Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 151–166 | Cite as

Human resource management in US subsidiaries in Europe and Australia: centralisation or autonomy?

  • Mark Fenton-O'Creevy
  • Paul Gooderham
  • Odd Nordhaug
Article

Abstract

We explore determinants of subsidiary autonomy in setting human resource management (HRM) practices within US-parented multinational enterprises (MNEs), in Europe and Australia. We examine both the effect of strategic context and the effect of the institutional location of the subsidiary. We find that US MNEs show greater centralisation of control over HRM where the subsidiary faces global markets, in coordinated market economies vs liberal market economies, and where union density is low.

Keywords

international HRM subsidiary management neo-institutional theory strategic context centralised control multinationals 

References

  1. Albert, M. 1991. Capitalisme contre capitalisme. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, P. 2001. Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Almond, P., Edwards, T., Colling, T., Ferner, A., Gunnigle, P., Muller-Camen, M., Quintanilla, J., & Wächter, H. 2005. Unravelling home and host country effects: An investigation of the HR policies of an American multinational in four European countries. Industrial Relations, 44 (2): 276–306.Google Scholar
  4. Barry, M., & Wailes, N. 2004. Contrasting systems? 100 years of arbitration in Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Industrial Relations, 46 (4): 430–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartlett, C. A. 1986. Building and managing the transnational: The new organizational challenge. In M. E. Porter (Ed.), Competition in global industries: 367–401. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. 1989. Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bévort, F., Pedersen, J. S., & Sundbo, J. 1995. Denmark. In I. Brunstein (Ed.), Human resource management in Western Europe: 31–58. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  8. Birkinshaw, J., & Hood, N. 1998. Multinational subsidiary evolution: Capability and charter change in foreign-owned subsidiary companies. Academy of Management Review, 23 (4): 773–795.Google Scholar
  9. Brewster, C., Hegewisch, A., Mayne, L., & Tregaskis, O. 1994. Methodology of the Price Waterhouse Cranfield Project. In C. Brewster and A. Hegewisch (Eds), Policy and practice in European human resource management: 230–245. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Brewster, C., Tregaskis, O., Hegewisch, A., & Mayne, L. 1996. Comparative research in human resource management: A review and an example. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7 (4): 585–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Child, J. 2000. Theorizing about organizations cross-nationally. In J. L. C. Cheng and R. B. Peterson (Eds), Advances in international comparative management, Vol. 13, 27–75. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  12. Child, J., Faulkner, D., & Pitkethly, R. 2001. The management of international acquisitions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Croucher, R., Gooderham, P. N., & Parry, E. 2006. The influences on direct communication in British and Danish firms: Country, ‘strategic HRM’ or unionization? European Journal of Industrial Relations, 12 (3): 267–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dell'Aringa, C., & Lodovici, M. 1992. Industrial relations and economic performance. In T. Treu (Ed.), Participation in public policy making: The role of trade unions and employers' associations: 26–58. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  15. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48 (2): 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edwards, P., Hall, M., Hyman, R., Marginson, P., Sisson, K., Waddington, J., & Winchester, D. 1992. Great Britain: Still muddling through. In A. Ferner and R. Hyman (Eds), Industrial relations in the new Europe: 1–68. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Fenton-O'Creevy, M. P., & Wood, S. J. 2007. Diffusion of human resource management systems in UK headquartered multinational enterprises: Integrating institutional and strategic choice explanations. European Journal of International Management, 1 (4) (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  18. Ferner, A. 1997. Country of origin effects and HRM in multinational companies. Human Resource Management Journal, 7 (1): 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferner, A., Almond, P., Clark, I., Colling, T., Edwards, T., Holden, L., & Muller-Camen, M. 2004. Dynamics of central control and subsidiary autonomy in the management of human resources: Case-study evidence from US MNCs in the UK. Organization Studies, 25 (3): 363–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foss, N. 1999. The challenge of business systems and the challenge to business systems. International Journal of Management and Organization, 29 (2): 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. French, S. 2001. Works councils in unified Germany: Still loyal to the trade unions? International Journal of Manpower, 22 (6): 560–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garnier, G. H. 1982. Context and decision-making autonomy in the foreign affiliates of US multinational corporations. Academy of Management Journal, 25 (4): 693–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Geppert, M., Matten, D., & Williams, K. 2002. Introduction. In M. Geppert, D. Matten and K. Williams (Eds), Challenges for European management in a global context: 1–16. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Geppert, M., Williams, K., & Mattern, D. 2003. The social construction of contextual rationalities in MNCs: An Anglo-German comparison of subsidiary choice. Journal of Management Studies, 40 (3): 617–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Giardini, A., Kabst, R., & Müller-Camen, M. 2005. HRM in the German business system. Management Revue, 16 (1): 63–80.Google Scholar
  26. Gooderham, P. N., & Nordhaug, O. 1997. Flexibility in Norwegian and UK firms: Competitive pressures and institutional embeddedness. Employment Relations, 19 (6): 568–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gooderham, P. N., Nordhaug, O., & Ringdal, K. 1999. Institutional and rational determinants of organizational practices: Human resource management in European firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (4): 507–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gunnigle, P., MacCurtain, S., & Morley, M. 2001. Why Ireland? A qualitative review of the factors influencing the location of US multinationals in Ireland with particular reference to the impact of labour issues. Economic and Social Review, 32 (1): 43–67.Google Scholar
  29. Gunnigle, P., Morley, M., & Turner, T. 1997. Challenging collectivist traditions: Individualism and the management of industrial relations in greenfield sites. Economic and Social Review, 28 (1): 105–134.Google Scholar
  30. Gunnigle, P., O'Sullivan, M., & Kinsella, M. 2002. Organised labour in the new economy: Trade unions and public policy in the Republic of Ireland. In D. D'Art and T. Turner (Eds), Irish employment relations in the new economy: 222–258. Dublin: Blackhall Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hall, P. A., & Gingerich, D. W. 2004. Varieties of capitalism and institutional complementarities in the macroeconomy, MPIfG Discussion paper 04/5. Berlin: Max Planck Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung.Google Scholar
  32. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (Eds) 2001. Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hamill, J. 1984. Labour relations decision making within multinational corporations. Industrial Relations Journal, 15 (2): 30–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harzing, A .W. 2000. An empirical analysis and extension of the Bartlett and Ghoshal typology of multinational companies. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (1): 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harzing, A.-W., & Sorge, A. 2003. The relative impact of country of origin and universal contingencies on internationalization strategies and corporate control in multinational enterprises: Worldwide and European perspectives. Organization Studies, 24 (2): 187–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harzing, A. -W., Sorge, A., & Paauwe, J. 2002. Headquarters–subsidiary relationships in multinational companies: A British-German comparison. In M. Geppert, D. Matten and K. Williams (Eds), Challenges for European management in a global context: 96–118. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hassel, A. 1999. The erosion of the German system of industrial relations. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 37 (3): 483–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hitt, M., Ahlstrom, D., Dacin, M. T., Levitas, E., & Svobodina, L. 2004. The institutional effects on strategic alliance partner selection in transition economies: China vs. Russia. Organization Science, 15 (2): 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hollingsworth, J. R. 1997. Continuities and changes in social systems of production: The cases of Japan, Germany, and the United States. In J. R. Hollingsworth and R. Boyer (Eds), Contemporary capitalism: The embeddedness of institutions: 260–282. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hollingsworth, J. R. 2003. Advancing the socio-economic paradigm with institutional analysis. Socio-Economic Review, 1 (1): 130–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hollingsworth, J. R., & Boyer, R. (Eds) 1997. Contemporary capitalism: The embeddedness of institutions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kihn, L. A. 2001. Strategies, decentralization, and controls in internationalized Finnish firms. Finnish Journal of Business Economics, 1 (1): 35–57.Google Scholar
  43. King, G., Honaker, J., Joseph, A., & Scheve, K. 2001. Analysing incomplete political science data: An alternative algorithm for multiple imputation. American Political Science Review, 95 (1): 49–69.Google Scholar
  44. Klikauer, T. 2002. Stability in Germany's industrial relations: A critique on Hassel's erosion thesis. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 40 (2): 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kostova, T. 1999. Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A contextual perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24 (2): 308–324.Google Scholar
  46. Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2002. Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (1): 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kristensen, P. H. 1992. Strategies against structures: Institutions and economic organizations in Denmark. In R. Whitley (Ed.), European business systems: 117–136. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Lane, C. 1992. European business systems: Britain and Germany compared. In R. Whitley (Ed.), European business systems: 64–97. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Long, J. S. 1997. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Lovelock, C. H., & Yip, G. S. 1996. Developing global strategies for service business. California Management Review, 38 (2): 64–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Martinez, J. I., & Jarillo, J. C. 1991. Coordination demands of international strategies. Journal of International Business Studies, 22 (3): 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mayer, M., & Whittington, R. 2002. For boundedness in the study of comparative and international business: The case of the diversified multidivisional corporation. In M. Geppert, D. Matten and K. Williams (Eds), Challenges for European management in a global context: 19–41. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Myloni, B., Harzing, A. W. K., & Mirza, H. 2004. Host country specific factors and the transfer of human resource management practices in multinational companies. International Journal of Manpower, 25 (6): 518–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Noorderhaven, N. G., & Harzing, A. W. K. 2003. The ‘country-of-origin effect’ in multinational corporations: Sources, mechanisms, and moderating conditions. Journal of International Business Studies, 43 (2): 47–66.Google Scholar
  55. Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16 (1): 145–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Oliver, C. 1997. Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (9): 697–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ortiz, L. 1998. Union response to teamwork: the case of Opel Spain. Industrial Relations Journal, 29 (1): 42–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Peng, M. W., Lee, S. -H., & Wang, D. Y. L. 2005. What determines the scope of the firm over time? A focus on institutional relatedness. Academy of Management Review, 30 (3): 622–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Redding, G. 2005. The thick description and comparison of societal systems of capitalism. Journal of International Business Studies, 36 (2): 113–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rosenzweig, P. M., & Nohria, N. 1994. Influences on human resource management practices in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 25 (2): 229–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Roth, K. 1992. Implementing international strategy at the business unit level: The role of managerial decision-making characteristics. Journal of Management, 18 (4): 769–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Royle, T. 2002. Resistance is useless! The problems of trade union organizations in the European fast-food industry: The Case of McDonald's. in M. Geppert, D. Matten and K. Williams (Eds), Challenges for European management in a global context: 189–214. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rubery, J., & Wilkinson, F. 1994. Employer strategy and the labour market. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Scholz, C. 1996. Human resource management in Germany. in T. Clark (Ed.), European human resource management: 118–155. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  65. Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  66. Singe, I., & Croucher, R. 2005. US multinationals and the German industrial relations system. Management Revue, 16 (1): 123–137.Google Scholar
  67. Sorge, A. 1995. Cross-national differences in personnel and organization. In A. W. Harzing and J. van Ruysseveldt (Eds), International human resource management: An integrated approach: 99–123. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  68. Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. 2005. Introduction. In W. Streeck and K. Thelen (Eds), Beyond continuity: 1–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Taggart, J. H., & Hood, N. 1999. Determinants of autonomy in multinational corporation subsidiaries. European Management Journal, 17 (2): 226–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tempel, A. 2002. Multinational companies, institutional environments and the diffusion of industrial relations practices. in M. Geppert, D. Matten and K. Williams (Eds), Challenges for European management in a global context: 143–164. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wächter, H., & Müller-Camen, M. 2002. Co-determination and strategic integration in German firms. Human Resource Management Journal, 12 (3): 76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wächter, H., & Stengelhofen, T. 1995. Germany. In I. Brunstein (Ed.), Human resource management in western Europe: 89–112. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  73. Westney, D. E. 1993. Institutionalization theory and the multinational corporation. In S. Ghoshal and D. E. Westney (Eds), Organization theory and the multinational corporation: 53–76. New York: St Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wever, K. S. 1994. Learning from works councils: Five unspectacular case studies from Germany. Industrial Relations, 33 (4): 467–481.Google Scholar
  75. Whitley, R. 1992. Societies, firms and markets: The social structuring of business systems. In R. Whitley (Ed.), European business systems: Firms and markets in their national contexts: 5–45. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  76. Whitley, R. 1997. The social construction of economic actors. In R. Whitley and P. H. Kristensen (Eds), The changing European firm: 39–66. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  77. Xu, D., & Shenkar, O. 2002. Institutional distance and the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 27 (4): 608–618.Google Scholar
  78. Young, S., & Tavares, A. T. 2004. Centralization and autonomy: Back to the future. International Business Review, 13 (2): 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Young, S., Hood, N., & Hamill, J. 1985. Decision-making in foreign-owned multinational subsidiaries in the United Kingdom. Geneva: International Labour Office.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Fenton-O'Creevy
    • 1
  • Paul Gooderham
    • 2
  • Odd Nordhaug
    • 2
  1. 1.Open University Business SchoolMilton KeynesUK
  2. 2.Norwegian School of Economics and Business AdministrationBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations