ease sales, improve services. Second, all HRM strategies must be viewed as fair and compatible to all people affected. In American firms of the 1970s (usually considered to be pre-globalization) the H.R. function was seen as more or less of a record-keeping function.
The duties typically included hiring and firing of personnel, record keeping for time, salary, work schedules, training, benefits and so on. During this period, most H.R. departments were still referred to as "Personnel" and the heads of these departments had little say in the direction of the company.
There was a great deal of emphasis on human rights and non-discriminatory regulations created by the American government. The Personnel departments has to make sure that the company's hiring and firing policies were in line with a number of regulations. The department had to make sure that the company did not violate any of the sections of: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; The Civil Rights Act of 1991; The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); The Rehabilitation Act; The Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974; The Equal Pay Act of 1963; The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA); and numerous others.
However, as American companies began to move out into the world, it became clear that certain of these laws did not, or would not, apply to specific cultures. Brewster (1995) in an analysis that compared HR laws in different countries pointed out that American government has "comparatively less legislative control over (or interference from, or support for) the employment relationship than is found in most of Europe (Brewster, 1995, March 1, 7). She quotes one German H.R. manager who observes,
The major difference between HRM in the US and in Western Europe is the degree to which [HRM] is influenced and determined by state regulations. Companies have a narrower scope of choice in regard to personnel management than in the US...