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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for the suggestion to use this index in the analysis.
Employing a factor analysis, Harzing et al. (2002) conclude that control mechanisms used by MNEs can be classified in terms of one dimension – personal/impersonal. They further find that personal control mechanisms can be subdivided into direct/indirect. This is not the case for impersonal control mechanisms.
Negative binomial regression was chosen rather than Poisson regression because the independent variable is “over-dispersed” (i.e., variance significantly greater than the mean).
References
Albert, M. 1991. Capitalisme contre capitalisme. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Allison, P. 2001. Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
Barry, M., & Wailes, N. 2004. Contrasting systems? 100 years of arbitration in Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Industrial Relations, 46 (4): 430–447.
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.
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. 1989. Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Child, J., Faulkner, D., & Pitkethly, R. 2001. The management of international acquisitions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48 (2): 147–160.
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.
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).
Ferner, A. 1997. Country of origin effects and HRM in multinational companies. Human Resource Management Journal, 7 (1): 19–37.
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.
Foss, N. 1999. The challenge of business systems and the challenge to business systems. International Journal of Management and Organization, 29 (2): 9–24.
French, S. 2001. Works councils in unified Germany: Still loyal to the trade unions? International Journal of Manpower, 22 (6): 560–578.
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.
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.
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.
Giardini, A., Kabst, R., & Müller-Camen, M. 2005. HRM in the German business system. Management Revue, 16 (1): 63–80.
Gooderham, P. N., & Nordhaug, O. 1997. Flexibility in Norwegian and UK firms: Competitive pressures and institutional embeddedness. Employment Relations, 19 (6): 568–580.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (Eds) 2001. Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hamill, J. 1984. Labour relations decision making within multinational corporations. Industrial Relations Journal, 15 (2): 30–34.
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.
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.
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.
Hassel, A. 1999. The erosion of the German system of industrial relations. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 37 (3): 483–505.
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.
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.
Hollingsworth, J. R. 2003. Advancing the socio-economic paradigm with institutional analysis. Socio-Economic Review, 1 (1): 130–134.
Hollingsworth, J. R., & Boyer, R. (Eds) 1997. Contemporary capitalism: The embeddedness of institutions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kihn, L. A. 2001. Strategies, decentralization, and controls in internationalized Finnish firms. Finnish Journal of Business Economics, 1 (1): 35–57.
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.
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.
Kostova, T. 1999. Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A contextual perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24 (2): 308–324.
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.
Kristensen, P. H. 1992. Strategies against structures: Institutions and economic organizations in Denmark. In R. Whitley (Ed.), European business systems: 117–136. London: Sage.
Lane, C. 1992. European business systems: Britain and Germany compared. In R. Whitley (Ed.), European business systems: 64–97. London: Sage.
Long, J. S. 1997. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lovelock, C. H., & Yip, G. S. 1996. Developing global strategies for service business. California Management Review, 38 (2): 64–86.
Martinez, J. I., & Jarillo, J. C. 1991. Coordination demands of international strategies. Journal of International Business Studies, 22 (3): 429–444.
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.
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.
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.
Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16 (1): 145–179.
Oliver, C. 1997. Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (9): 697–713.
Ortiz, L. 1998. Union response to teamwork: the case of Opel Spain. Industrial Relations Journal, 29 (1): 42–57.
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.
Redding, G. 2005. The thick description and comparison of societal systems of capitalism. Journal of International Business Studies, 36 (2): 113–155.
Rosenzweig, P. M., & Nohria, N. 1994. Influences on human resource management practices in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 25 (2): 229–251.
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.
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.
Rubery, J., & Wilkinson, F. 1994. Employer strategy and the labour market. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scholz, C. 1996. Human resource management in Germany. in T. Clark (Ed.), European human resource management: 118–155. Oxford: Blackwell.
Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Singe, I., & Croucher, R. 2005. US multinationals and the German industrial relations system. Management Revue, 16 (1): 123–137.
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.
Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. 2005. Introduction. In W. Streeck and K. Thelen (Eds), Beyond continuity: 1–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taggart, J. H., & Hood, N. 1999. Determinants of autonomy in multinational corporation subsidiaries. European Management Journal, 17 (2): 226–236.
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.
Wächter, H., & Müller-Camen, M. 2002. Co-determination and strategic integration in German firms. Human Resource Management Journal, 12 (3): 76–87.
Wächter, H., & Stengelhofen, T. 1995. Germany. In I. Brunstein (Ed.), Human resource management in western Europe: 89–112. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
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.
Wever, K. S. 1994. Learning from works councils: Five unspectacular case studies from Germany. Industrial Relations, 33 (4): 467–481.
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.
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.
Xu, D., & Shenkar, O. 2002. Institutional distance and the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 27 (4): 608–618.
Young, S., & Tavares, A. T. 2004. Centralization and autonomy: Back to the future. International Business Review, 13 (2): 215–235.
Young, S., Hood, N., & Hamill, J. 1985. Decision-making in foreign-owned multinational subsidiaries in the United Kingdom. Geneva: International Labour Office.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the valuable advice of three anonymous reviewers and the Departmental Editor, Helen De Cieri.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Accepted by Helen de Cieri, Departmental Editor, 27 March 2007. This paper has been with the authors for two revisions.
Appendix: Treatment of missing values
Appendix: Treatment of missing values
This appendix describes the procedure we adopted to account for the significant proportion of missing values in the data set. The CRANET survey has a substantial proportion of missing values (34.7% listwise across our analysed variables and sample). Fifteen per cent are missing on the union density variable, a key variable for our analysis. There are also significant numbers of missing values for two control variables: organisation size (17.7%) and organisation age (5.0%).
Appropriate strategies for handling missing values in data depend on the nature of the “missingness”. If missing values are randomly distributed, with no relationship to the value of the missing variable or to other variables in the data set (known as missing completely at random or MCAR), then both listwise and pairwise deletion of missing values will yield unbiased estimates when analysing the data, although, in the case of pairwise deletion, standard errors will be biased towards zero and listwise deletion will be inefficient, because it discards observations. Multiple imputation likewise yields unbiased estimates of parameters, but is more efficient than listwise deletion, and gives unbiased estimates of standard errors.
A less stringent assumption concerning missing data is that they are missing at random (MAR). That is, if x is a variable with missing (i.e., unobserved) values and xmis is a variable coded 1 when x is missing and 0 otherwise, then, after controlling for other observed variables in the analysis, xmis is independent of the value of x.
Where data are MAR but not MCAR then both pairwise and listwise deletion will yield biased estimates for parameters. In contrast, multiple imputation yields unbiased, fully efficient estimates for parameters and unbiased estimates of standard errors.
Where xmis is related to the underlying value of x, after controlling for observed values, this is known as non-ignorable (NI) missing data. Where data are NI missing, pairwise deletion, listwise deletion and multiple imputation all yield biased estimates of parameters. Further, although it is possible to distinguish empirically between MCAR and MAR using observed data, it is not possible to determine from the observed data whether data are NI missing. However, in many cases it is possible to convert NI missing data to MAR data by controlling for further variables. There may also be a priori reasons to believe data to be MAR as opposed to NI (Allison, 2001; King, Honaker, Joseph, & Scheve, 2001).
In the case of our missing union membership data, there is good a priori reason to believe missingness will be related significantly to country, since in some European countries legislation constrains management from collecting data on union membership.
Analysis of our data set shows that country does indeed predict missingness accounting for 27% of the variance. Thus our data are certainly not MCAR. We cannot rule out that the data are NI. However, there is no a priori reason to believe respondents will be more or less likely to respond to questions about union membership as a consequence of high or low levels of union membership. Further, we are in a position to draw on a wide range of relevant variables in the Euronet-Cranfield data set in order to impute missing values for union membership.
In addition to the variables in our reported analyses, we included the following variables in the imputation procedure for missing values: Home country, sector, whether national level pay bargaining, presence of works council, percentage of workforce under 25, percentage of workforce over 45, percentage of manual workers in workforce, and whether a union is used as a channel of communication with the workforce. Using all variables to predict missingness on the union membership variable with the general linear model accounts for 50% of variance (Adj. R2=0.50). The largest proportion of variance is accounted for by country (partial η2=0.27). Thus, having controlled for a significant proportion of variance in missingness, and there being no a priori reason to suspect missingness to be related to level of union membership, we may have some confidence that the data are MAR, not NI missing.
Thus the most appropriate approach to dealing with the missing data is to use multiple imputation. We used the approach described by King et al. (2001). The missing values are imputed multiple times (usually three to five is sufficient) to generate multiple data sets. Analysis is then carried out on each imputed data set separately. The missing value imputation was carried out using the King et al. (2001) software Amelia, with five imputed data sets. Model parameters are calculated as the average of the parameters from each separate analysis. This process gives unbiased estimators for model parameters, and allows an adjustment to standard errors to allow for the uncertainty of imputed values. Standard errors are calculated by
where m is the number of imputed data sets, SE(q j ) is the standard error of the jth estimate of parameter q, and
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fenton-O'Creevy, M., Gooderham, P. & Nordhaug, O. Human resource management in US subsidiaries in Europe and Australia: centralisation or autonomy?. J Int Bus Stud 39, 151–166 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400313
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400313