A Longitudinal Comparative Study Among 18 European Countries

Journal of European Industrial Training
Changes in HRM in Europe: A longitudinal comparative study among 18 European

countries
Irene Nikandrou Eleni Apospori Nancy Papalexandris
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 06:35 11 May 2016 (PT)
Article information:
To cite this document:
Irene Nikandrou Eleni Apospori Nancy Papalexandris, (2005),"Changes in HRM in Europe", Journal of
European Industrial Training, Vol. 29 Iss 7 pp. 541 - 560
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090590510621045
Downloaded on: 11 May 2016, At: 06:35 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 24 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3479 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(1991),"Human Resource Management: A European Perspective", Personnel Review, Vol. 20 Iss 6 pp.
4-13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000000800
(2003),"Line management responsibility for HRM: what is happening in Europe?", Employee Relations, Vol.
25 Iss 3 pp. 228-244 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01425450310475838
(2006),"Converging human resource management: A comparison between Estonian and Finnish HRM",
Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 1 Iss 1 pp. 82-101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17465260610640895
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:537778 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm
Changes in HRM in Europe
Changes in HRM
in Europe
A longitudinal comparative study among

18 European countries
Irene Nikandrou, Eleni Apospori and Nancy Papalexandris
541
Athens University of Economics and Business, Athens, Greece

Abstract
Received May 2004

Revised November 2004
Accepted April 2005
Purpose To examine HRM strategies and practices and HRM position within organizations in
various cultural, economic and sociopolitical contexts from a longitudinal perspective.
Design/methodology/approach The study uses the 1995 and 1999 Cranet data in a longitudinal
methodological framework to explore the changes and trends in 18 European countries with regard to
certain HRM issues between the points of time when measurements took place. Country is the unit of
analysis, and cluster analysis is used for each of the two waves of data to classify countries into
relatively homogeneous groups/clusters.
Findings The overall picture is that the 18 countries form two major clusters. Countries in Europe
can be systematically clustered in a North/West-South/East distinction, regarding HRM practices.
There is no indication of convergence between the major clusters. However, movement from one
cluster to another was observed, with Italy and East Germany moving to the North-western cluster.
Research limitations/implications The level of analysis, which is HR practices at a national
(average values) and regional level, is a methodological limitation of the present study. Analysis at this
level conceals qualitative differences between countries, which are important in the contextual
paradigm.
Practical implications The issue of convergence in HR practices has important implications for
HR managers in multinationals who operate in Europe and the transferability of HR practices.
Originality/value This paper addresses the issue of whether over time there is an increasing
Europeanisation (convergence) of HRM practices in Europe or not, by studying HR practices in 18
European countries.
Keywords Human resource management, Europe
Paper type Research paper
Human resource management has become a significant factor in the management for
organizational success. During the recent years there has been an increasing demand
for the study of HRM from an international and comparative dimension. Increasing
global competition, technological advances, demand for flexibility and skilled
workforce have contributed to a world which is less differentiated. The multi-national
corporation and international trading both benefit from and increase the extent of
similarities between countries. The convergence, to a one-best way of doing things,
thesis has received support from the universalist paradigm, dominant in the USA.
Contrary to the universalistic paradigm of HRM, the European paradigm has been
based on the assumption that several contextual factors can contribute to a distinctive
form of HRM in Europe. Those factors can be economic, technological, political, social,
cultural, or ideological. In the contextual paradigm these factors are seen as aspects of
the subject rather than external influences on it. The focus is on understanding what is
different between and within HRM in various contexts.
Journal of European Industrial

Training
Vol. 29 No. 7, 2005
pp. 541-560
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0590
DOI 10.1108/03090590510621045
JEIT
29,7
542
The European form of HRM, most probably affected by those various contexts
ideological, political, social and so forth in which it is operating, is characterized by
internal variation among various clusters of countries and, at the same time, by
external uniformity compared to the rest of the world (Brewster and Larsen, 2000;
Larsen and Brewster, 2000; Mayrhofer et al., 2000). However, at the same time factors
such as globalization with its connotation, technological advances and fusion and
market forces develop their own dynamics in all societies and their institutions and
organizations.
Theoretical background and hypotheses
Within the increasingly unified European context, the question raised by the
convergence divergence discussion is more than justified. Is the demand for
European integration creating one distinctive way and converging pattern of HRM or a
set of distinct markets defined by distinct national and cultural boundaries contribute
to diverging HR practices?
Indeed, the European Union has had implications in countries legislation, economy,
market forces, and so forth that have developed a dynamic towards convergence.
However, although it provides a unified context within which organizations operate, at
the same time, it allows for differences at the national and/or organizational level, due
to cultural and institutional factors. Consequently, the European form of HRM may be
considered as an outcome of a complex interaction of many of the above-mentioned
factors.
Comparative analysis at the European level is important. Esping-Andersen (1990)
who analyzed welfare regimes as a particular aspect of the political context of several
countries, came up with three distinctive welfare regimes in Europe: liberal,
corporatist, and social democratic. Hollinshead and Leat (1995) studied countries with
regard to their ideological background; according to their findings European countries
can be grouped into three ideological perspectives:
(1) liberal individualism;
(2) liberal collectivism; and
(3) corporatism.
Other studies have focused on the cultural context; Hofstedes (1994) study on cultural
variations has placed European countries in four groups according to the following
dimensions:
(1) power distance;
(2) uncertainty avoidance;
(3) individualism versus collectivism; and
(4) masculinity versus femininity.
In the human resource management practices context one can find convergent and
divergent areas. The changes exemplified by Europeanisation have brought out the
opportunities for re-evaluating human resource management in a broader, regional
rather than national context. Several authors claim that even though countries within
Europe can be rather distinctive from each other in the management of their human
resources, one can distinguish three different models: the Latin Model, the Northern
European/Nordic Model and the Anglo-Irish Model of HRM (Brewster and Tyson,
1991; Brewster et al., 1993; Brunstein, 1995). On the basis of an assessment of the
different degrees of legal requirements it is possible to place the main European
countries into categories based on the extent of their legal requirements for
information, consultation and participation. In the highly regulated group one can find
Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands, Finland and Sweden. France, Spain, Italy,
Norway and Portugal are in the medium regulated group, while the UK and Ireland are
in the less regulated group (Leat, 1998).
Ignjatovic and Svetlik (2002) have conducted one of the latest comparative studies
focused on similarities and differences among European countries on HRM. Using 51
indicators from Cranet data, they grouped 24 European countries into four distinctive
clusters having different HRM strategies and practices and position of HRM in
organizations. They also identified four different HRM models:
(1) the Central Southern cluster with the management supportive model;
(2) the Eastern cluster with the management focused model;
(3) the Nordic cluster with the employees focused model; and
(4) the Western cluster with the professional model.
According to Ignjatovic and Svetlik those four groups of countries and, consequently,
the four different HRM models could be explained by the North West versus South
East cultural division as well as by the distinctive sociopolitical regimes. This study
gives us an interesting insight using cross-sectional data.
The present paper based on the above research studies examines HRM
strategies and practices and HRM position within organizations in various cultural,
economic and socio-political contexts from a longitudinal perspective. We
hypothesize that, to the extent that HRM is considered the outcome of a
complex interaction of many of the above mentioned factors and that some of
those factors have changed for several countries during the last decade, we will
observe considerable changes in HRM in several European countries. More
specifically, the present study will study the changes in HRM strategies, practices
and its position in organizations during the decade of 1990s that might have taken
in several European countries and will try to associate the hypothesized changes
with changes in surrounding contextual factors.
Furthermore, we hypothesize that the changes in HRM will be more drastic among
the countries of South and East of Europe and that these changes can be associated
with changes in social, economic, political and cultural level. Finally, we hypothesized
that the changes will be in a direction that brings more peripheral countries closer to a
cluster of countries and that the overall differences between clusters have become
smaller during the last decade.
It should be mentioned that Mayrhofer et al. (2002) have found a trend toward
divergence from mid-1990s and on; however, they have looked at three specific HRM
practices level of policy decision making, investments in human capital and variable
and performance related elements of compensation systems and not at a wide range
of indices of HRM strategies, practices and its position in organizations.
Summing up, the contribution of this paper lies in the fact that it examines
important aspects of HRM in Europe from a longitudinal perspective.
Changes in HRM
in Europe
543
JEIT
29,7
544
Our goal is threefold: first, we want to examine whether a change toward more
similarities in HRM aspects exists in Europe, second, to identify country specific
changes which may account for a countrys transfer from the periphery closer to a
cluster, or from one cluster to another. Third, we will try associate HRM changes with
contextual changes that have taken place in Europe during the 1990s.
Methodology
Sample and measures
The present study uses the Cranet-E data collected through surveys by the Cranfield
network on European HRM. The network, established in 1989, has collected three
waves of data focused on HRM issues at organizational level, such as, human resource
function, management strategy, recruitment and selection, training and development,
employee relations and communication in several European countries.
The initial plan was for three waves of data to be used that is, data from the
waves of 1992, 1995 and 1999 in a longitudinal methodological framework to explore
the changes and trends in European countries with regard to certain of the above
stated HRM issues between the points of time that measurements took place.
The wave of 1992 had 16 European countries; the wave of 1995 had 20 European
countries and the wave of 1999 24 European countries. However, the countries that
were in all three waves were only 14. Furthermore, the 51 indicators in the 1999 data,
that we were initially planning to use were going down to 32 if the other two waves of
data were to be used. After a series of preliminary analysis, it was decided to focus our
main analysis between the two last waves of data 1995 and 1999 because by using
the 1992 we were losing a considerable number of countries and indicators which
rendered the results to be not so meaningful.
The two waves we finally used had 18 common countries and 44 common
indicators. The countries included for the purposes of the present paper are: Belgium,
Bulgaria, Czech, Denmark, Finland, France, East Germany, West Germany, Greece,
Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK.
Initially, based on Ignjatovic and Svetliks (2002) study we used a number of
measurements obtained through the 1999 CRANET survey and transformed into 51
indices pertaining to various aspects of HRM issues covering. In particular, the 15 HR
areas obtained are (for a more detailed description of the Indices used are presented in
Table I):
(1) Position of HRM;
(2) Staffing of HR department;
(3) Utilization of external HR services;
(4) Formalization of HR policies and strategies;
(5) Managers involvement in HRM;
(6) Employees involvement in HRM;
(7) Centralization of HR policy-making;
(8) Internal versus external labor market orientation;
(9) Internal versus external training market orientation;
(10) Employee dynamics;
Position of HRM
1
Percentage of organizations with a personnel or human resource department/manager
2
Percentage of organizations in which the head of the personnel/human resources function have
a place on the main board of directors or the equivalent
3
Percentage of organizations in which the person responsible for personnel/human resources is
involved in the development of corporate strategy from the outset
4
Percentage of organizations in which the person responsible for personnel/ human resources is
involved in the development of corporate strategy through consultation
5
Scale the cumulative average on primary responsibility for major policy decisions on five
issues per organization (A B C D E) (1 line management, 5 HR department)
Changes in HRM
in Europe
545
Staffing of HR department
6
Average number of people employed in the personnel/human resources function per
organization
Formalization of HR policies and strategies
7
Index cumulative average of organizations having written policy for eight management areas
per organization (A B C D E F G H)
8
Index cumulative average of organizations having unwritten policy for eight management
areas per organization (A B C D E F G H)
9
Index cumulative average of organizations having written mission statement, corporate
strategy and personnel/HR management strategy (A B C)
10
Index cumulative average of organizations having unwritten mission statement, corporate
strategy and personnel/HR management strategy (A B C)
Managers involvement in HRM
11
Average days of training per year for management per organization
12
Percentage of organizations with an appraisal system in operation for management
13
Index cumulative average for organizations having an appraisal system in which immediate
superior and/or next level superior contribute (0-none, 2-both)
14
Index cumulative average of incentive schemes offered by organizations for management
(A B C D)
15
Index cumulative average of issues (strategy, financial performance and organization of
work) about which organizations are formally briefing management (0 none, 3 all)
Employees involvement in HRM
16
Average days of training per year for other employees than management per organization
17
Cumulative average of organizations with an appraisal system in operation for other employees
than management (B C D)
18
Index cumulative average for organizations having an appraisal system in which employee,
subordinate or peer contribute (C D E) (0 none, 3 all)
19
Index cumulative average of incentive schemes offered by organizations for other employees
than management (A B C D)
20
Percentage of organizations with joint consultative committee or works council
21
Index cumulative average of issues (strategy, financial performance and organization of
work) about which organizations are formally briefing other employees than management
(0 none, 9 all)
(continued)
Table I.
Variables description
JEIT
29,7
546
Centralization of HR policy making

22
Scale location of policy determination for six issues (A B C D E F)
(1 international, 4 local)
23
Index cumulative average of the level of basic pay determination for management
(A B C D E)
24
Index cumulative average of the level of basic pay determination for other employees than
management (A B C D E)
Internal versus external labor market orientation
25
Index cumulative average of organizations recruiting senior personnel or human resource
manager from inside the organization (A B)
26
Index cumulative average of organizations recruiting senior personnel or human resource
manager from outside the organization (C D)
27
Index percentage of organizations with internal recruitment measures (B C)
28
Index percentage of organizations with external recruitment measures (A D E)
29
Percentage of organizations substituting managers (all three levels) internally (A)
30
Index per cent of organizations substituting managers (all three levels) from outside
(B C D)
Internal versus external training market orientation
31
Percentage of organizations that increased their internal training (A B D E)
32
Percentage of organizations that increased their external training (C)
Employment flexibility
33
Index percentage of organizations that increased temporal flexible working practices in the
last three years (A B C D E F G I)
34
Index percentage of organizations that increased spatial flexible working practices in the last
three years (J K L)
35
Index percentage of organizations that increased proportion of their workforce with temporal
working arrangements for more than 6 per cent (A B C F G)
Richness of selection and HR development methods
36
Index percentage of organizations using career schemes regularly (A B C D E F)
Focus on marginal groups
37
Index percentage of organizations that monitor the proportion of marginal groups for
training and promotion (A B C)
38
Index cumulative average of targeted groups per organization (A B C D)
Accent on training
39
Average proportion of the annual salaries and wages bill spent on training
40
Average proportion of employees in internal or external training per organization
Table I.
HRM evaluation and analysis

41
Percentage of organizations that systematically analyze employee training needs
42
Index percentage of organizations that always or often use different methods
(A B C D E)
43
Scale frequency of usage of formal evaluation (A B)
44
Index average number of needs and characteristics determined by the appraisal system
(A B C D E F)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
Employment flexibility;
Richness of selection and HR development;
Focus on marginal groups;
Accent on training; and
HRM evaluation and analysis.
Overall, the present study used 44 indices that were common in the two waves.
Method of analysis
For the purpose of this study, country is the unit of analysis. Cluster analysis is used
for each of the two waves of data. Cluster analysis is the generic name for a wide
variety of procedures that can be used to create a classification. These procedures
empirically form groups or clusters of units with high degree of similarities in certain
characteristics. In particular, cluster analyses are multivariate statistical procedures
that start with data sets containing information about a sample or, as in our study, a
population of units and attempt to classify them into relatively homogeneous
groups/clusters.
Most of the uses of cluster analysis can be grouped under four principal purposes:
(1) development of a typology;
(2) investigation of conceptual schemes for grouping units;
(3) hypothesis formation through data exploration; and
(4) hypothesis testing.
The development of typologies accounts for the most frequent use of cluster analysis;
however, in most cases of empirical research, many of these goals are combined to form
the basis of the study (Aldenderfer and Blashfield, 1985). In the present study, cluster
analysis is used for three of the above mentioned purposes, that is, the development of
typologies that are compared with the findings of the Ignjatovic and Svetlik (2002)
study, the investigation of conceptual schemes that will result from grouped units, and
the testing of our hypotheses. In particular, cluster analysis shows how countries
group together in terms of the indices used in the analysis. Furthermore, cluster
analysis of the same countries in two points in time, shows how countries move from
one cluster to another, if the indices used change over time.
Previous cross-sectional studies based on Cranet data in the field of HRM have used
the squared Euclidean distance as a measure of dissimilarity between the cases and the
Wards hierarchical method of clustering of the cases. For comparative purposes the
present study will use the same method of cluster analysis. Wards method is designed
to optimize the minimum variance between the clusters and it has been widely used in
many of the social sciences (Blashfield, 1980)
Results
Cluster analysis of the 18 countries based on the 44 indices of the first wave, 1995,
resulted to clusters shown in Figure 1. The overall picture is that the 18 countries form
two well-defined groups with two sub-groups in each one of the two. The first cluster
consists of 11 countries and includes the countries from western and northern Europe.
Changes in HRM
in Europe
547
JEIT
29,7
548
Figure 1.
Hierarchical cluster
analysis, 1995
The second cluster consists of seven countries and includes the countries, with the
exception of Ireland, from southern and eastern Europe. The two clusters meet at the
base of the dendrogram, which means that there are significant differences among
them.
Indeed, a T-test, as well as non-parametric test of differences showed that the two
major clusters have statistically significant differences in 15 of the 44 indices. More
specifically the north-western cluster has HRM in higher position, more formalized HR
policies, less involvement of managers and more involvement of employees in HRM
and more external labor market orientation than the south-eastern countries; however,
in the last three years before the survey, they increased their internal training more
than south-eastern countries did. Finally they showed more employment flexibility and
more emphasis on training.
Within each of the main clusters we observe two sub-clusters. In the north-western
cluster we observe the western cluster consisted of the UK, Switzerland, Sweden,
The Netherlands, Belgium Germany France and Spain and the northern sub-cluster
consisted of Denmark, Norway and Finland. The UK, Switzerland and Sweden, since
they meet at the uppermost level of the dendrogram showed very close similarities
among themselves and they meet the other five countries of their sub-cluster at four
levels lower. Of the remaining countries of this sub-cluster, The Netherlands and
Belgium are pretty similar in terms of the indices used. Spain and France are the most
peripheral countries of this sub-cluster they meet the other three countries at two
levels lower towards the base of the dendrogram. In the northern sub-cluster, Denmark
and Norway are very close, while Finland meets them at one level lower.
In the south-eastern cluster, we observe two sub-clusters; Eastern Germany,
Czechoslovakia and Italy form one sub-cluster, while Turkey, Ireland, Greece and
Bulgaria form the other sub-cluster. In the first sub-cluster, East Germany and
Czechoslovakia meet at the uppermost level of the dendrogram, which means that they
are pretty similar, in terms of the overall indices of HRM used in the present study.
Italy meets them at the second level of the dendrogram. In the other sub-cluster Turkey
and Ireland are pretty similar, followed by Greece. Bulgaria is the most peripheral
country and meets the rest of the countries of the south-eastern cluster at several levels
down the dendrogram.
Cluster analysis of the same 18 countries based on the 1999 data, resulted to clusters
shown in Figure 2. The overall picture is that the 18 countries form two major clusters
(Figure 2). A series of T-tests, as well as non-parametric tests of differences, showed
that of the 42 indices of various HRM issues used in the second wave, the two clusters
are significantly different in 14. More specifically the north-western cluster continues
to have HRM in higher position, more formalized HR policies, less involvement of
managers and more involvement of employees in HRM, more external labor market
orientation and more employment flexibility than the south-eastern countries. Finally,
this time north-western countries showed more centralization of HR policy.
Overall, comparing the significant differences between north-west and south-east in
the two waves of data, we observe that almost the same number of indices, 15 in 1995
and 14 in 1999, are significantly different between the two waves (Averages and all the
significant differences between the clusters in 1995 and 1999 are presented in Table II,
while averages and differences obtained for all indexes are presented in Table III).
Furthermore, seven indices have significant differences between the two clusters at
both waves and in five of them, the differences in the second wave are greater than in
the first one. This means, that the two clusters do not show any considerable change
towards convergence. However, we observe other kinds of considerable changes.
Changes in HRM
in Europe
549
Figure 2.
Hierarchical cluster
analysis 1999
JEIT
29,7
550
Position of HRM
Index2
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index4
Cluster95
Index3
Cluster99
Avg Cluster 2
Difference 1-2
59.6091
57.7077
22.1454
48.4154
46.0857
39.5200
16.7571
37.72
13.5234
18.1877
5.3883
10.6954

Index9
Cluster95
1.97001
Index10
Cluster95
0.58536
Index8
Cluster99
1.8542
1.4352
0.92736
2.3347
0.53488
2 0.342
2 0.4805

Index11
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index13
Cluster99
Index15
Cluster99
6.5073
5.8434
1.4205
2.7115
8.5326
7.4396
1.6675
2.4815
2 2.0253
2 1.5962
2 0.2469
0.2299

Index16
Cluster95
Index18
Cluster95
Index20
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index21
Cluster95
Cluster99
4.4978
0.6756
78.2546
82.9462
1.1204
1.7343
7.8255
0.374
28.7571
28.8
0.8351
1.2933
2 3.3277
0.3016
49.4974
54.1462
0.2853
0.4410
1.2851
1.3094
1.075
1.0378
0.2101
0.2716

Index26
Cluster95
46.8273
Cluster99
44.1231
Index30
Cluster95
27.2399
31.1286
32
18.6039
15.6987
12.1231
8.636
Internal versus external training market orientation

Index31
Cluster95
39.1028
28.8399
10.2629
Index33
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index34
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index35
Cluster99
26.7112
29.9521
17.4153
22.4966
32.7544
17.0912
17.4911
10.4981
11.2442
25.5275
9.62
12.461
6.9172
11.2524
7.2269
Accent on training
Index40
Cluster95
38.7256
29.0695
9.6561
Centralization of HR policy
Index23
Cluster99
Index24
Cluster99
Table II.
Significant differences
between Cluster 1 and
Cluster 2 in 1995 and 1999
Avg Cluster 1
More specifically, the two clusters differ significantly in the strategic position of HR
manager. In north-western countries the majority of companies have the head of HR
participate in the board of directors, while the respective percentage of companies in
the south-eastern sample is considerably lower. It is worth mentioning that the
difference between the two samples in 1999 is greater than in 1995, with greater
decrease in the number of organizations having the head of HR on the board of
Avg Cluster 1
Avg Cluster 2
Differences 1-2
92.9
92.0
59.6
57.7
49.4
48.4
22.1
19.8
2.4
2.5
90.4
85.1
46.1
39.5
42.4
37.7
16.8
15.3
2.5
2.3
2.5
6.9
13.5*
18.2*
7.0
10.7*
5.4*
4.5
2 0.1
0.2
21.2
17.4
19.3
20.4
1.9
2 3.0

Index7
Cluster95
2.8
Cluster99
3.5
Index8
Cluster95
1.3
Cluster99
1.9
Index9
Cluster95
2.0
Cluster99
2.0
Index10
Cluster95
0.6
Cluster99
0.6
2.6
3.1
1.5
2.9
1.4
1.5
0.9
0.8
0.1
0.4
2 0.2
2 0.5*
0.5*
0.4
2 0.3*
2 0.2
Position of HRM
Index1
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index2
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index3
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index4
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index5
Cluster95
Cluster99
Staffing
Index6
Cluster95
Cluster99

Index11
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index12
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index13
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index14
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index15
Cluster95
Cluster99
6.5
5.8
74.4
68.4
1.0
1.4
0.9
1.1
1.9
2.7
8.5
7.4
68.7
58.3
1.0
1.7
0.9
1.3
1.8
2.5
2 2.0*
2 1.6*
5.7
10.1
0.1
2 0.2*
0.0
2 0.2
0.1
0.2*

Index16
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index17
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index18
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index19
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index20
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index21
Cluster95
Cluster99
4.5
4.4
1.8
1.9
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.8
78.3
82.9
1.1
1.7
7.9
5.6
1.7
1.7
0.4
1.1
0.7
1.0
28.8
28.8
0.8
1.3
2 3.3*
2 1.2
0.1
0.2
0.3*
2 0.2
0.0
2 0.2
49.5*
54.1*
0.3*
0.4*
2.5
2.5
1.3
2.6
2.6
1.2
Centralization of HR policies
Index22
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index23
Cluster95
2 0.1
2 0.1
0.1
(continued)
Changes in HRM
in Europe
551
Table III.
Clusters averages and
differences 1995 and 1999
JEIT
29,7
Avg Cluster 1
Avg Cluster 2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.0
0.2*
0.0
0.3*
47.1
46.6
46.8
44.1
49.8
48.4
17.6
18.8
66.5
60.3
27.2
34.9
54.6
46.9
31.1
32.0
54.0
54.8
15.7
17.7
63.6
62.0
18.6
28.0
2 7.5
2 0.3
15.7*
12.1*
2 4.2
2 6.4
1.9
1.1
2.9
2 1.6
8.6*
7.0
Internal versus external training orientation

Index31
Cluster95
39.1
Cluster99
37.4
Index32
Cluster95
40.1
Cluster99
45.8
28.8
35.0
43.1
46.4
10.3*
2.4
2 3.0
2 0.6
Index33
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index34
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index35
Cluster95
Cluster99
26.7
30.0
17.4
22.5
20.2
32.8
17.1
17.5
10.5
11.2
16.3
25.5
9.6*
12.5*
6.9*
11.3*
3.9
7.2*
HR development
Index36
Cluster95
Cluster99
23.8
30.6
21.7
27.3
2.0
3.3

Index37
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index38
Cluster95
Cluster99
13.9
13.1
8.7
9.9
8.4
7.8
8.1
6.9
5.5
5.3
0.6
3.0
Accent on training
Index39
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index40
Cluster95
Cluster99
3.1
2.9
38.7
46.4
3.1
3.0
29.1
39.1
2 0.1
0.0
9.7*
7.4

Index41
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index42
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index43
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index44
Cluster95
Cluster99
74.1
73.6
65.2
68.9
2.4
2.2
2.8
3.0
67.6
65.3
52.8
72.7
2.6
2.1
2.3
3.3
6.6
8.3
12.4
2 3.8
2 0.2
0.1
0.5
2 0.3
Index24
552
Table III.
Cluster99
Cluster95
Cluster99
Internal versus external labor

Index25
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index26
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index27
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index28
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index29
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index30
Cluster95
Cluster99
Note: * Significant at the 0.05 level
Differences 1-2
directors in the south-eastern countries. In 1995, the difference between the two clusters
was in the consultative role of the HR person in the development of the corporate
strategy. In 1999, the considerable gap between the two clusters is in the participation
of the HR person in the development of the corporate strategy from the outset. In the
last wave (1999) in both clusters, the percentage of organizations that take into account
HR issues from the outset in the development of corporate strategy decreases with
higher rates of decrease in the south-eastern countries. Overall, in four out of five
indices describing the position of HRM the differences between the two clusters in the
two waves are greater, while the role of the HR function seems to be decreasing in the
second wave, with higher rates in the south-eastern countries.
Formalization of HR policies and strategies is another area where we observe
significant differences between the two clusters. As it was expected, countries in the
south-eastern cluster scored higher in the area of unwritten policies and strategies. In
1999, in both clusters there is an increase in the organizations that have written
policies, but in the north-western countries there is a higher rate of increase. In the last
wave, we also notice that there is significant difference in the level of basic pay
determination for management and employees between the north-west and the
south-east clusters.
Training is one of the most important issues for HRM. Overall, it seems that
training is an area where HR practices do not reveal considerable differences between
the two clusters which show convergence in 1999. In 1995, the two clusters were
different in their emphasis on internal training, and on the average proportion of
employees in training, with more organizations in north-western group of countries
providing internal training and having greater proportion of their employees in
training, internal or external. In terms of the average number of days in training each
manager receives each year, there are significant differences between the two clusters
in both waves. Managers in organizations in the south-eastern countries spend more
days in training than managers in north-western countries. The gap seems to close (as
it was expected) in the second wave, even though the difference remains significant.
The involvement of managers in the performance appraisal is increasing from 1995 to
1999, but it increases at a higher rate in organizations of the south-eastern cluster,
making thus the difference between the two groups significant in the second wave. In
1999, more companies in both clusters are briefing managers about organizational
issues, however the increase is higher in the north-western cluster, making the
difference between the groups significant.
Employees participation in training is also considerably higher in organizations in
the south-eastern cluster only for the 1995 data. In 1999 there seems to be a
convergence between the two groups and the difference is not significant. The two
groups seem also to converge in 1999 in the area of employee involvement in the
appraisal system, since in 1995 there was a significant difference between the two
groups in this aspect. Employees involvement in managerial decisions through
consultative committees and/or works councils is differentiated along the
north-west-south-east axis. It seems that there is a tendency towards divergence
between the two clusters, since the difference between the groups increases from 1995
to 1999, with organizations in countries in the north-western cluster giving increasing
emphasis on the use of works councils, while the south-eastern group remains stable.
Changes in HRM
in Europe
553
JEIT
29,7
554
Moreover, the same tendency towards divergence can be noticed in employees briefing
about companys strategy, financial and organizational issues.
The two clusters differ significantly in their orientation in the external labor market
for the recruitment of the HR manager. In both waves, more organizations in the
northwest group recruit their HR manager from outside comparing to the
organizations in the southeast group. The gap, even though also significant in the
second wave, is closing. In 1995, the emphasis in organizations in both clusters was to
substitute their managers internally, even though a smaller percentage of
organizations turned to the external labor market, the difference between the
north-west and the south-east clusters was significant. In 1999, it seems that there is a
tendency towards the external labor market for recruitment in both clusters.
In a dynamic environment, flexibility is a demand. The results of our analysis reveal
this tendency with organizations in both clusters increasing temporal and spatial
flexible working practices. However, organizations in the north-western cluster adopt
flexible working patterns at a higher rate, making the differences between the two
clusters in 1999 even greater than they were in 1995.
At the second wave, that is 1999, the first cluster consists of 13 northern and western
countries and the second cluster of five eastern countries. The first considerable
change between 1995 and 1999 is that two countries, that is, Eastern Germany and Italy
changed cluster. They moved from the south-eastern cluster north-western cluster. As a
result of this movement, we observe a major rearrangement in the north-western cluster.
However, as it was expected, UK, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium and
France show a remarkable stability with regard to overall HRM indices. In both waves
they are the western sub-cluster of the north-western cluster. Also Norway and Denmark
show a considerable stability, while Finland seems that at the second wave has come even
closer to these two countries. These three countries, although at the first wave were by
themselves forming the second sub-cluster of the north-western cluster, at the second wave
they cluster with Germany, Spain, Italy and GDR.
In order to look at particular changes that took place between the two waves in
Italy, we compared the difference of the values of all of the 51 indices of Italy with the
respective average values of the north-western cluster at wave one (1995) and wave
two (1999). With regard to Italy we observe the following. In 26 if the 51 indices, the
gap between the countrys values and the respective average values of the
north-western cluster reduced considerably from 1995 to 1999. Furthermore, in six
other indices, Italy not just reduced the gap, but it had values above the average values
towards the direction of the other north-western countries (Table IV).
Among the HR issues that Italy showed convergence with the north-western cluster
are more employees involvement in HRM (five out of the six indices reduced the gap),
more formalization of HR policies and strategies (four out of five indices reduced the
gap), more external orientation in labour market (six out of the six indices reduced the
gap or went beyond it), and in training (two out of the two indices reduced the gap). Also,
Italy increased its focus on marginal groups in HRM, in training and in evaluation and
analysis (all of the indices used showed a change towards the north-western cluster).
Overall, of all the HR aspects explored in the present study, Italy seems to have remained
stable between 1995 and 1999 in centralization policies and employment flexibility;
in all other aspects of HR that this study considered, Italy to a more or less degree,
showed a change towards the north-western cluster.
Avg Cluster 1
Italy
Differences 1-2
Cluster95
Cluster99
Cluster95
Cluster99
92.9
92.0
49.4
48.4
88.1
93.7
57.6
46.8
4.8
2 1.7
2 8.2
1.6
Cluster95
Cluster99
21.2
17.4
9.6
24.9
11.6
2 7.5
2.8
3.5
2.0
2.0
0.6
0.6
2.4
2.8
1.0
1.6
1.5
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.9
0.4
2 0.9
2 0.1

Index12
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index14
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index15
Cluster95
Cluster99
74.4
68.4
0.9
1.1
1.9
2.7
61
65.8
0.7
1.0
1.7
2.5
13.4
2.6
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.2

Index16
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index17
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index18
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index19
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index20
Cluster95
Cluster99
4.5
4.4
1.8
1.9
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.8
78.3
82.9
4.5
4.7
1.6
1.8
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.7
36.1
69.6
0.0
2 0.3
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.6
0.1
0.1
42.3
13.3
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.4
2 0.3
2 0.1

Index25
Cluster95
47.1
Cluster99
46.6
Index26
Cluster95
46.8
Cluster99
44.1
Index27
Cluster95
49.8
Cluster99
48.4
Index28
Cluster95
17.6
Cluster99
18.8
Index29
Cluster95
66.5
Cluster99
60.3
Index30
Cluster95
27.2
Cluster99
34.9
52.5
50.6
35.6
36.7
31.4
55.1
6.2
11.8
50.8
57.8
9.3
21.2
Position of HRM
Index1
Index3
Staffing
Index6

Index7
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index9
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index10
Cluster95
Cluster99
Centralization of HR policy
Index23
Cluster95
Cluster99
2 5.4
2 4.0
11.2
7.4
18.4
2 6.7
11.4
7.0
15.7
2.5
17.9
13.7
(continued)
Changes in HRM
in Europe
555
Table IV.
Italy compared with
North-western Cluster in
1995 and 1999
JEIT
29,7
556
Table IV.
Avg Cluster 1
Italy
Differences 1-2
39.1
37.4
40.1
45.8
36.8
42.3
50
51.3
2.3
2 4.9
2 9.9
2 5.5
Cluster95
Cluster99
23.8
30.6
14.9
31.5
8.8
2 0.9

Index37
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index38
Cluster95
Cluster99
13.9
13.1
8.7
9.9
1.4
10.1
11.4
12.2
12.5
3.0
2 2.7
2 2.3
Accent on training
Index39
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index40
Cluster95
Cluster99
3.1
2.9
38.7
46.4
1.8
2.2
25.5
36.2
1.3
0.8
13.2
10.2

Index41
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index42
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index43
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index44
Cluster95
Cluster99
74.1
73.6
65.2
68.9
2.4
2.2
2.8
3.0
69.5
75.6
56.1
71.8
2.5
2.2
2
3.2
4.6
2 2.0
9.1
2 2.9
2 0.1
0.0
0.8
2 0.2

Index31
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index32
Cluster95
Cluster99
HR development
Index36
Eastern Germany is the other country that moved from the south-eastern to the
north-western cluster between 1995 and 1999. As we did in the case of Italy, we
compared the difference of the values of all of the 51 indices of Eastern Germany with
the respective average values of the north-western cluster at wave one (1995) and wave
two (1999). In 19 of the 51 indices, the gap between the countrys values and the
respective average values of the north-western cluster reduced considerably from 1995
to 1999. Furthermore, in one index that showing the percentage of organizations that
monitor the proportion of marginal groups for training and promotion Eastern
Germany not just closed the gap in 1999, but it had values above the average values
towards the direction of the other north-western countries (Table V).
Among the HR aspects considered in the present study, Eastern Germany showed
more evidence of convergence with the north-western cluster with regard to more
formalization of HR policies and strategies (five out of five indices closed the gap
between 1995 and 1999), and in evaluation and analysis (all of the four indices used
showed a change towards the north-western cluster). Also, Eastern Germany showed a
convergence on external orientation in labor market (three out of the six indices closed
the gap). With regard to other aspects of HR in Eastern Germany like employees
involvement in HR, employment flexibility, position of HRM in organization, external
Avg Cluster 1
GDR
Differences 1-2
Cluster95
Cluster99
Cluster95
Cluster99
92.9
92.0
49.4
48.4
96.4
90.1
44.2
45.4
2 3.5
1.2
5.2
3.0
Cluster95
Cluster99
21.2
17.4
9.1
10.7
12.1
6.7

Index7
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index8
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index9
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index10
Cluster95
Cluster99
2.8
3.5
1.3
1.9
2.0
2.0
0.6
0.6
2.0
2.8
1.4
1.8
1.1
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
2 0.1
0.0
0.8
0.8
2 0.4
2 0.3
Cluster95
Cluster99
Cluster95
Cluster99
1.0
1.4
1.9
2.7
0.5
1.6
1.8
2.6
0.5
2 0.2
0.1
0.1
Cluster95
Cluster99
78.3
82.9
18.4
93.3
59.9
2 10.4

Index25
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index26
Cluster95
Cluster99
Index29
Cluster95
Cluster99
47.1
46.6
46.8
44.1
66.5
60.3
58.2
45.4
28.5
35.4
63.0
56.9
2 11.1
1.2
18.3
8.7
3.5
3.4

Index31
Cluster95
Cluster99
39.1
37.4
18.3
21.0
20.8
16.4
Cluster95
Cluster99
26.7
29.9
24.5
28.8
2.2
1.1
Cluster95
Cluster99
13.9
13.1
14.3
17.1
2 0.4
2 4.0
Cluster95
Cluster99
Cluster95
Cluster99
Cluster95
Cluster99
Cluster95
Cluster99
74.1
73.6
65.2
68.9
2.4
2.2
2.8
3.0
71.8
73.3
58.3
64.3
2.5
2.2
1.7
2.2
2.4
0.3
6.9
4.6
2 0.1
2 0.0
1.1
0.8
Position of HRM
Index1
Index3
Staffing
Index6

Index13
Index15
Index20
Index33
Index37
Index41
Index42
Index43
Index44
Changes in HRM
in Europe
557
Table V.
GDR compared with
North-western Cluster in
1995 and 1999
JEIT
29,7
558
orientation in training, seven indices showed change toward the north-western cluster.
Overall of, all the HR aspects explored in the present study, West Germany seems to
have remained stable between 1995 and 1999 in centralization of HR policies and
in emphasis on training; in all other aspects of HR that this study considered, Eastern
Germany to a more or less degree, showed changes towards the north-western cluster.
Discussion and conclusions
The European Union has promoted the integration among European countries.
Toward this objective common policies and procedures have been determined,
affecting all member states. At the same time, cultural and institutional factors in each
country contribute to the adoption and adaptation of different practices within a
common framework. Understanding similarities and differences within EU is
important to understand the unique character of the European model of human
resource management.
From our analysis certain conclusions can be drawn:
No indication of convergence between the major clusters north-west and
south-east; between the two waves several differences remained unchanged (seven)
some differences disappeared but some new emerged.
However, we observed movement from one cluster to another. In accordance with our
hypotheses peripheral countries in one cluster moved to the other cluster. Countries that
were marginal to the south-eastern group Italy and Eastern Germany moved to
north-western group. The northernization of Italy in HRM may be explained within the
context of the overall convergence of this country at the economic and legal and political
level with the other north-western European Union countries. The westernization of
Eastern Germany in HRM was expected to be found in the dynamic analysis of the data.
Eastern Germany was the country in the south-eastern cluster with the most rapid and
substantial changes at the social, political, economic and technological level than any
other country of this group; and that was mainly due to the fact that, a little more than a
decade ago, it became part of one of the north-western countries and it started an
unparallel with the other eastern countries assimilation process. This assimilation
process was not without drawbacks in Western Germany at economic level. Although
more detailed analysis of the HRM data needed to support the speculation just to be
made, from the dynamic cluster analysis we performed we get the picture that West
Germany between 1995 and 1999 became more peripheral the north-western countries in
terms of the specific HRM aspects that the present study used.
As a result of the re-arrangement between the clusters, the north-western cluster
became less homogeneous, while the south-eastern cluster became more homogeneous.
The Cranet-E project offers us a unique opportunity in international comparative
research. In this paper, we tried to address the issue of whether over time there is an
increasing Europeanisation (convergence) of HRM practices in Europe or not, which
is one of the main objective of the Cranet project. In order to claim that there is a trend
toward convergence or divergence, we need one more wave of data. Clearly, the
available data show a tendency, but with the inclusion of the data of the 2003 survey
we will be able to reach more safe conclusions. Another methodological limitation of
this study is the level of analysis, which is HR practices at a national (average values)
and regional level. Analysis at this level conceals qualitative differences between
countries, which are important in the contextual paradigm. Future research needs to
combine quantitative with qualitative data from these countries, in order to arrive at a
fuller picture of patterns of human resource management in Europe.
References
Aldenderfer, M.S. and Blashfield, R. (1985), Cluster Analysis. Quantitative Applications in Social
Sciences, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Blashfield, R. (1980), The growth of cluster analysis: Tyron, Ward and Johnson, Multivariate
Behavioral Research, Vol. 15, pp. 439-58.
Brewster, C. and Larsen, H.H. (2000), The Northern European dimension, in Brewster, C. and
Larsen, H.H. (Eds), Human Resource Management in Northern Europe, Blackwell
Business, Oxford.
Brewster, C. and Tyson, S. (1991), International Comparisons in Human Resource Management,
Pitman, London.
Brewster, C., Tregaskis, O., Hegewisch, A. and Holden, L. (1993), The European Human Resource
Management Guide, Academic Press, London.
Brunstein, I. (1995), Human Resource Management in Western Europe, De Gruyter, Berlin.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ.
Hofstede, G. (1994), The business of international business is culture, International Business
Review, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Hollinshead, G. and Leat, M. (1995), Human Resource Management: An International and
Comparative Perspective on the Employment Relationship, Pitman, London.
Ignjatovic, M. and Svetlik, I. (2002), European HRM Clusters, paper presented at the 2nd
International Conference on Human Resource Management in Europe: Trends and
Challenges, Athens, October.
Larsen, H.H. and Brewster, C. (2000), Human resource management, in Brewster, C. and Larsen,
H.H. (Eds), Human Resource Management in Northern Europe, Blackwell Business,
Oxford.
Leat, M. (1998), Human Resource Issues of the European Union, Financial Times Management,
London.
Mayrhofer, W., Brewster, C. and Morley, M. (2000), The concept of strategic European human
resource management, in Brewster, C., Mayrhofer, W. and Morley, M. (Eds), New
Challenges for European Human Resource Management, Macmillan, London.
Mayrhofer, W., Muller, M., Ledolter, J., Strunk, G. and Erten, C. (2002), Converging for success?
European human resource practices and organizational performance in the 1990s an
empirical analysis, paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Human
Resource Management in Europe: Trends and Challenges, Athens, October.
Further reading
Brewster, C. and Hegewisch, A. (1994), Policy and Practice in European Human Resource
Management: The PriceWaterhouseCranfield Survey, Routledge, London.
Brewster, C., Tregaskis, O., Hegewisch, A. and Mayne, L. (2000), Comparative research in
human resource management: a review and an example, in Brewster, C., Mayrhofer, W.
and Morley, M. (Eds), New Challenges for European Human Resource Management,
Macmillan, London.
Changes in HRM
in Europe
559
JEIT
29,7
560
Delery, J. and Doti, H. (1996), Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management:
tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 802-35.
Hendry, C. and Pettigrew, A. (1990), HRM: an agenda for the 1990s, International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 17-25.
Huselid, M. (1995), The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity and corporate financial performance, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 38, pp. 635-72.
Papalexandris, N. (1998), Comparative research on the practices of human resource
management in Europe, Anthropos kai Ergasia, Vol. 9, July.
Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O. (1985), Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: a review and
synthesis, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 435-54.
Sparrow, P. and Hiltrop, J.M. (1994), European Human Resource Management in Transition,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Storey, J. (Ed.) (2001), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text, Thomson, London.
Trompenaars, F. (1994), Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Culture and Diversity in
Business, Nicholas Brealey, London.
This article has been cited by:

1. Maria Carmen Galang, Intan Osman. 2016. HR managers in five countries: what do they do and why
does it matter?. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27:13, 1341-1372. [CrossRef]
2. Alexandros Psychogios Hull Business School, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom Leslie Thomas
Szamosi Department of Business Administration and Economics, International Faculty of the University
of Sheffield, Thessaloniki, Greece Rea Prouska Middlesex University Business School, Department of
Leadership, Work and Organisations, Middlesex University, London, UK Christopher Brewster Henley
Business School, University of Reading, Reading, UK . 2016. A three-fold framework for understanding
HRM practices in South-Eastern European SMEs. Employee Relations 38:3, 310-331. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
3. Giulio Pedrini University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy . 2016. Varieties of capitalism in Europe: an intertemporal comparison of HR policies. Personnel Review 45:3, 480-504. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Peter McGraw. 2015. Changing patterns of compensation and benefits in multinational and Australian
companies 1996-2009. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 53:1, 59-82. [CrossRef]
5. Aminu Mamman, Khamis Zayid Al Kulaiby. 2014. Is Ulrich's model useful in understanding HR
practitioners' roles in non-western developing countries? An exploratory investigation across private and
public sector organizations in the Sultanate Kingdom of Oman. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management 25:20, 2811-2836. [CrossRef]
6. Jane Maley Business & Economics, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia . 2013. Hybrid purposes of
performance appraisal in a crisis. Journal of Management Development 32:10, 1093-1112. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
7. Pedro Ribeiro Novo De Melo, Carolina Feliciana MachadoHRM in SMEs in Portugal: An Innovative
Proposal of Characterization 217-242. [CrossRef]
8. Pedro Ferreira, Isabel Neira, Elvira Vieira. 2012. The Strategic Approach to the High-performance
Paradigm: A European Perspective. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 58, 474-482. [CrossRef]
9. Igor Gurkov, Olga Zelenova, Zakir Saidov. 2012. Mutation of HRM practices in Russia: an application
of CRANET methodology. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 23:7, 1289-1302.
[CrossRef]
10. Andrea Ollo-Lpez, Alberto Bayo-Moriones, Martn Larraza-Kintana. 2011. The impact of country-level
factors on the use of new work practices. Journal of World Business 46:3, 394-403. [CrossRef]
11. Peter McGraw, Melissa Peretz. 2011. HRD practices in local private sector companies and MNC
subsidiaries in Australia, 19962009. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 22:12,
2539-2557. [CrossRef]
12. Koen Dewettinck, Jonathan Remue. 2011. Contextualizing HRM in comparative research: The role of
the Cranet network. Human Resource Management Review 21:1, 37-49. [CrossRef]
13. Paul Gooderham, Odd Nordhaug. 2011. One European model of HRM? Cranet empirical contributions.
Human Resource Management Review 21:1, 27-36. [CrossRef]
14. Chris Brewster, Michael Morley, Ilona BuciunieneRta KazlauskaitISM University of Management and
Economics, Kaunas, Lithuania Ilona BuinienISM University of Management and Economics, Kaunas,
Lithuania. 2010. HR function developments in Lithuania. Baltic Journal of Management 5:2, 218-241.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Dirk Holtbrgge, Carina B. Friedmann, Jonas F. Puck. 2010. Recruitment and retention in foreign firms
in India: A resource-based view. Human Resource Management 49:3, 439-455. [CrossRef]
16. Juni ChanKrystal Management Group, Hong Kong, China John BurgessNewcastle Business School,
University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia. 2010. Public reporting of HRM practices among selected
Hong Kong companies. Journal of Chinese Human Resources Management 1:2, 115-127. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]

A Longitudinal Comparative Study Among 18 European Countries

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A Longitudinal Comparative Study Among 18 European Countries

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Journal of European Industrial Training

Changes in HRM in Europe: A longitudinal comparative study among 18 European

Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 06:35 11 May 2016 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at

Changes in HRM in Europe