Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 48, Issue 9, pp 1065–1086 | Cite as

The effects of market economy type and foreign MNE subsidiaries on the convergence and divergence of HRM

  • Elaine Farndale
  • Chris Brewster
  • Paul Ligthart
  • Erik Poutsma
Article

Abstract

This study explores patterns of human resource management (HRM) practices across market economies, and between indigenous firms and foreign MNE subsidiary operations, offering a novel perspective on convergence and divergence. Applying institutional theorizing to improve our understanding of convergence/divergence as a process and an outcome, data collected from nine countries at three points in time over a decade confirm that convergence and divergence occur to different extents in a nonlinear fashion, and vary depending on the area of HRM practice observed. Patterns of adoption and convergence/divergence are explained through the effect of institutional constraints, which vary between liberal and coordinated market economies, and between indigenous firms and foreign MNE subsidiaries. Specifically, we expected, and largely found supporting evidence confirming that compensation and wage-bargaining level practices show more evidence of being institutionally constrained, and hence were less likely to converge, than contingent employment, training, and direct information provision practices. The study contributes a more graded conceptualization of convergence/divergence (from constant no difference, through robust convergence, non-robust convergence, non-robust divergence, and robust divergence to constant difference), allowing us to tease out the subtle manifestations of the process that can incorporate the complex dynamic reality of international business.

Keywords

multilevel analysis neo-institutional theory human resource management (HRM) HR diffusion across countries international organizations comparative HRM 

概要

本研究探讨人力资源管理(HRM)实践在市场经济国家,以及在本土公司和外国MNE(跨国公司)子公司业务之间的模式,提供了关于汇聚和发散的一个新颖视角。运用制度理论提高我们对聚/散作为过程和结果的理解,来自九个国家十多年来三个时间点收集的数据确认,汇聚和发散以一种不同程度的非线性方式发生,具体取决于观察到的HRM实践领域的变化。接纳和聚/散模式由制度约束效应来解释,这在自由的和协调的市场经济体之间,以及在本土公司和外国MNE子公司之间变化。具体而言,我们预期,并在很大程度上已找到证据确认,报酬与工资谈判水准实践显示了更多在制度上受限的证据,因此与偶然就业,培训,以及直接信息提供的做法相比更少可能汇聚。这项研究贡献了一个更渐变的聚/散概念(从一直无差异,经稳健汇聚,非稳健汇聚,非稳健发散,稳健发散,到一直有差异),让我们梳理出能包容国际商务复杂而动态的现实过程的微妙表现。

Résumé

Cette étude examine les caractéristiques des pratiques de gestion des ressources humaines (GRH) dans les économies de marché, et entre les opérations des firmes locales et des filiales de multinationales étrangères, offrant une nouvelle perspective sur les points de convergence et de divergence. En appliquant la théorie institutionnelle pour améliorer notre compréhension des points de convergence/divergence comme des processus et des résultats, les données collectées dans neuf pays à trois moments différents d’une décennie confirment que les points de convergence et de divergence ont lieu de manière non-linéaire à des niveaux différents, et varient selon le domaine de la pratique de GRH observée. Les caractéristiques d’adoption et les points de convergence/divergence sont expliqués par l’effet des contraintes institutionnelles, qui varient entre les économies de marché libérales et coordonnées, et entre les firmes locales et les filiales de multinationales étrangères. Plus spécifiquement, nous attendions, et nous avons largement trouvé, des preuves confirmant que les pratiques en matière de compensation et de négociation des salaires ont une tendance plus marquée d’être contraintes institutionnellement, et sont ainsi moins susceptibles de converger que l’emploi contingent, la formation et les pratiques de mise à disposition directe d’informations. L’étude contribue à une conceptualisation plus graduée des points de convergence/divergence (pas de différence constante, convergence robuste, convergence non-robuste, divergence non-robuste, divergence robuste et différence constante), nous permettant de cerner les manifestations subtiles du processus qui peut intégrer la réalité dynamique complexe de l’international business.

Resumo

Este estudo explora os padrões de práticas de gestão de recursos humanos (HRM) em economias de mercado e entre operações de empresas domésticas e subsidiárias de multinacionais estrangeiras, oferecendo uma perspectiva inovadora sobre convergência e divergência. Aplicando teorias institucionais para melhorar a nossa compreensão sobre convergência/divergência como um processo e um resultado, dados coletados de nove países em três pontos ao longo de uma década confirmam que convergência e divergência ocorrem de diferentes maneiras de forma não linear e variam de acordo com a área de prática de HRM observada. Os padrões de adoção e convergência/divergência são explicados pelo efeito de restrições institucionais, que variam entre economias de mercado liberais e coordenadas, e entre empresas domésticas e subsidiárias de multinacionais estrangeiras. Especificamente, esperávamos e, encontramos amplas evidências que confirmam que práticas de remuneração e de negociação salarial mostram mais evidências de serem restringidas institucionalmente e, portanto, menos propensas a convergir do que o emprego contingencial, treinamento e práticas de provisão de informações diretas. O estudo contribui para uma conceituação mais categorizada de convergência/divergência (de constante nenhuma diferença, passando por convergência robusta, convergência não robusta, divergência não robusta e divergência robusta até constante diferença), permitindo-nos provocar as sutis manifestações do processo que podem incorporar a complexa realidade dinâmica dos negócios internacionais.

Resumen

Este estudio explora los patrones de las prácticas de la gestión de recursos humanos entre las economías de mercado, y entre las empresas locales y las operaciones de las subsidiarias de las empresas multinacionales extranjeras, ofreciendo una perspectiva novedosa donde la convergencia y la divergencia. Aplicando la teorización institucional para mejorar nuestro entendimiento de la convergencia/divergencia como proceso y como resultado, los datos recolectados en nueve países en tres puntos de tiempo durante una década confirman que la convergencia y la divergencia ocurren en diferentes grados de forma no lineal y varían dependiendo del área de la gestión de recursos humanos observada. Los patrones de adopción y convergencia/divergencia son explicados mediante el efecto de limitaciones institucionales, las cuales varían entre las economías de mercado liberadas y coordinadas, y entre empresas locales y subsidiarias de empresas multinacionales extranjeras. Específicamente, esperábamos, y encontramos grandes evidencias que confirman que el nivel de las prácticas de remuneración y negociación salarial muestran más evidencias de ser institucionalmente limitadas, y por ende tienen menos probabilidades de convergencia, que el empleo contingente, la capacitación, y las prácticas de provisión de información directa. El estudio contribuye a una conceptualización más graduada de la convergencia/divergencia (desde constante a ninguna diferencia, mediante convergencia robusta, convergencia no robusta, divergencia no robusta y divergencia robusta a diferencia constante), permitiéndonos descubrir las manifestaciones sutiles del proceso que puede incorporar la realidad dinámica compleja de los negocios internacionales.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for very insightful feedback and direction throughout the review process. We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of members of the Cranet Network for their assistance in this article.

References

  1. Ai, C. R., & Norton, E. C. 2003. Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters, 80(1): 123–129.Google Scholar
  2. Almond, P., Edwards, T., & Clark, I. 2003. Multinationals and changing national business systems in Europe: Towards the ‘shareholder value’ model? Industrial Relations Journal, 34(5): 430–445.Google Scholar
  3. Amable, B. 2003. The diversity of modern capitalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Holm, U. 2001. Subsidiary embeddedness and competence development in multinationals: A multi-level analysis. Organization Studies, 22(6): 1013–1034.Google Scholar
  5. Bassanini, A., & Brunello, G. 2011. Barriers to entry, deregulation and workplace training: A theoretical model with evidence from Europe. European Economic Review, 55(8): 1152–1176.Google Scholar
  6. Björkman, I., Fey, C. F., & Park, H. J. 2007. Institutional theory and MNC subsidiary HRM practices: Evidence from a three-country study. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(3): 430–446.Google Scholar
  7. Björkman, I., Smale, A., Sumelius, J., Suutari, V., & Lu, Y. 2008. Changes in institutional context and MNC operations in China: Subsidiary HRM practices in 1996 versus 2006. International Business Review, 17(2): 146–158.Google Scholar
  8. Bozeman, B., & Loveless, S. 1987. Sector context and performance: A comparison of industrial and government research units. Administration and Society, 19(2): 197–235.Google Scholar
  9. Brewster, C., & Mayrhofer, W. (Eds) 2012. A handbook of research into comparative human resource management practice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  10. Brewster, C., Croucher, R., Wood, G., & Brookes, M. 2007. Collective and individual voice: Convergence in Europe? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(7): 1246–1262.Google Scholar
  11. Brewster, C., Mayrhofer, W., & Smale, A. 2016. Crossing the streams: HRM in multinational enterprises and comparative HRM. Human Resource Management Review. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.04.002.
  12. Brewster, C., Wood, G., & Brookes, M. 2008. Similarity, isomorphism or duality? Recent survey evidence on the human resource management policies of multinational corporations. British Journal of Management, 19(4): 320–342.Google Scholar
  13. Brewster, C., Wood, G., & Goergen, M. 2015. Institutions, unionization and voice: The relative impact of context and actors on firm level practice. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 36(2): 195–214.Google Scholar
  14. Brislin, R. W. (Ed) 1976. Translation: Applications and research. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Chung, C., Sparrow, P., & Bozkurt, Ö. 2014. South Korean MNEs’ international HRM approach: Hybridization of global standards and local practices. Journal of World Business, 49(4): 549–559.Google Scholar
  16. Chung, H., & Tijdens, K. 2013. Working time flexibility components and working time regimes in Europe: Using company level data across 21 countries. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(7): 1418–1434.Google Scholar
  17. Colvin, A. J. S., & Darbishire, O. 2013. Convergence in industrial relations institutions: The emerging Anglo-American model? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 66(5): 1047–1077.Google Scholar
  18. Craig, C. S., Douglas, S. P., & Grein, A. 1992. Patterns of convergence and divergence among industrialized nations: 1960–1988. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(4): 773–787.Google Scholar
  19. Crouch, C. 2005. Models of capitalism. New Political Economy, 10(4): 439–456.Google Scholar
  20. Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. 2002. Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 45–57.Google Scholar
  21. D’Arcimoles, C. H. 1997. Human resource policies and company performance: A quantitative approach using longitudinal data. Organization Studies, 18(5): 857–874.Google Scholar
  22. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147–160.Google Scholar
  23. Dore, R. 2008. Financialization of the global economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(6): 1097–1112.Google Scholar
  24. Edwards, P. K., Sanchez-Mangas, R., Jalette, P., Lavelle, J., & Minbaeva, D. 2016. Global standardization or national differentiation of HRM practices in multinational companies? A comparison of multinationals in five countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(8): 997–1021.Google Scholar
  25. Edwards, P. K., Sanchez-Mangas, R., Tregaskis, O., Levesque, C., McDonnell, A., & Quintanilla, J. 2013. Human resource management practices in the multinational company: A test of system, societal, and dominance effects. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 66(3): 588–617.Google Scholar
  26. Farndale, E., Brewster, C., & Poutsma, E. 2008. Coordinated vs. liberal market HRM: the impact of institutionalization on multinational firms. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(11): 2004–2023.Google Scholar
  27. Fay, C. H. 2008. The global convergence of compensation practices. In L. R. R. Gomez-Mejia & S. Werner (Eds), Global compensation: 131–141. Oxon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Gooderham, P., & Nordhaug, O. 2008. Human resource management in US subsidiaries in Europe and Australia: Centralization or autonomy? Journal of International Business Studies, 39(1): 151–166.Google Scholar
  29. Ferner, A., & Quintanilla, J. 1998. Multinationals, national business systems and HRM: The enduring influence of national identity or a process of “Anglo-Saxonisation”. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(4): 710–731.Google Scholar
  30. Festing, M. 2012. Strategic human resource management in Germany: Evidence of convergence to the US model, the European model, or a distinctive national model? Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(2): 37–54.Google Scholar
  31. Festing, M., & Sahakiants, I. 2010. Compensation practices in Central and Eastern European EU member states. An analytical framework based on institutional perspectives, path dependencies, and efficiency considerations. Thunderbird International Business Review, 52(3): 203–216.Google Scholar
  32. Festing, M., Engle, A., Dowling, P., & Sahakiants, I. 2012. HRM activities: Pay and rewards. In C. Brewster & W. Mayrhofer (Eds), A handbook of research into comparative human resource management practice: 139–163. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  33. Gialis, S., & Taylor, M. 2016. A regional account of flexibilization across the EU: The ‘flexible contractual arrangements’ composite index and the impact of recession. Social Indicators Research, 128(3): 1121–1146.Google Scholar
  34. Goergen, M., Brewster, C., & Wood, G. 2009. Corporate governance regimes and employment relations in Europe. Industrial Relations, 64(4): 620–640.Google Scholar
  35. Goergen, M., Brewster, C., Wood, G. T., & Wilkinson, A. 2012. Varieties of capitalism and investments in human capital. Industrial Relations, 51(2): 501–552.Google Scholar
  36. Gooderham, P., Morley, M., Parry, E., & Stavrou, E. 2015. National and firm-level drivers of the devolution of HRM decision making to line managers. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(6): 715–723.Google Scholar
  37. Gooderham, P. N., & Nordhaug, O. 2011. One European model of HRM? Cranet empirical contributions. Human Resource Management Review, 21(1): 1–10.Google Scholar
  38. 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(3): 507–531.Google Scholar
  39. Guest, D. E., Michie, J., Conway, N., & Sheehan, M. 2003. Human resource management and corporate performance in the UK. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(2): 291–314.Google Scholar
  40. Gunnigle, P., Murphy, K. R., Cleveland, J. N., Heraty, N., & Morley, M. 2002. Localization in human resource management: Comparing American and European multinational corporations. Advances in Comparative International Management, 14: 259–284.Google Scholar
  41. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (Eds) 2001. Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Hall, P. A., & Thelen, K. 2009. Institutional change in varieties of capitalism. Socio-Economic Review, 7(1): 7–34.Google Scholar
  43. Höpner, M. 2005. What connects industrial relations and corporate governance: Explaining institutional complementarity. Socio-Economic Review, 3(2): 331–358.Google Scholar
  44. Hotho, J. J. 2014. From typology to taxonomy: A configurational analysis of national business systems and their explanatory power. Organization Studies, 35(5): 671–702.Google Scholar
  45. Huo, Y. P., Huang, H. J., & Napier, N. K. 2002. Divergence or convergence: A cross-national comparison of personnel selection practices. Human Resource Management, 41(1): 31–44.Google Scholar
  46. Huselid, M., & Becker, B. E. 2000. Comment on ‘Measurement error in research on human resources and firm performance: how much error is there and how does it influence effect size estimates?’ By Gerhart, Wright, McMahan, and Snell. Personnel Psychology, 53(4): 835–854.Google Scholar
  47. Jackson, G., & Deeg, R. 2008. Comparing capitalisms: understanding institutional diversity and its implication for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4): 540–561.Google Scholar
  48. Kalmi, P., Pendleton, A., & Poutsma, E. 2012. Bargaining regimes, variable pay and financial participation: some survey evidence on pay determination. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(8): 1643–1659.Google Scholar
  49. Kalleberg, A. 2003. Flexible firms and labor market segmentation: Effects of workplace restructuring on jobs and workers. Work and Occupations, 30(2): 154–175.Google Scholar
  50. Katz, H. C. 1993. The decentralization of collective bargaining: A literature review and comparative analysis. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 47(1): 3–22.Google Scholar
  51. Kaufman, B. E. 2007. The institutional economics of John R. Commons: Complement and substitute for neoclassical economic theory. Socio-Economic Review, 5(1): 3–45.Google Scholar
  52. Kaufman, B. E. 2016. Globalization and convergence–divergence of HRM across nations: New measures, explanatory theory, and non-standard predictions from bringing in economics. Human Resource Management Review, 26(4): 338–351.Google Scholar
  53. Kerr, C., Dunlop, J. T., Harbison, F., & Meyers, C. A. 1960. Industrialism and industrial man. The problems of labor and management in economic growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Kessler, I., Undy, R., & Heron, P. 2004. Employee perspectives on communication and consultation: Findings from a cross-national survey. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(3): 512–532.Google Scholar
  55. 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.Google Scholar
  56. Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. 1999. Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1): 64–81.Google Scholar
  57. Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. T. 2008. Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 33(4): 994–1006.Google Scholar
  58. Lawler, J. L., Chen, S., Wu, P., Bae, J., & Bai, B. 2011. High-performance work systems in foreign subsidiaries of American multinationals: An institutional model. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(2): 202–220.Google Scholar
  59. Looise, J. K., & Drucker, M. 2002. Employee participation in multinational enterprises. The effects of globalisation on Dutch works councils. Employee Relations, 24(1): 29–52.Google Scholar
  60. Marginson, P., Sisson, K., & Arrowsmith, J. 2003. Between decentralization and Europeanization: Sectoral bargaining in four countries and two sectors. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 9(2): 163–187.Google Scholar
  61. Mayrhofer, W., Brewster, C., Morley, M. J., & Ledolter, J. 2011. Hearing a different drummer? Convergence of human resource management in Europe: A longitudinal analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 21(1): 50–67.Google Scholar
  62. Mayrhofer, W., Müller-Camen, M., Ledolter, J., Strunk, G., & Erten, C. 2002. The diffusion of management concepts in Europe: Conceptual considerations and longitudinal analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Competence & Management, 3: 315–349.Google Scholar
  63. Menard, S. 2007. Handbook of longitudinal research: Design, methods, and analyses. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  64. Morley, M., Brewster, C., Gunnigle, P., & Mayrhofer, W. 1996. Evaluating change in European industrial relations: Research evidence on trends at organizational level. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(3): 640–656.Google Scholar
  65. Morris, S., Snell, S., & Björkman, I. 2016. An architectural framework for global talent management. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(6): 723–747.Google Scholar
  66. Nikandrou, I., Apospori, E., & Papalexandris, N. 2005. Changes in HRM in Europe: A longitudinal study among 18 European countries. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29(7): 541–560.Google Scholar
  67. North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Pendleton, A., & Poutsma, E. 2012. Financial participation. In C. Brewster & W. Mayrhofer (Eds), Handbook of research on comparative human resource management: 345–369. London, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  69. Perlmutter, H. V. 1969. The tortuous evolution of the multinational corporation. Columbia Journal of World Business, 4(1): 9–18.Google Scholar
  70. Poor, J., Karoliny, Z., Alas, R., & Vatchkova, E. K. 2011. Comparative international human resource management (CIHRM) in the light of the Cranet regional research survey in transitional economies. Employee Relations, 33(4): 428–443.Google Scholar
  71. Poutsma, E., Ligthart, P. E. M., & Schouteten, R. 2005. Employee share schemes in Europe. The influence of US multinationals. Management Revue, 16(1): 99–122.Google Scholar
  72. Poutsma, E., Ligthart, P. E. M., & Veersma, U. 2006. The diffusion of calculative and collaborative HRM practices in European firms. Industrial Relations, 45(4): 513–546.Google Scholar
  73. Pudelko, M., & Harzing, A. 2007. Country-of-origin, localization, or dominance effect? An empirical investigation of HRM practices in foreign subsidiaries. Human Resource Management, 46(4): 535–559.Google Scholar
  74. Pudelko, M., & Harzing, A. 2008. The golden triangle for MNCs: Standardization towards headquarters practices, standardization towards global best practices, and localization. Organizational Dynamics, 37(4): 394–404.Google Scholar
  75. Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. 2005. Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata (1st edition). College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  76. Rabe-Hesketh S., Skrondal A., & Pickles, A. 2004. GLLAMM Manual. U.C. Berkeley Division of Biostatistics Working Paper Series, 160.Google Scholar
  77. Rosenzweig, P. M., & Nohria, N. 1994. Influences on human resource management practices in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(2): 229–251.Google Scholar
  78. Rosenzweig, P. M., & Singh, J. V. 1991. Organizational environments and the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 16(2): 340–361.Google Scholar
  79. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2001. Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3): 237–250.Google Scholar
  80. Saka‐Helmhout, A., Deeg, R., & Greenwood, R. 2016. The MNE as a challenge to institutional theory: Key concepts, recent developments and empirical evidence. Journal of Management Studies, 53(1): 1–11.Google Scholar
  81. Schnabel, C., Zagelmeyer, S., & Kohaut, S. 2006. Collective bargaining structure and its determinants: An empirical analysis with British and German establishment data. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 12(2): 165–188.Google Scholar
  82. Schneider, M. R., & Paunescu, M. 2012. Changing varieties of capitalism and revealed comparative advantages from 1990 to 2005: A test of the Hall and Soskice claims. Socio-Economic Review, 10 (4): 731–753.Google Scholar
  83. Scott, W. R. 2001. Institutions and organizations (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  84. Scott, W. R., & Meyer, J. W. 1994. Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  85. Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. 1999. Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and applied multilevel analysis. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  86. Tempel, A., & Walgenbach, P. 2007. Global standardization of organizational forms and management practices? What new institutionalism and the business-systems approach can learn from each other. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1): 1–24.Google Scholar
  87. Thelen, K. 2001. Varieties of labor politics in the developed democracies. In P. A. Hall, & D. Soskice (Eds), Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage: 71–103. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Thelen, K. 2004. How institutions evolve: The political economy of skills in Germany, Britain, the United States and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Thelen, K. 2014. Varieties of liberalization and the new politics of social solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. 2012. The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Traxler, F., Arrowsmith, J., Nergaard, K., & Molins Lopez-Rodo, J. 2008. Variable pay and collective bargaining: A cross-national comparison of the banking sector. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 29: 406–431.Google Scholar
  92. Tregaskis, O., & Brewster, C. 2006. Converging or diverging? A comparative analysis of trends in contingent employment practice in Europe over a decade. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(1): 111–126.Google Scholar
  93. Tregaskis, O., & Heraty, N. 2012. Human resource development: national embeddedness. In C. Brewster & W. Mayrhofer (Eds), Handbook of research on comparative human resource management: 164–184. London, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  94. Williams, C. C., & Padmore, J. 2013. Evaluating the prevalence and distribution of quasi-formal employment in Europe. Industrial Relations, 68(1): 71–94.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elaine Farndale
    • 1
    • 2
  • Chris Brewster
    • 3
    • 4
  • Paul Ligthart
    • 3
  • Erik Poutsma
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Labor & Employment Relations, 501c KellerPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Human Resource StudiesTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Institute for Management ResearchRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Henley Business SchoolUniversity of ReadingReadingUK

Personalised recommendations