Divergent Norwegian and North American HRM Regimes: Implications for Norwegian MNEs
As Norwegian companies internationalize by establishing major business units in a variety of locations such as North America they have to confront different local human resource management (HRM) policies and practices. These differences are not arbitrary but products of different industrial relations regimes. Using a comparative data set the initial purpose of this chapter is to assess the ‘distance’ between the Norwegian and the North American HRM regimes in terms of ‘calculative’ and ‘collaborative’ HRM practices (Gooderham, Nordhaug & Ringdal, 1999). In line with measures of institutional and cultural distance our findings indicate substantial differences. Thereafter we employ interview data to investigate how these differences have an impact on the selection of HRM practices in the North American operations of a Norwegian multinational enterprise (MNE). In particular we investigate the degree to which the Norwegian MNE ‘exports’ Norwegian HRM practices and the degree to which it succumbs to local pressures to adapt to the North American context. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for the HRM strategies of Norwegian companies in the North American setting.
KeywordsHuman Resource Management Industrial Relation Cultural Distance Local Employee Human Resource Management Practice
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P., Quinn Mills, D. & Walton, R. 1985. Human Resource Management: A General Manager’s Perspective. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Dølvik, J.E. & Stokke, T.A. 1998. ‘Norway: The revival of centralized concentration’. In A. Ferner and R. Hyman (eds), Changing Industrial Relations in Europe. Oxford: Blackwell, 118–45.Google Scholar
- Fombrun, G.R., Tichy, N.M. & Devanna, M.A. 1984. Strategic Human Resource Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- 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
- Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. & Gupta, V. 2004. Culture, Leadership and Organizations; The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Lervik, J.E. 2005. ‘Managing matters—Transfer of organizational practices in MNC subsidiaries’. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Oslo: Norwegian School of Management.Google Scholar
- Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch C., Penttinen, H. & Tahvanainen, M. 2004. ‘Interviewing in the multinational corporation: Challenges of the organizational context’. In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. Welch (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Poutsma, E., Lightart, P.E.M. & Veersma, U. 2006. ‘The diffusion of calculative and collaborative HRM practices in European firms’. Industrial Relations, 45: 513–46.Google Scholar
- Sparrow, P. & Hiltrop, M. 1994. European Human Resource Management in Transition. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Weber, R.P. 1990. Basic Content Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar