Human Resources Management Of China And Japan - 1815 Words

Management of Human Resources is the backbone of every company in this world. Along with the ideas and principles, it is the workforce of a company which determines its success. In this report, we will compare the different approaches to Human Resources Management that are used in China and Japan. Several HR implications in both the countries will be analysed and the results of this report will predict the future of HRM industry in China and Japan. Background HRM in China The HR market in China has been in distress for the past few years. Job vacancies have not been as high in quite a while and it has created an unwanted record of 10 available jobs per job seeker. Majority of the population is ageing and a further troubling fact indicates†¦show more content†¦There is an emphasis on the worker being politically correct for the company; his adherence to party doctrine played a key role, and was the basis of performance appraisal. Job security and level of wage is not dominated by job performance, but by the reason mentioned above. HRM in Japan Lifelong employment, enterprise unions, and a seniority-based wage and promotion system are some of the traditional features of HRM in Japan. However, with the emergence of international competition the upcoming young generation showing less loyalty are forcing change. A part of the reason is the transition to the service economy, while the ageing workforce has played a significant role too. Japanese firms function by consistently showing high levels of informal communication, with group consensus seen as an emphatic component of corporate success. Nemawashi, which indicates an informal process of quietly laying down the foundation for a particular proposed project by talking to the concerned people, is widely practiced in the modern Japanese firms. Japanese management theory tracks these tendencies to Japanese culture that values collectivism over individualism, and the desire to limit individual responsibility. The organizational practices of democratic decision-making, combined with collective responsibility and minimal status differentiation are mentioned frequently in the literature (Hatvany Pucik, 1981;