Sample Chapter

Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Contents
List of Figures
viii
List of Tables
ix
Acknowledgements
x
List of Abbreviations
xii
List of Interviews
xv
1
2
Cross-Border Mobility: Not Only Goods and Information,
Also People
Christel Adick, Bruno Gandlgruber, Martina Maletzky and
Ludger Pries
1.1 Why cross-border mobility is important?
1.2 What do we know about transnational staff mobility?
1.3 Aim and object of the study
1.4 Conceptual outline and explaining factors
1.5 Design of the study
Cross-Border Staff Mobility in German and Mexican Profit
Organisations
2.1 Staff mobility in German and Mexican car companies
Bruno Gandlgruber, Stephanie Heske, Martina Maletzky,
Tino Mark, Alejandro Mercado and Ludger Pries
2.1.1 German and Mexican car companies and
their transnational production environment
2.1.2 Staff mobility within a global car company:
Volkswagen
2.1.3 Staff mobility within a global player in the
supplier industry: Bosch
2.1.4 Staff mobility within an internationalising
automobile supplier: Hella
2.1.5 Comparison of the German car companies
2.1.6 Following the client from Mexico to Germany:
Condumex
2.1.7 Comparison of German and Mexican global
car companies
v
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
1
2
6
20
23
32
42
43
43
47
56
63
70
72
80
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
vi
Contents
2.2
Staff mobility in two German and a Mexican
chemical company
Bruno Gandlgruber, Martina Maletzky and Tino Mark
2.2.1 The Bayer AG: a global player with a long
tradition of international activities
2.2.2 Evonik: the re-composition of diverse resources,
values and strategies in a newly created
corporate structure
2.2.3 CEMEX: an early Mexican global player
2.3 Transnational mobility in the German capital
goods industry
Bruno Gandlgruber, Stephanie Heske, Martina Maletzky and
Tino Mark
2.3.1 A German global player providing digital
management tools: SAP
2.3.2 A German niche producer of investment
goods: Krones
2.3.3 Comparing the SAP and Krones cases
2.4 Comparative analysis of staff mobility in
multinational corporations (MNCs)
Bruno Gandlgruber, Martina Maletzky and Ludger Pries
2.4.1 Tendencies in mobility patterns in MNCs
2.4.2 Impact of sector and country of origin on the
patterns of cross-border mobility
2.4.3 Factors of international configuration, resource
restrictions and virtualisation
3
Cross-Border Staff Mobility in German and Mexican
Non-Profit Organisations
3.1 Defining types of NPOs and sampling procedures
Christel Adick, Esther Hahm and Anne Weiler
3.1.1 Functions and types of NPOs
3.1.2 German and Mexican NPOs with subsidiaries
in Mexico respectively in Germany
3.2 Transnational staff mobility in the German
political foundations
Christel Adick
3.2.1 The Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Mexico
3.2.2 The Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung in Mexico
3.2.3 The other German Political Foundations
present in Mexico
3.2.4 Mobility patterns in the German Political
Foundations
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
82
83
90
97
103
104
114
120
121
122
124
127
132
132
133
136
141
145
148
151
159
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Contents
3.3
3.4
3.5
Promoting international business as a collective
task with public implications
Bruno Gandlgruber and Stephanie Heske
3.3.1 The Mexican international business promoting
agency ProMéxico
3.3.2 The German Foreign Chambers of Commerce
(AHK) and their Mexican location, CAMEXA
Transnational staff mobility in educational
organisations
Esther Hahm and Anne Weiler
3.4.1 German schools abroad
3.4.2 The Goethe Institute
3.4.3 The German Academic Exchange Service
3.4.4 The DVV International
3.4.5 Comparative summary and influences on
mobility patterns
Comparative analysis of staff mobility in NPOs
Christel Adick, Martina Maletzky and Ludger Pries
3.5.1 Cross-border mobility patterns in
NPOs compared
3.5.2 NPOs and the country-of-origin hypothesis
3.5.3 NPOs and the organisational configuration
hypothesis
3.5.4 NPOs and the resource restrictions hypothesis
4 Staff Mobility between Germany and Mexico: Findings
from Our Case Studies and Research Perspectives
Christel Adick, Bruno Gandlgruber, Martina Maletzky and Ludger Pries
4.1 Old and new patterns of staff mobility
4.2 Type and sector of organisation
4.3 Country of headquarters and institutional differences
4.4 International configuration
4.5 Resource restrictions and virtualisation
4.6 Asymmetric internal and external structures of
organisations and staff mobility
4.7 Discussion of results, limitations of findings and
tasks for further research
vii
167
168
174
182
186
193
202
207
212
214
214
218
221
223
229
230
232
239
242
245
248
251
References
257
Index
287
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
1
Cross-Border Mobility: Not
Only Goods and Information,
Also People
Christel Adick, Bruno Gandlgruber, Martina Maletzky, and
Ludger Pries
Globalisation leads not only to denser networks of value chains and
information flows, but also to increasing flows of people. The spatial
mobility of people is increasing in volume and becoming differentiated
in terms of patterns and functions. This trend affects almost all levels of
society – from the lower classes, who migrate as undocumented workers,
to the jet set, which includes top managers, politicians and cosmopolitan artists. At an intermediate level, organisations are increasingly
fostering the cross-border mobility of a variety of experts and specialists
as expatriates and business travellers (Collings et al., 2007; Reiche and
Harzing, 2011).
This rise in the global mobility of people in general is accompanied
by a rise in the cross-border mobility of organisation-related staff, which
has become an important and critical mechanism for coordinating and
communicating among cross-border organisational units (Harzing,
1999). Expatriates are essential to these processes and represent certain
values and norms important for the organisation, thus potentially
increasing its reputation and legitimation (Caligiuri, 1997; Aldrich and
Herker, 1977). High failure rates of foreign assignments are reported in
the literature.1 Diversification of mobility forms is described as a chance
to overcome the limitations of the traditional (ethnocentric) long-term
mobility of staff (such as expatriates). In addition to the traditional use
of parent-country nationals (PCNs) who move from the headquarters
overseas, organisations draw on different global staffing strategies, such
as increasing the share of local specialists – the so-called inpatriates –
who move from foreign subsidiaries to a company’s country of origin;
contracting staff as assignees from other countries as local employees;
1
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
2
Cross-Border Staff Mobility
and employing third-country nationals (TCNs) who move between two
foreign subsidiaries. Each of these strategies appears to have specific
advantages and disadvantages, as well as particular implications for
the coordination and legitimation of organisations (Collings et al.,
2007) (see Section 1.2).
1.1
Why cross-border mobility is important?
This book focuses on the intra-organisational flows of people across
borders and their role in coordinating organisations transnationally.
The constantly rising rates of foreign direct investment (FDI) are an indicator of the demand for overseas managers and internationally mobile
employees in for-profit organisations (FPOs). Since 1990, FDI has sextupled, and many reports, such as the Brookfield Global Relocation Trends
Surveys (2011, 2012, 2013), emphasise the steady growth in the number
of expatriates and the importance of staff mobility within companies
in general. In 2012 and 2013, more than half of the selected FPOs
indicated that their cross-border mobile staff had increased and will
be increasing further.2 Similarly, the number of internationally active
non-profit organisations (NPOs) has grown in recent years. According to
the Yearbook of International Organizations, 176 internationally active
NPOs were registered in 1909; by 2011, this number had increased to
56,834.3 The internationalisation of FPOs and NPOs not only involved
movements from the North to the South, but also took place in the
emerging markets and countries of the South in general. The growing
importance of the South in global markets is reflected in the changing
composition of the global outflows of FDI. FDI outflows from emerging
and developing countries increased from 9 per cent in 2000 (UNCTAD,
2001) to a record 31 per cent of the world total in 2012. Of the top 20
investor economies, Mexico ranks number 15. Also in 2012 – for the first
time ever – developing economies absorbed more FDI than developed
countries (accounting for 52 per cent of global FDI flows). Despite the
global downturn, transnational corporations (TNCs) from developing
countries continued their expansion abroad (UNCTAD, 2013). The
proportion of multinationals in developing and transition economies
compared to developed countries rose from 8 per cent in 1992 to 28 per
cent in 2010. This means that in 2008, 28 per cent of all MNCs were
rooted in a developing economy (UNCTAD, 2010). In 1990, companies
in the South made up only 4 per cent of the Fortune Global 500 ranking
of the world’s biggest corporations; in 2011, their share was 22 per cent.
Today, one in four TNCs is based in the South (UNDP, 2013).
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Cross-Border Mobility
3
In the case of FPOs, the movement from the North to the South was
motivated mainly by wage differentials and by strategies for access to
direct markets and raw materials (Mortimore, 2006), but expanding
the organisational activities into emerging markets is particularly challenging with regard to quality standards and the availability of welltrained experts and employees, as well as to the cultural differences
that face the mobile staff (Brookfield, 2012). The number of NPOs or
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the South increased. This
occurred, for instance, in areas such as education and capacity building
when official donor agencies (international organisations, governments of the North) provided direct funding to local organisations or
civil society movements in the South (Kajimbwa, 2006; Ulleberg, 2009).
This might challenge the established dominance of northern NGOs
(Reddy, 2006) and might also further increase South–South cooperation (Chisholm and Steiner-Khamsi, 2009), owing mainly to changes in
foreign aid opportunities.
Although long-distance information and communication technologies have been revolutionised in recent decades – for example, emailing
did not exist until the 1990s – cross-border staff mobility still appears to
be an important mode of coordinating internationally active organisations. On the basis of a number of surveys, interviews and data analyses,
a consultant report concluded that
in the wake of a foreseeable upturn, the winners and losers of the
next decade will be defined by those who are able to attract, retain,
and deploy their key talent globally. The sentiments outlined above
are well aligned with the key findings of this report: Our data reveals
[sic] that assignee levels have increased by 25% over the last decade;
we predict a further 50% growth in assignments by 2020. (PWC,
2010: 4)
But why is staff mobility so important? Will it actually increase
in volume and significance, despite the corresponding high costs
and the ever-improving real-time and high-resolution display techniques of telecommunication? These crucial questions are not easily
answered. Technological advancements led to the hypothesis – and
the dream – of increasing virtualisation of long-distance activities;
because the physical cross-border mobility of personnel is both timeconsuming and highly expensive and limits the number of people in
other places, the idea of improving long-distance communication and
cooperation by expanding the extent of telephoning, emailing and
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
4
Cross-Border Staff Mobility
video-conferencing would seem to be attractive. Are organisations
actually replacing global staffing by virtualisation? Is cross-border
mobility considered necessary mainly because it allows for better technical and/or financial control, or the more effective transfer of culture
and norms or of knowledge and experience? Which kinds of persons
(functional experts, middle management, directors/top management)
are sent from which functional areas (Research and Development
[R&D], Engineering, Purchasing, Production, Quality Management,
Marketing/Sales, Customer Relations, Public Relations) and for what
period of time (business trips up to three months, short-term assignments up to one or two years, longer-term assignments)? In addition,
in internationally active organisations, from what locale to what
locale do the most frequent and prominent streams of staff mobility
occur? Are the corresponding patterns of cross-border staff mobility
(according to functional group, education and status position, time
period, geographic direction) changing over time (and if so, why),
and what will be the most important patterns of staff mobility in the
future? To what extent do the host country and the home country
influence these mobility patterns? What are the characteristics of the
German–Mexican mobility patterns?
All such questions are crucial not only for multinational companies (MNCs) such as FPOs, but also for NPOs (which, by the way, are
a neglected topic in the research on staff mobility and expatriates),
as well as for those personnel who are affected and for communities and societies in general. There are many reasons to suggest that
the success and sustainability of internationally active organisations
greatly depend on these organisations’ ability to develop strategies and
means of cross-border staff mobility that are actually adapted to their
corresponding – and diverging – goals and environments (see, e.g.,
Festing et al., 2011; Gong, 2003; Chang et al., 2011). In an increasingly
knowledge-based world, organisations must not only develop strategic
competences but also be able to circulate and adapt their knowledge
and norms throughout the world (see, e.g., Chang et al., 2011). But the
patterns of cross-border staff mobility not only affect organisations as
collective or corporate actors, but also define the living conditions and
life chances of hundreds of thousands of mobile persons and families.
For internationally mobile staff, certain conditions can make a crucial
difference: whether the labour contract follows home or host conditions, whether family members can accompany the expert or expatriate or are even offered a dual-career opportunity, how conditions for
returning are defined and whether there is a body that will represent
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Cross-Border Mobility
5
their collective interests and be responsible for and engage with them.
Finally, due to the weight and possible influence of internationally
active organisations, local communities and even national societies
are affected by the cross-border mobility strategies of large organisations. Localisation strategies, for example, may enrich local knowledge
pools and induce the dynamics of regional development, whereas
organisational strategies that concentrate knowledge and power in
one place (i.e., the headquarters) may oblige local subsidiaries in other
countries to be dependent on a unidirectional staff rotation from the
headquarters.
In summary, cross-border staff mobility may not be as conspicuous
as the construction of a new plant abroad nor as tangible as launching
a new product in a certain subsidiary of a given organisation, yet the
specific patterns of staff mobility might be the most significant factor
for the success of the organisation itself, for the working conditions
and opportunities of employees and for the local and regional environment. Therefore, some additional questions arise: What factors have the
greatest influence on the patterns of cross-border staff mobility? Is it
mainly the type of organisation in the sense of FPO versus NPO that
marks the difference in these patterns, the configuration of an organisation or the sector of activities? What influence does the country of
origin have on the organisations and their embeddedness in different
institutional settings?
This book attempts to address all these questions, even though not all
of them can be answered in an exhaustive way that would be representative of all countries, all types of organisations or all sectors. The chapters
that follow summarise empirical findings from case studies of internationally active organisations, in both the for-profit and non-profit
sectors, with staff mobility between Germany and Mexico. The research
relied on a theoretical framework that focused on cross-border mobility
patterns and explained the factors involved in these patterns, characterised as theory-guided explorative research. This approach claims
to be innovative in at least four respects. First, it integrates conceptual perspectives of both business studies and organisational research,
mainly the sociology of organisations. Second, it combines the analysis
and comparative study of FPOs and NPOs. Third, by considering organisations headquartered in Germany and in Mexico, it goes beyond the
traditional scope of analysing organisations headquartered solely in
highly industrialised countries (e.g., Thite et al., 2012). Finally, the study
was carried out by an international and interdisciplinary research team
composed of sociologists and experts from the fields of business studies,
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
6
Cross-Border Staff Mobility
economics, geography, political science and comparative educational
research from both Germany and Mexico.
1.2
What do we know about transnational staff mobility?
During the past two–three decades, globalisation studies have focused on
such things as global value chains and the mobility of capital and goods,
of ideas and culture and of information and communication channels.
However, the crucial topic of global mobility of persons has received less
attention in globalisation studies and (organisational) sociology (see,
e.g., Mense-Petermann, 2009).
Research on the mobility of personnel has been conducted mainly in
the disciplines of international human resource management (IHRM),
cross-cultural management studies and cross-cultural psychology.4
Consequently, most studies are organised around the human resource
management (HRM) process for expatriate managers in MNCs, such
as identification, selection, training and development, compensation, performance appraisal, retention, turnover, succession planning
and repatriation (Harvey and Moeller, 2009). Within the cross-border
context of MNCs, all these HRM processes display an additional degree
of complexity. For example, compensation and equity issues can no
longer be analysed only from a local perspective, since fair compensation in a local context due to wage differentials turns out to be unfair
or difficult in a multinational context (e.g., Bonache, 2006). The main
interest of studies has been to identify variables or factors that predict
and explain expatriate success or failure in FPOs (Harvey and Moeller,
2009), and the focus has been on either the individual level (expatriates) or the organisational level. Fewer studies have concentrated on
certain aspects of the organisational environment, but in such cases the
researchers have analysed mainly culture as it affects certain aspects of
staff mobility, such as the efficiency of foreign assignments (see, e.g.,
Claus et al., 2011). In contrast, other aspects of the organisational environment, such as social institutions or the inter-individual level and
staff mobility in NPOs, are studied less frequently. The following is a
brief overview of the studies that have been conducted at the individual
level and the organisational level, respectively.
1.2.1
Research at the individual level
At the individual level, studies are mainly embedded in quantitative
psychological research and theoretical models, focusing, for example,
on the following factors: (1) Motives for accepting a foreign assignment
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Cross-Border Mobility
7
(e.g., Dickmann et al., 2008; Froese, 2012; Hippler, 2009; Haines et al.,
2008; Dickmann et al., 2011), such as employer initiative, sense of duty,
rewards of previous international work experience, general dissatisfaction with working in the parent company, poor employment situation,
broadening one’s horizon and personal(ity) development or interest in
foreign country and internationalism; (2) Job and salary satisfaction
(see, e.g., Bonache, 2005; Bonache et al., 2009; Bhuian et al., 1996;
Downes et al., 2002; Shaffer et al., 2013; Suutari and Tornikoski, 2001;
Chen et al., 2011; Lyons, 1971; Naumann, 1993); (3) Payment practices (see, e.g., Bonache, 2006; Bonache and Fernandez, 1997; Rahim,
2012); (4) Individual antecedents and outcomes of cross-cultural
adjustment (see, e.g., Malek and Budhwar, 2013; Haslberger et al.,
2013; Hemmasi and Downes, 2013; for an overview, see Maletzky,
2010; Festing and Maletzky, 2011; Takeuchi and Chen, 2013; Dunbar,
1992); (5) Antecedents for successful assignments (comprising the Big
Five personality traits,5 technical competence, cultural adaptability,
previous cultural adjustments and former extensive foreign travel), as
compared with the early return home of assignees due, for example,
to family issues, an unwillingness to be relocated, dual-career issues, a
lack of commitment to the assignment, a lack of language capabilities
or inadequate support (for the employee or the family) (Harvey and
Moeller, 2009); (6) Influences of foreign assignments on the individual,
such as cognitive complexity (see, e.g., Fee et al., 2013), psychological
stress (see, e.g., Black, 1990), career advancement (see, e.g., Kraimer
et al., 2009) or trailing spouse and family issues (see, e.g., Brookfield,
2012; Gupta et al., 2012; McNulty, 2012; Rosenbusch and Cseh, 2012;
Vanderbroeck, 1992; Harvey, 1998).
The studies have focused on different types of expatriates, such as
expatriates of different nationalities (see, e.g., Wang et al., 2013;
Shimoda, 2013), gender-specific aspects of expatriates (see, e.g., Adler,
1984b, 1984c, 1987, 2002; Altman and Shortland, 2008; Berthoin and
Izraeli, 1993; Caligiuri and Lazarova, 2002; Izraeli et al., 1980), self-initiated expatriates (for an extensive review, see Doherty, 2013), flexpatriates (see, e.g., Mayrhofer et al., 2004a, 2004b, 2010) and repatriates
(Allen and Alvarez, 1998; Bonache, 2005; for an extensive review, see
Szkudlarek, 2010; see also Pattie, 2010). Self-initiated expatriates, for
example, supposedly have slightly different characteristics, such as a
higher degree of motivation than other types of expatriates (see, e.g.,
Pinto et al., 2012), greater effectivity regarding cross-cultural adjustment
(see, e.g., Peltokorpi and Froese, 2009) and a different accumulation of
career capital (see, e.g., Jokinen et al., 2008).
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
8
Cross-Border Staff Mobility
1.2.2
Research at the organisational level
At the organisational level, the research has often focused on success
factors (for a review, see Harvey and Moeller, 2009) such as the
following:
●
●
The relation between personnel selection and preparation with
respect to the success of foreign assignments (see, e.g., Minter, 2012;
Jordan and Cartwright, 1998; Hays, 1974).
The influence of HRM practices and strategies on expatriation at the
organisational level, such as global performance and talent management of expatriates (see, e.g., Fenwick et al., 1999; Vance et al., 2013) or
assignment policies and compensation strategies (see, e.g., Rahim,
2012; Bonache, 2006; Bonache and Fernandez, 1997); the relationship between international staffing and the coordination of foreign
subsidiaries (see, e.g., Dutta and Beamish, 2013; Riaz et al., 2014;
Colakoglu, 2009), such as challenges and characteristics of knowledge management via expatriates (see, e.g., Choi and Johanson, 2012;
Shimoda, 2013; Chang et al., 2012; Riusala and Suutari, 2004) or the
boundary-spanning abilities of the mobile staff (see, e.g., Reiche and
Harzing, 2011; Au and Fukuda, 2002; Wagner, 2006; Johnson and
Duxbury, 2010; Ancona and Caldwell, 1992).
At the margin of the micro- and mesolevels of organisations, international or global careers are discussed (for a review, see Shaffer et al.,
2012) in a broader societal sense of boundary-less careers (Arthur and
Rousseau, 1996; Stahl et al., 2002; Banai and Harry, 2004; Stahl and
Cerdin, 2004). Even though the myth of career advancement through
expatriation exists in many companies, the positive influence of working
for a certain time abroad on career advancement is questionable and not
confirmed (Stahl et al., 2000, 2002; Stahl and Cerdin, 2004; Minssen,
2009). However, some authors emphasise the possibility of accumulating career capital (Dickmann and Harris, 2005, 2008; Dickmann and
Doherty, 2009), which in the long run may be helpful.
1.2.3 Studies focusing on the environment of MNCs and crossborder mobility
The organisational environment plays a crucial role in organisational
sociology. Understanding organisations as open systems (Scott, 1995) from
a neo-institutional perspective, the environment is an important factor
influencing the organisational practices and strategies, effects and challenges of staff mobility. Several ‘environmental’ factors responsible for
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Cross-Border Mobility
9
expatriate failure have been identified: relocation to emerging markets,
environmental hostility (climate, health care) and cultural taboos
(women, minorities). Success factors include relocation to countries with
a similar economy/culture, few state restrictions, similarity of languages
and of social institutions (Harvey and Moeller, 2009).
Many studies operationalise the environment by the construct of a
(national) culture, which itself is then measured by variables such as
nationality (see, e.g., Manev and Stevenson, 2001; Wang and Kanungo,
2004; Elamin, 2011). Culture is thus conceptualised as a stable and
substantial characteristic in the sense that ‘countries have culture’.
Although this has been criticised as a substantialist or essentialist
approach, it still is quite influential.6 Many comparative and crosscultural management studies follow in the footsteps of Hofstede (1980),
measuring the influences of a limited number of cultural dimensions
(power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity–femininity, collectivism–individualism, time orientation) on organisational and HRM
practices (see, e.g., Ellis, 2012; Reddy, 2011), such as subsidiary characteristics and expatriate staffing strategies (see, e.g., Peng and Meyer,
2011), as well as the behaviour and preferences of the organisations’
members (see, e.g., Delle and Mensah, 2013; Warneke and Schneider,
2011).7 On the basis of the Hofstede study,8 a cultural distance index
was developed,9 which is often used as a predictor for different aspects,
such as cross-cultural adjustment of expatriates (see, e.g., Hemmasi and
Downes, 2013; Jenkins and Mockaitis, 2010; Selmer and Fenner, 2009),
expatriates’ effectiveness (see, e.g., Chen et al., 2011) or expatriate job
satisfaction (see, e.g., Froese and Peltokorpi, 2011).10
There is no doubt that organisations are influenced by the institutional settings in which they are embedded. If organisations operate in
more than one national setting, they are challenged by different institutional environments and seek adaptation and legitimation according to
different institutional frameworks (Cooke and Lin, 2012; Tempel et al.,
2007; Gooderham et al., 1999; Delmestri, 2006). Studies focus mainly
on the question of differences between institutional settings and the
possibility of transferring certain organisational practices to subsidiaries,
such as industrial models (Dörrenbächer, 2002), internationalisation
strategies (Armagan and Ferreira, 2005), production or manufacturing
systems (Geppert and Matten, 2006; Maurice, 1980; Pries, 2003; for a
review of national business systems research, see Morgan, 2007) and the
subsidiaries’ reactions to differences in business systems and organisational practices (Morgan and Kristensen, 2006; Reay and Hinings, 2009;
Tempel et al., 2007).
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
10 Cross-Border Staff Mobility
In contrast to culture, the influence of the institutional environment on HRM strategies and practices and more specifically on assignment practices or global staffing has received only limited attention,
although an increase in the number of such studies has been observed
over the past few years. There is evidence that institutions also explain
HRM strategies and practices in terms of other macro-level influences,
such as culture, industrial sector and business environment (Budhwar
and Sparrow, 2002). Also, according to the societal effect approach of
Maurice (1980), societal effects or institutions – including the educational system, the labour market, industrial relations and social values –
influence HRM policies and the work organisation.
Studies that consider institutions focus on a particular set of HRM
practices, such as recruiting, training, promotion, compensation, the
structure of work (Chow, 2004; Kostova and Roth, 2008; Festing and
Sahakiants, 2011; Schröder et al., 2011; MacIntosh, 2013); employee
turnover (Croucher et al., 2012); transfer of HRM policies (Ferner et al.,
2005; Björkman et al., 2007; Ferner, 2007); home and host country
effects in MNC or HRM practices (Ferner, 2007; Khilji, 2002; Gooderham
et al., 2006; Noorderhaven and Harzing, 2003; Pudelko and Harzing,
2007); and the convergence, divergence or isomorphism of HRM practices (Wilkens and Pawlowsky, 1997; Ando, 2011; Paik et al., 2011).11
With regard to global staffing, Gaur et al. (2007) found that companies
rely more on PCNs in institutionally distant environments for reasons
related to the efficient transfer of management practices and companyspecific capabilities. At the same time, the success of expatriate staffing
depends on the institutional distance between the host and home
country as well as the subsidiary experience. These authors argue that
PCNs are more often contracted in order to fulfil control tasks, while host
country nationals (HCNs) often provide a higher degree of legitimacy.
In addition, the use of PCNs and HCNs is supposed to depend on the
functional units. The more specific knowledge about the host country is
required to perform well (as, e.g., in human resources or marketing), the
more MNCs rely on HCNs (Harzing, 2001a). Here, personnel management was found to be the most localised function in MNCs.
Recent studies that consider institutions are mainly of a quantitative nature and thus often do not provide sufficiently detailed information about the particular institutional environment and the reasons for
making certain decisions over others. Collings et al. (2009) emphasise the
necessity of conducting more qualitative research on staffing decisions.
Often institutions are not explicitly operationalised, and studies refer just
to different home and host countries without specifying their nature.
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Cross-Border Mobility
1.2.4
11
Patterns of staff mobility/global staffing
Our study aims to explain the particular patterns of staff mobility within
organisations headquartered either in Germany or in Mexico. The literature on global staffing describes different patterns of staffing and staffing
strategies at foreign subsidiaries. The choice of a variety of staffing possibilities has implications for organisational development, control or
coordination between a subsidiary and its parent, knowledge management and the attainment of local legitimacy (Harvey et al., 2011). In
previous studies, staff mobility has usually been classified according to
its duration, direction, purposes and functions and to the functional
and hierarchical groups involved.
Staff mobility refers to different types of mobile staff, all having particular advantages and disadvantages for cross-border coordination (Reiche
and Harzing, 2011). One group consists of the PCNs who are sent to
the foreign subsidiary from the country in which the organisation’s
headquarters are located. In contrast, HCNs are local employees who
fulfil the tasks at the subsidiary or who work with TCNs working in a
country different from that of their citizenship and the MNC’s country
of origin. Persons sent from a subsidiary to the country in which the
headquarters are located are called ‘inpatriates’. Mäkela et al. (2009) also
distinguish between local-internal, local-external, global-internal and
global-external staffing, meaning that HCNs and TCNs may be externally hired too and that staff mobility or staffing may not necessarily
involve persons already working for the company.
When TCNs, HCNs or PCNs are sent abroad, each type of assignment
has advantages as well as disadvantages. The advantages of employing
PCNs are their familiarity with the home offices’ practices, goals and
aims, which makes communication easier. They often display a particular technical knowledge that is supposed to be transferred to foreign
subsidiaries. Disadvantages are related to the challenges of relocating
to a foreign culture and the high costs of relocation. HCNs, by contrast,
are familiar with the environment of the foreign subsidiary and may
respond effectively to the host country’s demand and transfer market
knowledge to the headquarters. In addition, they usually receive a lower
wage. The local-external employees may serve as sources of new information (Mäkela et al., 2009). The disadvantages are the HCNs’ lack of familiarity with the home offices’ practices and the organisations’ difficulties
in exercising control over the operations abroad. TCNs are seen as a
compromise between the other two types of mobile staff; however, they
also could combine the disadvantages of both. (For a detailed discussion
of these advantages and disadvantages, see Reiche and Harzing, 2011:
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
12
Cross-Border Staff Mobility
189ff.) According to Mäkela et al. (2009), the global-external archetype,
meaning externally hired TCNs, is supposed to have limited advantages
in terms of human and social capital.
The general objectives of foreign assignments are manifold. Expatriates
in foreign subsidiaries often serve to control production and other
processes or to function as boundary spanners that ensure the flow of
information (Edström and Galbraith, 1977) or reduce the informational
asymmetry between headquarters and the subsidiary (Egelhoff, 1984).
Hocking et al. (2004) developed the Edström and Galbraith model and
described three broader purposes: business application, organisation
application and expatriate learning. Business application of expatriates
means the use of managerial and professional know-how and training,
technological innovation transfer and promotion of a corporate
image abroad. Organisation application comprises coordination and
networking, cultural transfer or socialisation, policy transfer, control
and the transfer of best-practice systems. Expatriate learning goes along
with gaining international business and professional experience, as well
as acquiring a global company perspective (see also Dowling et al., 2008;
Harzing, 1999; Egelhoff, 1984). Harzing (2001a) classifies expatriates in
a similar manner by referring to three different roles they may assume:
the control-oriented ‘bears’, the information-gathering and -distributing
‘bumblebees’ and the networking ‘spiders’.
Staff mobility and its objectives vary across functional groups, hierarchical levels and configurations of organisations (Harzing, 1999; Heenan
and Perlmutter, 1979). Regarding the latter aspect, the classic work of
Heenan and Perlmutter (1979) distinguishes between ethnocentric,
polycentric, regiocentric and geocentric organisations. These organisations vary according to the degree of complexity, (de-)centralisation of
decision making, control, rewarding and incentivising, as well as the
direction of information flow, geographic identification and perpetuation (18f.). In ethnocentric organisations, all these aspects are somewhat
headquarters-focused. A complex headquarters structure goes along
with a less complex subsidiary structure. Decisions are made and control
is exercised by the headquarters staff. Home standards are applied everywhere, rewards are higher in headquarters than in subsidiaries and the
nationality of the owner is a source of identification. People of the home
country are sent to key positions at foreign locations. In contrast, polycentric organisations develop HCNs for key positions. A rather decentralised company structure with decentralised control and decision-making
processes prevails, and there is identification with the nationality of the
host country. Regiocentric organisations fill key positions at a regional
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Cross-Border Mobility
13
level, decisions are made and control is exercised regionally, there is
regional identification and personnel is transferred within the regions.
Geocentric organisations provide a network structure, the subsidiaries
are interdependent and personnel is transferred according to the ‘best
people everywhere in the world are developed for key positions everywhere in the world’ logic (18f.).
Centralised organisations tend to send more PCNs abroad to fill higher-level management roles and roles requiring technical proficiency,
the main objectives being control and socialisation (Perlmutter, 1969).
Decentralised organisations tend to send the most qualified experts
abroad (TCNs), while technicians are often sent for short periods of time
to transfer knowledge and to troubleshoot, and sales personnel are sent
for short periods, while employees in mid- to higher-level management
roles are sent abroad mainly for long-term postings.
The global staffing strategy is important for an MNC’s global competitiveness. Research on global staffing has focused mainly on the question
of when MNCs use expatriates versus inpatriates and TCNs (Boyacigiller,
1990; Downes, 1996; Erdener and Torbiörn, 1999; Harzing, 1999, 2001b;
Delios and Björkman, 2000). Studies have documented that the direction
and volume of personnel mobility depend on a variety of aspects: the
configuration of the organisation (Perlmutter, 1969) or host and home
country characteristics (Gaur et al., 2008; Tung, 1982; Boyacigiller, 1990;
Welch, 1994; Richards, 2001; Kessapidou and Varsakelis, 2003; Thompson
and Keating, 2004; Tarique et al., 2006; Colakoglu and Caligiuri, 2008);
MNC characteristics, such as the number of headquarters and number
of subsidiaries; structural and human resource systems factors; business strategy; industry-related aspects; the investment environment;
country of origin and other environmental aspects, such as cultural
or institutional distance, government bargaining power and governmental influences (Sekiguchi and Yamao, 2011; Collings et al., 2010;
Thompson and Keating, 2004; Delios and Björkman, 2000; Gaur et al.,
2007, 2008; Downes, 1996; Colakoglu and Caligiuri, 2008; Boyacigiller,
1990; Harzing, 1999, 2001b; Kessapidou and Varsakelis, 2003); and the
legitimacy of the corporation (see, e.g., Belderbos and Heijltjes, 2005;
Scullion and Collings, 2006; Gaur et al., 2007).
Most of our research has focused on the use of PCNs, with less attention paid to TCNs and inpatriates (Collings et al., 2010). Harzing (2001b)
found that on average the highest percentage of PCNs can be found
in Latin America, Africa and the Far and Middle East, while expatriate
staffing is much less common in Canada and Western Europe. Regarding
PCN staffing practices, mainly certain groups, such as PCNs in upper-
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
14
Cross-Border Staff Mobility
management positions, have been analysed (see, e.g., Sekiguchi et al.,
2010; Harzing, 2001b). In that context, some studies have provided
evidence that the preference to employ PCNs in directors’ positions
is influenced by the company’s country of origin. According to Harzing
(2001b), Japanese firms rely strongly on expatriates, whereas European
firms increasingly tend to localise. In addition, the results show significant differences between MNCs headquartered in different European
countries. The effects of the country of origin are also observed with
regard to the reasons for sending expatriates abroad. For US and UK
companies in Latin American and Far Eastern regions, position filling
was the most important reason; in contrast, management development
was the most important reason for German, Dutch and Swiss MNCs
and tended to occur more often in Anglo-Saxon countries than in the
Far Eastern region. Staff transfers for coordination and control purposes
appeared to be the most important reason for subsidiaries of German
and Japanese MNCs and in host countries that are culturally distant
from their headquarters (Harzing, 2001b). In their study on foreign MNC
affiliates based in Japan (involving a sample of 3,241 foreign companies), Bebenroth et al. (2008) found that companies from Asian countries were most likely to send PCNs as top managers or board members
to Japan and that companies from English-speaking countries were the
least likely to do so, with companies from European countries somewhere in between.
In addition to these influences, the following are mentioned (for a
broad variety of countries, see Harzing, 2001b; for MNCs in Japan, see
Bruning et al., 2011; for an overview, see Collings and Scullion, 2006):
age of the subsidiary, maturity of the host company’s operations, strategic orientations and the MNC’s country of origin with a high level of
uncertainty avoidance; in large MNCs, a high level of cultural distance
between the home and host countries, a high level of political risk and a
low level of education in the host country; subsidiaries that are majorityowned; and certain industries, such as financial services, printing and
publishing, telecommunications equipment and the paper industry.
Bebenroth et al. (2008) also pointed out the effects of ownership ratio
and uncertainty avoidance on sending PCNs abroad to fill top management and board positions for MNCs in Japan. In addition, power distance
and affiliate size are related to larger numbers of PCNs. The preference for
HCNs as managing directors is influenced by several factors: company
and subsidiary characteristics, host country characteristics, type of
industry (advertising and business and management services, computers
and office equipment, electronic and electric equipment and the food
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Cross-Border Mobility
15
industry), a higher cost of living in the host country compared with the
home country, a large reporting distance from headquarters and ad hoc
decisions. These effects are not independent, however; they are related
to the reasons why PCNs or HCNs are employed. Table 1.1 gives an
Table 1.1 Reasons for employing PCNs or HCNs as top managers in foreign
subsidiaries under different circumstances
Reasons for employing PCNs
More relevant/important when
• Transfer of technical or managerial
knowledge, training of subsidiary
managers, lack of qualified local
personnel (Position filling)
• Gain international experience,
develop global awareness
(Management Development)
• Control and coordination
of subsidiary operations
(Organisational Development)
• Improvement of communication
channels between headquarters
and subsidiary (Organisational
Development)
• Level of education in host country
is low
• MNC’s R&D intensity is high
• Subsidiary is young
• Subsidiary is a greenfield
establishment
• MNC is more internationalised
• MNC is large
• Uncertainty avoidance in home
country is high
• Level of cultural distance between
home country and host country is
high
• Level of political risk in host country
is high
• Subsidiary is large
• Subsidiary is majority-owned
• Subsidiary is higher in corporate
reporting chain
• Subsidiary is young
• Subsidiary is underperforming
• Level of cultural distance between
home country and host country is
high
• Level of political risk in host country
is high
• Subsidiary is young
Reasons for employing HCNs
More relevant/important when
• Familiarity with local market and
business practices
• High cost of employing expatriates
• Adjustment problems for expatriate
managers
• Local knowledge is important for the
manager’s specific function
• Cost of living in host country is
higher than in home country
• Level of cultural distance between
home country and host country is
high
Source: Harzing (2001b: 142).
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
16
Cross-Border Staff Mobility
overview of the reasons for employing PCNs or HCNs as top managers
in foreign subsidiaries under different circumstances according to the
large-scale study by Harzing (2001b).
Some critical perspectives question purely rational staffing decisions.
Banai (1992) suggests that the use of PCNs is a self-fulfilling prophecy
by which headquarters officials believe that PCNs have certain desired
qualities that are not available in the host country, and this attitude is
reflected in an ethnocentric staffing policy, the appointment of PCNs
to key positions in the subsidiaries and preferential treatment of PCNs
by the headquarters. At the same time, the implementation of this type
of policy is assumed to have an impact on the HCNs and the PCNs
and may have negative consequences for the relationship between both
these groups of nationals. This result is then perceived at the headquarters as proof of their initial assumptions and reinforces their ethnocentric staffing strategy. Similarly, Ando (2011) suggests that this approach
to global staffing is an example of isomorphism: MNCs do not actually
calculate the rational aspects of staff mobility, but instead follow what
they observe to be the common practice of other organisations in their
field of activity.
Research on global staffing is carried out mainly in large-scale studies
that include a wide variety of countries of origin and host countries.
Consequently, only in few cases is it possible to draw conclusions at
the single-country level. Companies headquartered in the United States
(Colakoglu and Caligiuri, 2008; Tung, 1982; Adler and Ghadar, 1990;
Richards, 2001; Harzing; 2001b; Tarique and Schuler, 2008; Prowse,
1994; Yousseff, 1973; Kobrin, 1988) and in Japan (Delios and Björkman,
2000; Tung, 1982; Gaur et al., 2007; Harzing, 2001b; Prowse, 1994; Paik
and Sohn, 2004; Collings et al., 2008; Colakoglu and Caligiuri, 2008;
Ando, 2011) represent the majority of all the countries studied so far.
Other headquarter countries are rare (for Australia, see, e.g., Tharenou
and Harvey, 2006; for China, see, e.g., Shen, 2006; for Iran, see Noruzi
and Westover, 2010; and for Europe, see Mitrev and Culpepper, 2012;
Tung, 1982; Torbiörn, 2005; Mayrhofer and Brewster, 1996; Harzing,
2001b; Thompson and Keating, 2004; Collings et al., 2008; Richards,
2001; Kessapidou and Varsakelis, 2003). According to Harzing (2001b),
when Europe is the site of a company’s headquarters, it is often treated
as a homogeneous region.
Global staffing is studied less in German companies than in companies with other countries of origin (for exceptions, see Harzing, 2001b;
Prowse, 1994; Welge, 1980; Pudelko and Tenzer, 2013; for German
companies in Japan, see Bebenroth and Pascha, 2011; Bruning et al.,
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Index
Note: Numbers in bold indicate main pages (for the respective topic)
accounting, see finance
Asia, 14, 16f, 21, 43ff, 71, 142, 234
assignees/assignments, types, see
expatriate; HCN; inpatriate; PCN;
rotational assignment; TCN
automotive companies, see car
companies
Bayer, 82ff, 121ff, 130, 241, 251
BINGO, 134, 141, 218, 252
BMBF, 183f
BMI, 160, 165
BMWi, 175ff, 226
BMZ, 136, 140, 142, 147, 149, 152,
159f, 165, 184f, 208f, 211, 222, 252
Bosch, 56ff, 71f, 80ff, 241, 244
business trips, 161, 182, 213, 233, 238,
241, 246
CAMEXA, 34f, 136, 162, 174ff, 181f,
214ff, 220f, 243
capital goods industry, see investment
goods industry
car companies, 43ff, 70ff, 80ff, 124f,
250
car industry, see car companies
case study, 33, 35ff, 39
CEMEX, 97ff, 121ff, 235, 237, 252
centre-periphery, 136ff, 235, 237, 240,
242f, 248ff
chemical industry, 82ff, 125
CIDEC, 72ff, 77, 79
coding, 39
compadrazgo system, 29
comparative study/design, 9, 32f
Condumex, 72ff, 121ff, 241, 244
configuration, cross-border, see
configuration, organisational
configuration, international, see
configuration, organisational
configuration, organisational, 12f,
30f, 221ff, 242ff
consultant, 3, 109, 111, 186, 197
contract, expatriate, 123ff, 160f, 214,
223f, 231, 236, 255, see also global
assignment policy
coordination, 19f, 30f, 222f, 242f,
245f
corporate culture, 31, 49, 59f, 101,
107f, 114, 121, 126, 189, 197
crisis, 32, 42, 127f, 164, 223, 245f, see
also resource restriction
data (collection), 35ff, 38f
decentralisation, 31f, 124, 127, 221, 242f
development cooperation, 184ff, 212ff
DIHK, 175ff
diplomacy, 24, 139, 218, 224, 233
DVV International, 138f, 184, 207ff,
212f, 232, 250, 252
educational system, 10, 25, 186, 191,
207, 234, 248
Mexico, 185f, 212
elites, 143, 149, 219f
emerging market(s), 2f, 9, 64, 115
environment, organisational, see
institutional setting
ethnocentric organisation, 12
ethnocentric staffing, 16, 69, 88f, 93,
160, 166,173, 216
Europe, 14, 16, 21, 44, 247
Evonik, 90ff, 130f, 234, 237, 242
expatriate, 1, 6f, 19, 42, 45f, 123,
230f, 236f, 239f, 241, 244, 255
expert interview, 35f
explanandum, 23
explanantia, 23
export, 33f, 46, 48, 103, 167ff
educational, 183f, 212, 219
face-to-face, 123, 128, 223, 245f
Facharbeiter, 28, 89, 237, 239
FES, 141ff, 145ff, 159ff
287
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
288
Index
FNS, 141ff, 151ff, 159ff
focal organisation/company, 31, 164,
171, 222f, 242
Foreign Direct Investment, 2, 34, 89
for-profit organisation, 2ff, 19, 28,
37f, 42ff, 229ff, 236ff, 241ff, 254
frequent flyer, 64, 93, 110, 118, 237
functional group, 12, 51, 54, 78, 101,
113, 180
geocentric organisations, 12, 13
German Academic Exchange Service
(DAAD), 138f, 182, 184, 202ff,
212ff, 232
German embassy, 145, 162, 180, 183,
217
German foreign cultural and
educational policy, 182, 197, 205,
213, 218f
German Foreign Office/Auswärtiges
Amt (AA), 142, 160, 183, 186f,
190, 193ff, 200, 202ff, 213
German Schools Abroad, 138f, 182ff,
186ff, 212ff, 232, 239
Germany, 17, 28f, 33ff, 44, 81, 120,
125ff, 136f, 239f, 251ff
GIZ, 232
global assignment (department), 56,
247, 254f
global assignment policy, 16, 50f, 60,
69, 79, 85, 92, 95, 99, 118, 123,
209, 218, 231f, 247
global organisation/company, 31f, 59,
85, 91, 96, 177, 222
global staffing, 1, 10, 11ff, 16f
globalisation, 1, 42, 141, 208, 230f, 244
GLOBE Study, 29, 251
Goethe Institute, 138f, 184, 193ff,
212ff, 232, 239
HBS, 141ff, 152, 155ff, 160ff
Hella, 63ff, 71f, 80f, 126, 128, 233f,
242, 244, 251
hierarchy/hierarchical position, 12,
22, 35, 38, 51, 54, 70, 78, 86, 101,
113, 124, 180, 242, 244, 249, 251
higher education, 182ff, 186, 203,
219, 224
higher management, 53, 55, 60, 76,
100, 103, 119, 249
Host Country national (HCN), 10f,
12, 14ff, 213, 252
HSS (Hanns-Seidel Stiftung), 141, 143
human resource (department), 52, 56,
123, 247, 254
human resource management, 6, 8ff,
10, 17f, 26f, 123, 134, 254f
import-substitution industrialisation
(ISI), 43, 45f, 168f
information technology/ICT, 95, 128,
223, see also virtualisation
INGO, 25, 38, 134, 138, 215
innovation, 12, 70, 73f, 91, 102, 104,
113, 120, 125, 220, 242
inpatriate, 1, 11, 53ff, 61ff, 67, 86, 93,
109, 124, 238, 241, 245, 249, 255
institutional differences, 28f, 70, 81,
88f, 95f, 125f, 180, 239ff, 248
institutional setting/factors, 8ff, 20ff,
22, 25f , 70, 98, 112, 125f, 252
institutionalism, 25f
institutions, social, see institutional
setting
international human resource
management, see human resource
management
international organisation, typology,
30ff
internationalisation, 2f, 44, 80, 82f,
121, 125ff, 167ff
interview techniques, see expert
interview
investment goods industry, 103ff, 124f
job market, 237, 247f, see also labour
market
KAS, 141ff, 148ff, 160ff
KMK, 186, 189f
knowledge transfer, 32, 124f, 230,
233ff, 238, 239ff, 241, 248f, 251,
255
Krones, 114ff, 120ff, 234, 241f
labour market, 27, 67, 81, 126, 213,
253f
labour regulation, 22, 25f, 254
labour-structuring institutions, 27ff,
see also institutional setting
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Index
local employee/staff, 18, 63, 96, 138,
144, 159, 161, 166, 181f, 194,
196, 204, 208f, 213, 241
localisation, 5, 63, 65, 81, 88, 124,
231
long-term assignments, 123, 160, 182,
213, 230, 237f, 241, 247
Malinchism, 235
management, intercultural, 6, 9,101,
see also training, intercultural
marketing, 10, 46, 51, 53
maturity (of processes/subsidiary), 63,
90, 96f, 210, 237ff
merger, 75, 98ff, 102, 125, 127, 230,
239
methodology, 32ff, see also case study;
comparative design;
expert interview; triangulation
Mexico, 17, 28f, 34ff, 44f, 81,
125ff, 184ff, 212, 218ff, 239f,
251ff
middle management, 54, 60, 76, 89,
195, 251
mobile worker, see expatriate; HCN;
inpatriate; PCN; TCN
monitoring, 110, 116, 125, 128, 159,
188, 210f
motivation, 7, 18, 68, 111, 123
multi-directionality, 124, 232ff, 238,
242, 255
multinational organisation/company,
2ff, 6ff, 31f, 42ff, 121ff
NAFTA, 34, 38, 46, 53, 64, 94, 109
neo-Institutionalism, 25f
network hub, 50, 53, 86, 113, 242
network structure, 13, 30, 50, 84f, 94,
106, 181, 249
non-governmental organisation
(NGO), 2ff, 18f, 132ff, 183f,
214ff, 252
non-profit organisation (NPO), 2ff,
17ff, 29f, 34f, 37f, 132ff, 214ff,
229ff, 241, 243, 247ff
normalisation, 85, 232, 238, 246f, 254
objectives of assignments, 12f, 14ff,
54, 78, 101, 113, 174, 180, 251
OECD, 34, 185, 220
289
organisations, types, see focal
organization; global organization;
multinational organization;
transnational organisation
parent country national (PCN), 1,
10f, 13f, 15f, 213, 215, 236,
238, 241, 243, 251, 253, see also
expatriate
PISA, 185, 220
political foundations, see FES; FNS;
HBS; HSS; KAS; RLS
polycentric organisations, 12
power centre, 49, 55, 86, 97, 242f,
249
power structure, 69, 90, 97, 121, 177,
248ff
problem-centred interviews, 37
production process, 28, 58, 71, 82, 89,
237, 240f, 251
production system, 43, 59, 71, 80
ProMéxico, 136, 141, 168ff, 181f,
214ff, 220ff
public regime, 27, 30, 89, 192, 202,
206, 211
quality management, 53f, 188ff, 198
QUANGO, 134, 139, 184, 215, 218,
223, 252
regiocentric organisations, 12f
regionalisation, 166, 195, 202, 209,
211, 238
research & development, 44, 130,
240
research design/methods/
methodology, 32ff, 136
resource distribution, 31f, 71, 81,
120f, 127, 221f, 242f
resource restriction, 32, 127f, 166,
214, 223, 245ff
RLS, 141, 152, 157ff
rotation/rotational assignment/ –
mobility, 79, 93, 161, 178, 196ff,
209, 211f, 213, 236ff, 244
sales (department), 13, 51, 72ff, 78,
92f, 96, 102, 118f
sample/sampling, 35, 37ff, 132, 136,
214
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398
290 Index
SAP, 104ff, 120ff, 127, 234, 242f
short-term assignments, 123f, 182,
223, 230, 239, 248
situational factors, 24f, 251
social networks (institution), 27, 29,
53, 96, 248
staff mobility, patterns, 4f, 11ff, 23ff,
230ff
in FPOs, 70ff, 80ff, 120f, 122ff,
in NPOs, 17ff, 24, 159f, 213f, 214ff
standardisation, 42, 70f, 105, 117,
124f, 232, 247, 255
supplier, 44ff , see also Bosch;
Condumex; Hella
think tank, 142f, 152f, 167, 250
third country national (TCN), 11ff,
124, 234f, 237ff, 241, 243, 247,
255
training, 15, 18f, 116, 163, 207, 233
intercultural, 68, 145, 172, 232
vocational, 27ff, 70, 96, 116, 126,
186, 219, 224, 248
transnational organisation/company,
31f, 48f, 58f, 71, 85, 105ff, 127,
177, 194f, 203, 208, 222, 242
transnationalisation, 232, 242, 248,
253f
triangulation, 35f
USA/United States, 16f, 21, 44ff
value chain, 31, 42, 43ff, 65, 80, 104,
124f
VENRO, 137f
virtualisation, 3f, 32, 81f, 127f, 167,
230ff, 241, 245ff
vocation, 89, 96, 180, 192f, see also
training, vocational
VW, 43ff, 47ff, 70ff, 80ff, 121ff, 234,
241ff
world polity, 25, 250
WTO, 46, 253
ZfA, 186ff
Copyrighted material – 9781137404398

Download Report