some of the explanations for the differences identified and
whether there are signs of convergence and outlines some of the implications for scholarship in the field.
D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Human resource management; Regional grouping; Globalisation
1. Introduction
Although there has been some debate about how new binternationalisationQ or even bglobalisationQ is
(Brewster, Sparrow, & Harris, 2001; Farnham, 1994; Hu, 1992; Moore & Lewis, 1999; Williamson,
1996), its effects are being felt all around us. This paper explores the impact of this globalisation on the
way that people are managed, particularly in Europe. Here, the impact of the European Union, the
introduction of common regulations and a common currency within a common market has led to debates
about the concept of bEuropeanisation.Q In human resource management (HRM) in particular, is the US
model of HRM one that will inevitably be followed in Europe? Or do the features which make European
countries distinctive mean that HRM in Europe will inevitably be different? And is there evidence of one
model of HRM in Europe or of many?
1053-4822/$ see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2004.10.001
E-mail address: Chris.Brewsterhenleymc.ac.uk.
Human Resource Management Review 14 (2004) 365 382
The US origins of theories of HRM
In its modern conception, our understanding of management in general and human resource
management in particular has been heavily influenced by thinking in the United States of America. This
is perhaps not surprising from a country that has been, for decades, the largest economy in the world. It
is often assumed that other countries wanting to bcatch upQ will have to adopt US-style management
practices. And in HRM, as elsewhere, there are signs that this is happening; the spread across continents
of downsizing, contingent (flexible) working practices, antagonism to trade unions and many other
examples provide prima facie evidence of the power of the US exemplar.
HRM, like many other aspects of management, was originally conceptualised and developed in the
United States of America. The study of personnel management, which was bpartly a file clerk s job,
partly a housekeeping job, partly a social worker s job and partly fire-fighting to head off union troubleQ
(Drucker, 1989: 269) was superseded by the new science of human resource management.
Two seminal texts in 1984 launched the new approach although both were based on previous teaching
by the respective authors and built on extensive antecedents. Fombrun et al. s bMichiganQ model
emphasized the link between human resource strategy and the business strategy of the firm; the business
strategy should define and determine the types of employee, employee deployment and employee
performance. Employees are a resource like any other. As Sparrow and Hiltrop (1994) explained it, they
bare to be obtained cheaply, used sparingly and developed and exploited as fully as possible.Q The other
text offered the bHarvardQ model (Beer, Spector, Lawrence, Quin-Mills, & Walton, 1984). This argued
that employees are not a resource like any other their understanding and commitment are critical
whatever the corporate strategy is. Hence, the business strategy is bound in with, rather than leading, the
HR strategy. Brewster, Mayrhofer, and Morley (2004) note incidentally that none of these requirements
for commitment were rooted in governance systems that involved any role for the employees trade
unions. On the contrary, as HRM established itself in the US, unions became even more marginalized in
an institutional environment characterized by increasing management and shareholder power.
An undeclared assumption in these texts was that these theories would work anywhere in the world.
As Hickson, HInings, McMillan & Schwitter, (1974) (page 63) put it, brelationships between the
structural characteristics of work organizations and variables or organization context will be stable across
societies.Q Their main findings from cases in the USA, Canada and the UK were that companies are
subject to the same relationships in terms of size, dependence on parent group and technology
irrespective of country. Hickson et al. (page 59) offered a bculture-free context of organization structure.Q
Budde, Child, Francis, and Keiser (1982) found similar results among British and German companies
although they also found that there were some differences that could only explained by reference to the
British and German cultures. Similarly, Kidger (1991) has argued that businesses that grew in isolation
from the world (read US focused) economy are having their approaches superseded by universally
applicable techniques. These kinds of arguments about the superiority of certain forms of technological
or market arrangements are being replaced by evolutionary arguments based on the impact of
globalisation (incorporating cultures, institutions and organizational level practices) as a force for
convergence (Geppert, Matten, & Williams, 2003). At its core, this is still an argument for the
dominance of US MNCs disseminating what is seen as bbest practiceQ.
Of course, other models of HRM are continually being developed. And the rhetoric at least of HRM
has spread to many other countries both in the theoretical discourse and within employing organizations.
From the early days, there have been calls for comparative HRM, studying similarities and differences in
C. Brewster / Human Resource Management Review 366 14 (2004) 365 382
management systems and the way people are managed in different countries (Adler, 1983; Boxall, 1995;
Brewster, 1995; Redding, 1994). Our focus here is in Europe.
3. HRM in Europe
Whether the US-derived visions of HRM apply everywhere in the world is an important question for
both theory and practice since following US prescriptions in either area may be detrimental if the
theories are not transferable. Forster and Whipp, 1995, for example, talk about the need for a contingent
approach encompassing cultural, sectoral and regional differences. Similarly, other theorists have also
argued for the need to cover both national differences and organizational contingencies, although they
have used different terminologies: macroeconomic, microeconomic (Farmer & Richman, 1965;
Gronhaug & Nordhaug, 1992); exogenous, endogenous (Schuler, Dowling, & De Cieri,1993); external,
internal (Jackson &