The paper “ Can the Best Practice Model of Нumаn Rеsоurсе Маnаgеmеnt Be Developed in the Global Context? ” is a spectacular variant of coursework on human resources. Human resource management is converging to a worldwide best practices model’ . This statement cannot be agreed upon since human resources management is not a unified or universal concept or model. It varies with the situation and environment. The following discussion proves this contention. During the past few years, the concept of best practice human resources management (HRM) has gained prominence to a major extent. In addition to the pioneering work of Jeffrey Pfeffer, in this area, several contributions from the USA and UK strongly contend that a specific set of human resources (HR) practices have the capacity to enhance profits.
Such an increase in profits has been conjectured to be independent of the industrial, national, or organizational context. However, the perceived good in best practice HRM has been questioned by many scholars. It is their contention that such practice may not prove to be of significant benefit to workers. These scholars have suggested that several difficulties are associated with the concept of best practice.
Such issues relate to the connotation of specific practices and their consistency with each other, and the claim that this variety of HRM has universal applicability. According to this discussion, the best practice model of HRM cannot be developed in the global context. In addition, Pfeffer had provided a list of the principal elements relating to the notion of best practice in HRM. Some of these are; employers adopting policies involving high-costs and high-skill employment. A model based on these policies permits firms to compete on the basis of productivity and quality.
As this approach to labor-management entails significant costs in investing in employees, it has not gained appreciable acceptance. However, it is feasible for various features of different models to be simultaneously available, in practice. For instance, different levels of union participation may be related to greater participation levels, higher security of tenure, and the presence of individual systems for involvement. This indicates that the options exercised by managers are limited by a competing array of circumstantial actualities. These realities influence decisions to deal with unions, the comparative security of tenure provided to employees, and the utilization of different types of participation and involvement. Furthermore, the influence of institutions functioning at an array of levels is highlighted by these competing realities.
In addition, they affect policy decisions by firms and governments. As such, a class of practices is better replicated on the basis of complementarity. Thus, some practices have better outcomes when they are carried out together, rather than in isolation. Upon encountering a comparatively stronger national or sector-specific labor movement or formal transnational regulations, HRM policies could be modified by managers, in order to derive the maximum benefit from these realities.
Under these circumstances, managers could attempt to construct complementarities. On the other hand, some managers could attempt to circumvent these realities by combining international best practices with what they could be compelled to do in a particular domestic context. In other words, these managers could attempt to seek coexistence between their national compulsions and international requirements. In many instances, national institutions do not have the strength to impose uniformity on the actions of firms. At the same time, managers are not at liberty to select HRM policies and practices without complying with the local conventions, norms, and rules.