Comparison of Public Human Resource Management between China and United States In nowadays,
27th September 2014
In this day and time, as globalization rises, organizations find themselves with the challenge of having to adapt to the dynamic and ever changing business environment. Human Resource Management is particularly important in the present day than it had been in the past and is a key factor of the overall success of an organization, yet there are currently various models of HRM and there is a big difference on how countries implement them, reflected by the different national cultures and the employment systems without a doubt reflect the wider differences in national culture. This paper, will present an overview of the models employed in the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the United States Of America (USA) in order to better understand their people-management systems, as well as comparing and contrasting the human resource management (HRM) systems in both countries.
Comparing HRM in China and United States
The selection process in these two countries differs, in that like much of the world, the USA employers tend to rank highly personal interviews. A Ventana Research study shows the extent to which Americans value personal interview. The personal selection procedures followed in the USA is primarily initiated with an evaluation of the individual’s capability and technical prerequisite for the job. Thereafter the potential employees previous work experience in a similar job field is assessed. However, in the Peoples Republic of China, employee’s test scores are given prominence and was one of the top criteria assessed in the selection processes. Additionally, an added feature that is measured in the country is the potential employee’s familiarity with the Chinese culture and environment. Contrastingly, the practice of judging an employee’s familiarity with domestic culture during the selection process is absent in the USA. Performance Appraisals is a tool used to measure the achievement of an individual, group or organizational objective. The USA’s outlook toward this approach is deemed very result oriented, encourages individual achievement, encourages increased employee productivity and is ultimately more performance appraisal than individual appraisal. On the contrary, Chinese managers place greater emphasis on moral characteristics and personal attributes such as loyalty and obedience. This practice is believed to over emphasize on the function of measuring reward and punishment rather than indentifying the potential ability of the employee and what he or she has to offer in the long run. In the USA, training expenditures per employee amount to a figure close to $724 where as it is noted than in countries belonging to the Asian continent (outside Japan) the expense is roughly measured at $359 (per employee). Furthermore, the total hours of training allocated per entitled employee vary substantially between countries like China and the USA, where US organizations allocate lengthier duration of hours in training per year as compared to the Chinese firms. However it cannot be disagreed that although there are variations in the budgeted expenditure and allocated training periods between the two countries, the ultimate end result of the initiative is exactly the same; that is the employers envision a broadened and improved technical ability of the trained staff. Incentive payments are a way for employers to drive motivation and reach out to their employees in a positive manner. Contrary to what common sense would suggest, results of a research conducted by Ernst & Young (2003)2 regarding the use of financial incentives, indicate the importance of the use of pay incentives in the Peoples Republic of China, despite its communist roots. Moreover, regardless of the traditional US emphasis on ‘’pay for performance’’, results of conducted...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document