Introduction to the International Human Resource

Introduction to the
International Human Resource
Management Special Issue
G
iven the globalization of today’s
business activities, one may wonder what is the meaning of international
human resource management (IHRM)–
what is “international” about HRM?
With globalization, isn’t all HRM, by
definition, international? For over 30
years the question has been asked: To
what extent and in what ways are
MNCs and their managers becoming
truly “international”? In his classic
work, Perlmutter (1969) assessed the
degree to which MNCs could be considered to be global or geocentric by
examining their HR policies and practices along with other aspects of the
organization’s functions and activities.
In ethnocentric companies, HR policies
are designed at head office and
exported/transplanted worldwide. Expatriates and HR managers are likely to
be parent country nationals. In geocentric or global companies, strategic decisions, including those pertaining to HR,
are supposed to be made regardless of
geographic boundaries. In other words,
Susan Schneider, HEC, University of Geneva, 102
Blvd. Carl Vogt, CH 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
⬍[email protected]⬎.
Rosalie Tung, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby,
BC V5A 1S6 Canada ⬍tung.sfu.ca⬎
in a geocentric organization, HR policies should be developed with input
from around the world. In today’s discussion about globalization, the issue
remains alive and well: To what extent
is IHRM practice predominantly ethnocentric or “truly global”?
For over 20 years, much of the literature on IHRM has focused on the issue
of expatriation. Expatriates are sent out
around the world like corporate missionaries to provide technical and managerial expertise, to control operations,
and to further develop these managers
as well as their companies (Edstrom &
Galbraith, 1977; Doz & Prahalad,
1984). Problems of expatriation adjustment have also been the key concern
(Torbiorn, 1982; Tung, 1981, 1988;
Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985; Black et
al., 1992, Schneider & Asakawa, 1995).
Different success rates in various regions of the world led Tung (1982) to
consider differences in selection and
training practices. Now issues of repatriation have taken the foreground. Indeed, the traditional career paths pursued by expatriates have evolved over
time. In its place, the concept of boundaryless careers has emerged (Tung,
1998). Furthermore, with growing ethIntroduction
341
nic diversity in countries such as the
U.S., Canada and U.K., the differences
between cross-national and intranational diversity have become increasingly blurred (Tung, 1993). In light of
these developments, we need to further
our understanding of the changing context and nature of international assignments as well as the evolving roles of
expatriates.
Much management research, however, tends to remain ethnocentric.
Nancy Adler’s study in 1983 demonstrated that there was little reference to
international, let alone international
HRM, in U.S. management journals. In
1991, Boyacigillar and Adler argued
that the situation had not much improved. Often research conducted outside the U.S. does not get recognition
more globally because of limited access
to or interest in “foreign” journals or
“foreign” languages. As academics, we
seem to write for our “own” public.
Research conducted in Europe, by
Geert Hofstede in the 1960s and 1970s,
challenged the extent to which American theories could be applied abroad
(Hofstede, 1980). His findings launched
the field of comparative management
research where differences in management practices were explained by differences in cultural values. Indeed different models of HRM have been
identified: the American model that
tends to be more transactional and the
European model which is more social
and more constrained by the institutional context (Brewster, 1995). Underlying cultural assumptions embedded in
HR practices such as selection, recruitment, performance appraisal, compensation, training and development, and
342 Journal of World Business / 36(4) / 341–345
career management need to be deciphered to understand potential problems
in the transfer of these practices
(Schneider, 1988; Schneider & Barsoux, 1997).
Nevertheless, the success of Japanese
companies in the early 1980s shook up
the complacency of North American
managers and researchers and spurred
an interest in the “Japanese model” of
HRM practice (Hatvany & Puckik,
1982; Tung, 1984). The debate then
centered upon issues of transferability
of management practice and particularly HRM practice. Could Japanese
management practices, for example
quality circles, work in the U.S.A.?
Why did practices developed by Deming (an American) work better in Japan
than in the U.S.? Was it because of
some unique aspects of “Japanese” culture? Peters and Waterman (1984) entered the debate by arguing that “good
management” principles and practices
are universal, and as such, these could
also be found in excellent U.S. companies. The secret to success was apparently a strong corporate culture. This
influenced “best practices.” Since then,
the debate has focused on best practices
versus cultural contingencies.
Taking a strategic approach to
IHRM, Taylor, Beechler and Napier
(1996) advocated a contingency approach and addressed the question: To
what extent should MNCs export (impose) HR practice, adapt to the local
environment, or seek out integrative solutions? How can the tensions between
local and global pressures be managed
to arrive at “integrative”, “culturally
synergistic,” or “competency enhancing” HR practices? What is the role of
HR managers and expatriates in managing this process?
This special issue of the JWB seeks
to broaden our horizons in this regard.
The “call for papers” was intended to
give voice to researchers from around
the world on this issue of International
HRM. We chose manuscripts that focus
on IHRM and which are not countryspecific nor those that revolve specifically around comparative practices.
Several papers do address the issue of
expatriation and repatriation, specifically bringing attention to recent European research and to the concern regarding the scarcity of women in
international assignments. Others question the transfer of best practice, particularly in the Asian context, specifically
in Korea. Finally, guidelines on how to
develop cultural synergy in HR practice
are proposed.
Hugh Scullion and Chris Brewster
(U.K.) bring us messages from Europe
in the management of expatriates. The
facts that many of the world’s leading
MNCs are European and fundamental
changes have taken place in the European political and economic contexts
have important implications for the development of IHRM practice and research. Their article raises the question:
What lessons can we learn from the
European situation? Scullion and Brewster develop an intriguing research
agenda to examine the importance of
context, the changing nature of expatriates, and the role of the corporate HR
function in managing expatriation.
Anne-Wil Harzig (NDL) addresses
the reasons for expatriation and focuses
on the need for coordination and control. She demonstrates that the research
on expatriation conducted in Germany
supports the now classic argument of
Edstrom and Galbraith (1977) and develops a classification scheme to characterize the various modes of control:
direct versus indirect and personal versus impersonal. In her large-scale study
on expatriation, Harzig identifies the
different roles that expatriates play in
controlling foreign subsidiaries: as
bears (formal direct control); as
bumble-bees (cross pollinating, i.e., socialization); and as spiders (creating
networks of informal communication).
She hypothesizes that these varying
roles occur more or less as a function of
the subsidiary’s age, its dependence on
headquarters, and whether it is an acquisition or green-field investment. She
then suggests using expatriation as a
strategic tool and considers alternatives
to achieving coordination and control.
Arup Varma, Linda Stroh, and Lisa
Schmitt (U.S.A.) address the problem
of why there are so few women as international managers. The authors draw
on leader-member exchange theory to
help understand this phenomenon.
Women managers, they argue, tend to
suffer the effects of being members of
the “out-group” which limits their access to information, resources, and opportunities. Recommendations are
made on how to improve the quality of
supervisor-subordinate relationships by
exerting upward influence and how to
be more proactive in seeking international assignments. Furthermore, companies need to be aware of the subtle
biases that deter women from pursuing
expatriate career paths.
Mila Lazarova and Paula Caligiuri
(U.S.A.) address the importance of reIntroduction
343
taining repatriates and the problems associated with it. Their study demonstrates that the perceptions of
organizational support lead directly to
the repatriates’ intentions to stay, thus
emphasizing the importance of the
“psychological contract.” Their findings
also indicate that organizational commitment may be less relevant to retaining repatriates as today’s managers appear to consider expatriate assignments
good for their overall careers which are
becoming more and more “boundaryless,” that is, not tied to a particular
company. Lazarova and Caligiuri provide a set of proactive guidelines on
how to retain repatriates so as not to
lose this valuable resource.
Bae and Rowley (Korea/U.K.) challenge the transfer of best practices under pressures for globalization in the
case of South Korea. Drawing upon factors for convergence versus divergence,
they argue that the transfer of HRM can
be considered at different levels of the
HRM system: architecture; policy; and
practice. These different levels have implications for the alignment with and
acceptance from the local context.
The case of South Korea is used to
demonstrate the difficulties and dilemmas of transferring HRM systems. Bae
and Rowley then suggest ways to develop “competency enhancing” HRM
system.
Maddy Janssens (Belgium) proposes
guidelines for developing a “culturally
synergistic” approach to IHRM. She
discusses three different perspectives to
strategic IHRM— export, adaptive, and
integrative—the reasons for and the
limits thereof for each, providing specific company examples. She then re344 Journal of World Business / 36(4) / 341–345
minds us that it is not only important to
take into account the cultural differences, but also the issue of power. Going beyond “best practices,” Janssens
suggests a concrete approach to developing more culturally synergy in IHRM
through valuing diversity and voice.
Indeed, this special issue hopes to
accomplish just that, namely, valuing
diversity and voice. To provide voice to
researchers from different countries and
regions of the world in expressing what
they consider to be salient research and
practice issues so as to develop a more
“global,” pluralistic view. By bringing
together ideas from around the world
we hope to stimulate a richer, more
dynamic discussion of how to manage
people and companies worldwide in the
years ahead. This pluralism of approaches directly addresses the question, “To what extent is IHRM practice
predominantly ethnocentric or truly
global?” The acknowledgment and acceptance that such diversity in approaches is not only normal but necessary in developing our knowledge of the
field at large. Research and practice in
IHRM, to quote Mao Zedong’s famous
saying, would truly benefit by “letting a
thousand flowers bloom”.
REFERENCES
Adler, N. J. (1983). Cross-cultural management
research: The ostrich and the trend. Academy of Management Review, 8(2): 226 –
232.
Black, J. S., Gregersen, H. B., & Mendenhall,
M. E. (1992). Global assignments: Successfully expatriating and repatriating international managers. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Boyacigiller, N., & Adler, N. J. (1991). The
parochial dinosaur: organizational science
in a global context. Academy of Management Review, 16(2): 262–290.
Brewster, C. (1995). Towards a European
model of human resource management.
Journal of International Business Studies,
26(1): 1–21
Doz, Y. L., & Prahalad, C. K. (1984). Patterns
of strategic control within multinational
firms. Journal of International Business
Studies, 15(2): 55–72.
Edstro¨ m, A., & Galbraith, J. R. (1977). Transfer
of managers as a coordination and control
strategy in multinational organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 22:
248 –263.
Hatvany, N. G., & Pucik, V. (1982). An integrated management system focused on
human resources: The Japanese paradigm.
In: Nadler, D. A., Tushman, M. L. and
Hatvany, N. G. (Eds.) Managing organizations: Readings and cases (pp. 345–
357). Boston: Little, Brown, and Co.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences.
Beverly Hills: Sage.
Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1985). The dimensions of expatriate acculturation: a review. Academy of Management Review,
10: 39 – 47.
Perlmutter, H. V. (1969). The tortuous evolutions of the multinational corporation. Columbia Journal of World Business, January-February: 9 –18.
Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of
excellence: Lessons from America’s best
run companies. London: Harper and Row.
Schneider, S. (1988). National vs. corporate
culture: Implications for human resource
management. Human Resource Management, 27: 231–246.
Schneider, S., & Asakawa, K. (1995). American
and Japanese adjustment to expatriation:
A psychoanalytic perspective. Human Relations, 48(10): 1109 –1125.
Schneider, S., & Barsoux, J. L. (1997). Managing across cultures. London: Prentice
Hall Europe.
Schuler, R., Dowling, P., & De Cieri, H. (1993).
An integrative framework of strategic international human resource management.
International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 1: 717–764.
Taylor, S., Beechler, S., & Napier, N. (1996).
Toward an integrative model of strategic
international human resource management. Academy of Management Review,
21: 959 –985.
Torbiorn, I. (1982). Living abroad: Personal
adjustment and personnel policy in overseas setting. Chichester: Wiley.
Tung, R. L. (1981). Selection and training of
personnel for overseas assignments. Columbia Journal of World Business, 16(1):
68 –78.
Tung, R. L. (1982). Selection and training procedures of US, European and Japanese
multinationals. California Management
Review, 25(1): 57–71.
Tung, R. L. (1984). Strategic management of
human resources in the multinational enterprise. Human Resource Management,
23(2): 129 –143.
Tung, R. L. (1987). Expatriate assignments: Enhancing success and minimizing failure.
Academy of Management Executive, 1(2):
117–125.
Tung, R. L. (1988). The new expatriates: Managing human resources abroad. Cambridge: Ballinger.
Tung, R. L. (1993). Managing cross-national
and intra-national diversity. Human Resource Management Journal, 23(4): 461–
477.
Tung, R. L. (1998). American expatriates
abroad: From neophytes to cosmopolitans. Journal of World Business, 33(2):
125–144.
Introduction
345

Download Report