Comparative Human Resource Management
As with international HRM the growth of interest in comparative HRM is linked
to the globalization of business. Of considerable interest to HR academics
and practitioners is the question of the extent to which an HR strategy that
works effectively in one country and culture can be transplanted to others.
Recent comparative research suggests that there are significant differences
between Asian, European and North American companies with regard to HR
strategies (Brewster, 2001; Kidd et al., 2001; Scullion, 2001). Drawing upon
Bean's (1985)^57 work on comparative industrial relations, comparative HRM is
defined here as a systematic method of investigation relating to two or more
countries that has analytical rather than descriptive implications. On this
basis, comparative HRM should involve activities that seek to explain the
patterns and variations encountered in cross-national HRM rather than being
simply a description of HRM institutions and HR practices in selected
countries. Simple description, what can be called the 'tourist approach', in
which 'the reader is presented with a diverse selection of exotic ports of call
and left to draw his own conclusion about their relevance to each other and to
the traveller himself [sic]' (Shalev, 1981, quoted by Bean, 1985, p. ii), lacks
academic rigour. The case for the study of comparative HRM has been made
by a number of HR scholars. In terms of critical research, comparative HRM is
relatively underdeveloped.
There is, of course, an intellectual challenge and intrinsic interest in
comparative studies. They may lead to a greater understanding of the
contingencies and processes that determine different, approaches to
managing people at work. The common assumption found in many
undergraduate textbooks is that 'best' HR practice has 'universal' application,
but an assumption is untenable since HRM phenomena reflect different
cultural milieu (Boxall, 1995). Comparative HRM studies can provide the basis
for reforms in a country's domestic public policy by offering 'lessons' from
offshore experience. Furthermore, they can promote a wider understanding
of, and foster new insights into, HRM, either by reducing what might appear to
be specific and distinctive national characteristics by providing evidence of