of HRM first appeared akin to a scientific process, a number of writers have
since put it into context and characterised a so-called US-model of HRM
(Brewster, 1994; Sparrow and Hiltrop, 1997) or in some formulations, a ‘uni-
versalistic’ model (Brewster, 1999), since its proponents argue that it can be
applied anywhere in the world. It is important to spend some time reflecting
on what underpins the notion of American HRM as it allows other comple-
mentary positions to be refined; for example, HRM in Europe.
US versus EuropeAt the most general level, the limited evidence that we have on national cul-
tural differences points clearly to the uniqueness of the USA. The USA is,
according to researchers in this field, quite atypical of the world as a whole
(Hofstede, 1980; Lawrence, 1996; Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1997).
The US culture is indeed considered to be more individualistic and more
achievement-orientated than most other cultures. The American ideal of HRM
is underpinned by, on the one hand, a high degree of formalisation (process)
and, on the other hand, a strong sense of a managerial ‘right to manage’
(Jamieson, 1980, 1985). This is apparent in the effort invested in drawing up
clear sets of procedures, in formal management development programmes and
in the search for quantitative data (in the form of, for example, salary surveys,
employee satisfaction surveys or benchmarking of benefits with competitors).
Formalisation in the European context may look very different. As an example,
managers in France tend to be recruited from the grandes écoles, which train the
intellectual elite of that nation. Hence in the French context, there may be a
suspicion about the need for additional formal management development
programmes (Barsoux and Lawrence, 1997).^1
In his seminal work, D’Iribarne (1989) depicts the American understand-
ing of formalisation, drawing from observations of organisational life in a US
factory. In particular, he highlights the importance of contracts, which regulate
unambiguously the relationships between workers and management. The
study describes, for instance, the manner in which performance appraisals are
conducted. Managers insist on measurable aspects and ‘visible’ fairness,
D’Iribarne (1989: 138):
Une des manières d’assurer le caractère correct des évaluations
est de préciser soigneusement les objectifs donnés à chacun, et
à la lumière desquels il sera noté. Ces objectifs ‘doivent être défi-
nis en mettant les points sur les i’. Nos divers interlocuteurs ont
insistés sur le fait qu’ils devaient être ‘propres’,<<<<mesurables>>>>.
Ainsi chacun sera jugé sur une base aussi indiscutable et bien
connue d’avance que possible, et celui qui rempli son contrat
sera sûr d’être quitte.HRM in Europe 173