Human Resource Management is particularly important in the present day than it had been in the past and is a key factor Of the overall success of an organization, yet there are currently various models of HARM and there is a big difference on how countries implement them, reflected by the different national cultures and the employment systems without a doubt reflect the wider differences in national culture.
This paper, will present an overview of the models employed in the People’s Republic of China (PR) and the United States Of America (USA) in order to better understand their people-management systems, as well as comparing and contrasting the human resource management (HARM) systems in both countries. Comparing HARM in China and United States The selection process in these two countries differs, in that like much of the world, the USA employers tend to rank highly personal interviews. A Venetian Research study shows the extent to which Americans value personal interview.
The personal selection procedures followed in the USA is primarily initiated with an evaluation of the individual’s capability and technical prerequisite for the job. Thereafter the potential employees previous work experience in a similar job field is assessed. However, in the Peoples Republic f China, employee’s test scores are given prominence and was one of the top criteria assessed in the selection processes. Additionally, an added feature that is measured in the country is the potential employee’s familiarity with the Chinese culture and environment.
Contrastingly, the practice of judging an employee’s familiarity with domestic culture during the selection process is absent in the ASSAI. Performance Appraisals is a tool used to measure the achievement of an individual, group or organizational objective. The Aqua’s outlook toward this approach is deemed very result oriented, encourages individual achievement, encourages increased employee productivity and is ultimately more performance appraisal than individual appraisal.
On the contrary, Chinese managers place greater emphasis on moral characteristics and personal attributes such as loyalty and obedience. This practice is believed to over emphasize on the function of measuring reward and punishment rather than indemnifying the potential ability of the employee and what he or she has to offer in the long run. In the USA training expenditures per employee amount to a figure close to $724 where as it is noted than in Mounties belonging to the Asian continent (outside Japan) the expense is roughly measured at $359 (per employee).
Furthermore, the total hours of training allocated per entitled employee vary substantially between countries like China and the USA where US organizations allocate lengthier duration of hours in training per year as compared to the Chinese firms. However it cannot be disagreed that although there are variations in the budgeted expenditure and allocated training periods between the two countries, the ultimate end result of the initiative is exactly the same; that is the employers invasion a broadened and improved technical ability of the trained staff.
Incentive payments are a way for employers to drive motivation and reach out to their employees in a positive manner. Contrary to what common sense would suggest, results of a research conducted by Ernst & Young (2003)2 regarding the use of financial incentives, indicate the importance of the use of pay incentives in the Peoples Republic of China, despite its communist roots. Moreover, regardless of the traditional US emphasis on “pay for performance”, results of conducted surveys show this system plays only a iterate role in the capitalist super power.
Therefore it is evident that the Republic of China stresses on the implementation of an incentive scheme more heavily than previously believed and LISA. Regarding the compensation policies, the international compensation practice followed by the USA is a more dominant system known as the balance sheet approach which provides employees with various incentives (mobility premiums, hardship allowances etc) and protects them from various cost differences.
In China the compensation practices provide potential employees with a great deal of security compared to the system being implemented in USA. In China the varying wages and pay formats offered by competitors are taken into consideration when deciding on employee income. The primary differences between Chinese executive compensation plans and those elsewhere are not in the plan elements but in the details Of those elements. The cross cultural diversity between the USA and China contrasts drastically. Americans value punctuality and believe “time is money”.
America culture encourages risk taking and brief straight to the point dialogue. Moreover, business decisions re made in high speed and the populace is generally extremely ambitions and future oriented. In China, due to its rich philosophical background, moralist conduct is regarded higher than all else. There is low individualism and high collectivism and a tendency towards group orientation. Dialogues are conducted in a harmonious atmosphere where there is little or few arguments based on constructive criticism and saying “no” is uncommon.
Additionally, there lacks a level of punctuality among the general populace who don’t value time to the same degree as the American culture deems it necessary to. These two countries represent environments that are on polar opposites, where America is more individualistic, while China tends to foster collectivism. When critically evaluating the dissimilar HARM systems and procedures followed by the two countries, the USA and China, we see that there are flaws in both models and practices. Due to the differences in culture, the management practices are altered to accommodate the inherent culture of the work force.
We see that the effectiveness of the Performance Appraisal system works well in countries like the USA, but will not be sustained in Mounties like China due to the general dislike for it. Therefore it is evident that employees’ perceptions and desires of HARM practices do differ significantly across cultural borders and these differences encompass general areas of HARM as well as individual practices. Based on the economic performance of both countries, it would be accurate to state that both models work in their respective countries, mainly because of the different cultural backgrounds of the two countries.