int. j. of human resource management 16:11 november … 2005.pdf · the international journal of...

Cross-national learning from best practiceand the convergence-divergence debatein HRM

Markus Pudelko

Abstract The chief objective of this paper is to develop suggestions as to how to learnfrom best practices in HRM across national borders. The analysis is based on survey datagathered from 232 HRM managers from American, Japanese and German top 500companies. The managers provide information on how the HRM model of their respectivecountry is characterized and from which of the other two country models they seekinspiration. The concrete attributes of the models considered worth adopting are describedin detail and future developments with regards to convergence of the HRM modelsexplored. The empirical data suggest that HR managers from all three countries expect apartial convergence towards a hybrid model. Curiously, the model that comes closest tothis hybrid – the German one – is also the one that rates lowest as a source of inspiration.An argument is made that in order to better understand learning from best practice andresulting convergence tendencies, research should seek more insights regarding theknowledge of managers about foreign management models, their perceptions of thesemodels, and how these perceptions are generated.

Keywords Convergence; divergence; HRM; USA; Japan; Germany.

Introduction

The dominant schools within classical management thought assume that efficiencyimperatives press for a ‘one best way’ in management, irrespective of cultural or nationalcontext (Smith and Meiksins, 1995). Taylor, Barnard, Mayo as well as Mouton andBlake, stand as examples for management theorists who seek to develop managementprinciples that can be universally employed as single ‘best practices’. It is argued in someof the literature that, as a consequence of increasing pressures of competition andglobalization, there is a growing need to learn systematically from those managementpractices regarded as the most successful (see, for example, Levitt, 1983; Mueller, 1994).This learning process can be described as the continuous comparison of, and adaptationtowards, best practice, in order systematically to close the gap with the best performer.The basic idea is to determine what differences exist and what is the potential forimprovement (Spendolini, 1992). Owing to the continuous internationalization ofcompetition, country-specific management practices are increasingly specified, and theirstrengths and weaknesses compared with one another.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online q 2005 Taylor & Francis

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

DOI: 10.1080/09585190500314920

Markus Pudelko, The University of Edinburgh Management School, 50 George Square, Edinburgh,

EH8 9JY, UK (tel: þ44 131 6511491; e-mail: [email protected]); currently at Columbia

Business School, New York City, USA.

Int. J. of Human Resource Management 16:11 November 2005 2045–2074

The search for best practice in comparative management research is at the macro-levelclosely related to the debate on cross-national convergence versus divergenceof managerial processes. For Kerr et al. (1960) there exists a universal ‘logic ofindustrialization’ which is accompanied by a ‘logic of the development of organizationsand management’. The direction of this development is determined by ‘best practice’ ofeconomically more advanced countries, with latecomers following and adopting similarorganizational structures, strategies and processes, resulting in a convergence ofmanagement systems. Consequently, authors who perceive management as ratherindependent from the respective national culture, and focus on the importance of learningfrom best practice in order to increase national competitiveness, are more positive aboutcross-national convergence, as best practice is held to determine the direction ofconvergence (see, for example, Kerr et al., 1960; Child and Kieser, 1979; Levitt, 1983;Waters, 1995; Hannerz, 1996; Toynbee, 2001).

The focus on specific national management ‘models’ reflects, however, ‘a tendency toreproduce ‘one best way’ thinking, without showing how this can be integrated withpatterns of organizational national diversity’ (Smith and Meiksins, 1995: 251). Theauthors subsumed under the divergence school who stress the embeddedness of nationalmanagement methods in their cultural and institutional context are therefore moresceptical about the possibility of cross-national learning from best practice, and see littleroom for cross-national convergence of management processes (see, for example,Lammers and Hickson, 1979; Laurent, 1983; Whitley, 2000; Hickson and Pugh, 1995;Hofstede, 2001).1

If the search for best practice in management is to lead to convergence towards thebest existing model (or the best combination of different models), then a knowledge andcomprehensive understanding of the relevant models by managers (as opposed toacademics) seems vital: managers are the chief change agents who can bring about theconvergence. It is therefore important, in order to judge how likely successful learningfrom best practice and convergence tendencies is to occur, to understand the degree ofmanagers’ knowledge of various management models and how they evaluate thesemodels. It may additionally be useful to discover the extent to which managersthemselves perceive the probability of convergence.

It is interesting when examining the relevant literature to note that, although authors ofcross-national management studies describe existing models through the use of toolssuch as interviews with managers from each system, they subsequently draw their ownconclusions regarding the possible transferability of management practices. They rarelyinvestigate the evaluations of various management models by managers who do notoriginate from the country system under consideration.2 The studies by the ‘BestInternational HRM Practices Consortium’ (e.g. Von Glinow, 2002; Von Glinow et al.,2002; Geringer et al., 2002) are in this context of interest, in so far as they question HRmanagers in different countries not only about the ‘Is Now’, but also the ‘Should Be’ oftheir own HRM-model. To ask about what ‘Should Be’ is to break what the researchersthemselves call a ‘methodological taboo’. Yet, according to the consortium’s authors,divergent evaluations by the HR managers of the ‘Is Now’ and the ‘Should Be’ indicatedeficiencies and thus potential to learn from practices originating in other countries.However, HR managers are also in these studies not surveyed on what specifically theybelieve they could learn from other countries. Hence, empirical research is mainlyconcerned with the description of management systems; discussion of the moreapplication oriented issue of learning from best practice is, in contrast, largely basedsolely on appraisals by academics (see, for example, Ouchi, 1981; Pascale and Athos,1981; Womack et al., 1990). Since cross-national convergence towards best practice,

2046 The International Journal of Human Resource Management

based on learning from other countries, ultimately relies on the managers’ knowledge of,and judgements on, foreign management systems, it is surprising that little empiricalwork has been done in this area. This paper addresses this deficiency.

Context, objectives and methodology

The examination of HRM-strategies seemed to be regarded as of little importance inearly international comparative studies (Pieper, 1990; Brewster and Bournois, 1993).Since the late 1980s, however, HRM-systems of different countries have beenincreasingly under investigation (Sparrow et al., 1994). Researchers who haveparticipated in the cross-national search for the best HRM practices include Ouchi(1981), Peters and Waterman (1982), Pfeffer (1994, 1998) and Huselid (1995). HRM isoften considered to be one of the areas most subject to cultural influences (Hendry, 1991;Muller, 1999). Consequently, if cross-national learning from best practice can beachieved here, then it should also be possible for other management functions. Therefore,finding evidence of cross-national learning in HRM would be a strong indicator for the(at least partial) validity of the convergence concept.

This contribution investigates more specifically how American, Japanese and GermanHR managers perceive the possibility of learning from each others’ HRM approaches.The USA, Japan and Germany were chosen because they constitute the three largesteconomies in the world, as well as being the leading economies of the triad NorthAmerica, Asia and Europe. In addition, they reflect a broad variety of concepts onmanagement in general, and HRM in particular (Dore, 2000).

The American economy’s current dominance gives rise again to the expectation of‘one best practice’, increases pressures for borrowing and adaptation, and ultimatelysupports convergence theory, which as Smith and Meiksins (1995: 244) put it ‘was, afterall, premised on the rest of the world copying the US’. According to Muller (1999: 126),the American concept of HRM in particular ‘has emerged as one of the most importantprescriptions for a world-wide convergence of managerial practices’. However, itsadaptability to the European context has often been put into question as its individualistand market driven values run counter to the more collectivist and regulated environmentin Europe (see, for example, Ferner and Hyman, 1994; Guest, 1990, 1994; Brewster andBournois, 1993; Brewster, 1994, 1995; Kirkbride, 1994) and particularly in Germany(Wachter and Muller-Camen, 2002). As far as the Japanese corporate environment isconcerned, the American HRM-model is regarded as contradicting in many ways thebroad concept of ‘respect for people’ (Kono and Clegg, 2001) and the aim of ‘humanresource development’ (Ballon, 2002). However, with the drastic downturn of theeconomy and a management model perceived to be increasingly in crisis, there areindications of some shift towards Western and particularly American managementprinciples taking place (Frenkel, 1994; Ornatowski, 1998; Matanle, 2003; Pudelko, 2004,2005).

In addition, Japanese management served writers from many nations, particularly theUS, as a model for organizational contingency and convergence theory. The diffusion ofnew production methods (Womack et al., 1990; Kenney and Florida, 1993) andapproaches towards HRM (Inohara, 1990) associated with Japanese managementmethods can be subsumed under efforts to ‘learn from best practice’. These efforts werecharacterized by decontextualizing specific Japanese management methods andtranslating them into universal concepts such as ‘lean management’ or ‘human resourcecentred management’. According to Smith and Meiskins (1995), attempts to transformJapanese management methods into neutral organizational paradigms, which can be

Pudelko: Cross-national learning from best practice 2047

regarded as ‘best practices’ and therefore should also be adopted, was specifically

pervasive among American scholars. European and particularly German interpretation of

Japanese management methods has shown much less inclination to translate them into

universally applicable ‘best practices’, highlighting more continuity, pluralism and

diversity of national management practices and the importance of the national

institutional context (Kern and Schumann, 1984; Jurgens, 1989; Altmann et al., 1992).

With the economic problems Japan is currently facing, the same Japanese HRM which

was earlier presented by many Western, and in particular American, scholars as an

inspirational role-model (Vogel, 1979; Ouchi, 1981; Peters and Waterman, 1982), is

now, however, less and less perceived as being worth learning from (Smith, 1997;

Yoshimura and Anderson, 1997; Crawford, 1998).Finally, German HRM practices are regarded by some American authors (Smith,

1991; Pfeffer, 1994, 1998; Wever, 1995) as an interesting model. The attention is,

however, mainly confined to questions of co-determination as well as vocational training

(Werner and Campbell, 1993) and thus more directed towards legal-institutional than

strategic-managerial considerations. It would appear that German HRM practices seem

never have been of any particular interest to Japanese researchers (Pudelko, 2000).In view of the rather unevenly distributed awareness and attention paid to these three

HRM-models in the literature of the other two countries respectively, this paper sets out

to investigate the attitudes of HR-managers with regards to the potential of mutually

learning from each other. The first part of the empirical investigation seeks to establish

how American, Japanese and German HR managers perceive their own respective HRM-

systems, and to what degree they consider the HRM-systems of the other two countries as

models to be learned from. What specific attributes of the American, Japanese and

German models the HR managers identify as suitable for cross-national adoption are

subsequently investigated. Why it is not considered to be worthwhile learning from the

HRM practices of the other countries is explored as well. Finally, HR managers’ views

are sought regarding the future development of their own HRM-systems, and the

likelihood of any convergence tendencies.3

The analysis is based on data collected in an extensive survey on HRM in Germany,

the USA and Japan (Pudelko, 2000). The heads of HR departments from the 500 largest

companies in each of these three countries were approached with a questionnaire. Due to

their senior position within the corporate hierarchy, it was assumed that they had the best

experience and understanding of the matters being investigated. Large corporations were

selected because knowledge and understanding of foreign management models is likely

to be greater than in small or medium-sized companies.4

Questionnaires were distributed by mail, depending on the receiver, in English,

Japanese or German. All questions in its original (German) version had been previously

pilot-tested with German managers in order to minimize the possibility of

misunderstandings, to enhance content validity and to contribute to a more robust

questionnaire. Several survey items were altered in this process, in part substantially. In

order to secure consistency among the three versions the method of back-translation

(Brislin, 1970) was employed.Of the HR managers contacted, 107 (21 per cent) of the German managers responded,

68 (14 per cent) of the Japanese, and 57 (12 per cent) of American managers. Thus, this

study is based on the responses of 232 senior HR managers.5 More specific information

on the methodology and statistical techniques employed is presented in the context of the

results section below.


Results

Description of the HRM-models

Only from understanding how managers perceive both their own management practicesand those of others, can useful suggestions be formulated on how they might learn frombest practice of foreign companies. In order to obtain information from the HR managersabout the perceived attributes of the HRM-models, a series of 20 pairs of opposingstatements was developed across seven HRM categories and used in the questionnaire.These seven HRM categories (see Figure 1 in bold) were chosen because they comprise awide range of different aspects of HRM, thus providing a comprehensive overview ofeach of the three HRM models. The first four categories can be found inmost classifications of this kind and cover areas describing the relationship betweenthe company and its employees. The last three categories focus on social relations amongcompany employees themselves and so can be considered as indicative of HRM only in alooser sense. Consequently, the survey items encompass, beyond strict HRMcriteria, aspects with high relevance to OB. This has been done because the complexityof human relations in an organizational setting cannot fully be covered without includinginter-personal associations as well. Furthermore, it is believed that, in the context of thiscomparative study, aspects of communication, decision making and superior-subordinaterelationships are highly relevant for understanding cross-cultural differences, which havea direct impact on the various HRM models.

The survey items were developed on the basis of the relevant literature, but not takendirectly from it. As it is impossible to produce for each of the twenty opposing statementssupporting citations, the following texts should be mentioned here, as representative ofrecent writings on each of the three HRM models: for the USA: Kalleberg (1996),Kochan (1996), Ichniowski et al. (2000), and Strauss (2001); for Japan: Yoshimura andAnderson (1997), Ornatowski (1998), Dalton and Benson (2002), and Matanle (2003);and for Germany: Muller (1999), Wever (1995), Streeck (2001), and Wachter andMuller-Camen (2002).

Responses were invited on a six-point scale and related only to the managers’ owncountry, as detailed knowledge of the other two countries could not be presumed. As thedata are considered to be interval scale, arithmetic means for the responses from eachcountry could be computed and statistically compared with one another. The smaller(higher) the mean, the more the data tend to the left (right) of the scale. Figure 1reproduces the 20 pairs of opposing statements and the means for the USA, Japan andGermany. Table 1 presents information on the statistical significance of the differencesbetween the means from the three countries.

As can be seen from Table 1, statistically significant differences between thethree countries can be reported in 57 out of 80 cases. When tested collectively, the threecountries are statistically different from each other in 16 of the 20 opposing statements.As for the four remaining cases with collectively insignificant results (statements 3.2, 4.1,5.2 and 7.2) only two are statistically the same (3.2 and 4.1) whereas in the other two,statistically significant pair-wise differences can be reported. Thus, the data, based onthe responses obtained, suggest that the USA, Japan and Germany havedistinctly different HRM models. Moreover, when looking at the means it is notablethat, again, in 16 of 20 statements the USA and Japan are closer to the opposite poles,with Germany being in the middle. Of the remaining four statements that result in adifferent pattern, three are statistically significant (2.3, 6.1 and 6.2) and the remainingone is not (3.2). Amongst the 16 statements for which Germany is ranked in the middle,13 prove to be statistically significant for all three countries collectively and three do not


(4.1, 5.2 and 7.2). In a pair-wise consideration between the USA and Japan, in all of these

16 statements the differences are statistically significant. The corresponding figures for

Germany and Japan are 12 and for Germany and the USA, 6 respectively. These

results suggest that the American and the Japanese HRM models are – according to the

Figure 1 HR managers’ assessment of the main characteristics of their own HRM-system

(arithmetic means)


Table

1H

Rm

an

ag

ers’

ass

essm

ent

of

the

ma

inch

ara

cter

isti

cso

fth

eir

ow

nH

RM

-sys

tem

(sig

nifi

can

cea

na

lysi

s)

Pa

ram

eter

esti

ma

tio

ns

Wa

ldte

stfo

req

ua

lity

of

coef

fici

ents

QU

SA

GE

RJP

NU

SA¼

GE

RG

ER¼

JPN

US

A¼

JPN

US

A¼

GE

R¼

JPN

1.1

a2.68

a2.70

a4.74

c0

.01

39

c2

2.0

37

**

*c2

2.0

51

**

*c1

23

.04

**

*

b0

.17

b0

.12

b0

.16

1.2

2.51

2.70

4.90

0.1

92

12

2.1

96

**

*2

2.3

88

**

*2

63

.70

**

*

0.1

30

.09

0.1

2

1.3

2.96

4.63

4.97

1.6

67

7*

**

20

.33

8*

*2

2.0

06

**

*1

21

.02

**

*

0.1

50

.11

0.1

3

2.1

3.35

3.50

4.00

0.1

44

32

0.5

04

**

20

.64

9*

**

8.5

3*

*

0.1

70

.12

0.1

6

2.2

3.19

3.52

4.34

0.3

34

4*

20

.82

3*

**

21

.15

8*

**

32

.51

**

*

0.1

70

.13

0.1

6

2.3

4.11

3.56

3.87

20

.55

1*

**

20

.30

7*

0.2

43

46

.46

**

0.1

70

.13

0.1

6

3.1

2.09

2.48

3.03

0.3

93

0*

*2

0.5

48

**

*2

0.9

41

**

*2

6.1

9*

**

0.1

40

.10

0.1

3

3.2

3.07

3.01

3.10

20

.06

02

0.0

95

20

.03

40

.25

0.1

70

.12

0.1

5

3.3

3.25

3.49

4.25

0.2

44

72

0.7

63

**

*2

1.0

08

**

*2

0.8

2*

**

0.1

70

.13

0.1

6

4.1

2.84

3.09

3.15

0.2

45

62

0.0

66

20

.31

21

.53

0.1

90

.14

0.1

7

4.2

2.30

2.76

3.04

0.4

60

5*

**

20

.27

92

0.7

40

**

*1

6.0

1*

**

0.1

40

.11

0.1

3

4.3

1.98

3.61

5.59

1.6

29

1*

**

21

.97

6*

**

23

.60

5*

**

18

8.8

5*

**

0.2

00

.14

0.1

8

5.1

2.61

3.09

3.13

0.4

80

3*

**

20

.03

82

0.5

18

**

*8

.17

**

*

0.1

50

.11

0.1

3

5.2

3.31

3.39

3.63

0.0

83

42

0.2

34

20

.31

7*

3.5

1

0.1

50

.11

0.1

4


Table

1(C

on

tin

ued

)

Pa

ram

eter

esti

ma

tio

ns

Wa

ldte

stfo

req

ua

lity

of

coef

fici

ents

QU

SA

GE

RJP

NU

SA¼

GE

RG

ER¼

JPN

US

A¼

JPN

US

A¼

GE

R¼

JPN

6.1

2.49

2.22

2.97

20

.27

6*

*2

0.7

55

**

*2

0.4

79

**

*2

8.2

9*

**

0.1

20

.09

0.1

1

6.2

3.46

3.22

4.31

20

.23

72

1.0

89

**

*2

0.8

52

**

*4

7.2

8*

**

0.1

40

.11

0.1

3

6.3

2.50

2.75

3.74

0.2

47

52

0.9

87

**

*2

1.2

35

**

*5

6.9

0*

**

0.1

40

.10

0.1

3

7.1

2.72

3.24

4.18

0.5

18

7*

**

20

.93

8*

**

21

.45

7*

**

65

.43

**

*

0.1

40

.10

0.1

3

7.2

3.40

3.41

3.76

20

.00

62

0.3

49

**

20

.34

3*

4.5

8

0.1

50

.11

0.1

4

7.3

3.28

3.51

4.35

0.2

28

72

0.8

43

**

*2

1.0

72

**

*4

0.6

2*

**

0.1

40

.10

0.1

3

aE

stim

ated

mea

nfo

rea

chques

tion

and

for

each

countr

y.

bS

tandar

der

ror

of

esti

mat

edm

ean

for

each

ques

tion

and

for

each

countr

y.

cC

hi-

squar

est

atis

tic

from

the

Wal

dte

stfo

rth

e

equal

ity

of

pai

rwis

eco

untr

ym

eans

and

for

the

equal

ity

of

mea

ns

of

thre

eco

untr

ies.

***,

**

and

*in

dic

ate

stat

isti

cal

signifi

cance

atth

ele

vel

sof

1per

cent,

5per

cent,

and

10

per

cent,

resp

ecti

vel

y.


HR-managers perception of their own practices – notably opposed to each other and thatthe German model is more similar to the American one than the Japanese one.

As explained in more detail elsewhere (Pudelko, 2000, vol. 3), the opposite poles arelabelled ‘short-term performance efficiency based on flexible market structures and profitorientation’ (USA) and ‘long-term behavioural effectiveness based on cooperative clanstructures and growth orientation’ (Japan).

Is it worth trying to learn from the HRM of the other countries?

The American, Japanese and German HR managers were subsequently asked if theythought that corporations from their countries had oriented themselves toward, oradopted, particular human resource practices of corporations of the other two countriessince the 1980s. On a six-point Likert-scale, going from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘stronglydisagree’, the managers were asked to give their opinion about this statement. Again,arithmetic means for the responses from each country were computed. The smaller themean, the more the respondents agreed with the questions.

The means depicted in the first row of the left half of Table 2 (printed in bold) suggestthat both the Japanese and German respondents confirm, albeit cautiously, an orientationtowards American HRM since the 1980s. The orientation towards the Japanese model(second row) is clearly viewed more sceptically by the American and German HRmanagers. Finally, regarding the orientation towards German HRM (third row), it can beconcluded that neither the American nor the Japanese HR experts perceive a meaningfulorientation towards the German system. Another way of interpreting the results of the lefthalf of Table 2 is the following: The American managers orientated themselves moretowards Japan than towards Germany; the Japanese managers orientated themselvesmore towards the USA than towards Germany and the German managers more towardsthe USA than towards Japan.

These statements, along with those reported below, were tested for statisticalsignificance. Due to the complexity of the cases tested, and in order not to unnecessarilyinflate the main body of this paper, detailed information on the significance analysis isreported only in Table 2. Nevertheless, as 13 of the 18 cases tested proved to bestatistically significant, it can be argued that the statements made on the basis of thereported means are largely supported by the formal regression analysis.

The right half of Table 2 contains information about the same connections, although adifferent time frame is set. The data refer now to the question of whether American,Japanese and German HR managers hold the view that the companies in their ownrespective country should orient themselves toward, or adopt, particular human resourcepractices of the other two countries in forthcoming years. The results concerning thefuture strongly resemble those relating to the past. Once again American HRM is rated asthe strongest source of inspiration, more so by the Japanese than the Germans.The Japanese HRM system is again ranked between American and German HRM. TheGerman HRM is hardly seen as a source for orientation either by the American orJapanese managers. Furthermore, as with the past-related data in the left half of Table 2,the American managers are likely to orient themselves more towards Japan thanGermany; the Japanese managers more towards the USA than towards Germany and theGermans more towards the USA than towards Japan.

Comparing the data from both halves of Table 2, Japanese HRM is notably ratedmore negatively by both American and German HR experts regarding the future thanregarding the 1980s. It is, therefore, evident that Japanese HRM has lost some of itsappeal. In contrast, American HRM is rated better (by the Japanese), and less favourably


Table

2A

do

pti

on

of

hu

ma

nre

sou

rce

pra

ctic

esfr

om

the

oth

erH

RM

syst

ems

since

the1980s

inthefuture

years

Adoptionfrom

-to

USA

JPN

GER

USA

JPN

GER

USA

3.03

3.0

6*

3.34

2.80

26

.89

**

*3.71

13

3.0

2‡

‡‡

1.3

01

4.8

8‡

‡‡

5.8

0uu

71

.33

‡‡

‡1

1.5

0‡

‡‡

JPN

4.14

0.5

73.98

4.57

2.7

3*

4.25

17

.83

‡‡

‡3

.44u

2.3

73

.39

‡

GER

5.07

0.2

25.14

4.93

7.3

3*

**

4.42

0.6

31

7.5

2uuu

The

smal

ler

(hig

her

)th

ear

ithm

etic

mea

n(i

nbold

),th

em

ore

(les

s)th

ere

sponden

tsof

one

countr

ybel

ieve

that

anori

enta

tion

tow

ards

or

adopti

on

of

HR

pra

ctic

esfr

om

the

resp

ecti

ve

HR

Msy

stem

has

taken

pla

cein

the

pas

t(l

eft

hal

f)or

wil

lta

ke

pla

cein

the

futu

re(r

ight

hal

f).

***

,**

and

*sh

ow

stat

isti

cal

signifi

cance

for

row

-wis

eeq

ual

ity

(adopti

on

to)

atth

ele

vel

sof

1per

cent,

5per

cent

and

10

per

cent,

resp

ecti

vel

y.

For

exam

ple

3.03

isst

atis

tica

lly

dif

fere

nt

from

3.34

atth

ele

vel

of

10

per

cent

acco

rdin

gto

thex

2st

atis

tic

of

3.0

6fr

om

the

Wal

dte

st.

‡‡‡,

‡‡

and

‡sh

ow

stat

isti

cal

signifi

cance

for

row

-wis

eeq

ual

ity

(adopti

on

from

)at

the

level

sof

1per

cent,

5per

cent

and

10

per

cent,

resp

ecti

vel

y.

For

exam

ple

4.14

isst

atis

tica

lly

dif

fere

nt

from

5.07

atth

ele

vel

of

1per

cent

acco

rdin

gto

thex

2st

atis

tic

of

17.8

3fr

om

the

Wal

dte

st.

uuu,uu

and

ush

ow

stat

isti

cal

signifi

cance

for

mai

nco

lum

n-w

ise

equal

ity

(pas

tan

dfu

ture

)at

the

level

sof

1per

cent,

5per

cent

and

10

per

cent,

resp

ecti

vel

y.

For

exam

ple

4.14

is

stat

isti

call

ydif

fere

nt

from

4.57

atth

ele

vel

of

10

per

cent

acco

rdin

gto

thex

2st

atis

tic

of

3.4

4fr

om

the

Wal

dte

st.


(by the Germans). Only German HRM has improved its reputation compared with thepast, albeit from a low base-point. This can be seen particularly in the ratings of theJapanese HR managers. However, since the Japanese also want to increase theirorientation towards the American model, this may be interpreted as indicative of risingdiscontent with their own system.

These results reveal that the American HRM-model in particular can be regarded asa role model. In contrast, Japanese HRM is of lesser importance and appears to beheading into decline. Finally, German HRM is of the least significance as a source ofinspiration.

What is to be learned from the HRM of the other countries?

The HR managers contacted were also asked by means of open-ended questions toindicate concrete attributes of the other two HRM-systems, which they considered worthadopting in their own system, again for the two time periods (since the 1980s and inforthcoming years).

Quantitative evaluation Table 3 provides an overview of the number of items raisedconcerning attributes of the various HRM-models considered to be worth adopting.

The results show that from the total number of 495 items mentioned by the HR experts,353 apply to the USA, 131 to Japan and only 11 to Germany. This clearly underlinesthe patterns found earlier: American HRM is perceived as most attractive, with JapaneseHRM far less appealing, and German HRM the least desirable by a wide margin.

With one exception, more items were named as worth adopting since the 1980s thanin previous years. This may, however, reflect the order of the questions in thequestionnaire (positioning effect). An exception is the Japanese respondents who listedjust one item relating to their past orientation towards German HRM but ten items forthe future. This can be interpreted as a further indication of the increasing insecurityand dissatisfaction with their own (Japanese) HRM. At the same time, it is noteworthythe extent to which the number of items decrease that refer to the orientation towardsJapanese HRM in the future, as compared to those for the past. This points once againto the strong decline in attractiveness of Japanese HRM among American and GermanHR experts.

Qualitative evaluation In this subsection, concrete attributes of the other two countries’models, that HR managers consider worth adopting in their own system, are described insome detail. In order to systematize the multitude of attributes given, they are classifiedin one of the ten categories depicted in Tables 4 and 5. Table 4 lists the attributes theJapanese and German HR managers consider worth adopting from the American HRMmodel.6

Regarding adoption of aspects of the American HRM by Japanese companies, the lefthalf of Table 4 indicates that for the Japanese HR managers those attributes are mostimportant that have been listed here under the category employee assessment andpromotion criteria. This is with regard to both the past and future. It is notable that 55 of57 items classified under this category point in the same direction: ‘performanceorientation’ (30), ‘result and objective orientation’ (18) and conversely ‘turning awayfrom the seniority principle’ (7). It is this performance-, result- and objective-orientationthat reflects the most-commonly mentioned attributes of American HRM from whichJapanese HR managers believe it is worthwhile learning. This move away from the


Table

3N

um

ber

of

item

sco

nsi

der

edw

ort

ha

do

pti

ng

fro

mth

eo

ther

HR

M-s

yste

ms

to-f

rom

US

AJP

NG

ER

Su

m

USA

To

tal

16

9

To

tal

18

4

To

tal

35

3

Pas

t

10

2

Fu

ture

67

Pas

t

10

4

Fu

ture

80

Pas

t

20

6

Fu

ture

14

7

JPN

To

tal

21

To

tal

11

0

To

tal

13

1

Pas

t

17

Fu

ture

4

Pas

t

87

Fu

ture

23

Pas

t

10

4

Fu

ture

27

GER

To

tal

0

To

tal

11

To

tal

11

Pas

t

0

Fu

ture

0

Pas

t

1

Fu

ture

10

Pas

t

1

Fu

ture

10

Sum

To

tal

21

To

tal

18

0

To

tal

29

4

49

5

Pas

t

17

Fu

ture

4

Pas

t

10

3

Fu

ture

77

Pas

t

19

1

Fu

ture

10

3

(Abso

lute

num

ber

san

dper

centa

ges

)


Table

4A

do

pti

on

fro

mA

mer

ica

nH

RM

JPN

GE

R

Att

rib

ute

s(o

rder

edb

yH

RM

cate

go

ries

)P

ast

Fu

ture

To

tal

Pa

stF

utu

reT

ota

lS

um

of

tota

ls

Strategies

715

22

21

28

49

71

Du

eto

glo

bal

izat

ion

and

lib

eral

izat

ion

ado

pti

on

of

the

Am

eric

anm

anag

emen

tis

un

avo

idab

le

18

90

00

9

Str

on

ger

con

sid

erat

ion

of

mar

ket

ou

tco

mes

12

31

01

4

Mer

ger

s,ac

qu

isit

ion

san

dse

llin

go

fco

mp

any

div

isio

ns

12

30

00

3

Pro

fit

ori

enta

tio

nan

dsh

areh

old

erv

alu

e2

02

91

10

12

Fle

xib

ilit

y,

pro

mp

tnes

san

dm

ob

ilit

y0

00

11

61

71

7

Glo

bal

izat

ion

03

31

45

8

Cu

sto

mer

and

serv

ice

ori

enta

tio

n0

00

40

44

Man

agem

ent

and

stra

teg

yo

rien

tati

on

10

13

14

5

Oth

ers

10

12

68

9

Structures

21

35

712

15

Fla

t,d

ecen

tral

ized

org

aniz

atio

nal

stru

ctu

res

21

35

61

11

4

Oth

ers

00

00

11

1

Processes

40

48

210

14

Res

tru

ctu

rin

g2

02

00

02

Pro

ject

,p

roce

ssan

dch

ang

em

anag

emen

t1

01

31

45

To

tal

qu

alit

ym

anag

emen

t1

01

30

34

Oth

ers

00

02

13

3

Recruitmentandrelease

ofpersonnel

13

10

23

40

427

Tu

rnin

gaw

ayfr

om

life

lon

gem

plo

ym

ent

resp

ecti

vel

y

flex

ibil

ity

of

recr

uit

men

t,re

leas

eo

fp

erso

nn

el

and

chan

ge

of

emp

loy

er

87

15

00

01

5

Rec

ruit

men

to

fex

per

ien

ced

spec

iali

sts

for

spec

ifica

lly

adv

erti

sed

po

siti

on

s

23

51

01

6

Man

ager

sar

eex

tern

ally

recr

uit

edan

dca

n

also

be

laid

off

agai

nm

ore

easi

ly

30

32

02

5


Table

4(C

on

tin

ued

)

JPN

GE

R

Att

rib

ute

s(o

rder

edb

yH

RM

cate

go

ries

)P

ast

Fu

ture

To

tal

Pa

stF

utu

reT

ota

lS

um

of

tota

ls

Oth

ers

00

01

01

1

Traininganddevelopment

43

76

17

14

Incr

ease

dfo

rmat

ion

of

spec

iali

sts

and

turn

ing

away

fro

mth

efo

rmat

ion

of

gen

eral

ists

43

70

00

7

Job

rota

tio

n0

00

40

44

Oth

ers

00

02

13

3

Employee

assessm

entandpromotion

criteria

36

21

57

13

619

76

Per

form

ance

ori

enta

tio

n1

51

53

07

31

04

0

Res

ult

and

ob

ject

ive

ori

enta

tio

n1

44

18

01

11

9

Tu

rnin

gaw

ayfr

om

the

sen

iori

typ

rin

cip

le6

17

00

07

Dev

elo

pm

ent

of

hu

man

reso

urc

es0

00

51

66

Oth

ers

11

21

12

4

Employee

incentives

23

12

35

21

18

39

74

Per

form

ance

and

resu

lto

rien

ted

rem

un

erat

ion

47

11

98

17

28

Po

siti

on

bas

edre

mu

ner

atio

n7

31

00

00

10

Rem

un

erat

ion

on

ann

ual

inst

ead

of

mo

nth

lyb

asis

81

90

00

9

Mo

rein

div

idu

alit

y,

flex

ibil

ity

and

var

iab

ilit

yco

nce

rnin

g

rem

un

erat

ion

31

46

61

21

6

Oth

ers

10

16

41

01

1

Communication

11

26

511

13

Effi

cien

cyo

rien

ted

rela

tio

ns

11

20

00

2

Op

enan

dre

lax

edco

mm

un

icat

ion

00

03

25

5

Oth

ers

00

03

36

6

Decisionmaking

10

212

23

517

Au

ton

om

y7

07

00

07

Pro

mp

tnes

san

dst

rin

gen

cy0

11

22

45

Oth

ers

31

40

11

5


Table

4(C

on

tin

ued

)

JPN

GE

R

Att

rib

ute

s(o

rder

edb

yH

RM

cate

go

ries

)P

ast

Fu

ture

To

tal

Pa

stF

utu

reT

ota

lS

um

of

tota

ls

Superior-subordinate

relationship

22

418

10

28

32

Lea

der

ship

11

20

00

2

Par

tici

pat

ive

lead

ersh

ipan

dte

amw

ork

00

06

71

31

3

Man

agem

ent

by

ob

ject

ives

10

19

09

10

Oth

ers

01

13

36

7

Across

allcategories

102

67

169

104

80

184

353


Table

5A

do

pti

on

fro

mJa

pa

nes

eH

RM

Att

rib

ute

s(o

rder

edb

yH

RM

cate

go

ries

)U

SA

GE

R

Pa

stF

utu

reT

ota

lP

ast

Fu

ture

To

tal

Su

mo

fto

tals

Strategies

10

14

04

5S

trat

egic

pla

nn

ing

10

10

00

1

Lea

nm

anag

emen

t0

00

20

22

Oth

ers

00

02

02

2

Structures

20

21

01

3O

rgan

izat

ion

ald

evel

op

men

t2

02

00

02

Oth

ers

00

01

01

1

Processes

61

749

453

60

Qu

alit

yo

rien

tati

on

and

tota

lq

ual

ity

man

agem

ent

30

31

21

13

16

Qu

alit

yci

rcle

s0

00

40

44

Kai

zen

resp

ecti

vel

yco

nti

nu

ou

sim

pro

vem

ents

11

21

92

21

23

Kan

ban

resp

ecti

vel

yju

st-i

n-t

ime-

pro

du

ctio

n0

00

40

44

Co

stca

lcu

lati

on

00

08

08

8

Oth

ers

20

22

13

5

Recruitmentandrelease

ofpersonnel

00

01

01

1Jo

bse

curi

ty0

00

10

01

Traininganddevelopment

00

03

14

4T

rain

ing

of

soci

ally

com

pet

ent

gen

eral

ists

00

03

03

3

Oth

ers

00

00

11

1

Employee

assessm

entandpromotioncriteria

10

12

02

3G

rou

po

rien

tati

on

10

11

01

2

Oth

ers

00

01

01

1

Employee

incentives

12

36

915

18

Lo

yal

tyto

war

ds

and

iden

tifi

cati

on

wit

hth

eco

mp

any

02

21

23

5

Val

ue

ori

enta

tio

n1

01

14

56

Co

rpo

rate

cult

ure

00

04

37

7


Table

5(C

on

tin

ued

)

Att

rib

ute

s(o

rder

edb

yH

RM

cate

go

ries

)U

SA

GE

R

Pa

stF

utu

reT

ota

lP

ast

Fu

ture

To

tal

Su

mo

fto

tals

Communication

00

00

00

0Decisionmaking

30

33

47

10

Par

tici

pat

ive

and

bo

tto

m-u

pd

ecis

ion

mak

ing

30

32

46

9

Co

nsi

der

atio

no

fso

ftfa

cts

00

01

01

1

Superior-subordinate

relationship

31

418

523

27

Tea

mo

rien

tati

on

31

41

85

23

27

Across

allcategories

17

421

87

23

110

131


traditional seniority principle employed by Japanese companies suggests a major reversalin the priorities of Japanese HRM.

Along with the seniority principle, lifelong employment (category: recruitment andrelease of personnel) and the formation of generalists (category: training anddevelopment) are regarded as key elements of traditional Japanese HRM. The itemsraised suggest that these two fundamental principles are also considerably on the wane.

The movement away from these three fundamental components of the Japanese HRM-model illustrates the fact that traditional Japanese HRM is currently being seriouslyquestioned by Japanese HR managers themselves. This is reinforced by the categories nextmentioned most often, namely employee incentives (referring to the past) and strategies(referring to the future). With regards to employee incentives (in total: 35), the answersgiven further indicate a movement towards the performance-, objective- and result-orientation described above. Regarding strategies (in total: 22), the rather comprehensivestatement ‘due to globalization and liberalization, orientation toward the Americanmanagement is unavoidable’ (9) was given just once for the past but eight times for thefuture. This increase is a further indication of a reorientation of Japanese management.

The right half of Table 4 shows the opinions of German HR experts regardingadoption of aspects of American HRM by German companies. From the ten categories,strategies (in total: 49) represent most of the items raised by German HR managerswithin this category. ‘Profit orientation and shareholder value’ (9) is for the past the mostimportant attribute. As for the future, however, this attribute was just stated once, whichsuggests that this ‘lesson’ from the USA has largely been learned. In contrast, ‘flexibility,promptness and mobility’ was mentioned just once concerning the past, but 16 times witha view to the future; here, an apparent shift in priorities can be observed.

Following strategies, German HR managers ranked attributes classified underemployee incentives as the second most important concerning American practices (intotal: 39). Similar to the ranking of attributes outlined above by the Japanese, the‘performance and result oriented remuneration’ (17) is the most frequently named itemfor the Germans as well. This is followed by the attribute ‘more individuality, flexibilityand variability concerning remuneration’ (12).

As for the third most frequently mentioned category, superior-subordinate-relationship (in total: 28), in particular ‘participative leadership and team work’(13) should be noted. Concerning employee assessment and promotion criteria ofAmerican companies (in total: 19), the ‘performance orientation’ (10) has been mentionedmost frequently. As for the structures (in total: 12), ‘flat, decentralized organizationalstructures’ (11) are especially evident.

As for the adoption from Japanese HRM, Table 5 summarizes the results.Concerning the adoption of aspects of the Japanese HRM by American companies,

two issues are to be emphasized (again): first, the low number of attributes of JapaneseHRM that the American HR experts consider worth adopting (in total: 21) and, second,the large decrease in items referring to the future (4) as opposed to the past (17). The mostfrequently addressed categories are processes (in total: 7), including ‘quality orientationand total quality management’ (3) and ‘kaizen respectively continuous improvement’ (2)as well as superior-subordinate-relationship (in total: 4) which consisted only of ‘teamorientation’ (4).

Regarding the adoption of aspects of the Japanese HRM by German companies, manymore items have been given (in total: 110) than was the case for the orientation ofAmerican firms toward Japanese ones. As with the Americans, the German respondentsare looking far less to the future (23 items) than to the past (87). Processes (in total: 53)account for almost half of all items raised from the ten categories. However, there is


a striking decrease in this category with regard to the future (concerning the past: 49;concerning the future: 4). ‘Kaizen/continuous improvements’, for example, drops as anattribute worth adopting from 19 to 2 and ‘quality orientation and total qualitymanagement’ falls from 12 to 1.

Superior-subordinate relationship (in total: 23) is for the German HR managers(as with the American ones) the category for which items have been cited second mostoften, wholly comprising ‘group or teamwork’ (23). This attribute was also highlightedby the Americans. However, its decrease in importance (concerning the past: 18;concerning the future: (5) should not be ignored. The category that follows in importanceis employee incentives (in total: 15). Here, ‘corporate culture’ (7), ‘value orientation’(5) and ‘loyalty towards and identification with the company’ (3) are prominent. Dealingnext with the decision making category (in total: 7), the attribute ‘participative andbottom-up decision making’ (6) dominates, as it does with the American HR managers.

The fact that more than half of all items raised by the German HR managersconcerning Japanese practices address the processes (e.g. kaizen, total qualitymanagement, quality circles) shows their high level of importance. This is corroboratedby the aforementioned opinions from the American HR experts (see also Itagaki, 2002).On the other hand, the significant decrease of 49 items concerning the past to only 4referring to the future suggests that here too potential stimuli might have already beeninternalized, and will consequently play a less influential role in the future. Nevertheless,it is worth noting that the advantages of the American model are more associated withstrategies (by Germans and Japanese), whereas in contrast those of the Japanese modelare more allied with processes (by Germans and Americans). Apparently, Americans areregarded as being good at making major decisions (strategies), whereas the Japanesestrengths are believed to lie in ‘fine-tuning’ activities (processes).

Several explanations for the substantial loss in significance of some key attributes ofJapanese HRM (kaizen, total quality management, quality circles, teamwork) can besuggested. It is possible that these attributes have already become part of American andGerman HRM in the last few years, and will therefore be less significant in the future assources of inspiration. There is also the possibility that these attributes are losing theirimportance in comparison to other ones due to a changing competitive environment.Fundamental changes such as globalization might, for instance, have triggered a shift inemphasis from incremental improvements (processes), which are regarded as a particularstrength of Japanese management, to more comprehensive measures (strategies), whichare perceived as a strong point of American management. Finally, the loss of confidencein the Japanese management model in general, and the HRM model in particular, mayhave negatively influenced views on even those aspects of Japanese HRM that might stillserve as worthwhile sources of inspiration.

As for adoption of aspects of German HRM, so few items were mentioned that no extratable is included here. The low number of responses once more underlines the small(or non-existent) degree to which German HRM can be considered as a role model forothers.

These results indicate the perceived strengths of other HRM models and implyweaknesses perceived by HRM managers regarding their own systems. American HRmanagers demonstrated that they do not see in either Japanese or in German HRMimportant sources for inspiration. A change in American HRM triggered by inspirationsfrom practices in these two countries cannot therefore be expected.

In view of the considerable literature on Japanese management written in the US, onemight have expected, at least with regard to the past, evidence of a more pronouncedinfluence of Japanese HRM on American firms (e.g. team orientation, participative


decision-making). Possibly the stimulus of Japanese management achievements wasmore evident in the area of production methods than HRM.

Answers provided by the Japanese HR experts, on the other hand, indicate that theyhave substantial doubts about the effectiveness of their own model. A clear orientationtowards Western (or more specifically American) patterns can be discerned in the itemsmentioned by the Japanese respondents which, taken together, signify a desired movetowards greater flexibility and individualization in HRM practices (see also Watanabe,2003). In view of the features of traditional HRM, as underpinned by Japanese culture,which are often described as collectivist (see, for example, Abegglen, 1958; Dore, 2002;Hofstede, 2001), this change implies a rather fundamental paradigm shift.

The German HR experts also listed a large number of items worth emulating, bothAmerican and Japanese. This is especially interesting, as American and Japanese HRMpractices can be described as, in many ways, opposite to each other (Pudelko, 2000).Apparently, German HR managers seem to be rather open to influences from differentdirections. The attributes of the Japanese HRM model considered worth learning from,however, were mentioned in particular with regard to the past. Concerning orientationtowards American practices, a higher degree of flexibility, individuality, promptness andmobility, as well as performance and result orientation is favoured. Compared with theaspects that Japanese HR managers cite as worth adopting, however, the envisagedchanges seem far less fundamental. This clearly distinguishes the situation in Germanyfrom that in Japan. Finally, what was clear again was the almost total insignificance ofGerman HRM as a source of inspiration for Japanese and, in particular, American HRmanagers.

Why is it not worthwhile learning from the HRM of the other countries?

The findings reported demonstrate that the degree to which the three HRM-systems areregarded as role models differs substantially. Accordingly, reasons for non-orientationtowards other systems merit examination. Three possibilities suggest themselves: theother models are simply unknown; the other models are not regarded as good or worthyenough; and the cultural, social, institutional and other circumstances are just toodifferent. Table 6 indicates which of these three answers the HR managers considered tobe most relevant, again since the 1980s and for future years.7

The vast majority of Japanese and Germans who believe that they have not or will notorient themselves towards American HRM, explain this by the different circumstancesthat exist there. Also with regard to Japanese HRM, the majority of the American andGerman HR managers perceive the unique circumstances that exist in Japan as the mainreason for non-orientation towards the Japanese HRM system. Regarding reasons for anon-orientation towards Japanese HRM in future years, an interesting shift can beobserved. Germans and Americans agree that it will be substantially less worthwhile tolearn from Japanese HRM in the future than was the case in the past.

The answers for non-orientation towards German HRM clearly deviate whencompared with data concerning non-orientation towards American and Japanese HRM.What is notable here is how great the lack of information is regarding HRM in theworld’s third largest economy. This applies both to the Americans and, even more so, tothe Japanese, both for previous years and in forecasts for the future. This finding is ofimportance since German HRM in particular is so little regarded as a role model. Theresults demonstrate that the reason for this is by no means that it is not regarded as goodenough, but principally because it is simply unknown.


Table

6R

easo

ns

for

the

no

n-o

rien

tati

on

tow

ard

the

oth

erH

RM

-sys

tem

s

No

n-o

rien

tati

on

tow

ard

sU

SA

No

n-o

rien

tati

on

tow

ard

sJa

pa

nN

on

-ori

enta

tio

nto

wa

rds

Ger

ma

ny

Pa

stF

utu

reP

ast

Fu

ture

Pa

stF

utu

re

Rea

son

sJP

NG

ER

JPN

GE

RU

SA

GE

RU

SA

GE

RU

SA

JPN

US

AJP

N

Un

kn

ow

n0

15

12

10

22

71

12

65

61

74

6

0%

27

%9

%4

%2

9%

31

%1

6%

14

%5

2%

88

%3

9%

84

%

No

tw

ort

h1

20

11

25

41

03

04

1

7%

4%

0%

22

%6

6%

77

%9

%1

3%

6%

0%

9%

2%

14

39

10

37

23

45

34

58

21

82

38

Dif

fere

nt

ciru

cum

stan

ces

93

%7

0%

91

%7

4%

66

%6

3%

76

%7

3%

42

%1

3%

52

%1

5%

(Abso

lute

num

ber

san

dper

centa

ges

)


Future development

Finally, the participants’ opinion on the likely future development of their respectiveHRM model was addressed in the questionnaire. Table 7 reports the results.

The responses paint a largely homogeneous picture across the three countries. Only afew of the survey participants believe that convergence towards a common model willoccur. Indeed, more of the HR experts foresee that human resource practices will alwaysremain very different. Finally, the vast majority of American, Japanese and Germanrespondents believe that human resource practices will become in some ways similar, butwithout converging towards a common model.

It is of interest to see in which direction, if any, the convergence tendencies haveoccurred. A summary of the relevant results is given in Table 8.

It is notable how similar the results are from the three countries. German HR practicesare rarely viewed as the model to which the various systems will converge. The same canbe said of Japanese HRM. More common is a perceived convergence towards AmericanHR practices. By far the largest preference is, however, for a combination of the threecountries’ models.

Evaluation

Among the key findings of this survey are that a majority of American, Japaneseand German HR managers foresee a mutual (partial) convergence in the HRMsystems (see Table 7); they expect this convergence will be towards a combination model(see Table 8); and they classify their own HRM in such a way that the German system islocated ‘in the middle’ or seen as a kind of combination of the American and the Japanesemodels (see Figure 1/Table 1). It seems, however, that the HR managers from the three

Table 7 Future developments of the HRM

USA JPN GER

Will always remain very different 8 4 21

16% 6% 19%

Will become in some ways similar, without

converging on an essentially common model

38 59 86

75% 87% 80%

Convergence on an essentially common model 5 5 1

10% 7% 1%

(Absolute numbers and percentages)

Table 8 Direction of the supposed convergence tendencies

USA JPN GER

American 7 14 24

human resource practices 16% 22% 25%

Japanese 0 0 3


German 0 0 2


36 50 70

Combination of the different practices 84% 78% 70%

(Absolute numbers and percentages)


countries do not associate this combined model with the German one, even though it isclosest to the combination model because of Germany’s ‘middle position’. For Americanand Japanese HR specialists, this may well be explained by their lack of knowledge of theGerman HRM-system (see Table 6), although even German HR managers do not seem tosee this connection.

When one considers that Germany has the third largest economy in the world – afterthe USA and Japan – and that it is considered to be the most prominent example of asocial market economy in continental Europe, the lack of knowledge about its HRMmodel merits some reflection. Acknowledging the problems connected with theconstruction of typologies (for a summary of this critique see Kitay and Marchington,1996), the findings lend some support to conceptualizing the three HRM models in termsof a continuum, with the USA at one pole (‘short-term performance efficiency based onflexible market structures and profit orientation’); Japan at the opposite pole (‘long-termbehavioural effectiveness based on cooperative clan structures and growth orientation’)and Germany in many ways in the middle. This in itself renders the German model lessopen to clear-cut characterization and stereotypical consideration than the morepolarized American and Japanese models (see also Warner and Campbell, 1993).Moreover, there are few detailed studies of German management, notwithstanding thoseby Lawrence (1980, 1994), Lane (1989), Albert (1991), Conrad and Pieper (1990),Glouchevitch (1992), Randlesome (1994), Wever (1995), Ebster-Grosz and Pugh (1996),Turner (1998), Thomas and Waring (1999) and Meyer-Larsen (2000), and it is amodel that is difficult for outsiders to categorize. Terms such as ‘American Dream’ or‘Japan Inc.’ express, with limitations, a bundle of concepts, conceptions and emotions,which describe an important part of American and Japanese reality. It is, however,telling, that a comparable and globally-known term does not exist for Germany(Bloom et al., 1994). A system depicted as a ‘compromise formula’, and which isdifficult to grasp, is less attractive for managers as a role model in the context of learningfrom best practice.

The depiction of German HRM as closest to the combination model requiresqualification. First, the data suggest that, as with Japan, the German HRM model tooneeds to move more towards increased flexibility and individualization (see alsoBrewster and Hegewisch, 1994; Streeck, 2001). Second, the German model cannot besufficiently described as located ‘in between’ the other two systems. For example, in thecontext of co-determination, it is subject to a high degree of labour laws, regulations,contractual agreements with the unions, and participation rights in the context of workscouncils. Thus, it offers limited managerial discretion (see also Pieper, 1990; Lawrence,1994; Brewster and Holt Larsen, 1993; Begin, 1997; Wachter and Muller-Camen, 2002).Third, Germany was included in the analysis because it stands for a specific form ofcapitalism, usually described as social-market economy. Nevertheless, there are alsoother continental European countries that represent this model and might serve as evenbetter potential sources of inspiration. Finally, although survey participants expect thatHRM practices ‘will become in some ways similar’, at the same time they refuse to back‘convergence on an essentially common model’. Accordingly, this paper is far fromsuggesting that German HRM represents the ideal combination model from which othercountries should learn.

Conclusions

The question that lies at the core of this exploratory paper is whether cross-nationaladoption of best practices can assist HR managers in improving the competitiveness of


their own management model. It can be concluded from the findings that HR-managersshould not let their efforts towards learning from best practice be exclusively guided bythose systems that can be easily categorized and comprehended. This conclusion appearsto be of particular importance in the case of Japan, which seems most concerned toachieve a new equilibrium between continuity and change, as inspired by foreign models(see Ballon, 2005; Pudelko, 2005).

The stark contrast with the American model might well serve as a valuable source ofinspiration for Japanese HR managers in so far as its particular strengths highlightthe specific weaknesses of the Japanese system. It would seem to act as an indicator of thedirection that Japanese HRM should take. However, the extent to which this directionshould be pursued (determining the new ‘positioning’ of HRM in Japan) will be ratherdifficult to ascertain from a model that lies in many ways at the opposite end of thespectrum. Broadening the search for inspiration and including a model that is moreintermediate or balanced and more partnership-oriented such as the European one(see, for example, Brewster, 1994, 1995) – of which Germany is taken here as anexample – would seem advisable.

Learning from best practice may need to be reformulated as essentially an inspirationprocess within the confines of what is possible. How to put inspirations from foreignmanagement models into practice can, however, only be answered together with closeconsideration of the specific domestic context. Allowing for pluralism seems in thiscross-national learning process more appropriate than the search for the ‘one best way’.

The findings on cross-national learning from best practice allow conclusions about theconvergence versus non-convergence debate. The solution should not be searched in asimplistic ‘either – or’ approach, but in an ‘as well as’ manner, that is a synthesis of thesetwo opposing forces. Hence, what might be expected for future development is a partialconvergence in the sense of a rapprochement of the different models without, however,assuming that the different models will ever converge into one system. On a moretheoretical level, an integrative model in cross-national management studies is requiredwhich enables us to explain convergence tendencies based on pressures to learn from bestpractice, as well as the persistent influence of culture and institutional context, resultingin continuity, plurality and diversity of management practices. The tension betweenconvergence and divergence should consequently be regarded as inherent in the globaleconomy and cannot ultimately be resolved in favour of one or the other.

Finally, it should be concluded that comparative (human resource) managementresearch needs greater focus on the knowledge of managers about foreign models, theirjudgements concerning other models and how these are generated. As this study hasshown, it is by no means sure that managers will always seek inspiration from the mostsuitable model. Dominance effects (Smith and Meiksins, 1995) certainly play a large rolein the perceptions of managers, but also researchers.

The study inevitably has limitations. It needs to be remembered that the findings ofthis investigation are based on the perceptions of HR-managers. While this should not beregarded as a shortcoming in itself, after all it was the stated objective of this paper toinvestigate them, these subjective perceptions concerning the different HRM-models andtheir future developments should not be confused with their objective measurements.More information on the companies (industry, size, etc.) and the respondents(international exposure, age, etc.) would have provided scope for more differentiatedanalysis. Furthermore, since the gathered data should not be understood as representativein the statistical sense of all American, Japanese and German companies, prudence isnecessary when interpreting the results. Quantitative information, ultimately, oftenmakes it impossible to analyse certain findings in more depth. The results on the future


developments of the three HRM-models in particular, would merit some moreinterpretation.

As an exploratory endeavour, which examined a topic with relatively high levels ofcomplex interrelations, the results of this study provide some further steps towardunderstanding how cross-national learning from best practice in HRM can be pursuedand what consequences this has for the closely interlinked convergence–divergencedebate. A fundamental question that has not been addressed in previous research andcertainly not conclusively in this study is how the managers’ subjective perceptions ofother management models (which are at the basis of each learning process from bestpractice) actually develop. Specifically, how important is actual knowledge aboutforeign-based models (versus, for example, the awareness of some stereotypes) for theformation of such perceptions? And to which degree are subjective perceptions onvarious management models determined by the already mentioned dominance effects(economic dominance, but also dominance of certain languages transporting knowledge,information channels distributing knowledge and educational systems interpretingknowledge)? What role do MNCs play in instructing managers about managementpractices from other countries? These questions are essential if we really want tounderstand how ‘learning from best practice’ processes regarding foreign managementmodels actually do occur within organizations and therefore merit more research. Onlyon the basis of this knowledge can useful advice be developed on how to improve‘learning from best practice’ methods.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Professor Yoshitaka Okada and Professor Michael T. Hannan,for their support during his research at Sophia University, Tokyo and StanfordUniversity, Palo Alto. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2004 AnnualMeeting of the Academy of Management.

Notes

1 It is held here that the term ‘divergence’ is in this context a rather inappropriate antonym of

‘convergence’. To diverge means ‘to move apart’; however, most authors of the so-called

‘divergence’ approach argue that national management models are different and will remain

different due to cultural and other societal contextual factors, without implying that those models

actually move apart; that is, become even more different. Therefore, ‘non-convergence’ might be

here the more appropriate antonym to ‘convergence’. Closely related, but not identical terms are

‘culture free’ versus ‘culture bound’ (Lammers and Hickson, 1979), ‘universalism’ versus

‘institutionalism’ (Smith and Meiksins, 1995) or ‘universalism’ versus ‘contingency’ (Delery

and Doty, 1996).2 An important exception to this is the rather substantial body of literature on HRM in foreign

subsidiaries (e.g. Schlunze, 2002). The focus in this literature is, however, more on what can be

adopted from one country to another within one multinational company. Instead, here the

objective is to understand what can be adopted between HRM practices of different countries. It

is appreciated that these two questions can overlap as both kinds of adoption processes can

influence each other. The extent to which adoption processes between different country models

are inspired by learning processes within multinational corporations is a question that merits

more attention.3 In deviation from standard practice, no specific standalone hypotheses will be formulated prior to

the result section. The exploratory character of the results in the context of cross-national

learning from best practices in HRM does not call for the test of specific hypotheses.

Furthermore, due to the just outlined broad array of topics covered in the empirical section, a


meaningful explanation of, and justification for, hypotheses based on the relevant literature

would only unnecessarily inflate the body of the text.4 Names and addresses were taken from the following sources: Fortune Guide to the 500 Largest

US Corporations (without author, 1999a), Shukan Toyo Keizai (without author, 1999b) (for the

names) and http://profile.yahoo.co.jp/ (for the addresses) as well as Die Großen 500 (Schmacke

and Jaeckel, 1999). Where personal names were not available, the letters were addressed ‘To the

Head of Human Resources’, ‘Jinjibucho Dono’ or ‘An den Personalleiter’.5 These response rates seem to reflect the fact that people in very senior positions were approached

(usually at a VP level) and that additionally the largest 500 companies of the USA, Japan and

Germany are often contacted for similar studies. Accordingly, the survey does not claim to be

representative of all large companies in the USA, Japan and Germany. It should be noted,

however, that the 232 companies included in this survey cover a large variety of different service

and manufacturing industries in all three countries. Furthermore, it should be observed that the

response rate for Germany is still above comparable postal questionnaire research like the well

known Cranet-E-survey for Germany with 19 per cent (Hanel, 1996; see also Schmitt and

Sadowski, 2003). The response rate for Japan is also above similar prior surveys in Japan as

reported by Kato and Morishima (2003). It can, therefore, be suggested that the data set provides

useful information on HRM in the USA, Japan and Germany.6 For clarification: all cited statements about transferable attributes of other HRM-models are put

in the text into quotation marks as they have been made by the questioned HR managers

themselves and are not pre-formulated by the author. However, for better intelligibility, similar

statements of the respondents have been summarized by the author. In the text, the number of

identical statements is given in parenthesis. If not mentioned otherwise, the number refers to the

total amount of items (that is with regard to both the past and the future). The categories to which

the attributes are classified are in the text in italics.7 Table 6 includes only statements from those respondents who previously were largely of the

opinion that no orientation towards the other two countries have taken place or will take place.

Consequently, some of the numbers in the cells are comparatively small. Where the cumulated

percentages do not add up exactly to 100 per cent, this is the effect of rounding.

References

Abegglen, J.G. (1958) The Japanese Factory. Aspects of Its Social Organization. Glencoe: The

Free Press.

Albert, M. (1991) Capitalisme contre Capitalisme. Paris: Seuil.

Altmann, N, Kohler, C. and Meil, P. (eds) (1992) Technology and Work in German Industry.

London: Routledge.

Ballon, R.J. (2002) ‘Human Resource Management and Japan’, Euro Asia Journal of Management,

12: 5–20.

Ballon, R.J. (2005) ‘Organizational Survival’. In Haak, R. and Pudelko, M. (eds) Japanese

Management in the Search for a New Balance Between Continuity and Change. Houndmills,

NY: Palgrave.

Begin, J.P. (1997) Dynamic Human Resource Systems. Cross-National Comparisons. Berlin: De

Gruyter.

Bloom, H., Calori, R. and de Wool, P. (1994) Euromanagement. A New Style for the Global Market.

London: Kogan Page.

Brewster, C. (1994) ‘European HRM: Reflection of, or Challenge to, the American Concept?’.

In Kirkbride, P. (ed.) Human Resource Management in Europe. Perspectives for the 1990s.

London: Routledge.

Brewster, C. (1995) ‘Towards a ‘European’ Model of Human Resource Management’, Journal of

International Business Studies, 1: 1–21.

Brewster, C. and Bournois, F. (1993) ‘A European Perspective on Human Resource Management’.

In Hegewisch, A. and Brewster, C. (eds) European Developments in Human Resource

Management. London: Kogan Page, pp. 33–54.


Brewster, C. and Holt Larsen, H. (1993) ‘Human Resource Management in Europe: Evidence from

Ten Countries’. In Hegewisch, A. and Brewster, C. (eds) European Developments in Human

Resource Management. London: Kogan Page, pp. 126–48.

Brewster, C. and Hegewisch, A. (eds) (1994) Policy and Practice in European Human Resource

Management. The Price Waterhouse Cranfield Survey. London: Routledge.

Brislin, R.W. (1970) ‘Back-translation for Cross-Cultural Research’, Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 1: 185–216.

Child, J. and Kieser, A. (1979) ‘Organization and Managerial Roles in British and West German

Companies. An Examination of the Culture-Free Thesis’. In Lammers, C.J. and Hickson, D.J.

(eds) Organizations Alike and Unlike. International and Interinstitutional Studies in the

Sociology of Organizations. London: Routledge, pp. 251–71.

Conrad, P. and Pieper, R. (1990) ‘Human Resource Management in the Federal Republic of

Germany’. In Pieper, R. (ed.) Human Resource Management: An International Comparison.

Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 109–42.

Crawford, R.J. (1998) Reinterpreting the Japanese Economic Miracle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Dalton, N. and Benson, J. (2002) ‘Innovation and Change in Japanese Human Resource

Management’, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 3: 345–62.

Delery, J.E. and Doty, D.H. (1996) ‘Modes of Theorizing in Strategic Human Resource

Management: Tests of Universalistic, Contingency and Configurational Performance

Predictions’, Academy of Management Journal, 39: 802–35.

Dore, R. (2000) Stock Market Capitalism: Welfare Capitalism. Japan and Germany versus the

Anglo-Saxons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dore, R. (2002) ‘Will Global Capitalism be Anglo-Saxon Capitalism?’, Asian Business &

Management, 1: 9–18.

Ebster-Grosz, D. and Pugh, D.S. (1996) Anglo-German Business Collaboration. Pitfalls and

Potentials. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.

Ferner, A. and Hyman, R. (1994) Industrial Relations in the New Europe. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishers.

Frenkel, S. (1994) ‘Pattern of Workplace Relations in the Global Corporation. Toward

Convergence?’. In Belanger, J., Edwards, P.K. and Haivenet, L. (eds) Workplace Industrial

Relations and the Global Challenge. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, pp. 210–74.

Geringer, J.M., Frayne, C.A. and Milliman, J.F. (2002) ‘In Search of “Best Practices”, International

Human Resource Management: Research Design and Methodology’, Human Resource

Management, 1: 5–30.

Glouchevitch, P. (1992) Juggernaut. The German Way of Business: Why it is Transforming Europe

– and the World. New York: Touchstone.

Guest, D.E. (1990) ‘Human Resource Management and the American Dream’, Journal of

Management Studies, 27: 377–97.

Guest, D.E. (1994) ‘Organisational Psychology and Human Resource Management. Towards a

European Approach’, European Work and Organisational Psychologist, 3: 251–70.

Hanel, U. (1996). ‘The Cranfield Network on European Human Resource Management:

Ergebnisbericht 1995’ University report, Dreseden.

Hannerz, U. (1996) Transnational Connections. London: Routledge.

Hendry, C. (1991) ‘International Comparisons of Human Resource Management. Putting the Firm

in the Frame’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2: 415–40.

Hickson, D.J. and Pugh, D.S. (1995) Management Worldwide: The Impact of Societal Culture on

Organizations around the Globe. London: Penguin.

Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences. Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and

Organizations across Nations (2nd edn). London, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Huselid, M.A. (1995) ‘The Effects of Strategic Human Resource Management and Human

Resource Planning on Firm Performance’. In Miner, J.B. and Crane, D.P. (eds) Advances in the

Practice, Theory, and Research of Strategic Human Resource Management. New York:

HarperCollins, pp. 108–25.


Ichniowski, C., Levine, D.I., Olson, C. and Strauss, G. (eds) (2000) The American Workplace:

Skills, Compensation, and Employee Involvement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Inohara, H. (1990) Human Resource Development in Japanese Companies. Tokyo: Asian

Productivity Organization.

Itagaki, H. (2002) ‘Japanese Multnational Enterprises: The Paradox of High Efficiency and Low

Profitability’, Asian Business and Management, 1: 101–24.

Jurgens, U. (1989) ‘The Transfer of Japanese Management Concepts in the International

Automobile Industry’. In Wood, S. (ed.) The Transformation of Work? London: Unwin Hyman.

Kalleberg, A.L., Knoke, D., Marsden, P.V. and Spaeth, J.L. (eds) (1996) Organizations in America:

Analyzing Their Structures and Human Resource Practices. London: Sage.

Kato, T. and Morishima, M. (2003) ‘The Nature, Scope and Effects of Profit Sharing in Japan:

Evidence from New Survey Data’, International Journal of Human Resource Management,

14: 942–55.

Kenney, M. and Florida, R. (1993) Beyond Mass Production: The Japanese System and its Transfer

to the US. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kern, H. and Schumann, M. (1984) Das Ende der Arbeitsteilung. Munchen: Beck.

Kerr, C., Dunlop, J.T., Harbison, F.H. and Myers, C.A. (1960) Industrialism and Industrial Man.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kirkbride, P.S. (1994) Human Resource Management in the New Europe of the 1990s. London:

Blackwell Publishers.

Kitay, T. and Marchington, M. (1996) ‘A Review and Critique of Workplace Industrial Relations

Typologies’, Human Relations, 49: 1263–90.

Kochan, T.A. (1996) ‘American Corporation as an Employer: Past, Present, and Future

Possibilities’. In Kaysen, C. (ed.) The American Corporation Today. Examining the Questions of

Power and Efficiency at the Century’s End. New York: Oxford, pp. 242–68.

Kono, T. and Clegg, S. (2001) Trends in Japanese Management. Continuing Strengths, Current

Problems and Changing Priorities. Houndmills, New York: Palgrave.

Lammers, C.J. and Hickson, D.J. (1979) ‘Are Organizations Culture-Bound?’. In Lammers, C.J.

and Hickson, D.J. (eds) Organizations Alike and Unlike. International and Interinstitutional

Studies in the Sociology of Organizations. London: Routledge, pp. 402–19.

Lane, C. (1989) Management and Labour in Europe. The Industrial Enterprise in Germany, Britain

and France. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.

Laurent, A. (1983) ‘The Cultural Diversity of Western Conceptions of Management’, International

Studies of Management & Organization, 13: 75–96.

Lawrence, P. (1980) Managers and Management in West Germany. London: Croom Helm.

Lawrence, P. (1994) ‘German Management: At the Interface between Eastern and Western

Europe’. In Calori, R. and de Woot, P. (eds) A European Management Model. Hemel

Hempstead, Prentice Hall: pp. 133–64.

Levitt, T. (1983) ‘The Globalization of the Markets’, Harvard Business Review, 3: 92–102.

Matanle, P. (2003) Japanese Capitalism and Modernity in a Global Era. Re-fabricating Lifetime

Employment Relations. London, New York: RoutledgeCurzon.

Meyer-Larsen, W. (2000) Germany, Inc. The New German Juggernaut and its Challenge to World

Business. New York: Wiley.

Mueller, F. (1994) ‘Societal Effect, Organizational Effect and Globalization’, Organisational

Studies, 15: 407–28.

Muller, M. (1999) ‘Unitarism, Pluralism, and Human Resource Management in Germany’,

Management International Review, special issue 3: 125–44.

Ornatowski, G.K. (1998) ‘The End of Japanese-Style Human Resource Management’, Sloan

Management Review, 39: 73–84.

Ouchi, W.G. (1981) Theory Z. How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge.

New York: Avon Books.

Pascale, R.T. and Athos, A.G. (1981) The Art of Japanese Management. Applications for American

Executives. New York: Warner.


Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982) In Search of Excellence. Lessons from America’s Best Run

Companies. New York: Warner Books.

Pfeffer, J. (1994) Competitive Advantage through People: Unleashing the Power of the Work

Force. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Pfeffer, J. (1998) The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First. Boston, MA:

Harvard Business School Press.

Pieper, R. (1990) ‘Introduction’. In Pieper, R. (ed.) Human Resource Management:

An International Comparison. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 1–26.

Pudelko, M. (2000) Das Personalmanagement in Deutschland, den USA und Japan; vol. 1:

Die gesamtgesellschaftlichen Rahmenbedingungen im Wettbewerb der Systeme; vol. 2:

Eine systematische und vergleichende Bestandsaufnahme; vol. 3: Wie wir voneinander lernen

konnen. Koln: Saborowski.

Pudelko, M. (2004) ‘Benchmarking: Was Amerikanische, Japanische und Deutsche Personalma-

nager voneinander lernen’, Zeitschrift fur Personalforschung, 18: 139–63.

Pudelko, M. (2005) ‘Japanese Human Resource Management: From Being a Miracle to Needing

One?’. In Haak, R. and Pudelko, M. (eds) Japanese Management in the Search for a

New Balance Between Continuity and Change. Houndmills, NY: Palgrave.

Randlesome, C. (1994) The Business Culture in Germany. Portrait of a Powerhouse. Oxford:

Butterworth-Heinemann.

Schlunze, R.D. (2002) ‘Locational Adjustment of Japanese Management in Europe’, Asian

Business and Management, 1: 267–83.

Schmacke, E. and Jaeckel, R. (1999) Die großen 500 auf einen Blick. Deutschlands Top-

Unternehmen mit Anschriften, Umsatzen und Management. Neuwied: Luchterhand (2 disks).

Schmitt, M. and Sadowski, D. (2003) ‘A Cost-Minimization Approach to the International Transfer

of HRM/IR Practices: Anglo-Saxon Multinationals in the Federal Republic of Germany’,

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14: 409–30.

Smith, S. (1991) ‘On the Economic Rationale for Codetermining Law’, Journal of Economic

Behavior and Organization, 16: 273–81.

Smith, P. (1997) Japan. A Reinterpretation. New York: Pantheon.

Smith, C. and Meiskins, P. (1995) ‘System, Society and Dominance Effects in Cross-National

Organisational Analysis’, Work, Employment & Society, 2: 241–67.

Sparrow, P., Schuler, R. and Jackson, S. (1994) ‘Convergence or Divergence: Human Resource

Practices and Policies for Competitive Advantage Worldwide’, International Journal for

Human Resource Management, 5: 267–99.

Spendolini, M.J. (1992) The Benchmarking Book. New York: Amacom.

Strauss, G. (2001) ‘HRM in the USA: Correcting Some British Impressions’, International Journal

of Human Resource Management, 12: 873–97.

Streeck, W. (2001) ‘High Equality, Low Activity: The Contribution of the Social Welfare System

to the Stability of the German Collective Bargaining Regime’. In Boyer, G. (ed.) Review

Symposium: Converging Divergences, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54, pp. 698–706.

Thomas, L.G. and Waring, G. (1999) ‘Competing Capitalisms. Capital Investment in American,

German and Japanese Firms’, Strategic Management Journal, 20: 729–48.

Toynbee, P. (2001) ‘Who’s Afraid of Global Culture’. In Hutton, W. and Giddens, A. (eds) On the

Edge: Living with Global Capitalism. London: Jonathan Cape, pp. 191–212.

Turner, L. (1998) Fighting for Partnership. Labor and Politics in Unified Germany. Ithaca, NY:

ILR Press.

Vogel, E.F. (1979) Japan as Number One. Lessons for America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Von Glinow, M.A. (2002) ‘Guest Editor’s Note, Best Practices in IHRM: Lessons Learned from a

Ten-Country/Regional Analysis’, Human Resource Management, 41: 3–4.

Von Glinow, M.A., Drost, E.A. and Teagarden, M.B. (2002) ‘Converging on IHRM Best Practices:

Lessons Learned from a Globally Distributed Consortium on Theory and Practice’, Human

Resource Management, 41: 123–40.


Wachter, H. and Muller-Camen, M. (2002) ‘Co-determination and Strategic Integration in German

Firms’, Human Resource Management Journal, 12: 76–87.

Warner, M. and Campbell, A. (1993) ‘German Management’. In Hickson, D.J. (ed.) Management in

Western Europe. Society, Culture and Organization in Twelve Nations. Berlin: de Gruyter,

pp. 89–108.

Watanabe, T. (2003) ‘Recent Trends in Japanese Human Resource Management: The Introduction

of a System of Individual and Independent Career Choice’, Asian Business & Management,

2: 111–41.

Waters, M. (1995) Globalization. London: Routledge.

Wever, K.S. (1995) Negotiating Competitiveness. Employment Relations and Industrial Adjustment

in the USA and Germany. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Whitley, R. (2000) Divergent Capitalisms. The Social Structuring and Change of Business Systems.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Without author (1999a) Fortune Guide to the 500 Largest US Corporations. New York: Fortune.

Without author (1999b) Hojin Shinkoku Shotoku Ranking. In Shukan Toyo Keizai (13 May).

Womack, J.D., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990) The Machine that Changed the World: How

Japan’s Secret Weapon in the Global Auto Wars Will Revolutionize Western Industry.

New York: Perennial.

Yoshimura, N. and Anderson, P. (1997) Inside the Kaisha: Demystifying Japanese Business

Behavior. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.


int. j. of human resource management 16:11 november … 2005.pdf · the international journal of...

Documents