International human resource

management: overcoming
disciplinary sectarianism
Mary Keating and Karen Thompson
School of Business Studies, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
Keywords Human resource management, Multinational companies,
Cross-cultural management,
Abstract International human resource management (IHRM) research is becoming an
increasingly important topic in light of the relentless pace of globalisation. Three strands of research
contribute to our understanding of IHRM, the most dominant being research on human resource
management in multinational companies. This paper categorises the literature in the eld,
highlighting disciplinary introspection within and between each strand. Argues that, by neglecting to
embrace the contributions of research from cross-cultural management and comparative human
resource management, the eld lacks the necessary conceptual and methodological tools to advance.
Concludes by suggesting areas where collaboration and cross-fertilisation between disciplines can
occur before embarking on the integrative process of theory building.
1. Introduction
The body of literature on international human resource management (IHRM) has
grown dramatically, resulting from the rapid growth in international business activity.
The shift in focus from a domestic to a global business perspective has a profound
impact on the corporate human resources management activities (Dowling et al., 1999).
Human resource management (HRM) is understood in the broadest sense of the term,
encompassing all management decisions and actions that affect the nature of the
relationship between the organisation and the employees its human resources (Beer
et al., 1984, p. 1). The effective management of an organisations human resources is
vital for the successful implementation of international strategies in multinaltional
companies (MNCs; Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1989). In addition, the competitiveness of
companies and even nations has increasingly been recognised to stem from the calibre
of their people and people management strategies (Pieper, 1990; Porter, 1990; Pucik,
1992). All in all, the globalisation of business has resulted in the increasing recognition
of the value of a well-managed workforce and the evolution of the human resource
function from being viewed as a support function to one of strategic importance (Pucik,
1992; Teagarden and Von Glinow, 1997; Scullion and Starkey, 2000).
Research on HRM in an international context has been approached from a number
of different disciplines, including amongst others human resource management,
international business, cross-cultural management, strategic management,
psychology, comparative management, and by both academics and practitioners.
Based on a review of the literature, Clark et al. (1999) conclude a central issue concerns
what is constant and what varies across nations (p. 521). The literature covers a wide
spectrum of issues, ranging from comparative studies of individual HR practices
across the countries to the source(s) of variance in HR strategies in MNC subsidiaries,
and as such is a fragmented and seemingly disparate body of knowledge.
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
International
human resource
management
595
Employee Relations
Vol. 26 No. 6, 2004
pp. 595-612
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/01425450410562191
This article attempts to categorise the varied literature within the eld. To this end
we draw upon the framework proposed by De Cieri and Dowling (1999) which
identies three broad strands within the eld of IHRM:
(1) HRM in MNCs[1], focusing on the management of human resources in
international companies.
(2) Cross-cultural management (CCM), dealing with the impact of cultural
difference on management practices.
(3) Comparative human resource management (CHRM), comparing HRM systems
and practices at both organisational and national levels.
We identify that each strand stems from different disciplinary areas and has its own
research purpose, research questions, issues, methodologies, ndings, weaknesses and
strengths. Critically, however, we discern that these three related approaches have
remained introverted, not looking beyond disciplinary boundaries for contributions
towards the theory-building and methodological design of their research.
This article will outline the case for interdisciplinary collaboration in the eld of
IHRM. First, the three strands of research are described with particular attention given
to analysing their strengths and weaknesses. We argue that interdisciplinary
collaboration and the cross-fertilisation of ideas between strands should be encouraged
in order to facilitate the construction of an inclusive approach to theory building.
Specically, we suggest that our understanding of HRM in MNCs could be improved
by incorporating some of the contributions of the other two approaches to international
human resource management.
2. HRM in MNCs
The literature on HRM in MNCs is the dominant strand in the study of IHRM and
explores the strategies employed by multinational companies to manage their human
resource (Hendry, 1994; Torrington, 1994; Dowling et al., 1999; Harzing and
Ruysseveldt, 2003). Research on HRM in MNCs has been concerned with enabling the
international company to effectively achieve its goals and objectives through the
development of appropriate HR strategic and practice in the globally dispersed
organization (Schuler et al., 1993; Sparrow et al., 1994; Scullion, 1995; Taylor et al., 1996;
De Cieri and Dowling, 1999). HRM in MNCs is essentially HRM embedded in the
context of international business (De Cieri and Dowling, 1999). In assessing the
distinguishing factors between domestic and international HRM, Dowling et al. (1999)
conclude that it is [t]he complexities of operating in different countries and employing
different national categories of workers that are the main factors that differentiate
domestic and international HRM, rather than any major differences between the HRM
functions performed (p. 7). HRM in international organisations is thus more
encompassing and more complex than domestic HRM.
Discussions of HRM in MNCs deal almost exclusively with expatriate management,
implying that managing international work assignments is the only way in which
HRM changes in international rms (Harris and Brewster, 1999). However, this denes
the eld too narrowly. Recent literature is evolving to take a broader, holistic and even
strategic view of HRM in MNCs, often referred to as strategic international HRM or
strategic HRM in MNCs (Schuler et al., 1993; Taylor et al., 1996; De Cieri and Dowling,
1999).
ER
26,6
596
2.1 What is effective HRM in MNCs?
The concept of HRM, as it originally developed in the US as an alternative to
traditional personnel management, is inextricably linked with business strategy[2]
(Devanna et al., 1984; Schuler and Jackson, 1987). Accordingly, the raison de tre of
HRM is to enable the international organisation to achieve its strategic objectives in
order to build and maintain sustainable competitive advantage for the organisation,
and as such HRM in MNCs is a means to an end rather than an end in itself. MNCs face
dual and conicting pressures arising from the simultaneous needs for global
integration and local differentiation in international companies, and the strategies
developed to meet these challenges have important implications for the international
HRM function (Prahalad and Doz, 1987; Schuler et al., 1993). Conversely, HRM
strategies can, in turn, inuence the achievement of organisational strategies (De Cieri
and Dowling, 1999). Striking a balance between the conicting pressures for global
integration and local responsiveness within the MNC and creating the appropriate level
of globalness and localness is implicit or explicit in all the literature on HRM in MNCs.
For instance, Sparrow et al. (1994) argue the successful global management of HR:
. . . is best dened as the possession of the skills and knowledge of formulating and
implementing policies and practices that effectively integrate and cohere globally dispersed
employees, while at the same time recognizing and appreciating local differences that impact
on the effective utilisation of human resources (p. 268).
2.2 Theories and models of HRM in MNCs
Despite the recognised importance of effective human resource management in MNCs,
our understanding of the process and strategies of managing people in these global
organisations remains rather limited. Theories of HRM in MNCs try to understand how
MNCs organise the HR function and manage their worldwide workforce in order to
achieve their organisational goals and objectives. Despite the increasingly global
economy, variations in approaches to the management of human resources in MNCs
continue to persist, even among MNCs operating in similar environments (Guest and
Hoque, 1996; Geary and Roche, 2001).
The main body of the literature seeks to establish the sources of variation in HR
practices across and between globally dispersed companies. A range of factors, i.e.
country of origin, host country, MNC and subsidiary factors, have been identied (see,
for example, research by Rosenzweig and Nohria, 1994). Particular attention is paid to
the extent that foreign subsidiaries behave as local rms versus the extent to which
their HR practices resemble those of the parent corporation, known as the host country
effect and the country-of-origin effect, respectively[3]. The country-of-origin effect has
been found to exert varying degrees of inuence on different practices and in different
subsidiaries (Rosenzweig and Nohria, 1994; Ferner, 1997). Nonetheless, the nature of
the host country context affects the extent to which MNCs may implement
country-of-origin (human resource) management practices in their subsidiaries (Ferner,
1997). HR practices at subsidiary level tend to be some form of hybrid of the parent and
local practices with the relative inuence of parent company and host context
inuences on various HRM practices being a continuum rather than an either/or
scenario as is often portrayed (Weber et al., 2000; Tregaskis et al., 2001).
Typologies of different approaches to HRM in MNCs have been identied which
differentiate approaches to HRM in MNCs according to the level of adaptation to local
International
human resource
management
597
practices and/or adherence to global practices (e.g. Taylor et al., 1996; Bird et al., 1998;
Jansenns, 2001). It is generally recognised that due to the differentiated nature of the
organisational and environmental contingencies facing individual subsidiaries, MNCs
will not necessarily adopt a uniform approach to managing their human resources
throughout the global organisation.
Related to the debate regarding the inuence of the country-of-origin effect is the
extent to which multinationals act as vehicles for transmitting HR practices from the
parent country business culture to the host countries in which they operate (Ferner,
1997). There has been particular interest in studying MNCs from highly
institutionalised and regulated systems such as Germany to establish if they
attempt to drop what they see as the constraining elements of their business systems
once they leave their own borders (Ferner, 1997; Ferner and Quintanilla, 1998; Ferner
et al., 2001). Reverse diffusion, i.e. the transfer of management practices from
subsidiaries to other subsidiaries and/or MNC HQ, has also been the subject of recent
exploratory case study research (e.g. Edwards, 1998). Furthermore, despite the now
widespread recognition of cultural and institutional differences, there has been a recent
resurgence in one-best-wayism in the literature (e.g. Martin and Beaumont, 1998;
Belanger et al., 1999). While evidence of both best practice transfer and reverse
diffusion has been found, cultural and institutional appropriateness were found to
regulate their implementation.
Several authors propose models of how HRM ts into the overall global strategy of
the MNC. Adler and Ghadars (1990) research is one of the rst to indicate that HRM
strategy should be linked to environmental considerations and international business
strategy. A comprehensive model of strategic HRM in MNCs was developed by Schuler
and colleagues (Schuler et al., 1993) and later revised by De Cieri and Dowling (1999),
whereby MNCs are understood to operate in a context of worldwide conditions
(exogenous variables) including industry characteristics, country-regional
characteristics and inter-organisational networks and organisational-specic
contingencies (endogenous variables). HRM is perceived to assist the MNC in
achieving its goals and concerns while these goals and concerns also inuence the
MNCs approach to HRM. Although the literature advocates a strategic approach to
HRM in international companies, recent evidence suggests that MNCs still take a
short-term, ad hoc and non-strategic approach to HRM (Bird and Beechler, 1995; De
Cieri and Dowling, 1997), suggesting that theory has outpaced practice in this area.
2.3 Critique of the literature on HRM in MNCs
The conclusions that can be drawn from research in the eld of HRM in MNCs have
been severely limited by the shortcomings of the research (Ferner, 1997) While
progress has been made in understanding HRM in MNCs (Dowling et al., 1999), many
agree that the discipline still suffers from the shortcomings identied by Schollhammer
(1975) in his review of the early work on HRM in international companies (Scullion,
1995). Research in the discipline to date has been ethnocentric[4], containing an
undeniable strong US bias (Adler, 1983; Clark et al., 1999). Further criticisms have been
levelled at the managerialist nature of research (Ferner, 1997). This
practitioner-focused problem-solving approach has also resulted in a fragmented
body of literature (Hendry, 1994). Although it has been acknowledged that the way
forward is to integrate both practitioner and academic concerns and issues to create
ER
26,6
598
practice-relevant theory (Tung and Punnett, 1993), there has been little evidence of
such an approach to date. The lack of empirical data on HRM practices and policies in
MNCs is also widely acknowledged (Harzing, 1999). Many of the models which have
been developed are purely conceptual with propositions and hypotheses remaining
untested. Where empirical studies are conducted the sample tends to be small or of
limited geographical dispersion. Further methodological problems are also
highlighted. The HR manager is often the only source of information in studies
which may result in interviewers hearing about policy rather than actual practice. Most
of the studies are survey based, often suffering from low response rates and small
sample sizes (Harzing, 1999). In addition, research has focused almost exclusively on
large established international companies rather than small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) who are only beginning to internationalise (Scullion, 1999).
The vast majority of writers on HRM in MNCs adopt a contingency perspective
(Festing, 1997) whereby HR policies for differing environment conditions or business
strategies are prescribed. While the contingency approach does highlight the
complexities inherent in managing MNCs, it does not explain the reasons for
systematic variation between certain variables and the underlying relationships,
processes and interdependencies (Festing, 1997). Furthermore, culture, the most
frequently cited contingency factor, is often inadequately dened and operationalised.
All in all, while the literature has shed some light on the inuences on HRM in MNCs,
our understanding of how these inuence processes occur remains less developed.
In summary, the literature on HRM in international companies lacks empirical
studies, in particular case-studies which can provide in-depth qualitative data on
processes involved in managing HR in the geographically dispersed MNC subsidiaries.
Recent years have witnessed an improvement in theory development in this approach
(e.g. Schuler et al., 1993; Taylor et al., 1996; De Cieri and Dowling, 1999) and there is an
emerging body of non-Anglo Saxon theory and research. Ferners research project on
HRM in US multinationals in the United Kingdom is promising in this regard (Ferner
et al., 2004). It is our view that many of the weaknesses of this strand could be
overcome if researchers were to draw on some of the contributions of research from the
CCM and CHRM approaches.
3. Cross-cultural management
Early international human resource management studies focused mainly on the
cultural relativity[5] of (human resource) management practices, i.e. that the
development of a companys HR policies are subject to cultural inuences and that
MNCs must take these culturally based differences into account when operating
overseas (cf. Hofstede, 1980; Laurent, 1986; Schneider and Barsoux, 1997; Adler, 2003).
Although much of this literature is not explicitly labelled IHRM, it deals with issues of
cultural differences in management style (Hofstede, 1980), employee motivation (Smith
et al., 1996), leadership style (House et al., 1999; Keating and Martin, 2004), negotiation
style (Martin, 2004), as well as cross-cultural training and acculturation issues for
expatriates (Black et al., 1999). This literature has much to offer the wider eld of IHRM
in terms of explaining similarities and differences in IHRM.
The objective of studies in the cross-cultural management (CCM) approach is to
explain differences in employee behaviours and attitudes as well as management
practices using culture as an explanatory variable. This contrasts with the HRM in
International
human resource
management
599
MNCs literature where there may be several organisational and environmental
explanatory variables. For explanatory and comparative purposes, culture tends to
be operationalised according to psychological dimensions. Some of the most important
work in classifying cultures and their value orientations has been undertaken by
Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), and their research has been widely appropriated by
cross-cultural management researchers, most notably by Hofstede (1980) and more
recently by House et al. (1999). This dimensional approach, although the most common
method of operationalising culture in cross-cultural studies, is not without its critics
(see McSweeney, 2002).
3.1 Issues in cross-cultural management
Researchers in CCM are predominantly concerned with investigating whether
organisations and HRM practices are converging or diverging. The notion of
convergence is central to the ongoing debate about the relationship between
globalisation and existing and evolving patterns of national management (Mayer and
Whittington, 2002). There are two conicting two schools of thought on this matter.
The culturalists or culture-bound theorists believe that cultural values and norms affect
behaviour and attitudes of organisations in the same way as they do day-to-day life.
Studies have provided substantial evidence of cultural variety not only in management
systems and structures but also in the perceptions of management itself (Hofstede,
1980; Laurent, 1986; Smith et al., 1996; House et al., 1999). As a result, theorists of this
school believe that there can be no universal model of management and that
management theories and practices from one culture are not necessarily transferable to
other cultures. In contrast, culture-free theorists argue that non-cultural environmental
factors, such as the level of industrialisation or technological development in a society
as well as industry and organisational characteristics, can override the inuence of
culture in organisations (e.g. Kerr et al., 1960; Hickson et al., 1974). These non-cultural
factors will act in the same direction upon management practices and organisations in
all cultures and as the pressures for convergence get stronger, it is predicted that a
worldwide convergence of management practice will occur. Some authors maintain
that neither theory alone adequately explains the research ndings and that both
similarities and differences are evident in organisations around the world. Adler et al.
(1986), drawing on Child (1981), suggest that:
. . . perhaps [. . .] organisations are becoming more similar in terms of structure and
technology (macro-level variables) whereas peoples behaviour within those organisations
(micro-level variables) continue to manifest culturally based dissimilarities.
Although this argument has been widely accepted in the IHRM literature,
McGaughney and De Cieri (1999) have recently argued that the situation is more
complex and that both convergence and divergence may occur at both micro- and
macro-level variables. The debate continues.
3.2 Critique of cross-cultural research
A review of the cross-cultural research consistently reveals major methodological,
epistemological and theoretical deciencies (Clark et al., 1999). The problems and
weaknesses of CCM research are widely discussed in the literature (Redding, 1994;
Cavusgil and Das, 1997; Caligiuri and Stroh, 1995, Teagarden et al., 1995), leading to
optimism that they can be overcome.
ER
26,6
600
Many of these problems have been addressed and overcome in the GLOBE[6]
project (House et al., 1999). Unlike most previous cross-cultural management research,
GLOBE takes a multi-methodological approach, combining both quantitative and
qualitative instruments of data collection and by using a multidisciplinary, global,
collaborative research team to design, conduct and analyse the research. The members
of the GLOBE project dene culture as:
. . . [the] shared motives, values, beliefs, identities and interpretations or meanings of
signicant events that result from common experiences of members of collectives and are
transmitted across age generations (House et al., 1999, p. 13).
Building on Hofstedes four dimensions of culture, GLOBE constructed nine dimensions
on the basis of which to describe national societal cultures[7]. Culture is measured
through the commonality of practices and values on the nine dimensions. Practices are
measured by assessing what is/are common behaviours and practices in the society,
whilst values are expressed in response to judgements regarding what should be in
the society. It is argued that these culturally derived values and beliefs held by the
members of a society will inuence both behaviour and institutions in that society and
also the extent to which these are viewed as legitimate, acceptable and effective (House
et al., 1999). Teagarden et al. (1995), through their idiographic study, have begun the
work of conducting cross-cultural collaborative research in IHRM. Going forward, we
suggest that GLOBE project may provide useful insights on methodology and that the
ndings on the dimensions of societal culture can potentially provide a robust
explanatory framework for both researchers and practitioners (House, 2004).
In summary, CCM literature uses culture as an explanatory variable to explain
variance in management practice worldwide. The major contribution of CCM has been
the development of a method of operationalising culture on the basis various
dimensions. Despite progress on both the methodological and theoretical fronts, the
contribution of this approach is weakened by its exclusive focus on culture as an
explanatory variable and consequent exclusion of other potential inuences.
4. Comparative HRM
Comparative HRM (CHRM) involves the comparison of HR systems and practices
across nations and regions around the world. Research in this eld tends to come
predominantly from Britain, and to a lesser extent from the rest of Europe. These
researchers have critically observed the nature of the HRM concept as it has been
imported into Europe from the United States since the 1980s, and have compared
approaches to HRM in various countries.
The objective of CHRM research is to describe and explain differences in and
identify broad patterns of national HRM systems (Begin, 1992). The rationale for
CHRM research is both pragmatic and academic (Brewster and Tyson, 1991).
Pragmatically, the corporate quest for competitive advantage and new, more efcient
ways of managing human resources across national and cultural boundaries is a
motive for undertaking comparative analysis. The academic interest in CHRM is at two
levels. At one level, academics wish to understand the economic and social systems
that prevail in other countries, including HRM and its institutional context, while at
another level they desire to describe and explain how and why variations in national
systems of HRM impact rm, industry and even national competitiveness.
International
human resource
management
601
4.1 Issues in CHRM
Comparative studies of human resource management have consistently revealed that
there are signicant country differences in HRM around the world. Variations have
been attributed to differences in national cultural and institutional (legal, economic and
social) environments (Pieper, 1990; Brewster et al., 2000, Clark, 1996). Nonetheless, as
result of the increasing volume of international business and increased interaction with
other cultures, studies have sought to establish whether their is any evidence of
convergence in HRM models, practices and issues across national borders. While there
have been some claims of convergence (Towers Perrin, 1992; Sparrow et al., 1994), the
evidence to date remains weak. Even these authors concede that some differences
continue to persist and that convergence is not happening on such a large scale as
previously predicted (e.g. Kerr et al., 1960; Hickson et al., 1974). There is considerable
support for the view that both convergence and divergence are occurring, but at
different levels. For example, on the basis of the Price Waterhouse Craneld Study of
HRM in Europe, Brewster et al. (1996) conclude that while there is an increasingly
common understanding of the issues in HRM across Europe, organisations continue to
differ in how they deal with these issues in practice.
CHRM research has thus provided support for the cultural relativity of HRM
concepts, theories and models. The need to understand HRM from a European as
opposed to a United States perspective has become a dominant theme in the literature
(Geppert et al., 2002; Guest, 1990; Pieper, 1990; Brewster et al., 2000; Sparrow and
Hiltrop, 1997). These conclusions contradict calls for establishing best practice, as if HR
institutions and practices are culture- and institution-specic, then their applicability
and effectiveness in other contexts is questionable and by no means universal.
4.2 CHRM theories and models
A number of models and frameworks have been developed in attempts to describe,
understand and explain differences in national human resource management systems.
Early theories of CHRM were based on existing models of comparative cross-cultural
management (such as that by Neghandi, 1983), or existing theories of domestic HRM:
for example, Poole (1990) assesses the suitability of the model by Beer et al. (1984) to
describe HRM in an international context. In a series of publications, Brewster has
sought to develop a model to explain differences in national HRM systems in Europe.
The model highlights the various international and national contextual factors which
impact upon HRM and the relationship between HRM and corporate strategy
(Brewster, 1995). Clark and Mallory (1996) argue that Brewsters work is inherently
ethnocentric due to its implicit assumption that the (American) model will be
universally applicable. They propose an alternative model of comparative HRM which
attempts to overcome the criticisms of Brewsters work by not pre-specifying a model
of HRM. The disadvantage of this polycentric approach is that in the absence of any
standards it may be difcult to compare results from different countries.
A different perspective is taken by Sparrow and Hiltrop (1997) who argue for a more
dynamic and change process-oriented framework for studying comparative HRM.
They maintain that an examination and understanding of the main processes which
drive the transition in HRM, and thus ultimately convergence or divergence is required
to understand what factors inuence national systems of HRM and how these inuence
processes occur.
ER
26,6
602
In contrast to the above models which examine HRM at a national level, Budhwar
and Debrah (2001) develop a conceptual framework for cross-national and comparative
HRM research at organisational level. They build on the work of domestic and
comparative HRM theorists and, unlike the frameworks described above, include
organisational contingency factors such as age and stage in life cycle as well as
organisational strategies and policies. However, in its attempt to encompass all
potential variables, this model is very complex, containing 42 factors in all, and is thus
most likely to be difcult to test empirically in a comparative context.
4.3 Critique of CHRM research
CHRM research to date has been severely weakened by the failure to use theoretical
frameworks to support the design of studies conducted and their conclusions. The
methodological and conceptual problems associated with CHRM research are well
documented (cf. Brewster and Tyson, 1991; Sparrow et al., 1994; Brewster et al., 1996;
Clark et al., 1999). Although the objective of CHRM is to describe and explain
variations in national HRM systems, there appears to be little consensus among
authors as to what HRM constitutes. As such, CHRM research lacks a fundamental
prerequisite: agreement on the denition of its dependent variable. Furthermore,
comparative studies of HRM tend to be descriptive and lack analysis and explanation.
Explanations, where provided, are generally extremely weak, with differences usually
attributed to cultural or institutional factors. The use of culture as an explanatory
variable for variations in organisational functioning and structuring has been
problematic (Clark et al., 1999). The models lack explanatory power as to when and
how these factors exert an inuence on HRM, the strength of the inuence relative to
other factors and separating the effects of the various contextual elements. The
resultant models fail to provide a systematic explanation for any differences found.
Further, there is an absence of a comprehensive descriptive empirical cross-national
data on HRM as well as evidence of ethnocentric bias in much of the literature in this
approach. In summary, researchers have been critical but not constructive in
advancing the eld. This approach would benet from the advances made by the
cross-cultural group in terms of addressing the issuing of explicating culture as an
explanatory variable. Progress is being made in this direction, as evidenced by the
approach adopted by Teagarden et al. (1995) in combining the methodology of the
cross-cultural and comparative literatures and building a multidisciplinary,
international research team.
5. Advancing the eld: overcoming disciplinary sectarianism
Table I sets out an integrative framework comparing the three strands in IHRM
research. It summarises the research purpose, research questions, issues,
methodologies, ndings and limitations of each of the three strands of research.
Much of the research in the eld is introverted in nature, with disciplinary sectarianism
evident both within and across each of the three strands. Although each strand is
distinct, they are not mutually exclusive. In addition, discernible similarities are
identiable across the approaches. In terms of research focus, for example, all address,
albeit in differing guises, the inuence of culture on (human resource) management and
practices and whether there is any evidence of convergence or divergence in this
regard. The general consensus is that universality does not apply to management (or
International
human resource
management
603
H
R
M
i
n
M
N
C
s
C
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
v
e
H
R
M
C
r
o
s
s
-
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
H
o
w
d
o
M
N
C
s
m
a
n
a
g
e
t
h
e
i
r
w
o
r
l
d
w
i
d
e
w
o
r
k
f
o
r
c
e
f
o
r
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
?
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s
o
f
H
R
M
m
o
d
e
l
s
,
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
a
n
d
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
H
o
w
d
o
e
s
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
?
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
o
r
i
g
i
n
s
M
a
i
n
l
y
A
n
g
l
o
-
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
(
e
.
g
.
D
o
w
l
i
n
g
,
S
c
h
u
l
e
r
,
P
u
c
i
k
,
F
e
r
n
e
r
)
U
K
(
e
.
g
.
B
r
e
w
s
t
e
r
,
C
l
a
r
k
,
)
a
n
d
t
o
a
l
e
s
s
e
r
e
x
t
e
n
t
c
o
n
t
i
n
e
n
t
a
l
E
u
r
o
p
e
(
e
.
g
.
P
i
e
p
e
r
)
M
a
i
n
l
y
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
(
e
.
g
.
A
d
l
e
r
,
S
c
h
n
e
i
d
e
r
)
a
n
d
E
u
r
o
p
e
(
e
.
g
.
H
o
f
s
t
e
d
e
,
L
a
u
r
e
n
t
)
T
h
e
o
r
e
t
i
c
a
l
d
i
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e
s
H
R
M
,
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
/
M
N
C
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
H
R
M
,
s
o
c
i
o
l
o
g
y
A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
o
g
y
,
s
o
c
i
a
l
p
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
y
G
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
a
l
f
o
c
u
s
M
a
i
n
l
y
f
o
c
u
s
o
n
M
N
C
s
f
r
o
m
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
a
n
d
t
o
a
l
e
s
s
e
r
e
x
t
e
n
t
E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
d
J
a
p
a
n
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s
o
f
H
R
M
i
n
U
S
A
,
E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
d
J
a
p
a
n
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
f
o
c
u
s
o
n
A
s
i
a
-
P
a
c
i

c
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
n
d
f
o
r
m
e
r
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
s
t
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
S
t
u
d
i
e
s
c
o
v
e
r
m
o
s
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
w
o
r
l
d
D
i
s
t
i
n
g
u
i
s
h
i
n
g
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
o
f
e
a
c
h
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
M
a
n
a
g
i
n
g
a
g
l
o
b
a
l
w
o
r
k
f
o
r
c
e
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
T
h
e
i
n

u
e
n
c
e
o
f
M
N
C
s
o
n
h
o
s
t
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
a
n
d
i
n
d
i
g
e
n
o
u
s

r
m
s
G
l
o
b
a
l
l
o
c
a
l
i
n

u
e
n
c
e
s
o
n
H
R
M
E
x
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
v
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
n
a
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
o
f
H
R
M
i
n
M
N
C
s
D
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
R
M
S
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
e
,
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
a
n
d
p
r
e
d
i
c
t
v
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
s
e
F
o
c
u
s
o
n
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
a
s
a
n
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
o
r
y
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
A
n
a
l
y
s
e
a
n
d
p
r
e
d
i
c
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
o
n
t
h
i
s
b
a
s
i
s
(
e
.
g
.
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
m
a
k
i
n
g
,
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
,
e
t
c
.
)
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
H
o
w
i
s
H
R
M
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
e
d
i
n
M
N
C
s
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
?
W
h
a
t
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
s
H
R
M
i
n
M
N
C
s
(
i
.
e
.
i
n

u
e
n
c
e
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
o
f
o
r
i
g
i
n
v
e
r
s
u
s
h
o
s
t
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
,
e
t
c
.
)
?
T
h
e
f
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
r
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
o
r
g
l
o
b
a
l
M
N
C
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
t
o
f
o
r
e
i
g
n
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
D
o
M
N
C
s
i
n

u
e
n
c
e
i
n
d
i
g
e
n
o
u
s
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
h
o
s
t
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
?
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
h
o
w
n
o
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
H
R
M
,
H
R
M
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
,
H
R
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
a
n
d
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
d
i
f
f
e
r
w
o
r
l
d
w
i
d
e
A
r
e
t
h
e
s
e
c
o
n
v
e
r
g
i
n
g
o
r
d
i
v
e
r
g
i
n
g
?
I
s
t
h
e
r
e
a
u
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
l
m
o
d
e
l
o
f
H
R
M
?
W
h
a
t
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
s
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
R
M
S
?
H
o
w
d
o
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
i
m
p
a
c
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
?
A
r
e
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
v
a
l
u
e
s
c
o
n
v
e
r
g
i
n
g
o
r
d
i
v
e
r
g
i
n
g
?
C
o
n
v
e
r
g
e
n
c
e
o
r
d
i
v
e
r
g
e
n
c
e
o
f
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
(
i
.
e
.
i
n
l
i
g
h
t
o
f
g
l
o
b
a
l
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
s
o
f
c
o
n
v
e
r
g
e
n
c
e
d
e
s
p
i
t
e
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
)
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
l
i
t
y
v
e
r
s
u
s
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
s
p
e
c
i

c
i
t
y
o
f
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
t
h
e
o
r
y
a
n
d
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Table I.
Integrative framework
comparing strands in
IHRM research
ER
26,6
604
H
R
M
i
n
M
N
C
s
C
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
v
e
H
R
M
C
r
o
s
s
-
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
d
e
s
i
g
n
P
r
e
d
o
m
i
n
a
n
t
l
y
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
i
s
t
C
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
v
e
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
o
f
H
R
M
i
n
M
N
C
s
f
r
o
m
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
(
u
s
u
a
l
l
y
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
/
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
s
o
r
i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
s
)
P
r
e
d
o
m
i
n
a
n
t
l
y
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
i
s
t
C
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
v
e
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
o
f
e
n
t
i
r
e
H
R
M
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
o
r
s
p
e
c
i

c
H
R
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
s
(
e
.
g
.
C
r
a
n

e
l
d
)
o
f
H
R
M
i
n
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
C
a
s
e
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
o
f
H
R
M
S
s
i
n
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
B
o
t
h
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
i
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
v
e
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
o
f
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
U
s
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
,
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
s
,
e
t
h
n
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
a
n
d
q
u
a
l
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
S
t
u
d
i
e
s
o
f
t
e
n
t
a
k
e
a
n
M
N
C
a
s
t
h
e
i
r
s
a
m
p
l
e
a
s
i
t
e
n
a
b
l
e
s
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
(
e
.
g
.
H
o
f
s
t
e
d
e

s
s
t
u
d
y
o
f
I
B
M
)
T
h
e
o
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
m
o
d
e
l
s
M
a
n
y
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
a
n
d
h
i
g
h
l
y
p
r
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
t
h
e
o
r
i
e
s
(
o
f
t
e
n
n
o
t
e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
l
y
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
)
W
e
a
k
e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
E
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
w
o
r
k
t
e
n
d
s
t
o
b
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
-
b
a
s
e
d
,
r
e
l
a
t
i
n
g
t
o
a
s
p
e
c
i

c
a
r
e
a
o
f
H
R
M
r
a
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
i
n
-
d
e
p
t
h
c
a
s
e
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
o
f
h
o
w
t
h
e
H
R
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
d
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
H
R
M
S
s
i
n
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
d
a
t
a
f
r
o
m
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
a
n
d
c
a
s
e
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
W
e
a
k
t
h
e
o
r
e
t
i
c
a
l
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
s

l
a
c
k
o
f
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
o
r
y
t
h
e
o
r
y
a
n
d
m
o
d
e
l
s
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
t
h
e
o
r
i
e
s
o
f
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
h
o
w
i
t
a
f
f
e
c
t
s
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
a
n
d
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
u
r
E
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
o
f
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
a
n
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
i
n
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
P
r
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
r
o
s
s
-
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
A
t
t
e
m
p
t
s
t
o
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
v
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
H
R
M
i
n
M
N
C
a
f

l
i
a
t
e
s

c
o
u
n
t
r
y
o
f
o
r
i
g
i
n
f
o
u
n
d
t
o
b
e
a
s
i
g
n
i

c
a
n
t
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
n
t
o
f
H
R
M
i
n
M
N
C
s
u
b
s
i
d
i
a
r
i
e
s
H
R
M
i
n
M
N
C
s
i
s
i
n

u
e
n
c
e
d
m
a
i
n
l
y
b
y
l
o
c
a
l
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
a
f

l
i
a
t
e
s
d
i
f
f
e
r
i
n
d
e
g
r
e
e
o
f
a
d
a
p
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
l
o
c
a
l
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
D
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
R
M
S
s
a
n
d
a
t
t
e
m
p
t
s
t
o
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
v
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
m
N
o
u
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
l
m
o
d
e
l
o
f
H
R
M
C
o
n
v
e
r
g
e
n
c
e
o
f
H
R
i
s
s
u
e
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
i
s
o
c
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
b
u
t
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
r
e
m
a
i
n
d
i
v
e
r
g
e
n
t
A
n
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
o
f
h
o
w
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
i
n

u
e
n
c
e
s
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
u
r
,
a
t
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
,
e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
e
t
c
.
R
e
j
e
c
t
s
t
h
e
u
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
t
h
e
o
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
s
t
h
e
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
-
b
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
s
i
s
T
h
r
o
u
g
h
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
m
e
t
h
o
d
f
o
r
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
s
i
n
g
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
E
m
e
r
g
i
n
g
i
s
s
u
e
s
a
n
d
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
,
I
H
R
M
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
,
e
t
h
i
c
a
l
i
s
s
u
e
s
,
h
o
s
t
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
d
i
f
f
u
s
i
o
n
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
m
o
d
e
l
s
o
f
H
R
M
,
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
,
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
,
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
,
c
r
o
s
s
-
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
,
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
i
s
s
u
e
s
Table I.
International
human resource
management
605
more specically HR systems) notions and practices. Evidence suggests that
international convergence of HR issues is occurring but interpretation of these issues
and hence actual practices continues to differ.
Methodological shortcomings are evident in all three strands of research, although
as we can observe in Table I the researchers in each differ in how they deal with these.
As discussed (Cavusgil and Das, 1997; Clark et al., 1999; Kochan et al., 1992)
cross-cultural and comparative research is complex, and researchers across all of the
approaches must grapple with complex methodological issues and problems. There is
consensus in the eld that they can be overcome through better research methodology.
We agree that a positivist approach is appropriate in comparative research, but stress
that it must be augmented by qualitative methods to add greater explanatory
sensitivity. We also underscore the need for properly designed empirical research in
order to contribute to the development in the eld. Both CHRM and HRM in MNC
approaches would benet from progress made in the CCM in this regard.
While in general the objectives of each strand are similar to understand and
explain HRM the HRM in MNCs approach perceives HRM as a means to an end
(effectiveness and competitiveness) rather than an end in itself. Therefore it regards
HRM as an intervening variable, not a dependent variable as in the case of CCM and to
a lesser extent CHRM. We concur with the positioning of HRM as a means to an end
and that a process model positioning HRM as an intervening variable is appropriate.
The model of strategic HRM in MNCs as developed by De Cieri and Dowling (1999) is a
good step in this direction.
While the cross-cultural management literature has been referred to by writers in
both the comparative HRM and HRM in MNCs elds, this has mainly been merely of
the name-dropping type (Sndergaard, 1994). A more in-depth understanding of the
theories and models of culture from the CCM literature would give researchers in both
CHRM and HRM in MNCs a method for explicating exogenous variables and
operationalising culture as an explanatory variable. This would facilitate the use of
specic dimensions of cultures as explanatory variables or alternatively allowing the
cultural distance construct to be operationalised. In turn, contributions from these
literatures could inform the CCM literature as to alternative endogenous inuences
which may moderate the effect of culture on behaviour.
Theoretical frameworks from the comparative HRM approach would give
researchers on HRM in MNCs an understanding into the role played by both parent
country and host country institutions, regulations, cultural norms etc. (i.e. context) on
HRM approaches and practices. An understanding of comparative HRM systems is
needed to complement and inform the understanding of HRM in MNCs (Boxall, 1995;
Schuler, 2000). On the other hand, the literature on HRM in MNCs could contribute to
the debate in the comparative approach on the inuence of foreign MNCs on national
HRMS, on the transfer of MNC HRM into indigenous companies, on the ability to
transfer HR practices across national boundaries or on the possibility to create global
best practice HR standards.
We acknowledge that there is a need to begin the design and development of an
overarching theory to integrate the three strands of IHRM into a framework embracing
the related disciplinary approaches. The fertilisation of ideas and methodologies
between strands will result in an enrichment of research across the eld and facilitate
the construction of an inclusive approach to theory building which embraces all related
ER
26,6
606
disciplinary areas. We suggest that there are benets to be gained from engaging in
collaborative, inter-disciplinary, comparative, cross-cultural dialogue and research.
Before embarking on the tortuous journey of theory construction, it is our view that
researchers from the three strands must overcome existing disciplinary sectarianism
by recognising and acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. In
this article, we have attempted to draw attention to the overlaps and gaps between
strands hitherto hidden from within disciplines in order to commence this process.
Only by overcoming disciplinary sectarianism can the eld of IHRM advance and
produce (practice) relevant theory.
Notes
1. The term IHRM is often used to refer exclusively to this stream of research, a practice
which has caused considerable confusion in the literature. De Cieri and Dowling call this
approach HRM in MNEs. However, as the research to date on managing people in an
international context has focused on multinational companies (MNCs) rather than global
not-for-prot or governmental organisations, which are also encompassed under the term
multinational enterprises (MNEs), the term HRM in MNCs is used here.
2. The link between HRM and strategy has been proposed in the US literature. However,
lessons from the comparative literature (see section 4) should warn us about assuming the
universality of theory. The personnel function may not necessarily be integrated with
business strategy in some countries.
3. The debate surrounding the impact of country-of-origin effect on HR practices in MNC
subsidiaries is of particular interest in the Irish context due to the prevalence of foreign
MNCs located in the country. However, studies to date have produced conicting evidence
(Geary and Roche, 2001; Turner et al., 2001; Keating, 2004).
4. Some authors refer to this as parochial rather than ethnocentric.
5. Cultural relativism is a philosophical position arguing that all cultures, no matter how
different are correct and moral for the people of those cultures (Cullen, 1999, p. 54).
6. Global Leadership and Organisational Effectiveness Research Programme.
7. The nine variables are power distance; uncertainty avoidance; humane orientation;
institutional collectivism; in-group collectivism; assertiveness; gender egalitarianism; future
orientation and performance orientation. See House et al. (1999) for an explanation.
References
Adler, N. (1983), A typology of management studies involving culture, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 29-47.
Adler, N. (2003), International Dimensions of Organisational Behavior, 4th ed., Kent Publishing
Co., Boston, MA.
Adler, N. and Ghadar, F. (1990), International strategy from the perspective of people and
culture: the North American context, in Rugman, A.M. (Ed.), Research in Global Strategic
Management, Vol. 1: Canadas New Research Agenda, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 179-205.
Adler, N., Doktor, R. and Redding, S.G. (1986), From the Atlantic to the Pacic century:
cross-cultural management reviewed, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 295-318.
Bartlett, C. and Ghoshal, S. (1989), Managing across Borders: The Transnational Solution,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
International
human resource
management
607
Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P., Mills, D. and Walton, R. (1984), Managing Human Assets,
Free Press, New York, NY.
Begin, J. (1992), Comparative human resources management (HRM): a systems perspective,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 3, pp. 379-408.
Belanger, J., Edwards, P. and Wright, M. (1999), Best HR practice and the multinational
company, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 53-70.
Bird, A. and Beechler, S. (1995), Links between business strategy and human resource
management in US-based Japanese subsidiaries: an empirical investigation, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 23-46.
Bird, A., Taylor, S. and Beechler, S. (1998), A typology of international human resource
management in Japanese multinational corporations: organizational implications, Human
Resource Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 159-72.
Black, J., Gregersen, H., Mendenhall, M. and Stroh, L. (1999), Globalizing People through
International Assignments, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Boxall, P. (1995), Building the theory of comparative HRM, Human Resource Management,
Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 5-17.
Brewster, C. (1995), Towards a European model of human resource management, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Brewster, C. and Tyson, S. (Eds) (1991), International Comparisons of Human Resource
Management, Pitman, London.
Brewster, C., Mayrhofer, W. and Morley, M. (Eds) (2000), New Challenges for European Human
Resource Management, Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Brewster, C., Tregaskis, A., Hegewisch, A. and Mayne, L. (1996), Comparative research in HRM:
a review and example, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 7
No. 3, pp. 585-604.
Budhwar, P. and Debrah, Y. (2001), Rethinking comparative and cross-national human resource
management research, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 12
No. 3, pp. 497-515.
Caligiuri, P.M. and Stroh, L.K. (1995), Multinational corporation management strategies and
international human resources practices: bringing IHRM to the bottom line, International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 494-507.
Cavusgil, S. and Das, A. (1997), Methodological issues in empirical cross-cultural research: a
survey of the management literature and a framework, Management International
Review, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 71-96.
Child, J. (1981), Contingency and capitalism in the cross-cultural study of organizations, in
Cummings, L. and Staw, B. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 3, JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, pp. 303-56.
Clark, T. (1996), HRM: a unied understanding or a multiplicity of meanings?, in Clark, T. (Ed.),
European Human Resource Management: An Introduction to Comparative Theory and
Practice, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 244-62.
Clark, T. and Mallory, G. (1996), The cultural relativity of human resource management: is there
a universal model?, in Clark, T. (Ed.), European Human Resource Management: An
Introduction to Comparative Theory and Practice, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 1-33.
Clark, T., Gospel, H. and Montgomery, J. (1999), Running on the spot? A review of twenty years
of research on the management of human resources in comparative and international
perspective, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 520-44.
ER
26,6
608
Cullen, J. (1999), Multinational Management: A Strategic Perspective, Southwestern Publishing,
Cincinnati, OH.
De Cieri, H. and Dowling, P. (1997), Strategic international human resource management: an
Asia-Pacic perspective, Management International Review, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 21-42.
De Cieri, H. and Dowling, P. (1999), Strategic human resource management in multinational
enterprises: theoretical and empirical developments, in Wright, P., Dyer, L., Boudreau, J.
and Milkovich, G. (Eds), Strategic Human Resource Management: An Agenda for the 21st
Century, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Devanna, M., Fombrun, C. and Tichy, N. (1984), A framework for strategic human resource
management, in Devanna, M. (Ed.), Strategic Human Resource Management, Wiley, New
York, NY, pp. 33-51.
Dowling, P., Welch, D. and Schuler, R. (1999), International Human Resource Management:
Managing People in a Multinational Context, 3rd ed., Southwestern Publishing Co.,
Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, T. (1998), Multinationals, labour management and the process of reverse diffusion: a
case study, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 696-709.
Ferner, A. (1997), Country of origin effects and HRM in multinational companies, Human
Resource Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 19-37.
Ferner, A. and Quintanilla, J. (1998), Multinationals, national business systems and HRM: the
enduring inuence of national identity of a process of Anglo-Saxonization, International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 710-31.
Ferner, A., Quintanilla, J. and Varul, M.Z. (2001), Country-of-origin effects, host-country effects,
and the management of HR in multinationals: German companies in Britain and Spain,
Journal of World Business, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 107-27.
Ferner, A., Almond, P., Clark, I., Colling, T., Edwards, T., Holden, L. and Muller-Camen, M.
(2004), The dynamics of central control and subsidiary autonomy in the management of
human resources: case study evidence from from US MNCs in the UK, Organization
Studies, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 363-91.
Festing, M. (1997), International human resource strategies in multinational corporations:
theoretical assumptions and empirical evidence from German rms, Management
International Review, Special Issue, No. 1, pp. 43-63.
Geary, J.F. and Roche, W.K. (2001), Multinationals and human resource practices in Ireland: a
rejection of the new conformance thesis, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 109-27.
Geppert, M., Matten, D. and Williams, K. (Eds) (2002), Challenges for European Management in a
Global Context. Experiences from Britain and Germany, Palgrave-MacMillan, Basingstoke.
Guest, D. (1990), Human resource management and the American dream, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 377-97.
Guest, D. and Hoque, K. (1996), The inuence of national ownership and HR practices in UK
greeneld sites, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 50-74.
Harris, H. and Brewster, C. (1999), International human resource management: the European
contribution, in Harris, H. (Ed.), International HRM: Contemporary Issues in Europe,
Routledge, London, pp. 1-28.
Harzing, A.-W. (1999), MNE stafng policies for the managing director position in foreign
subsidiaries: the results of an innovative research method, in Harris, H. (Ed.),
International HRM: Contemporary Issues in Europe, Routledge, London, pp. 67-88.
International
human resource
management
609
Harzing, A.-W. and Ruysseveldt, J. (Eds) (2003), International Human Resource Management,
2nd ed., Sage Publications, London.
Hendry, C. (1994), Human Resource Strategies for International Growth, Routledge, London.
Hickson, D., Hinings, C., McMillan, C. and Schwitter, J. (1974), The culture-free context of
organization structure, Sociology, Vol. 8, pp. 59-80.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,
Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
House, R.J. (2004), Cultures, Leadership and Organizations: A 62-Nation GLOBE Study, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
House, R.J., Hanges, P., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S., Dorfman, P., Javidan, M. and Dickson, M. (1999),
Cultural inuences on leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE, in Mobley, W.,
Gessner, M.J. and Arnold, V. (Eds), Advances in Global Leadership, Vol. 1, JAI Press,
Stamford, CT.
Jansenns, M. (2001), Developing a culturally synergistic approach to international human
resource management, Journal of World Business, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 429-50.
Keating, M.A. (2004), International human resource management: some evidence from Ireland
and Germany, in Keating, M.A. and Martin, G.S. (Eds), Managing Cross-Cultural Business
Relations: The Irish-German Experience, Blackhall Publishing, Dublin, pp. 144-75.
Keating, M.A. and Martin, G.S. (Eds) (2004), Managing Cross-Cultural Business Relations: The
Irish-German Experience, Blackhall Publishing, Dublin.
Kerr, C., Dunlop, J., Harbison, F. and Myers, C. (1960), Industrialism and Industrial Man, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kluckhohn, F. and Strodtbeck, F. (1961), Variations in Value Orientations, Harper & Row,
New York, NY.
Kochan, I.A., Dyer, L. and Batt, R. (1992), International human resource studies: a framework for
future research, in Lewin, D., Mitchell, O.S. and Sherer, P.D. (Eds), Research Frontiers in
Industrial Relations and Human Resources, Industrial Relations Research Association,
Madison, WI, pp. 309-37.
Laurent, A. (1986), The cross-cultural puzzle of international human resource management,
Human Resource Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 91-102.
McGaughney, S. and De Cieri, H. (1999), Reassessment of convergence and divergence
dynamics: implications for international HRM, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 235-50.
McSweeney, B. (2002), Hofstedes model of national culture differences and their consequences:
a triumph of faith a failure of analysis, Human Relations, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 89-118.
Martin, G.S. (2004), German-Irish business negotiation: the cultural dimension, in Keating,
M.A. and Martin, G.S. (Eds), Managing Cross Cultural Business Relations: The Irish
German Experience, Blackhall Publishing, Dublin, pp. 73-105.
Martin, G. and Beaumont, P. (1998), Diffusing best practice in multinational rms: prospects,
practice and contestation, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 9
No. 4, pp. 671-95.
Mayer, M. and Whittington, R. (2002), For boundedness in the study of comparative
international business: the case of the diversied multinational rm, in Geppert, M.,
Matten, D. and Williams, K. (Eds), Challenges for European Management in a Global
Context. Experiences from Britain and Germany, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Neghandi, A. (1983), Cross-cultural management research, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 115-29.
ER
26,6
610
Pieper, R. (1990), Introduction: human resource management: an international comparison, in
Pieper, R. (Ed.), Human Resource Management: An International Comparison, de Gruyter,
Berlin, pp. 1-26.
Poole, M. (1990), Editorial: human resource management in an international perspective,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Porter, M. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Prahalad, C. and Doz, Y. (1987), The Multinational Mission: Balancing Local Demands and Global
Vision, Free Press, New York, NY.
Pucik, V. (1992), Globalization and human resource management, in Barnett, C.K. (Ed.),
Globalizing Management: Creating and Leading the Competitive Organization, Wiley, New
York, NY, pp. 61-81.
Redding, G. (1994), Comparative management theory: jungle, zoo or fossil bed?, Organization
Studies, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 323-59.
Rosenzweig, P. and Nohria, N. (1994), Inuences on human resource management practices in
multinational corporations, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 229-51.
Schneider, S. and Barsoux, J. (1997), Managing across Cultures, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead.
Schollhammer, H. (1975), Current research on international and comparative management
issues, Management International Review, Vol. 15, pp. 29-45.
Schuler, R. (2000), The internationalization of human resource management, Journal of
International Management, Vol. 6, pp. 239-60.
Schuler, R. and Jackson, S. (1987), Linking competitive strategy with human resource
management practices, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 207-19.
Schuler, R., Dowling, P. and De Cieri, H. (1993), An integrative framework of strategic
international human resource management, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 717-64.
Scullion, H. (1995), International human resource management, in Storey, J. (Ed.), Human
Resource Management: A Critical Text, Routledge, London, pp. 352-82.
Scullion, H. (1999), International HRM in medium-sized MNEs: evidence from Ireland, in
Brewster, C. and Harris, H. (Eds), International HRM: Contemporary Issues in Europe,
Routledge, London, pp. 48-63.
Scullion, H. and Starkey, K. (2000), In search of the changing role of the corporate human
resource function in the international rm, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 1061-81.
Smith, P., Dugan, S. and Trompenaars, F. (1996), National culture and the values of
organizational employees: a dimensional analysis across 43 nations, Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 231-64.
Sndergaard, M. (1994), Research note: Hofstedes consequences: a study of reviews, citations
and replications, Organization Studies, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 447-56.
Sparrow, P. and Hiltrop, J. (1997), Redening the eld of European human resource
management: a battle between national mindsets and forces of business transition,
Human Resource Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 201-19.
Sparrow, P., Schuler, R. and Jackson, S. (1994), Convergence or divergence? Human resource
practices and policies for competitive advantage world-wide, International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 267-99.
International
human resource
management
611
Taylor, S., Beechler, S. and Napier, N. (1996), Toward an integrative model of strategic
international human resource management, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21
No. 4, pp. 959-85.
Teagarden, M. and Von Glinow, A. (1997), Human resource management in cross-cultural
contexts: emic practices versus etic philosophies, Management International Review,
Special Issue, No. 1, pp. 7-20.
Teagarden, M.B., Von Glinow, M.-A., Bowen, D.E., Frayne, C.A., Nason, S., Huo, Y.P., Milliman,
J., Arias, M.E., Butler, M.C., Geringer, J.M., Kim, N.-H., Scullion, H., Lowe, K.B. and Drost,
E.A. (1995), Toward a theory of comparative management research: an idiographic case
study of the best international human resources management project, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1261-87.
Torrington, D. (1994), International Human Resource Management: Think Globally, Act Locally,
Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead.
Towers Perrin (1992), Priorities for Gaining Competitive Advantage: A Worldwide Human
Resource Study, Towers Perrin, London.
Tregaskis, O., Heraty, N. and Morley, M. (2001), HRD in multinationals: the global/local mix,
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 34-56.
Tung, R. and Punnett, B. (1993), Research in international human resource management, in
Rieger, F. (Ed.), International Management Research, Walter de Gruyer, New York, NY,
pp. 35-53.
Turner, T., DArt, D. and Gunnigle, P. (2001), Multinationals and human resource practices in
Ireland: a rejection of the new conformance thesis: a reply, International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 128-33.
Weber, W., Kabst, R. and Gramley, C. (2000), Human resource policies in European
organisations: an analysis of country- and company-specic antecedents, in Morley, M.
(Ed.), New Challenges for European Human Resource Management, Macmillan,
Basingstoke, pp. 247-66.
ER
26,6
612