Globalization and Convergence– The Divergence of HRM Across Nations

Article Critique
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Article Critique
Summary
In the article ‘Globalization and convergence– the divergence of HRM across nations: New measures, explanatory theory, and non-standard predictions from bringing in economics’ Kaufman seeks to contribute important information on the topic of comparative and IHRM with regards to the nature of convergence and divergence trends in HR practices and systems across various countries. Kaufman (2016) acknowledges that human resource management practices vary across organizations and that certain factors affect how human resource systems exist across countries. However, Kaufman also states that there are flaws in the existing theories in HR management, and the current measures and definitions of human resource divergence and convergence. The research identifies and criticizes the theories such as universal versus contextual paradigms. These theories seek to explain the forces unleashed by globalization that have driven IHRM convergence and divergence. Kaufman (2016) mentions the heated debate on convergence and divergence over whether HRM systems together with the specific activities comprising them are becoming dissimilar or similar across different countries as time goes by, and mentions that despite the disagreements, both groups agree that the economic forces that result from globalization are the main drivers of HRM convergence and divergence. However, the Kaufman’s main concern is the fact that despite this agreement, the researchers come up with theoretical perspectives that fail to extensively describe, “the economic part of the cause-effect logic that leads to convergence or divergence” (Kaufman, 2016, p. 338). The Kaufman’s article offers a new means of predicting and explaining the changes that lead to HRM convergence and divergence, with much focus on the economic principles of economic geography and international trade to explain how global competition has affected cross-national industry patterns. The main argument in Kaufman’s article is that current theories have failed to provide enough information concerning the economic part of globalization that drives IHRM convergence or divergence.
Rationale
The reason for choosing this article is because I wanted to select an article that relates to the topic of culture and globalization, more specifically divergence or convergence. Kaufman (2016) offers a broad description of the effects of globalization on driving HRM convergence or divergence. Aside from its relevance, the article also challenges other theories that relate to convergence and divergence, hence offering a broader perspective on the issue of globalization and IHRM systems, and how they are affected.
Critique
The Kaufman’s article begins with an abstract that provides a brief overview of the paper’s purpose. In the abstract, Kaufman has mentioned the major aspects of the article in a prescribed sequence. He begins by describing the topic in which his research is based on, which is international and comparative HRM convergence or divergence. The abstract also describes the overall design and layout of the article. He states the sequence in which he will discuss issues in the paper in chronological order, beginning with a critique of the current theories on the HRM convergence-divergence as well as the flaws that exist in the current definitions and measures. This explanation acts as a brief description of the results from Kaufman’s analysis since before reading the main content of the article, it is clear from the abstract that Kaufman has found possible flaws in the current theories in HRM convergence-divergence. The abstract then offers insight on the direction in which Kaufman takes to address the issue of the current flaws in the theories. Kaufman mentions the introduction of a new theory for predicting the trends, which involves the incorporation of economic principles of economic geography and international trade, which will be used to explain how cross-national patterns of industries are affected by global competition. Regardless of Kaufman’s well-constructed abstract, it fails to mention the research question.
In the introduction, Kaufman directs the article discussion from the general subject of HRM convergence-divergence to the specific topic of inquiry, which is the economic theory and its use in international and comparative HRM research on convergence and divergence. By summarizing the current background information and current understanding of the topic, Kaufman manages to establish the context, scope, and significance of his research. He begins by acknowledging the facts that have been agreed upon by various researchers such as the variance in HRM practices across various organizations on a national and international level. He then introduces the research problem and briefly explains the methodology used to examine his research problem. Kaufman also explains the potential outcomes of his study and outlines the remaining structure. Kaufman’s introduction has considered three main overarching goals. The first is the summarization of previous studies concerning the topic in a manner that lays the foundation for understanding the research problem. Kaufman points out that previous research theories have debated the issue of convergence and divergence paradigms. However, despite the debates, he explains that the researchers on both sides agree that the economic forces that are caused by globalization are the main forces that drive HRM convergence and divergence (Kaufman 2016). This then leads to the second goal, which is to address the specific gaps in the literature and insufficient considerations on the topic. Kaufman mentions that despite this agreement between the debaters, the theories by these researchers fail to provide enough information concerning the impact of economic forces on driving HRM convergence and divergence. This represents the gaps in the current literature. Thirdly, the introduction notes the wider theoretical perspective as well as the impact of the research on the field. Kaufman explains that the economic theory will offer useful insights, concepts, and ideas, which will be used in IHRM research on convergence and divergence. The introduction has also offered information concerning the research approach used by Kaufman.
The first literature review on the definition and measurement of HRM convergence-divergence (C-D) follows an organizational pattern, which combines synthesis and summary. Kaufman begins by acknowledging research from Mellahi, Demirbag, Collings, Tatoghu, and Hughes, who claim that despite the extensive research concerning C-D on HRM practices, there is still much debate on the topic. Aside from Kaufman, other articles also agree to the debate over HRM practices in multinational companies. Edwards, Sanchez-Mangas, Jalette, Lavelle, and Minbaeva (2016) state that over the last two decades, some researchers have dwelt on the issue of how multinational organizations standardize human resource management practices across nations. The authors state that some researchers agree on the fact that there is standardization around a worldwide best practice model, while other researchers have claimed that multinational companies adopt practices in a national context. This shows that other authors support Kaufman's point of the debate over HRM practices across nations. Kaufman then mentions the efforts by Brewster, Sparrow, and Vernon, in offering analytical clarity on convergence-divergence using a four-fold typology. The author then goes ahead to criticize the attempt by Brewster, Sparrow, and Vernon. However, despite Kaufman’s criticism, the author fails to give substantive evidence to prove what exactly is wrong with the analytical clarity. Instead, Kaufman only mentions that other authors have mentioned the ambiguities in the analytics. The author assumes that the ‘other authors’ have enough evidence to prove that the analytics by Brewster, Sparrow, and Vernon is ambiguous. Kaufman then uses two-panel diagrams to demonstrate the problem areas in the fourfold classification scheme. The first panel represents the gauge of C-D HRM practices across European companies, whereas the second panel represents an assessment of HRM practices in companies across Europe and America. Despite the efforts by Kaufman to prove Brewster, Sparrow and Vernon wrong, there are certain flaws in his method. To begin with, Kaufman ignores certain possibilities to keep the two panels comparable; this act of ignoring leaves room for doubt as ignoring these possibilities makes his comparison less valid.
Having proven Brewster, Sparrow and Vernon’s measure wrong, Kaufman goes ahead and introduces a new measure and definition of convergence-divergence. The Kaufman’s new definition comes from his previous study with Miller, in which they noted that the dependent variable in most empirical models and HRM theories is company performance, while the central independent variable is a measure of HPWP usage (Kaufman, 2016). Kaufman then states that the previous study with Miller argues that it is a defective specification that has established bias because it shifts HRM practice from the variable that should be explained by the theory. Although the resource by Kaufman and Miller can be considered valid, the author is referring to his previous research, which can raise some questions on whether the other researchers agree with his statement or not. Kaufman is referring to his research raises the issue of conflict of interest.
Nonetheless, Kaufman states that his alternative method of definition and measure of C-D across HRM practices in various nations avoids some of the am...