Integrating culturalism and institutionalismCan these distinct approaches be separated from each other? Not really, if we
look closely at them. Pacifists with a sense of humor used to say: Think what
would happen if a war were to break out and nobody went. Putting the issue
of pacifism or belligerence aside, this leads us to the following claim:
Collectively instituted traditions depend on legitimacy (people complying
because of ethical or utilitarian reasons), and they may evolve as a function of
this. Vice versa, people adjust their values and preferences to a collective frame-
work of norms. From a more academically rigorous perspective, Giddens (1986:
ch. 4) has made the point that individual behavior and social structure are
reciprocally constituted; it is impossible to imagine a normative custom, insti-
tuted to be more or less binding, as not being kept in place by acting
individuals. Likewise, individuals do not make behavioral choices without
regard for norms. Even if they make a habit of breaking them, this tends to be
for specific reasons, a reaction more or less typical of each individual in a spe-
cific situation. Indeed, this very challenging of existing norms and values may
in itself become institutionalized as an accepted tradition of dissidence.
The comparative researcher interested in theory complex enough to inte-
grate culturalist and institutionalist approaches into one conceptual body (like
the present author) will persevere with this argument. Such an approach will
then consider the construction of actors (people with values, preferences,
knowledge) and the construction of social and societal systems as reciprocally
related, to such an extent that they cannot be separated one from the other.
This is what constitutes ‘societal analysis’. Let us unravel it step by step and
continue, for the time being, along a more restricted and less sophisticated
track of reasoning. Let us decouple culturalist approaches (focused on the mind
of the individual as the place where differences reside) from institutionalist
approaches (focused on wider norms and standards supported or enforced by
institutional machineries). In this chapter we will focus mainly on institutional
approaches. In the next chapter, the culturalist approach will get the attention
it deserves. But do remember that when we are getting down to the nitty-gritty
of explaining why organizational and HRM practices differ in a specific
instance, it is fatuous to consider such approaches as competitors. Meaningful
differences require a combination of both.
Consider a simple example. Why is it that in all kinds of comparisons,
Germany always comes out (without presuming that this would be different
from Austria or Switzerland) as a society in which vocational education and
training is more than anywhere else provided in apprenticeship-type education
and training arrangements, linking training at work and at college in a gener-
ally ordained and sanctioned way? The institutionalists say that this is because
employers’ associations have always been singularly strong, and linked with
government, so that this fundamental pattern is enshrined as a public institu-
tion. Some of them will observe that a training focus on skills from the bottom
Cross-national Differences in Human Resources 119