Page 173 - DMGT548_GLOBAL_HRM

Global HRM

Notes 9.4 Monitoring HR Practices Internationally

Humanism is defined in regard for people as an end in themselves, and as having a value in
themselves within an organisational context. Hence the locus of value, or the worth attributed
to persons in a work organisation is orientated towards those persons in themselves rather than
towards organisational objectives as appropriate ends. ‘Instrumentalism’ is defined as a regard
for people as a means to an ends (objectives) of the organisation.
Despite the complex socio-cultural concepts of people in organisations, an understanding of the
way people are seen, and see themselves, in organisations, is fundamental to effective people
management across different cultures. In developing effective international and cross-cultural
systems, managers should learn to think outside the parochial box of HRM Developing lateral
flexibility across cultures may be one approach to this.

Working across borders and cultures there is a need for lateral flexibility and to adapt work
practices and organisational forms appropriately. So, the interplay of the need to differentiate
across cultures and to integrate through international strategising comes to the force. This is
especially the case in international joint ventures.

9.4.1 Approaches to Measuring HR Performance

How can a forward-thinking organization develop an effective performance monitoring system
in the area of human resource management? According to Morgan (1992), there are three
approaches.
One is to adopt a step-wise procedure, similar to the scientific method, in which meaningful and
reliable variables are identified. The process begins by developing as many measures as possible,
particularly in the HR areas of greatest concern. Second, measures whose potential benefit is
outweighed by the expense or difficulty of data collection are eliminated. Third, systems are
developed which regularly collect the necessary information, preferably devolved to line
management, and a commitment is made to the time and effort needed for analysing the data
and interpreting its meaning in the realm of HR strategy.

After two or three years (often the time required to realise the impact of an HR activity) it
becomes possible to reduce the number of measures to four or five key indicators by eliminating
those which only confirm the results of others. For example, if employee turnover, job satisfaction,
absenteeism and so forth were all perfectly correlated with one another, only one of the measures
is necessary; by examining this single measure a manager would know the company's
performance for all the others. The relationship between performance measures is often
complicated and non-linear, however, making multiple measures a virtual necessity.
Although this approach is laudable in its attempt to capture all measurable aspects of HR
performance, there is the risk that the task of collecting data, analysing them and interpreting
the results will be costly, time-consuming and result in no clear guidelines for action. There is
also the danger of what Eccles and Nohria (1992:160) called creeping numeration, which refers to
"the temptation to turn every measure deemed relevant into a crucial part of an official
measurement system". Indeed, once the decision is made to expand the class of measures from a
single (financial) category to three or four, and four or five measures are developed for each
category, a company can quickly have twenty or more 'key' performance indicators.

Second, a recent approach to performance management involves the identification of key
performance indicators that are associated with a specific HR practice, such as recruitment and
selection. From this perspective the wisdom lies in keeping things simple and avoiding
information overload, and the implication is that only a few measures are needed to help line
managers or HR professionals gauge the current state of affairs.

168 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY