Human Resource Management: Convergence and Divergence Dabate in Europe
Human Resource Management as a concept was formalised in the USA in the late 1970s and early 1980s, encapsulated in two famous textbooks (Beer et al. 1985; Fombrun et al. 1984). These approaches varied but both differentiated HRM from personnel management and argued that the former involved more integration of personnel policies across functions and with the corporate strategy (with HR being the downstream function); a greater role for line managers; a shift from collective to individual relationships; and an accent on enhancing company performance.
The notion of "European Human Resource Management" was developed largely as a counter to the hegemony of US conceptions of human resource management (HRM). This, in part, reflected developments in the arguments about how we should conceive of the notion of HRM (Kamoche 1996). It was argued (Brewster 1994; Sparrow/Hiltrop 1994) that US assumptions about the nature of HRM were inappropriate in this (and probably other) continents and that Europe needed models of its own HRM practice.
Due to technological advancement, globalization and economic changes in terms of human resource management practice made managers to develop new competencies to manage their working futures (Morgan 1988) increasingly, these require an international perspective in order to manage people in different culture and with different customs. There has been debate about how new ‘internationalisation’ or globalisation is, (Brewster, Sparrow, and Harris,2001, Farnham,1994, Hu, 1992, Moore and Lewis, 1999, Williamson, 1996,) its effect and how it has been felt around us. The question is, is the US model of HRM the one that will be inevitably followed In Europe since HRM practice was originally conceptualised and developed in the United State of America? Or do the feature which make European countries different mean that HRM in Europe will inevitably be different? And is there evidence of one model of HRM in Europe or many, looking at the convergence
The notion of "European Human Resource Management" was developed largely as a counter to the hegemony of US conceptions of human resource management (HRM). This, in part, reflected developments in the arguments about how we should conceive of the notion of HRM (Kamoche 1996). It was argued (Brewster 1994; Sparrow/Hiltrop 1994) that US assumptions about the nature of HRM were inappropriate in this (and probably other) continents and that Europe needed models of its own HRM practice.
Due to technological advancement, globalization and economic changes in terms of human resource management practice made managers to develop new competencies to manage their working futures (Morgan 1988) increasingly, these require an international perspective in order to manage people in different culture and with different customs. There has been debate about how new ‘internationalisation’ or globalisation is, (Brewster, Sparrow, and Harris,2001, Farnham,1994, Hu, 1992, Moore and Lewis, 1999, Williamson, 1996,) its effect and how it has been felt around us. The question is, is the US model of HRM the one that will be inevitably followed In Europe since HRM practice was originally conceptualised and developed in the United State of America? Or do the feature which make European countries different mean that HRM in Europe will inevitably be different? And is there evidence of one model of HRM in Europe or many, looking at the convergence