Human resource management in US subsidiaries in Europe and Australia: centralisation or autonomy? (original) (raw)
Related papers
International human resource management structures and their effect on the Australian subsidiary
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 2010
This paper examines some aspects of the working experiences of the managing directors of Australian subsidiaries of European, UK and US multinational corporations in a sector of the healthcare industry. The study compares and contrasts the work experiences of two groups of subsidiary managers. One group reports into the multinational's parent headquarters, while the other group reports into an Asia Pacific regional office. Evidence emerged from the study of a significant difference in the work experiences of the two groups of managers and suggests that a regional structure may not always be the optimal structure for the subsidiary. Key impediments to a successful regional structure seem to be attitudinal, because of cultural and language differences. This finding is in conflict with mainstream international human resource management research that maintains that a regional structure offers efficiency and contributes positively to globalisation through the process of value creation and enhancement. The paper goes on to address the need to provide an effective mechanism for improving the work experience and, in particular, the communication between inpatriate managers and their supervisors.
2004
This article revisits a central question in the debates on the management of multinationals: the balance between centralized policy-making and subsidiary autonomy. It does so through data from a series of case studies on the management of human resources in American multinationals in the UK. Two strands of debate are confronted. The first is the literature on differences between multinationals of different national origins which has shown that US companies tend to be more centralized, standardized, and formalized in their management of human resources. It is argued that the literature has provided unconvincing explanations of this pattern, failing to link it to distinctive features of the American business system in which US multinationals are embedded. The second strand is the wider debate on the balance between centralization and decentralization in multinationals. It is argued that the literature neglects important features of this balance: the contingent oscillation between cent...
HRM in US Subsidiaries in Europe: Centralization Or Autonomy?
In this paper we explore determinants of subsidiary autonomy in setting HRM practices within US-parented MNEs by analyzing the 1999 Euronet-Cranfield data set on HRM practices in European companies and work organizations. On the one hand we examine the effect of strategic context: whether the subsidiary faces global or local markets. On the other hand we consider local institutional context: national business system and level of unionization. As hypothesised we find both kinds of effect are important. US MNEs show greater centralisation of control over HRM where the subsidiary faces global markets, in coordinated market economies versus liberal market economies and where union density is low.
Human Resource Management in the US, Europe and Asia: Differences and Characteristics
Aim of this study is to discuss differences and characteristics between HRM in the US, Europe and Asia. Divergence can be seen in HRM practices between markets due to cultural and legal differences that enables international firms to adapt local norms. To identify characteristics provides a firm of effectively managing their international HRM practices.Therefore, literature studies demonstrate differenf characteristics in managing human resources between markets.
A theory-driven conceptual model is used to identify factors that shape the international human resource management (IHRM) activities of Australian multinational corporations (MNCs) in their overseas subsidiaries. The findings show that their IHRM activities appear to be shaped, to varying degrees, by strategic factors. The most important explanatory variables are subsidiary role and national cultural distance between home and host countries, although the results of national culture may change through adopting a more sophisticated framing and measurement of the variable. Interestingly enough, the parent HR managers were found to stress the role of subsidiary company factors in determining HR policies and practices in the subsidiaries. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution because the cross-sectional nature of the study is limited in explaining very complicated HRM phenomena that evolve over time.
Diffusion of HRM to Europe and the Role of US Multinational Companies
We explore determinants of subsidiary autonomy in setting HRM practices within US parented 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 centralization of control over HRM where the subsidiary faces global markets, in coordinated market economies versus liberal market economies, and where union density is low.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2005
A theory-driven eonceptual model is used lo identify factors ihat shape the internatii)nal humiin resource managemenl (IHRM) activities of Atistralian multinalional corporalions (MNCs) in their overseas sub.sidiaries. The hndings show that their IHRM activities appear to be shaped, to varying degrees, by strategic factors. The most important explanatory variables are subsidiary role and national cultural distance between home and host countries, although the results ol' national culture may change through adopting a more st>phislicated framing and measuremeni o\' Ihe variable. Interestingly enough. Ihe parent HR managers were found lo stress the role of subsidiary company factors in determining HR policies and practices in the subsidiaries. However, these lindings should be interpreted with caution because the cross-sectional nature of Ihe study is limited in explaining very complicated HRM phenomena that evolve over time.
Organization Studies, 2004
This article revisits a central question in the debates on the management of multinationals: the balance between centralized policy-making and subsidiary autonomy. It does so through data from a series of case studies on the management of human resources in American multinationals in the UK. Two strands of debate are confronted. The first is the literature on differences between multinationals of different national origins which has shown that US companies tend to be more centralized, standardized, and formalized in their management of human resources. It is argued that the literature has provided unconvincing explanations of this pattern, failing to link it to distinctive features of the American business system in which US multinationals are embedded. The second strand is the wider debate on the balance between centralization and decentralization in multinationals. It is argued that the literature neglects important features of this balance: the contingent oscillation between centralized and decentralized modes of operation and (relatedly) the way in which the balance is negotiated by organizational actors through micro-political processes whereby the external structural constraints on the company are defined and interpreted. In such negotiation, actors' leverage often derives from exploiting differences between the national business systems in which the multinational operates.