日米の人材紹介ビジネスの違い

グローバル人材獲得を目指す超大手企業は、自社のグローバルサイトを通じて応募者を募り、自社のCandidateデータとして活用していますが、在米日系企業のその多くは、現地従業員の採用に人材紹介会社を活用しています。特に、ここ数年は、コスト削減を理由に、それまで駐在員が担ってきたポジションを日本語バイリンガルの現地ローカルにあてがうケースが増えてきています。

自社内にアメリカ人の人事担当者が存在する、しないにかかわらず、日本本社とのリアゾン役を担うポジションの採用プロセスにおいては、多くの場合、日本からの駐在員がリーダーシップを発揮することになるのですが、ここで認識しておきたいことは、日米の人材紹介ビジネスの違いです。

ここからは、アメリカでの就職を希望する応募者という視点で話を進めたいと思います。

日本で財務系のキャリアを積み、MBA取得のために渡米したK氏は、無事ビジネススクールを卒業し、アメリカでの就職活動を開始。複数の日系の人材紹介会社にレジュメを登録すると、すぐにリクルーターと名乗る若い女性から電話を受けることになります。

リクルーターから、口早に、勤務地、仕事内容が告げられ、「興味があるようであれば、先方企業にすぐにレジュメを送ります。」と。

この時点では、応募企業名は開示されず、書類審査通過後に始めて応募者には伝えられる仕組みになっているのです。そして、大方の場合、書類審査通過の連絡と同時にインタビューのセッティングとなり、急募の場合は、連絡の翌日にインタビューというケースも少なくありません。

応募企業名が初段階で開示されない理由は、応募者から直接、企業に応募することを防ぐため。つまり、「人材紹介会社」のビジネスモデルを守ることが優先されるのです。

日本では、人材紹介会社が仲介するケースでも、最初に企業名が開示され、応募者の関心度を確認してからのレジュメ提出となります。この場合でも、応募者からの直接応募というリスクは考えられますが、暗黙の紳士協定が存在すると言えます。

確かに、アメリカの場合は、「就職であって、就社ではない」というステレオタイプ的な考え方がありますが、Best Companies to Work for といったランキングがあり、企業文化や就業環境も、「Job」を選ぶ重要な項目です。応募意思を確認する段階で、企業名が開示されない採用プロセスを企業側が認識することで、インタビュー時の応募者に対する質問の内容も、日本で当然と考えられてきたものに対して、多少の工夫が必要だということが理解いただけると思います。

冒頭のK氏は、アメリカの採用プロセスに当惑しながらも、書類審査通過の連絡から３日後にセッティングされたインタビューに向け、慌てて、企業研究をすることになるのです。

そして、インタビュー当日、日本人の面接官から

「どうして、当社を志望されたのですか？」

という質問に、（想定はされていたものの・・・）表面的な回答しかできず、とても後ろめたい気持ちを感じざるを得ませんでした。企業側も「ずいぶんと浅い志望理由だなぁ」と応募者への評価を下げる一因にもなり、結果、相互のコミュニケーションが取れず、最終的に優秀な応募者を誤った判断の元、不合格にしてしまう機会損失にもなりかねません。

もし、この面接官がアメリカにおける人材紹介ビジネスのプロセスを知っていれば、このようなインタビューの失敗にはならなかったかもしれません。

一方、製造業を中心に小・中規模の日系企業の担当者からは、「最初に企業名を開示したら、ウチのような小さい会社は相手にされないよ！」という声を耳きます。

それでは、次回は、日米の人材紹介ビジネスの違いを踏まえた上で、考慮すべき企業側の採用プロセスについて考えてみたいと思います。

ベストな人事制度はあり得ない

企業にとって、「人」は不可欠なリソースです。言い換えれば、「人」がいなければ組織は成り立ちません。しかし、この不可欠なリソース、安定的に生産性を維持し、最大のアウトプットを出し続けるためのマネジメントについては、他のリソースに比して、もっとも難しいものだという認識がなかなか表面的にクローズアップされていないのが現状のように思います。

アメリカのHRM（人材マネジメント）を考える際に、【Paradox パラドックス】という側面から見る機会がありました。

【Paradox パラドックス】とは、和英辞書で調べると、「逆説、逆理」。抽象的な言葉になりますが、強引さを承知で、簡単に説明をしてしまうと、『良かれと思って行ったことが、裏目にでてしまうこと』『理想であるが現実は異なる』

例えば、こんな事例でしょうか。

- We have bigger house but smaller families.　
　大きな家を持ったが、妻と自分しかいない。

- We have a greater variety of food but less nutrition.　
　たくさんの食べ物に囲まれているが、その多くが健康的でない。

- We encourage teamwork but reward individual performance.
　チームワークを推奨したものの、個人の成果を評価する制度が存在する。

HRM（人材マネジメント）には、この【Paradox パラドックス】が存在し、いかに、これを認識した上で、「人」のリソースをマネジメントしていくかが、ポイントになるというアプローチです。

キーになるのが、以下の２つ。

【Paradox of democracy　民主主義のパラドックス】

市民には基本的な権利（ex. 言論の自由）がある一方で、組織に入ると、その権利の履行が抑制されてしまう（ex. 部下は上司を選べない）

【Paradox of needs　ニーズのパラドックス】

人と組織は互いを必要とする。しかし、人間の幸福と組織の合理性（ex.効率性/生産性の追求）は必ずしも一致しない。組織が効率性を求めるためにトップダウンの指揮命令機能を強めるほど、人間は自由裁量権を制限される。もっと具体的な例を挙げると、「従業員がワークライフバランスある職場環境を求めるが、果たして、それが真に組織の生産性につながるか組織は依然と懐疑的」といったニーズの対立を指しています。


人事業務の具体例に落とし込んでみると、

• 求職者に対する公正を維持し、数段階の試験、面接を行い、採用プロセスを厳密にすることで、人選にかかる時間が長くなり、結果として、優秀な候補者は最終結果を待ちきれず、他からのオファーに流れてしまうケース

• 評価制度の改善を図り、細かい評価ガイドラインとスケールと作成したものの、実際にスタッフを評価するマネジャー各人の認識が統一されず、評価方法の理解不足によって、ますます評価を混乱させ、スタッフのやる気を低下させてしまうケース

そもそも、採用にしても評価にしても、それは「人間」のやること。そこには、４つの防ぎがたいエラーが起きやすいのです。　

1. Cognitive limitation  （認知的限界）　

2. Intentional manipulaton （意図的操作）　

3. Organizational influences （組織的介入）　

4. Human nature （人間性）　

「人間」のやることに正解はなく、受け止め方も人それぞれ異なります。

つまり、人事業務の持つ上記のパラドックスをベースにした特性、難しさについて、人事担当者のみならず、組織のスタッフから管理者、経営層まで、全員が認識した上で、皆で智恵を出し、人と組織の共存の妥協点を探す絶え間ない努力が必要となってくるのではないでしょうか。

「民主主義」「ニーズ」の先進国であるアメリカでさえ、そのパラドックスに頭を悩ませているのだとしたら、もっと、「理想と現実の致し方ないギャップ」を素直に認め、認めた上で、考察する姿勢が大切になってくるのだと思います。

米国「安定性」が最優先

人材コンサルティング会社Towers Watsonの行った調査「2010 Global Workforce Study」によると、この経済低迷の状態によって、アメリカ人従業員の「仕事の安定性」に対する意識が高まり、回答者の40％が「人生を通じて、２社あるいは３社での経験が、キャリアモデルとしては理想的」と回答しています。また、回答者の39％は「できれば、ひとつの会社で終身働ければ望ましい」とも回答しています。

日本人から見たアメリカ人のステレオタイプとして、「より良い条件を求めて転職を繰り返す」「アグレッシブに自らの理想とするキャリアを追い求める」という姿を思い浮かべるかもしれません。

90年代以降、日本企業は「年功序列・終身雇用」という日本型雇用システム（組織指向）からアメリカ型の成果主義（マーケット指向）に方向転換してきました。しかし、ここ数年の経済低迷・不況という外部環境が、アメリカ人の自らのキャリア開発（例：より良い条件への転職）に対する意欲を減退させ、終身雇用を理想と考えるようになった意識の変化に注目する必要があります。

社外への転職を望まない傾向になるということは、社内において、従業員のやる気・モチベーションを高める工夫を積極的に行い、常に従業員の「Self-reliance（自立の精神）」をかき立てる施策が上司・人事担当者には求められます。

職場に不満がある従業員が「外に出たいが今はここで波風立てずに留まっておこう」と考えることで、職場の雰囲気は停滞し、結果として全職場の生産性にも影響します。企業もコスト削減で、フレッシュな風を起こす社員の採用・新ポストの創設が難しい今、どうやって社内の中から風を吹かせるかが鍵になるのだと思います。

ここで申し上げたいことは、従業員の意欲につながる要素は日本も米国もそれほど差はないということ。社内でのキャリアの機会、優れたリーダーの存在、そして能力発揮の場が提供される権限委譲。

日本では「グローバル人材育成」という言葉が声高く叫ばれていますが、厳しい外部環境にかかわらず、従業員のエンゲージメントを高める社内での議論が、国籍に係らず優秀な人材を育成するチャンスとも捉えることができると思います。

The Local HR Manager’s Attitudes as a Global HR Professional

When MNC has the decreased integrative mechanisms and the increased autonomy and flexibility for its foreign subsidiaries, the conflicts between the headquarters and the subsidiaries are less likely to occur. The situation allows the local HR managers to develop unique HRM policies and practices in their subsidiaries or to combine the local HRM practices with those of the headquarters.

On the other hand, when MNC emphasizes global integration in HRM aiming to get global efficiencies and uniformity, the centralized approach would lead to the local HR managers lamenting their diminished decision-making autonomy and resources wasted in complying with company-wide planning and control mechanisms.

There is some research which reveals that the integrative mechanisms seldom contribute to the effectiveness of a MNC’s subsidiary, even in the case of low demand for local responsiveness (Brock and Siscovick 2007). However, I suggest that the local HR managers should have greater control over defining their roles and responsibilities within not only the local subsidiary but also the entire organization of the MNC. In terms of the national HRM in different parts of the world, some empirical studies suggest that there are considerable signs of convergence towards accepted best practices and that differences in HR practices are gradually declining (Mendenhall and Oddou 2000).

In terms of the Japanese HRM trend, their traditional HR practices has been changed dramatically and are partially moving from the organization-oriented to the market-oriented systems that is found in the U.S. (Jacoby 2005) Furthermore, the modern global IT and communication technology make it possible for people to share their knowledge, use all their resources, and engage in collaborative innovation across the borders. Talented people within MNCs expect to develop their careers in any places where it create most value for them. The local HR managers should not hinder their career opportunities by persisting to protect the local subsidiary’s vested interest. As global HR professionals, the local HR managers should contribute more to some functions within MNC: deploying the talented people to where they are needed regardless of geographical location, disseminating knowledge and innovation, and identifying and developing talent on a global basis.

On the other hand, the local HR managers should also carefully examine the local needs in their diversified workforces. Even in Japan, some people say that there are no longer differences between the Western and non-Western culture. The others say that there are still disparities of thinking patters and values between them. Both arguments may be right because the evolution of national institution is influenced by national heritage (Jacoby 2005) and therefore exhibit same symptom but different causes and path.

To minimize any conflicts within the organization, the local HR managers should contribute more as an integral “interpreter” partner in the global integration strategy for both the local employees and the headquarters. In order to execute this role, the local HR managers are required to fully understand of the purpose and context of the headquarters’ global business strategy and to carefully examine the national HRM in both the home and host country, which is coming from the local attributes formed by the fusion of historical, legislative, cultural, and social factors.

Moreover, in the corporate headquarters, even when it emphasizes global integration strategy, by involving the local HR managers to the policy-making process, the standardized global policy becomes generated through a more cooperative process and is less likely to be resisted by subsidiaries as a central power.

Vacillation between Integration and Differentiation

In terms of the MNC’s business strategy, the firm’s international strategy (global integration versus local differentiation) and accompanying decision-making structure (centralized versus decentralized decision-making) often become the major conflict within the MNC’s strategic planning, as well as within HRM’s support of those plans. Typically, tensions emerge between the parent company and its subsidiaries, stemming from the need for local responsiveness at the subsidiaries and global integration imperatives at the corporate headquarters (Bartlett and Ghoshal 1998; Briscoe et al. 2009; Ferner 2004; Ghoshal and Nohria 1993; Tayeb 2005).


The international HRM literature classifies a MNC’s approach to managing their subsidiaries in one of four categories: ethnocentric, polycentric, regiocentric, and geocentric (Dowling et al.1999, 70-75). These terms are based on the model developed by Perlmutter (1969), which is linked with the stage of a firm’s internationalization and the level of local resources and capabilities.

• Ethnocentric: Subsidiaries are managed by expatriates from the home country. The policies and practices of headquarters are the default standard with which all subsidiaries need to comply.

• Polycentric: Subsidiaries are managed by local nationals and have some decision-making autonomy. The policies and practices are adapted to local conditions.

• Regiocentric: Reflects the geographic strategy and structure of the MNCs, career mobility for local nationals move outside their countries but only within the region.

• Geocentric: Superiority is not equated with nationality. The policies and practices are created by a worldwide integrated approach.

However, in the real world, these orientations never appear in a pure form because the environmental contingencies facing the firm influence its corporate strategic approaches.

One of the traditional theoretical frameworks, the global integration/local responsiveness matrix popularized by Bartlett and Ghoshal (1998), illustrates the linkages between environment and strategy. Each MNC’s subsidiary must be responsive to local customers, governments, and regulatory agencies for its ongoing institutional legitimacy and economic success. On the other hand, MNCs are also forced to integrate the subsidiaries’ activities globally because of having multinational customers, global competitors and suppliers, the needs of knowledge sharing, and pressure to achieve economic efficiency and reducing redundancy. According to Ghoshal and Nohria (1993, 27), the environmental conditions faced by MNCs are classified into four types (Figure2),

Figure 2

and Bartlett and Ghoshal (1998) suggest the three international corporate-level strategies: global, multi-domestic, and transnational as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3

In the matrix, for example, Bartlett and Ghoshal examine that pharmaceutical and medical device industry exists in a transnational environment where they simultaneously face strong demands for both global integration and local responsiveness. For the global pharmaceutical and medical device makers, besides economies of scale in manufacturing, clinical trials and marketing, they need to integrate their internal knowledge and resources to discover new products and sustain diverse portfolios of research projects across borders. On the other hand, the companies have to be responsive to a myriad of local and country-level regulation, each of which has posed its own unique requirements for new product approval.

These academic frameworks help understand what factors determine the role of the headquarters and the subsidiaries in the MNC’s organizational strategies. Moreover, other than the external factors and the local capability of MNC, some forces, such as the strategic importance of the local market, corporate leadership style, organizational history, and local culture, have great impact on shaping the configuration of a company’s assets, responsibility distribution, and management style (Bartlett and Ghoshal 1998). The strategic importance of subsidiaries with the growing markets provides the local subsidiaries with strong bargaining power. Additionally, some studies have shown that MNCs of different national origins exhibit distinctive patterns of centralized control and subsidiary autonomy in their management; they also find that the U.S. MNCs are more centralized than those of other nationalities (Ferner 2004). According to the research about foreign subsidiaries in Japan, because the American MNCs maintain strong centrally-run systems and manage subsidiaries on tight reins from headquarters, some of the Japanese HR managers complain about the centralized organizational structures in their firms. Furthermore, the managers argue that since the collapse of the bubble economy and the shrinking Japanese market, global standard systems of American firms have strongly penetrated into Japan (Shibata and Doyle 2006).

Subsidiary’s Perspective

Although a subsidiary’s perspective in international HRM has received little research attention (Briscoe et al. 2009), the subsidiaries should not be treated as passive recipients of the headquarters instructions. Local people can always find a way to avoid policies and procedures which act contrary to their deeply-held values or legal and other social institutions. Local HR professionals make efforts to convey the employees’ voices to the headquarters as a “mediator” and modify the policies so that they are relatively tension-free or compatible with the local conditions.

In general, compared to the headquarters, subsidiaries are in a better position to judge the local political and legal situations and to make appropriate decisions (Tayeb 2005). Moreover, the local HR function as an “interpreter” involves the integration of corporate philosophy and organizational culture into the local operations. Particularly, for subsidiaries operating in countries where their language is different from that of the headquarters, the role of the interpreter is incredibly important. Language, however, tends to be overlooked in the international business management literature (Welch et al. 2005).

In practice, the interpretation of corporate policies by subsidiaries may mislead, which could result in dilution or distortion of the headquarters’ true intention. For example, as seen in Medtronic, when the worldwide performance appraisal systems were applied to employees in foreign subsidiaries, the local HR professionals strived to interpret the performance criteria set by the headquarters into their local language while reading between the lines, because mistranslation of the terms used in the performance criteria could create potential risks leading to rating errors. In various situations, the local HR professionals are required to understand more about the context of the corporate strategies, including HRM, from both the headquarters’ and the subsidiary’s perspectives, than the headquarters’ HR.

Headquarters’ Perspective

As a business grows from national to international size, the HRM function must take on a new and broader perspective. Whenever a company expands overseas with any functions such as sales, production, or full operations, or by any forms of cross-border alliances, the HRM activities must adapt to a more complex environment. Peter J. Dowling et al. (1999, 4) argue that the complexity of international HRM can be attributed to six factors that differentiate international from domestic HRM. The international HRM includes:

• More HR functions and activities, for instance, the management of international assignees and assistance with international relocation.

• The need for a broader perspective, including knowledge about employment laws and regulations in countries where international assignees work.

• More involvement in employees’ personal lives, as the company relocates employees and their families from country to country.

• Managing a much wider range of employees who require different staffing, compensations, and benefit programs.

• More risk exposure, including political risks and uncertainties, early repatriation of foreign assignees due to internal politics and foreign affairs.

However, these characteristics of international HRM seem to come more from headquarters’ perspective; they are typically the headquarters’ HRM responsibilities. The focus is from the center to the subsidiaries, dictating and overseeing HR practices in all foreign operations and administering the movement of employees between locations.

The Positioning of HR within an Organization

U.S and Japanese companies have taken different approaches to HRM. In general, Japanese companies have been relatively organization-oriented, meaning that there is low turnover due to lifetime employment, extensive in-house training, and internal considerations such as equity and seniority on wages and allocation. By contrast, in the United States, employment practices tend to be more market-oriented with shorter job durations and pay and allocation based external criteria and individual performance and contribution (Jacoby 2005).

These differences between U.S and Japanese companies are reflected in their positioning of HR department within their organizations. The headquarters HR department in a Japanese company occupies a central position within the organization because its decision-making role includes the rotation of managers around the company and the identification of employees for senior positions. The HR function is centralized to the headquarters HR department. On the company board, the HR executive representing employee concerns can greatly influence corporate strategic decision-making. Typically in Japan, the candidates considered for top executive positions have had some job experiences in the HR department. In the United States, on the other hand, the market emphasis has meant a shift of HRM decision from central HR to business units or line managers (Jacoby 2005). Senior HR executive traditionally stood toward the bottom of the managerial hierarchy and had less influence on business decisions and strategies. Even today, according to a survey , U.S. HR leaders in global companies believe that they have less influence within their executive teams than their European counterparts.

The disparity of this HR positioning between U.S. and Japan could affect the relationship between U.S. headquarters and Japanese affiliates. For instance, when an American company expands its business to a Japanese market, the firm employs a local HR manager to deal with local HR practices. If the local HR manager has experience working in a headquarters HR department in a Japanese company, the manager may expect high level of discretion and decision-making in executing its tasks from the U.S. headquarters.

HRM in the United States

One feature of American national cultural characteristics is individualism ((Hofstede 1984; Tayeb 2005). Americans are independent, ambitious and individualistic, and believe that individuals can shape and control their own destinies. People pursue mainly their own interests. The primary commitment and loyalty of the individuals are not displayed to the company or any larger grouping of which they may be a member.

The individualistic nature of the society encourages promotion on the basis of performance as opposed to status, hierarchy, or gender. The emphasis on individualism includes freedom to pursue one’s career progression by moving from one company to another in the pursuit of success. Because of this employee’s freedom, companies feel free to hire and fire people at will. Traditionally, as a result of implementing the concept of scientific management by Frederic W. Taylor, jobs are clearly defined, and specialization is encouraged in American workplaces (SHRM 2008).

Moreover, Americans prefer participative management. Superiors are usually approachable, and subordinates willingly question authority. Americans live more easily with uncertainty than many other nations, and facilitate participation in decision-making and risk taking. Coupled with individualism, tolerance for uncertainty (Hofstede 1984) supports the American business culture, which is underpinned by entrepreneurial spirit, great creativity, and innovativeness.

HRM in Japan

apan, unlike the United States, has a homogenous culture and foreign immigrants account for a very small percentage of its population. The Japanese society is characterized by a strong sense of group and community (Hofstede 1984). People’s loyalty to the group to which they belong supersedes their personal interests, in particular for the company where a person works. The society has vertical stratification by institution, professionals, or academic background.

Also, Japanese companies operate a rigidly hierarchical system. Status is clearly signaled in several of ways, for example, the extent to which one bows when meeting others, sitting arrangements at a meeting, and the terms one uses to address people of different ages and professions. The Japanese language itself signals the relative status among speakers. The emphasis on endurance and harmony in the collectivist society (Hofstede 1984) encourage team work and a consensus style of management at workplace.

For much of the postwar era, employment in large firms was based on the so-called “three pillars”- lifetime employment, seniority-based pay, and company-based unions (Jacoby 2005). Although these traditional characteristics are undergoing dramatic changes, some of them still remain. For example, job rotation between various functions within an organization is also a feature of Japanese HRM. Unlike American companies, most of the large Japanese firms do not like to recruit in order to fill specialized job-slots. The companies have a regular intake of new graduates every year and train them in-house and by job rotation to foster them as a generalist, “all-round player.” For this reason, most of the Japanese companies do not implement position management systems, hence, there are no job descriptions for each position; the quantity of work and the level of responsibility for an employee are very flexible and rely on the employee’s skills and knowledge.

National HRM and Its Formative Factors

An important point to consider is that the scope of HRM includes management-employee relationship, leadership style, motivation management, command-and-control systems, and organizational structure. Furthermore, because HRM activities affect all employees in the organization, HRM greatly impacts employees’ productivity and job satisfaction. According to Tayeb (2005), these aspects of HRM are very much susceptible to local socio-cultural influences, thus, HRM is especially significant for MNCs.

HRM takes place within the internal organizational environment and the external national context in which the company operates. Moreover, in terms of the soft HRM model, humans as a resource have emotions, interests, and personal briefs, and perform their best if these are reasonably cared for. If people on the earth have common values, and there is a universalistic one best way of management, tensions between the headquarters and subsidiaries in MNCs would not happen.

In contextual theory, Budhwar and Debrah (2001, 505) showed six contextual factors determining national HRM policies and practice: national culture, institutions, business environment dynamics, industrial sector, firm’s contingent variables, and corporate strategies and policies. Each factor is not simply independent, but they are associated with national cultural attitudes and values.

Although culture is a very vague concept which has aroused controversy among scholars about its precise meaning, the definition of culture by Tayeb (2005, 21) makes it clear, that it is “historically evolved values, attitudes and meaning which are learned and shared by the members of a given community, and which influence their material and non-material way of life.”

“(Culture is) historically evolved
 values, attitudes and meaning
which are learned and shared by
the members of a given community,
and which influence their material
 and non-material way of life.”

The HRM activities involving all employees are based on the decisions which are made by the people. For example, even when a technically sophisticated and well-designed performance appraisal system is implemented, organizational culture, leadership credibility, employee relations, and levels of trust could affect people’s decision-making in the appraisal processes. Tayeb (2005) points out that the behaviors and values that play key roles in decision-making situations are determined by several cultural attitudes: power and authority relationships, coping with uncertainty and risk-taking, interpersonal trust, loyalty and commitment, motivation resources, control and discipline, co-ordination and integration, communication, consultation and participation.