Australian HRM and Japanese HRM1

AUSTRALIA HRM AND JAPAN HRM

Name

Name of class

Tutor

Name of school

City and State

Date
 Australian HRM and Japanese HRM2

International corporations expand their operations to other countries with the aim of

increasing their business opportunities but they encounter risks that reduce their chances of

succeeding (Festing et al, 2013). Multinational companies face competition from other

companies due to cultural and institutional barriers in their area of operation. Multinational

corporations encounter political and economic risks that hinder their effective operation in

neighboring countries. These risks result in barriers to communication, negotiation, and human

resource practices. The challenges affect the international human resource operations of the

companies (Edwards and Rees, 2017). The companies cannot operate in an efficient way unless

the global challenges are mitigated. The global risks affect the improvement and incorporation of

human resource plans of the countries in which the company is established (Brewster, Chung and

Sparrow, 2016).

Cultural Differences between Australia and Japan

Australia is a multicultural community but Japan is a mono-cultural society. Multiculturalism

involves collaboration with other societies irrespective of their beliefs and values Duarte et al,

2008). A multicultural society comprises of mixed communities where a wide range of values

exists. In the political perspective, multiculturalism involves administration of policies and laws

that will promote cultural integration (D'Netto et al, 2014). Multiculturalism has resulted in inter-

culturalism and cultural uniqueness as a result of the formulation of government policies and

laws (Fenwick et al, 2011). Interculturalism deals with communication along with the integration

of diverse communities. Cultural diversity and oneness lead to competition between different

communities (Đorđević, 2016). A mono-cultural society involves exclusion of practices and

beliefs of other societies. It is a purist community which practices the culture of a single society.

Mono-cultural societies buy the products manufactured in their own country rather than imported
 Australian HRM and Japanese HRM3

ones. Mono-cultural nations take pride in their local industries and economic achievements

which make them purchase domestic products. It protects them from economic fluctuations such

as recession but cannot lead to the expansion of the economy (Özbilgin et al, 2014).

The employees from Australia will encounter challenges while interacting with the citizens of

Japan due to their cultural differences. Australians are open to diversity which assists them in

making international relationships with foreigners. Japan is hostile to individuals from other

nations. The Australia National Bank will experience problems when looking for Japan citizens

whom they can work with due to the cultural barriers. The people of Japan can decline to apply

for positions in the bank because they cannot interact with people from other communities. The

bank can have very few citizens of Japan as their employees.

Recruitment and Selection

Recruitment involves activities carried by an organization with the aim of encouraging

people to apply for job positions. The activities in the recruitment process include advertisements

in the newspaper, magazines, journals, online platforms, and mass media (Knight 2016). Japan’s

recruitment and selection procedure encourage students to apply for employment opportunities

before completing their higher education coursework (Uenishi et al, 2013). This is different from

other developed nations. Most companies in Japan have established connections with education

facilities including the lower and upper levels (Sugayama et al, 2014). Previous analysis

indicates that the firms in Japan are resistant to change in their recruitment procedures. Over the

past years, corporations in Japan have been logical on the basis on annual schedules. The

recruitment process of Japan is called “aotagai” because the students applied for job positions

before completing their courses. The employment of new graduates is called “shinsotsu” because
 Australian HRM and Japanese HRM4

companies employ and train their employees. The workers are trained in teams referred to en

masse. Undergraduate students are directed by their lectures to enroll in regular science range

organizations for them to gain experience (Firloka 2009). In accordance with the survey carried

out by MEXT (ministry of education, culture, sports along with technology), the curriculum of

Japan is more advanced than for other nations (Uenishi 2013). The selection process in Japan is

carried in October. Students from recognized are given the first priority when giving job

positions. According to Firloka (2009), companies in Japan require employees with outstanding

personalities and communication skills.

The recruitment process of Australia involves advertisement of positions in the online

platforms, newspapers, and journals. In Australia, people apply for jobs after they complete their

studies. The minimum qualification of applying a job is high school diploma. The jobs that

require advanced skills require the applicants to have a diploma or degree certificate. The

Australian corporation recruitment practices are changed after some time. Students go for

internships before getting jobs for them to acquire experience in their fields of specialization.

The Australian education system is not complicated as compared to that of Japan. The job

positions are matched with their respective education qualifications. The selection process in

Australia does not have a specific period but it is flexible with regard to the job positions. The

students from established institutions are given the first priority.

The recruitment along with selection procedures for Japan and Australia are different. The

Australia National Bank will encounter challenges in recruiting employees from Tokyo. The

companies in Australia require that an applicant must have a certificate for them to meet the

minimum job requirements. The citizens of Japan are used to a rigid recruitment process but

Australia uses a flexible one. The Australia corporations require the employees to go for an
 Australian HRM and Japanese HRM5

internship before getting employed. The curriculum of Japan is more advanced than for

Australia. The managers of Australia National Bank will face challenges in matching the job

positions with their educational qualification. All the counties give priority to students from

recognized institutions.

Performance Appraisal

A performance appraisal is concerned with the review, evaluation, and discussion of an

employee’s job results (Wolf, 2013). According to Knight (2016), performance appraisal

contributes to employee improved performance due to the continuous reviews that are carried

out. The performance appraisal of companies in Japan is different from other nations. The

managers make decisions on promotion after reviewing the employee’s outcome on their

performance (Kiyomiya, Matsunaga and Matake, 2008). Performance appraisal can result in the

loss of employment positions after the employer assesses a bad outcome (Fukui, 2013). There are

many differences between the employee assessment procedure of Japan and Australia. Firstly, the

aim of the performance appraisal system of Japan is to increase wages, promote employees but

little focus on improving employee-manager relationships. The Australian employee appraisal

system is focused on increasing salaries, promoting employees, establishing communications,

and making decisions. Secondly, Australia has practices job analysis along with evaluation

procedures in their organizations but they are not present in Japanese corporations. The effects of

job analysis in Japan are limited to transmission but this is not done in Australia. Thirdly, the

outcome of employee performance in Japan is not reviewed but in Australia, the employees have

to signed and assessed. The appraisal method for Japan can be used to discriminate employees.

In Australia, the employee assessment procedure follows the laws subject to the Civil Rights Act

to protect the workers from manipulation (Hiten Amin Reports - Tokyo, Japan, 2013).
 Australian HRM and Japanese HRM6

The Australia National Bank will encounter challenges because the two countries have

different goals in assessing the efficiency of their employees. They must have common goals to

make sure there is unity while working. The managers might spend time on convincing the

citizens of Japan on their goals of performance appraisal. The bank carries out job analysis and

evaluation practices which are not done in the Japanese bank. The employees must sign and

analyze their performance outcomes. The performance assessment of Australia is different from

that of Japan which can lead to divisions among employees of the bank. The bank managers must

address all the employees for them to have common goals.

Remuneration and Benefits

Remuneration is the appreciation that an employee receives after using their time and

incorporating skills in a company (Knight 2016). The human resource managers responsible for

giving rewards offer benefits to employees that include shares, discounts, health and life

premiums. An example of remuneration is compensation which is under the payment system that

is part of the total salary of a worker (Yonezawa, 2014). According to Wolf (2013), in Japan

compensation is divided into salaries, benefits, legal and non-legal activities. The salaries are

categorized into monthly wages and annual benefits. Legal payments include compensation for

accidents that occur at work, workers pension insurance, employee benefits, health and nursing

care premiums. The non-legal activities include mutual support, medical premiums, gift, and

house allowance. In accordance with an analysis carried out by the Compensation setup of Japan,

it was found they the country has a high remuneration rate. Japanese corporations emphasize the

approach of remuneration on the basis of positions rather than performance (Moriguchi, 2014).

The Australian compensation rate is lower than that of Japan. The companies in Australia offer
 Australian HRM and Japanese HRM7

wages and benefits to all their employees. The benefits are rewarded with regard to improved

performance and application of skills.

The Australia National Bank will face challenges due to the difference in the compensation

rates between the two countries. The citizens of Japan are used to high remuneration rates

including benefits and salaries. In case the bank increases the salaries of the Japan citizens, it will

result in the reduction of profits. The conditions for rewarding employees are not similar

between the two countries. Japan and Australia should have a common goal for the employees to

work together.

Training and Development

Training involves the incorporation of the necessary skills in employees. Training also involves

improving the skills of employees to increase their efficiency in the organization (Knight 2016).

Employees who go through training must have formal education. Training activities have to

incorporate the element of education (Hiten Amin Reports - Tokyo, Japan, 2013). Development

is concerned with education opportunities that aim at improving employee performance. The

purpose of development is to provide education and perception that will assist managers in

performing their (Knight 2016). The outcome of development is dependent on determination and

ambition.

According to an analysis carried out by the Japanese Ministry of Labor, more than 80% of

companies in Japan use OJT method to train their employees (Sekiguchi, Takeuchi and Takeuchi,

2010). The on-the-job training approach helps employees to learn when working. The on-the-job

training method helps employees to learn new skills when working. Employees carry out

complex tasks after they have completed various training modules. The OJT approach enhances
 Australian HRM and Japanese HRM8

the worker’s understanding on various tasks (Pudelko and Harzing, 2010). In Australia, the job

positions are categorized in accordance with their responsibilities. The minimum hourly wages

and regulations for transferring the job positions are defined in the agreement. The method used

in Australia has led to the creation of job positions. The employees at the high positions receive

high wages. The promotion of employees to high positions is determined by the senior

management (Stanton, 2009).

The Japanese movement is responsible for encouraging constant development and its related

concepts. In Japan, movements work with companies to present the rights of employees. The

movements encourage working in teams through supporting job categories (Maley and Kramar,

2010). The government along with companies of Japan offered training to the young people in

neighboring countries. The state provides training modules of other nations to equip their

employees with international experience in managing the businesses. The private industries send

the managers to other nations to study on human resource management (JIL 2014). The

government of Australia does not offer international training programs to its citizens (McDonnell

et al, 2011).

The Australia National Bank will face difficulties when training the employees. The citizens

of Japan have international skills in human resource but Australians have acquired domestic

skills. The Japanese companies offer on-the-job training programs to their employees which are

not practiced in Australia.

Industrial Relations

The administration set up in Japan is different from other countries with respect to that of

European nations (McGraw, 2014). The three main features of the employment relation in the
 Australian HRM and Japanese HRM9

Japanese industrial sector include long-term employment, unionism, and payments with respect

to positions. Japan has improved in its employee relations and business models. The employee-

employer relations of Japan industries are different from those of European countries. The

improvements of the Japanese employment sector can be attributed to its national qualities

(Kiyomiya, Matsunaga and Matake, 2008). The first characteristic of Japan’s industrial relations

is trade unions are formed at the company level. The origin of industrial relationships is within

the company. The second feature is that movements have different networks in the industry,

business, domestic, and international levels. The industrial disputes do not occur in the Japanese

sector because of established relationships between employers and employees. The employee

relations of Australia are characterized by short-term employment, capitalism, and payments

with respect to performance. Industrial disputes occur in Australia due to the strained relationship

between the employees and managers (Kang and Shen, 2014).

The Australia National Bank will encounter problems in their industrial relationships with the

Japanese citizens. The employment sector of Japan is characterized by unionism but for Australia

is featured by capitalism. Unionism is concerned with the establishment of strong relationships to

improve the economy. Capitalism involves pulling together financial resources with the aim of

making developments. The residents of Japan cannot work with the bank in case they have

diverse goals. The bank should create awareness among the employees to have a common goal.

Reasons for Lack of Standardization of Human Resource Policies

Firstly, the Australia National Bank cannot standardize their human resource policies due to

cultural differences between Australia and Japan. Some of the Australia employees cannot do

away with their cultural practices and adopt mono-culturalism. The Japanese citizens cannot
 Australian HRM and Japanese HRM10

adopt the culture of Australians (Welch and Björkman, 2015). The Japanese culture cannot

accommodate many foreigners which is a hindrance to the operations of a business (Farndale and

Sanders, 2017). There is no solution to this cultural barrier which can result in inefficient

operations in the bank.

Secondly, there are differences in the recruitment and selection process that cannot be solved.

The job qualifications are different because the citizens in Japan secure opportunities before

completing their courses. In Australia, an employee must have a certificate and experience to get

a job. The bank will have challenges in matching the education qualifications with the job

positions (Rowley, 2017). The citizens of Japan can opt for other local banks instead of waiting

to complete their courses and get certificates.

Thirdly, remuneration rates of Japan and Australia are different. Japan has a higher

compensation rate as compared to Australia. The bank cannot give the citizens of Japan high

salaries and those of Australia low salaries because it can result in conflicts. An increase in the

salaries will lead to the reduction of profits in the bank. The bank will reward the salaries

accordingly which will lead to loss of the Japanese employees (Wilkinson and Wood, 2015). The

Japanese corporations reward their employees with regard to their positions but Australian

companies give benefits as a result of improved performance. The citizens will opt for local

banks and financial institutions that have high wages (Briscoe, Tarique and Schuler, 2012).

The training and development strategies of the two countries are different. In Japan, on-the-

job training is offered in the employment sector where employees keep on gaining new skills

after they enroll in each module. Promotion is done after gaining experience as a result of taking

part in training activities. In Australia, job positions are marched with their educational
 Australian HRM and Japanese HRM11

qualifications. Promotion is not done on the basis of experience in training. Finally, the industrial

relations between Japan and Australia are different which hinders the development of human

resource plans (Takeda and Helms, 2010). Australia uses the capitalistic approach but Japan is

characterized by unionism.

In conclusion, multinational companies encounter cultural, economic, and political risks

when they conduct their operations in other countries. These risks hinder the international human

operations of the company. The human resource practices and policies of different countries are

not similar due to the distinct area of operations. Corporations should reduce the global

challenges before carrying out their business in foreign countries. It is difficult for countries to

standardize their human resource practices because some barriers cannot be mitigated.

Bibliography

Brewster, C., Chung, C. and Sparrow, P., 2016. Globalizing human resource management.

Routledge.

Briscoe, D., Tarique, I. and Schuler, R., 2012. International human resource management:

Policies and practices for multinational enterprises. Routledge.

Edwards, T., & Rees, C. (2017). International human resource management: globalization,

national systems, and multinational companies.

Đorđević, B., 2016. Impact of National Culture on International Human Resource Management.

Economic Themes, 54(2), pp.281-300.

D'Netto, B., Shen, J., Chelliah, J. and Monga, M., 2014. Human resource diversity management

practices in the Australian manufacturing sector. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 25(9), pp.1243-1266.

Duarte, F., Davel, E., Dupuis, J.P. and Chanlat, J.F., 2008. Culture and management in Australia:"

G'day mate". Gestion en contexte interculturel: approches, problématiques, pratiques et

plongées.

Farndale, E. and Sanders, K., 2017. Conceptualizing HRM system strength through a cross-

cultural lens. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(1), pp.132-

148.

Fenwick, M., Costa, C., Sohal, A.S. and D'Netto, B., 2011. Cultural diversity management in

Australian manufacturing organizations. Asia Pacific journal of human resources, 49(4),

pp.494-507.

Festing, M., Budhwar, P.S., Cascio, W., Dowling, P.J. and Scullion, H., 2013. Current issues in

International HRM: Alternative forms of assignments, careers and talent management in a

global context. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(3), pp.161-166.

Firloka, P. (2011). ‘Japanese Recruitment Practices; Before and After the Global Financial

Crisis’, Economic Journal of Hokkaido University, vol.40, no.1, pp59-71.Available at:

http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/47730/1/EJHU_40_59.pdf

[Accessed 15 May 2018].

HIDA. (2015) The Overseas Human Resources and Industry Development Association.

Available at: http://www.hidajapan.or.jp/en/project/eocp/[Accessed 15 May 2018].

Hiten Amin Reports - Tokyo, Japan (2013). Japanese SHINSOTSU. [online] Available at:

http://www.disc.co.jp/en/resource/pdf/SHINSOTSUCulture.pdf [Accessed 15 May 2018].

Kang, H. and Shen, J., 2014. International human resource management policies and practices of

South Korean MNEs: A review of the literature. Asia Pacific Business Review, 20(1),

pp.42-58.

Kiyomiya, T., Matsunaga, M. and Matake, K., (2008). Collaborative Practices In Japanese

Industrial Systems: A Perspective Of Communicative Reification.

Knight, K 2016, The Cultural Context of IHRM, International and Comparative Human Resource

Management, lecture, University Of Wollongong, delivered on 12/8/2016.

Maley, J. and Kramar, R., 2010. International human resource management structures and their

effect on the Australian subsidiary. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 48(1),

pp.26-44.

McDonnell, A., Russell, H., Sablok, G., Burgess, J., Stanton, P., Bartram, T., Boyle, B. and

Manning, K., 2011. A profile of human resource management in multinational enterprises

operating in Australia. The University of South Australia, University of Newcastle,

Victoria University, La Trobe University and Curtin University.

McGraw, P., 2014. A review of human resource development trends and practices in Australia:

Multinationals, locals, and responses to economic turbulence. Advances in developing

human resources, 16(1), pp.92-107.

Moriguchi, C., 2014, ‘Japanese-Style Human Resource Management and Its Historical Origins’,
 Australian HRM and Japanese HRM14

Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training, vol.11, no.3, pp58-77.

Özbilgin, M.F., Groutsis, D. and Harvey, W.S. eds., 2014. International human resource

management. Cambridge University Press.

Pudelko, M. and Harzing, A.W., 2010. Japanese human resource management. Challenges of

human resource management in Japan, p.28.

Rowley, C., Bae, J., Horak, S. and Bacouel-Jentjens, S., 2017. The distinctiveness of human

resource management in the Asia Pacific region: typologies and levels.

Sekiguchi, T., Takeuchi, N. and Takeuchi, T., 2010. 8 Strategic human resource management

research in the Japanese context. Challenges of human resource management in Japan,

p.133.

Stanton, P., Burgess, J., Vo, A., Edwards, T., Lewer, J., Hanif, Z.N. and Bartram, T., 2009.

Employment Relations in MNC's: An Australian Story.

Takeda, M.B. and Helms, M.M., 2010. Globally sustainable management: a dynamic model of

IHRM learning and control. The learning organization, 17(2), pp.133-148.

Uenishi, M 2013, ‘Japan Labour Review; Employment of New Graduates’

Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training, vol.10, no.4, pp80-89.

Welch, D. and Björkman, I., 2015. The place of international human resource management in

international business. Management International Review, 55(3), pp.303-322.

Wilkinson, A. and Wood, G., 2015. Special Issue of International Journal of Human Resource

Management—Global trends and crises, comparative capitalism and HRM.

Wolf, R 2013, ‘Management Relations in the Work Culture in Japan as Compared to That of the

West’, Innovative Journal of Business and Management, vol.2, no.1, pp116-122.

Yonezawa, A., 2014. Japan’s challenge of fostering “global human resources”: Policy debates

and practices. Japan Labor Review, 11(2), pp.37-52.