Converging and diverging trends in HRM between the Nordic Countries and Estonia

Along with the increased focus on comparative HRM research, the role of context and the debate between convergence and divergence of HRM practices have received increasing attention (Martin-Alcazar, Romero-Fernandez & Sanches-Gardey, 2005; Pudelko, 2005; Brewster, 2007; Dewettinck & Remue, 2011). The US-derived vision of HRM as a universalistic paradigm (Delery & Doty, 1996) with highly individualized relationships with employees has faced strong criticism, especially from European HRM scholars (Guest, 1990; Brewster, 1995, 2007). The European view of HRM is seen to be more contingent, a kind of contextual paradigm. Based on the analyses of Cranet empirical contributions, Gooderham and Nordhaug (2010: 34) conclude that ‘the practice of HRM cannot be divorced from its institutional context’. This means that history, culture, legislation, trade union representation and the role of the state should be taken into account in understanding the use of HRM practices in particular countries.