Joshua D. Rosenzweig, Flora Sapio, Jiang Jue, Teng Biao and Eva Pils
Drawing upon the strategic human resource management (HRM) literature, this chapter provides a qualitative review of empirical research on the relationship between HRM systems and organizational commitment. It introduces the major theoretical perspectives explaining the HRM systems_organizational commitment relationship and summarizes the key findings of this relationship at different levels of analyses (unit level, cross-level, and individual level). The review shows that among the three types of organizational commitment, affective commitment has been most frequently studied in the strategic HRM research. It also shows that HRM systems intended to enhance employees’ knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs), motivation, and opportunities to perform are positively related to affective commitment which may further lead to employee behavioral outcomes and organizational performance outcomes. Based on the review, the chapter provides managerial implications about how to build organizational commitment by using HRM systems and discusses potential directions for future research on this topic.
Criminal reconciliation, xingshi hejie, is a ‘special procedure’ laid down in the 2012 PRC Criminal Procedure Law. This mechanism allows the alleged victims and suspects/defendants of certain crimes to ‘reconcile’ and thereby close criminal cases. Actually, since the early 2000s, this mechanism has been practised as an ‘experimental programme’ in many places in China. This chapter first provides a background of the introduction of criminal reconciliation, which is mainly a result of the authorities’ changing perspectives on legal reforms as well as on the criminal justice system. Following it, this chapter conducts a historical review of the Chinese mediation systems that have been in place since the Mao era, showing the connections between China’s mediation systems and various political ends, as well as the impacts of these connections on the parties’ rights and voluntariness. The last section of this chapter critically overviews the existing debates over criminal reconciliation practices, and the deficiencies with the existing literature on this mechanism.
This chapter derives from the heated debate especially among domestic Chinese scholars over the ‘nature’ (xingzhi) of criminal reconciliation, namely, whether it is China’s transplant of restorative justice, or a purely indigenous Chinese practice. It provides a comparative study of criminal reconciliation and restorative justice. On the one hand, this chapter analyses three essential discrepancies between these two systems, including the different roles of community or society, of ‘reintegrative shaming’ and the ultimate goals embedded in the two systems. On the other hand, for further illustrating these discrepancies, this chapter provides the author’s observation notes of three restorative justice meetings in Brisbane, Australia in 2009. The discussion of the theory and practice of restorative justice in this chapter is also helpful as to understanding the gap between criminal reconciliation ‘on paper’ and it ‘in practice’ as shown in the ensuing three chapters.
In 2008 and 2010, the author conducted empirical studies in the People’s Procuratorates and People’s Courts in three selected places in China, namely: Changzhou in Jiangsu province, Chongqing Municipality, and Xi’an in Shaanxi province. The empirical studies involve two steps, first, an examination of case files, and then interviews with prosecutors, judges, lawyers, as well as the parties and other people participating in the criminal reconciliation programmes. This chapter discusses the background, the deficiencies and the findings of case file examinations. With statistics, case examples, and official documents obtained in the fieldwork, it details the procedure and operation of criminal reconciliation in practice, examines the achievements and failures of the officially alleged aims, and points out the necessity of interviews in order to have a full picture of this programme, as these case files may very likely be ‘the best examples’ selected by the officials.
Based on the interviewees’ accounts, this chapter depicts a picture of criminal reconciliation different from what the case files have shown. Interviews show that serious violations of the official procedures occurred in all the four stages of this programme, namely, initiation, criminal reconciliation meeting, official decision and follow-up programmes. These violations have not only violated the vital principles of criminal reconciliation, such as voluntariness, but also impaired the parties’ rights protected in the law, such as presumption of innocence. Moreover, some violations, for instance, the prosecutors or judges added compulsory pre-requirements like local household registration (hukou) or the ability to pay monetary compensation as prerequisites for initiating this programme, or clauses impeding the parties’ rights to appeal in the reconciliation agreements, have further obstructed the parties’ access to justice and caused unfairness.
This chapter, which continues to draw on the interviews, critically discusses the interviewees’ motivations, feelings, comments, concerns and difficulties in criminal reconciliation programmes. It shows that, contrary to the claimed goal that criminal reconciliation can empower the parties to resolve their cases mainly by themselves, it is still the officials who play the leading and dominant role during the whole process. This has weakened the parties’ role with the result that they felt they were employed as a tool for meeting the officials’ goals. Yet some prosecutors and judges also talked about their difficulties with criminal reconciliation. For instance, criminal reconciliation took too much of their time and energy, which were in conflict with some other requirements set in the internal performance assessment system. The findings in this chapter show that the officially purported goals of criminal reconciliation, such as redressing the victim’s damage, educating the suspect/defendant, restoring the parties’ relationship, bringing ‘closure,’ were not achieved in many cases, which placed the ultimate official goal or merit of promoting this programme – promoting a harmonious society – in question.