加拿大论文代写-中美人力资源管理实践。美国和中国的人力资源管理实践与德国和日本相比有很多不同之处。美国的薪酬实践是基于资产负债表的方法，是一个相当主导的系统(Barak, 2013)。在该制度的帮助下，员工免受成本差异的影响，并为员工提供各种各样的激励制度，如流动津贴和困难津贴。薪酬方法为美国员工提供了一个理论依据。这种方法的启动成本很高，而且在当地工人和在外国工作的工人之间的薪酬差距方面造成了冲突。相反，在中国，通过中国人力资源管理实践中所遵循的薪酬实践，与美国的制度相比，为员工提供了很大的安全保障(Lam, Chen, and Takeuchi, 2009, p.2255)。在中国，当决定员工的收入时，会考虑竞争对手提供的不同的工资和薪酬形式。中国和其他国家高管薪酬计划的主要区别不在于计划要素，而在于这些要素的细节。
中美两国在分配给每位员工的总培训时间上存在差异。在美国，与中国组织相比，每年分配给员工培训的时间更长(Moran, Abramson, and Moran, 2014)。但最终的结果还是来自于两国不同的培训预算和培训时间分配。这是由于两国雇主的远见卓识和训练有素的雇员的技术能力得到了提高。美国的人力资源管理实践非常注重结果，鼓励个人成就，甚至提高员工的生产力。这些做法有助于对员工进行全面的绩效评估，而不是单独的评估。
美国的雇主认为员工薪酬是最不可超越的衡量标准。它被认为是记录员工表现的最重要的方法。另一方面，在中国，由于中国固有的组织结构(Varma, and Budhwar, 2013)，将薪酬作为评价员工绩效最突出的衡量标准的方法在榜单中排名很靠后。中国管理者更注重个人和道德特征，如服从和忠诚。在中国，执行绩效评估是一项困难的活动，因为很难得到有效的反馈。绩效考核实践被认为是一种重视奖惩衡量的活动(Appelbaum, 2013)。而不是从长远来确定员工的潜在能力，也不是简单地评估他们在短期内的表现。
加拿大论文代写 -中美人力资源管理实践 。There are many differences between the HRM practices followed in U.S. and China in comparison to Germany and Japan. The compensation practices followed in United States is based on the balance sheet approach and is a quite dominant system (Barak, 2013). With the help of this system, employees are protected against cost differences and various kinds of incentive systems are provided to the employees such as mobility premiums and allowances for hardships. The compensation approach provides a rationale to employees of U.S. This approach is expensive to be initiated and it creates a situation of conflict in terms of pay disparities between the local workers and workers working in foreign countries. On the contrary, in China a great deal of security is provided to the employees through the compensation practices followed in HRM practices of China in comparison to the system followed in United States (Lam, Chen, and Takeuchi, 2009, p.2255). In China when the income of employees are decided, the varying wages and pay formats provided by competitors are considered. The major differences in the compensation plans of executives of China and other countries are not plan elements but the details of those elements.
There are differences between China and United States in the total training hours allocated over the each entitled employee. In organizations of U.S., longer times are allocated for training of employees each year in comparison to the organization of China (Moran, Abramson, and Moran, 2014). Still the end result derived from the varying budgets of training and time allocated on trainings between the two countries. This is due to the broadened envision of employers of both countries and enhanced technical abilities of their trained employees. The HRM practices of U.S. are very result-oriented, individual achievements are encouraged and even the enhanced productivity of employees. These practices help in the overall performance appraisal of employees instead of individual appraisals.
The employers of U.S. for performance appraisal consider employee pay as the most unsurpassed measure. It is regarded as the most significant method for documenting the performance of employees. On the other hand, in China this technique of considering pay as the most prominent measure for appraising employee performances is far down in the list because of the inherent organizational structure of China (Varma, and Budhwar, 2013). More emphasis is paid by Chinese managers on the personal and moral characteristics such as obedience and loyalty. Implementing performance appraisals in China is a difficult activity because receiving effective feedback is difficult. The practice of performance appraisal is observed as an activity that lays over emphasis on the measurement of reward and punishment (Appelbaum, 2013). Instead of identifying the employee’s potential ability in the long run and by not just appraising their performances in the short run.
