divergence or convergence- a cross-national comparison of personnel selectio

Divergence or Convergence: A Cross-National Comparison of Personnel Selection Practices 31

DIVERGENCE OR CONVERGENCE: A CROSS-NATIONAL COMPARISON OF PERSONNELSELECTION PRACTICES

Human Resource Management, Spring 2002, Vol. 41, No. 1, Pp. 3144 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This article published online in Wiley InterScience (www. interscience.wiley.com).DOI: 10.1002/hrm.10018

Y. Paul Huo, Heh Jason Huang, and Nancy K. Napier

Striking a balance between globalization and localization in human resource management (HRM)requires a better understanding of the cross-national differences in terms of both the status quoand the socially desirable HRM practices. With this purpose in mind, we examined the hiringpractices in ten different countries or regions using the Best International Human ResourceManagement Practices Survey (BIHRMPS). Our empirical findings revealed more divergencethan convergence in current recruiting practices, but they also suggest that organizations aroundthe world are indeed in the process of converging on ways of recruitment even though the currentselection criteria may still be driven by each countrys prevalent cultural values. 2002 WileyPeriodicals, Inc.

Introduction

Selecting the most qualified persons to filljob vacancies seems to be a universal goalfor both human resource and line managersaround the world, as a mismatch betweenjobs and people could dramatically reduce theeffectiveness of other HRM functions(Dunnette & Borman, 1979; Florkowski &Schuler, 1994; Mendenhall, 1987). Nonethe-less, the methodology of personnel selectionhas never been uniform around the world.Whether a specific personnel selection prac-tice should be universally adopted remainsan unresolved issue, but understanding thesimilarities and dissimilarities of existing hir-ing practices in different nations ought to bethe first step taken by HRM researchers alongthis line of inquiry. Given the crucial roleplayed by this personnel function in manag-ing a multinational work force, it was sur-prising how little attention it had received as

revealed by the past research on internationalhuman resource management.

Paucity of research in this area stems par-tially from a parochial orientation of conven-tional organization studies, which has beencriticized as a major shortcoming of manage-ment research in North America (Boyacigilar& Nadler, 1991). Such parochialism contin-ued to drive the mainstream research evenafter HRM scholars gradually started to rec-ognize the importance of strategic human re-source management in the internationalcontext (Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall,1988). Some researchers examined the humanresource management issues from a multina-tional enterprises perspective and distin-guished among various IHRM orientations(e.g., ethnocentric, polycentric, regiocentric,and global) in light of the extent to which keypositions are filled by expatriates dispatchedfrom the home country or recruits in the hostcountries (Adler & Ghadar, 1990; Bania, 1992;

32 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2002

Dowling, Schuler, & Welch, 1994; Heenan &Perlmutter, 1979). In this vein of research, thefocus of attention is still on the benefits andcosts of various alternatives for either the en-tire multinational corporation or individualincumbents rather than the core characteris-tics of the recruiting system in each country.

Although all these research efforts haveyielded useful knowledge for managingtodays globalized human resource systems,two fundamental questions remain. First, dosignificant differences exist among nationsin terms of commonly used hiring practices?If so, what are such differences? Althoughfew would expect human resource managersaround the world to recruit new employeesin the same way, it is reasonable to assumethat certain practices are more ubiquitouslyused by organizations of various nationalities.Apparently, the degree of ubiquity charac-terizing each selection criterion is a criticalissue that cannot be adequately addressed onthe basis of pure theoretical arguments.Rather, it requires an empirical examinationin the prevalence of each selection criterionused within each country.

The second question is whether peopleagree that there are some universally desir-able selection criteria that can be used for re-cruiting new employees in any country. Thisquestion would differ little from the first oneif all selection criteria practically used in allorganizations were also viewed as highly de-sirable by all organizational members. Weknow, however, by observing real organizationsthat such a consensus rarely exists; no matterhow judiciously the personnel selection crite-ria were set by the human resource depart-ment, some employees would complain aboutthe inequity caused by the hiring practices.Even in the most democratic organizations,personnel selection criteria are rarely set by aconsensus generation process; more likely,they are a result of the trials and errors overthe years, bound by legal requirements, andsubject to many other institutional constraints.As such, the degree of universality, or theextent to which a selection criterion is univer-sally desirable, ought to be treated as a sepa-rate issue from ubiquity.

In this paper, we attempt to address thesetwo issues by comparing the hiring practices

in ten countries/regions. We included bothdeveloped countries and developing ones inour sample, as IHRM practices in these twocategories of nations could differ dramaticallyfrom each other (Napier & Vu, 1998). Simi-larities and dissimilarities of selection criteriathat are either actually used or strongly pre-ferred by employees in these places could, inour opinions, reveal valuable informationabout the convergence or divergence of per-sonnel selection practices around the world.The empirical study was part of a large-scale,multinational research project conducted bya consortium of international scholars with thepurpose of identifying the best internationalhuman resource management practices (VonGlinow, 1993).

Questionnaire Design and DataCollection

Data were gathered by more than 20 scholarsfrom 13 countries or regions, using the BestInternational Human Resource ManagementPractices Survey (BIHRMPS) as the measur-ing instrument. The idea of conducting amultiple-year, multinational project on HRMpractices was conceived in 1990 by Mary AnnVon Glinow and some colleagues in NorthAmerica. As a result of one years worth ofcollective effort, a standardized questionnairewas developed for the purpose of making cross-national comparisons. Since then, this re-search consortium has grown into a team ofover thirty international scholars (Teagardenet al., 1995).

Although the wording best was used forthe sake of highlighting our intention tobenchmark HRM practices globally, we didnot presume that the same HRM practicescould be uniformly applied in all countriesor cultural environments. With this caveatin mind, members of the BIHRMP projectteam developed the questionnaire with acombination of deductive and inductivemethods. A literature review was first con-ducted to identify important hiring-relatedfactors that have been recognized by HRMresearchers in the past. Based on the resultsof the literature review, we designed the draftof the questionnaire and used it to survey asmall group of managers who attended ex-

Although fewwould expecthuman resourcemanagers aroundthe world torecruit newemployees in thesame way, it isreasonable toassume thatcertain practicesare moreubiquitously usedby organizationsof variousnationalities.


ecutive education programs at two differentuniversities in the U.S. As we conducted thepilot survey, the participants were encouragedto either suggest items that they consideredimportant but were missing in the originalquestionnaire or identify items that they con-sidered redundant or noncritical.

In the meantime, we consulted with sev-eral experts in the area of cross-national HRMresearch in order to obtain their feedback onthe relevance of individual items. After gath-ering all the feedback we could solicit, theconsortium members then reevaluated thesuitability of each item. Some items wereadded, deleted, or consolidated before the fi-nal version was readied for the official survey.

At the conclusion of this evolutionary pro-cess, it became clear to us that HRM practi-tioners usually care about both the technicaland social calibers when they screen the jobcandidates. The evaluation of technical skillshas two aspects. First, recruiters want to findout whether the job candidate is able to or hasthe potential to meet the technical require-ments. This aspect was addressed by two itemsin our survey:

A persons ability to perform the tech-nical requirements of the job (Q1).

A persons potential to do a good job,even if the person is not that goodwhen they first start (Q8).

The second aspect concerns whether thetechnical skills are directly tested or inferredfrom the past job experience. Another twoitems address this issue:

An employment test in which the per-son needs to demonstrate the skills(Q6).

Proven work experience in a similarjob (Q7).

Likewise, the social caliber of the job can-didate may be assessed on the basis of eitherinterpersonal or interorganizational skills. Inthe workplace, a person who can mingle withother organizational members and fit into theorganizational culture is usually preferred.Moreover, if the person is well connected toeither internal or external constituencies, there

would be a higher likelihood that he or shecould easily assimilate with the task environ-ment. This aspect is addressed by the follow-ing items:

A persons ability to get along well withothers already working here (Q3).

How well the person will fit thecompanys values and ways of doingthings (Q9).

Having the right connections (e.g.,school, family, friends, region, govern-ment, etc.) (Q4).

Aside from the importance of various as-pects of social caliber, another critical issue ishow the employers actually assess a jobcandidates social caliber. The assessmentmethod could be used for screening the can-didates and socializing insiders simultaneously(Sutton & Louis, 1987). We identified twomajor methods:

A personal interview (Q2). Future coworkers opinions about the

person (Q10).

To be sure, these two methods may beused for assessing both technical and socialskills. However, since technical skills can bereliably measured by many other means, inpractice the major role played by these twofactors is more likely social than technical(Guion, 1987).

Finally, most managers may hope that,once a job candidate is hired, he or she willstay with the organization long enough so thattheir investments on recruiting, training, andsocializing this person may pay off. Althoughthis factor is not directly related to either tech-nical or social caliber, it could affect the totalyield of a hire, which may be viewed as aspecial form of capital spending. Naturally,managers always care about whether the an-ticipated ROI during the life span of a pieceof human asset could justify the amount oftime and money invested up front. Thus, weadded one more factor:

The companys belief that the personwill stay with the company (e.g., fiveyears or longer) (Q5).

In the workplace,a person who canmingle withotherorganizationalmembers and fitinto theorganizationalculture is usuallypreferred.


A five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1(not at all) to 5 (to a very great extent) wasused in grading the responses. One specialfeature of BIHRMPS is that respondents wereasked to indicate the extent to which each oneof these items affects the hiring decisions intheir organizations in both is now andshould be situations. Although we expectedthese two sets of responses to be correlatedand both are subject to the influence of thenational culture, we are convinced that thecultural impact on the is now condition islikely to be diluted by a large number ofnoncultural factors, such as the past historyof the organization, the industry structure, andthe leadership style. By contrast, the shouldbe condition is, theoretically, more suscep-tible to the impact of culture as it reflects or-ganizational members personal preferences.If we follow Hofstedes paradigm and defineculture as the collective programming of themind which distinguishes the members of onehuman group from another (Hofstede, 1980),it should not be surprising to find that peoplespreferences in this regard are heavily influ-enced by culture.

Although measuring organizational per-formance is not the main purpose of theBIHRMP project, we do believe that thereis a positive relationship between the use ofappropriate hiring practices and organiza-tional effectiveness in general as perceivedby employees. For the purpose of measur-ing the perceived hiring effectiveness, weused three items:

a. The hiring practices help our companyto have high-performing employees.

b. The hiring practices help our companyto have employees who are satisfiedwith their jobs.

c. The hiring practices make a positivecontribution to the overall effective-ness of the organization.

These three items were also rated on a five-point Likert scale.

Results

Being aware of the potential systemic bias inthe responses due to cultural differences, we

decided not to directly compare the averageditem scores across nations. Instead, withineach national/regional sample we merely iden-tified three items with the highest ratings.

Comparison of the Is Now Conditions

Table I presents the means and standarddeviations of the is now responses, withthe three top-ranking items in boldface.The 13 countries or regions covered in thedata analysis include Australia (AUS),Canada (CAN), Peoples Republic of China(PRC), Indonesia (IND), Japan (JPN),South Korea (KOR), Mexico (MEX), Tai-wan (TWN), the United States (USA), andLatin America (LAT).

A quick glance at Table I reveals that twoselection criteria stand out as the most com-monly used ones in all settings. The first oneis a persons ability to perform the technicalrequirements of the job (Q1) while the sec-ond one is a personal interview (Q2). Theprevalence of Q1 should not be surprising astechnical skills ought to be the ultimate yard-stick of a persons qualification in a rationalperspective. In fact, the more interesting find-ing is that Q1 was not among the top threeselection criteria actually used in Japan andTaiwan. It probably reflects the predominanceof nontechnical criteria in these cultures,which will be discussed in greater detail later.

As an important personnel screening tool,job interview (Q2) was ranked among the topthree factors in almost every country exceptPRC. Again, this fact indicates that few peoplewould feel comfortable with making a job of-fer without seeing the candidate in person.Even in PRC, the relatively lower importanceof Q2 may be due to practical difficulty ratherthan a deemphasis of personal acquaintance.

In the meantime, the other eight itemsseem to reflect significant cross-cultural dif-ferences, although a certain degree of clus-tering is also evident. For one thing, the topthree factors found in the Taiwanese and Japa-nese samples are identical. We think it is un-likely to be purely coincidental. Rather, sucha similarity may have reflected the culturalsimilarities, the intertwined histories in thepast century, and close economic ties betweenthese two countries. As a matter of fact, many

One specialfeature ofBIHRMPS is thatrespondents wereasked to indicatethe extent towhich each oneof these itemsaffects the hiringdecisions in theirorganizations inboth is now andshould besituations.


industries in Taiwan were started after WorldWar II under the support of Japanese enter-prises. Understandably, their human resourcemanagement systems were initially borrowedfrom Japan. The high importance of thesethree items (Q2, Q3, and Q8) also reflect theextra value placed on harmonious human re-lations by these two cultures.

Next to Q1 and Q2 in terms of preva-lence of use is Q7, proven work experiencein a similar job, which was ranked among thetop three by five countries. It is interestingto note that four of them are developed coun-tries (Australia, Canada, Germany, and theU.S.), although people in PRC also considerit very important.

Certain degrees of similarities were alsofound among other cultures, although thepatterns of similarity are not very clear. Forexample, people in PRC, South Korea, andIndonesia seem to trust employment test (Q6)more than their counterparts in other nationsdo. Although the small sample size in mostcountries prevents us from confirming thesesimilarities with full confidence, we do seepotential effects of geographic proximity orcultural similarity on hiring practices in thesecountries or regions.

Comparison of the Should Be Conditions

Table II presents the means and standard devia-tions of should be ratings for the ten items inthe ten countries or regions. Overall, this table issimilar to Table I only to the extent that Q1 andQ2 continue to be the most prevalent hiring cri-teria. The other eight items reflect varying pat-terns of similarities across different countries.

It is noteworthy that a persons ability toperform the technical requirements of the job(Q1) is ranked among top-three should beconditions in all the ten nations or regions,confirming the universal desirability of usingtechnical skills as the selection criterion. As ashould be condition, a personal interview(Q2) lost its top-three ranking status in Tai-wan and South Korea and continued to be outof the top-three category in PRC. Interestingly,all these three countries are located in EastAsia. We should not infer from this findingthat interpersonal relation is unimportant inthese nations. Rather, it is more likely thatmanagers in these countries have found otheryardsticks to assess a persons nontechnicalcharacters, thereby making the use of inter-view less necessary.

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q8

Q9

Q10

N

AUS4.10*(.73)4.22(.76)3.47(.97)1.74

(1.01)2.73

(1.07)2.31

(1.16)3.80(.87)3.09(.98)3.61(.96)1.87(.99)

436

CAN4.08(.68)4.18(.72)3.44(.90)2.06(.96)3.06

(1.06)2.34

(1.24)3.82(.83)3.10

(1.01)3.58(.94)1.94(.98)

124

PRC3.76(.82)3.27(.83)3.34(.78)3.16

(1.00)3.25(.91)3.54(.81)3.56(.79)3.35(.87)3.31(.85)2.82(.93)

521

IND3.58(.90)3.55(.89)3.13(.87)2.69

(1.22)2.95

(1.04)3.27

(1.09)3.05(.98)3.08(.73)3.14(.86)2.46

(1.09)237

JPN3.01(.97)3.62(.91)3.13(.88)2.57

(1.09)2.87

(1.05)2.91

(1.05)2.59

(1.10)3.14(.94)2.94(.89)2.12

(1.04)502

KOR3.22(.94)3.31(.89)3.18(.95)2.50

(1.03)2.98

(1.02)3.34(.93)2.75

(1.01)2.94(.99)3.11(.97)2.22(.98)

234

MEX3.39

(1.02)3.77

(1.06)3.03

(1.07)3.26

(1.21)2.79

(1.24)3.02

(1.24)3.11

(1.17)3.15

(1.04)3.23

(1.07)2.32

(1.18)479

TWN3.53(.86)3.55(.78)3.50(.84)3.19(.98)3.48(.89)3.49(.80)3.47(.82)3.71(.81)3.39(.80)2.94(.98)

237

USA3.98(.83)4.17(.85)3.45

(1.09)2.66

(1.29)2.76

(1.05)1.91

(1.01)3.68(.93)2.97(.93)3.44

(1.11)2.42

(1.18)143

LAT3.93(.90)4.31(.99)3.15

(1.28)2.63

(1.24)3.47

(1.25)2.98(.144)3.75

(1.11)3.51

(1.10)3.38

(1.27)1.80(.97)

169

TABLE I A Multinational Comparison of Is Now Conditions on Hiring Practices.

* Standard errors are in parentheses.


Aside from Q1 and Q2, the eighth item,a persons potential to do a good job (Q8), isthe third most prevalent should be factor inour multinational sample. It is ranked in thetop three by four countries: PRC, Japan, SouthKorea, and Taiwan. The Asian flavor is quiteclear. However, since this item was ranked asthe top three only by respondents in Taiwanand Japan for the is now condition, we cansee a gap between ideal and reality in the othertwo countries; that is, this item is viewed asvery important ideally but has not been treatedas important in practice.

Other items are valued differently by coun-tries in a way that is inconsistent with the isnow conditions as well. For instance, apersons ability to get along well with others(Q3) is viewed as very important by SouthKorea, Taiwan, and the U.S., but only in Tai-wan is it also considered one of the top-threecriteria in actually used hiring practices. Em-ployment test (Q6) is among top-three crite-ria in PRC, Indonesia, and Mexico, but in oursample only PRC and Indonesia treat it as atop-three factor in practice. As mentioned ear-lier, proven work experience (Q7) was amongthe top-three criteria in five countries in light

of is now condition, but it was not recog-nized as a top-three should be criterion inany country or region.

The ninth item (Q9), how well the personwill fit the companys values and ways of do-ing things, was ranked among the top-threeshould be factors only by Australia andCanada, but neither country ranked it so highfor is now situations.

It is also noteworthy that four items in theBIHRMP questionnaire were not ranked byany national subsample as top-three shouldbe practices. These four items are: having theright connections (Q4), likelihood of stayingin the company for the long haul (Q5), provenwork experience in a similar job (Q7), andfuture coworkers opinions about this person(Q10). All these factors are either relativelyintangible or highly subjective. Understand-ably, even though they might affect the hiringdecisions in practice, few people would sug-gest that they ought to be formally considered.

Comparison of Country Profiles

In order to make it easier to see the gap be-tween is now and should be conditions,

AUS4.19*(.72)3.99(.85)3.71(.89)1.31(.64)2.72

(1.12)3.25

(1.06)3.82(.87)3.60(.90)3.99(.84)2.54

(1.11)435

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q8

Q9

Q10

N

CAN4.31(.64)4.10(.81)3.94(.76)1.41(.61)3.10

(1.12)3.03

(1.19)3.93

(1.00)3.58(.96)4.10(.76)2.71

(1.41)124

PRC4.36(.68)3.56(.85)3.71(.80)2.96

(1.20)3.58(.91)3.96(.72)3.91(.84)3.92(.78)3.76(.81)3.11

(1.01)483

IND4.16(.66)3.93(.70)3.82(.77)1.88

(1.06)3.67(.97)4.04(.75)3.50

(1.09)3.82(.70)3.89(.79)2.64

(1.16)233

JPN3.77(.94)4.00(.77)3.57(.84)2.54

(1.15)3.27

(1.09)3.11(.93)3.00

(1.10)3.80(.86)3.20(.94)2.60

(1.09)500

KOR4.16(.69)3.88(.74)4.12(.75)1.82

(1.05)3.99(.93)3.55(.92)3.31

(1.00)4.12(.75)4.09(.78)3.16(.99)

224

MEX4.57(.65)4.30(.88)3.71

(1.20)3.31

(1.32)3.73

(1.20)4.42(.74)4.23(.89)4.18(.78)4.23(.86)3.18

(1.29)471

TWN4.21(.68)3.91(.67)4.13(.64)3.33

(1.01)4.02(.75)4.04(.67)3.88(.73)4.31(.58)4.00(.70)3.50(.91)

236

USA4.40(.62)4.19(.78)4.14(.71)1.80(.91)2.93

(1.05)2.80

(1.28)4.01(.80)3.67(.87)4.10(.82)3.38

(1.02)142

LAT4.62(.74)4.44(.96)4.20

(1.00)2.27

(1.25)4.13

(1.04)3.93

(1.21)4.25(.86)4.07

(1.06)4.63(.66)2.95

(1.33)168

A Multinational Comparison of Should Be Conditions on Hiring Practices.TABLE II

* Standard errors are in parentheses.


we also compiled a table that lists the topthree items on a nation-by-nation basis.(Table III). An interesting phenomenon isthat the top-three profiles for Australia andCanada are identical. Apparently, this simi-larity can be attributed to the common cul-tural roots of these two nations as well astheir historical ties with the British Common-wealth of Nations.

Table III also reflects the gap betweenreality and ideal in each nation. For instance,

the actual hiring practices used in Japan seemto emphasize a persons potential and inter-personal skills, but the Japanese respondentsdid recognize the importance of technical skillsrequired by the job. Thats why, although Q1was not among their top-three is now fac-tors, it was one of the top-three should befactors for recruiting. The commonality ofAustralian and Canadian top-three profilesalso reflects a common gap between realityand ideal for these two nations. Specifically,

is now Conditions(A) A personal interview(B) A persons ability to perform the technical requirements of the job(C) Proven work experience in a similar job

(A) A personal interview(B) A persons ability to perform the technical requirements of the job(C) Proven work experience in a similar job

(A) A persons ability to perform the technical requirements of the job(B) Proven work experience in a similar job(C) An employment test in which the person needs to demonstrate the skills

(A) A persons ability to perform the technical requirements of the job(B) A personal interview(C) An employment test in which the person needs to demonstrate the skills

(A) A personal interview(B) A persons potential to do a good job, even if the person is not that good when they first start(C) A persons ability to get along well with others already working here

(A) An employment test in which the person needs to demonstrate the skills(B) A personal interview(C) A persons ability to perform the technical requirements of the job

(A) A personal interview(B) A persons ability to perform the technical requirements of the job(C) Having the right connections (e.g., school, family, friends, region, government, etc.)

(A) A persons potential to do a good job, even if the person is not that good when they first start(B) A personal interview(C) A persons ability to get along well with others already working here



TABLE III Three Top-Ranking Is Now and Should Be Factors in Each Country/Region (in Order of Importance).

Nation/RegionAustralia

Canada

PRC

Indonesia

Japan

Korea

Mexico

Taiwan

USA

Latin America

(continued on next page)


proven work experience is an important se-lection criterion in these two nations in theis now situation. When it comes to theshould be situation, however, a good fit withthe companys values and ways of doing thingsbecomes more crucial.

Likewise, in the case of Mexico, having theright personal connections is one of the topthree hiring factors in practice, but the use ofa more objective employment test is viewed asvery desirable in a should be situation. A per-sonal interview is a very crucial step in the ac-

tually used hiring procedure in Taiwan, but ourTaiwanese respondents seem to believe that job-related technical skills should be a more im-portant selection criterion.

Among other countries/regions, our Indo-nesian sample has shown a better match be-tween reality and idealthe top three factorsfor the is now situation are also the top threefor the should be situationwhile the real-ityideal gaps for South Korea appear to be rela-tively large. One reason why these gaps deserveour attention is that they may point to the likely

Should Be Conditions(A) A persons ability to perform the technical requirements of the job(B) A personal interview(C) How well the person will fit the companys values and ways of doing things

(A) A persons ability to perform the technical requirements of the job(B) A personal interview(C) How well the person will fit the companys values and ways of doing things

(A) A persons ability to perform the technical requirements of the job(B) An employment test in which the person needs to demonstrate the skills(C) A persons potential to do a good job, even if the person is not that good when they first start

(A) A persons ability to perform the technical requirements of the job(B) An employment test in which the person needs to demonstrate the skills(C) A personal interview

(A) A personal interview(B) A persons potential to do a good job, even if the person is not that good when they first start(C) A persons ability to perform the technical requirements of the job

(A) A persons ability to perform the technical requirements of the job(B) A persons ability to get along well with others already working here(C) A persons potential to do a good job, even if the person is not that good when they first start

(A) A persons ability to perform the technical requirements of the job(B) An employment test in which the person needs to demonstrate the skills(C) A personal interview

(A) A persons potential to do a good job, even if the person is not that good when they first start(B) A persons ability to perform the technical requirements of the job(C) A persons ability to get along well with others already working here

(A) A persons ability to perform the technical requirements of the job(B) A personal interview(C) A persons ability to get along well with others already working here

(A) How well the person will fit the companys values and ways of doing things(B) A persons ability to perform the technical requirements of the job(C) A personal interview

TABLE III (continued.)

Nation/RegionAustralia

Canada

PRC

Indonesia

Japan

Korea

Mexico

Taiwan

USA

Latin America


AUS.132**

.055.124*

.269***.121**

.164***

.089

.101*

.165***

.01613.973***

.251428

(A) Dependent Variable: Hiring practices help recruit high performing employees

Q1Q2Q3Q4Q5Q6Q7Q8Q9Q10FR2

N

CAN.199*

.061.156

.296***.020

.273***

.067

.024

.177*

.165*6.160***

.355122

PRC.227***.005.010

.072.075.163**.102*.052

.010.081

14.849***.249

458

IND.195**.174**.107.013.145*.218**

.089.127

.043.011

10.909***.343

219

JPN.228***.121**.117*.025.087*.094*

.086*.089.019.132**

15.094***.241

486

KOR.176**.009.118

.081.164**.230***.098*.003.247***.042

23.449***.517

229

MEX.243***.023.147***

.081*.053.209***.134**.035.095*.023

26.510***.379

444

TWN.071.069.049

.063.151*.139*.149*.018.035.282***

14.678***.409

222

USA.393***.035.116

.126.098

.043.005.035.141.103

8.522***.396

140

LAT.146

.085.100

.109.124.139.333***.012.161*

.0715.826***

.295149

TABLE IV Relationships Between Hiring Practices and Effectiveness Measure.

(B) Dependent Variable: Hiring practices help improve job satisfaction


N

AUS.083

.031.132**

.301***.034

.112**

.062

.144**

.101*

.091*13.206***

.240428

CAN.164*

.041.175*

.213**.065.158*.114

.004.327***.109

7.229***.392

122

PRC.134*

.033.071

.025.113*.123*.079.015.125*.014

10.488***.191

453

IND.189*.116.053.024.129*.069

.066.191**.047

.0486.350***

.233219

JPN.226***.065.099*

.019.095*.068

.054.125*.010.150***

13.048***.216

485

KOR.082.050.066

.055.176**.197***.115*.067.204**.077

15.783***.419

229

MEX.172***

.075.092*

.069.140***.200***.100*.088.024.126**

18.046***.294

444

TWN.041.081.009

.056.209**.199**.048.003.048.239***

12.098***.363

222

USA.221**

.111.217*

.221**.040.054.038.113.091.150*

6.438***.331

140

LAT.157*

.046.132

.132.110.022.285***.034.060.112

4.546***.246

149

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

(C) Dependent Variable: Hiring practices help improve overall organizational effectiveness


N

AUS.054

.022.127**

.288***.079

.068

.049

.160***

.113*

.091*13.370***

.242428

CAN.060.054.182*

.303***.010.248**.127.023.239**.144

7.371***.397

122

PRC.215***.028.045

.088.090.077.092.037.009.125*

13.018***.224

460

IND.223**.185**.044.075.129*.086.059.170

.119.0777.142***

.254220

JPN.201***.065.160***.003.072.114**

.064.122*.018.104*

14.406***.233

485

KOR.141*.039.175*

.013.107.170***.082.059.218**

.02115.691***

.417229

MEX.256***

.039.104**

.034.018***.180***.124*.098.064.121**

24.554***.362

443

TWN.101.059.102

.004.069.194**.124*.046

.003.264***

14.907***.413

222

USA.251**.040.122

.227***.042.012

.039.054.216**.165*

9.075***.411

140

LAT.167*

.068.107

.045.041.019.235**.109.245**

.0084.958***.263

149


direction of change, or the trend, in a nationsprevalent hiring practices. For instance, al-though proven work experience is ranked byour U.S. respondents as one of the top threemost important hiring factors, its position wasreplaced by the ability to get along with othersalready working here in the should be part.We should not be surprised if American hu-man resource managers start to deemphasizethe past work experience but give heavier weightto interpersonal skills in the future.

Effects of Recruiting Practices onOrganizational Effectiveness

The last important question we try to answeris: Do hiring practices really matter? In otherwords, are those personnel selection criteriaexamined by us tied to the overall organiza-tional performance? To address this issue, wedid a multiple regression analysis with thethree aforementioned measures of perceivedeffectiveness as the dependent variables. Theresults are shown in Table IV.

Although most factors are not statisti-cally significant due to the inherent colin-earity problem of using the five-point Likertscales, the F and R2 values listed at the bot-tom of the table, reflecting the explainedvariation in the dependent variables, maystill reveal useful information about therelative importance of hiring practices inaffecting organizational effectiveness ineach country. Overall, all samples yield sig-nificant F values for the three measures ofhiring effectiveness.

In the meantime, hiring practices accountfor organizational effectiveness in these na-tions/regions by varying degrees. Since thesample sizes vary wildly across nations andsmaller samples tend to yield larger R2 valueswhen everything else is equal, we have to usethe F value and R2 together to evaluate thepower of these regression models. In light ofthese two indicators, Mexico, South Korea,and Taiwan seem to demonstrate the highestimpacts of hiring practices; that is, the rela-tionship between hiring practices and per-ceived organizational effectiveness is clearestin these nations. Interestingly, Taiwan andSouth Korea are two of the four little tigersin Asia while Mexico is the new little tiger in

North America. Although we do not have datagathered from two other little tigers in Asia(Hong Kong and Singapore), it seems likelythat the best human resource managementpractices model would work best in those fast-growing, developing economies.

Discussion

The empirical results of analyses generatedfrom our multinational data set are more com-plicated than we expected and do not lendthemselves to any coherent theoretical inter-pretations. As hypothesized at the beginningof this paper, if culture has any impact on re-cruiting practices, its impact is more likelymanifested in the should be rather than isnow conditions. Our empirical findings, how-ever, do not seem to support this hypothesis.In fact, we suspect that the striking similari-ties among the U.S., Australia, and Canada interms of is now conditions could be attrib-uted to their common Anglo roots.

Among Asian nations, the striking simi-larity between Japan and Taiwan in terms ofis now conditions may reflect the close his-torical and cultural ties between these twonations in the past 100 years. Even when wecompare the should be conditions, the simi-larities among Taiwan, Japan, and South Ko-rea are still impressive. However, the situationat the Peoples Republic of China seems to beone of a kind; its profile appears to be posi-tioned somewhere between Asia and NorthAmericawhich may be attributed to a com-bination of 50 years of implementation of so-cialism and 20 years of economic reforms (Cyr& Frost, 1991; Holton, 1985; Warner, 1993;Zhu & Dowling, 1994).

Although little research in the past hasdirectly focused on the cross-national differ-ence of hiring practices, we could still findsome partial explanations by examining theevolutionary process of human resource man-agement practices in different countries. Forinstance, Shelton (1995) reviewed the HRMsystem in Australia and detected a perceivedneed to move from a centralized industrialrelations system to a decentralized system fo-cused around enterprise-based employmentagreements (p. 52), which relies heavily on amassive increase in the extent and frequency

However, thesituation at thePeoples Republicof China seems tobe one of a kind;its profileappears to bepositionedsomewherebetween Asia andNorth Americawhich may beattributed to acombination of50 years ofimplementationof socialism and20 years ofeconomicreforms.


of joint consultation between employers andemployees at the enterprise level. If that isindeed the new trend in the Australian HRMsystem, we can easily understand why ourAustralian respondents have ranked the goodfit with the corporate values and ways of do-ing things so high. As a matter of fact, in re-cent years, federal legislation has beenintroduced to shift the focus of industrial re-lations to the enterprise level, indicating thatthe Australian system has indeed moved to-ward decentralization (Gough, 1996).

We suspect that a similar transition is alsogoing on in Canada. Moore and his colleaguesconducted some surveys with human resourcedepartments in Canada and noticed that therole of the HR department has changed orgrown since early 1990s. Such a developmentis often attributed to the HR departments tak-ing on greater responsibilities and handlingthese in a more professional manner (Moore& Jennings, 1995; Moore & Robinson, 1989).As such, we may expect to see an increasingdesire to recruit new employees whose per-sonal value systems are compatible with thecompanys culture.

The heavy emphasis placed by Japanesecompanies on a persons potential and his/her ability to get along with others may betraced to their renowned life-time employ-ment system. As noted by some researchers(e.g., Pucik, 1984), large Japanese organiza-tions usually conduct recruitment and selec-tion on a yearly basis and tend to hire a cohortof fresh school graduates annually in Aprilrather than conduct recruitment throughoutthe year as vacancies arise. This phenomenonreflects the importance of wa (or harmoni-ous human relations) in Japan and is perfectlyconsistent with our findings, since peoplefrom the same schools would find it easier todevelop a smooth interpersonal relationshipwithin a team due to their common educa-tional backgrounds.

The relatively low weight given to job-re-lated skills as a selection criterion that weobserved should not be surprising either, inlight of findings of the past research on Japa-nese management. Morishima (1995) pointsout that important selection criteria used byJapanese firms revolve around trainability orability to learn rather than the ability to ex-

ecute tasks and duties. In a survey conductedby Fujiwara (1993), even for white-collar tech-nical employees, fewer than 10% of the firmsreported primarily emphasizing technical ex-pertise for selection, with even smaller per-centages for blue-collar workers andwhite-collar administrative employees. Thismight be the reason why Q1 was not rankedamong the top-three selection criteria by ourJapanese respondents. Nonetheless, the tech-nical-skill item was indeed ranked as a top-three criterion for the should be situation,probably because the deep recession experi-enced by the Japanese industry in the past tenyears has urged Japanese managers to reevalu-ate their past hiring practices, thereby recog-nizing the importance of job skills as a factorin hiring decisions.

We also see some similarity between Ko-rean and Japanese hiring systems. Althoughno lifetime employment system has beenadopted by any large firms in South Korea,organizations in both nations seem todeemphasize proven work experience and pre-fer hiring new graduates out of schools. Astudy conducted by Koch, Nam, and Steers(1995) clearly shows that in Korea most ap-plicants for white-collar jobs must pass com-pany-sponsored entrance examinations thattypically include English-language proficiencyin addition to knowledge both in a major fieldand in general abilities or common sense. Thisis consistent with our finding that employ-ment tests are considered crucial in the isnow situation in South Korea. Koch et al.,(1995) also found that employee referral iswidely used for recruiting blue-collar employ-ees in South Korea. This practice may explainwhy a personal interview has been found tobe crucial in our Korean respondents is nowconditionsoftentimes it is the only screen-ing tool used by the employers in filling blue-collar positions.

Our findings with the Taiwan sample arein general consistent with what has been re-ported by Farh (1995). However, Farh alsopoints out that the hiring practices used inthe public sector are dramatically differentfrom the counterparts in the private sector.Since our Taiwan sample is primarily madeof employees in the private sector, the find-ings are naturally more similar to what has

Although nolifetimeemploymentsystem has beenadopted by anylarge firms inSouth Korea,organizations inboth S. Koreaand Japan seemto deemphasizeproven workexperience andprefer hiringnew graduatesout of schools.


been reported by the past studies in this sec-tor. For instance, Huang (1992) has foundthat the job interview is a very crucial part ofthe personnel selection process. We foundthat a personal interview is indeed among thetop three is now hiring criteria in the Tai-wanese sample.

In spite of the striking similarities that wehave found between Japan and Taiwan in hir-ing practices, we can still see several crucialdifferences between these two systems. First,because of a shortage of skilled technical em-ployees, many employers in Taiwan obtainexperienced personnel by hiring them awayfrom competitors with more attractive offers(Farh, 1995). This phenomenon is commonnot only in Taiwan but also in all developingcountries, particularly as employees considerthe companies they work for as traininggrounds (Napier & Vu, 1998). By contrast,in Japan it is strictly a taboo for a large com-pany to steal talented employees away fromits competitors.

Second, although familism plays a cen-tral role in staffing for both Taiwanese andJapanese firms (owners of many companiesin Taiwan tend to place their relatives intoimportant corporate executive positions), Japa-nese firms are less likely to do so (cf. Cheng,1991; Farh, 1995; Peng, 1989). This phenom-enon was not mirrored by our empirical find-ings about Taiwan as it applies only to a fewprivileged organizational members. In a sense,the word familism means different things inJapan and Taiwan. In Taiwan it implies pri-marily appointments of relatives and familymembers for crucial positions while in Japanit is largely referred to a whole life concerndisplayed by employers for their employees.

Finally, we found that the currently preva-lent hiring practices in the U.S. seem to con-sider the job interview performance, technicalskills, and proven work experience as the mostimportant selection criteria. This is hardlysurprising in light of the past research onAmerican HRM systems (Jennings & Moore,1995). Nonetheless, in our U.S. sample, theability to get along with others already work-ing here replaces proven work experienceas one of the top-three hiring factors, prob-

ably reflecting a trend toward deemphasizingthe past work experience. Indeed, a recentarticle in Fortune magazine clearly points outthat a persons past work experience is nolonger highly valued in the U.S. industry as inthe past, while a persons potential to becomea competent manager in the future has be-come an increasingly important selection cri-terion (Munk, 1999).

Conclusion

Any conclusion made at this juncture shouldbe viewed as tentative. The BIHRMP projectgroup is still in the process of collecting moredata from more countries. We are convincedthat the validity and reliability of our resultswill continually improve as we accumulatemore data on this subject. In the meantime,we are afraid that in the field of internationalhuman resource management there is prob-ably no such thing as a final conclusion any-way. A former CEO of Apple Computer, JohnSculley, once said: In todays global economy,the only constant is change. It is plausiblethat the hiring practices in different nationsare also undergoing major changes due to theglobalization of modern industries. In spite ofthe cross-national differences that we havefound, the trend toward convergence seemsto be irresistible. This trend of convergence isevident in the should be portion of our data.We also foresee an accelerated pace of globalconvergence in recruiting practices as a re-sult of the advancement of contemporary in-formation technology (e.g., Internet).

While the recruiting practices used in dif-ferent countries are inching toward globalconvergence, we expect national cultures tocontinue affecting the hiring practices usedin various countries (Yuen & Kee, 1993). In-asmuch as national cultures remain different,cross-national differences in HRM practiceswill continue to exist. As such, human resourcemanagers still need to be culturally sensitivewhen devising the recruitment systems in vari-ous cultural environments. After all, the bestinternational human resource managementpractices ought to be the ones best adaptedto cultural and national differences.


REFERENCES

Adler, N.J., & Ghadar, F. (1990). International strat-egy from the perspective of people and culture:The North America context. Research in GlobalBusiness Management, 1, 179205.

Bania, M. (1992). The ethnocentric staffing policy inmultinational corporations: A self-fulfillingprophecy. International Journal of Human Re-source Management, 3, 451472.

Boyacigiller, N., & Adler, N.J. (1991). The parochialdinosaur: Organizational science in a global con-text. Academy of Management Review, 16, 262290.

Cheng, B.S. (1991). Familism and leadership in Tai-wan. In C.F. Yang & S.Y. Kuo (Eds.), Chineseand Chinese soul. Taipei: Yeuan-Liou Publish-ing (in Chinese).

Cyr, D.J., & Frost, P.J. (1991). Human resource man-agement practice in China: A future perspective.Human Resource Management, 30(2), 199215.

Dowling, P.J., Shuler, R.S., & Welch, D.E. (1994).International dimensions of human resourcemanagement. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publish-ing.

Dunnette, E.D., & Borman, W.D. (1979). Personnelselection and classification systems. Annual Re-view of Psychology, 30, 477525.

Farh, J.L. (1995). Human resource management inTaiwan, the Republic of China. In L.F. Moore &P.D. Jennings (Eds.), Human resource manage-ment on the Pacific Rim (pp. 265294). Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.

Florkowski, G.W., & Schuler, R.S. (1994). Auditinghuman resource management in the global envi-ronment. International Journal of Human Re-source Management, 5, 827851.

Fujiwara, M. (1993). Hiring and staffing. In M. Tsuda(Ed.), Personnel management (pp. 107120).Tokyo: Mierva Publishing (in Japanese).

Gough, R. (1996). Australian employee relations in1996: Change and continuity. InternationalEmployment Relations Review, 2(2), 91116.

Guion, R.M. (1987). Changing views for personnelselection research. Personnel Psychology, 40(2),199213.

Heenan, D.A., & Perlmutter, H.V. (1979). Multina-tional organization development. Reading, MA:Addison Wesley.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: Inter-

Y. Paul Huo (Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley) is the Director and George F.Jewett Distinguished Professor at University of Puget Sound. Before joining UPS in1997, he had taught at San Jose State University, California State University, Chico,and Washington State University. He also visited Hong Kong University of Science andTechnology and Chinese University of Hong Kong each for one year. Dr. Huo special-izes in international business and human resource management with an Asia Pacificfocus. In the past decade, he has done extensive consulting and executive training inTaiwan, Hong Kong, Peoples Republic of China, and the U.S.

Heh Jason Huang received his Ph.D. from Washington State University. He is a Pro-fessor of Management and the Director of Center for International Program at Collegeof Management, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Taiwan. His work has been pub-lished in Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Research & Practice in HumanResource Management, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Sun Yat-Sen Manage-ment Review, and Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. His research interests includehuman resource practices and cross-cultural management. Since 1998 he has beeninvolved with an APEC Training and Certification Program for Small Business Counse-lors, representing Chinese Taipei.

Nancy K. Napier is a Professor of International Business and Management andExecutive Director of the Global Business Consortium at Boise State University.She has published widely in the areas of international human resource manage-ment, women professionals working abroad, and management and change issues intransition economies in such journals as Academy of Management Review, HumanResource Management Review, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal ofManagement Inquiry, Human Resource Planning Journal, and Sloan ManagementReview. Since 1994, she has also been involved with a project, funded by Swedenand now USAID, to develop and strengthen a business school at the National Eco-nomics University, Hanoi, Vietnam.


national differences in work-related values.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Holton, R. (1985). Human resource management inthe Peoples Republic of China. ManagementInternational Review, 30, 121136.

Huang, K.L. (1992). The past and the future of per-sonnel management in Taiwan, Working paper,Department of Industrial and Business Manage-ment, National Taiwan University, Taipei.

Jennings, P.D., & Moore, L.F. (1995). Human re-source management in the United States. In L.F.Moore & P.D. Jennings (Eds.), Human resourcemanagement on the Pacific Rim (pp. 319347).Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Koch, M., Nam, S.H., & Steers, R.M. (1995). Hu-man resource management in South Korea. InL.F. Moore & P.D. Jennings (Eds.), Human re-source management on the Pacific Rim (pp. 217242). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Lengnick-Hall, C.A., & Lengnick-Hall, M.L. (1988).Strategic human resource management: Reviewof the literature and a proposed typology. Acad-emy of Management Review, 13, 454470.

Mendenhall, M.R. (1987). Expatriate selection, train-ing and career-pathing: A review and critique.Human Resource Management, 26, 331345.

Moore, L.F., & Jennings, P.D. (1995). Human re-source management in Canada. In L.F. Moore& P.D. Jennings (Eds.), Human resource man-agement on the Pacific Rim (pp. 6189). Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.

Moore, L.F., & Robinson, S. (1989). Human resourcemanagement present and future: Highlights froma western Canadian survey of practitioner per-ceptions. In A. Petit & A.V. Subbarau (Eds.), Pro-ceedings of the Administrative SciencesAssociation of Canada (pp. 100110). Montreal,PQ: Personnel and Human Resources Division,McGill University.

Morishima, M. (1995). The Japanese human resourcemanagement system: A learning bureaucracy. InL.F. Moore & P.D. Jennings (Eds.), Human re-source management on the Pacific Rim (pp. 119150). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Munk, N. (1999, February 1). Finished at forty. For-

tune, 139(2), 5066.Napier, N.K., & Vu, V.T. (1998). International hu-

man resource management in developing andtransitional economy countries: A breed apart?Human Resource Management Review, 8, 3977.

Peng, H.C. (1989). The evolution of owner relation-ship in Taiwanese enterprise: A sociologicalanalysis. Unpublished dissertation. Tung-HaiUniversity, Taichung (in Chinese)

Pucik, V. (1984). White collar human resource man-agement in large Japanese manufacturing firms.Human Resource Management, 23, 257276.

Shelton, D. (1995). Human resource managementin Australia. In L.F. Moore & P.D. Jennings(Eds.), Human resource management on thePacific Rim (pp. 3160). Berlin: Walter deGruyter.

Sutton, R.I., & Louis, M.R. (1987). How selectingand socializing newcomers influences insiders.Human Resource Management, 26, 347361.

Teagarden, T.B., Von Glinow, M.A., Bowen, D.,Frayne, C., Nason, S., Milliman, J., Huo, Y.P.,Arias, M.E., Butler, M.C., Kim, N.H., Scullion,H., Lowe, K.B., & Drost, E.A. (1995). Toward atheory of comparative management research: Anidiographic case study of the best internationalhuman resources management project. Academyof Management Journal, 38, 12611287.

Von Glinow, M.A. (1993), Diagnosing best practicein human resource management practices. In B.Shaw et al. (Eds.), Research in personnel andhuman resource management, Supplement 3.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Warner, M. (1993). Human resource management withChinese characteristics. International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, 4(1), 4565.

Yuen, E.C., & Kee, H.T. (1993). Headquarters, host-culture and organizational influences on HRMpolicies and practices. Management InternationalReview, 33(4), 361383.

Zhu, C.J., & Dowling, P.J. (1994). The impact of theeconomic system upon human resource manage-ment practices in China. Human Resource Plan-ning, 17(4), 121.

divergence or convergence- a cross-national comparison of personnel selectio

Documents