Critical Approaches To Comparative HRM
Critical Approaches To Comparative HRM
Critical Approaches To Comparative HRM
69
These include a more critical stance towards the ‘goodness’ of the North
American conception of HRM as manipulation of individual employees
and employment contracts, incorporation of industrial relations issues
and trade union topics into the conception of HRM, and a willingness to
look at HRM from a national, EU or even global world systems level of
analysis. The diferent realities of contexts such as the European welfare
states as well as the Asian and African developing economies all need to
be accounted for in search of a more accurate picture of human resource
management worldwide (Jackson, 2004).
Comparative HRM difers from the mainstream human resource study
also in terms of methodological preferences (Brewster, 1999, 2007).
Comparative HRM seeks to understand individual national contexts
and the way in which HRM is organised in each particular country. It is
not interested in the discovery of general laws and causal mechanisms in
HRM, but in gaining sensitivity for the locally contingent circumstances
surrounding the particular forms and approaches to labour management.
The focus on the particular is also relected in the tendency to rely on the
insights of empirical data in theory development. Comparative HRM
seeks to develop new theories and understandings of the HRM outcomes
without any strong commitment to a priori models and theories of human
resource management. It is inductive rather than deductive in its method-
ology. Empirical data used in comparative HRM is often a combination
of quantitative and qualitative materials, used heuristically to reach a
deeper understanding of the diferent forms of HRM and how they are
shaped in various institutional-national contexts (Keating & Thompson,
2004). Overall, comparative HRM has (tried to) set itself apart from the
positivist-deductive methodology that has dominated HRM research
in the North American ield, with an interest in developing a non-
managerialist theory of HRM as embedded in the variety of institutional
and socio-political contexts and relations.
However, comparative HRM has not made explicit its standing vis-à-vis
the various theoretical issues that preoccupy organisation and manage-
ment studies as a branch of social science. Using the classical outline of
organisational theoretical paradigms by Burrell and Morgan (Burrell &
Morgan, 1979), it is not clear whether comparative HRM is committed
to consensus sociology characterised by a unitarist conception of work
organisations, to conlict theories that approach organisations as sites of
structural contradictions and tensions, or to some other position. At times
it seems to agree with the neo-Marxist and other radical views on the con-
tinuing presence of a power asymmetry between managers and workers,
but this is not systematically noted nor made explicit. Comparative HRM
seems also to hesitate between objective and interpretative positions with
Are there national variations What are the implications of the Are there alternative discourses that
in the adoption of neo-Fordist identities of the West and the allow one to go beyond simpliied
techniques? non-West to the structuring of categories of ‘gender’ and ‘Third
How are employees across power? World’?
the world experiencing new What kinds of practices are being What role do HRM practices and
organisational forms and legitimised with reference to discourses play in reproducing
management practices? colonial identities and rhetoric? particular identities and
79
subjectivities?
Epistemology Objectivist/realist Subjectivist/constructionist Subjectivist/constructionist
Ontology Structural Relational Structural and relational
Methods Field work, organisational case Discourse analysis Discourse analysis
studies Critical reading of canonical texts Activism
National comparisons Case studies
Exemplary Hassard et al. (2006) Westwood (2001) Mohanty (2004)
studies Vaara et al. (2005)
07/12/2011 07:58
80 Handbook of research on comparative human resource management
Transnational Feminism
its ideals set for women – as well as men – in diferent parts of the world.
As a way to improve the state of afairs, she has called for transnational
solidarity building and struggle against harmful forms of globalisation
(Mohanty, 2004).
Such relections may at irst appear remote for comparative HRM, but
we maintain that they are not, if we wish to pursue broad understand-
ing of the issues that HRM can or should be dealing with, and a criti-
cal attitude toward the universalist ‘best practices’ and other solutions
provided. The fact remains, however, that to date we lack studies that
would spell out the full-ledged implications of transnational feminism
on IHRM and comparative HRM. This is a major challenge for future
research.
CONCLUSION
The starting point for this chapter has been a need to spell out speciic
ways in which we could advance critical analysis in comparative HRM.
We think that comparative HRM – more than other approaches or
emergent sub-ields in HRM – can precisely lead to better understand-
ing of broader social and societal issues in and around globalising
organisations. For this purpose, we have argued that comparative
HRM should be linked with critical management studies; at least in the
sense that comparative HRM could make use of speciic theoretical and
methodological approaches that have already proven useful in other
areas and have particular potential in view of the issues that IHRM can
and should deal with. Hence, we have proposed global labour process
theory, postcolonial analysis, and transnational feminism as examples
of perspectives that can further advance the comparative approach to
HRM. As our discussion has illustrated, there are seminal studies that
at least implicitly already deal with key issues of HRM in globalising
organisations and economy. However, it is equally clear that a great
deal can and should be done to further our understanding in these
important and fascinating areas. It is also important to note that our
discussion of the three critical perspectives is in no way meant as an
exhaustive presentation of the available critical perspectives on com-
parative human resource management. Rather, we would like to invite
a multitude of diferent theoretical programs to enrich and challenge the
current state-of-the-art in this developing area of management studies
scholarship.
REFERENCES
Alvesson, M. & Deetz, S. 2006. Critical theory and postmodernism approaches to organi-
zational studies. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, B. Lawrence & W. R. Nord (eds), The Sage
Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage Publications.
Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H. 1996. Making Sense of Management. London: Sage Publications.
Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H. 2003. Studying Management Critically. London: Sage
Publications.
Banerjee, S. B. & Linstead, S. 2001. Globalization, multiculturalism and other ictions:
Colonialism for the new millennium? Organization, 8(4): 683–722.
Banerjee, S. B. & Linstead, S. 2004. Masking subversion: neocolonial embeddedness in
anthropological accounts of indigenous management. Human Relations, 57(2): 221–247.
Barley, S. & Kunda, G. 1992. Design and devotion: surges of rational and normative
ideologies of control in managerial discourse. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47:
363–399.
Barratt, E. 2003. Foucault, HRM and the ethos of the critical management scholar. Journal
of Management Studies, 40(5): 1069–1087.
Bauman, Z. 2000. Liquid Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Bhabha, H. 1994. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
Braverman, H. 1974. Labour and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in The
Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Brewster, C. 1999. Strategic human resource management: the value of diferent paradigms.
In R. S. Schuler & S. Jackson (eds), Strategic Human Resource Management: A Reader.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Brewster, C. 2007. Comparative HRM: European views and perspectives. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(5): 769–787.
Brewster, C., & Hegewisch, A. 1994. Policy and Practice in European Human Resource
Management: The Price Waterhouse Cranield Survey. London: Routledge.
Brewster, C., Mayrhofer, W. & Morley, M. (eds). 2004. Human Resource Management in
Europe. Evidence of Convergence? Oxford: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann.
Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. Oxford:
Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann.
Calás, M. B. & Smircich, L. 1993. Dangerous liaisons: the ‘feminine in management‘ meets
‘globalization’. Business Horizons, 36(2): 73–83.
Calas, M. B. & Smircich, L. 2006. ‘From the “woman’s point of view” ten years later:
Towards a feminist organization studies’. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy & W. R. Nord (eds),
The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies, 2nd edn, London: Sage Publications, pp.
284-346.
Clark, T. & Pugh, D. 2000. Similarities and diferences in European conceptions of human
resource management. International Studies in Management and Organization, 29(4):
84–100.
Dickmann, M., Brewster, C. & Sparrow, P. R. 2008. International Human Resource
Management: A European Perspective. London: Routledge.
Dore, R. 2000. Stock Market Capitalism: Welfare Capitalism: Japan and Germany Versus the
Anglo-Saxons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Drori, G., Meyer, J. W. & Hwang, H. 2006. Globalization and Organization: World Society
and Organizational Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish. London: Penguin.
Foucault, M. 1978. History of Sexuality. New York: Pantheon Books.
Ghoshal, S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(1): 75–91.
Giddens, A. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London: Macmillan.
Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity.
Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness.
American Sociological Review, 91(3): 481–510.