Words: 5776
The Strategic Role of HRM in Multinational Corporations – A Holistic Perspective. Sanjay Bhavnani Director & Chief Operating Officer MMS Maritime Agency(I) Pvt Ltd Mumbai. A Subsidiary Company of Meiji Shipping Group, Japan To say that Human Resource Management is assuming a key importance in all organizations would be an understatement. It would be far more realistic to recognize the fact that the field of HRM is being perceived as more strategic in nature at all levels of an Organization which till very recently was being viewed traditionally as primarily operational in its function.
As more firms move outside their domestic borders into the dynamic world of international business, the globalization of world markets appears to be gaining momentum. The last two decades, in particular, have seen dramatic changes in international trade and business. Once-safe markets are now fierce battlegrounds where firms aggressively fight for markets share against foreign and domestic competitors. It is, therefore, not surprising to find that a large proportion of the workforce in an increasing number of firms, regardless of their national origin, is located in other countries.
These trends are likely to continue well into the 21st century. This globalization of business is forcing managers to grapple with complex issues as they seek to gain or sustain a competitive advantage. Faced with unprecedented levels of foreign competition at home and abroad, firms are beginning to recognize not only that international business is high on top management’s list of priorities but also that finding and nurturing the human resources required to implement an international or global strategy is of critical importance.
Effective human resource management (HRM) is essential, especially for small and medium firms where international expansion places additional stress on limited resources, particularly people. Virtually any type of international problem, in the final analysis, is either created by people or must be solved by people. Hence, having the right people in the right place at the right time emerges as the key to a company’s international growth. If we are successful in solving that problem, I am confident we can cope with all others.
The Need for a broader perspective HR managers working in a domestic environment generally administer programs for a single national group of employees who are covered by a uniform compensation policy and taxed by one national government. Because HR managers working in an international environment face the problem of designing and administering programs for more than one national group of employees (e. g. , PCN, HCN, and TCN employees who may work together in Zurich at the European regional headquarters of a U. S. based multinational), they need to take a broader view of issues. For example, a broader, more international perspective on expatriate benefits would endorse the view that all expatriate employees, regardless of nationality, should receive a foreign service or expatriate premium when working in a foreign location. Yet some multinational, which routinely pay such premiums to their PCN employees on international assignment (even if the assignments are to desirable locations), are reluctant to pay premiums to foreign nationals assigned to the home country of the firm.
Firms following such a policy often use the term in- patriate to describe foreign nationals assigned to the home country of the firm. (The utility of this term is unclear and is avoided in this book. ) Such a policy confirms the common perceptions of many HCN and TCN employees that PCN employees are given preferential treatment. Complex equity issues arise when employees of various nationalities work together, and the resolution of these issues remain one of the major challenges in the international HRM field
More Involvement in employee’s Personal Lives A greater degree of involvement in employee’s personal lives is necessary for the selection, training, and effective management of both PCN and TCN employees. The HR department or professional needs to ensure that the expatriate employee understands housing arrangement, health care, and all aspects of the compensation package provided for the assignment (cost-of-living allowances, premiums, taxes, etc. ).
Many multinationals have an “International HR services” section that coordinates administration of the above programs and provides services for PCNs and TCNs such as handling their banking, investments, home rental while on assignment, coordinating home visits and final repatriation. In the domestic setting, the HR department’s involvement with an employee’s family is limited. The firm may, for example, provide employee insurance program or, if a domestic transfer is involved, the HR department may provide some assistance in relocating the employee and family.
In the international setting, however, the HR department must be much more involved and needs to know more about the employees’ personal life in order to provide the level of support required. For example, some government requires the presentation of a marriage certificate before granting a visa to an accompanying spouse. Thus, marital status could become an aspect of the selection process, regardless of the best intentions of the firm to avoid a potentially discriminatory selection criterion.
In such situation, the HR department should advise all candidates being concerned for the position of the host-country’s visa requirements with regard to marital status and allow each candidate to decide whether he or she wishes to remain in the selection process. Apart from providing suitable housing and schooling in the assignment location, the HR department may also need to assist children left behind at boarding schools in the home country. In more remote or less hospitable assignment locations, the HR department may be required to develop, and even run, recreational programs.
For a domestic assignment, most of these matters either would not arise or would be primarily the responsibility of the employee rather than the HR department. Looking specifically in the Indian Context in the post Liberalization era, the relatively drastic changes have imposed a great strain on most, if not all the organizations to improve their performance to sustain themselves in the market place. The very basic paradigms of identifying targets, objectives etc and even organizational development have been greatly altered in their perceptions in view of the severe environmental demands.
From a myopic socio – economic application it has moved to a trajectory of achieving a sense of balance (eg: balancing apparently contradictory and polar opposite approaches to issues and trying to find the optimum middle path. ), a sense of including all aspects, all people, all dimensions in an open and a flexible way and taking a systemic view of all problems and supplementing the use of hard technology, soft technology in the process of inner transformation to achieve a Wholesome development process which will probably be very crucial in meeting successfully the changing environmental demands.
Further it is largely believed that Concepts like Total Quality Management, Customer Orientation, Role Clarifications, and Continuous Improvement etc impart the required competitive edge to the organization(s). However it is much more effective to have a holistic view of these aspects from the viewpoint of Conceptual Integration. Examining further it will not be incorrect to equate this integration with Wholesomeness. It is this Conceptual Integration, which helps to create fusion where often you will find confusion.
The very definition of the word Human Resource Management seems to be changing as it being increasingly assumed to not only produce change but aid in it’s implementation by integrating it with tools and techniques of other practices involved. People responsible for this change needs to view themselves as centered and equanimous and free from all hazards that a change process often entails. We need to create a new paradigm to guide our work. This would mean looking for useful ideas of work outside the realm of your own discipline and integrating them meaningfully rather than creating fresh conceptual fragments.
This is imperative for a holistic manner of conceptualization and implementation of all management decisions at a strategic level. The main function of HRM now commences working backwards from ensuring the final delivery of the intended or stated quality levels Quality by itself is very difficult to define or state, as it is more of a perception. It can probably be compared to hold a moonbeam in your hand and more of a concept, which is to be seen and / or experienced. Every product or service carries with it that intangible which in today’s competitive market distinguishes it from the others in that category.
The customers today is more aware and is demanding more and more value for his money in predominantly a buyers market. Purely market forces dictate prices. For any business to thrive the only option is to cut cots and attract customers by offering more. Today we not only talk about an Organization’s growth but also it’s health. It is believed that when an organization is internally healthy when all its parts are functioning well, when it’s strong, then growth would be a natural outcome. A healthy organization is also in a position to fight onslaughts of any external forces like competition and pressures of politicians.
When an organization has been sluggish for some time and suddenly it finds pressures to pull up its socks from all round it first needs to gear up internally. Some companies have tried to take the route of downsizing in order to reduce costs and become more competitive. Cutting costs to survive is only side of the coin. The other side is how to do more with less. Today the Customer expects more value for money and over and above, not only the service delivery but also guarantee as well.
Successful HRM practices exhibit the following aspects based on the customer-defined quality. • The Customer must be the organization’s top priority. The organization’s survival depends upon the Customer • Reliable Customers are the most important Customers and therefore customer satisfaction is essential. • Customer Satisfaction is ensuring by producing high quality products, which must be renewed with every new purchase, which cannot be accomplished even if very high if allowed to remain static.
Satisfaction implies continual improvement in keeping in line with increasing expectation levels of the Customers. Continual improvement is the only way to keep customers satisfied and loyal. Therefore the one of the most important focus of strategic HRM would be to filter down the customer focus philosophy through the maze of organizational processes and systems to achieve the above to establish this as an elementary operating objectives throughout all the levels.
In particular, a strategic human resource management approach argues for the increased importance of the human resource function and supportive HRM practices in the development and successful implementation of any organizational strategy for it to be effective. These must be vertical alignment between theory and practice. Simultaneously, there needs to be horizontal alignment between the HRM practices and it’s supporting framework to be able to facilitate implementation of strategic changes as conceived and required.
Brief introduction to Multinational Corporations One of the most recurrent themes in contemporary times in International organization studies is the impact of increasing exposure to international influences on the organizational practices. Such influences could be divided into two parts. 1) On one hand, enterprise activities are internationalized through exposition to Customers, Suppliers or alliances outside a society or domestic economy of origin, regulated by common and relatively homogenous situations.
This kind of Internationalization becomes relevant in the context of a Multinational Company and where non-marginal company functions are localized in subsidiaries outside the Country of origin. For the purpose of comparison and to highlight the differences, even enterprises, which are not internationalized or multinational, are subject to competitive pressures, regulatory norms and imitation influences extending from an international search for good or best organizational practices.
An International organization has to be confronted with the concept of convergence which it seeks to (or required to have been) achieve (d) in terms of uniformity in operations and management philosophy without in any way compromising on the requirement of the necessary divergence necessary in view of the specific cultural factors for effective decision making in cross cultural situations. This need not necessarily be limited to evaluate the effectiveness of the results achieved by the enterprise at a given moment.
Whereas divergence is co-terminus with embed ness of organizations and other actors in a regionally or nationally different societies, convergence is more focused in the aspect of the relative degree of dis embed ness of practices or structures overriding more regionally specific institutions or behavioral predispositions. More recently the sharp end of the convergence-divergence debate where the issue of divergence versus Convergence is most acute has come to lie where internationalization is most pervasive in the functioning of the multinational enterprise.
Internationalization would then include all the fields applicable to the firm which govern it’s structure and functioning taste and general environment, internal structure and process and generic strategies that establish meaningful relationships between environment, context and internal structure and process. The importance of cultural awareness. Despite the methodological concerns about cross cultural research it is now generally recognized that culturally insensitive attitudes and behaviors stemming from ignorance or from misguided beliefs, are not only inappropriate but often cause international business failures.
An awareness of cultural differences is not only essential for the HR manager at corporate headquarters as well as in the host location. A firm may decide to head up a new international operation with an expatriate general manager but appoint as the HR department manager a local – a person who is familiar with the host country’s HR practices. The interfacing between these two functions become very crucial as that is confronted with breaking down this cultural barrier(s) in line with organizational requirements The role of HRM function in multi-domestic and global industries can be analyzed using Porters’ value chain model.
In Porter’s model HRM is seen as one of the four support activities for the five primary activities of the firm. Since human resources are involved in each of the primary and support activities, the HRM functions are seen as cutting across the entire value chain of the firm. If the firm is in a multi-domestic industry, the role of the HR department will most likely be more in domestic, in structure and orientation. At times there may be considerable demand for international services from the HRM function, but these activities would not be pivotal.
The main role for the HRM function would be to support the primary activities of the firm in each domestic market to achieve a competitive advantage through either cost / efficiency or produce / service differential. If the multinational were in a global industry, however the imperative for Coordination described by Porter would require a HRM function structured to deliver the international support required by the primary activities of the multinational. As has been correctly proposed the following steps would be required for a true international conception of HRM. ) An explicit recognition by the parent organization that it’s own peculiar ways of managing Human Resources reflect some assumptions and values of its home culture. 2) An explicit recognition by the parent organization that it’s peculiar ways are neither universally better nor worse than others but are different and likely to exhibit strengths and weaknesses particularly abroad. 3) An explicit recognition by the parent organization that it’s foreign subsidiaries may have other preferred ways of managing people that are neither intrinsically better nor worse, but possibly be more effective locally. ) A willingness from the head office not only accept cultural differences but also take active steps in order to make them discussable and therefore usable. 5) The building of a genuine belief by all parties involved that more creative and effective ways of managing people could be develop as a result of cross cultural learning. Going a step further it is not difficult to comprehend that the above has more to do with states of mind and mindsets than with behaviors. A multinational taking the above steps would be better equipped to handle the complex trade off’s inherent in a global strategy.
It is likely that if the service management of a multinational corporation does not have a strong international orientation the importance of global operations may be under-emphasized in terms of corporate goals and objectives. It may so happen that they may tend to focus more on domestic issues and in the process minimize the differences between international and domestic environments. This failure to put global and domestic HRM at different levels often deprives the organizations of locational synergy (which is the one most significant objective of globalization process).
A most critical aspect desired is the “GLOBAL MINDSET” to be able to appreciate the importance of multinational operations. Strategic Allocation of Human Resources to various International Operations – Multiple Approaches. • Ethnocentric ( Foreign subsidiaries have very little autonomy and all strategic decisions are made at the headquarters. Key positions are held by management personnel of the head office in all domestic and foreign operations (PCN’S) • Polycentric ( The multinational enterprise treats each subsidiary as a district national entity with some decision-making autonomy.
Subsidiary as are usually managed by local national (HCN’S) who have no mobility with their international counter part positions. • Geocentric ( A world wide approach to its operations which recognizes that each part makes a unique contribution with it’s unique competence It is usually accompanied by a world wide integrated business and nationality is ignored in favors of ability. PCN’S, HCN’S and TCN’s may be found in various operations worldwide. • Region-centric ( Reflects the geographic strategy and structure of the multinational corporation although in a limited way and should be viewed as a precursory step towards geocentrism.
The above may reflect a general top management attitude, however the nature of international business often forces adaptation upon implementation. This could include factors like importance of the foreign market, the maturity of operation, the degree of cultural distance between the parent and the host country etc. In many cases a MNC may consider it prudent to use a combination of approaches at different levels of organizational development with time, at different locations. Mature Multinationals as a network:
The following could be viewed as objectives at maturity for foreign operations • Subsidiaries have developed into significant centers for investments activities and influence and can no longer be regarded as peripheral • Interaction between headquarters and each subsidiary is likely to be dyadic taking place between various actors at many different organizational levels and covering different exchanges, the outcome of which will be important for effective global performance. Such enterprises are loosely coupled political systems rather than tightly bonded, homogenous, hierarchically controlled systems. This at a matured level complements the traditional structure where leakages are described formally via the organization’s structure and standardized procedures and informally through interpersonal contact and socialization. HRM issues related to Technology up gradations Technological up gradations for international competitiveness is a one of the major issues confronting the Multinational Enterprises. Literally the rules f competitiveness are being redefined with every upgrade in the technological process including plant, machinery, & other hard technology to soft technology like management skills and work processes to levels which do not brook incremental solutions. The HRM decisions makers (and implementers) have an important role to play in helping organizations to develop HR strategies, in implementing such strategies and in managing the consequences of such strategies for the organization, it’s systems, structures, processes and it’s employees.
Technology is a factor with a potential to play a very important role in economic and social transformation of a nation thereby completely re-postulating the local market conditions. Hence the significance of emerging trends in technology is crucial for multinational corporations to establish the much needed shift in the balance to maintain harmony with the environment and to ensure optimal effectiveness of it’s decisions.
Technological up gradation therefore necessities an adequate training and development for an enterprise’s employee(s). Not only the technical line based training but attitudinal training for the managerial personnel to handle the increasing complexity of the changing environmental demands to retain their effectiveness in view of the competitive edge much needed in the market place, is also very essential. So much so, management of technology as a specialized stream of learning is fast emerging as a crucial knowledge base.
This includes concepts like Managing International technology transfer, technology and corporate strategy, managing technological change, technology forecasting, strategic management of R, managing new product and process development, career management in R and modern manufacting management concepts like J IT, TQM, joint venture based on technology transfer etc. The Relationship Patterns between the Head Office and the Subsidiaries It is very significant that we look at differences in the headquarters-subsidiary relationship between MNCs from different countries of origin.
This relationship can be seen as a classic control problem, whose attributes are similar to principal-agent relationships, while as the Headquarters, the principal, cannot make all decisions because it does not possess all the necessary knowledge or resources, but it cannot leave all decisions to subsidiaries because the interests of subsidiaries might be different from that of headquarters or the MNC as a whole. Therefore, the key aspect of the headquarters-subsidiary relationship is the way in which headquarters ensures that subsidiaries are working towards common organizational goals.
The different types of control mechanisms are the tools that headquarters have to achieve this alignment. Hence, the level of control exercised by headquarters by means of the different types of control mechanisms is the first element of the HQ-subsidiary relationship that we will investigate. As we will see below, there is a range of control mechanisms available that goes beyond the level of autonomy granted to subsidiaries. The second element that we will look at is the level of expatriate presence in subsidiaries. Expatriates can perform many roles in the headquarters-subsidiary relationship, among them control and knowledge transfer.
The level of interdependence between headquarters and subsidiaries in comparison to the level of interdependence between subsidiaries is a third important element of the HQ-subsidiary relationship. The final element that we will study is the level of local responsiveness – in terms of local production, local R and adaptation of products and marketing to local conditions – that headquarters allows to the subsidiary. Differences in Culture and Business systems-Case of Britain and Germany: Two European countries that are often singled out as being very different from each other are Germany and Britain.
Germany and Britain differ considerably in terms of their national culture and business system. Culturally, Germany and Britain are always found in different country clusters. In many of the country cluster studies, precisely out of nine, in seven the UK was included and in all studies it was classified in the Anglo cluster, together with the U. S. A, Canada, Australia and New Zealand in studies where these countries were also included. Germany was included in seven studies as well and was classified in the Germanic cluster in five studies, in the Nordic cluster in one and in the independent cluster in another.
Looking at their business systems, Germany and Britain also differ dramatically. Britain shares with the US an adherence to consumer capitalism, which is in strong contradiction to the producer capitalism more typical of both Germany and Japan With the first comes a focus on marketing excellence, while the second is characterized by manufacturing excellence and German companies have indeed been shown to be significantly ahead of British companies in adopting world-class manufacturing practices There are also major differences between Germany and Britain with regard to capital structure and the importance of stock markets.
British and American companies raise their funds mainly by selling stock (are equity-based), while German and Japanese companies are mainly credit-based In 1985, stock market capitalization as a percentage of GNP amounted to 81% in Britain compared with a mere 14% in Germany, while the USA and Japan fell in between with 48% and 37% respectively. These different capital structures are also reflected in different philosophies about the management of companies.
While Anglo-Saxon companies are mainly managed in the interest of shareholders and focus on the maximization of short-term profits, German and Japanese companies are more concerned about long-term viability and stability. In German and Japanese companies, the interest of stakeholders other than shareholders (e. g. employees, unions, community, government) is given serious consideration and companies are seen more as social institutions than as profit-generating machines.
This phenomenon is reinforced by the fact that in the Anglo-Saxon countries, around 80% or more of the shares are held for trading purposes, while in Germany and Japan the overwhelming majority of shares are held for control purposes. Obviously, investors holding shares for trading purposes are more likely to focus on short-term returns than on long-term stability. In British companies “every major financial decision has to be taken with an eye on the movement of the stock market”.
An earlier comparison of British and German multinationals showed that the British companies are stronger in their marketing and financial functions, and these strengths show both in headquarters and different subsidiaries. On the other hand, the German multinationals are stronger in production and engineering functions. Policies in the respective subsidiaries outside the country-of-origin devote particular attention to remedying perceived deficiencies in those functions, which are comparatively underemphasized in the country of the subsidiary’s location.
This picture complements the earlier one, and it boils down to the common point that British companies, among them multinationals, strategically emphasize the more commercial and financial functions, whereas German companies emphasize the technical functions including links between development and production. The consequence of these differences might be the following: The product and its production and development being more important for the corporate identity of a multinational from Germany, it will be more likely to promote an international strategy in the process of going international.
This means it will attempt to perform on the basis of an existing product template and its advantages, it will try to replicate this product template abroad and emphasize interdependencies or identity of the country-of-origin template and the subsidiary template, and it will not go for multi-domestic or other locally responsive strategies abroad. The British multinational on the other hand will see the enterprise as hanging together around financial flows and measures and encourage marketing postures, which are more multidomestic or locally responsive in an integrated form.
In this way, internationalization strategies are likely to be the consequence of deeply rooted, societal embedded, strategies in the country-of-origin. All this follows from differences already established in the earlier history of industrialization: German companies grew by internal growth, on the basis of a specific technical template, whereas British companies to a greater extent featured growth by mergers and acquisitions which more often led to conglomerates with different technical and product templates.
Finally, both German and Japanese companies are much more embedded in industrial networks and have close ties with buyer and supplier firms, while British and American companies operate much more independently. Hence, given the striking difference in business systems between Britain and Germany, we can expect different responses in the ways companies have managed the tensions between pressures for globalization and established, nationally shaped business strategies and patterns of behavior.
We would therefore expect MNCs from Germany and Britain to differ in the way they have internationalized and hence in their HQ-subsidiary relationships. Research Studies have proved statistically and otherwise that • The HQ-subsidiary relationship in German MNCs will be more similar to the HQ-subsidiary relationship in Japanese MNCs than to the HQ-Subsidiary relationship in British MNCs. The HQ-subsidiary relationship in British MNCs will be more similar to the HQ-subsidiary relationship in US MNCs than to the HQ-subsidiary relationship in German MNCs. German MNCs will show a higher level of expatriate presence in their subsidiaries than British MNCs. • German MNCs show a higher level of interdependence with HQ than British MNCs • German MNCs will show a lower level of local responsiveness than British MNCs Source:HQ-Subsidiary Relationships in Multinational Companies: A British German Comparison- Anne-Wil Harzing, Arndt Sorge, Jaap Paauwe) International Transfers of Managers in MNC’s
It has been found that there are three general company motives for sending out expatriates – position filling, management development and organization development. Position filling refers to the transfer of technical knowledge, mainly to developing countries where qualified local nationals are not available. Transfer for management development gives the expatriate manager in question international experience and develops him for further roles in subsidiaries abroad or with the parent company.
For the third reason, for international transfers the final goal is not individual development but organization development. Transfers are used to change or maintain the structure and decision processes of the organization In this case international transfers are used as a co-ordination and control strategy. This strategy consists of two elements: Socialization of both expatriate and local managers into the corporate culture and the creation of a verbal information network that provides links between subsidiaries and headquarters.
It might not be inappropriate to conclude that all these three functions of international transfer can in fact lead to organization development defined as the increase in the company’s potential to succeed and to compete in the international market. Probably organizational development is not the cause of international transfer but is rather a result of knowledge transfer, management development and the creation of a common organizational culture and effective informal information network Hence it better be termed as co-ordination and central.
Another significant aspect is that these might be a substantial difference between the perspective of headquarters and Subsidiary managers while viewing the functions of international transfers. At both subsidiary and headquarters level, knowledge transfer is seen as the most important reason for expatriation, while direct expatriate control is seen as least important. However, data at subsidiary level shows that not all of the three functions of international transfer are equally important in subsidiaries of MNCs from different headquarters countries or in subsidiaries in different host regions.
This confirms the hypothesis that coordination & control is seen as more important in subsidiaries of Japanese and German MNCs than in American MNCs and that position filling is seen as more important in Latin American subsidiaries than in subsidiaries in more developed countries. As predicted cultural distance between headquarters and subsidiary has been found to be positively related to the perceived importance at subsidiary level of both coordination & control and position filling and negatively to management development.
With regard to the country of origin, it has also been found that subsidiaries of MNCs from the Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany placed a higher importance on transfer for management development reasons than subsidiaries of MNCs from the other countries, while the importance they attached to the other functions was not significantly different. German and to some extent Swiss and Dutch companies tend to follow the functional approach to management development. Horizontal job rotation through many different functions is a key feature of this “Germanic” model to management development.
Developmental assignments abroad might fit this model better than the “elite cohort”, “elite political” and “managed development” approaches that are found in other countries. Future research might be able to confirm this difference and further explore the reasons behind it. For Dutch and Swiss companies, it may be worthwhile to examine that the small domestic market may encourage the use of expatriation as a way of exposing managers to a wider range of opportunities. The perceived importance of transfer for position filling has also been found to be different among subsidiaries of MNCs from different home countries.
It was most important in subsidiaries of American and British MNCs. At the same time, transfer for coordination & control has been seen as less important in subsidiaries of American and British MNCs than in subsidiaries of MNCs from other countries. American and British MNCs tend to send out fewer expatriates than MNCs from other countries. Apparently, if they do send out expatriates it is because it is absolutely necessary for reasons of knowledge transfer or the lack of availability of locally qualified personnel.
American and British MNCs appear to use other ways to control subsidiaries, focusing more on output and bureaucratic control hence making transfer for coordination & control less necessary. It can also be argued that transfer for one of the sub-functions of coordination & control: the improvement of communication channels is less necessary, because many subsidiary managers will be able to communicate in English. Bibliography • Dowling, P. J. , 1986. Human resource issues in international business, Syracuse Journal of international Law Of Commerce, vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 55-271. • Dowling P. J, 1988. International HRM, Human Resource Management: Evolving Roles and Responsibilities, vol. 1. L. Dyer, ed. ASPA/BNA Handbook of Human Resource Management Series Washington DC: BNA. • Gannon, M. J. , 1994. Understanding Global Cultures: Metaphorical Journeys Through 17 Countries. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. • Kamoche, K. , 1996. The Integration-differentiation puzzle: A resource-capability perspective in international Human Resource Management, International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 7, No. 1,pp. 230-244. • Kobrin, S. J. , 1994.
Is there a relationship between a geocentric mindset and multinational strategy? Journal of international business studies, vol,25,no. 3, pp. 493-511. • Wolf J. (Guest editor), 1997. International Human Resource and cross-cultural management, management international review, vol. 37, Special issue, January. • Buckley, P. J. , and P. Ghauri, eds. , 1993. The Internationalization of the Firm: A Reader, London: Academic Press. • Ghadar, F. , and N. J. Adler, 1989. Management culture and the accelerated product life cycle, Human Resource Planning, vol. 12. No. 1, pp. 37-42. Ghoshal, S. , and C. Bartlett, 1995. Building the entrepreneurial corporation: New organizational processes, new managerial tasks, European Management Journal, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 139-155. • Hedlund, G. , 1994. A model of knowledge management and the N-Form Corporation, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 15, pp. 73-90. • Hendry, C. , 1994. Human Resource Strategy for International Growth, London: Routledge. • Malnight, T. W. , 1996. The transition from decentralized to network based MNC structures: An evolutionary perspective, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, and pp. 43-65. • Miller, S. Beechlar, B. Bhatt and R. Nath, 1986. The Relationship between the global strategic planning process and the human resource management functions, Human Resource Planning, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 9-25. • Oviatt, B. M. , and P. P Mc Dougall, 1994. Towards a theory of international new ventures, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 25, no. 1, pp45-64. • Serapio, M. G. , and W. F. Cacio, 1996. End games in international alliances, Academy of Management Executive, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 62-73.