Abstract
The main characteristics of Japanese human resource management (HRM) include organisation-, person- and senioritu-based system. However, many surveys have found the person- and seniority-based system has transitioned to job- and performance-based system since the 1990s, and this change also requires a shift towards Western HRM, which represents the global standard tyoe of HRM. This research focuses on two characteristics; one is person- and seniroity-based system, and the other is centralised decision-making in HR isseus. Person- and seniority-based system may be included in these changing aspects, as many surveys have found. On the contrary, centralised decision-making in HR issues may be included in the unchanging aspects because there is little discussion on this characteristics, and people tend to maintain unrecognised aspects of their social characteristics. Thus, this research compares the extent of the changes between person- and seniority-based system and centralised decisoin-making regarding HR issues. These two characteristics used to complement each other, and this complimentarity made Japanese HRM strong. Therefore, if the extent of the changes differs between the two aspects, the complimentarity betwee the two characteristics may collapse
The method used in this research is the comparison between the results gathered from Japanese companies and those gathered from overseas subsidiaries operating in Japan. Both their parent companies and the local context influence their decioins. The former is referred to as the home country effect, while the latter is called the host country effect. Accordingly, the type of HRM used in overseas subsidiaries can be positioned between Japanese HRM and the global standard type of HRM. Two surveys are conducted, with one distributed among Japanese companies and the other distributed among overseas subsidiaries. The results show that the extent of the changes between the two characteristics was different. On the one hand, the person- and seniroity-based system has transitioned to the job- and performance-base system, while overseas subsidiaries are more focused on job and performance than Japanese companies. On the other hand, centralised decioin-making regarding HRM issues in Japanese companies strongly remained, and there was a large difference in this regard between Japanese companies and overseas subsidiaries. As a result, we can conlude that complementarity between the two characteristics may collapse.