Sample Technology Paper on National Employment Systems of Germany and US

Due to globalization, there is intensified competition in the global markets due to the transfer of production, investment, and jobs. European labor markets have experienced rapid structural changes characterized by rigid human resource practices, social security and sound industrial relations (Gilson 2001). In addition, the technological transformation has impacted significantly to the demand for labor as well as skills and pay structures in both U.S and German markets. For this reason, labor markets have become more flexible as employers sanction for further deregulations of the labor market to compete successfully in the global market. In retrospect, Germany is among European Union largest market and is characterized by large manufacturing base mainly in the automotive sector.  The United States still enjoy a larger share of the global economy accounting to approximately $ 74.1 trillion to the total world GDP. The critical issue is to find convergence and divergence aspects in the labor market concerning trade negotiations, skills and governance structures in U.S and Germany markets.

Governance Structures

The role of managers slightly differs between companies in Germany and the USA. To untangle these differences between Germany and US managers, it is essential to consider the manager to employee ratio.  According to Michelle (2018), German firms managers supervises an average of 26 workers while U.S firms managers oversees approximately seven employees. Besides, US strategic human resource models focus on long term development of the employees through training, job protection and enhancement of employer-employee relationships (Brewster, Chung, and Sparrow 2016).

Conversely, Germany HR model share some characteristics with US model such as massive investment in training but wages and working hours are particular functions of regional labor unions. Most of the German human resource functions are regulated and determined by the constitutions through Works Act of 1952 and 1972 respectively (Du Plessis et al., 2017). This legislation requires employers to maintain positive relationships with various trade unions as well as work councils. In this context, the degree of managerial autonomy is restricted.

Thus, the main task of the HR department is to formulate standardized and formalized working procedures. In this vein, employers are required to implement CBA with unions. Human resources managers in Germany have to adapt to a comprehensive legislative regime which inhibits incorporation of collaborative practices in the labor market (Carr, and Pudelko 2006). However, this implies that HRM does not exist, but that does not mean that the HRM model is entirely dysfunctional. Germany’s human resource model has been subjected to thorough scrutiny by work councils.

On the contrary U.S HRM model emphasizes a high degree of formalization in performing its strategic functions.  The U.S regulation controls the activities of trade unions as opposed to Germany where trade unions dictate the functions of the HRM (Stolper 2017).  In U.S, the power of labor unions is severely regulated to cushion employers against oppressive and coercive collective bargaining agreements (Wilkinson. and Wood 2017). However, there exist convergence in both HRM models of Germany and United States since each model provides a platform of finding solutions notwithstanding their dependent paths. Additionally, Germany’s HR managers consider the Anglo Saxon model as an essential model for enhancing employees learning and development. According to Brewster (2004), the main difference between German HRM model and the American is the controls and influence of state regulations. There are few legal sanctions for workers in the US as compared to Germany. Alluding to Martin (2015), most workers in U.S work for an average of 40 hours per week while in Germany, workers are restricted to 35 hours per week. Therefore, in Europe, they are stringent measures and controls that restrict HRM practices about minimum wages, employment contracts and hours of work. According to Kim (2013), multinational companies in United States stimulate the convergence and divergence on two countries HRM models. There is a divergence in the sense that labor councils in Germany HRM model determines working hours and wages but converges in the sense that both models emphasize on employee productivity. HRM practices in the US emphasizes on performance appraisal. Additionally, it tends to be more autonomous and individualistic as compared to German. In Germany, the employee’s salary is negotiated by trade unions or work councils as opposed to us model where individual employee’s performance determined the wages.

Industrial Relations

Trade unionism in Unites States features market based industrial relations. This implies that trade unions focus more on advocacy of narrow interests of their members as opposed to the adoption of a broad welfare framework (Debroux 2017). Notably, the industrial relations are weak thus explaining the reasons why it has declined over the last two decades. There is a general trend of lesser participation and commitment among employees in the US in the trade unionism. This is attributed to structural changes in production in particular transition from industrialism to post-industrialism. Moreover, technological inventions have contributed significantly to the automation of industrial processes thus creating unemployment to the older workforce. Be that as it may, these people tend to quit unionism due to unemployment.

However, industrial matters are well managed through trade unions as opposed to court litigations. For this reason, united states consider trade unions to be an essential instrument in addressing work-related conflicts.

In Germany there exist robust labor relations systems oriented towards integration of all labor representatives including government, employees, and employers. In this context, unlike the US, Germany has organized labor institutions that possess significant influence through institutional and legalizes arrangements, their powers extend to the whole Germany labor markets (Kaufman 2016). Additionally, industrial relations focus on policymaking in an attempt to safeguard the interests of their members. Indeed, they advocate for better pay, working conditions as well as broader civil, social and political rights of German societies on the development of a welfare nation.

In retrospect, trade unions in Germany were formed from social stratification of the society. Consequently, trade unions were dominated by male working class but have increasingly lost conventional membership base.   Employers in Germany sanctioned for flexibility in collective bargaining agreements in the 1990s.  However, this has been one of the significant challenges for trade unions in the last two decades. Employers and organizations are not placing trade unions in a marginal position, but instead, they consider trade unions as partners in the labor market.  According to Webster (2015), Industrial Relations professionals predict that there will be significant changes in collective bargaining by 2025. Trade unionism is vertically and horizontally tied between different organized employees of various companies thus making it very strong.  For this reason, company based trade unions are not common in Germany as it is in the United States.


According to Bacon (2012), education and training play a critical role in determining the employability of individuals. However, the U.S incorporates Anglo –Saxon model that places little emphases on the importance of the systems of training and education. According to Susskind (2015), the U.S requires technology-related skills since it has automated most of its production and manufacturing activities.  For this reason, united states mainly focus on general skills with no investment in organizations specific skills. This trend shows a high likelihood of replacing the current workforce with technology (Altmann, N., Kohler and Meil 2017)

On the contrary, European model puts more emphasis on systems of education and training.  In this regard, the European model focuses on occupational training which encompasses practical and classroom learning (Finegold, Sako, and Crouch, 1999). According to Pischke (2001), Germany central manufacturing sector encompass automotive industries, thus, education and training as a vital aspect of Germany’s competitiveness.  Notably, the German labor market is performing exemplary with robust job growth and low unemployment rates. Therefore, Germany has heavily invested in human capital with training directed towards firm’s specific skills necessary for the manufacturing industry.

As noted above, there exist convergence in distinct areas of human resource management between the United States and Germany.  Germany HRM managers partially agree with Anglo-saxon model it encourages adoption of technical skills in the wake of technological inventions. Nevertheless, it is clear that while human resource model may be the same for both countries, human resources practices differ due to strict regulations by the trade unions. Notably, trade unions in Germany are powerful as compared to United States. Due to globalization and technological inventions, U.S is experiencing changing nature of work. For this reason, the participation of Americans into trade unionism is diminishing as compared to their counterparts in Germany. There is substantial divergence regarding employee’s involvement in trade union activities although both countries consider trade unions to be a valuable tool for solving conflicts in the labor market. The convergence and divergence aspects enable managers to understand the dynamics behind the global labor market.



Altmann, N., Kohler, C. and Meil, P., 2017. Technology and work in German industry. Routledge.

Bacon, N., Wright, M., Meuleman, M. and Scholes, L. (2012). The Impact of Private Equity on Management Practices in European Buy-outs: Short-termism, Anglo-Saxon, or Host Country Effects?. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 51, pp.605-626.

Brewster, C., Chung, C. and Sparrow, P., 2016. Globalizing human resource management. Routledge.

Carr, C. and Pudelko, M. (2006). Convergence of Management Practices in Strategy, Finance and HRM between the USA, Japan, and Germany. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management: CCM; London, [online] 6(1). Available at: [Accessed 4 Feb. 2019].

Debroux, P., 2017. Human Resource Management in Japan: Changes and Uncertainties-A New Human Resource Management System Fitting to the Global Economy: Changes and Uncertainties-A New Human Resource Management System Fitting to the Global Economy. Routledge.

Du Plessis, J.J., Großfeld, B., Luttermann, C., Saenger, I., Sandrock, O. and Casper, M., 2017. German corporate governance in international and European context. Springer.


Finegold, D., Sako, M. and Crouch, C. (1999). Are skills the answer?: The political economy of skill creation in advanced industrial countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gilson, R. J. (2001). Globalizing corporate governance: Convergence of form or function. American Journal of Comparative Law, 49, 329–357

Kaufman, B.E., 2016. Globalization and convergence–the divergence of HRM across nations: New measures, explanatory theory, and non-standard predictions from bringing in economics. Human Resource Management Review, 26(4), pp.338-351.

Kim, M., Kim, M., Bradlow, A. and Chi, T. (2013). Language Distance and Communication Efficiency in MNCs: Moderating Role of Convergence. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2013(1), p.10216.

Martin, R., Muûls, M. and Wagner, U.J., 2015. The impact of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme on regulated firms: What is the evidence after ten years?. Review of environmental economics and policy, 10(1), pp.129-148.

Michelle Diehl (2018, November 11). Key Management Style Differences between Germany and the USA. Available from

Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B. and Wright, P.M., 2017. Human resource management: Gaining a competitive advantage. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Pischke, J. (2001). Continuous training in Germany. Journal of Population Economics, [online] 14(3). Available at: [Accessed 4 Feb. 2019].