Comparative international human resource management (CIHRM) in the light of the Cranet Regional Research Survey in Transitional Economies
| Date | 28 June 2011 |
| Published date | 28 June 2011 |
| Pages | 428-443 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425451111142710 |
| Author | Jozsef Poor,Zsuzsa Karoliny,Ruth Alas,Elizabeta Kirilova Vatchkova |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Comparative international human
resource management (CIHRM)
in the light of the Cranet Regional
Research Survey in Transitional
Economies
Jozsef Poor
Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Szent Istva
´n University,
Go
¨do
¨llo, Hungary
Zsuzsa Karoliny
Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Pe
´cs, Pe
´cs, Hungary
Ruth Alas
Estonian Business School, Tallinn, Estonia, and
Elizabeta Kirilova Vatchkova
International University College, Sofia, Bulgaria
Abstract
Purpose – The primary aim of the paper is to draw attention to the similarities in the historical
background and in the transitional period of the post-socialist CEE (Central and East European)
countries, which make this region a distinctive cluster in Europe.
Design/methodology/approach – In this paper, the authors attempt to supplement existing
research by outlining the modernisation of a range of HR functions in the countries of Central and
Eastern Europe, and would like to explain how this special issue arose, to provide a historical
perspective for the work undertaken by the Cranet research team from Bulgaria, Estonia and Hungary
and to outline the context and significance of each of the attempts at modernisation in the HRM field.
Findings – This analysis of developments, based on the Cranet surveys, aims to describe and explain
the similarities and differences found among the three specific countries (Bulgaria, Estonia and
Hungary), the somewhat broader sample comprising the CEE region and the full sample of those
participating in the survey. All of these signs increase the need for a contextual Comparative HRM
model – which supports not only the snapshot analysis, but also a longitudinal one, incorporating
both the path-dependent and the path-creation considerations of the changes taking place.
Originality/value – The need to understand HRM from a European – as opposed to a merely
Western – perspective has become a dominant theme as the HR peculiarities of the new capitalism
emerge. However, during the transition period, everyone needed – somehow – to meet the great
challenge of turning the omelette back into eggs!
Keywords Human resourcemanagement, Central and East European,International comparison,
Contextual approach, Convergences-divergences, Path dependence, Bulgaria,Estonia, Hungary
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
The authors would like to thank all colleagues from the 32 countries of the Cranet network for
their valuable contribution of collecting and dissemination of their joint Cranet database. They
are also grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments on an earlier version of the paper.
The normal disclaimers of course apply.
ER
33,4
428
Employee Relations
Vol. 33 No. 4, 2011
pp. 428-443
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/01425451111142710
1. Introduction
Research into HRM in an international context has been approached by a number of
different disciplines (from international business and cross-cultural management,
through HRM to comparative management and strategic management) and covers a
vide spectrum of issues, ranging from a comparative study of individual HR practice
across countries to sources of variation in HR strategy in MNC subsidiaries. Based on a
review of 20 years of research into HR management in literature with both a
comparative and international perspective, Clark et al. (1999) conclude that “a central
issue concerns what is constant and what varies across nations”.
In the same year De Cieri and Dowling (1999) suggested the identification of three
broad strands within the field of International HRM literature:
(1) HRM in MNCs – focusing on the HR management in international companies.
(2) Cross-cultural ma nagement (CCM) – dealing with the impact of cultural
differences on management practice.
(3) Comparative human resource management (CHRM) – compar ing HRM
systems and practice at both organisational and national level.
No matter how each strand stems from a different disciplinary area and has its own
characteristics, there is at least one common feature in all three areas. Each concerns
the principal theme of today’s management research: the debate concerning the
tendency to convergence, as against continuing diversity of organisational form,
management and human resource management practice in different national settings.
Although empirical studies are rare, the design of CHRM research is predominantly
positivist, using either case studies or surveys (e.g. Cranfield) of HRM in various
countries. Despite the limitations of survey methods and methodological constraints,
the Cranet network’s surveys have provided large-scale empirical data since 1990. In
doing so, they have contributed significantly both to the description and
understanding of the developments in HRM practice in a constantly increasing
number of countries and to the theoretical developments in CHRM.
The Cranfield Network project (CRANET – the European Human Resource s
Research Network founded and run by Cranfield Business School in the UK) contributes
to the development of international HRM through its findings, the identification of
problems and the ensuing conclusions. The survey covers the following areas: HR
departments and HR strategy, recruitment policies, pay and benefits, training and
appraisal, working arrangements and flexi-time, industrial relations and employee
communication. Research teams serve as critical resources in international comparative
surveys, as they are responsible for interpreting the data (Brewster et al., 2006).
Organisations were randomly selected from the top company lists, multinational
companies, the directories of the local Chamber of Commerce and local authorities
(Kaarelson and Alas, 2009; Vatchkova, 2009; Poor, 2009). The selection of the research
method was determined by the fact that data for the country surveys could be collected
most effectively by benchmarking (Hellriegel et al., 1988; Brewster et al., 2004 and
Morley et al., 2009).
To facilitate statistical analysis, the CRANET questionnaire contains
closed questions: respondents are requested to make their choice from sets of
alternative, pre-formulated answers largely covering the specific areas to be studied.
Respondents, however, always have the opportunity to elaborate on answers other
Cranet Regional
Research Survey
429
To continue reading
Request your trial