In Focus: Hungarian and Central Eastern European Characteristics of Human Resource Management - an International Comparative Survey

Zusammenfassung

---

The HR practices of the former state-socialist countries have gone through significant changes. The analysis of the developments, built on the Cranet (2004) survey, intends to describe the similarities and differences found between 6 countries of the Central Eastern European region and the total sample of 32 countries participating in the survey. The primary aim of the paper is to highlight the strands of international human resource management, investigating the main focuses, strong and weak elements of both CHRM and HRM. Moreover, it attempts to formulate suggestions on where and how to increase the explanatory power of the current models of CHRM, based on the experiences gained by this analysis.

Siehe den Gesamtinhalt dieses Dokumentes

Auszug

---

In Focus: Hungarian and Central Eastern European Characteristics of Human Resource Management - an International Comparative Survey

1. Introduction

In recent years the issue of managing people has gained more and more importance for organisations, strategy makers and trade unions in various national environments. The globalisation of business has resulted in the increasing recognition of the well-managed workforce and the development of the HR role from being an administrative or support function to one fulfilling strategic importance. The competitiveness of companies and even countries, or regions has increasingly been recognised to stem from the calibre of their people and people management strategies (Porter 1990; Pucik 1992).

2. Approaches, debates, recent models and findings in Comparative HRM

2.1. Three strands of International HRM and the debate on convergences and divergences

The research on HRM in an international context has been approached by a number of different disciplines (from international business and cross-cultural management, through HRM to comparative management and strategic management) and covers a widespectrum of issues, ranging from comparative studies of individual HR practices across the countries to sources of variance in HR strategies in MNC subsidiaries. Based on the review of twenty years of research on the management of human resources in comparative and international perspective literature, Clark et al. (1999) conclude that "a central issue concerns what is constant and what varies across nations".

In the same year (1999) De Cieri and Dowling proposed an identification of three broad strands within the field of International HRM literature:

* HRM in MNCs - focusing on the management of human resources in international companies;

* Cross-cultural management (CCM) - dealing with the impact of cultural differences on management practices;

* Comparative human resource management (CHRM) - comparing HRM systems and practices at both organisational and national level.

No matter how each strand stems from a different disciplinary area and has its own characteristics, there is at least one common feature in all three areas. Each concerns the debate around the tendency to convergence, as against continuing diversity of organisational forms, management and human resource management practices in varying national setting.

(1) The literature on HRM in MNCs had, for a long time, dealt almost exclusively with expatriate management, implying that managing international work assignment is the only way in which HRM changes in international firms (Harris/Brewster 1999). Later on the literature evolved to a broader, holistic and even strategic view of HRM in MNCs. The various research projects are strengthening one or the other side of the two lines of the debate on this field. The common argument of the first approach is that markets, technological and managerial forces compel MNCs to adopt common strategies and practices, fostering economic, organizational and employment homogenization across borders. MNCs are seen as being carriers of globalisation, spreading managerial knowledge and techniques internationally through the dissemination of 'best practice' (Martin/Beaumont 1998).

The institutional approach suggests an alternative stance. Hollingsworth and Boy er (1997) emphasizes that the massive institutional complexity that MNCs face acts as a counterweight to pressure for convergence.

Hall and Soskice (2001) developed a balanced view of the two distinctive lines. They argue that at the same time as globalization forces promote the standardisation of certain elements of management systems - including personnel issues - local culture and institutional arrangements manifest the resilience of capitalist variety.

(2) The objective of studies in the cross cultural management (CCM) approach is to explain differences in employee behaviour and attitudes as well as management practices using "culture" as an explanatory variable. According to this approach variations in practices are in line with different cultural contexts, which may cut across national boundaries. Although the "cultura...

Siehe den Gesamtinhalt dieses Dokumentes

---