American HRM model vs. European HRM model: Is the American model exportable to Europe?

Résumé du document

The success of the American firms and the rapid economic growth of the country seem to give significant emphasis on the US way of managing a business. Seen as part of management, the US strategic human resource management models are often considered to be the best practice and the key to success. However, US companies may experience difficulty while trying to settle abroad or foreign companies may face unexpected managerial difficulties when trying to implement the US models at home. Indeed Chris Brewster argues that the US human resource management (HRM) models are not exportable to Europe. In the first part we will explain why the US models can be difficult to export, what are the major differences between the organizational features and working habits in the US and in Europe; then we will try to find some evidence that in reality the US HRM model is exportable to Europe to some extent. As Chris Brewster argues, “generalization is inevitable in any internationally comparative work”. This essay is trying to show the differences between Europe and America but one must remain aware of the differences between organizations, within sectors or within a region or a country (Brewster, C (1995) first quarter, Towards a ‘European' model of human resource management, Journal of International Business Studies, pp1-21).

Extraits

[...] Another key point raised by Hofstede in his study is the issue of individualism/collectivism. This area measures the importance of the group compared to the individual. Hofstede found in his study that the Americans see themselves as individuals rather than members of a group. Thus they are more focused on personal achievement, personal development and appraisal than Europeans. For historical reasons, Americans see their country as a land of opportunity where anyone can success through hard work, it is the culture of “self-made-man” where entrepreneurship is valorised. [...]

[...] Even in low-unionised countries like France for instance where the union membership in the private sector in 2004 reached a mere compared to in the US ((2002) Nov 14th, ‘Survey of France' the Economist.com accessed 12 Nov 2004), trade unions are socially and politically powerful and have still a representative and a consultative role in collective bargaining as “joint managers”((2002) Nov 14th, ‘Survey of France' the Economist.com accessed 12 Nov 2004). This European vision is radically opposed to the American ‘management's right to manage' where the manager considers his power as legitimate. Overall, companies in Europe are more heavily constrained than their US counterparts, which enjoy considerable organizational autonomy. [...]

[...] (1984) Strategic Human Resource Management, New York: Wiley. -Gooderham, P.N., Nordhaug, O. (2003) ‘Transfer of US HRM to Europe' in International Management: Cross- Boundary Challenges, Blackwell Publishing. -Hoecklin, L. (1995) ‘Culture: what is it, what it is not and how it directs organizational behaviour' in Managing Cultural Differences: Strategies for Competitive Advantage, Addison-Wesley and the Economist Intelligence Unit. -Holden, L. (2001) ‘International Human Resource Management' in Beardwell, I., Holden, L. Human Resource Management: A Contemporary Approach, FT/ Prentice Hall (3rd Ed). [...]

[...] (1995), first quarter, ‘Towards a “European” model of human resource management', Journal of International Business Studies, pp 21). The second element considered to be different in Europe is what Chris Brewster calls the ‘patterns of ownership'. Even if European countries have widely engaged in a process of privatisation, there are still more state- owned companies or partially state-owned companies in Europe than in America especially in sector seen as public services. In countries like Italy for example even if companies are private, family ownership remains quite common limiting the role of shareholders. [...]

[...] (2004) in Europe' in Harzing, Ruysseveldt, International Human Resource Management Sage (2nd Ed) p175). Their scope of action in HRM is not constrained only by state legislation but also by European union legislation with the European Social Charter adopted by fifteen countries. Pieper emphases the legislative differences between America and Europe in particular the greater regulation of recruitment and dismissal, the formalisation of educational certification in Europe (Pieper 1990). For instance employees work longer hours on the other side of the Atlantic and short time contract work is not covered by legislation (Gooderham, P.N., Nordhaug, O. [...]