International human resources management: A comparison between the USA and China

Résumé du document

At times of globalization, organizations have to face a business environment which involves quick responses to change, such as new laws or social trends, in order not to expire (Gibson, 1989). It is evident that only people, and not machines, are able to anticipate these changes and set up an adequate strategy. Therefore, Human Resource Management is more than ever a key factor of success for organizations. Since the eighties, the role of Human Resource Management in the organization, has taken a considerable place in our society. However, different models of human resource management exist. Indeed, there are great differences in how countries organize employment and manage the employment relationship. National variations in employment system reflect wider disparities in national culture and institutions. That is why, according to Bratton (2004), "comparative Human Resource Management focuses on providing insights into the nature of, and reasons for, differences in HRM practices across national boundaries".

Extraits

[...] It is a high context which characterise China. Indeed, important information are conveyed beyond words spoken. The ability to read body language and between the lines is central. This difference has an impact on the Human Resource Management practices. To contextualise that in a business system, it could imply that managers in USA could be much more direct and forward going when dealing with their employees. On the contrary, Chinese managers need to use much more subtle ways to transfer their message to their employees. [...]

[...] One of these tiers comprises Malaysia, China and Thailand. They reflect the earlier experience of the older tigers, and are at present at the stage of being “caught in a sandwich trap of cheap labour competition from below and exclusion from higher value-added markets from above” (Deyo, 1995). According to Katz and Darbishire (1999), might be misleading to think in simple terms of convergence versus divergence, because in all of the countries employment systems were becoming more diverse”. This may suggest that the frameworks of state control are weakening in countries where they have been strong, example of China, allowing managers more freedom to innovate as has been the case in the USA. [...]

[...] Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations Software of the Mind, McGraw- Hill Professional J.R. Hollingsworth, The institutional embeddedness of American capitalism, London: Sage H. Katz and O. Darbishire, Converging Divergences: World Wide Changes in Employment Systems. New York: Cornell University Press C. Kerr et al., Industrialism and Industrial Man, Cambridge, Harvard University Press Kwon, Economic and Industrial Democracy 325- C. Leggett and C. Bamber, “Asia Pacific tiers of change”, Human Resource Management journal, special issue: HRM in the Asia Pacific Region R.L. Mathis and J. [...]

[...] Today, there are many successful welfare capitalist firms like IBM, Procter and Gamble. Unionised or not, American corporation had developed an employment system. This system provide secure jobs with predictable earnings, opportunities to increase earnings over the time spent in the company's employment, and social benefits in the absence of a developed welfare state. On legal and economic terms, the basic minimum rate per hour is $ 5.15 in The USA. In China, the notion of minimum wage is very recent. Indeed, the minimum wage formula set in 2004. [...]

[...] Finally, the last part will study convergence and divergence between both models. Description of United States and China HRM models The American HRM model can be defined as a managerial model. The American employment system reflects the ideologies of individualism and egalitarianism, often summarised as ‘getting ahead trough individual effort and enterprise'. According to Hollingsworth (1997), there is a significant feature of the American business system which is the weakness of ‘collective governance' in the private sector. For example, there were 22,974,655 private firms in the United States of America in 2002. [...]