人力資源管理—歐亞篇

■ 約翰．羅勒（政治大學IMBA客座教授，美國伊利諾大學香檳校區教授）
On HRM--The Cases of Europe and Asia

In the first part of this article, I looked mainly at the transformation in human resource management (HRM) over the past quarter century in the US. High performance work systems have become increasingly important and now widely viewed as a “best practice” approach in HRM.
This is happening in part because the American legal system imposes relatively few restrictions on how employers manage the workplace. Unions are not a major force. The newer HRM styles seem to fit American culture well. Americans tend to be highly motivated by financial rewards and have a strong work ethic, which are basic to high performance work systems. In contrast to Asia, America is not a very hierarchical society, so both managers and workers are relatively open to the notion workplace “empowerment.”
But Americans also tend to differ from Asians in that they do not usually have a strong group focus and prefer to act independently. They can be very interpersonally competitive and quick to argue. This means American companies have often had to focus heavily on team building to make high performance work systems function well.
I also talked about the German HRM system in the first part of the article. Although many of the ways of handling HRM issues in Germany are shared at least in part by other European countries (at least in Western Europe), there is no single European HRM system and approaches vary across countries. As in America, European companies have traditionally been quite bureaucratic and very centralized. There is today a movement in many parts of Europe towards implementing high performance work systems patterned in part after the American approach.
Although European companies confront the same challenging global business environment as American and Asian companies, the tradition of top-down control and organizational rigidity has been more difficult to alter in Europe in companies, perhaps in large part because of the more hierarchical and class-based nature of European society. Management has not been so willing to relinquish much authority. Change has come more readily in some places, such as the UK, and team approaches found in high performance work systems were inspired by job redesign long-standing efforts in Sweden. Resistance to change is also rooted in the European regulatory environment for commercial law is complex and very controlling, though this is more so on the Continent than in the UK.
Another very important factor is that is that in much of Western Europe a very affluent place—people seem to prefer to trade off the chance for greater income for more leisure time, placing considerable emphasis on the quality of life. Surveys have repeatedly shown Europeans are quite willing to accept lower levels of economic growth for a freer and more enjoyable personal life. As I mentioned in Part 1, Germans (and almost all other Western Europeans) have five or six weeks of vacation per year. Effective high performance work systems require high levels of employee commitment to the organization, a level of involvement many Europeans see as inconsistent with their lifestyle.
Although the German labor laws illustrated in the BENQ-Siemens case are some of the strongest in Europe (or really anywhere), labor regulations are pervasive throughout much of Europe (again, more on the Continent than in the British Isles). These laws are often designed to secure aspects of the European commitment to what is seen as a cultured and wholesome lifestyle in which work is kept in perspective.
Works councils are common (though generally not as powerful as in Germany). Unions have considerable, though perhaps declining, influence in many countries. There are often regulations protecting worker rights that are far more extensive than in either the US or East Asia. Certain rules have been relaxed recently (such as restrictions in some countries against retail stores being open on evenings and weekends), but the overall impact of the policies emerging under the European Union has been to strengthen labor regulations.
Most readers will be quite familiar with the situation in East Asia, which as with Europe is quite varied but now undergoing considerable change. The Japanese approach to HRM was once a global model. It is a system that places much emphasis on teamwork, employees with more general work skills, and worker involvement in at least some aspects of organizational decision making. In fact, the Japanese system motivated much of the growth in high performance work systems in the US.
Yet the Japanese system is probably not as flexible as the American approach nor does it encourage highly innovate responses to change. Workers often receive little performance feedback and pay is normally not linked to individual performance. Promotions might come only after years of working at a particular level in the company.
The changing values of Japanese workers, especially younger workers who have become far more individualistic than there parents, have meant that this approach no longer works so well, as evidenced in the stagnating Japanese economy. However, Japanese firms are now experimenting with many of the features of high performance work systems, though the transition is not complete.
More extensive movement in this direction has occurred in Korea, where what the Koreans call “the new HRM” is now increasing prevalent in Korean companies, at least in the larger jaebols (e.g., Samsung, LG Group). Korean companies are placing more emphasis on pay for performance, greater flexibility (including use of layoffs, which have only been allowed in Korea for a few years), performance management, worker empowerment, and quicker promotions for “high potential” employees. The rapid recovery of the Korean economy from the effects of the 1997-98 economic crisis is attributable in part to these changes. But there remains resistance in Korea, especially from its strong labor movement.
What many academics term “Confucian management” dominates in Taiwan, the Chinese-owned companies in Southeast Asia, and now in the growing private sector in China. However as once small and medium sized business have grown and become globally active, pressures are underway for change in the direction of many of the high performance work system approaches we have discussed. Traditional Chinese culture, with a strong emphasis on respect for authority, has meant transitioning to more empowered workplaces is not an easy process (which also has been the case in Korea).
Yet two aspects of the work world in contemporary Asia are perhaps facilitating this transition. The cultural change noted about in Japan is common to many of the more affluent parts of East Asia, where younger workers (for better or worse) are becoming more self-focused and individualistic, thus expect to have more say in the work they do and also to be rewarding for performance rather than age. Another has been the growth of professional managers in many companies that were once exclusively managed by family members.
Indeed, unlike Western Europe, there is much research that now demonstrates that the high performance work system approach can and does work effectively in Asian cultures. However, this does not mean that companies will succeed by merely adopting the approach used by companies in the US. Rather, high performance work systems will need to be refined and adapted to the Asian context and the approaches that emerge likely will differ in many respects among various East Asian countries.
在本文的第一部分中，主要探討美國近20年來人力資源管理的轉變：「高績效工作系統」逐漸受到重視，也被視為企業的最佳實務典範。部分原因是美國的法令制度對雇主並沒有太多規範，工會在職場也不是主力角色，所以此制度才能適合美國的工作環境。
對美國人來說，財務上的獎勵往往是很強的誘因，也有較強的工作倫理，而這些都是執行高績效工作系統的必要條件。相對於亞洲來說，美國社會的層級概念並不強，因此經理人和下屬對「授權」的態度都比較開放，但是美國又較沒有群體意識，喜歡獨立工作，個體之間競爭意識強，也容易淪於爭執。因此在美國執行高績效工作系統時，經常重視於建立團隊，以發揮團隊功能。
歐洲面臨國際化挑戰
第一部份也談到德國的人力資源管理。雖然很多歐洲國家（尤其是西歐）多少採用德國人管系統，整個歐洲卻沒有單一的主流系統，而人管制度在各國也都有所差異。
雖然歐洲企業面臨到的國際化經營挑戰不亞於美國和亞洲企業，但或許是傳統以來的深厚歐洲社會層級觀念導致，歐洲企業的中央集權控制和嚴格的組織階層難以動搖，管理階層也不太情願授權。然而，改變的跡象仍然可見，例如英國就受到瑞典工作重新劃分的啟發，發揚高績效工作系統中的團隊合作理念。歐洲的法令環境也對變革也多有抗拒，因為現行的商業法規相當複雜且限制頗多，而歐洲大陸甚至比英國為甚。
另一個重要理由是在富裕的歐洲大陸，很多人寧可放棄高薪，而選擇保有更多休閒時光以及良好生活品質。許多研究也顯示歐洲人傾向於犧牲經濟成長，而追求更自由愉快的個人生活。
德國人（以及大多數西歐人）一年有五到六星期的年休假，但是有效率的高績效工作系統卻需要員工對組織的高度參與，這與歐洲人的生活方式明顯不符。
之前在明基西門子併購案中提到的德國勞工法規，與歐陸或是世界其他地方相比，算是相當有約束力的，但其實歐陸本身勞工法規相當普及（歐陸仍較英國多），這些法令通常源自歐洲傳統文化生活模式衍生的工作規範。
職工委員會（Works councils）也很常見，即便可能不比德國來的強勢。工會雖然日漸式微，但是在很多國家仍有強大的影響力。而保障勞工權益的法規也往往比美國或東亞來的廣泛。雖然有些法令近來已經鬆綁（例如某些國家限制零售店在傍晚和週末不得營業），但是歐盟所制訂的勞工法令卻其實更加強對勞工的保障。
和歐洲一樣，東亞各國情況都不同，目前都經歷相當大的轉變。日本的人力資源管理模式曾經被視為全球典範，強調團隊合作、員工具備廣泛的工作技能，以及員工參與組織決策。
日韓開始重視績效彈性
事實上，日式管理促進了高績效工作系統在美國的盛行，卻較沒有彈性，也不鼓勵創新變革。勞工往往只得到很少的績效回饋，薪酬計算也和個人績效表現無關，升遷則要等到在一定的職位工作數年後才有可能得到。
但是隨著日本勞工價值觀的轉變，特別是年輕一代較具個人意識，傳統的日式管理不見得仍然繼續適用，疲軟的日本經濟便是明證。
然而，日本企業目前也開始試用高績效工作系統的某些法則。涉獵最深的是韓國，高績效工作系統在韓國被稱為「新式人力資源管理」，而且相當盛行，特別是在大企業如三星、LG。
韓國企業越來越注重績效表現、更高的彈性（如近幾年來才允許解雇員工）、績效管理、員工授權，以及給有潛力的員工快速升遷的管道。
1997到1998年間韓國經濟危機之後而起的經濟復甦，也是促成這些轉變的原因之一，但是仍不可免的遇到某些阻力，特別是他們強力的勞工運動。
因應國情調整美式系統
學界所稱的「儒家管理」（Confucian management）散見於台灣企業、南亞的華人公司，以及大陸興起的私人企業。然而，一旦中小型企業開始擴張，甚至開始跨國發展時，變革的壓力便會接踵而來，轉向之前提到的高績效工作系統。傳統中華文化相當注重權威，所以職場上的授權相對較為困難（韓國也是如此）。
但是，當代亞洲職場的兩個特點將加速人力資源管理系統上的轉型。一是年輕的勞工比較以自我為中心，有個人意識，就如同之前提到的日本情況，和亞洲其他富裕國家情形相仿，他們期望工作有較多的自主權，也希望能以績效表現而非年資作為薪籌計算依據。
另一個因素是，越來越多的企業聘用專業經理人而非家族成員來治理公司。
實際上，相對於歐洲企業，越來越多的研究顯示高績效工作系統相當適用亞洲的工作環境，但是這並不意味著亞洲企業只要把美國的系統全盤移植過來即可，而要跟著亞洲環境作適當調整，並且也要切合不同國情需要。
【策略小辭典】
儒家管理（Confucian management）
所謂的「儒家管理」雖根源於傳統儒家典籍而來，但因時空背景改變，以及管理領域改變（傳統典籍偏向「政治管理」），而成為一套保有「傳統儒家精神」的現代化儒家管理理論。
儒家管理要素以「人」為基礎，以管理者為焦點，強調「領導才能」，並認為領導者的言行要恭謹誠懇、任勞任怨，對人應寬厚、言而有信、以德服人，對事則要全身投入，身先部屬。在組織規劃方面，下屬對主管應要忠心，集體意識也比較強烈，注重整體表現和互信。
【2005/08/21 經濟日報】