German machine-tools industries described earlier, as a case in point: the two
national industries have come to specialize in different types of machines, and
hence the organization and human resource patterns they have come to
acquire must be expected to differ more in the current environment than in
the more distant past.
How the division of labor between countries develops can only be
explained by reference to societal characteristics that are relatively stable, even
in the midst of change. This change triggers development of societal specificity,
rather than bringing about convergence between societies. That is also the clear
message which the approach offers to all those who think that European inte-
gration will reduce the differences between separate European countries. Such
a message suggests that societal analysis will continue to be relevant to any
exploration of the newly emerging sectoral, industrial and functional profiles
of different countries.
The approach even forces us to examine the possibility that societies will
grow increasingly different in their industrial and activity portfolio, because
the institutionalized constructions of their various systems already differed and
triggered specialization in the international division of labor. Therefore, insti-
tutional and cultural divergence is likely to be associated with growing speciali-
zation in the international division of labor. But to the extent that societies do
not specialize in different ways and firms try to achieve similar goals, it is more
a balance of convergence and divergence that would prevail, as explained
above; the international learning which takes place precludes direct one-to-one
transfer of practice. Local actors with specific mental repertoires and local insti-
tutions will always exert pressure in the selection, absorption and implemen-
tation of practices, in the direction of non-identical reproduction, which
means a balance of convergence and divergence.
A caution against taking new hype at face valueIn contrast to this scenario, there are always statements which claim that now
things will be changing, because we are getting: automation/microelectronics/
biotechnology/fifth generation computers/artificial intelligence/shareholder
value orientation/globally integrated enterprises (delete where inapplicable).
Therefore, what we knew about differences between countries previously does
not apply any more and is superseded by a new and more universal scheme of
things. We must not be fooled by such statements. We have seen an unending
flow of innovation, technical, managerial or other, and every time any partic-
ular instance of innovation could be examined empirically in a methodologi-
cally controlled comparison, guess what the result was! It could usually be
summarized as a variant on this theme: the innovation became, in the course
of its diffusion and application in different societies, internalized into the
working of existing institutional mechanisms and subjected to the impact of
Cross-national Differences in Human Resources 137