Evidence suggests that national employment patterns across the world are converging. Many critics though tend to disagree. Critically discuss if employment patterns at a national level are indeed converging, and use theory (culture, institutions, varieties of capitalism and up-to-date research of national convergence/divergence) and examples of specific patterns (e.g. voice) to support your answer.
More specifically
• Debate, by providing evidence and examples, the extent to which HR patterns around the world are becoming more similar or whether specific HR patterns will be associated with specific countries because of the idiosyncratic historical, societal, economic and political context of the country.
• Note: we are referring to NATIONAL patterns, not organisational practices (i.e. we are comparing countries, not firms).
• Keep in mind that this is a debate and the answer is not black or white.
• You need to examine evidence from a variety of studies which point to either the divergence or convergence way and critically assess what these studies are actually implying (i.e. the level and type of convergence).
How do you research the topic/organise information?
• What Questions do you need to ask yourselves in order to answer the question?
• What is convergence/divergence?
• Converging towards what? Why? – What does that mean!
• What are these things we refer to as national patterns of HRM (what are the big themes of HRM/employment)
• Evidence for convergence
• Evidence for divergence (path dependency)
• Where do these evidence come from? (how was the study conducted) *
• What’s happening to developing countries?
Things to consider
• Evidence in favour of convergence
• Evidence in favour of divergence
• Forces which possibly shape this process (i.e. Institutional Perspective, Cultural Perspective (Hofstede), organisational etc)
• Use of specific employment patterns (e.g.National Systems of Vioce)