Exploring standardisation and knowledge networking processes in transnational human resource management
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480910920688 |
| Pages | 5-25 |
| Date | 26 December 2008 |
| Published date | 26 December 2008 |
| Author | Michael Dickmann,Michael Müller‐Camen,Clare Kelliher |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Exploring standardisation and
knowledge networking processes
in transnational human resource
management
Michael Dickmann
Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
Michael Mu
¨ller-Camen
Middlesex University Business School, London, UK
Clare Kelliher
Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
Abstract
Purpose – It is argued that a key step in becoming a “transnational” company is to implement
transnational HRM (THRM). However, what is meant by THRM and how can it be assessed? The
purpose of this paper is to develop the characteristics of THRM along two dimensions: standardisation
and knowledge networking, in contrast to many existing studies which focus on IHRM strategies and
structures. Standardisation and knowledge networking are to be examined at both the meta and
operational levels.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on two case studies of major German MNCs,
both with significant operations in Spain and the UK. Data were collected by means of semi-structured
interviews with senior managers, HR managers and labour representatives.
Findings – The findings show that THRM can be operationalised using knowledge networking and
standardisation on a meta level, in terms of principles, and at an operational level in terms of practices.
The two firms show differences in the process and intensity of HR knowledge networking which have
implications for the level of standardisation, local autonomy and innovation capabilities. The findings
also suggests that THRM is more about processes than outcomes.
Research limitations/implications – A limitation of this study is that the cases were only drawn
from Western Europe. The patterns of THRM structures and processes may differ significantly in
MNCs from other regions.
Originality/value – This paper extends existing research by exploring international HR beyond
strategies and structures and focuses on communication and coordination processes. It advocates a
refined view of the transnational firm.
Keywords Internationalorganizations, Human resource management, Knowledge sharing,
Standardization,Western Europe
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The transnational firm identified by Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989), has become one of the
most prescribed configurations for MNCs (Harzing, 2000; Gooderham and Nordhaug,
2003). Going beyond a matrix organisation, the transnational is now perceived as the
final stage in the development of a MNC, being simultaneously nationally responsive,
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
Standardisation
and networking
processes
5
Received 14 November 2006
Revised December 2006
Accepted 18 October 2007
Personnel Review
Vol. 38 No. 1, 2009
pp. 5-25
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/00483480910920688
globally effective and innovative. It also provides a framework for incorporating both
the control aspects (integration and responsiveness) identified in the earlier literatur e
on MNCs and the process emphasis of more recent studies (Birkinshaw, 2000; Edwards
and Ferner, 2004). Nevertheless, there are some problems with the transnational
concept, since the boundaries between different configurations of MNCs (global,
multidomestic, international) overlap. However, the network aspects of transnational
corporations encourage flexibility, responsiveness and innovation (Bartlett and
Ghoshal, 2002, 2003). It is the origin of ideas and the quality of the communication
process that leads to what is being integrated across borders and that distinguishes the
two types. Therefore, without looking at processes we cannot clearly identify
transnationals, or distinguish them from other configurations.
Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989, p. 71) advocate mechanisms to build tr ansnational
human resource management (THRM), “[A] fundam ental prerequisite for the
normative integration a transnational seeks is a sophisticated HRM system. The
transnational uses systems of recruitment, training and development and career path
management to help individuals to cope with its diversity and complexity”.
Accordingly, they argue that the role of THRM policies and practices becomes a key to
competitive advantage. The shift of analysis to processes has important implications
for THRM. As Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989, p. 209) argue “the transnational is less a
structural classification than a broad organisational concept of philosophy, manifested
in organisational capability”. Harzing’s (2000) review of research into typologies of
MNCs found that predominantly corporations’ strategies and structures were
analysed. Those studies that cover HRM (see for example Perlmutter, 1969; Adler and
Ghadar, 1990) have tended to be conceptual in nature and lacking empirical support.
There are also a number of studies about HRM in MNCs from particular home
countries and/or operating in specific host environments (see for example Ferner et al.,
2001; Dickmann, 2003; Schmitt and Sadowski, 2003; Whitley et al., 2003; Almond et al.,
2005; Temple et al., 2006). However, these focus mainly on the influence of the broad
characteristics of national business systems. There is a need to focus on the actual
HRM policies and practices that multinational corporations employ, in areas such as
recruitment and selection, training and development and career management – the
areas identified by Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989, p. 212). To do this, we have developed a
typology based on two dimensions, standardisation and knowledge networking.
This conceptualisation of THRM assumes that there is a continuum of
differentiation/responsiveness/localization advantages to integration/coordination/
globalization advantages (Harzing, 2000, p. 103). To evaluate the uniformity of
international HRM strategies, structures and policies in MNCs, one overarching
dimension that captures variations in HRM in home and host countries is sufficient
(Dickmann and Mu
¨ller-Camen, 2006). In this paper we will refer to it as
standardisation. Standardisation can include varing degrees of integration around
headquarters standards, as well as different degrees of cross-national co-ordination of
strategy and structure within HRM. High HRM standardisation refers to “global”
HRM, characterised by highly integrated HR strategies, principles and instruments.
Low standardisation describes “multidomestic” HRM, shaped by locally developed and
implemented strategies and policies (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1989).
Knowledge flows between head office and subsidiaries in MNCs have been the
subject of much research (Harzing, 1999; Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000). While
PR
38,1
6
To continue reading
Request your trial