HRD and labour market practices in a US multinational subsidiary the impact of global and local influences
Identifieur interne : 001B72 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001B71; suivant : 001B73HRD and labour market practices in a US multinational subsidiary the impact of global and local influences
Auteurs : David G. CollingsSource :
- Journal of European Industrial Training [ 0309-0590 ] ; 2003-03-01.
Abstract
This paper examines the extent to which the human resource development HRD and labour market dynamics of a US multinational subsidiary in Ireland are influenced by global and local factors. Specifically the study examines the dynamic between central control and subsidiary autonomy in relation to HRD and labour market management. Using a single case study, the author explores the extent to which the subsidiary is constrained or enabled by virtue of its US heritage, and the relative impact of the Irish environment on its operation. The findings indicate that the subsidiary possesses considerable autonomy in relation to content aspects of HRD interventions while corporate interest was primarily focused on budgetary issues. Turning to labour market management, it is argued that the subsidiarys longterm focus is characteristic of the welfare capitalist approach to HR management. The main manifestations of this approach in the case company are outlined, while also acknowledging the impact of sectoral and company specific factors in shaping HRD and labour market management in the subsidiary.
Url:
DOI: 10.1108/03090590310469001
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:88435119813CE5D0807E2200822FA21C7737D019Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">HRD and labour market practices in a US multinational subsidiary the impact of global and local influences</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Collings, David G" sort="Collings, David G" uniqKey="Collings D" first="David G." last="Collings">David G. Collings</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Personnel and Employment Relations, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:88435119813CE5D0807E2200822FA21C7737D019</idno><date when="2003" year="2003">2003</date><idno type="doi">10.1108/03090590310469001</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/88435119813CE5D0807E2200822FA21C7737D019/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001B72</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001B72</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">HRD and labour market practices in a US multinational subsidiary the impact of global and local influences</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Collings, David G" sort="Collings, David G" uniqKey="Collings D" first="David G." last="Collings">David G. Collings</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Personnel and Employment Relations, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Journal of European Industrial Training</title><idno type="ISSN">0309-0590</idno><imprint><publisher>MCB UP Ltd</publisher><date type="published" when="2003-03-01">2003-03-01</date><biblScope unit="volume">27</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2/3/4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="188">188</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="200">200</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0309-0590</idno></series><idno type="istex">88435119813CE5D0807E2200822FA21C7737D019</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/03090590310469001</idno><idno type="filenameID">0030270213</idno><idno type="original-pdf">0030270213.pdf</idno><idno type="href">03090590310469001.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0309-0590</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">This paper examines the extent to which the human resource development HRD and labour market dynamics of a US multinational subsidiary in Ireland are influenced by global and local factors. Specifically the study examines the dynamic between central control and subsidiary autonomy in relation to HRD and labour market management. Using a single case study, the author explores the extent to which the subsidiary is constrained or enabled by virtue of its US heritage, and the relative impact of the Irish environment on its operation. The findings indicate that the subsidiary possesses considerable autonomy in relation to content aspects of HRD interventions while corporate interest was primarily focused on budgetary issues. Turning to labour market management, it is argued that the subsidiarys longterm focus is characteristic of the welfare capitalist approach to HR management. The main manifestations of this approach in the case company are outlined, while also acknowledging the impact of sectoral and company specific factors in shaping HRD and labour market management in the subsidiary.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>emerald</corpusName><author><json:item><name>David G. Collings</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Personnel and Employment Relations, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Labour market</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Multinationals</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Pharmaceuticals industry</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Human resource development</value></json:item></subject><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>This paper examines the extent to which the human resource development HRD and labour market dynamics of a US multinational subsidiary in Ireland are influenced by global and local factors. Specifically the study examines the dynamic between central control and subsidiary autonomy in relation to HRD and labour market management. Using a single case study, the author explores the extent to which the subsidiary is constrained or enabled by virtue of its US heritage, and the relative impact of the Irish environment on its operation. The findings indicate that the subsidiary possesses considerable autonomy in relation to content aspects of HRD interventions while corporate interest was primarily focused on budgetary issues. Turning to labour market management, it is argued that the subsidiarys longterm focus is characteristic of the welfare capitalist approach to HR management. The main manifestations of this approach in the case company are outlined, while also acknowledging the impact of sectoral and company specific factors in shaping HRD and labour market management in the subsidiary.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>9.004</score><pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>595 x 842 pts (A4)</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>4</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>1101</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>8851</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>58307</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>13</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>167</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>HRD and labour market practices in a US multinational subsidiary the impact of global and local influences</title><refBibs><json:item><host><author></author><title>Top 200 The Rise of Global Corporate Power</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Managing across Borders The Transnational Solution</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>G. Bomers</name></json:item><json:item><name>R. Peterson</name></json:item></author><host><volume>15</volume><pages><last>62</last><first>45</first></pages><issue>1</issue><author></author><title>British Journal of Industrial Relations</title></host><title>Multinational corporations and industrial relations the case of West Germany and The Netherlands</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Strategy and Human Resource Management</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>A.D. Chandler</name></json:item></author><host><author></author><title>The History of American Management</title></host><title>The beginnings of big business in American industry</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Scale and Scope The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>J. Child</name></json:item><json:item><name>D. Faulkner</name></json:item><json:item><name>R. Pitkethy</name></json:item></author><host><volume>37</volume><issue>1</issue><author></author><title>Journal of Management Studies</title></host><title>Foreign direct investment in the UK 19851994 the impact on domestic management practice</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>J. Coates</name></json:item><json:item><name>E. Davis</name></json:item><json:item><name>C. Emmanuel</name></json:item><json:item><name>S. Longden</name></json:item><json:item><name>R. Stacey</name></json:item></author><host><volume>3</volume><author></author><title>Management Accounting Research</title></host><title>Multinational companies performance measurement systems international perspectives</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>In a state of bliss there is no need for a ministry of bliss some further thoughts on welfare capitalism</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>P.J. DiMaggio</name></json:item><json:item><name>W.W. Powell</name></json:item></author><host><volume>48</volume><author></author><title>American Sociological Review</title></host><title>The iron cage revisited institutionalism and collective rationality in organizational fields</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>P. Drucker</name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>22</last><first>3</first></pages><author></author><title>The Economist</title></host><title>The next society</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>J.H. Dunning</name></json:item></author><host><author></author><title>The Americanisation of European Business</title></host><title>US owned manufacturing affiliates and the transfer of managerial techniques the British case</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>T. Edwards</name></json:item><json:item><name>A. Ferner</name></json:item></author><host><volume>33</volume><pages><last>111</last><first>94</first></pages><issue>2</issue><author></author><title>Industrial Relations Journal</title></host><title>The renewed American challenge a review of employment practices in US multinationals</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Wall Street, shorttermism and the management of labour in American multinationals</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>The Global Challenge Frameworks for International Human Resource Management</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>A. Ferner</name></json:item></author><host><volume>7</volume><pages><last>37</last><first>19</first></pages><issue>1</issue><author></author><title>Human Resource Management</title></host><title>Country of origin effects and HRM in multinational corporations</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>The Embeddedness of US Multinational Companies in the US Business System Implications for HRIR</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>A. Ferner</name></json:item><json:item><name>J. Quintanilla</name></json:item></author><host><volume>9</volume><issue>4</issue><author></author><title>International Journal of Human Resource Management</title></host><title>Multinationals, national business systems and HRM the enduring influence of national identity or a process of AngloSaxonization</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>A. Ferner</name></json:item><json:item><name>J. Quintanilla</name></json:item><json:item><name>M.Z. Varul</name></json:item></author><host><volume>36</volume><issue>2</issue><author></author><title>Journal of World Business</title></host><title>Country of origin effects, host country effects, and the management of HR in multinationals German companies in Britain and Spain</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>The dynamics of central control and subsidiary autonomy in the management of human resources case study evidence from US MNCs in the UK</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>International Trade and Investment Report, 2001</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>J.M. Geringer</name></json:item><json:item><name>C.A. Frayne</name></json:item><json:item><name>J.F. Milliman</name></json:item></author><host><volume>41</volume><pages><last>31</last><first>5</first></pages><issue>1</issue><author></author><title>Human Resource Management</title></host><title>In search of best practices in international human resource management research design and methodology</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>P. Gooderham</name></json:item><json:item><name>O. Nordhaug</name></json:item><json:item><name>K. Ringdal</name></json:item></author><host><volume>38</volume><pages><last>64</last><first>47</first></pages><issue>2</issue><author></author><title>Management International Review</title></host><title>When in Rome, do they as the Romans HRM practices of US subsidiaries in Europe</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>D.E. Guest</name></json:item><json:item><name>K. Hoque</name></json:item></author><host><volume>6</volume><pages><last>74</last><first>50</first></pages><issue>4</issue><author></author><title>Human Resource Management Journal</title></host><title>National ownership and HR practices in UK greenfield sites</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>P. Gunnigle</name></json:item><json:item><name>K.M. Murphy</name></json:item><json:item><name>J. Cleveland</name></json:item><json:item><name>N. Heraty</name></json:item><json:item><name>M. Morley</name></json:item></author><host><volume>14</volume><author></author><title>Advances in International Management</title></host><title>Localisation in human resource management comparing American and European multinational corporations</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>The Elephant and the Flea Looking Backwards to the Future</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Management in the Industrial World An International Analysis</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Managing the Multinationals An International Study of Control Mechanisms</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>The Silent Takeover Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Cultures Consequences, International Differences in Work Related Values</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Annual Report</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>S. Jackson</name></json:item><json:item><name>R.A. Schuler</name></json:item></author><host><volume>46</volume><author></author><title>Annual Review of Psychology</title></host><title>Understanding human resource management in the context of organisations and their environments</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Modern Manors Welfare Capitalism Since the New Deal</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>S.M. Jacoby</name></json:item></author><host><volume>38</volume><issue>2</issue><author></author><title>Industrial Relations</title></host><title>Modern manors an overview</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>S.M. Jacoby</name></json:item></author><host><volume>38</volume><issue>2</issue><author></author><title>Industrial Relations</title></host><title>Reckoning with welfare capitalism responding to the critics</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Industrialism and Industrial Management</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>The Transformation of American Industrial Relations</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>T. Kostova</name></json:item><json:item><name>K. Roth</name></json:item></author><host><volume>45</volume><issue>1</issue><author></author><title>Academy of Management Review</title></host><title>Adoption of an organisational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations institutional and relational effects</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Management and Labour in Europe The Industrial Enterprise in Germany, Britain and France</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Industry and Society in Europe Stability and Change in Germany, France and Britain</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>A. Laurent</name></json:item></author><host><volume>XIII</volume><pages><last>96</last><first>75</first></pages><issue>12</issue><author></author><title>International Studies of Management and Organisation</title></host><title>That cultural diversity of Western conceptions of management</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>T. Levitt</name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>102</last><first>92</first></pages><author></author><title>Harvard Business Review</title></host><title>The globalisation of markets</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>The Collapse of the American Management Mystique</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>M.H. Lubatkin</name></json:item><json:item><name>M. Ndiaye</name></json:item><json:item><name>R. Vengroff</name></json:item></author><host><volume>28</volume><issue>4</issue><author></author><title>Journal of International Business Studies</title></host><title>The nature of managerial work in developing countries a limited test of the universalist hypothesis</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>S.L. McGaughey</name></json:item><json:item><name>H.D. DeCieri</name></json:item></author><host><volume>10</volume><issue>2</issue><author></author><title>International Journal of Human Resource Management</title></host><title>Reassessment of convergence and divergence dynamics implications for international HRM</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>M. MullerCamen</name></json:item><json:item><name>P. Almond</name></json:item><json:item><name>P. Gunnigle</name></json:item><json:item><name>J. Quintanilla</name></json:item><json:item><name>A. Temple</name></json:item></author><host><volume>32</volume><issue>5</issue><author></author><title>Industrial Relations Journal</title></host><title>Beyond home and host country multinationals and employment relations in Europe</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>H.Y. Ngo</name></json:item><json:item><name>D. Turban</name></json:item><json:item><name>C.M. Lau</name></json:item><json:item><name>S.Y. Lui</name></json:item></author><host><volume>9</volume><issue>4</issue><author></author><title>International Journal of Human Resource Management</title></host><title>Human resource practices and firm performance of multinational corporations influences of country of origin</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Contests for Corporate Control Corporate Governance and Economic Performance in the United States and Germany</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Multinational companies and human resource management a case study of an American pharmaceutical company in Ireland</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>The Second Industrial Divide. Possibilities for Prosperity</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>International Business Management A Guide to Decision Making</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>D.M. Rosenzweig</name></json:item><json:item><name>N. Nohria</name></json:item></author><host><volume>25</volume><issue>2</issue><author></author><title>Journal of International Business Studies</title></host><title>Influences on human resource management practices in multinational corporations</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>T. Royle</name></json:item></author><host><volume>7</volume><issue>23</issue><author></author><title>International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management</title></host><title>Corporate versus societal culture a comparative study of McDonalds in Europe</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>C. Smith</name></json:item><json:item><name>P. Meiskins</name></json:item></author><host><volume>9</volume><issue>2</issue><author></author><title>Work, Employment and Society</title></host><title>System, society and dominance effects in crossnational organizational analysis</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Organisations and National Culture</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>O. Tregaskis</name></json:item><json:item><name>N. Heraty</name></json:item><json:item><name>M. Morley</name></json:item></author><host><volume>11</volume><pages><last>56</last><first>34</first></pages><issue>2</issue><author></author><title>Human Resource Management Journal</title></host><title>HRD in multinationals the globallocal mix</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>World Investment Report 2001 Promoting Linkages</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>European Business Systems. Firms and Markets in Their National Contexts</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>S. Young</name></json:item><json:item><name>N. Hood</name></json:item><json:item><name>J. Hamill</name></json:item></author><host><issue>35</issue><author></author><title>ILO Working Paper</title></host><title>Decision making in foreignowned multinational subsidiaries in the United Kingdom</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>L. Zucker</name></json:item></author><host><volume>42</volume><author></author><title>American Sociological Review</title></host><title>The role of institutionalisation in cultural persistence</title></json:item></refBibs><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>27</volume><publisherId><json:string>jeit</json:string></publisherId><pages><last>200</last><first>188</first></pages><issn><json:string>0309-0590</json:string></issn><issue>2/3/4</issue><subject><json:item><value>HR & organizational behaviour</value></json:item><json:item><value>Training & development</value></json:item></subject><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><title>Journal of European Industrial Training</title><doi><json:string>10.1108/jeit</json:string></doi></host><categories><wos></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>economic & social sciences</json:string><json:string>economics & business </json:string><json:string>business & management</json:string></scienceMetrix><inist><json:string>sciences humaines et sociales</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>2003</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2003</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1108/03090590310469001</json:string></doi><id>88435119813CE5D0807E2200822FA21C7737D019</id><score>0.016050348</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/88435119813CE5D0807E2200822FA21C7737D019/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/88435119813CE5D0807E2200822FA21C7737D019/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/88435119813CE5D0807E2200822FA21C7737D019/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">HRD and labour market practices in a US multinational subsidiary the impact of global and local influences</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>MCB UP Ltd</publisher><availability><p>© MCB UP Limited</p></availability><date>2003</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">HRD and labour market practices in a US multinational subsidiary the impact of global and local influences</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">David G.</forename><surname>Collings</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Personnel and Employment Relations, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Journal of European Industrial Training</title><idno type="pISSN">0309-0590</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/jeit</idno><imprint><publisher>MCB UP Ltd</publisher><date type="published" when="2003-03-01"></date><biblScope unit="volume">27</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2/3/4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="188">188</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="200">200</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">88435119813CE5D0807E2200822FA21C7737D019</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/03090590310469001</idno><idno type="filenameID">0030270213</idno><idno type="original-pdf">0030270213.pdf</idno><idno type="href">03090590310469001.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2003</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>This paper examines the extent to which the human resource development HRD and labour market dynamics of a US multinational subsidiary in Ireland are influenced by global and local factors. Specifically the study examines the dynamic between central control and subsidiary autonomy in relation to HRD and labour market management. Using a single case study, the author explores the extent to which the subsidiary is constrained or enabled by virtue of its US heritage, and the relative impact of the Irish environment on its operation. The findings indicate that the subsidiary possesses considerable autonomy in relation to content aspects of HRD interventions while corporate interest was primarily focused on budgetary issues. Turning to labour market management, it is argued that the subsidiarys longterm focus is characteristic of the welfare capitalist approach to HR management. The main manifestations of this approach in the case company are outlined, while also acknowledging the impact of sectoral and company specific factors in shaping HRD and labour market management in the subsidiary.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>Labour market</term></item><item><term>Multinationals</term></item><item><term>Pharmaceuticals industry</term></item><item><term>Human resource development</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="Emerald Subject Group"><list><label>cat-HOB</label><item><term>HR & organizational behaviour</term></item><label>cat-TDEV</label><item><term>Training & development</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2003-03-01">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/88435119813CE5D0807E2200822FA21C7737D019/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus emerald not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><!-- Auto generated NISO JATS XML created by Atypon out of MCB DTD source files. Do Not Edit! --><article dtd-version="1.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research-article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">jeit</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="doi">10.1108/jeit</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Journal of European Industrial Training</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">0309-0590</issn><publisher><publisher-name>MCB UP Ltd</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1108/03090590310469001</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="original-pdf">0030270213.pdf</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="filename">0030270213</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="type-of-publication"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">research-article</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Research paper</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">case-report</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Case study</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="subject"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-HOB</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">HR & organizational behaviour</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-TDEV</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Training & development</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>HRD and labour market practices in a US multinational subsidiary: the impact of global and local influences</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><string-name><given-names>David G.</given-names> <surname>Collings</surname></string-name><aff>Department of Personnel and Employment Relations, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland</aff></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><day>01</day><month>03</month><year>2003</year></pub-date><volume>27</volume><issue>2/3/4</issue><fpage>188</fpage><lpage>200</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>© MCB UP Limited</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2003</copyright-year><license license-type="publisher"><license-p></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="03090590310469001.pdf"></self-uri><abstract><p>This paper examines the extent to which the human resource development (HRD) and labour market dynamics of a US multinational subsidiary in Ireland are influenced by global and local factors. Specifically the study examines the dynamic between central control and subsidiary autonomy in relation to HRD and labour market management. Using a single case study, the author explores the extent to which the subsidiary is constrained or enabled by virtue of its US heritage, and the relative impact of the Irish environment on its operation. The findings indicate that the subsidiary possesses considerable autonomy in relation to content aspects of HRD interventions while corporate interest was primarily focused on budgetary issues. Turning to labour market management, it is argued that the subsidiary’s long‐term focus is characteristic of the welfare capitalist approach to HR management. The main manifestations of this approach in the case company are outlined, while also acknowledging the impact of sectoral and company specific factors in shaping HRD and labour market management in the subsidiary.</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Labour market</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Multinationals</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Pharmaceuticals industry</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Human resource development</kwd></kwd-group><custom-meta-group><custom-meta><meta-name>peer-reviewed</meta-name><meta-value>no</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>academic-content</meta-name><meta-value>yes</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>rightslink</meta-name><meta-value>included</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-group></article-meta><ack><p>The author wishes to acknowledge the helpful comments of Professor Patrick Gunnigle, Dr Michael Morley and Dr Thomas Garavan at the University of Limerick on earlier drafts of this paper.</p></ack></front><body><sec><title>Introduction</title><p>Multinational companies (MNCs) have become the most significant players in world trade, with the world’s 100 largest MNCs now controlling approximately 20 per cent of global foreign assets (Anderson and Cavanagh, 1999). Hertz’s (2001) analysis confirms that the sales of General Motors and Ford are greater than the GDP of the whole of sub‐Saharan Africa and that the assets of IBM, BP and General Electric outstrip the economic capabilities of most small nations. Indeed, Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989) argue that success for organisations depends on having a global presence. Although foreign direct investment (FDI) is particularly significant in the world economy, it is unevenly distributed, with the world’s top 30 host countries accounting for 95 per cent of total world FDI inflows and the world’s top 30 home countries generating approximately 99 per cent of outward FDI stocks (UNCTAD, 2001). The Republic of Ireland has been a significant beneficiary of FDI and the World Investment Report has described the country as:</p><disp-quote><p>… the most dynamic country in the developed world in terms of recent growth and competitive performance (UNCTAD, 2001).</p></disp-quote><p>American multinationals are particularly significant in the Irish context, owning approximately 42 per cent of foreign firms operating in the country, with US firms’ assets amounting to 33.4 billion euro (equivalent to 40.7 per cent of GDP) by the end of 2000 (IDA, 2001; Forfas, 2002). Ireland therefore represents an interesting site for the study of HRM policies and practices of American MNCs. The research is set in the Irish subsidiary of a US pharmaceutical company[1]. This company was chosen because of the significance of the sector in the Irish context. There are 130 pharmaceutical companies operating in Ireland employing approximately 21,000 people. The Industrial Development Authority (IDA) estimates that the sector contributes US$32 billion annually to exports, representing 29 per cent of total exports (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.ida.ie">www.ida.ie</ext-link>). Also salient in the decision to focus on this sector was the fact that it is distinctive in a number of ways, for instance it is relatively capital intensive and thus labour costs are relatively less significant to firms in the sector. Also, often times firms in this industry take a relatively long‐term perspective due to the heavy emphasis on research and development (R&D).</p></sec><sec><title>Institutional embeddedness and home and host country effects</title><p>Child <italic>et al</italic>. (2000) have argued that MNCs transfer policies from their home to host operations. Ferner (1997) attributes this home country effect to the embeddedness of these multinationals in their country of origin. This refers to the influence of the historical development of the national business system and industrial traditions of the home business environment on the behaviour of these companies. The effect is particularly pronounced in firms emanating from economically dominant countries, as these firms can more credibly impose specific practices on foreign subsidiaries (Smith and Meiskins, 1995; Edwards and Ferner, 2002a). Given the dominance of the US economy in recent times, one could reasonably expect a relatively high degree of imposition of policies in US multinational subsidiaries. Gunnigle <italic>et al</italic>. (2002) found that while both European and US firms adapted their HRM practices to conform to local norms, standards and regulations, in foreign subsidiaries, localisation among US multinationals was considerably weaker. They further note that the differences in levels of conformity are more pronounced in stronger institutional environments (such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden) and less pronounced in countries that have weak regulatory environments (such as Ireland and the UK). Indeed, Edwards and Ferner (2002a) identify the “country of origin” effect as one of four key influences on the management of human resources in MNCs. Muller‐Camen <italic>et al</italic>. (2001) posit that the home country effect has become stronger in recent years, due to the growing pressure on firms who operate in more than one country to integrate their international business (see also, Ferner <italic>et al</italic>., 2001a, b). This illustrates the importance of the country of origin debate in contemporary international and comparative human resource management (IHRM) literature. The country of origin effect is, however, at odds with the implicit but pervasive assumption that the behaviour of US multinationals provides a template for management of MNCs of different nationalities, which has been a dominant theme in the IHRM literature (Ferner, 2000). Ferner also points to the limitations of using cultural differences to explain differences in the behaviour of MNCs of different nationalities (cf. Whitley, 1992; Lane, 1995).</p><p>Drawing on Ferner’s argument, we will explore the extent to which the US institutional environment represents a distinctive “historical and institutional configuration of interrelated elements” (2000, p. 5) and that this provides a distinctive formative environment for US MNCs. In Gooderham <italic>et al</italic>.’s (1998, p. 49) words:</p><disp-quote><p>The managerial practices of US subsidiaries may not be only assumed to bear the imprint of the managerial features and procedures that correspond to those of the headquarter organisation but also, more broadly, to that of the North American organizational field.</p></disp-quote><p>Specifically, this paper will attempt to address the extent to which the US headquarters imposes specific human resource development policies and practices on the subsidiary versus the extent to which these practices are adapted to take account of the Irish institutional context. Although the primary focus of this paper is on HRD policies and practices, these cannot be considered in isolation and should rather be considered in the context of other factors which impinge on the management of HRD. Among the more significant of these factors is the operation of labour markets within the firm and this will be considered in detail in this paper. One must acknowledge, however, the limits of generalising from this single case, the paper will nonetheless be useful in providing insights into the process of transfer of these policies.</p><sec><title>Convergence or divergence in multinational management practices?</title><p>A key debate in the emerging field of IHRM is the impact of globalisation in facilitating the convergence between national business systems and thus the homogenisation of the <italic>modus operandi</italic> of MNCs operating in the global economy (Ferner, 2000) and thus the interaction between multinational corporations and the national business systems of their host country (country of operation) system and the country from which they emanate (home country) (Ferner <italic>et al</italic>., 2001a; Ferner and Quintanilla, 1998).</p><p>This debate is grounded in the concepts of institutional theory, which has been widely used in studying the diffusion and adoption of organisational practices among organisations (Kostova and Roth, 2002). Writers such as Harbison and Myers (1959) and Kerr <italic>et al</italic>. (1973) have argued that developments in technology and economics are creating a world which is less differentiated. This means that, at the organisational level, an increasing number of businesses are driven by effective management information systems, profit and loss, marketing and the like. In other words “a common logic of industrialism” or a common set of management requirements is resulting in a convergence of management techniques, regardless of cultural differences (McGaughey and DeCieri, 1999). Thus, as a consequence of this convergence, organisations remain free of cultural influence (Royle, 1995). This thesis suggests that:</p><disp-quote><p>[T]here are universal truths about the management of human resources, the basic principles of which – although in need of some adaptation, for example local labour market – hold true in any country (Royle, 1995, p. 52).</p></disp-quote><p>Drawing on the earlier work of Levitt (1983), Lubatkin <italic>et al</italic>. (1997) and Robinson (1978), amongst others, McGaughey and DeCieri, (1999) note that due to improvements in technology, communications, and travel, combined with increasing interdependence and collaboration between organisations and nation states, differences between organisations and management practices are eroding and thus the transfer of managerial practices between MNCs is facilitated and thus increased global co‐ordination is possible. But as Guest and Hoque note, this has not been the case and:</p><disp-quote><p>Even in an increasingly global economy, where transnational companies compete in similar markets, we find persistent variations in the approaches to the management of human resources (Guest and Hoque, 1996, p. 50).</p></disp-quote><p>The explanations put forward to explain these variances include a cultural perspective (Hoftstede, 1980; Laurent, 1983) and an emerging institutionalist approach (Whitley, 1992; Lane, 1989, 1995). The cultural approach attributes differences in the behaviour of MNCs across national borders to what Ferner (2000, p. 1) describes as “simplistic indices of cultural differences”. Studies based on this approach generally link aspects of international management to Hoftstede’s key indices such as “power distance” or “uncertainty avoidance” (cf. Ngo <italic>et al</italic>., 1998; Tayeb, 1998). Anthony Ferner and his colleagues (Ferner and Quintanilla, 1998; Ferner <italic>et al</italic>., 2001a, b; Ferner, 2000, etc.) have argued that this cultural literature has limitations in explaining differences between multinationals of different nationalities. Evans <italic>et al</italic>. (2002) also point to the tendency of cultural explanations to neglect the fact that these cultural differences represent only a central tendency in the nation and thus they tend to ignore heterogeneity within the country. Cultural studies, although useful in identifying differences between MNCs of different nationalities, explain very little about underlying differences in how different business systems operate (Ferner, 2000). In other words they:</p><disp-quote><p>[F]ail to address the relationship of “cultural values” to evolving structural and institutional characteristics of national economic systems, and in their ahistorical bias lack any sense of dynamic development within business systems (Ferner <italic>et al</italic>., 2001, p. 2).</p></disp-quote><p>The institutionalist approach, on the other hand, sees persistent differences in capitalist organisations as being a function of the differing national development paths pursued by different countries, and also the institutions that have been generated by the interaction of social groups and classes. This approach is therefore useful as it establishes a conceptual framework, allowing comparative study of different national systems (Ferner, 2000). DiMaggio and Powell (1983) in their work emphasise the relationship between the organisation and its “institutional environment”. It is this relationship that shapes the internal organisational structures. They refer to the concept of “isomorphism”, which was defined by Zucker (1977) as the extent to which organisations adopt the same structures and processes as other organisations within their environments. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) identify “coercive” pressures in the environment, like legislative requirements, as an example of the effect of the environment on the organisation. Ferner and Quintanilla (1998) point to key phases and formative events in the evolution of the nation state, such as the manner and timing of industrialisation, class structures, and the development of political representation as impacting on institutional arrangements within national business systems (NBSs). Although authors such as Whitley (1992) have integrated cultural approaches into institutional approaches, these cultural phenomena are generally considered as emanating from and interacting with evolving societal institutions rather than as free‐flowing (Ferner, 2000).</p><p>The institutionalist approach also has limitations, however, for instance MNCs straddle multiple organisational fields, different industrial sectors as well as different countries of operation (Whitley, 1993; cited in Ferner and Quintanilla, 1998). Previous studies on the behaviour of MNCs (for example, Rosenzweig and Noheria, 1994) have been criticised for stopping the institutionalist analysis too early and thus although useful in conceptualising the “globalisation debate”, are not especially suited to exploring the influence of country of origin (Ferner and Quintanilla, 1998). Evans <italic>et al</italic>. (2002) posit that the institutionalist perspective also has the tendency to exaggerate the persistence of national culture. Ferner and Quintanilla (1998) also point to the problematic nature of the analytical tools used to explain country of origin differences, in particular the overemphasis on the influence of Hofstedian notions of culture.</p><p>As this paper will focus specifically on HRD and the operation of the labour market in the Irish subsidiary of a US MNC, a summary review of the American institutional context may be pertinent as a backdrop to the research.</p></sec><sec><title>The American institutional context</title><p>As was noted earlier, this paper will argue that the US business context represents a distinctive “historical and institutional configuration of interrelated elements”, which influence the behaviour of US multinationals even beyond national borders (Ferner, 2000, p. 5). Although a comprehensive review of the development of the American business system is beyond the scope of this paper, a cursory review of the institutional context in which US firms operate is useful in placing this paper in context.</p><p>It has been argued that since the 1890s the USA has been the world’s leading industrial nation (Chandler, 1990, p. 47). Chandler notes that not only had US firms access to a vast home market but, in addition, many of these firms quickly expanded abroad. This is illustrated by the fact that by 1917 a large majority of large American firms had marketing subsidiaries abroad, and thus they played a leading role in the development of global competition (Chandler, 1990). What was particularly significant about the early evolution of US industry was the fact that it soon came to be dominated by a number of large corporate enterprises, which dotted America (Jacoby, 1997; Colling, 2001). A number of factors facilitated the development of these large industrial enterprises. Chandler (1990) posits that the first step in the creation of the modern industrial enterprise was the investment in production facilities large enough to achieve advantages of scale and scope. The production of quantities large enough to gain these advantages of scale and scope was made possible because of the availability of mass markets in the USA, combined with relatively homogeneous tastes and stable gradually evolving markets (Ferner, 2000). These large‐scale production requirements resulted in the early emergence of mass production as a means of satisfying these mass markets (Piore and Sable, 1984), which in turn had profound impacts on the organisation of work (Ferner, 2000). This led to the development of formalised managerial hierarchies which prompted the professionalism and specialisation of American management into separate functions such as finance, marketing and production (Locke, 1996; Ferner, 2000). US firms were eager to expand their operations from an early stage. This was seen as a further opportunity to exploit advantages of scale and scope. Expansion was achieved initially through product diversification, mergers and expanding to geographically distant areas. Later, expansion was achieved through firms expanding abroad (Chandler, 1990). Again, these expansions had broader implications for the management of the American enterprise and, as Chandler (1990, p. 42) notes:</p><disp-quote><p>[S]uccessful diversification required a team of experienced managers at corporate headquarters capable of monitoring resources for not one but several product lines.</p></disp-quote><p>Perhaps more significantly, Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989, p. 161) point to the development of “sophisticated management systems” which could be used to hold managers accountable for designated tasks and aiding corporate managers to control operations. This, they argue, led to the development of co‐ordination processes based largely on formal systems, policies and standards.</p><p>The US system of corporate governance is also identified as distinctive in a number of ways, and the system has gained increasing international influence in recent years (O’Sullivan, 2000). Edwards and Ferner (2002b) identify four key features of the financial system in the USA:</p><list list-type="order"><list-item><label>1. </label><p>1 the primacy of shareholder interests above those of any other organisational actors;</p></list-item><list-item><label>2. </label><p>2 the distinct arms‐length relationship between shareholders and senior management;</p></list-item><list-item><label>3. </label><p>3 an active market for corporate control; and</p></list-item><list-item><label>4. </label><p>4 senior managements’ pay being linked to the share price.</p></list-item></list><p>Edwards and Ferner (2002b) identify a number of implications of the US financial system for the management of labour. In particular, they point towards US MNCs adopting relatively short‐term time horizons in managing employee relations. This is manifested in the tendency of US firms to initiate redundancy programmes on the basis of as little as one poor financial quarter. The use of temporary workers in subsidiary operations due to uncertainty over HQ allocation of resources is also indicative of the short‐term time horizon. Edwards and Ferner’s (2002b) findings are consistent with other empirical studies (cf. Child <italic>et al</italic>., 1997; Coates <italic>et al</italic>., 1992). A related point is advanced by Young <italic>et al</italic>. (1985), who found that US firms were more likely to establish financial targets centrally and specifically in relation to return on investment.</p><p>The above section has highlighted that American industry is characterised as distinctive in a number of ways:</p><list list-type="bullet"><list-item><label>• </label><p>enterprises tended to be large and engaged in standardised mass production and mass marketing from an early stage;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>centralised and formalised managerial hierarchies also developed at an early stage; and</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>management commonly issued written guidelines in an attempt to impose values of their HQ on subsidiaries (cf. Ferner, 2000; Chandler, 1990, 1969).</p></list-item></list><p>The US system of corporate governance also resulted in a strong emphasis on “shareholder value”, which resulted in a short‐term focus among managers of American companies (cf. Edwards and Ferner, 2002b; O’Sullivan, 2000). Given this distinctiveness of the US institutional context and the earlier discussion on the potential impacts of the home institutional context on the management of HRD in foreign subsidiaries, the following sections will attempt to investigate the extent to which these characteristics are evident in the Irish context. This paper will not make specific reference to the Irish institutional context; however, the results of the study will be analysed in terms of context or prevailing institutional environment.</p></sec></sec><sec><title>Methodology</title><sec><title>Research objectives</title><p>Although much research has been carried out on multinationals of different nationalities, this has been largely survey based (cf. Harzing, 1999; Geringer <italic>et al</italic>., 2002). This has been useful in providing a broad picture of patterns of behaviour of MNCs of different nationalities: American MNCs tend to be more formalised, more centralised and more standardised than their Japanese or European counterparts (Harzing, 1999). This survey work is, however, less appropriate in explaining the underlying factors informing these distinctive patterns of behaviour, and says little about the real management processes involved in the management of human resources in subsidiaries abroad. In this regard this paper seeks to address two specific questions: first, are American multinationals distinctively American in their approach to HRD and managing the labour market, or are they merely typical international companies? Second, what distinctive HRD and labour market policies and practices are in evidence in the case setting, which are seen to be at variance with the host environment?</p><p>We will therefore examine the nature of these HRD innovations and whether and how they are transferred to (and sometimes from) subsidiaries, and how they are subsequently implemented. The research investigated these and related themes using a single detailed case study. The case study involved a series of in‐depth interviews lasting approximately one to two hours, with the entire top management team. Interviews were also conducted with lower level supervisors/managers with a particular emphasis on HR professionals. QRS NVivo software was used in the analysis of the data generated from the research.</p><p>Arguably this study will add to our knowledge of the way in which American multinational companies use their human resource development policies to compete in the international arena. The findings should be of interest to practitioners and academics, in particular by illuminating the question of whether multinationals are still firmly rooted in their own distinctive national business systems or whether “globalisation” is driving them to converge towards some homogeneous global model of multinational operation. It may also improve our understanding of the means by which multinationals disseminate HR innovations across national borders.</p></sec><sec><title>The case setting</title><p>The research is set in the Irish subsidiary of a US multinational pharmaceutical company. The company will be referred to as “Pharmacorp” to preserve anonymity. Interviewees will also be identified by their job titles to preserve their anonymity. Pharmacorp is one of the top companies in the industry and one of the top 50 companies in the world (UNCTAD, 2002). It features in the <italic>Fortune</italic> 500 list as well as being one of America’s best companies to work for. The company was founded in the USA in the late 1840s and by the 1950s began to expand abroad. The Irish operation was established in the late 1960s and now employs over 1,000 people in several facilities. The Irish operation focuses on the production of bulk pharmaceuticals. There is no R&D presence in Ireland but there is regular contact with research centres in the USA where much of the R&D activity is focused.</p></sec></sec><sec><title>Research findings</title><p>In an era when people rarely see jobs as permanent and where firms increasingly turn to numerical flexibility as a means of adjusting to changes in the business cycle (Handy, 2001; Drucker, 2001), Pharmacorp is distinctive in that many employees still view jobs in the company as jobs for life and indeed all of the senior management team have 17 plus years experience in the company. Although the primary focus of this paper is on HRD practices and policies within the Irish subsidiary, this is best considered in the context of the operation of internal labour markets within the Irish operation and this will be considered in the following section.</p><sec><title>Headcount and staffing levels as key concerns</title><p>Employment in Pharmacorp’s Irish operation now totals over 1,000 employees. The company’s Web site estimates that 40 per cent of the workforce are third level graduates. The workforce is overwhelmingly male, particularly in craft and operator positions. In one production facility, the HR advisor estimated the ratio to be 4:1 male to female, whereas in another facility the senior HR specialist estimated the ratio was 3:2. It is important to note that employee turnover within Pharmacorp’s Irish operation is particularly low. The production manager estimated it to be 1 per cent to 2 per cent. This is reinforced by the HR advisor who noted:</p><disp-quote><p>[Turnover is] one per cent. It’s news if somebody hands their notice in. That kind of a way. And usually it’s an extreme reason. It’s not the money because they’re not going to get better money anyplace. It’s always professionals. No operator, no craft person goes (HR advisor).</p></disp-quote><p>When one looks at staffing levels in Pharmacorp, a striking feature is the fact that staffing levels are generally tight within the Irish operation. Pattinson (2001) notes that the local management team finds this at odds with the situation in the USA where extra support staff are evident in most production plants. The production supervisor reinforces this point stating:</p><disp-quote><p>They make a big job out of a small job over there [in the US]. There is a lot more paperwork and a lot more meetings. However they have the people and the back up. We have no slack here (production supervisor).</p></disp-quote><p>As the director of finance notes, when discussing staffing levels within his department, this dates back to the historical development of the Irish operation:</p><disp-quote><p>We’ve ran a very tight ship here. But the time has come actually to do something about that. We have been reluctant to do it [increase headcount], because as I’ve said to you at the outset a lot of us have been here for a long time. Back in the seventies actually when we were running a food business [focusing on the production of citric acid] and that was very tight for margins. Costs were kept on top of all the time, and numbers, particularly staff numbers were kept down. So ever since that day we have kept our numbers down. Even though we are running a different business we seem to have that mentality, as far as numbers are concerned anyway, that we are running a food chemical business. But that is starting to change (director of finance).</p></disp-quote><p>Perhaps management’s reluctance to increase numbers is not as simple as the director of finance would suggest, however. Respondents repeatedly confirmed that any increase in headcount would have to be approved by head office. In fact budgetary controls over headcount are so tight that the VP of manufacturing worldwide visits all 60 manufacturing sites globally to agree annual budgets, including headcount. This is illustrated by the following quote from a senior HR specialist:</p><disp-quote><p>We’ve just gone through a very rigorous budgeting process where we had about ten people over from the States and they would have had presentations from all departments on business for next year. So again a lot of reporting back. They take all the stuff away. They visited all the sites including our site. Obviously they were involved in a head count point of view so we had to have the budget together, we had to have head count together, we had to have reason for head count, everything all the businesses, all the managers had to make a presentation (senior HR specialist).</p></disp-quote><p>This is reinforced by the HR manager who notes:</p><disp-quote><p>We would have close budgetary controls, very close budgetary controls. So that the Vice President of Manufacturing comes to each of the 60 manufacturing sites to agree the budget, for the year. So I have to stand up and justify my thirty extra headcount. So we have tight, tight budgetary controls here. We’re very tightly staffed here, much tighter staffed than at old XXX sites. We’d have no slack here at all (HR manager).</p></disp-quote><disp-quote><p>These budgetary submissions are not accepted without challenge and as the Director of Finance notes, you must convince HQ of the reasons for your proposed increase in headcount during these budgeting meetings. These HQ managers will take the information away with them and reach a decision by the following September (senior HR specialist).</p></disp-quote><disp-quote><p>In the mean‐time, if due to serious business needs a manager requires extra headcount urgently, they can put a business reason to HQ in terms of getting the headcount immediately, but ultimately it is HQ who will make the decision (senior HR specialist).</p></disp-quote><p>Interviewees clearly responded that it was not an option for local management to recruit numbers in excess of the headcount allocated by head office. As the director of finance noted:</p><disp-quote><p>Well, on the numbers issue, really, you just don’t recruit if you are above numbers. If you are budgeted for 40 people, well that’s it. You don’t get 41. If you want to get out and recruit the extra person, you have to get approval to do that in New York. You can’t take that decision locally (director of finance).</p></disp-quote><p>Headcount is reported back to head office on a month by month basis (HR advisor). When asked what the sanction would be if someone were to go beyond their allocated headcount, the HR manager replied:</p><disp-quote><p>If I go over headcount there is serious sanctions. If I do so without proper justification it’s serious. If I make a mistake, hire too many people and go over head count I’d be fired. Part of department manager’s annual bonus is based on their adherence to budget (HR manager).</p></disp-quote><p>Likewise, if a headcount was allocated and the position was not filled, there would be questions to be answered:</p><disp-quote><p>You would be scrutinised quiet seriously if you didn’t recruit a head you put in for. Because in that case you didn’t go through the reasoning process of why you wanted it … But yea you’d be very heavily monitored. We have had a couple for instance last year, that we didn’t fill and we’re under pressure now. Why aren’t they filled and the like (senior HR specialist).</p></disp-quote></sec><sec><title>Aspects of HR planning and internal labour market dynamics in Pharmacorp</title><p>There is a strong emphasis on internal labour markets (ILMs) within Pharmacorp and the importance of promoting from within was noted by almost all of the interviewees. Indeed, an HR advisor went as far as to suggest that every managerial appointment within the corporation is made internally. Pointing to the heads of functions in his own plant, he noted that every one of them had 25+ years’ experience. This view is backed up by a HR manager who stated:</p><disp-quote><p>Well the first thing is as a policy we look internally first and try to fill the post. We’re big into providing internal opportunities and succession planning. I’m not completely in favour of this my self but that’s the way it is. We internally exhaust every option before we even look for a comparison outside (HR manager).</p></disp-quote><p>Internal job postings are advertised on site notice boards and also the corporate intranet site, which has a job postings section, on which every job opportunity within the corporation, from operator to country manager, would be advertised. The danger of complete reliance on ILMs, which was referred to by the HR manager, was noted also by the HR advisor who pointed to the danger of retarding the development of new ideas by failing to have new blood recruited into the company on a regular basis, but he did note that if a suitable candidate was not available internally, they would obviously look externally.</p><p>Obviously, with such an emphasis on promoting from within and ILMs, succession planning is an important role of the HR function within Pharmacorp. Other factors which are currently driving the company’s succession planning efforts include a recognition among senior management that there are a lot of people due to retire in the next five years and this is summed up by the senior HR specialist, who is currently working on an international succession planning initiative:</p><disp-quote><p>Currently I’m working on a programme that are going to, it could be an international programme that hopefully will develop a group of people internationally, because there’s a lot of people retiring in [Pharmacorp] internationally in five years time and if you are going to have a large number of people within the organisation retire you need to have people to take their place. So in the succession plan we would have people targeted to take over every other job. From an international perspective we have a lot of people on secondments. Currently we have a global centre set up in our site here its called classic development centre and we may have secondment opportunities for people across the world (senior HR specialist).</p></disp-quote><p>The succession plan forecasts the human resource needs of the organisation for the following 12 month period and is used by managers when promotion opportunities arise within their departments. Based on the manpower plan, managers would instigate the recruitment process and HR would provide back up (senior HR specialist). The HR advisor confirms that the succession plan is well thought through and not just thrown together, and that the only people who would have access to the complete succession plan would be the site leader and the head of HR.</p><p>The succession plan also identifies high potential employees (HYPOs) who are targeted with specific job opportunities and development programmes. The HR advisor defines what the company means by HYPOs and outlines how the programme operates:</p><disp-quote><p>There are people called HYPOs, high potential [employees] who are capable of making the next move up within I think it’s three years. That’s flagged and there’s a certain amount of development put into those people. They’re not told that they’re on this HYPO track. There might be more than one of you for a particular position but at least they are identifying these people and one of our plans would be we’ve come up with this management development programme now that we’re going to be running across Ireland and the first teams of people going to be put into this would be the HYPOs if you like. So it is thought out. We know who is good and we know who is performing. They will be told of their performance, if doing an exceptional job. But we’re not going to tell them of the succession plans, where we plan you, see you in four or five years time. That doesn’t happen (HR advisor).</p></disp-quote><p>The HR manager notes that HYPO candidates would be identified through performance reviews and that it is the site leader who would ultimately decide who makes the list, with some input from HR. He describes the HYPOs as the five or six people who could make the level of site leader.</p><p>In summary, staffing levels are tight in Pharmacorp’s Irish operation, particularly in support areas. Any increases in headcount must be budgeted for and approved by senior management in the US headquarters. Management would be seriously sanctioned if they were to come in over or under allocated headcount. There is a strong emphasis on internal labour markets and succession planning within Pharmacorp. High potential employees are identified and targeted with specific training programmes and assignments. We turn next to one of the key areas to be addressed in this paper, the direction of the human resource development effort within Pharmacorp’s Irish operation.</p></sec><sec><title>The nature and direction of the human resource development effort in Pharmacorp</title><p>There appears to be a strong emphasis on human resource development at all levels within Pharmacorp both at corporate and subsidiary level. Training is relatively well structured in the Irish operation. Currently the company at subsidiary level is developing a human resource development policy:</p><disp-quote><p>For instance we were working on a learning and development policy. It’s taken a long time because of the different cultures on the site. XXX [one of the sites] is a very traditional plant and it’s in operation for many, many years, it was fairly heavily unionised. The tablet plant on the other side is a team based, non unionised site and we’re somewhere in the middle. That’s how I would read it. So this policy is taking a long time, because we’re trying to do a blanket policy that people can work with across the sites. So we’re all left to our own devices [i.e. little input from the US] and we have a long way to go. We’re trying not to reinvent the wheel. We’re looking at the handbook XXX [of both companies prior to the merger]. We might just put them aside and make a new one or we might take bits from them. But broadly we’re left to our own devices (senior HR specialist).</p></disp-quote><p>This quote indicates that training is valued within the company and that it is attempting to put in place structures to ensure human resource development is undertaken in a structured manner. It is important to note, however, that the subsidiary has a large amount of autonomy to develop the policy, with little input from the USA.</p><p>The structured nature of training is identified by the production manager who, when discussing the training of new supervisors, noted:</p><disp-quote><p>We have an induction plan which is just introducing them to various people around the site and they need to get that completed within three months. Then we give them a training plan as well, a supervisory training plan. That is for Supervisors. They have to go through all that and get it signed off and then we give them an easy product. We leave them on that for three months or six months, depending on how they are getting on. Then we move them on to another product (production supervisor).</p></disp-quote><p>After initial induction and technical training he confirmed that that all supervisors would attend a management course at the Irish Management Institute (IMI) annually. This would reiterate the perceived importance of human resource development within Pharmacorp.</p><p>The director of finance noted another interesting trend in relation to US influence on training in the subsidiary:</p><disp-quote><p>They [corporate] are getting more involved in ensuring, that even in matters that I believe, are below where they are responsible for, we’ll say, communicating data to New York, they are now making absolutely sure that these people are adequately trained in whatever the requirements are. They are taking a greater interest in that. They are taking a greater interest, we’ll say, in ensuring people understand what is required for reporting year‐end numbers. So they have these sessions now … where they bring people together as well to go through that, and to clarify any issues that need to be clarified. Training is something new that they have latched on to (director of finance).</p></disp-quote><p>This indicates an attempt to standardise reporting protocols across all of the company’s sites. There is also considerable emphasis placed on management development within Pharmacorp. The HR advisor noted:</p><disp-quote><p>We’ve recently come up with a management development programme which is going to cover all of Ireland (HR advisor).</p></disp-quote><p>He goes on to note that this programme will be developed in conjunction with one of the top business schools in Europe. The companies HYPOs are targeted as the first team of people to be put through this programme (HR advisor). Other management development programmes that were developed by headquarters in conjunction with other business schools are run at Harvard in the US and INSEAD in France, which are both internationally recognised as top business schools. The director of finance confirmed that these programmes were aimed primarily at the MD level internationally.</p><disp-quote><p>They are also setting up these, as you say, management development training sessions at all levels. At XXX [the MD] level, XXX [the MD] has been over to so many training sessions in the States. I think they have had them in Harvard. Managers throughout the world come together and they have a special programme there (director of finance).</p></disp-quote><p>When asked about the company’s priorities in organising this training the director of finance noted:</p><disp-quote><p>Yea. I think it’s trying to improve the skills of managers and as well as that actually, to insure that they have a pool of people who are capable of running the business, should the person they are reporting to, leave the company or retire or whatever. So there is this continuity thing. There is this whole comfort about having capable people, and many of them, throughout the organisation. And I suppose as well, I think that one of the reasons they are put forward is that this company is changing, changing gears as it were. Have we got the people that can actually cope with the change in gear? And all that kind of thing (director of finance).</p></disp-quote><p>This reiterates the company’s focus on succession planning as highlighted earlier. The company also uses international assignments as a means of developing expertise. The HR manager noted that after employees were sent on development programmes to Harvard or INSEAD, Irish management attempted to get them to accept international assignments to “get the experience” (the companies experience of expatriate management is beyond the scope of the paper).</p><p>Another important point to note in relation to training is that training budgets are agreed with headquarters on an annual basis.</p><disp-quote><p>We have a training budget that we put forward. We break down where we think our training budget is going to go for the year and they sign that off (senior HR specialist).</p></disp-quote><p>The case scenario has presented an outline of the characteristics of the operation of labour markets and HRD within the Irish subsidiary of Pharmacorp’s operation. Overall, the research indicated that head office does not generally impose training interventions on the Irish subsidiary, although they do have significant control over training budgets and budgetary control is particularly significant. They, in part at least, dictate the nature of the direction of the overall HRD effort. This was further manifested where corporate exercised significant control over training in relation to reporting procedures for accounts as identified by the director of finance. In general, therefore, the Irish subsidiary retains significant control over its human resource development activities and the function is highly regarded within the company.</p></sec></sec><sec><title>Discussion and conclusion</title><p>In interpreting the results of this study, one should be aware of the limitations of the research. In this context, we look first at the fact that the views of employees and union representatives were not included in the findings. This was due to an inability to gain access because of the difficult industrial relations climate, in terms of complex IR negotiations which were taking place in the company at the time the research took place. Issues in relation to generalisation and replication should also be considered. That said, the research remains valuable, particularly in the context of the limited literature available on global and local effects on HRD practices in MNCs (a notable exception being Tregaskis <italic>et al</italic>. (2001)). Thus this study is useful in examining the extent to which a single US multinational corporation exported human resource development and labour market management policies and practices to an Irish subsidiary, and further it opens up a number of fruitful lines of enquiry for future studies.</p><p>Thus, having reviewed the literature pertinent to the discussion on country of origin and country of operation effects and identified the distinctive characteristics of the US institutional context, this section seeks to grapple with the complex story, that is the management of HRD and the internal labour market within Pharmacorp.</p><p>We look first to the emphasis on internal labour markets within Pharmacorp Ireland. All interviewees indicated the importance of ILMs within the Irish subsidiary. Indeed, one noted that if someone were to leave, it would be a source of conversation in the company. The emphasis on ILMs is reflected in the fact that, as the HR advisor noted, every managerial appointment within the corporation was made internally. Pointing to the heads of function in his own plant he noted that every one of them had 25+ years’ experience. Some of the potential explanations for this emphasis on ILMs are grounded in the more traditional industrial relations literature and thus are beyond the scope of this paper. A number of broad themes, however, merit cursory review at this stage. One of the key themes useful in explaining this is the notion of welfare capitalism, which emerged in the USA in the early twentieth century (Jacoby, 1997; Colling, 2001). Implicit in this ideology is the notion that the employer, and not the state or trade unions, should provide for the security and welfare of employees (Jacoby, 1997). Employers put their ideas into practice by cleaning up their factories, forming company unions, constructing elaborate recreational facilities, providing good rates of pay and providing job security, all of which were aimed at keeping unions at bay (Jacoby, 1997, 1999a; Colling, 2001; Ferner <italic>et al</italic>., 2001a, b). Although the diffusion of welfare capitalism diminished with the advent of the new deal (Kochan <italic>et al</italic>., 1986), it quickly re‐emerged in the 1940s and 1950s and Jacoby (1999b) posits that the companies of this genre cleared a path for the non‐union companies of the modern era. This emphasis on ILMs in Pharmacorp is consistent with Jacoby’s (1997) thesis, which identified this as distinctive of US firms of the welfare capitalist tradition. This is also consistent with Dunning’s (1998) research, which indicated that US firms were more likely to use internal labour markets to fill positions in the organisation.</p><p>Having acknowledged the potential of the welfare capitalist tradition in explaining the emphasis of ILMs within Parmacorp, we must return to the earlier point, specifically the low labour turnover and ILM focus may also be partially explained by sectoral and company specific factors (Pharmacorp’s position as a leading company in the discovery, development and production of pharmaceuticals, by definition this requires a long term focus in terms of R&D, bringing products to market). It also infers the concept of “pipeline”: that is, having a balanced portfolio of products at varying life cycle stages – in development, in testing, in production under restrictive patent (premium price) and in mass production (end of life cycle, low margin). Boxhall and Purcell (2003, p. 9) illustrate this point:</p><disp-quote><p>As Godard and Delany (2000) imply, expensive HR practices are often justified where the production system is capital intensive or where high technology is involved. The actual level of labour costs could be quite low (say, ten per cent or less of total cost) but workers have a major effect on how well the technology is utilised or exploited. It thus pays to remunerate and train them very well, making better use of their skills and ensuring their motivation is kept high. As they find ways of making the equipment meet or even exceed its specifications, the unit cost of labour falls and productivity rises. Thus, in this kind of context, the firm can easily sustain high wage costs. It is more important not to alienate this kind of labour because the productivity costs of disrupted production, than it is to worry about wage levels.</p></disp-quote><p>One theme which did not emerge during the research was the use of downsizing to deliver “shareholder value”, as identified by Edwards and Ferner (2002b) (see also, O’Sullivan, 2000). Indeed interviewees indicated that there had not been a mandatory redundancy programme in 15 years and, according to the HR advisor, any redundancies, which were made in the intervening period were of a voluntary nature and, the company had approximately 50 or 60 people leave in 1999. This is hardly surprising though because, as the HR advisor noted:</p><disp-quote><p>There hasn’t been a redundancy offer since the late seventies or early eighties. It’s just not on the radar. It has been a tale of constant expansion really. We had voluntary early retirements about three years ago, about fifty or sixty people went. The majority [of those people] were in their late fifties or early sixties, but not redundancies in that their jobs were still there (HR advisor).</p></disp-quote><p>It would be interesting, however, to see what the company’s reaction in relation to employee numbers would be if the company was to experience a falling share price and thus pressure to maintain short‐term financial performance. There was also little evidence of numerical flexibility in terms of the use of temporary employee contracts. In fact the only mention of temporary contracts was by the production manager, who noted that any increase in temporary headcount did not have to be sanctioned by HQ. This could suggest that Irish management view the use of temporary contract workers as a means of numerical flexibility, particularly significant is the fact that head office did not have to sanction temporary increases. The following section will look at one of the key themes that emerged during the research, the evidence of standardised formalised control in organisations of US origin.</p><p>One of the key themes which emerged in the literature was the finding that US organisations tended to be more formalised and standardised in their approach to managing their operations (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1989; Child <italic>et al.</italic>, 1997; Harzing, 1999). The research indicated that Pharmacorp did demonstrate elements of strong headquarters control in the management of the labour market and human resource development. This was particularly pronounced in relation to budgetary control. Interviewees indicated that corporate was heavily involved in decisions relating to headcount. This involvement included senior corporate management travelling to each of the sites and hearing budget submissions, including headcount. Subsidiary managers were severely restrained by these budgetary controls. Interviewees indicated that they would be severely reprimanded if they were to exceed their allocated headcount. There were also sanctions if an allocated headcount was not filled. When this is considered in the context of the tight staffing levels indicated by the interviewees, it is reasonable to assume that this provided corporate with tight controls over staffing levels and labour costs. Further evidence of budgetary control was evident in relation to the allocation of the subsidiary’s training budget. Subsidiary management prepared an annual budget submission, but HQ ultimately determined the allocation of resources. This budgetary control represents a particularly powerful means of formalised control over subsidiary operations. After all, if HQ controls budgets this impacts significantly on the autonomy of subsidiary managers to make decisions in the host environment. This finding of tight financial control over subsidiary operations is consistent with Bomers and Peterson’s (1977) research, which indicated US firms were more likely to control operations through tight financial controls.</p><p>A further manifestation of standardised formalised control was identified by the director of finance, who pointed to the standardised training developed by corporate in relation to reporting back of financial information. Arguably, the fact that financial information is being reported back consistently across sites facilitates corporate management in maintaining standardised control over subsidiary operations. It also allows management to compare figures across sites and thus monitor established financial targets and rates of return. This finding is consistent with Young <italic>et al</italic>.’s (1985) research, which indicated that US firms in their sample were more likely to establish financial targets centrally and Child <italic>et al</italic>.’s (1997) work which indicated a greater use of formalised financial control in US MNCs.</p><p>The case firm did thus exhibit examples of the US business system impacting on the management of labour markets and HRD within the subsidiary. This can be seen in the evidence of strong formalised control in terms of budgetary control, particularly in relation to HRD budgets and headcount allocation. Headquarters’ desire to monitor subsidiary operations was manifested in the company’s attempt to standardise reporting procedures as identified by the director of finance. The subsidiary was, however, allowed considerable autonomy in relation to the development of specific training programmes. Indeed, the senior HR specialist noted that there was the potential of training programmes developed in Ireland being diffused around the organisation internationally. This is generally referred to as reverse diffusion (cf. Edwards, 1998).</p><p>Overall the case site did demonstrate evidence of the impact of the US institutional context on the management of the Irish subsidiary. The subsidiary appeared to have considerable control over content aspects of HRD in the majority of instances, corporate was, however, primarily concerned with budgetary aspects of the subsidiary’s HRD efforts. This may indicate a host country influence in relation to the design of HRD programmes subject to the budgetary constraints established by the headquarters. We also identified the potential impact of sectoral and company specific issues in relation to the management of the Irish subsidiary. Thus the case study indicates distinctive characteristics of the US institutional environment, counterbalanced by a degree of localisation in relation to the management of labour market dynamics and HRD efforts.</p></sec><sec><title>Note</title><list list-type="order"><list-item><label>1. </label><p>1 This paper focuses specifically on HRD in one Irish subsidiary of a USA MNC. However, this Irish study forms part of a larger European study covering four European countries – Germany, Spain, the UK and Ireland. The overall project is co‐ordinated by Professor Anthony Ferner, De Montfort University and invovles researchers from De Montfort, Kingston and Warwick Universities, UK, University of Trier, Germany, and IESE Business School, University of Navarre, Spain, in addition to the University of Limerick, Ireland. The Irish node of the project is co‐ordinated by Professor Patrick Gunnigle and Dr Michael Morley at the University of Limerick.</p></list-item></list></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="B1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Anderson</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cavanagh</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), <source><italic>Top 200: The Rise of Global Corporate Power</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Institute for Policy Studies</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Washington, DC</publisher-loc>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.ips-dc.org/downloads/Top_200.pdf">www.ips‐dc.org/downloads/Top_200.pdf</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bartlett</surname>, <given-names>C.A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Goshal</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1989</year>), <source><italic>Managing across Borders: The Transnational Solution</italic></source>, <edition>2nd ed.</edition>, <publisher-name>Random House</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bomers</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Peterson</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1977</year>), “<article-title><italic>Multinational corporations and industrial relations: the case of West Germany and The Netherlands</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>British Journal of Industrial Relations</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>15</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>45</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>62</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Boxhall</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Purcell</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), <source><italic>Strategy and Human Resource Management</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Palgrave Macmillan</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Basingstoke</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Chandler</surname>, <given-names>A.D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1969</year>), “<article-title><italic>The beginnings of ‘big business’ in American industry</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Baughman</surname>, <given-names>J.P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Ed.), <source><italic>The History of American Management</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Prentice Hall</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New Jersey, NJ</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Chandler</surname>, <given-names>A.J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1990</year>), <source><italic>Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Harvard University Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Boston, MA</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Child</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Faulkner</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Pitkethy</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Foreign direct investment in the UK 1985‐1994: the impact on domestic management practice</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Management Studies</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>37</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>141</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>66</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Coates</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Davis</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Emmanuel</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Longden</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Stacey</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1992</year>), “<article-title><italic>Multinational companies performance measurement systems: international perspectives</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Management Accounting Research</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>3</volume>, pp. <fpage>133</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>50</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Colling</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>In a state of bliss there is no need for a ministry of bliss: some further thoughts on welfare capitalism</italic></article-title>”, unpublished paper, De Montfort University, Leicester.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>DiMaggio</surname>, <given-names>P.J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Powell</surname>, <given-names>W.W.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1983</year>), “<article-title><italic>The iron cage revisited: institutionalism and collective rationality in organizational fields</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>American Sociological Review</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>48</volume>, April, pp. <fpage>147</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>60</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Drucker</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>The next society</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>The Economist</italic></source>, pp. <fpage>3</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>22</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dunning</surname>, <given-names>J.H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>US owned manufacturing affiliates and the transfer of managerial techniques: the British case</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Kipping</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Bjarnar</surname>, <given-names>O.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Eds), <source><italic>The Americanisation of European Business</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Routledge</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Edwards</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ferner</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>a), “<article-title><italic>The renewed ‘American challenge’: a review of employment practices in US multinationals</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Industrial Relations Journal</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>33</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>94</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>111</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Edwards</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Ferner A.</string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>b), “<article-title><italic>Wall Street, ‘short‐termism’ and the management of labour in American multinationals</italic></article-title>”, unpublished working paper, Kingston Business School and DeMontfort University, UK.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Evans</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Pucik</surname>, <given-names>V.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Barsoux</surname>, <given-names>J.L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), <source><italic>The Global Challenge: Frameworks for International Human Resource Management</italic></source>, <publisher-name>McGraw Hill/Irwin</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ferner</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1997</year>), “<article-title><italic>Country of origin effects and HRM in multinational corporations</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Human Resource Management</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>7</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>19</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>37</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ferner</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), <source><italic>The Embeddedness of US Multinational Companies in the US Business System: Implications for HR/IR</italic></source>, Occasional Papers No. 61, <publisher-name>De Montfort University Business School</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Leicester</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ferner</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Quintanilla</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>Multinationals, national business systems and HRM: the enduring influence of national identity or a process of ‘Anglo‐Saxonization’</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>International Journal of Human Resource Management</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>9</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>710</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>31</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ferner</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Quintanilla</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Varul</surname>, <given-names>M.Z.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>a), “<article-title><italic>Country of origin effects, host country effects, and the management of HR in multinationals: German companies in Britain and Spain</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of World Business</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>36</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>107</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>27</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ferner</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Almond</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Clarke</surname>, <given-names>I.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Colling</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Edwards</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Holden</surname>, <given-names>L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Muller</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>b), “<article-title><italic>The dynamics of central control and subsidiary autonomy in the management of human resources: case study evidence from US MNCs in the UK</italic></article-title>”, unpublished working paper, De Montfort University, Leicester.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Forfas</string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), <source><italic>International Trade and Investment Report, 2001</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Forfas</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Dublin</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B22"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Geringer</surname>, <given-names>J.M.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Frayne</surname>, <given-names>C.A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Milliman</surname>, <given-names>J.F.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>In search of ‘best practices’ in international human resource management: research design and methodology</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Human Resource Management</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>41</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>5</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>31</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B23"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gooderham</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Nordhaug</surname>, <given-names>O.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ringdal</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>When in Rome, do they as the Romans? HRM practices of US subsidiaries in Europe</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Management International Review</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>38</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>47</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>64</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B24"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Guest</surname>, <given-names>D.E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hoque</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1996</year>), “<article-title><italic>National ownership and HR practices in UK greenfield sites</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Human Resource Management Journal</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>6</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>50</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>74</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B25"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gunnigle</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Murphy</surname>, <given-names>K.M.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cleveland</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Heraty</surname>, <given-names>N.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Morley</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>Localisation in human resource management: comparing American and European multinational corporations</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Advances in International Management</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>14</volume>, pp. <fpage>259</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>84</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B26"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Handy</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), <source><italic>The Elephant and the Flea: Looking Backwards to the Future</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Hutchinson</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B27"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Harbison</surname>, <given-names>F.H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Myers</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Eds) (<year>1959</year>), <source><italic>Management in the Industrial World: An International Analysis</italic></source>, <publisher-name>McGraw Hill</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B28"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Harzing</surname>, <given-names>A.W.K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), <source><italic>Managing the Multinationals: An International Study of Control Mechanisms</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Edward Elgar Publishing</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Cheltenham</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B29"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hertz</surname>, <given-names>N.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), <source><italic>The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Arrow Books</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B30"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hoftstede</surname>, <given-names>G.H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1980</year>), <source><italic>Culture’s Consequences, International Differences in Work Related Values</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Beverly Hills, CA</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B31"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>IDA</string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), <source><italic>Annual Report</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Industrial Development Authority</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Dublin</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B32"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Jackson</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Schuler</surname>, <given-names>R.A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1995</year>), “<article-title><italic>Understanding human resource management in the context of organisations and their environments</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Annual Review of Psychology</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>46</volume>, pp. <fpage>237</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>46</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B33"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Jacoby</surname>, <given-names>S.M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1997</year>), <source><italic>Modern Manors: Welfare Capitalism Since the New Deal</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Princetown University Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New Jersey, NJ</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B34"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Jacoby</surname>, <given-names>S.M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>a), “<article-title><italic>Modern manors: an overview</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Industrial Relations</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>38</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>123</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>7</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B35"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Jacoby</surname>, <given-names>S.M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>b), “<article-title><italic>Reckoning with welfare capitalism: responding to the critics</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Industrial Relations</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>38</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>163</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>73</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B36"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kerr</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dunlop</surname>, <given-names>J.T.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Harbison</surname>, <given-names>F.H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Myers</surname>, <given-names>C.A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1973</year>), <source><italic>Industrialism and Industrial Management</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Penguin</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Harmondsworth</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B37"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kochaan</surname>, <given-names>T.A.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Katz</surname>, <given-names>H.C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>McKersie</surname>, <given-names>R.B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1986</year>), <source><italic>The Transformation of American Industrial Relations</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Basic Books</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B38"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kostova</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Roth</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>Adoption of an organisational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: institutional and relational effects</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Academy of Management Review</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>45</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>215</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>34</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B39"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lane</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1989</year>), <source><italic>Management and Labour in Europe: The Industrial Enterprise in Germany, Britain and France</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Edward Elgar</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Aldershot</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B40"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lane</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1995</year>), <source><italic>Industry and Society in Europe: Stability and Change in Germany, France and Britain</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Edward Elgar</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Aldershot</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B41"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Laurent</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1983</year>), “<article-title><italic>That cultural diversity of Western conceptions of management</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>International Studies of Management and Organisation</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>XIII</volume>, No. <issue>1‐2</issue>, pp. <fpage>75</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>96</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B42"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Levitt</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1983</year>), “<article-title><italic>The globalisation of markets</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Harvard Business Review</italic></source>, May‐June, pp. <fpage>92</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>102</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B43"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Locke</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1996</year>), <source><italic>The Collapse of the American Management Mystique</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Oxford</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B44"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lubatkin</surname>, <given-names>M.H.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ndiaye</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Vengroff</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1997</year>), “<article-title><italic>The nature of managerial work in developing countries: a limited test of the universalist hypothesis</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of International Business Studies</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>28</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>711</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>34</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B45"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>McGaughey</surname>, <given-names>S.L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>DeCieri</surname>, <given-names>H.D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>Reassessment of convergence and divergence dynamics: implications for international HRM</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>International Journal of Human Resource Management</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>10</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>235</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>50</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B46"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Muller‐Camen</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Almond</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gunnigle</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Quintanilla</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Temple</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Beyond home and host country: multinationals and employment relations in Europe</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Industrial Relations Journal</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>32</volume> No. <issue>5</issue>, pp. <fpage>435</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>48</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B47"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ngo</surname>, <given-names>H.Y.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Turban</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lau</surname>, <given-names>C.M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lui</surname>, <given-names>S.Y.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>Human resource practices and firm performance of multinational corporations: influences of country of origin</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>International Journal of Human Resource Management</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>9</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>632</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>52</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B48"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>O’Sullivan</surname>, <given-names>M.A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), <source><italic>Contests for Corporate Control: Corporate Governance and Economic Performance in the United States and Germany</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Oxford</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B49"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Pattinson</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Multinational companies and human resource management: a case study of an American pharmaceutical company in Ireland</italic></article-title>”, paper presented at the Conference on Multinational Companies and HRM: Between Globalisation and the National Business System, De Montfort University Graduate School of Business, 12‐14 July.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B50"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Piore</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Sable</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1984</year>), <source><italic>The Second Industrial Divide. Possibilities for Prosperity</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Basic Books</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B51"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Robinson</surname>, <given-names>R.D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1978</year>), <source><italic>International Business Management: A Guide to Decision Making</italic></source>, <edition>2nd ed.</edition>, <publisher-name>Dryden</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Hillsdale, IL</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B52"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Rosenzweig</surname>, <given-names>D.M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Nohria</surname>, <given-names>N.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1994</year>), “<article-title><italic>Influences on human resource management practices in multinational corporations</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of International Business Studies</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>25</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>229</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>51</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B53"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Royle</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1995</year>), “<article-title><italic>Corporate versus societal culture: a comparative study of McDonald’s in Europe</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>7</volume> No. <issue>2‐3</issue>, pp. <fpage>52</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>6</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B54"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Smith</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Meiskins</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1995</year>), “<article-title><italic>System, society and dominance effects in cross‐national organizational analysis</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Work, Employment and Society</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>9</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>241</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>67</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B55"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Tayeb</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), <source><italic>Organisations and National Culture</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B56"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Tregaskis</surname>, <given-names>O.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Heraty</surname>, <given-names>N.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Morley</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>HRD in multinationals: the global/local mix</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Human Resource Management Journal</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>11</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>34</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>56</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B57"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development)</string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), <source><italic>World Investment Report 2001: Promoting Linkages</italic></source>, <publisher-name>United Nations Publications</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Switzerland</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B58"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Whitley</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Ed.) (<year>1992</year>), <source><italic>European Business Systems. Firms and Markets in Their National Contexts</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B59"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Young</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hood</surname>, <given-names>N.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hamill</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1985</year>), “<article-title><italic>Decision making in foreign‐owned multinational subsidiaries in the United Kingdom</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>ILO Working Paper</italic></source>, No. <issue>35</issue>, <publisher-name>ILO</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Geneva</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B60"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Zucker</surname>, <given-names>L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1977</year>), “<article-title><italic>The role of institutionalisation in cultural persistence</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>American Sociological Review</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>42</volume>, pp. <fpage>726</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>43</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list><ref-list><title>Further reading</title><ref id="B61"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bartlett</surname>, <given-names>C.A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Goshal</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1992</year>), “<article-title><italic>What is a global manager?</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Harvard Business Review</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>70</volume> No. <issue>5</issue>, pp. <fpage>124</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>32</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B62"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Foulker</surname>, <given-names>F.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1980</year>), <source><italic>Personnel Policies in Large Non‐union Companies</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Prentice Hall</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B63"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gooderham</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Nordhaug</surname>, <given-names>O.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ringdal</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>Institutional and rational determinants of organisation practices: human resource management in European firms</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Administrative Science Quarterly</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>44</volume>, pp. <fpage>507</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>31</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B64"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gunnigle</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Morley</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Turner</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1997</year>), “<article-title><italic>Challenging collectivist traditions: individualism and the management of industrial relations in greenfield sites</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>The Economic and Social Review</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>28</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>105</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>14</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B65"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Jacoby</surname>, <given-names>S.M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1985</year>), “<article-title><italic>American exceptionalism revisited: the importance of management</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Jacoby</surname>, <given-names>S.M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Ed.), <source><italic>Masters to Managers: Historical and Comparative Perspectives on American Employers</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Columbia University Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B66"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Muller</surname>, <given-names>F.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1994</year>), “<article-title><italic>Societal effect, organisational effect and globalisation</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Organizational Studies</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>15</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>407</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>28</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B67"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Royle</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>Avoidance strategies and the German system of co‐determination</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>International Journal of Human Resource Management</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>9</volume> No. <issue>6</issue>, pp. <fpage>1026</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>47</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B68"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Royle</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), <source><italic>Working for McDonald’s in Europe: The Unequal Struggle</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Routledge</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B69"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Royle</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>The 51st US state? Labour relations in the UK fast‐food industry</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Royle</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Towers</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Eds), <source><italic>Labour Relations in the Global Fast‐Food Industry</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Routledge</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B70"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Temple</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), <source><italic>The Cross‐National Transfer of Human Resource Management Practices in German and British Multinationals</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Mering</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Hampshire</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>HRD and labour market practices in a US multinational subsidiary the impact of global and local influences</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>HRD and labour market practices in a US multinational subsidiary the impact of global and local influences</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">David G.</namePart><namePart type="family">Collings</namePart><affiliation>Department of Personnel and Employment Relations, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland</affiliation></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>MCB UP Ltd</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2003-03-01</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2003</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">This paper examines the extent to which the human resource development HRD and labour market dynamics of a US multinational subsidiary in Ireland are influenced by global and local factors. Specifically the study examines the dynamic between central control and subsidiary autonomy in relation to HRD and labour market management. Using a single case study, the author explores the extent to which the subsidiary is constrained or enabled by virtue of its US heritage, and the relative impact of the Irish environment on its operation. The findings indicate that the subsidiary possesses considerable autonomy in relation to content aspects of HRD interventions while corporate interest was primarily focused on budgetary issues. Turning to labour market management, it is argued that the subsidiarys longterm focus is characteristic of the welfare capitalist approach to HR management. The main manifestations of this approach in the case company are outlined, while also acknowledging the impact of sectoral and company specific factors in shaping HRD and labour market management in the subsidiary.</abstract><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>Labour market</topic><topic>Multinationals</topic><topic>Pharmaceuticals industry</topic><topic>Human resource development</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of European Industrial Training</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><subject><genre>Emerald Subject Group</genre><topic authority="SubjectCodesPrimary" authorityURI="cat-HOB">HR & organizational behaviour</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-TDEV">Training & development</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0309-0590</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">jeit</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1108/jeit</identifier><part><date>2003</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>27</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>2/3/4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>188</start><end>200</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">88435119813CE5D0807E2200822FA21C7737D019</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1108/03090590310469001</identifier><identifier type="filenameID">0030270213</identifier><identifier type="original-pdf">0030270213.pdf</identifier><identifier type="href">03090590310469001.pdf</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© MCB UP Limited</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>EMERALD</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Rhénanie/explor/UnivTrevesV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001B72 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001B72 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Rhénanie
|area= UnivTrevesV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:88435119813CE5D0807E2200822FA21C7737D019
|texte= HRD and labour market practices in a US multinational subsidiary the impact of global and local influences
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31. |  |