The International Human Resources Management IN UK ,USA and Japan

Name:
University:
Course:
Tutor:
Date:
The International Human Resources Management IN UK, USA and Japan
Introduction
This article investigates the difference in the Human Resources Management (HRM) and Practices in different countries, namely UK, USA and Japan. The globalisation of organisations has made it necessary for a change in the management of human resources. The human resources management (HRM) practices that are applied in one country will differ from country to country. These differences result from cultural beliefs, people’s traditions, forms of communication, values, believes and legislations in human resources issues within different countries.
In this article we analyse the HRM practices in UK, USA and Japan, and how cultural practices influence the ideologies that are applied in each of these countries. The three countries have differing cultural values which have a great influence in organisation management in general and in the management of human resources. In addition to this, they have different models of economies and different levels of government interference. These factors have led to different applications of all the HRM practices including recruitment and employees’ selections, training and development, incentives and motivations, communication, remunerations, appraisals and assessments. The paper will analyse the differences in these three countries by providing an overview of each country’s culture and its general approach to managing people. This will be followed with an analysis of each of the HRM practices in each individual country. An analysis of the cultural
Culture
International companies may be faced with clashes that result from different national and even organisational cultures (Davidson & Carswell, 2009). Cultural differences will be caused by geographical location, religion, values, believes, laws and regulations. To avoid this, managers have to be sensitive to the different cultures. Again organisations have to take into consideration the different consumer needs and this can only be possible by first understanding the intended consumers’ culture. Based on people’s culture, behaviour which maybe acceptable in one culture, maybe unacceptable in another culture. These cultural differences will in most cases be reflected in the HRM practices, argues Briscoe, Et al. (2009). Understanding others cultures will help in avoidance of negative stereotyping (Jackson, 2002).
HRM strategies influence from culture will be determined and will be dependant on the level of individualism or collectivism, uncertainty or avoidance or tolerance for ambiguity as well as the power distance between the superior and the subordinate (Briscoe, Et al. 2009). A study by Trompeenars and cited by Briscoe Et al (2009) identified five factors that may influence the HRM strategy. According to him, these are universalism as compared to particularism; collectivism as compared to individualism; emotions expression; level of involvement with other people and status which is based on ones achievement.
Jackson (2002) is in agreement with Briscoe Et al (2009) and describes individualism refers to an individuals desire to develop one self. The self development does not necessarily have to be in alignment with the organisation’s goals. This is in contrast to collectivism which refers to the desire to work together in teamwork towards a common goal. Universalism refers to the applying of regulations and laws to refer to everyone regardless of whom they are and where they come from. Jackson argues that universalism has an effect in HRM strategies as they are reflected in the remuneration and promotional policies.
Japan
The Japanese HRM strategies have been of interest ever since HRM practices in most organisations was regarded as the most influencing factor in the success of these companies especially in the 1980s (Bamber, 2006). Reis argues that Japanese culture is a mix of tradition and technology mix and this is still in practice even now in Japanese cities. Reis noted that the Japanese culture is greatly influenced by the fact that the Japanese still show supreme values to their deity, and thus they mix tradition, technology and intellect in the way they behave. He continues to add that the Japanese are deeply humanist and they apply the same in their management styles at the work place. With the Japanese the employees have a sense of loyalty to their companies and their employers (Pudelko & Harzing, 2009)
According to Reis (2010), the Japanese behaviour is generally based on three principles, filial devotions, loyalty and sovereignty. The Japanese organization models are based on their culture and they have a humanist nature. The Japanese culture is based on the concept of kaizen (striving for perfection). Kaizen has a great influence in Japanese HRM management as they believe that employee involvement forms part of continuous improvement approach (Bamber, 2006).
The Japanese system of management is based on three main principles of a lean production system and total quality management which are all engrained together with the human resources management to form an effective management system (Basu & Misoshnik, 1999). They provide an equal salary and benefit scheme for all. The employees are motivated through intensive on-job and off-job training
According to Reis the Japanese HR’s objective is to coordinate and assist in the progress of all the employees, both executive and non executive in alignment with the goals of the company, thus the organizations goals and individual goals are in alignment. This ensures effectiveness and contributes to the success of The HR functions are centralized although the company operations are highly decentralized. Reis’ opinion of Japanese organizations being decentralized is also supported by Basu and Misoshnik (1999) who add that responsibilities in such organizations are decentralized. Basu and Misoshnik continue to add that Japanese organizations allow for rotation of team leadership among the employees. This reduces hierarchical levels in Japanese organizations. As a result of this system, any positions that are found unnecessary are deployed to other areas.
The Japanese HR systems do not allow for laying-off employees (Basu and Misoshnik, 2009). However, according to Pudelko &Harzing (2009), the Japanese are shifting from this practice to increase flexibility and to allow for voluntary change of employment. This has been the case since the 1990s after the Japanese economy started experiencing a downturn (Bamper, 2006). However Bamber (2006) adds that the shift from taking employees for lifetime employment has been slow as most of these organisations are reluctant to loose their human capital. Employee development is part of the Japanese model of Kaizen as employees feel secure and therefore feel confident and therefore involve themselves with the company’s operations. The Japanese highly believe in employee engagement. Open one on one form of communication is practised even between the most senior staff and the most junior, this in agreement with their humanist culture, (Pudelko and Harzing 2009).
UK
Though UK is an individualistic country the competitiveness and level of individualism is not as high as in the USA. Jackson (2002) defines the British model as the learning organisation whereby the British apply action learning and experimental approach. This is partly influenced by the fact that there are few companies in the UK that are family oriented. Most organisations are publicly owned. Public ownership has a role to play in making strategies in HRM as this affects the freedom of the managers to make independent decisions. They have to think of the shareholders in every major decisions especially is there is a likelihood to affect the company in a major way. The UK HRM system is highly individualistic (Zhang & Edwards, 2003). However the level of individualism is far much less than in the US. According to Zhang and Edwards, the UK cultural values have contributed to uncertainty, tolerance in taking high risks, and dissent. Assertiveness in males is admired and equality is accepted and highly emphasized. These characteristics have influenced the HRM practice in UK. Thus the HRM in UK has minimal hierarchical systems. This means that the vertical structure has been diminishing in the UK HR departments.
Like the US, the UK decision making process is from the bottom flowing down to the junior staff. This has been affected by the lack of autonomy in the UK companies. Management is hierarchical where managers are employed to manage the business by the business owners (Zhang & Edwards, 2003) though the hierarchical structure has been experiencing a decline. However, Scholtz (2008) disagrees and says that though this is what is written, it is rarely practised since most line managers have to wait for decisions to be made by their departmental heads.
There is a culture of presenteesim in UK companies where UK employees arrive at work but the productivity results do not agree to this effect (Scholtz 2008). That is why in UK workers work for longer hours. This is in contrast to the Japanese employees and the differences may be attributed to lack of employee engagement in UK employees. In addition to this, most employees in UK companies have little trust for their employers. The UK employers have some form of restrictions on use of technology as it is regarded as the highest distracter at work, though the internet is accessible to more than 50 percent of the British workers. This contrasts with both the US and Japan where technology is openly accepted even in the workplace.
The UK system has tried to adopt some of Japanese systems. There is an increased practicing of kaizen (continuous improvement) in their organizations after being influenced by the Japanese companies in the UK. Both the USA and the UK have also been adapting to improving relationships between employees and their managers and have been adopting kaizen in their HRM policies (Harzing 2009).
Traditionally, the UK did not emphasize on non technical issues in the management of their organizations. While comparing British organizations and Japanese organization system within the UK and Nissan in particular, Basu and Misoshnik agree that the mangers in British organizations do not mingle with their junior employees. The UK companies have hardly been practicing equal opportunity within their organizations. To support this argument the UK State Secretary encouraged the formation of a report that supported the changing of UK’s employee management where employees are more involved, that is, an improvement in employee engagement. Those companies that have adopted this style of management have seen their performance improved the report by Macleod and Clarke (2009). Employee engagement is practiced in the three countries. Though this is practiced in the US, the employees themselves dispute that employee engagement is practiced. This was as per a report by Tower Perrin’s 2007-2008 global workforce study. This is supported by Pudelko and Harzing (2009) who says that the Japanese’ respect for people and thus view their employees as ‘resources’ as they emphasis more on human resources development in their organisations.
USA
The Americans are more individualistic than any other country. Thus, most of their actions and behaviours are achievement oriented, there are rewards for success. In their individualistic nature, the Americans believe in freedom where by no body should come between their success as long as they work for it (Brewster, Et al, 2004). American can be said to be the most highly competitive country. According to Jackson (2002) there are some values that hardly change in the American culture. These are an individual’s independence, equality of opportunity and self reliance.
The USA HRM is based on individual achievements and this is reflected in their management styles. Teamwork is therefore not as common in their organisations and it is only welcome when the team joins together for a task after which the team separates and each individual continues in pursuance of their own dreams (Jackson, 2002). This is however changing as the Americans try to acquire the teamwork skills from the Japanese. The management structure is both vertical and horizontal (Jackson, 2002).
The decision making process for the American is from the top then passed over to the junior staff. It is also non participative and authoritative. The senior staffs are involved in the decision making as the junior staff follow and act on these decisions, thus conflict is accepted. The decision is made based on quantitative facts. This is another of the strategies that the Americans are learning from the Japanese where decisions are made from bottom-up. Due to their individualistic culture the American HRM systems allow for flexibility, promptness and mobility in their HRM strategies (Pudelko & Harzing, 2009).
In the USA the scarcity of human resources led to high intensity in applying technology in replacement of human labour. There is equality though gender segregation still present
Because of its flexibility the USA model has lately been appreciated and practised in most countries (Pudelko &Harzing. 2007). It is easier to adopt in the modern global and highly technical business world. The USA CEOs salaries keep going up as a result of the competitiveness. This results from organisations competing with each other to retain their quality staff. This contributes to the widening gap between the junior and senior managers. Cross-cultural perspectives in the USA are compared to a sports team. This means it fails to encompass all areas of life of an employee. Teamwork is only applied during the working hours but fails to extend outside the office. According to Harzing (2009), the USA HRM practices are performance and result oriented and their remuneration is based on these results. American HRM system is also results and objective oriented. Harzing adds that are attributes that Japanese HR managers are trying to adopt.
In most of the studies US and UK have been clustered in the same category, the Anglo cluster, in their business management styles making them more market oriented (Harzing, Et al. 2001). Harzing and company say that UK and USA share the consumer capitalism perception. According to Silva (2010), the UK business system is finance oriented and thus the HRM strategies hardly take the central place.
The US is a free market economy while Japan is government-guided economy as is the case with most Asian economies; the UK has a pluralist form of government thus flexibility in the HRM and labour regulations. The Japanese style is different as it is based on a producer capitalism style which makes Japanese product and manufacturing excellent. The Japanese style of management is highly influenced by their unique culture which is deep rooted in its practice (Pudelko & Harzing, 2007). This results to the Anglo countries to emphasize on shareholders interests while the Japanese emphasize on the long term viability and how to create stability for their companies. Thus there is a lot of socialisation in the Japanese companies as all stakeholders are as important unlike in USA and UK companies.
Differences between UK and USA
Though there are many similarities between the US...