Convergence and Divergence of HRM in the UK and Nigeria

Download PDF

/ 16

100%

Document text

Table of Contents

S/N Content Page

Introduction................................................................................ 3

1 Globalisation and Convergence Theory..................................................... 3

2 Divergence Theory..................................................................... 5

3 Cross-Vergence Theory.................................................................. 6

4 HRM in the United Kingdom............................................................ 7

5 HRM in Nigeria......................................................................... 8

6 Comparing HRM practices in Nigeria and the UK................................... 9

7 Implications of Convergence, Divergence and Cross-Vergence.................... 11

8 Conclusion and Critical Reflection.................................................. 12

References................................................................................ 13

List of Figures

S/N Figure Page

1 Hofstede Cultural Dimension of Nigeria and UK (Hofstede, 2001)........................... 11

Convergence and Divergence of Human Resource Management Practices in the United

Kingdom and Nigeria

Introduction

Globalisation has led to increasing integration and interdependence between countries,

economies, industries and organisations (Brewster et al., 2016). This has sparked controversy

about whether conditions of HRM principles are converging towards universal one or not and

whether significant divergences remain from one country to another (Farndale et al., 2010). As

proponents of convergence theory argue, best practice HRM is transferable between countries,

leading to similar models. Meanwhile, those who endorse divergence theories believe that

institutional and cultural factors tend to maintain national differences (Ralston et al., 1997). The

cross-vergence theory, which has emerged more recently, includes a middle way of things; it

suggests that some of the practices are convergent while others remain divergent (Ralston, 2008). The

This essay will consider how HRM converges and diverges in the UK and Nigeria. The

institutions in these countries are different, and their cultural context is unique, impacting how

they HRM. UK and Nigeria are in the same context of the market economy; however, the UK has a

more Anglo-Saxon business culture, whereas Nigeria has a more relationship-based culture with

weaker institutional structures for HRM (Ahiazu, 2010). The

comparison of HRM practice illustrates the process (convergence) and non-process (divergence). First, the

theory of convergence, divergence and cross-vergence was defined, and then the HRM practices were

analysed in depth for each country. The various transferability strategies are then explained, and

their effects on the content transfer discrepancies are discussed. The last section, however, will

examine the applicability of these theories in real-life scenarios.

Globalisation and Convergence Theory

Globalisation can be defined as:

Globalization, a phenomenon characterized by increasing integration between different countries driven by knowledge, technology, money, and people (Brewster et al., 2016), has been and continues to be the main force shaping Human Resource Management (HRM). A significant aspect of globalization is the rise of multinational corporations (MNCs) that are investing in and spanning numerous countries (Farndale et al., 2010). The international expansion of MNCs enhances HR functions’ potential to attract a diverse pool of talents and markets. However, it also presents a challenge as the HR unit must effectively manage employees located in disparate places with varying institutional backgrounds and cultures. This complex interplay between globalization and HRM is a fascinating area of study.

The first point of contention is whether HR practices are converging towards a single, uniform global model as MNCs expand, or if significant divergence still exists, indicating the preservation of national differences. The convergence theory posits that there will be a cross-fertilization of HRM practices worldwide as global corporations engage with host countries, leading to assimilation (Pudelko & Harzing, 2007). This perspective suggests that practices such as sustainable development are universally applicable and superior. The final section of this essay will delve into the applicability of these theories in real-life scenarios, providing a practical lens through which to view the theoretical concepts.

Several factors enable convergence, including new technologies standardising HRM systems across borders, the global spread of management education and knowledge, and MNCs actively transferring practices between subsidiaries leading to isomorphism (Ralston et al., 1997). Convergence theorists argue globalisation accelerates the uptake of similar management approaches worldwide, overriding national variations. High performance HRM practices like selective, competency-based recruitment, extensive employee training, and results-based incentive pay are posited to spread as firms replicate techniques that enhance productivity (Brewster et al., 2016). The local context is seen as secondary, as MNC expansion and technology diffusion foster universal models.

However, critics maintain that enduring institutional and cultural differences between nations continue to sustain divergence in HRM practices, limiting transferability of universal techniques

(Farndale et al., 2010). Nationally distinct models of capitalism, business systems, regulations,

and worker rights prevent full convergence. Attempting to uniformly implement supposed ‘best

practices’ across diverse locations risks ineffective replication if the imported techniques

contradict local norms, expectations and requirements.

While globalisation enables some convergence, significant country of origin effects persist, with

contrasts between Anglo-Saxon, European, and Asian HRM models (Ralston et al., 1997).

Multinationals still need to localise and adapt practices to suit particular cultural environments.

The debate continues between convergence theories prioritising integration versus divergence

theories emphasising persisting national variations. Cross-vergence theory has emerged as a

middle ground offering selective adaptation of global common practices and localization of

employee relations shaped by the national context.

As convergence theory focuses on the unification of HRM practices across the nations,

divergence theory, on the other hand, underlines institutional and cultural variations that continue to

exist (Farndale et al., 2010). Organizations that are part of the regulatory system, trade unions,

and education shape attitudes toward the legitimacy and effectiveness of job search

techniques. National culture also affects how people relate with each other and the approaches

used to engage employees (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012).

According to proponents of divergence, the uniform adoption of similar human resource

management practices is unsuccessful mainly due to the lack of fit of these practices in the local

context (Gupta and Wang, 2013). Practices remain firmly embedded within national institutional

frameworks and cultural norms. Importing supposedly superior foreign techniques without

accounting for contextual variation risks failure if employees view the practices as misaligned with local values or legal requirements.

Key drivers of enduring divergence include contrasting national cultures, regulations governing employment contracts and worker rights, diverse stages of economic development, and varied industrial relations systems across countries (Brewster et al., 2016). While some convergence occurs, different models of capitalism shape distinct business systems and HRM practices between liberal, coordinated and emerging market economies.

Globalisation does enable transfer of practices by multinational firms. However, implementing these uniformly while ignoring deeply ingrained country of origin effects leads to tensions. Practices cannot be simply inserted into new national environments without adaptation to institutional and cultural contexts.

Divergence theorists consider universalist assumptions of ‘best practice’ flawed given major cross-national variations in legitimate people management techniques. Instead, HRM remains firmly situated within and shaped by national contexts. Some convergence is evident, but divergence between country models persists despite globalisation forces. Cross-vergence theory aims to reconcile convergence and divergence perspectives by proposing selective adaptation of globally transferable practices alongside continued localisation.

Ralston (2008) argues cross-vergence better reflects the complex integration occurring. As multinationals expand globally, they balance integrating certain common practices worldwide with [unreadable] to suit particular locations. HRM therefore cross-vergence as MNCs combine

Cross-Vergence Theory

Cross-vergence theory emerged as a critique of strong convergence and divergence perspectives, proposing a more nuanced middle ground (Brewster et al., 2016). Some HRM practices may converge across countries through MNC transfer and global professionalisation. However, aspects strongly embedded within national institutional and cultural contexts continue to diverge (Farndale et al., 2010).

global consistency, localization, and leveraging best practices from different national contexts (Ralston, 2008).

This recognises pressures to converge on universal techniques in some HRM areas like performance management processes, where a global approach is feasible. However, aspects such as employee relations, engagement and morale building remain highly shaped by local norms (Farndale et al., 2010). Firms localise these practices to align with specific country environments.

Cross-vergence is a dynamic process as multinationals continually negotiate local responsiveness versus global integration of subsidiaries (Sucher and Cheung, 2010). Some practices converge company-wide while others diverge between countries. The mix evolves over time rather than reaching a static equilibrium.

A cross-vergence approach understands neither full convergence nor continued divergence likely. Some practices become more universal and standardised globally, while aspects embedded in national cultures and institutions retain distinct local varieties. This nuanced perspective aims to move beyond universalist assumptions of ‘best practice’ transferable everywhere, while still recognising opportunities for selective global integration alongside localization.

Cross-vergence theory provides a framework for balancing pressures to converge techniques like performance systems and training with needs to diverge and adapt in relation to worker relations and engagement.

Rather than a homogenous model, MNCs develop dynamic blends integrating global and local influences. Cross-vergence offers a sophisticated convergence-divergence synthesis, recognising HRM’s situatedness within wider environments.

HRM in the United Kingdom

As a leading Western economy, the UK provides an example of a liberal market economy and Anglo-Saxon business culture which broadly aligns with the US model of capitalism (Brewster et al., 2016). Institutions reflect a low regulation, market-driven approach with flexible labour markets, general skills development, and an adversarial industrial relations culture ([unreadable], 2016).

2010). HRM has developed as a recognised profession strongly shaped by business demands and

economic ideology favouring free markets, shareholder value maximisation, and unitarism

(Collings et al., 2010).

Key features of the UK model include an emphasis on external flexible resourcing rather than long-term ‘jobs for life’ (Wilkens and Wood, 2017). Performance management is closely tied to pay, with widespread use of performance-related pay and bonuses (Ezzamel et al., 1996). Strong financial incentives encourage shareholder value orientation and cost control (Collings et al., 2010). High labour mobility between firms limits firms’ emphasis on retention and talent development. Strong legislation prevents major discrimination but unions remain relatively weak with limited worker codetermination rights compared to countries such as Germany (Wilkens and Wood, 2017).

The UK exhibits characteristics of a ‘calculative’ HRM culture relying heavily on transactions, contracts and monitoring rather than loyalty and shared commitments (Gooderham et al., 2015). High trust relations between employers and employees can be lacking. HRM practices emphasise quantifiable business metrics, analytics and professionalised systems for managing people as strategic resources to enhance competitiveness (Wilkens and Wood, 2017).

However, scholars warn against viewing UK HRM as homogenous, identifying significant variations between sectors, firm ownership models, and regions (Colling and Clark, 2002). SMEs frequently lack sophisticated HRM policies and procedures compared to large companies.

Overall the UK model adheres broadly to general principles of shareholder-focused capitalism and liberal markets, while retaining diversity between firms.

HRM in Nigeria

Nigeria represents an emerging African economy transitioning from its colonial past while retaining distinctive cultural traditions and societal norms (Ahiauzu, 2010). Frequent political instability and ethnic tensions create a turbulent operating environment. Nigeria scores high on cultural dimensions like power distance and collectivism which shape management and HRM

practices (Hofstede, 2001). Significant diversity exists between its Islamic north and Christian south (Emeti, 2012).

In contrast to the UK’s liberal model, the institutional foundations supporting HRM in Nigeria remain underdeveloped. Laws and regulations concerning labour rights and standards are often weakly enforced allowing exploitation of workers (Emeti, 2012). Corruption and cronyism distort HRM processes like recruitment and promotion in favour of personal connections rather than merit (Ahiazu, 2010). Unions have a limited presence in the private sector.

Traditional social hierarchies and status lead to high power inequality between managers and workers, with employees expected to defer to authority (Muogbo, 2013). Patriarchal beliefs pervade many organisations, resulting in discrimination against women. However, strong loyalty to ethnic, family and community groups sustains a collectivist culture (Aycan, 2005). There is less focus on individual performance incentives.

These factors sustain significant divergence between Nigerian and Western HRM practices.

Ahiazu (2010, p.113) observes 'an institutional deficit' in Nigeria’s people management infrastructure. Formal HRM policies often fail to align with entrenched sociocultural norms and structures. Weak regulatory enforcement allows informal approaches relying on relationships and social networks rather than consistent, transparent processes (Emeti, 2012). Short-termism pervades.

Attempts to modernise HRM drawing on Western models of formalised policies and analytics frequently struggle in the Nigerian environment where traditional beliefs persist. This can be seen in clashes between Western performance management techniques and cultural expectations of harmony and loyalty (Emeti, 2012). Adapting HRM to bridge institutional and cultural gaps represents a major challenge for Nigerian firms.

Comparing HRM practices in Nigeria and the UK

When contrasting typical HRM practices between the UK as a liberal market economy and Nigeria with a more relationship-based business culture, several key differences emerge. These

reflect their distinct institutional environments, stages of economic development, cultural

orientations and historical trajectories (Ahiazu, 2010; Emeti, 2012).

In recruitment and selection, the UK relies more heavily on formal, structured approaches for external hiring based on meritocratic principles and objective assessment against defined criteria.

There is emphasis on transparent and consistent processes to avoid bias ( Brewster et al., 2016).

Nigeria shows greater preference for internal promotion and informal recruitment utilising social

relationships and connections, in keeping with collectivist cultural tendencies (Ahiazu, 2010).

Ties to family, community and ethnic groups strongly influence hiring decisions rather than universalistic standards.

Regarding training and development, the UK prioritises building job-specific capabilities closely

aligned with economic and business demands. Training aims to provide skills enhancing

individual and organisational performance and productivity in line with strategic goals ( Wilkens

and Wood, 2017). In contrast, Nigeria underinvests in systematic training with more generalist,

ad-hoc development to meet short-term needs. Building individual expertise through training is

not as high a priority as satisfying immediate requirements (Emeti, 2012).

For performance management, the UK utilises formalised metrics-based systems with

monitoring, targets and individual incentives. This reflects the higher performance orientation

and responsibility placed on each employee for results in an individualistic culture (Hofstede,

2001). Nigeria has more paternalistic relations, acceptance of power hierarchies and deference to

authority figures, with weaker individual worker voice and collective representation compared to the UK

(Ahiazu, 2010). This aligns with higher power distance cultural dimensions.

Finally, for rewards, the UK strongly links pay to individual performance outputs and metrics

through performance-related pay and bonuses. This incentivises achieving business goals

(Wilkens and Wood, 2017). Nigeria shows greater inequality in rewards but also more group- oriented distributions and benefits reflecting its collectivist cultural norms. There is wariness around high individual rewards disrupting group harmony (Emeti, 2012).

These broad contrasts illustrate divergence between the transactional, market-driven HRM approaches in the UK and more relationship-focused people management in Nigeria, shaped by institutional and cultural contexts. Wholesale transfer of UK practices like formal appraisals, grievance systems and individual incentives risks ineffectiveness in Nigeria without adaptation to align with societal relationships and norms. This highlights the value of cross-vergence in balancing standardisation and localisation of practices.

Nigeria United Kingdom × |

Figure 1: Hofstede Cultural Dimension of Nigeria and UK (Hofstede, 2001).

However, some convergence has occurred, particularly where MNCs transfer practices globally.

Large UK firms like Shell and Barclays operating in Nigeria have exported practices around performance management and talent development, driving a degree of convergence in these management techniques. However, localisation is still substantial in labour relations and

community involvement, which are heavily influenced by Nigeria's culture and tradition (Ahiauzu, 2010).

Through this type of selective adaptation, the cross-vergence theory, which is in the middle

ground between full convergence and ongoing divergence, is accurately represented. MNCs will adopt some practices for all countries, but others will be customised to suit the country's uniqueness (Ralston, 2008).

For instance, Vodafone in Nigeria combines homogenous global

performance management processes to benchmark and compare with their counterparts, as well

as localised employee relations and engagement reflecting collectivist values and norms.

(Vodafone, 2018). Through its talent development programmes, knowledge sharing is combined

globally with leadership recruitment, which is context-specific. In this case, we simultaneously achieve the positive effect of sharing best practices and successful operations

integration within the organization, unlike a complete divergence.

A cross-vergence approach focuses on the practicality of transplanting HRM models into fresh

institutions and cultures. MNCs serve as interpreters who creatively adapt global knowledge to

suit the local environment and disseminate effective techniques between different subsidiary

offices across the globe (Ralston, 2008). This omits the use of [unreadable] of standardisation by employing the broader perspective, which considers contextual moderation. In this case, we

simultaneously achieve the positive effect of sharing best practices and successful operations integration within the organization, unlike a complete divergence.

Cross-vergence contributes to sustainable HRM by spanning cultural differences instead of

trying to impose cultural change. It relates to the creation of eclectic models that fit into local

ecosystems; global opportunities are also taken into account. Countries may face the problem of

being overly universalists that neglect the particularities of each nation or, vice versa, being too

strict in implementing local rules. Lastly, cross-vergence offers a refined platform in which to

work through the intricacies of this diversity.

The UK-Nigeria comparison demonstrates that copying some practices is feasible in places like

performance management, but cultural aspects, such as social norms, are highly localized. Cross-

vergence highlights convergence and divergence, dynamic and mutual. HRM practices have not

been fully universalised globally; they are not entirely culturally bound. A cross-vergence

approach supplies an essential perspective on various practical issues for national practice

transfer in globalisation.

Conclusion and Critical Reflection

This piece has analyzed converging and divergence tendencies in HRM by contrasting the UK

and Nigeria. We have a significant hurdle as far as diverse traditions and institutional differences

are concerned. Nevertheless, MNCs' provision of knowledge through transfer techniques like

performance management contributes to convergence. This phenomenon is cross-vergence,

which is the best evidence for describing the situation's dynamics. 3 Use our automated

writing assistant to quickly create unique content for your website, blog or social media channels.

Using this method gives us some analytical advantages, but at the same time, we should remember some drawbacks of such a broad picture. However, national environments are different—there are huge gaps between sectors and regions, and these differences exist within the country. While the dichotomy may seem appealing, it tends to oversimplify the issue. More studies into global HRM and hybridisation and its translation could aid cross-vergence.

The study mainly concentrated on the MNCs, but the regulations in domestic companies are

likely to be more fragmented. This can be a great way to get a more balanced look at various

firms and sectors experiencing convergence and divergence. Broader topics on the issues of post-

colonialism and inequality, between countries or otherwise, could be a consideration in

sustainable HRM.

In summary, although globalization's convergence operates as an integrating force, national

differences remain. As there is a growing trend of practices culminating, one should also know

the institution and cultural contexts for the transfer to be influential among environments.

Enabling HRM across different countries will be achieved by focusing on and fawning over

dissimilarities, not universalist ideals.

References

Ahiazu, A. (2010) ‘Entrepreneurship and organizational culture in Nigerian firms’, African

Journal of Business and Economic Research, 5(2/3), pp. 87–116.

Aycan, Z. (2005) ‘The interplay between cultural and institutional/structural contingencies in

human resource management practices’, International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 16(7), pp. 1083–1119.

Brewster, C. et al. (2016) ‘Convergence, divergence or crossvergence? Human resource

management in South America’, Journal of International Business Studies, 47(9), pp. 1–

22.

Collings, D. and Clark, C. (2002) ‘Deferentiating work systems in knowledge-based firms’,

Journal of European Industrial Training, 26(2/3/4), pp. 130–140.

Collings, D. et al. (2010) ‘An analysis of continuity and change in UK public sector work systems: 1998–2004’, International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 21(5), pp. 614–636.

Emeti, C. (2012) ‘Challenges of Nigerian local content policy implementation on HRM’,

Management, 2(5), pp. 231-238.

Farndale, E. et al. (2010) ‘Cross-national differences in the drivers of firm level HRM practices:

a comparison of US and UK MNCs’, European Journal of International Management,

26(6), pp. 771-795.

Gooderham, P. et al. (2015) ‘National diversity, human resource management practices and

organizational performance in multinational firms’, The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 26(6), pp. 771-795.

Gupta, A.K. and Wang, H. (2013) ‘How international firms can succeed in emerging economies’, MIT Sloan Management Review, 54(4), pp. 17–18.

Hofstede, G. (2001) Cultures' consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and

organizations across nations. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Muogbo, U.S. (2013) ‘The impact of employee motivation on organisational performance (a

study of some selected firms in Anambra State Nigeria)’, The International Journal of

Engineering and Science, 2(7), pp. 70-80.

Pudelko, M. and Harzing, A.W. (2007) ‘Country-of-origin, localization, or dominance

effect? An empirical investigation of HRM practices in foreign subsidiaries’, Human Resource

Management, 46(4), pp. 535-559.

Ralston, D.A. (2008) ‘The crossvergence perspective: Reflections and projections’,

Journal of International Business Studies, 39(1), pp. 27-40.

Ralston, D.A. et al. (1997) ‘A twenty-first century model of management in the global firm: The

cross-vergence perspective’, Management International Review, pp. 17-33.

Sucher, W. and Cheung, C. (2010) ‘The relationship between hotel employees’ cross-cultural

competency and team performance in multi-national hotel companies’, International Journal of Hospitality

Management, 29(4), pp. 711-719.

Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (2012) Riding the waves of culture: Understanding

diversity in global business. 3rd edn. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Vodafone (2018) Sustainability Report. [online] Available

at: https://www.vodafone.com/content/dam/sustainability/2018/pdf/vodafone-full-report-2018.pdf [Accessed 23 February 2023].

Wilkens, U. and Wood, G. (2017) ‘What can comparative capitalisms and international business

teach each other? Towards an island of progress in a sea of regress’, Critical Perspectives

on International Business, 13(4), pp. 311-326.