Handbook of Research in International Human Resource Management

Michael M. Harris

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2007
• ISBN:
  9781136677670
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Negocios y empresa
• Subtopic: Gestión de recursos humanos

Handbook of Research in International Human Resource Management, a book in LEA's Organization and Management Series, provides a sophisticated, in-depth examination of research in international human resource management (IHRM). Editor Michael M. Harris compiles research in IHRM that is otherwise fragmented across numerous journals and conducted from

  1   Introduction

Michael M. Harris

CONTENTS

Do HR Practices and Programs Differ Internationally?

Is There a “Best” Set of HR Practices and Programs?

Are Our HRM Theories Broad Enough to Fit Internationally?

Organization of the Book

References

 

In the last decade or so, there has been a surge of interest in international human resource management (IHRM) issues, as indicated by several updated textbooks in the area, a growth in journals focusing on IHRM issues (e.g., the International Journal of Human Resource Management), and a marked increase in international content in major management journals (see Kirkman & Law, 2005). Correspondingly, there has been a rapid increase in the pace of international business. More than ever before, the global business world is interconnected; events in one part of the world (e.g., an explosion in a gas pipeline in the Middle East) have ramifications in other parts of the world (e.g., the Asian stock market). The ability to outsource specific particular functions (e.g., information technology, manufacturing) to other parts of the world means that even the smallest of companies may interact with people in different countries. Clearly, these possibilities lead to greater opportunities, as well as challenges, from a business perspective.

The globalization of business has spawned a number of trends of potential interest for IHRM practitioners. First, the advent of “offshoring,” whereby companies in one country send work to be performed in another country, has affected human resource management (HRM) in a variety of ways. For example, from an organizational design perspective, an important question concerns what is the best organizational structure for managing such an arrangement, particularly when workers may be thousands of miles away from the corporate headquarters and when conventional communication methods (e.g., face-to-face discussion) may not be possible on a regular basis. Another question is how best to design a pay-for-performance system for a company where work is performed in another country. Among the many practical questions is the issue of whether workers will even be motivated by whichever pay-for-performance plan is created.

Another important trend is the growing importance of expatriate experience for managerial careers. Over the last few decades, the importance and focus of an expatriate experience appears to have changed. At one time, an expatriate experience may have created more problems than gains for the manager. Today, however, obtaining some kind of international work experience appears to be more critical than ever before (Stroh et al., 2005). It is commonplace for practitioners to assert that having global work experience is essential for a successful career in many fields. In turn, the role of global work experience is likely to change the way in which careers evolve.

From a research perspective, HRM has traditionally had a strong Western orientation. Until recently, most of the scholars in the field have been trained in North American universities and have taken jobs in those universities. Not surprisingly, much of the research published in the mainstream HRM journals, such as the Academy of Management Journal, the Journal of Applied Psychology, and Personnel Psychology, has been conducted in North American settings, using measures designed and validated in this context. During the last decade, however, there have been some fundamental shifts. More universities in other regions of the world, including the United Kingdom as well as continental Europe, have begun HRM programs. Increasing numbers of scholars from Asia, as well as other areas outside of North America, have begun submitting and publishing IHRM research in mainstream journals. It is clear that we must expand our view of HRM to incorporate a global perspective. This, then, is the purpose of the present volume. Specifically, the aim is to review what is currently known about IHRM, describe what future research questions are important to answer, and in general, provide directions for future IHRM researchers.

The focus of this handbook is on research, not on practice. Although there are practical implications of much of this research, our interest is primarily on describing previous findings, offering new hypotheses, and setting directions for future investigations. In reading the chapters that follow, there are several broad themes that are covered to varying degrees within each chapter. These themes are:

1. Do HR practices, programs, and outcomes differ from country to country? If the answer is yes, why do they differ? Specifically, does culture explain these differences?

2. Is there a “best” set of HR practices and programs that should be implemented internationally?

3. Are our HRM theories broad enough to fit internationally or do we need to develop specific theories for different regions of the world?

I discuss each of these themes in more detail next.

DO HR PRACTICES AND PROGRAMS DIFFER INTERNATIONALLY?

A frequently addressed question in IHRM research is whether HR practices and programs differ from country to country. There are at least two reasons for why this question is commonly addressed. First, in many ways, it is the simplest question to study. At a minimum, all that one needs are data from two countries to offer at least a partial answer to the question. Although there are serious limitations to such a study design (see Chapter 4) and the mere availability of data is not a sufficient reason to conduct a study, there may nevertheless be good reasons to study this question. In particular, determining whether HR practices and programs differ internationally is a precursor to other questions. For example, only if HR practices and programs really differ is it worth asking whether we need to develop specific theories for different regions of the world. The more interesting, and theoretically richer, aspect is the second part of the question—namely, if there are differences in HR programs and practices, why do they exist?

Most of the research in this regard has focused on linking country HR differences to culture. For the most part, the logic here has been that cultures emphasizing collectivism, for example, will prefer compensation rewards that reflect group cohesion, whereas cultures that are predominantly individualistic will emphasize compensation programs that reward individuals. Indeed, examining the relationships between various HR practices and culture appears to have supported these kinds of arguments (e.g., see Chapter 2 on culture).

Quite often, however, this question has not been studied in an ideal way. Instead of obtaining data from a variety of cultures that vary along the spectrum of interest (e.g., individualism/collectivism), researchers have obtained a convenience sample of two countries and compared the results. Any differences are then attributed to the factor of interest (e.g., individualism/collectivism), although there may be other potential explanatory reasons for the differences (see Chapter 4). Thus, there is clearly a need for much more research on the relationship between culture and HR practices, programs, and outcomes.

IS THERE A “BEST” SET OF HR PRACTICES AND PROGRAMS?

Looking over the history of HRM and its related areas, it is safe to say that there has been conflict between the emergence of contingency theories, which assume that “best practices” depend on various contextual factors, and universal theories, which assume that there is a set of “best practices” that apply in virtually all circumstances. In the international context, it might (at least at first blush) seem most reasonable to make an argument for contingency theories, rather than a single universal theory. After all, countries differ widely in terms of history, culture, and traditions. To expect different countries to operate similarly seems simple-minded at best. At the same time, it has been argued that there is a great homogenization going on worldwide; technologies such as the Internet are bringing Western culture throughout the world and are affecting styles, culture, and aspirations, especially among younger generations. In this light, universalistic theories of IHRM do not seem so implausible. Only further research will answer the question as to whether contingency theories or a universalistic theory of “best” HR practices will be sufficient.

Studying whether there is one best set of HRM practices is not a simple task. One approach would involve manipulating conditions such that one group receives a treatment (e.g., pay-for-performance plan X), while another group receives a different treatment (e.g., pay-for-performance plan Y). One would also want to have subjects from many different cultures in each condition to determine whether there is an interaction between treatment condition and culture. Of course, one would also need to control for prior treatment effects. For example, subjects from some cultures may be used to having pay-for-performance plan X, and therefore they have a high comfort level with it. Subjects from other cultures may not have been exposed to this type of plan and therefore will take time to adjust before they reach a comfort level. These and other factors may make it more difficult to truly assess whether there is a “best set” of HRM practices that applies across cultures. Becker and Gerhart's (1996) notion that HR “practices,” which seem very different at one level (e.g., a company in one culture uses an individual incentive program, while a company in a different culture uses a group incentive program) may be quite similar at the “architectural” level (e.g., both companies reward employees for performance) may be important here.

These complexities should not be taken, however, as an indicator that a search for the “best set” of HRM practices is misguided or of no value. To the contrary, I believe that the search for a “best set” of HRM practices will help transform our field from an infant science to a well-developed, highly respected science.

ARE OUR HRM THEORIES BROAD ENOUGH TO FIT INTERNATIONALLY?

Finally an important question that must be considered is whether our theories are comprehensive enough to cover HRM on a global basis or whether they need to be modified. There are several possibilities here. One possibility is that all of the relevant variables are included in our theories, but the causal order differs in different cultures; alternatively, some of our theories may need additional variables in order to be applied to other cultures. A third possibility is that we need completely different theories in order to understand HRM programs, practices, and outcomes in different cultures. Again, much more empirical work is needed here to answer this question.

A final comment is in order here. Much of the emphasis on IHRM appears to be on testing for cultural differences. As Chan points out in Chapter 4, however, researchers have a tendency to design their studies, and to interpret the results, in ways that will support their assumptions. In a recent review, Ofori-Dankwa and Ricks (2000) asserted that IHRM scholars assume that there will be cultural differences and highlight those findings that show such differences. As a result, they call for more careful analysis and discussion of cross-cultural similarities, as well as differences. We need to be careful to emphasize that there may be similarities across cultures and should be cautious that we do not ignore these similarities when they occur. Of course, apparent similarities may be due to lack of power to find differences, so we must also consider methodological and statistical explanations for apparent similarity as well.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK

The remainder of this volume addresses both research methodology and content-oriented issues. First, Lawler, Walumbwa, and Bai provide an overview of the concept of culture and explain how this construct has been used in previous research. The next two chapters address methodological issues in IHRM. The first of these chapters, by Gephart and Richardson, addresses qualitative research methods and describes various techniques in conducting IHRM research. The next chapter, by Chan, focuses on quantitative research methods, with an emphasis on problems associated with this approach in IHRM research.

Chapter 5, by Sparrow and Braun, addresses macro-level IHRM research. Specifically, they examine strategic IHRM, with an emphasis on the appropriate structure of a global organization and theories concerning the strengths of being a global company. Chapters on employee selection, performance appraisal, and compensation follow next. Chapter 6, on employee selection, by Lievens, addresses questions concerning the relationships between culture and the use of different predictors, reactions to different tests, and whether test validity generalizes across countries and cultures. Fletcher and Bailey's chapter on performance appraisal reviews major theories of performance measurement and offers hypotheses about the relationship between culture and performance appraisal practices. Finally, Harris and Park address compensation in a global context, reporting some well-researched issues, as well as some underresearched areas of compensation.

In Chapter 9, Hundley and Marett address labor relations and unions in a global context. They question the relationship between culture and union-management relations, arguing that there is little reason to assume such a relationship exists. Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran review the literature on expatriates in Chapter 10. They show that while there is a vast literature in this area covering selection, training, and repatriation of expatriates, there are many research questions that remain. Chapter 11, written by Cerdin and Bird, addresses careers. Their chapter offers various models for understanding what constitutes a “career” and both the antecedents and outcomes of having a global career experience. The final chapter in this handbook provides a summary of highlights for each chapter, as well as some suggestions for future research.

REFERENCES

Becker, B., & Gerhart, B. (1996). The impact of human resource management on organizational performance: Progress and prospects. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 779–801.

Kirkman, B. L., & Law, K. S. (2005). International management research in AMJ: Our past, present, and future. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 377–386.

Ofori-Dankwa, J., & Ricks, D. (2000). Research emphases on cultural differences and/or similarities: Are we asking the right questions? Journal of International Management, 6, 173–186.

Stroh, L., Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M. E., & Gregersen, H. B. (2005). International assignments: An integration of strategy, research, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

2 National Culture and Cultural EffectS

John J. Lawler, Fred O. Walumbwa, and Bing Bai

CONTENTS

Culture as a Concept

Attributes of Culture

Cultural Diversity

Cultural Syndromes

Hofstede

Triandis

Trompenaars

House et al

Cultural Effects in the Workplace

Culture and Self-Identity

Culture and Leadership

Employee Participation

Motivation and Decision Making

Teamwork

Empowerment

Negotiating Style

Conflict Resolution

Suggestions and Recommendations for Future Research and Practice

Methodological Issues

Analytical Strategies

Measurement of Criteria

Level of Analyses

Culture Measures

Conclusions

References

Several years ago, a major European airline engaged a U.S.-based consultant to help identify ways of enhancing customer service. One recommendation ...