Academics have responded positively to meet the challenges raised by the globalization of business by investigating a number of issues and problems related to international business . They have attempted to examine management from a cross-national viewpoint. This comparison of HRM policies and practices at a national level helps to test the convergence-divergence thesis. The typical questions pursued by comparative researchers are: (1) how is HRM structured in individual countries. (2) What strategies are discussed (3) What is put into practice (4) What are the similarities and differences (5) What is the influence of national factors such as culture, government policy, and education systems
Scholars have also developed and proposed different models of HRM both between and within nations ((Mullins P.97-99, 2002)). Interestingly, most models of HRM have an Anglo-Saxon base. As such, from a global perspective, principles of HRM have been developed from a restricted sample of human experience. During the infancy stage of HRM literature, such an ethnocentric approach was understandable and unavoidable. However, with the growth of a "global business village," firms operating in different countries need appropriate information and guidance to develop their HRM policies and practices. Under such dynamic business conditions, the relevance of lessons learned from the Anglo-Saxon experience is questionable. It is therefore important to examine the extent to which Anglo-Saxon models of HRM are applicable in other parts of the world. It has now become clear that the study of HRM needs a cross-national comparative dimension and an international perspective. However, the existing literature does not make it clear how HR managers should examine the applicability of HRM models in different settings. For further developments in the field of HRM, it is important to have a framework, which can enable us to conduct such an analysis.
Some researchers have emphasized a practical 'best practice' framework for diagnosing HRM practices. Evenden & Anderson (P. 79-167, 1992) presents 11 dimensions of HRM, which can be used as a checklist for evaluating the effectiveness of HR practices. These dimensions can also be used to benchmark HR activities and the relative influence of the best practices on organizational outcomes. (Evenden & Anderson P. 79-167, 1992) However, in discussing the need to understand HRM in the European context, Mullins (2002) reinforce the need for the adoption of a contingent approach, which can highlight cultural, sectored, and regional differences in European-wide companies. They argue against the 'one best approach,' suggesting that it is not practical for the development of global or European HRM strategies. One sensible way of highlighting the suggested differences among firms in different coun