Search results

Taking an international comparative approach, this chapter investigates the variance in the adoption of employee share ownership and stock option arrangements across countries. In particular, we investigate the influence of multinational enterprises (MNEs), industrial relations factors, HRM strategies, and market economies on the adoption and spread of the arrangements across countries. We find that industrial relations factors do not explain the variance in adoption by companies in their respective countries. MNEs and HRM strategies are important drivers of adoption. Market economy does not moderate the influence of MNEs on adoption, suggesting that MNEs universally apply the arrangements across borders.

The purpose of this paper is to use a diachronic analysis to explore the influence of country of origin effect and country of management effect on the adoption of human resource management (HRM) practices at different stages.

The methodology starts with an intensive literature review to establish an analytical framework by bringing country of origin and country of management effects on the HRM transfers. By using a longitudinal qualitative research design, a total of 164 interviews from four British subsidiaries of four Taiwanese multinationals were conducted to explore the change over time during the HRM transfer processes over a five‐year period.

The results provide evidence of the paradox as a result of country of origin effect and country of management effect on the adoption of HRM practices over time.

It is problematic to conclude absolutely regarding the convergence or divergence of HRM practices. This is due to HRM practices being in a constant state of flux between global integration and local adaptation during the transfer process.

This is the first empirical study to examine the impacts of country of origin effect and country of management effect on the HRM transfers from emerging multinationals in the advanced economy from a diachronic perspective.

It is argued that a key step in becoming a “transnational” company is to implement transnational HRM (THRM). However, what is meant by THRM and how can it be assessed? The purpose of this paper is to develop the characteristics of THRM along two dimensions: standardisation and knowledge networking, in contrast to many existing studies which focus on IHRM strategies and structures. Standardisation and knowledge networking are to be examined at both the meta and operational levels.

The paper is based on two case studies of major German MNCs, both with significant operations in Spain and the UK. Data were collected by means of semi‐structured interviews with senior managers, HR managers and labour representatives.

The findings show that THRM can be operationalised using knowledge networking and standardisation on a meta level, in terms of principles, and at an operational level in terms of practices. The two firms show differences in the process and intensity of HR knowledge networking which have implications for the level of standardisation, local autonomy and innovation capabilities. The findings also suggests that THRM is more about processes than outcomes.

A limitation of this study is that the cases were only drawn from Western Europe. The patterns of THRM structures and processes may differ significantly in MNCs from other regions.

This paper extends existing research by exploring international HR beyond strategies and structures and focuses on communication and coordination processes. It advocates a refined view of the transnational firm.

Most analyses of strike activity in Western Europe suggest that it has declined quite dramatically since the early 1970s. The contention of this article is that this decline has been exaggerated, largely as a result of an inadequate recognition of the deficiencies of the statistical data on which these analyses are based. Recognising this, the article argues that strike activity in many countries in Western Europe may be considerably higher than previously thought.

This paper examines the use of “double breasting” as a means of union avoidance among multinational companies (MNCs). Double breasting refers to the practice whereby multi-establishment organizations simultaneously operate establishments on both union and non-union bases. Using survey data from the largest and most representative empirical investigation of employment practice in MNCs in Ireland, supplemented by qualitative data gathered from case-based investigations in the subsidiary operations of American-owned MNCs, we profile the incidence and pattern of this particular form of union avoidance as well as providing insights on management's rationale for so doing. Our findings suggest that a substantial and increasing number of unionized MNCs in Ireland are engaging in double breasting. This phenomenon is most evident among U.S. MNCs. We also find that employers, at both local and global levels, have proactively initiated double breasting as a strategic ploy to increase management prerogative and better position subsidiary operations to attract new investment from corporate levels.

Do multinational companies (MNCs) transfer employment practices across their operations in different countries? In other words, are they innovators in national systems of employment relations or do they adapt to them? This question lies at the heart of much research in the field of international HRM, yet the debate is characterized by two quite different approaches to this question – the “global – local” perspective and the “segmentation” thesis – that have not engaged satisfactorily with one another. Drawing on data from a case study of an American multinational in China, we argue that analysis must be sensitive to the sector-specific conditions that create variation between MNCs in this respect. Specifically, the way that multinationals build international processes of production and service provision is a crucial factor in shaping whether they look to transfer practices and, therefore, whether they are innovators or adapters.

The purpose of this paper is to bridge the boundaries separating strategic and comparative institutional perspectives on human resource systems and employment relations. Each research tradition has investigated the role and outcomes of corporations as they operate in an increasingly global economy. Researchers in these traditions, however, ask different research questions and draw on distinct social science disciplines, theoretical assumptions, and research methodologies. While they have pursued parallel but separate tracks, we argue that they have important lessons for each other. In this paper, we review the core characteristics and critiques of each research tradition, provide a series of examples of efforts to bridge their differences, and offer suggestions for future integration.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the HRD practices of multinational enterprises (MNEs) operating in Australia to understand the value that MNEs place on investment in their human capital, particularly managerial talent.

Drawing on a representative sample of 211 MNEs operating in Australia, this paper investigates the extent (using frequencies) and determinants (using logistic regression analysis) of training and development expenditure, management development strategies, talent management and succession planning policies.

The findings suggest that less than 20 per cent of MNEs operating in Australia are investing over 4 per cent of their annual pay bill on training and development. Furthermore, almost a quarter of firms invest less than 1 per cent in training and development. However, most MNEs invest in their managers and those with high potential through the use of management development programmes, talent management strategies and succession planning. Interestingly, in comparison to US MNEs, Australian MNEs were less likely to use management development or talent management programmes for senior management or high performing staff.

The current study is cross-sectional and represents a snapshot of MNEs’ HRD practices at one point in time. The study measured the perceptions of the most senior HR manager and did not include the views of other organisational participants. The authors suggest the need for future research studies that incorporate longitudinal research designs and the views of different organisational actors.

HR managers or HRD specialists need to develop a strong understanding of the Australian institutional context, as well as demonstrate the importance/business case for an integrative approach to HRD.

This paper fulfils an identified need to study the HRD practices of MNEs operating in Australia, particularly focusing on the value that MNEs place on their human capital.

In the mainstream international business literature on multinational corporations (MNCs), an authoritative central headquarter (HQ) that transfers standardised practices to its subsidiaries remains the norm. This study aims to explore how MNCs coordinate their management practices through principles.

The paper draws on empirical findings from a qualitative in-depth single case study based on evidence-rich qualitative data including observations from how a high-tech MNC headquartered in Sweden coordinates its development practices.

An alternative informal coordination approach (i.e. coordination by principles) is identified. Additionally, antecedents and implications of the approach are presented.

Coordination by Principles may facilitate the internalisation of practices and be a feasible compromise between context adaptation and traditional standardisation, particularly for MNCs with highly heterogeneous research and development operations.

This paper highlights the importance of acknowledging that firm practices often are based on management ideas that HQs adopt to prevent loss of legitimacy. As such, this study contributes to the scarce literature that critically questions the assumption that HQs solely transfer practices to subsidiaries to improve subsidiary efficiency and performance.