International Industrial Relations - Convergence and Divergence
I. INTRODUCTION
There has been a growing interest in the issue of globalization, internationalization, 'best practices' adoption and its impacts on the convergence of national employment relations system. Many scholars concludes that at the industry level, the needed changes to be more flexible and internationally competitive has led to several common patterns in term of employment relations. Meanwhile, others argue that cross-national variations such as culture, economic stage of development, institutions workers, behavioral mindset still exist and constitutes diversity within and between nations. This essay will review some of the most relevant literature, research and debates surrounding the topic as well as explore different viewpoints in order to make an insightful understanding of these processes. The paper will also compare and contrast two of three most dominant national models: Anglo-American and Japanese model (another is Rhineland-German model) as a case to reflect how convergence and divergence in term of employment relations system moving unstoppable. II. CONVERGENCE – COMING TOGETHER
1. Globalization Impact
Convergence of employment relations system across national borders was predicted in the early days by many scholars. They stated that globalization and international trade may put pressure on firms to standardize practices and policies. Convergence theory was developed by American Harbison and Myers (1959) and Kerr et al. (1960). They view similar political and economic systems is the result of industrialization process and rapid growth of advanced technology. While the theory itself does not specify on industrial relations or human resource management, but its approach can be applied to gain understanding of the issue. Globalization's impacts on HRM come via the opening and penetration of economies to external forces. This is two-way process, with both indigenous firms and multinational enterprise adopt each other's HRM practice. For
There has been a growing interest in the issue of globalization, internationalization, 'best practices' adoption and its impacts on the convergence of national employment relations system. Many scholars concludes that at the industry level, the needed changes to be more flexible and internationally competitive has led to several common patterns in term of employment relations. Meanwhile, others argue that cross-national variations such as culture, economic stage of development, institutions workers, behavioral mindset still exist and constitutes diversity within and between nations. This essay will review some of the most relevant literature, research and debates surrounding the topic as well as explore different viewpoints in order to make an insightful understanding of these processes. The paper will also compare and contrast two of three most dominant national models: Anglo-American and Japanese model (another is Rhineland-German model) as a case to reflect how convergence and divergence in term of employment relations system moving unstoppable. II. CONVERGENCE – COMING TOGETHER
1. Globalization Impact
Convergence of employment relations system across national borders was predicted in the early days by many scholars. They stated that globalization and international trade may put pressure on firms to standardize practices and policies. Convergence theory was developed by American Harbison and Myers (1959) and Kerr et al. (1960). They view similar political and economic systems is the result of industrialization process and rapid growth of advanced technology. While the theory itself does not specify on industrial relations or human resource management, but its approach can be applied to gain understanding of the issue. Globalization's impacts on HRM come via the opening and penetration of economies to external forces. This is two-way process, with both indigenous firms and multinational enterprise adopt each other's HRM practice. For
References: Whitley, R. (1998) Internationalization and Varierities of Capitalism: The Limited Effects of Cross National Coordination of Economic Activities on the Nature of Business System. Review of International Political Economy, 5: 445-481. Harbison, F. and Myers, C. (1959) (eds.) Management in the Industrialized World. NY: McGraw Hill. Kerr, C., Dunlop, J., Harbison, E. H., & Myers, C. (1962). Industrialism and industrial man. London: Heinemann. Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage throgh people. Boston, MA: Havard Business School Press. Salamon, M. (2000). Indstrial relations: Theory and practice. London: FT/Prentice Hall Hofstede, G Hofstede, G. (1993) 'Cultural Constrains in Management Theories '. Academy of Management Excutive, 7 (1): 81-93. Whitehill, A. (1991) Japanese Management, London: Routledge. Maurice, M., Sellier, F. and Silvestre, J.J. (1986) The Social Foundations of Industrial Power, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kostova, T. (1999). Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A contextual perspective. Academy of Management REview, 24(2): 308-324 Horng, C Youndt, M. A., Snell, S.A., Dean, J.W., Jr., & Lepak, D. P. (1996). Human resource management manufacturing strategy, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 949-969. Taira, K. (1990). From "Americanization" of Japan to "Japanization" of America in HRM/IR. Paper Presented at the Forty Third Annual Meeting of the INdustrial Relations REsearcch Association (pp.467-475). Washington, D.C.: IRRA