Hrm in Japan, Usa and Europe
INTRODUCTION
The concept of human resource management has attracted considerable attention over the last two decades from scholars and practitioners alike. While part of the debate has centered on its application and theoretical underpinnings, the other has been on its prescriptive value for the survival of organizations in a turbulent and a volatile business environment. More recently, the issue of whether to situate the HRM debate in the organizational or the international context has arisen. This is because organizational responses such as delayering, empowerment, work intensification, flexibility and redundancy appear to have gained as much weight as the macro-environmental drivers of HRM such as competition, technology, economic recession and political change. According to Pinnington and Edwards (2000), change in the external environment triggers organizational responses which may take the form of restructuring, mergers, acquisitions, splits and cost cutting, which in turn trigger human resource management responses reflected in adoption of new employment patterns and new employer-employee relationships.
HRM has assumed varied meanings and connotations. While it has been used as a synonym for personnel management by some, (Storey, 1992; Storey & Sisson, 1993), there is a general agreement that the adoption of HRM signals a more business oriented and business integrated approach to the management of people.
However, more skepticism has been expressed about its theoretical underpinnings and intellectual credentials. While some writers have questioned if HRM is a map, a model or a theory others have proposed typologies and some have proceeded to make empirical observations to confirm the presence of these typologies in Organizations. Among the typologies proposed, the soft and hard HRM orientations are the most acceptable and the subject of conceptual constructions and empirical enquiries. The soft version of HRM is linked to the human relations school while
The concept of human resource management has attracted considerable attention over the last two decades from scholars and practitioners alike. While part of the debate has centered on its application and theoretical underpinnings, the other has been on its prescriptive value for the survival of organizations in a turbulent and a volatile business environment. More recently, the issue of whether to situate the HRM debate in the organizational or the international context has arisen. This is because organizational responses such as delayering, empowerment, work intensification, flexibility and redundancy appear to have gained as much weight as the macro-environmental drivers of HRM such as competition, technology, economic recession and political change. According to Pinnington and Edwards (2000), change in the external environment triggers organizational responses which may take the form of restructuring, mergers, acquisitions, splits and cost cutting, which in turn trigger human resource management responses reflected in adoption of new employment patterns and new employer-employee relationships.
HRM has assumed varied meanings and connotations. While it has been used as a synonym for personnel management by some, (Storey, 1992; Storey & Sisson, 1993), there is a general agreement that the adoption of HRM signals a more business oriented and business integrated approach to the management of people.
However, more skepticism has been expressed about its theoretical underpinnings and intellectual credentials. While some writers have questioned if HRM is a map, a model or a theory others have proposed typologies and some have proceeded to make empirical observations to confirm the presence of these typologies in Organizations. Among the typologies proposed, the soft and hard HRM orientations are the most acceptable and the subject of conceptual constructions and empirical enquiries. The soft version of HRM is linked to the human relations school while