The Other Side of the Convergence & Divergence Argument in International Human Resource Management for Future Work: A Critical Review

Abstract

The argument on whether HR should converge or diverge in International and Comparative Human Resource Management (HRM) Research and Practice has become increasingly debated in recent years amongst IHRM Scholars leaving practitioners wondering which approach is best. While many scholars have argued strongly for Divergence, emphasizing the importance of Context (national, Cultural and Institutional) as a determining factor and the reason why HRM cannot simply converge to the traditional US Best Practice Model, others maintain that the US-cantered Universalistic or Best Practice HRM Model should and will still serve as a standard or reference point as HRM becomes more global in nature and context specific. The aim of this review paper is to contribute to the ongoing debate surrounding IHRM in view of IHRM for future work. It argues that decisions on what is best or considered standard for an organization will be based on the outcomes influenced by HRM, which should align with the organization's strategic objectives or goals. While the Convergence and Divergence argument is respected in its context, this paper suggests that increasing global competition, technological advancements, including the use of AI in industries, and pressure to meet fast-changing customer expectations and achieve corporate objectives for current and future organizations will shift attention to outcomes rather than methods, approaches, or rules in IHRM. Instead of debating whether HRM should converge or diverge, there should be flexibility in adopting either approach depending on the outcomes of the method or approach used. This paper aims to provide new insights into the ongoing debate on convergence and divergence while offering guidance to practitioners who may be uncertain which approach to take. The authors also call for further empirical cross-national studies to carefully examine this reality