IR/HRM

Answer

Introduction

Globalization and trade agreements have enhanced the free flow of people, goods, services, financial resources between nations across the world. With these advancements countries are increasingly becoming more economically interdependent relative to the past, especially in the view of free trade and interlocking of economies with foreign direct investments (Almond & Gonzalez Menendez, 2014; Rode et al., 2016). Vo & Stanton (2011) add that the lack of self-reliance or self-sufficiency of economies has been accompanied by the disintegration of trade and investment barriers, which has seen several advancements in the industrial relations and human resource management (IR&HRM) with respect to various global economies. Marler (2012) supports this claim by arguing that even though the world continues to experience a significant growth in internationalization of economies of nations, there still exists a substantial cross-national disparity in the practice and environment of industrial relations and human resource management. According to Aoki et al., (2014), the need to accomplish competitiveness and sustain this status in relation to the attraction of investments, services, and goods has seen countries adopting contrasting and comparing IR & HRM practices. Many nations are gearing their IR & HRM practices towards the realization of high quality employee skills at all organizational levels, improvements in productivity, and high value-added goods and services (Yamauchi, 2016; Rode et al., 2016). Japan and USA happen to be among the nations that demonstrate similarities and differences in their approaches to IR&MHRM. This paper champions the thesis that the industrial relations and human resource management practices in the United States and Japan compare and contrast in the areas of labour union relations, workplace equality, recruitment and promotion, employee development, HRM planning, and compensation policies. The subsequent paragraphs of the paper will focus on the justification of this argument.

Trade or Labour Union

Japan and USA compare and contrast each other in the aspect of trade or labour union relations. In the US, a straight forward structure is adopted for the trade unionism and this resembles that in the UK and Ireland. Aoki et al., (2014) assert the trade unionism structure of the US is associated with a single major national center known as the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organisations (AFL-CIO). This agency is constituted of a relatively significant number of occupational and industrial unions. Vo & Stanton (2011) argue that only a limited number of unions exist outside the AFL-CIO. As in the case of the U.S, Japan also esteems trade unions. However, Japan lacks a centralized trade union body, as in the case of the U.S’ AFL-CIO. In Japan, there exists two major confederations of considerable size. The Japanese Trade Union Confederation (Rengo) happens to be the larger union of the two, and it is in charge of the organisation of over 60 percent of unionized workers (Yamauchi, 2016). According to Rode et al., (2016), Rengo’s membership is founded majorly on the enterprise-level unions, which are organized within sectoral federations. Such a structure of trade union resembles that of France, where the major union confederations are constituted fundamentally of local unions organized within sectoral federations (Rode et al., 2016). Japan’s second confederation is known as the National Confederation of Trade Unions (Zenroren), which represents approximately 7% of the country’s unionized workers (Yamauchi, 2016). It is significant to note that Zenroren and Rengo are divided based on their political affiliations or grounds in Zenroren was establishes as more political and militant option for Rengo, which is less political.

Employee Participation

Apart from contrasting and comparing to each other in the dimension of trade unionism, U.S and Japan also share certain similarities and differences in the aspect of employee participation. In Japan, employee involvement occurring at the enterprise level is ungoverned by the legislation, but is characterized by high cooperation level between the employees and management. Yamauchi (2016) argues that approximately 41.8% of Japanese establishments having 30 or more workers are associated with an organization in charge of labor-management consultation. Such an organisation serves as a permanent entity in which management and labor consult on matters related to working conditions, production, welfare programmes, and management. According to Rode et al., (2016), Japanese trade unions are represented in approximately 85% of such establishments, which suggests that there is a high interrelation level between the two entities (trade unions and labor-management consultation organisations). Aoke et al, (2014) add that these establishments are common within larger firms. In 1996, approximately 64% of firms were associated with employee organisations, which were in charge of holding employee meetings and social gatherings (Rode et al., 2016). The labour-management consultation firms in Japan focus on addressing a range of issues, particularly working conditions, working time, safety and health, childcare, welfare, overtime premier, management policies, redundancies and lay-offs, training, sales or production, and pensions. Employee participants may assume several forms such as exchange of views, agreement, discussion, and explanation by management. Contrary to employee participation in Japan, employee engagement in the U.S is not associated with any legislation that allows for the establishment of board-level worker representation or works council-type structures or establishments. Nonetheless, approximately 96 percent of large employers are associated with employee engagement teams, while 53 percent of workers are involved in employee participation within their workplaces. Despite the presence of all these arrangements, most of the participation platforms have limited scope or have been abridged, as many fear breaching the labor law (Vo & Stanton, 2011). This situation is attributed to the prohibition of the establishment of an employee representation committee or employer-dominated labor organisation, which handles issues associated with management overpay, conditions of work, or working time, by the National Labor Relations Act. Aoki et al., (2014) assert that the original provision of the Act was established in 1935 with the aim of preventing employers from regulating company unions. Nevertheless, as construed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), this policy results into severe limitations on the establishment of non-union committees or teams and address the conditions and terms of employment, which takes into consideration a range of issues such as training, pay, efficiency or productivity, work assignments, rewards, job classification, job description, quotas or workloads, dismissal, and recruitment. However, Marler (2012) argues that several, recent decisions made by the NLRB may signal some level of slackening in this position.

Workplace Equality

The aspect of workplace equality is also associated with certain differences and similarities in Japan and U.S. In the two countries issues associated with equality are embraced in work settings and national agreements. Besides, diversity and equal opportunity issues play a significant role in the two nation’s industrial relations. In 2000, issues of equality were less noticeable in Japan, with no novel legislation addressing this topic (Rode et al., 2016). Nonetheless, the previous year (2001) was characterized by the amendment of the policy, which focused on ensuring equal opportunity and promotion and treatment between women and men in employment, thereby strengthening the gender equality obligations of the employer and seeking to avert sexual harassment within the place of work. At the same moment, policies precluding the employment of women for prolonged duration were prohibited. Even though notable agreements were reported in 2000, the aspect of equality and other related issues are addressed by the enterprise-level collective bargaining (Rode et al., 2016). These issues are also handled in negations in the establishment-level, labour-management consultation firms. According to Yamauchi (2016), equal treatment between women and men features in agreements within labour-management consultation firms in 25% of cases, while it accounts for 9.7% of cases in collective bargaining, where a labor-management consultation firm is present. It cases where such organizations do not exist, equal treatment between women and men features in 14 percent of the cases (Vo & Stanton, 2011). As is the case of Japan, no novel legislation associated with equality was reported in the US in the year 2000 (Yamauchi, 2016). It is significant to note that the major equality development in 2000 in US were associated with discrimination charges that were filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The previous years were associated with significant developments aimed at the realization of workplace equality. For instance, between the years 1999 and 2000, the numbers of cases that were presented by the EEOC increased to 79,896 from 77,444 despite this figure not approaching the peak of 91,189 attained in 1994 (Yamauchi, 2016). Contrary to Japan, the U.S currently has a comparatively comprehensive set of federal civil rights policies that prohibit discrimination within the workplace based on national origin, sex, religion, color, race, disability, and national origin. The federal civil rights policy is the primary vehicle of advocating for equal opportunities within the U.S. Contrary to Japan, equality talks on issues such as equal payment for women, diversity training, sexual harassment, combating discrimination, and child and elder care do not feature in the U.S’ collective bargaining.

Recruitment and Selection

 U.S and Japan also contrast and compare with each other in the aspect of recruitment and promotion. While shifting to a rapidly changing economic climate, Japanese firms have had to adjust their personnel management approaches to address staffing issues within the sector of human resource. According to Vo & Stanton (2011), there are a range of recruitment strategies and many companies can combine two or even more of these approaches as a component of their recruitment exercise. In relation to this, Marler (2012) argues that Japan focuses least on external recruitment for novel hires. Many Japanese companies fire internationally via promotion, as well as rigid seniority system. External recruitment is employed in rare occasions in Japanese firms. University recruitment happens to be the most conventional recruitment approach in which Japanese organizations focus on hiring school leavers. Rode et al., (2016) argue that Japanese managers have a robust preference for top graduates and school leavers when it comes to the recruitment of novel employees. As such, certain Japanese companies maintain their reputations and contacts in institutions of higher learning such as universities and technical colleges with the aim of ensuring that they can access such candidates when needed. Moreover, the recruitment of foreign graduates has also been perceived as a suitable approach for global Japanese companies, particularly within the emerging Asian markets such as China. The establishment of employment agencies is done as commercial private sector activities or as publicly-funded services. Services may support casual, temporary, or permanent employee recruitment. Yamauchi (2016) asserts that Japanese companies employ this strategy (publicly-funded services) during economic downturns, which call for the employment of short-term of temporary workers. Recent years have seen Japanese firms increase their demands for temporary employees (Aoki et al., 2014). Since Japanese is considered a high uncertainty avoidance nation, companies or employers in this nation would prefer paying the external recruiter to focus on the hiring requirements to accomplish milestones in the pursuit of right candidates. In relation to this, Vo & Stanton (2011) argue that the company website approach allow member organisations to post vacancies in their workplaces when opportunities exist. It is vital to note that smaller Japanese companies often tone to the online website recruitment approach to save the additional costs. In addition, many foreign firms operating in Japan have been compelled to depend majorly on these techniques because university recruitment rarely work for these companies. Therefore, the company website recruitment technique is considered an alternate approach and remedy for small Japanese companies and foreign firms. Contrary to Japan that highly values internal recruitment, US esteems external recruitment. According to Vo & Stanton (2011), U.S ranks the top within the external hiring and recruitment labor market in world. Considering the country’s national culture, many U.S companies believe that external recruitment techniques offer a suitable platform on which professions and talents from various nationalities and backgrounds can be attracted. In relation to this several external recruitment approach are embraced in U.S including company website recruitment, job boards and recruitment agencies, on campus recruitment, and advertisements. Contrary to managers in Japan, most U.S managers believe that web recruitment provides a potential recruitment source for candidates with the desired talents. As such, this external recruitment technique is considered among the fastest growing methods for establishing viable recruitment channels in the U.S (Aoki et al., 2014). One of the best example of organizations that employ this technique in recruiting potential candidates is Apple Inc. This company possesses a corporate website on which candidates can deposit their credentials or resumes. The website allows individuals to establish profiles and submit their resumes, which can be preserved in a file on the website for future job vacancies in the company (Marler, 2012). As opposed to Japanese firms that depend on the job boards or recruitment agencies for employing candidates during terse economic times and temporary basis, U.S companies rely regularly on job boards and recruitment agencies as they esteem the external recruitment approach. Jobs in the U.S are often offered by leading employers in partnership with the National Association of State Workforce Agencies, which serve as a public service for job seekers. Examples of the agencies are Simply hired, Monster.com, and Indeed.com.  In the U.S external recruitment offers a platform on which job searching can be executed via newspaper, associations, and job site.  As in the case of Japan, U.S companies focus on campus recruitment as a technique for hiring potential candidates. However, this method is more widely employed in the U.S than in Japan.  For example, big companies such as General Electric Company employs on-campus technique of recruitment. The company liaises with campuses across nation to access best candidates. Such an undertaking allows the organization to evaluate various candidate profiles and access valuable application information about such candidates. As in the case of Japan, advertisements are also employed to recruit potential employees but in the U.S the employment of this method is more pronounced than in Japan.  For instance, Yamauchi (2016) argues that some organizations advertise posts on the internet and execute recruitments on social media networks, where 7 out of every 10 companies have succeeded in hiring candidate via this technique.

Employee Development

The two countries also share similarities and differences in the area of employee development. Japanese managers value employees as significant organizational resources. As such, trainings are executed as part of employee development initiatives. While training is often executed to reallocate redundant workers, this initiative is performed to accomplish two primary objectives. The first objective it to prepare employees for transfers to other job positions within the organization.  The second objective is to equip organizational employees with novel technological skills. Japanese firms offer both on-the-job and off-the-job training to their employees. While on-the-job training is provided to enable the worker to experience a range of job needs within the real word context, off-the-job training is limited to the periodical and initial training that are provided, as provided in the schedule for obtaining intellectual skills. Yamauchi et al., (2016) assert that off-the-job training can offer a theoretical background to organizational employees with different experiences. Contrary to Japanese firms, U.S companies to do not emphasize the provision of training to employees. For instance, Vo & Stanton (2011) argue that employees are often laid-off in tough economic times and there limited commitment to training. U.S firms employ a scientific management strategy based on the specialization system where every employee conducts a few repetitive duties. Aoki et al., (2014) add that in this approach, employees are de-skilled to a low level that makes them expendable.  There exists limited trust between employees and employers.

HRM Planning

HRM planning in Japan and U.S differ from and resemble each other in various areas. Contrary to the process of HR planning in U.S companies, the HRM planing process in Japanese firms do not adhere a set of outlined sequence of stages or steps. Contrary to the U.S firms, companies in Japan are associated with high informal communication levels with nemawashi and group census perceived as a significant aspect of corporate success (Aoki et al., 2014). According to Yamauchi (2016), the Japanese management theory links these tendencies to the nation’s culture that esteems collectivism, as opposed to individualism. The Japanese culture also emphasizes the need to limit individual responsibility (Marler, 2012). In Japanese HRM planning, a combination of decentralized decision-making, minimal status differentiation, and collective responsibility are embraced, and are employed as measures to enhance employee dedication to the company. Such an approach also enables organizational workers to develop a sense of belonging and loyalty to the organization, which is considered the source of competitive edge for Japanese organizations. For instance, Rode et al., (2016) argue that rates of turnover in Japanese firms is extremely low, as workers remain with their companies from the commencement of their careers until the age of retirement. On the contrary, American companies embrace formal corporate planning in the HRM planning procedures. Moreover, these companies are generally perceived as unconcerned with enhancing long-term loyalty or commitment to the company. Instead, American firms are interested majorly in the maintenance over organizational decisions that are to be implemented.

Compensation and Promotion Policies/Practices

U.S and Japan compare and contrast each other in the dimensions of compensation and promotion policies. When it comes to the issue of compensation, Japanese employers allow workers to provide their views for advancing their operational efficiency and motivation, as well as the entire organisational productivity. The primary objective for the embracement of this approach is lies in the fact that it enhances continuous improvement. Even though the systems of suggestions are also embraced in the U.S by employers, the views of employees are perceived more as threats to the organisational management, and employees who engage in constant recommendation of changes are considered trouble makers (Yamauchi, 2016). Japanese managers often perceive their organisational employees as the most significant resources in the company. As such, many Japanese firms focus on the provision of promotions from within the company, lifetime or permanent employment, job rotation, no lay-off policies with the aim of ensuring that these resources are developed to their optimum potentials. In this manner, Japanese firm successes in the employment of human resource as a weapon for attaining a competitive edge in the labour market. On the other hand, the aspect of promotion and job security in the U.S somewhat resembles a revolving door. Employees are often subjected to routine lay-offs during tough economic moments. The two nations also differ from each other in their incentive systems. For instance, the Japanese incentive system emphasizes employee recognition including business card for all employees, simple tokens of appreciation, company pins, trophies, chart over stations of work to show achievements and goals, group approval and medal. Even though there exist some small cash prizes for suggestions, as well as systems for employee profit sharing, Japanese employees seem to react reasonable well to psychological incentives (Almond & Gonzalez-Menendez, 2014). Contrary to the Japanese incentive systems, which are majorly psychological, the incentive systems employed in the U.S are majorly monetary based and focus on bonuses, promotions, and salary increases.

Conclusion

The human resource management and industrial relations practices in Japan and United States contrast and compare in the areas of workplace equality, labour union relations, recruitment and promotion, HRM planning, employee development, and compensation policies. While the two countries embrace workplace diversity, the U.S is associated with a more comprehensive workplace diversity system that covers disability, gender, race, national origin, and religion. The two nations embrace trade unions. However, U.S has a central body that regulates labour issues, as opposed to Japan that has two bodies. While U.S companies involve formal procedures in their HRM planning, Japanese firms embrace informal processes in the HRM planning procedures. It is also significant to note that Japanese companies value long-term employment contracts, as opposed to U.S firm that esteem temporary employment. U.S firms employ psychological-based incentive system, while Japanese organizations employ monetary-based incentive systems. While U.S organization place little emphasis to employee development, Japanese firms value employee development where they provide constant training to their workers. It is also vital to note that while Japanese firms embrace internal recruitment, U.S companies embrace external recruitment.

Lesson Learnt from Writing this Paper  

This paper has provided me with a great insight into the human resource and international relations practices of various countries, especially Japan and Untied States. Engaging in this exercise has not only enabled me to comprehend the differences in the international human resource management (IHRM) and international relations (IR) practices of different countries, but also the similarities between countries in these dimensions. For example, I have learnt that countries have embraced similar approaches when it comes to advocating for the rights of employees. However, despite these approaches serving the same purpose their models are still different. For instance, in Japan there are two labour union bodies that advocate for employees’ rights within the workplace including The Japanese Trade Union Confederation (Rengo) and National Confederation of Trade Unions (Zenroren). As such, it can be noted that Japan lacks a central labour union agency. On the other hand, the U.S has a centralized body that advocates for the rights of employees known as American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organisations (AFL-CIO). I have also learnt that employees from various countries have different aspects that motivate them, and companies in these countries modify their compensation policies and practices in relation to such aspects. For example, while Japanese companies employ psychological approaches of motivating or compensating employees, companies in the U.S focus on monetary-system of motivation. Having comprehended these differences by undertaking this learning activity, I have also been convinced that the significant advancements in the internationalization of economies of countries across the world has not erased the cross-national disparity along with the different settings of industrial relations and HRM in these nations. In this manner, this undertaking this assignment has enabled me to appreciate the various practices or approaches of IR and HRM undertaken by nations to safeguard their markets and economies.