-
Cross-national learning from best practiceand the
convergence-divergence debatein HRM
Markus Pudelko
Abstract The chief objective of this paper is to develop
suggestions as to how to learnfrom best practices in HRM across
national borders. The analysis is based on survey datagathered from
232 HRM managers from American, Japanese and German top
500companies. The managers provide information on how the HRM model
of their respectivecountry is characterized and from which of the
other two country models they seekinspiration. The concrete
attributes of the models considered worth adopting are describedin
detail and future developments with regards to convergence of the
HRM modelsexplored. The empirical data suggest that HR managers
from all three countries expect apartial convergence towards a
hybrid model. Curiously, the model that comes closest tothis hybrid
– the German one – is also the one that rates lowest as a source of
inspiration.An argument is made that in order to better understand
learning from best practice andresulting convergence tendencies,
research should seek more insights regarding theknowledge of
managers about foreign management models, their perceptions of
thesemodels, and how these perceptions are generated.
Keywords Convergence; divergence; HRM; USA; Japan; Germany.
Introduction
The dominant schools within classical management thought assume
that efficiencyimperatives press for a ‘one best way’ in
management, irrespective of cultural or nationalcontext (Smith and
Meiksins, 1995). Taylor, Barnard, Mayo as well as Mouton andBlake,
stand as examples for management theorists who seek to develop
managementprinciples that can be universally employed as single
‘best practices’. It is argued in someof the literature that, as a
consequence of increasing pressures of competition
andglobalization, there is a growing need to learn systematically
from those managementpractices regarded as the most successful
(see, for example, Levitt, 1983; Mueller, 1994).This learning
process can be described as the continuous comparison of, and
adaptationtowards, best practice, in order systematically to close
the gap with the best performer.The basic idea is to determine what
differences exist and what is the potential forimprovement
(Spendolini, 1992). Owing to the continuous internationalization
ofcompetition, country-specific management practices are
increasingly specified, and theirstrengths and weaknesses compared
with one another.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online q 2005 Taylor &
Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/09585190500314920
Markus Pudelko, The University of Edinburgh Management School,
50 George Square, Edinburgh,
EH8 9JY, UK (tel: þ44 131 6511491; e-mail:
[email protected]); currently at ColumbiaBusiness School, New
York City, USA.
Int. J. of Human Resource Management 16:11 November 2005
2045–2074
-
The search for best practice in comparative management research
is at the macro-levelclosely related to the debate on
cross-national convergence versus divergenceof managerial
processes. For Kerr et al. (1960) there exists a universal ‘logic
ofindustrialization’ which is accompanied by a ‘logic of the
development of organizationsand management’. The direction of this
development is determined by ‘best practice’ ofeconomically more
advanced countries, with latecomers following and adopting
similarorganizational structures, strategies and processes,
resulting in a convergence ofmanagement systems. Consequently,
authors who perceive management as ratherindependent from the
respective national culture, and focus on the importance of
learningfrom best practice in order to increase national
competitiveness, are more positive aboutcross-national convergence,
as best practice is held to determine the direction ofconvergence
(see, for example, Kerr et al., 1960; Child and Kieser, 1979;
Levitt, 1983;Waters, 1995; Hannerz, 1996; Toynbee, 2001).
The focus on specific national management ‘models’ reflects,
however, ‘a tendency toreproduce ‘one best way’ thinking, without
showing how this can be integrated withpatterns of organizational
national diversity’ (Smith and Meiksins, 1995: 251). Theauthors
subsumed under the divergence school who stress the embeddedness of
nationalmanagement methods in their cultural and institutional
context are therefore moresceptical about the possibility of
cross-national learning from best practice, and see littleroom for
cross-national convergence of management processes (see, for
example,Lammers and Hickson, 1979; Laurent, 1983; Whitley, 2000;
Hickson and Pugh, 1995;Hofstede, 2001).1
If the search for best practice in management is to lead to
convergence towards thebest existing model (or the best combination
of different models), then a knowledge andcomprehensive
understanding of the relevant models by managers (as opposed
toacademics) seems vital: managers are the chief change agents who
can bring about theconvergence. It is therefore important, in order
to judge how likely successful learningfrom best practice and
convergence tendencies is to occur, to understand the degree
ofmanagers’ knowledge of various management models and how they
evaluate thesemodels. It may additionally be useful to discover the
extent to which managersthemselves perceive the probability of
convergence.
It is interesting when examining the relevant literature to note
that, although authors ofcross-national management studies describe
existing models through the use of toolssuch as interviews with
managers from each system, they subsequently draw their
ownconclusions regarding the possible transferability of management
practices. They rarelyinvestigate the evaluations of various
management models by managers who do notoriginate from the country
system under consideration.2 The studies by the ‘BestInternational
HRM Practices Consortium’ (e.g. Von Glinow, 2002; Von Glinow et
al.,2002; Geringer et al., 2002) are in this context of interest,
in so far as they question HRmanagers in different countries not
only about the ‘Is Now’, but also the ‘Should Be’ oftheir own
HRM-model. To ask about what ‘Should Be’ is to break what the
researchersthemselves call a ‘methodological taboo’. Yet, according
to the consortium’s authors,divergent evaluations by the HR
managers of the ‘Is Now’ and the ‘Should Be’ indicatedeficiencies
and thus potential to learn from practices originating in other
countries.However, HR managers are also in these studies not
surveyed on what specifically theybelieve they could learn from
other countries. Hence, empirical research is mainlyconcerned with
the description of management systems; discussion of the
moreapplication oriented issue of learning from best practice is,
in contrast, largely basedsolely on appraisals by academics (see,
for example, Ouchi, 1981; Pascale and Athos,1981; Womack et al.,
1990). Since cross-national convergence towards best practice,
2046 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
-
based on learning from other countries, ultimately relies on the
managers’ knowledge of,and judgements on, foreign management
systems, it is surprising that little empiricalwork has been done
in this area. This paper addresses this deficiency.
Context, objectives and methodology
The examination of HRM-strategies seemed to be regarded as of
little importance inearly international comparative studies
(Pieper, 1990; Brewster and Bournois, 1993).Since the late 1980s,
however, HRM-systems of different countries have beenincreasingly
under investigation (Sparrow et al., 1994). Researchers who
haveparticipated in the cross-national search for the best HRM
practices include Ouchi(1981), Peters and Waterman (1982), Pfeffer
(1994, 1998) and Huselid (1995). HRM isoften considered to be one
of the areas most subject to cultural influences (Hendry,
1991;Müller, 1999). Consequently, if cross-national learning from
best practice can beachieved here, then it should also be possible
for other management functions. Therefore,finding evidence of
cross-national learning in HRM would be a strong indicator for
the(at least partial) validity of the convergence concept.
This contribution investigates more specifically how American,
Japanese and GermanHR managers perceive the possibility of learning
from each others’ HRM approaches.The USA, Japan and Germany were
chosen because they constitute the three largesteconomies in the
world, as well as being the leading economies of the triad
NorthAmerica, Asia and Europe. In addition, they reflect a broad
variety of concepts onmanagement in general, and HRM in particular
(Dore, 2000).
The American economy’s current dominance gives rise again to the
expectation of‘one best practice’, increases pressures for
borrowing and adaptation, and ultimatelysupports convergence
theory, which as Smith and Meiksins (1995: 244) put it ‘was,
afterall, premised on the rest of the world copying the US’.
According to Müller (1999: 126),the American concept of HRM in
particular ‘has emerged as one of the most importantprescriptions
for a world-wide convergence of managerial practices’. However,
itsadaptability to the European context has often been put into
question as its individualistand market driven values run counter
to the more collectivist and regulated environmentin Europe (see,
for example, Ferner and Hyman, 1994; Guest, 1990, 1994; Brewster
andBournois, 1993; Brewster, 1994, 1995; Kirkbride, 1994) and
particularly in Germany(Wächter and Muller-Camen, 2002). As far as
the Japanese corporate environment isconcerned, the American
HRM-model is regarded as contradicting in many ways thebroad
concept of ‘respect for people’ (Kono and Clegg, 2001) and the aim
of ‘humanresource development’ (Ballon, 2002). However, with the
drastic downturn of theeconomy and a management model perceived to
be increasingly in crisis, there areindications of some shift
towards Western and particularly American managementprinciples
taking place (Frenkel, 1994; Ornatowski, 1998; Matanle, 2003;
Pudelko, 2004,2005).
In addition, Japanese management served writers from many
nations, particularly theUS, as a model for organizational
contingency and convergence theory. The diffusion ofnew production
methods (Womack et al., 1990; Kenney and Florida, 1993)
andapproaches towards HRM (Inohara, 1990) associated with Japanese
managementmethods can be subsumed under efforts to ‘learn from best
practice’. These efforts werecharacterized by decontextualizing
specific Japanese management methods andtranslating them into
universal concepts such as ‘lean management’ or ‘human
resourcecentred management’. According to Smith and Meiskins
(1995), attempts to transformJapanese management methods into
neutral organizational paradigms, which can be
Pudelko: Cross-national learning from best practice 2047
-
regarded as ‘best practices’ and therefore should also be
adopted, was specifically
pervasive among American scholars. European and particularly
German interpretation of
Japanese management methods has shown much less inclination to
translate them into
universally applicable ‘best practices’, highlighting more
continuity, pluralism and
diversity of national management practices and the importance of
the national
institutional context (Kern and Schumann, 1984; Jurgens, 1989;
Altmann et al., 1992).
With the economic problems Japan is currently facing, the same
Japanese HRM which
was earlier presented by many Western, and in particular
American, scholars as an
inspirational role-model (Vogel, 1979; Ouchi, 1981; Peters and
Waterman, 1982), is
now, however, less and less perceived as being worth learning
from (Smith, 1997;
Yoshimura and Anderson, 1997; Crawford, 1998).Finally, German
HRM practices are regarded by some American authors (Smith,
1991; Pfeffer, 1994, 1998; Wever, 1995) as an interesting model.
The attention is,
however, mainly confined to questions of co-determination as
well as vocational training
(Werner and Campbell, 1993) and thus more directed towards
legal-institutional than
strategic-managerial considerations. It would appear that German
HRM practices seem
never have been of any particular interest to Japanese
researchers (Pudelko, 2000).In view of the rather unevenly
distributed awareness and attention paid to these three
HRM-models in the literature of the other two countries
respectively, this paper sets out
to investigate the attitudes of HR-managers with regards to the
potential of mutually
learning from each other. The first part of the empirical
investigation seeks to establish
how American, Japanese and German HR managers perceive their own
respective HRM-
systems, and to what degree they consider the HRM-systems of the
other two countries as
models to be learned from. What specific attributes of the
American, Japanese and
German models the HR managers identify as suitable for
cross-national adoption are
subsequently investigated. Why it is not considered to be
worthwhile learning from the
HRM practices of the other countries is explored as well.
Finally, HR managers’ views
are sought regarding the future development of their own
HRM-systems, and the
likelihood of any convergence tendencies.3
The analysis is based on data collected in an extensive survey
on HRM in Germany,
the USA and Japan (Pudelko, 2000). The heads of HR departments
from the 500 largest
companies in each of these three countries were approached with
a questionnaire. Due to
their senior position within the corporate hierarchy, it was
assumed that they had the best
experience and understanding of the matters being investigated.
Large corporations were
selected because knowledge and understanding of foreign
management models is likely
to be greater than in small or medium-sized companies.4
Questionnaires were distributed by mail, depending on the
receiver, in English,
Japanese or German. All questions in its original (German)
version had been previously
pilot-tested with German managers in order to minimize the
possibility of
misunderstandings, to enhance content validity and to contribute
to a more robust
questionnaire. Several survey items were altered in this
process, in part substantially. In
order to secure consistency among the three versions the method
of back-translation
(Brislin, 1970) was employed.Of the HR managers contacted, 107
(21 per cent) of the German managers responded,
68 (14 per cent) of the Japanese, and 57 (12 per cent) of
American managers. Thus, this
study is based on the responses of 232 senior HR managers.5 More
specific information
on the methodology and statistical techniques employed is
presented in the context of the
results section below.
2048 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
-
Results
Description of the HRM-models
Only from understanding how managers perceive both their own
management practicesand those of others, can useful suggestions be
formulated on how they might learn frombest practice of foreign
companies. In order to obtain information from the HR managersabout
the perceived attributes of the HRM-models, a series of 20 pairs of
opposingstatements was developed across seven HRM categories and
used in the questionnaire.These seven HRM categories (see Figure 1
in bold) were chosen because they comprise awide range of different
aspects of HRM, thus providing a comprehensive overview ofeach of
the three HRM models. The first four categories can be found inmost
classifications of this kind and cover areas describing the
relationship betweenthe company and its employees. The last three
categories focus on social relations amongcompany employees
themselves and so can be considered as indicative of HRM only in
alooser sense. Consequently, the survey items encompass, beyond
strict HRMcriteria, aspects with high relevance to OB. This has
been done because the complexityof human relations in an
organizational setting cannot fully be covered without
includinginter-personal associations as well. Furthermore, it is
believed that, in the context of thiscomparative study, aspects of
communication, decision making and
superior-subordinaterelationships are highly relevant for
understanding cross-cultural differences, which havea direct impact
on the various HRM models.
The survey items were developed on the basis of the relevant
literature, but not takendirectly from it. As it is impossible to
produce for each of the twenty opposing statementssupporting
citations, the following texts should be mentioned here, as
representative ofrecent writings on each of the three HRM models:
for the USA: Kalleberg (1996),Kochan (1996), Ichniowski et al.
(2000), and Strauss (2001); for Japan: Yoshimura andAnderson
(1997), Ornatowski (1998), Dalton and Benson (2002), and Matanle
(2003);and for Germany: Müller (1999), Wever (1995), Streeck
(2001), and Wächter andMuller-Camen (2002).
Responses were invited on a six-point scale and related only to
the managers’ owncountry, as detailed knowledge of the other two
countries could not be presumed. As thedata are considered to be
interval scale, arithmetic means for the responses from eachcountry
could be computed and statistically compared with one another. The
smaller(higher) the mean, the more the data tend to the left
(right) of the scale. Figure 1reproduces the 20 pairs of opposing
statements and the means for the USA, Japan andGermany. Table 1
presents information on the statistical significance of the
differencesbetween the means from the three countries.
As can be seen from Table 1, statistically significant
differences between thethree countries can be reported in 57 out of
80 cases. When tested collectively, the threecountries are
statistically different from each other in 16 of the 20 opposing
statements.As for the four remaining cases with collectively
insignificant results (statements 3.2, 4.1,5.2 and 7.2) only two
are statistically the same (3.2 and 4.1) whereas in the other
two,statistically significant pair-wise differences can be
reported. Thus, the data, based onthe responses obtained, suggest
that the USA, Japan and Germany havedistinctly different HRM
models. Moreover, when looking at the means it is notablethat,
again, in 16 of 20 statements the USA and Japan are closer to the
opposite poles,with Germany being in the middle. Of the remaining
four statements that result in adifferent pattern, three are
statistically significant (2.3, 6.1 and 6.2) and the remainingone
is not (3.2). Amongst the 16 statements for which Germany is ranked
in the middle,13 prove to be statistically significant for all
three countries collectively and three do not
Pudelko: Cross-national learning from best practice 2049
-
(4.1, 5.2 and 7.2). In a pair-wise consideration between the USA
and Japan, in all of these
16 statements the differences are statistically significant. The
corresponding figures for
Germany and Japan are 12 and for Germany and the USA, 6
respectively. These
results suggest that the American and the Japanese HRM models
are – according to the
Figure 1 HR managers’ assessment of the main characteristics of
their own HRM-system(arithmetic means)
2050 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
-
Table
1H
Rm
an
ag
ers’
ass
essm
ent
of
the
ma
inch
ara
cter
isti
cso
fth
eir
ow
nH
RM
-sys
tem
(sig
nifi
can
cea
na
lysi
s)
Pa
ram
eter
esti
ma
tio
ns
Wa
ldte
stfo
req
ua
lity
of
coef
fici
ents
QU
SA
GE
RJP
NU
SA¼
GE
RG
ER¼
JPN
US
A¼
JPN
US
A¼
GE
R¼
JPN
1.1
a2.68
a2.70
a4.74
c0
.01
39
c2
2.0
37
**
*c2
2.0
51
**
*c1
23
.04
**
*
b0
.17
b0
.12
b0
.16
1.2
2.51
2.70
4.90
0.1
92
12
2.1
96
**
*2
2.3
88
**
*2
63
.70
**
*
0.1
30
.09
0.1
2
1.3
2.96
4.63
4.97
1.6
67
7*
**
20
.33
8*
*2
2.0
06
**
*1
21
.02
**
*
0.1
50
.11
0.1
3
2.1
3.35
3.50
4.00
0.1
44
32
0.5
04
**
20
.64
9*
**
8.5
3*
*
0.1
70
.12
0.1
6
2.2
3.19
3.52
4.34
0.3
34
4*
20
.82
3*
**
21
.15
8*
**
32
.51
**
*
0.1
70
.13
0.1
6
2.3
4.11
3.56
3.87
20
.55
1*
**
20
.30
7*
0.2
43
46
.46
**
0.1
70
.13
0.1
6
3.1
2.09
2.48
3.03
0.3
93
0*
*2
0.5
48
**
*2
0.9
41
**
*2
6.1
9*
**
0.1
40
.10
0.1
3
3.2
3.07
3.01
3.10
20
.06
02
0.0
95
20
.03
40
.25
0.1
70
.12
0.1
5
3.3
3.25
3.49
4.25
0.2
44
72
0.7
63
**
*2
1.0
08
**
*2
0.8
2*
**
0.1
70
.13
0.1
6
4.1
2.84
3.09
3.15
0.2
45
62
0.0
66
20
.31
21
.53
0.1
90
.14
0.1
7
4.2
2.30
2.76
3.04
0.4
60
5*
**
20
.27
92
0.7
40
**
*1
6.0
1*
**
0.1
40
.11
0.1
3
4.3
1.98
3.61
5.59
1.6
29
1*
**
21
.97
6*
**
23
.60
5*
**
18
8.8
5*
**
0.2
00
.14
0.1
8
5.1
2.61
3.09
3.13
0.4
80
3*
**
20
.03
82
0.5
18
**
*8
.17
**
*
0.1
50
.11
0.1
3
5.2
3.31
3.39
3.63
0.0
83
42
0.2
34
20
.31
7*
3.5
1
0.1
50
.11
0.1
4
Pudelko: Cross-national learning from best practice 2051
-
Table
1(C
on
tin
ued
)
Pa
ram
eter
esti
ma
tio
ns
Wa
ldte
stfo
req
ua
lity
of
coef
fici
ents
QU
SA
GE
RJP
NU
SA¼
GE
RG
ER¼
JPN
US
A¼
JPN
US
A¼
GE
R¼
JPN
6.1
2.49
2.22
2.97
20
.27
6*
*2
0.7
55
**
*2
0.4
79
**
*2
8.2
9*
**
0.1
20
.09
0.1
1
6.2
3.46
3.22
4.31
20
.23
72
1.0
89
**
*2
0.8
52
**
*4
7.2
8*
**
0.1
40
.11
0.1
3
6.3
2.50
2.75
3.74
0.2
47
52
0.9
87
**
*2
1.2
35
**
*5
6.9
0*
**
0.1
40
.10
0.1
3
7.1
2.72
3.24
4.18
0.5
18
7*
**
20
.93
8*
**
21
.45
7*
**
65
.43
**
*
0.1
40
.10
0.1
3
7.2
3.40
3.41
3.76
20
.00
62
0.3
49
**
20
.34
3*
4.5
8
0.1
50
.11
0.1
4
7.3
3.28
3.51
4.35
0.2
28
72
0.8
43
**
*2
1.0
72
**
*4
0.6
2*
**
0.1
40
.10
0.1
3
aE
stim
ated
mea
nfo
rea
chques
tion
and
for
each
countr
y.
bS
tandar
der
ror
of
esti
mat
edm
ean
for
each
ques
tion
and
for
each
countr
y.
cC
hi-
squar
est
atis
tic
from
the
Wal
dte
stfo
rth
e
equal
ity
of
pai
rwis
eco
untr
ym
eans
and
for
the
equal
ity
of
mea
ns
of
thre
eco
untr
ies.
***,
**
and
*in
dic
ate
stat
isti
cal
signifi
cance
atth
ele
vel
sof
1per
cent,
5per
cent,
and
10
per
cent,
resp
ecti
vel
y.
2052 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
-
HR-managers perception of their own practices – notably opposed
to each other and thatthe German model is more similar to the
American one than the Japanese one.
As explained in more detail elsewhere (Pudelko, 2000, vol. 3),
the opposite poles arelabelled ‘short-term performance efficiency
based on flexible market structures and profitorientation’ (USA)
and ‘long-term behavioural effectiveness based on cooperative
clanstructures and growth orientation’ (Japan).
Is it worth trying to learn from the HRM of the other
countries?
The American, Japanese and German HR managers were subsequently
asked if theythought that corporations from their countries had
oriented themselves toward, oradopted, particular human resource
practices of corporations of the other two countriessince the
1980s. On a six-point Likert-scale, going from ‘strongly agree’ to
‘stronglydisagree’, the managers were asked to give their opinion
about this statement. Again,arithmetic means for the responses from
each country were computed. The smaller themean, the more the
respondents agreed with the questions.
The means depicted in the first row of the left half of Table 2
(printed in bold) suggestthat both the Japanese and German
respondents confirm, albeit cautiously, an orientationtowards
American HRM since the 1980s. The orientation towards the Japanese
model(second row) is clearly viewed more sceptically by the
American and German HRmanagers. Finally, regarding the orientation
towards German HRM (third row), it can beconcluded that neither the
American nor the Japanese HR experts perceive a
meaningfulorientation towards the German system. Another way of
interpreting the results of the lefthalf of Table 2 is the
following: The American managers orientated themselves moretowards
Japan than towards Germany; the Japanese managers orientated
themselvesmore towards the USA than towards Germany and the German
managers more towardsthe USA than towards Japan.
These statements, along with those reported below, were tested
for statisticalsignificance. Due to the complexity of the cases
tested, and in order not to unnecessarilyinflate the main body of
this paper, detailed information on the significance analysis
isreported only in Table 2. Nevertheless, as 13 of the 18 cases
tested proved to bestatistically significant, it can be argued that
the statements made on the basis of thereported means are largely
supported by the formal regression analysis.
The right half of Table 2 contains information about the same
connections, although adifferent time frame is set. The data refer
now to the question of whether American,Japanese and German HR
managers hold the view that the companies in their ownrespective
country should orient themselves toward, or adopt, particular human
resourcepractices of the other two countries in forthcoming years.
The results concerning thefuture strongly resemble those relating
to the past. Once again American HRM is rated asthe strongest
source of inspiration, more so by the Japanese than the Germans.The
Japanese HRM system is again ranked between American and German
HRM. TheGerman HRM is hardly seen as a source for orientation
either by the American orJapanese managers. Furthermore, as with
the past-related data in the left half of Table 2,the American
managers are likely to orient themselves more towards Japan
thanGermany; the Japanese managers more towards the USA than
towards Germany and theGermans more towards the USA than towards
Japan.
Comparing the data from both halves of Table 2, Japanese HRM is
notably ratedmore negatively by both American and German HR experts
regarding the future thanregarding the 1980s. It is, therefore,
evident that Japanese HRM has lost some of itsappeal. In contrast,
American HRM is rated better (by the Japanese), and less
favourably
Pudelko: Cross-national learning from best practice 2053
-
Table
2A
do
pti
on
of
hu
ma
nre
sou
rce
pra
ctic
esfr
om
the
oth
erH
RM
syst
ems
since
the1980s
inthefuture
years
Adoptionfrom
-to
USA
JPN
GER
USA
JPN
GER
USA
3.03
3.0
6*
3.34
2.80
26
.89
**
*3.71
13
3.0
2‡
‡‡
1.3
01
4.8
8‡
‡‡
5.8
0uu
71
.33
‡‡
‡1
1.5
0‡
‡‡
JPN
4.14
0.5
73.98
4.57
2.7
3*
4.25
17
.83
‡‡
‡3
.44u
2.3
73
.39
‡
GER
5.07
0.2
25.14
4.93
7.3
3*
**
4.42
0.6
31
7.5
2uuu
The
smal
ler
(hig
her
)th
ear
ithm
etic
mea
n(i
nbold
),th
em
ore
(les
s)th
ere
sponden
tsof
one
countr
ybel
ieve
that
anori
enta
tion
tow
ards
or
adopti
on
of
HR
pra
ctic
esfr
om
the
resp
ecti
ve
HR
Msy
stem
has
taken
pla
cein
the
pas
t(l
eft
hal
f)or
wil
lta
ke
pla
cein
the
futu
re(r
ight
hal
f).
***
,**
and
*sh
ow
stat
isti
cal
signifi
cance
for
row
-wis
eeq
ual
ity
(adopti
on
to)
atth
ele
vel
sof
1per
cent,
5per
cent
and
10
per
cent,
resp
ecti
vel
y.
For
exam
ple
3.03
isst
atis
tica
lly
dif
fere
nt
from
3.34
atth
ele
vel
of
10
per
cent
acco
rdin
gto
thex
2st
atis
tic
of
3.0
6fr
om
the
Wal
dte
st.
‡‡‡,
‡‡
and
‡sh
ow
stat
isti
cal
signifi
cance
for
row
-wis
eeq
ual
ity
(adopti
on
from
)at
the
level
sof
1per
cent,
5per
cent
and
10
per
cent,
resp
ecti
vel
y.
For
exam
ple
4.14
isst
atis
tica
lly
dif
fere
nt
from
5.07
atth
ele
vel
of
1per
cent
acco
rdin
gto
thex
2st
atis
tic
of
17.8
3fr
om
the
Wal
dte
st.
uuu,uu
and
ush
ow
stat
isti
cal
signifi
cance
for
mai
nco
lum
n-w
ise
equal
ity
(pas
tan
dfu
ture
)at
the
level
sof
1per
cent,
5per
cent
and
10
per
cent,
resp
ecti
vel
y.
For
exam
ple
4.14
is
stat
isti
call
ydif
fere
nt
from
4.57
atth
ele
vel
of
10
per
cent
acco
rdin
gto
thex
2st
atis
tic
of
3.4
4fr
om
the
Wal
dte
st.
2054 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
-
(by the Germans). Only German HRM has improved its reputation
compared with thepast, albeit from a low base-point. This can be
seen particularly in the ratings of theJapanese HR managers.
However, since the Japanese also want to increase theirorientation
towards the American model, this may be interpreted as indicative
of risingdiscontent with their own system.
These results reveal that the American HRM-model in particular
can be regarded asa role model. In contrast, Japanese HRM is of
lesser importance and appears to beheading into decline. Finally,
German HRM is of the least significance as a source
ofinspiration.
What is to be learned from the HRM of the other countries?
The HR managers contacted were also asked by means of open-ended
questions toindicate concrete attributes of the other two
HRM-systems, which they considered worthadopting in their own
system, again for the two time periods (since the 1980s and
inforthcoming years).
Quantitative evaluation Table 3 provides an overview of the
number of items raisedconcerning attributes of the various
HRM-models considered to be worth adopting.
The results show that from the total number of 495 items
mentioned by the HR experts,353 apply to the USA, 131 to Japan and
only 11 to Germany. This clearly underlinesthe patterns found
earlier: American HRM is perceived as most attractive, with
JapaneseHRM far less appealing, and German HRM the least desirable
by a wide margin.
With one exception, more items were named as worth adopting
since the 1980s thanin previous years. This may, however, reflect
the order of the questions in thequestionnaire (positioning
effect). An exception is the Japanese respondents who listedjust
one item relating to their past orientation towards German HRM but
ten items forthe future. This can be interpreted as a further
indication of the increasing insecurityand dissatisfaction with
their own (Japanese) HRM. At the same time, it is noteworthythe
extent to which the number of items decrease that refer to the
orientation towardsJapanese HRM in the future, as compared to those
for the past. This points once againto the strong decline in
attractiveness of Japanese HRM among American and GermanHR
experts.
Qualitative evaluation In this subsection, concrete attributes
of the other two countries’models, that HR managers consider worth
adopting in their own system, are described insome detail. In order
to systematize the multitude of attributes given, they are
classifiedin one of the ten categories depicted in Tables 4 and 5.
Table 4 lists the attributes theJapanese and German HR managers
consider worth adopting from the American HRMmodel.6
Regarding adoption of aspects of the American HRM by Japanese
companies, the lefthalf of Table 4 indicates that for the Japanese
HR managers those attributes are mostimportant that have been
listed here under the category employee assessment andpromotion
criteria. This is with regard to both the past and future. It is
notable that 55 of57 items classified under this category point in
the same direction: ‘performanceorientation’ (30), ‘result and
objective orientation’ (18) and conversely ‘turning awayfrom the
seniority principle’ (7). It is this performance-, result- and
objective-orientationthat reflects the most-commonly mentioned
attributes of American HRM from whichJapanese HR managers believe
it is worthwhile learning. This move away from the
Pudelko: Cross-national learning from best practice 2055
-
Table
3N
um
ber
of
item
sco
nsi
der
edw
ort
ha
do
pti
ng
fro
mth
eo
ther
HR
M-s
yste
ms
to-f
rom
US
AJP
NG
ER
Su
m
USA
To
tal
16
9
To
tal
18
4
To
tal
35
3
Pas
t
10
2
Fu
ture
67
Pas
t
10
4
Fu
ture
80
Pas
t
20
6
Fu
ture
14
7
JPN
To
tal
21
To
tal
11
0
To
tal
13
1
Pas
t
17
Fu
ture
4
Pas
t
87
Fu
ture
23
Pas
t
10
4
Fu
ture
27
GER
To
tal
0
To
tal
11
To
tal
11
Pas
t
0
Fu
ture
0
Pas
t
1
Fu
ture
10
Pas
t
1
Fu
ture
10
Sum
To
tal
21
To
tal
18
0
To
tal
29
4
49
5
Pas
t
17
Fu
ture
4
Pas
t
10
3
Fu
ture
77
Pas
t
19
1
Fu
ture
10
3
(Abso
lute
num
ber
san
dper
centa
ges
)
2056 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
-
Table
4A
do
pti
on
fro
mA
mer
ica
nH
RM
JPN
GE
R
Att
rib
ute
s(o
rder
edb
yH
RM
cate
go
ries
)P
ast
Fu
ture
To
tal
Pa
stF
utu
reT
ota
lS
um
of
tota
ls
Strategies
715
22
21
28
49
71
Du
eto
glo
bal
izat
ion
and
lib
eral
izat
ion
ado
pti
on
of
the
Am
eric
anm
anag
emen
tis
un
avo
idab
le
18
90
00
9
Str
on
ger
con
sid
erat
ion
of
mar
ket
ou
tco
mes
12
31
01
4
Mer
ger
s,ac
qu
isit
ion
san
dse
llin
go
fco
mp
any
div
isio
ns
12
30
00
3
Pro
fit
ori
enta
tio
nan
dsh
areh
old
erv
alu
e2
02
91
10
12
Fle
xib
ilit
y,
pro
mp
tnes
san
dm
ob
ilit
y0
00
11
61
71
7
Glo
bal
izat
ion
03
31
45
8
Cu
sto
mer
and
serv
ice
ori
enta
tio
n0
00
40
44
Man
agem
ent
and
stra
teg
yo
rien
tati
on
10
13
14
5
Oth
ers
10
12
68
9
Structures
21
35
712
15
Fla
t,d
ecen
tral
ized
org
aniz
atio
nal
stru
ctu
res
21
35
61
11
4
Oth
ers
00
00
11
1
Processes
40
48
210
14
Res
tru
ctu
rin
g2
02
00
02
Pro
ject
,p
roce
ssan
dch
ang
em
anag
emen
t1
01
31
45
To
tal
qu
alit
ym
anag
emen
t1
01
30
34
Oth
ers
00
02
13
3
Recruitmentandrelease
ofpersonnel
13
10
23
40
427
Tu
rnin
gaw
ayfr
om
life
lon
gem
plo
ym
ent
resp
ecti
vel
y
flex
ibil
ity
of
recr
uit
men
t,re
leas
eo
fp
erso
nn
el
and
chan
ge
of
emp
loy
er
87
15
00
01
5
Rec
ruit
men
to
fex
per
ien
ced
spec
iali
sts
for
spec
ifica
lly
adv
erti
sed
po
siti
on
s
23
51
01
6
Man
ager
sar
eex
tern
ally
recr
uit
edan
dca
n
also
be
laid
off
agai
nm
ore
easi
ly
30
32
02
5
Pudelko: Cross-national learning from best practice 2057
-
Table
4(C
on
tin
ued
)
JPN
GE
R
Att
rib
ute
s(o
rder
edb
yH
RM
cate
go
ries
)P
ast
Fu
ture
To
tal
Pa
stF
utu
reT
ota
lS
um
of
tota
ls
Oth
ers
00
01
01
1
Traininganddevelopment
43
76
17
14
Incr
ease
dfo
rmat
ion
of
spec
iali
sts
and
turn
ing
away
fro
mth
efo
rmat
ion
of
gen
eral
ists
43
70
00
7
Job
rota
tio
n0
00
40
44
Oth
ers
00
02
13
3
Employee
assessm
entandpromotion
criteria
36
21
57
13
619
76
Per
form
ance
ori
enta
tio
n1
51
53
07
31
04
0
Res
ult
and
ob
ject
ive
ori
enta
tio
n1
44
18
01
11
9
Tu
rnin
gaw
ayfr
om
the
sen
iori
typ
rin
cip
le6
17
00
07
Dev
elo
pm
ent
of
hu
man
reso
urc
es0
00
51
66
Oth
ers
11
21
12
4
Employee
incentives
23
12
35
21
18
39
74
Per
form
ance
and
resu
lto
rien
ted
rem
un
erat
ion
47
11
98
17
28
Po
siti
on
bas
edre
mu
ner
atio
n7
31
00
00
10
Rem
un
erat
ion
on
ann
ual
inst
ead
of
mo
nth
lyb
asis
81
90
00
9
Mo
rein
div
idu
alit
y,
flex
ibil
ity
and
var
iab
ilit
yco
nce
rnin
g
rem
un
erat
ion
31
46
61
21
6
Oth
ers
10
16
41
01
1
Communication
11
26
511
13
Effi
cien
cyo
rien
ted
rela
tio
ns
11
20
00
2
Op
enan
dre
lax
edco
mm
un
icat
ion
00
03
25
5
Oth
ers
00
03
36
6
Decisionmaking
10
212
23
517
Au
ton
om
y7
07
00
07
Pro
mp
tnes
san
dst
rin
gen
cy0
11
22
45
Oth
ers
31
40
11
5
2058 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
-
Table
4(C
on
tin
ued
)
JPN
GE
R
Att
rib
ute
s(o
rder
edb
yH
RM
cate
go
ries
)P
ast
Fu
ture
To
tal
Pa
stF
utu
reT
ota
lS
um
of
tota
ls
Superior-subordinate
relationship
22
418
10
28
32
Lea
der
ship
11
20
00
2
Par
tici
pat
ive
lead
ersh
ipan
dte
amw
ork
00
06
71
31
3
Man
agem
ent
by
ob
ject
ives
10
19
09
10
Oth
ers
01
13
36
7
Across
allcategories
102
67
169
104
80
184
353
Pudelko: Cross-national learning from best practice 2059
-
Table
5A
do
pti
on
fro
mJa
pa
nes
eH
RM
Att
rib
ute
s(o
rder
edb
yH
RM
cate
go
ries
)U
SA
GE
R
Pa
stF
utu
reT
ota
lP
ast
Fu
ture
To
tal
Su
mo
fto
tals
Strategies
10
14
04
5S
trat
egic
pla
nn
ing
10
10
00
1
Lea
nm
anag
emen
t0
00
20
22
Oth
ers
00
02
02
2
Structures
20
21
01
3O
rgan
izat
ion
ald
evel
op
men
t2
02
00
02
Oth
ers
00
01
01
1
Processes
61
749
453
60
Qu
alit
yo
rien
tati
on
and
tota
lq
ual
ity
man
agem
ent
30
31
21
13
16
Qu
alit
yci
rcle
s0
00
40
44
Kai
zen
resp
ecti
vel
yco
nti
nu
ou
sim
pro
vem
ents
11
21
92
21
23
Kan
ban
resp
ecti
vel
yju
st-i
n-t
ime-
pro
du
ctio
n0
00
40
44
Co
stca
lcu
lati
on
00
08
08
8
Oth
ers
20
22
13
5
Recruitmentandrelease
ofpersonnel
00
01
01
1Jo
bse
curi
ty0
00
10
01
Traininganddevelopment
00
03
14
4T
rain
ing
of
soci
ally
com
pet
ent
gen
eral
ists
00
03
03
3
Oth
ers
00
00
11
1
Employee
assessm
entandpromotioncriteria
10
12
02
3G
rou
po
rien
tati
on
10
11
01
2
Oth
ers
00
01
01
1
Employee
incentives
12
36
915
18
Lo
yal
tyto
war
ds
and
iden
tifi
cati
on
wit
hth
eco
mp
any
02
21
23
5
Val
ue
ori
enta
tio
n1
01
14
56
Co
rpo
rate
cult
ure
00
04
37
7
2060 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
-
Table
5(C
on
tin
ued
)
Att
rib
ute
s(o
rder
edb
yH
RM
cate
go
ries
)U
SA
GE
R
Pa
stF
utu
reT
ota
lP
ast
Fu
ture
To
tal
Su
mo
fto
tals
Communication
00
00
00
0Decisionmaking
30
33
47
10
Par
tici
pat
ive
and
bo
tto
m-u
pd
ecis
ion
mak
ing
30
32
46
9
Co
nsi
der
atio
no
fso
ftfa
cts
00
01
01
1
Superior-subordinate
relationship
31
418
523
27
Tea
mo
rien
tati
on
31
41
85
23
27
Across
allcategories
17
421
87
23
110
131
Pudelko: Cross-national learning from best practice 2061
-
traditional seniority principle employed by Japanese companies
suggests a major reversalin the priorities of Japanese HRM.
Along with the seniority principle, lifelong employment
(category: recruitment andrelease of personnel) and the formation
of generalists (category: training anddevelopment) are regarded as
key elements of traditional Japanese HRM. The itemsraised suggest
that these two fundamental principles are also considerably on the
wane.
The movement away from these three fundamental components of the
Japanese HRM-model illustrates the fact that traditional Japanese
HRM is currently being seriouslyquestioned by Japanese HR managers
themselves. This is reinforced by the categories nextmentioned most
often, namely employee incentives (referring to the past) and
strategies(referring to the future). With regards to employee
incentives (in total: 35), the answersgiven further indicate a
movement towards the performance-, objective- and
result-orientation described above. Regarding strategies (in total:
22), the rather comprehensivestatement ‘due to globalization and
liberalization, orientation toward the Americanmanagement is
unavoidable’ (9) was given just once for the past but eight times
for thefuture. This increase is a further indication of a
reorientation of Japanese management.
The right half of Table 4 shows the opinions of German HR
experts regardingadoption of aspects of American HRM by German
companies. From the ten categories,strategies (in total: 49)
represent most of the items raised by German HR managerswithin this
category. ‘Profit orientation and shareholder value’ (9) is for the
past the mostimportant attribute. As for the future, however, this
attribute was just stated once, whichsuggests that this ‘lesson’
from the USA has largely been learned. In contrast,
‘flexibility,promptness and mobility’ was mentioned just once
concerning the past, but 16 times witha view to the future; here,
an apparent shift in priorities can be observed.
Following strategies, German HR managers ranked attributes
classified underemployee incentives as the second most important
concerning American practices (intotal: 39). Similar to the ranking
of attributes outlined above by the Japanese, the‘performance and
result oriented remuneration’ (17) is the most frequently named
itemfor the Germans as well. This is followed by the attribute
‘more individuality, flexibilityand variability concerning
remuneration’ (12).
As for the third most frequently mentioned category,
superior-subordinate-relationship (in total: 28), in particular
‘participative leadership and team work’(13) should be noted.
Concerning employee assessment and promotion criteria ofAmerican
companies (in total: 19), the ‘performance orientation’ (10) has
been mentionedmost frequently. As for the structures (in total:
12), ‘flat, decentralized organizationalstructures’ (11) are
especially evident.
As for the adoption from Japanese HRM, Table 5 summarizes the
results.Concerning the adoption of aspects of the Japanese HRM by
American companies,
two issues are to be emphasized (again): first, the low number
of attributes of JapaneseHRM that the American HR experts consider
worth adopting (in total: 21) and, second,the large decrease in
items referring to the future (4) as opposed to the past (17). The
mostfrequently addressed categories are processes (in total: 7),
including ‘quality orientationand total quality management’ (3) and
‘kaizen respectively continuous improvement’ (2)as well as
superior-subordinate-relationship (in total: 4) which consisted
only of ‘teamorientation’ (4).
Regarding the adoption of aspects of the Japanese HRM by German
companies, manymore items have been given (in total: 110) than was
the case for the orientation ofAmerican firms toward Japanese ones.
As with the Americans, the German respondentsare looking far less
to the future (23 items) than to the past (87). Processes (in
total: 53)account for almost half of all items raised from the ten
categories. However, there is
2062 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
-
a striking decrease in this category with regard to the future
(concerning the past: 49;concerning the future: 4).
‘Kaizen/continuous improvements’, for example, drops as anattribute
worth adopting from 19 to 2 and ‘quality orientation and total
qualitymanagement’ falls from 12 to 1.
Superior-subordinate relationship (in total: 23) is for the
German HR managers(as with the American ones) the category for
which items have been cited second mostoften, wholly comprising
‘group or teamwork’ (23). This attribute was also highlightedby the
Americans. However, its decrease in importance (concerning the
past: 18;concerning the future: (5) should not be ignored. The
category that follows in importanceis employee incentives (in
total: 15). Here, ‘corporate culture’ (7), ‘value orientation’(5)
and ‘loyalty towards and identification with the company’ (3) are
prominent. Dealingnext with the decision making category (in total:
7), the attribute ‘participative andbottom-up decision making’ (6)
dominates, as it does with the American HR managers.
The fact that more than half of all items raised by the German
HR managersconcerning Japanese practices address the processes
(e.g. kaizen, total qualitymanagement, quality circles) shows their
high level of importance. This is corroboratedby the aforementioned
opinions from the American HR experts (see also Itagaki, 2002).On
the other hand, the significant decrease of 49 items concerning the
past to only 4referring to the future suggests that here too
potential stimuli might have already beeninternalized, and will
consequently play a less influential role in the future.
Nevertheless,it is worth noting that the advantages of the American
model are more associated withstrategies (by Germans and Japanese),
whereas in contrast those of the Japanese modelare more allied with
processes (by Germans and Americans). Apparently, Americans
areregarded as being good at making major decisions (strategies),
whereas the Japanesestrengths are believed to lie in ‘fine-tuning’
activities (processes).
Several explanations for the substantial loss in significance of
some key attributes ofJapanese HRM (kaizen, total quality
management, quality circles, teamwork) can besuggested. It is
possible that these attributes have already become part of American
andGerman HRM in the last few years, and will therefore be less
significant in the future assources of inspiration. There is also
the possibility that these attributes are losing theirimportance in
comparison to other ones due to a changing competitive
environment.Fundamental changes such as globalization might, for
instance, have triggered a shift inemphasis from incremental
improvements (processes), which are regarded as a
particularstrength of Japanese management, to more comprehensive
measures (strategies), whichare perceived as a strong point of
American management. Finally, the loss of confidencein the Japanese
management model in general, and the HRM model in particular,
mayhave negatively influenced views on even those aspects of
Japanese HRM that might stillserve as worthwhile sources of
inspiration.
As for adoption of aspects of German HRM, so few items were
mentioned that no extratable is included here. The low number of
responses once more underlines the small(or non-existent) degree to
which German HRM can be considered as a role model forothers.
These results indicate the perceived strengths of other HRM
models and implyweaknesses perceived by HRM managers regarding
their own systems. American HRmanagers demonstrated that they do
not see in either Japanese or in German HRMimportant sources for
inspiration. A change in American HRM triggered by inspirationsfrom
practices in these two countries cannot therefore be expected.
In view of the considerable literature on Japanese management
written in the US, onemight have expected, at least with regard to
the past, evidence of a more pronouncedinfluence of Japanese HRM on
American firms (e.g. team orientation, participative
Pudelko: Cross-national learning from best practice 2063
-
decision-making). Possibly the stimulus of Japanese management
achievements wasmore evident in the area of production methods than
HRM.
Answers provided by the Japanese HR experts, on the other hand,
indicate that theyhave substantial doubts about the effectiveness
of their own model. A clear orientationtowards Western (or more
specifically American) patterns can be discerned in the
itemsmentioned by the Japanese respondents which, taken together,
signify a desired movetowards greater flexibility and
individualization in HRM practices (see also Watanabe,2003). In
view of the features of traditional HRM, as underpinned by Japanese
culture,which are often described as collectivist (see, for
example, Abegglen, 1958; Dore, 2002;Hofstede, 2001), this change
implies a rather fundamental paradigm shift.
The German HR experts also listed a large number of items worth
emulating, bothAmerican and Japanese. This is especially
interesting, as American and Japanese HRMpractices can be described
as, in many ways, opposite to each other (Pudelko,
2000).Apparently, German HR managers seem to be rather open to
influences from differentdirections. The attributes of the Japanese
HRM model considered worth learning from,however, were mentioned in
particular with regard to the past. Concerning orientationtowards
American practices, a higher degree of flexibility, individuality,
promptness andmobility, as well as performance and result
orientation is favoured. Compared with theaspects that Japanese HR
managers cite as worth adopting, however, the envisagedchanges seem
far less fundamental. This clearly distinguishes the situation in
Germanyfrom that in Japan. Finally, what was clear again was the
almost total insignificance ofGerman HRM as a source of inspiration
for Japanese and, in particular, American HRmanagers.
Why is it not worthwhile learning from the HRM of the other
countries?
The findings reported demonstrate that the degree to which the
three HRM-systems areregarded as role models differs substantially.
Accordingly, reasons for non-orientationtowards other systems merit
examination. Three possibilities suggest themselves: theother
models are simply unknown; the other models are not regarded as
good or worthyenough; and the cultural, social, institutional and
other circumstances are just toodifferent. Table 6 indicates which
of these three answers the HR managers considered tobe most
relevant, again since the 1980s and for future years.7
The vast majority of Japanese and Germans who believe that they
have not or will notorient themselves towards American HRM, explain
this by the different circumstancesthat exist there. Also with
regard to Japanese HRM, the majority of the American andGerman HR
managers perceive the unique circumstances that exist in Japan as
the mainreason for non-orientation towards the Japanese HRM system.
Regarding reasons for anon-orientation towards Japanese HRM in
future years, an interesting shift can beobserved. Germans and
Americans agree that it will be substantially less worthwhile
tolearn from Japanese HRM in the future than was the case in the
past.
The answers for non-orientation towards German HRM clearly
deviate whencompared with data concerning non-orientation towards
American and Japanese HRM.What is notable here is how great the
lack of information is regarding HRM in theworld’s third largest
economy. This applies both to the Americans and, even more so,
tothe Japanese, both for previous years and in forecasts for the
future. This finding is ofimportance since German HRM in particular
is so little regarded as a role model. Theresults demonstrate that
the reason for this is by no means that it is not regarded as
goodenough, but principally because it is simply unknown.
2064 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
-
Table
6R
easo
ns
for
the
no
n-o
rien
tati
on
tow
ard
the
oth
erH
RM
-sys
tem
s
No
n-o
rien
tati
on
tow
ard
sU
SA
No
n-o
rien
tati
on
tow
ard
sJa
pa
nN
on
-ori
enta
tio
nto
wa
rds
Ger
ma
ny
Pa
stF
utu
reP
ast
Fu
ture
Pa
stF
utu
re
Rea
son
sJP
NG
ER
JPN
GE
RU
SA
GE
RU
SA
GE
RU
SA
JPN
US
AJP
N
Un
kn
ow
n0
15
12
10
22
71
12
65
61
74
6
0%
27
%9
%4
%2
9%
31
%1
6%
14
%5
2%
88
%3
9%
84
%
No
tw
ort
h1
20
11
25
41
03
04
1
7%
4%
0%
22
%6
6%
77
%9
%1
3%
6%
0%
9%
2%
14
39
10
37
23
45
34
58
21
82
38
Dif
fere
nt
ciru
cum
stan
ces
93
%7
0%
91
%7
4%
66
%6
3%
76
%7
3%
42
%1
3%
52
%1
5%
(Abso
lute
num
ber
san
dper
centa
ges
)
Pudelko: Cross-national learning from best practice 2065
-
Future development
Finally, the participants’ opinion on the likely future
development of their respectiveHRM model was addressed in the
questionnaire. Table 7 reports the results.
The responses paint a largely homogeneous picture across the
three countries. Only afew of the survey participants believe that
convergence towards a common model willoccur. Indeed, more of the
HR experts foresee that human resource practices will alwaysremain
very different. Finally, the vast majority of American, Japanese
and Germanrespondents believe that human resource practices will
become in some ways similar, butwithout converging towards a common
model.
It is of interest to see in which direction, if any, the
convergence tendencies haveoccurred. A summary of the relevant
results is given in Table 8.
It is notable how similar the results are from the three
countries. German HR practicesare rarely viewed as the model to
which the various systems will converge. The same canbe said of
Japanese HRM. More common is a perceived convergence towards
AmericanHR practices. By far the largest preference is, however,
for a combination of the threecountries’ models.
Evaluation
Among the key findings of this survey are that a majority of
American, Japaneseand German HR managers foresee a mutual (partial)
convergence in the HRMsystems (see Table 7); they expect this
convergence will be towards a combination model(see Table 8); and
they classify their own HRM in such a way that the German system
islocated ‘in the middle’ or seen as a kind of combination of the
American and the Japanesemodels (see Figure 1/Table 1). It seems,
however, that the HR managers from the three
Table 7 Future developments of the HRM
USA JPN GER
Will always remain very different 8 4 21
16% 6% 19%
Will become in some ways similar, without
converging on an essentially common model
38 59 86
75% 87% 80%
Convergence on an essentially common model 5 5 1
10% 7% 1%
(Absolute numbers and percentages)
Table 8 Direction of the supposed convergence tendencies
USA JPN GER
American 7 14 24
human resource practices 16% 22% 25%
Japanese 0 0 3
human resource practices 0% 0% 3%
German 0 0 2
human resource practices 0% 0% 2%
36 50 70
Combination of the different practices 84% 78% 70%
(Absolute numbers and percentages)
2066 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
-
countries do not associate this combined model with the German
one, even though it isclosest to the combination model because of
Germany’s ‘middle position’. For Americanand Japanese HR
specialists, this may well be explained by their lack of knowledge
of theGerman HRM-system (see Table 6), although even German HR
managers do not seem tosee this connection.
When one considers that Germany has the third largest economy in
the world – afterthe USA and Japan – and that it is considered to
be the most prominent example of asocial market economy in
continental Europe, the lack of knowledge about its HRMmodel merits
some reflection. Acknowledging the problems connected with
theconstruction of typologies (for a summary of this critique see
Kitay and Marchington,1996), the findings lend some support to
conceptualizing the three HRM models in termsof a continuum, with
the USA at one pole (‘short-term performance efficiency based
onflexible market structures and profit orientation’); Japan at the
opposite pole (‘long-termbehavioural effectiveness based on
cooperative clan structures and growth orientation’)and Germany in
many ways in the middle. This in itself renders the German model
lessopen to clear-cut characterization and stereotypical
consideration than the morepolarized American and Japanese models
(see also Warner and Campbell, 1993).Moreover, there are few
detailed studies of German management, notwithstanding thoseby
Lawrence (1980, 1994), Lane (1989), Albert (1991), Conrad and
Pieper (1990),Glouchevitch (1992), Randlesome (1994), Wever (1995),
Ebster-Grosz and Pugh (1996),Turner (1998), Thomas and Waring
(1999) and Meyer-Larsen (2000), and it is amodel that is difficult
for outsiders to categorize. Terms such as ‘American Dream’
or‘Japan Inc.’ express, with limitations, a bundle of concepts,
conceptions and emotions,which describe an important part of
American and Japanese reality. It is, however,telling, that a
comparable and globally-known term does not exist for Germany(Bloom
et al., 1994). A system depicted as a ‘compromise formula’, and
which isdifficult to grasp, is less attractive for managers as a
role model in the context of learningfrom best practice.
The depiction of German HRM as closest to the combination model
requiresqualification. First, the data suggest that, as with Japan,
the German HRM model tooneeds to move more towards increased
flexibility and individualization (see alsoBrewster and Hegewisch,
1994; Streeck, 2001). Second, the German model cannot
besufficiently described as located ‘in between’ the other two
systems. For example, in thecontext of co-determination, it is
subject to a high degree of labour laws, regulations,contractual
agreements with the unions, and participation rights in the context
of workscouncils. Thus, it offers limited managerial discretion
(see also Pieper, 1990; Lawrence,1994; Brewster and Holt Larsen,
1993; Begin, 1997; Wächter and Muller-Camen, 2002).Third, Germany
was included in the analysis because it stands for a specific form
ofcapitalism, usually described as social-market economy.
Nevertheless, there are alsoother continental European countries
that represent this model and might serve as evenbetter potential
sources of inspiration. Finally, although survey participants
expect thatHRM practices ‘will become in some ways similar’, at the
same time they refuse to back‘convergence on an essentially common
model’. Accordingly, this paper is far fromsuggesting that German
HRM represents the ideal combination model from which
othercountries should learn.
Conclusions
The question that lies at the core of this exploratory paper is
whether cross-nationaladoption of best practices can assist HR
managers in improving the competitiveness of
Pudelko: Cross-national learning from best practice 2067
-
their own management model. It can be concluded from the
findings that HR-managersshould not let their efforts towards
learning from best practice be exclusively guided bythose systems
that can be easily categorized and comprehended. This conclusion
appearsto be of particular importance in the case of Japan, which
seems most concerned toachieve a new equilibrium between continuity
and change, as inspired by foreign models(see Ballon, 2005;
Pudelko, 2005).
The stark contrast with the American model might well serve as a
valuable source ofinspiration for Japanese HR managers in so far as
its particular strengths highlightthe specific weaknesses of the
Japanese system. It would seem to act as an indicator of
thedirection that Japanese HRM should take. However, the extent to
which this directionshould be pursued (determining the new
‘positioning’ of HRM in Japan) will be ratherdifficult to ascertain
from a model that lies in many ways at the opposite end of
thespectrum. Broadening the search for inspiration and including a
model that is moreintermediate or balanced and more
partnership-oriented such as the European one(see, for example,
Brewster, 1994, 1995) – of which Germany is taken here as anexample
– would seem advisable.
Learning from best practice may need to be reformulated as
essentially an inspirationprocess within the confines of what is
possible. How to put inspirations from foreignmanagement models
into practice can, however, only be answered together with
closeconsideration of the specific domestic context. Allowing for
pluralism seems in thiscross-national learning process more
appropriate than the search for the ‘one best way’.
The findings on cross-national learning from best practice allow
conclusions about theconvergence versus non-convergence debate. The
solution should not be searched in asimplistic ‘either – or’
approach, but in an ‘as well as’ manner, that is a synthesis of
thesetwo opposing forces. Hence, what might be expected for future
development is a partialconvergence in the sense of a rapprochement
of the different models without, however,assuming that the
different models will ever converge into one system. On a
moretheoretical level, an integrative model in cross-national
management studies is requiredwhich enables us to explain
convergence tendencies based on pressures to learn from
bestpractice, as well as the persistent influence of culture and
institutional context, resultingin continuity, plurality and
diversity of management practices. The tension betweenconvergence
and divergence should consequently be regarded as inherent in the
globaleconomy and cannot ultimately be resolved in favour of one or
the other.
Finally, it should be concluded that comparative (human
resource) managementresearch needs greater focus on the knowledge
of managers about foreign models, theirjudgements concerning other
models and how these are generated. As this study hasshown, it is
by no means sure that managers will always seek inspiration from
the mostsuitable model. Dominance effects (Smith and Meiksins,
1995) certainly play a large rolein the perceptions of managers,
but also researchers.
The study inevitably has limitations. It needs to be remembered
that the findings ofthis investigation are based on the perceptions
of HR-managers. While this should not beregarded as a shortcoming
in itself, after all it was the stated objective of this paper
toinvestigate them, these subjective perceptions concerning the
different HRM-models andtheir future developments should not be
confused with their objective measurements.More information on the
companies (industry, size, etc.) and the respondents(international
exposure, age, etc.) would have provided scope for more
differentiatedanalysis. Furthermore, since the gathered data should
not be understood as representativein the statistical sense of all
American, Japanese and German companies, prudence isnecessary when
interpreting the results. Quantitative information, ultimately,
oftenmakes it impossible to analyse certain findings in more depth.
The results on the future
2068 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
-
developments of the three HRM-models in particular, would merit
some moreinterpretation.
As an exploratory endeavour, which examined a topic with
relatively high levels ofcomplex interrelations, the results of
this study provide some further steps towardunderstanding how
cross-national learning from best practice in HRM can be pursuedand
what consequences this has for the closely interlinked
convergence–divergencedebate. A fundamental question that has not
been addressed in previous research andcertainly not conclusively
in this study is how the managers’ subjective perceptions ofother
management models (which are at the basis of each learning process
from bestpractice) actually develop. Specifically, how important is
actual knowledge aboutforeign-based models (versus, for example,
the awareness of some stereotypes) for theformation of such
perceptions? And to which degree are subjective perceptions
onvarious management models determined by the already mentioned
dominance effects(economic dominance, but also dominance of certain
languages transporting knowledge,information channels distributing
knowledge and educational systems interpretingknowledge)? What role
do MNCs play in instructing managers about managementpractices from
other countries? These questions are essential if we really want
tounderstand how ‘learning from best practice’ processes regarding
foreign managementmodels actually do occur within organizations and
therefore merit more research. Onlyon the basis of this knowledge
can useful advice be developed on how to improve‘learning from best
practice’ methods.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Professor Yoshitaka Okada and
Professor Michael T. Hannan,for their support during his research
at Sophia University, Tokyo and StanfordUniversity, Palo Alto. An
earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2004
AnnualMeeting of the Academy of Management.
Notes
1 It is held here that the term ‘divergence’ is in this context
a rather inappropriate antonym of
‘convergence’. To diverge means ‘to move apart’; however, most
authors of the so-called
‘divergence’ approach argue that national management models are
different and will remain
different due to cultural and other societal contextual factors,
without implying that those models
actually move apart; that is, become even more different.
Therefore, ‘non-convergence’ might be
here the more appropriate antonym to ‘convergence’. Closely
related, but not identical terms are
‘culture free’ versus ‘culture bound’ (Lammers and Hickson,
1979), ‘universalism’ versus
‘institutionalism’ (Smith and Meiksins, 1995) or ‘universalism’
versus ‘contingency’ (Delery
and Doty, 1996).2 An important exception to this is the rather
substantial body of literature on HRM in foreign
subsidiaries (e.g. Schlunze, 2002). The focus in this literature
is, however, more on what can be
adopted from one country to another within one multinational
company. Instead, here the
objective is to understand what can be adopted between HRM
practices of different countries. It
is appreciated that these two questions can overlap as both
kinds of adoption processes can
influence each other. The extent to which adoption processes
between different country models
are inspired by learning processes within multinational
corporations is a question that merits
more attention.3 In deviation from standard practice, no
specific standalone hypotheses will be formulated prior to
the result section. The exploratory character of the results in
the context of cross-national
learning from best practices in HRM does not call for the test
of specific hypotheses.
Furthermore, due to the just outlined broad array of topics
covered in the empirical section, a
Pudelko: Cross-national learning from best practice 2069
-
meaningful explanation of, and justification for, hypotheses
based on the relevant literature
would only unnecessarily inflate the body of the text.4 Names
and addresses were taken from the following sources: Fortune Guide
to the 500 Largest
US Corporations (without author, 1999a), Shukan Toyo Keizai
(without author, 1999b) (for the
names) and http://profile.yahoo.co.jp/ (for the addresses) as
well as Die Großen 500 (Schmacke
and Jaeckel, 1999). Where personal names were not available, the
letters were addressed ‘To the
Head of Human Resources’, ‘Jinjibucho Dono’ or ‘An den
Personalleiter’.5 These response rates seem to reflect the fact
that people in very senior positions were approached
(usually at a VP level) and that additionally the largest 500
companies of the USA, Japan and
Germany are often contacted for similar studies. Accordingly,
the survey does not claim to be
representative of all large companies in the USA, Japan and
Germany. It should be noted,
however, that the 232 companies included in this survey cover a
large variety of different service
and manufacturing industries in all three countries.
Furthermore, it should be observed that the
response rate for Germany is still above comparable postal
questionnaire research like the well
known Cranet-E-survey for Germany with 19 per cent (Hanel, 1996;
see also Schmitt and
Sadowski, 2003). The response rate for Japan is also above
similar prior surveys in Japan as
reported by Kato and Morishima (2003). It can, therefore, be
suggested that the data set provides
useful information on HRM in the USA, Japan and Germany.6 For
clarification: all cited statements about transferable attributes
of other HRM-models are put
in the text into quotation marks as they have been made by the
questioned HR managers
themselves and are not pre-formulated by the author. However,
for better intelligibility, similar
statements of the respondents have been summarized by the
author. In the text, the number of
identical statements is given in parenthesis. If not mentioned
otherwise, the number refers to the
total amount of items (that is with regard to both the past and
the future). The categories to which
the attributes are classified are in the text in italics.7 Table
6 includes only statements from those respondents who previously
were largely of the
opinion that no orientation towards the other two countries have
taken place or will take place.
Consequently, some of the numbers in the cells are comparatively
small. Where the cumulated
percentages do not add up exactly to 100 per cent, this is the
effect of rounding.
References
Abegglen, J.G. (1958) The Japanese Factory. Aspects of Its
Social Organization. Glencoe: The
Free Press.
Albert, M. (1991) Capitalisme contre Capitalisme. Paris:
Seuil.
Altmann, N, Köhler, C. and Meil, P. (eds) (1992) Technology and
Work in German Industry.
London: Routledge.
Ballon, R.J. (2002) ‘Human Resource Management and Japan’, Euro
Asia Journal of Management,
12: 5–20.
Ballon, R.J. (2005) ‘Organizational Survival’. In Haak, R. and
Pudelko, M. (eds) Japanese
Management in the Search for a New Balance Between Continuity
and Change. Houndmills,
NY: Palgrave.
Begin, J.P. (1997) Dynamic Human Resource Systems.
Cross-National Comparisons. Berlin: De
Gruyter.
Bloom, H., Calori, R. and de Wool, P. (1994) Euromanagement. A
New Style for the Global Market.
London: Kogan Page.
Brewster, C. (1994) ‘European HRM: Reflection of, or Challenge
to, the American Concept?’.
In Kirkbride, P. (ed.) Human Resource Management in Europe.
Perspectives for the 1990s.
London: Routledge.
Brewster, C. (1995) ‘Towards a ‘European’ Model of Human
Resource Management’, Journal of
International Business Studies, 1: 1–21.
Brewster, C. and Bournois, F. (1993) ‘A European Perspective on
Human Resource Management’.
In Hegewisch, A. and Brewster, C. (eds) European Developments in
Human Resource
Management. London: Kogan Page, pp. 33–54.
2070 The International Journal of Human Resource Management
-
Brewster, C. and Holt Larsen, H. (1993) ‘Human Resource
Management in Europe: Evidence from
Ten Countries’. In Hegewisch, A. and Brewster, C. (eds) European
Developments in Human
Resource Management. London: Kogan Page, pp. 126–48.
Brewster, C. and Hegewisch, A. (eds) (1994) Policy and Practice
in European Human Resource
Management. The Price Waterhouse Cranfield Survey. London:
Routledge.
Brislin, R.W. (1970) ‘Back-translation for Cross-Cultural
Research’, Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 1: 185–216.
Child, J. and Kieser, A. (1979) ‘Organization and Managerial
Roles in British and West German
Companies. An Examination of the Culture-Free Thesis’. In
Lammers, C.J. and Hickson, D.J.
(eds) Organizations Alike and Unlike. International and
Interinstitutional Studies in the
Sociology of Organizations. London: Routledge, pp. 251–71.
Conrad, P. and Pieper, R. (1990) ‘Human Resource Management in
the Federal Republic of
Germany’. In Pieper, R. (ed.) Human Resource Management: An
International Comparison.
Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 109–42.
Crawford, R.J. (1998) Reinterpreting the Japanese Economic
Miracle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Dalton, N. and Benson, J. (2002) ‘Innovation and Change in
Japanese Human Resource
Management’, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 3:
345–62.
Delery, J.E. and Doty, D.H. (1996) ‘Modes of Theorizing in
Strategic Human Resource
Management: Tests of Universalistic, Contingency and
Configurational Performance
Predictions’, Academy of Management Journal, 39: 802–35.
Dore, R. (2000) Stock Market Capitalism: Welfare Capitalism.
Japan and Germany versus the
Anglo-Saxons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dore, R. (2002) ‘Will Global Capitalism be Anglo-Saxon
Capitalism?’, Asian Business &
Management, 1: 9–18.
Ebster-Grosz, D. and Pugh, D.S. (1996) Anglo-German Business
Collaboration. Pitfalls and
Potentials. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.
Ferner, A. and Hyman, R. (1994) Industrial Relations in the New
Europe. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.
Frenkel, S. (1994) ‘Pattern of Workplace Relations in the Global
Corporation. Toward
Convergence?’. In Belanger, J., Edwards, P.K. and Haivenet, L.
(eds) Workplace Industrial
Relations and the Global Challenge. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, pp.
210–74.
Geringer, J.M., Frayne, C.A. and Milliman, J.F. (2002) ‘In
Search of “Best Practices”, International
Human Resource Management: Research Design and Methodology’,
Human Resource
Management, 1: 5–30.
Glouchevitch, P. (1992) Juggernaut. The German Way of Business:
Why it is Transforming Europe
– and the World. New York: Touchstone.
Guest, D.E. (1990) ‘Human Resource Management and the American
Dream’, Journal of
Management Studies, 27: 377–97.
Guest, D.E. (1994) ‘Organisational Psychology and Human Resource
Management. Towards a
European Approach’, European Work and Organisational
Psychologist, 3: 251–70.
Hanel, U. (1996). ‘The Cranfield Network on European Human
Resource Management:
Ergebnisbericht 1995’ University report, Dreseden.
Hannerz, U. (1996) Transnational Connections. London:
Routledge.
Hendry, C. (1991) ‘International Comparisons of Human Resource
Management. Putting the Firm
in the Frame’, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 2: 415–40.
Hickson, D.J. and Pugh, D.S. (1995) Management Worldwide: The
Impact of Societal Culture on
Organizations around the Globe. London: Penguin.
Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences. Comparing Values,
Behaviors, Institutions and
Organizations across Nations (2nd edn). London, Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Huselid, M.A. (1995) ‘The Effects of Strategic Human Resource
Management and Human
Resource Planning on Firm Performance’. In Miner, J.B. and
Crane, D.P. (eds) Advances in the
Practice, Theory, and Research of Strategic Human Resource
Management. New York:
HarperCollins, pp. 108–25.
Pudelko: Cross-national learning from best practice 2071
-
Ichniowski, C., Levine, D.I., Olson, C. and Strauss, G. (eds)
(2000) The American Workplace:
Skills, Compensation, and Employee Involvement. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Inohara, H. (1990) Human Resource Development in Japanese
Companies. Tokyo: Asian
Productivity Organization.
Itagaki, H. (2002) ‘Japanese Multnational Enterprises: The
Paradox of High Efficiency and Low
Profitability’, Asian Business and Management, 1: 101–24.
Jurgens, U. (1989) ‘The Transfer of Japanese Management Concepts
in the International
Automobile Industry’. In Wood, S. (ed.) The Transformation of
Work? London: Unwin Hyman.
Kalleberg, A.L., Knoke, D., Marsden, P.V. and Spaeth, J.L. (eds)
(1996) Organizations in America:
Analyzing Their Structures and Human Resource Practices. London:
Sage.
Kato, T. and Morishima, M. (2003) ‘The Nature, Scope and Effects
of Profit Sharing in Japan:
Evidence from New Survey Data’, International Journal of Human
Resource Management,
14: 942–55.
Kenney, M. and Florida, R. (1993) Beyond Mass Production: The
Japanese System and its Transfer
to the US. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kern, H. and Schumann, M. (1984) Das Ende der Arbeit