Development of the Recruitment

Value Proposition for Geocentric

Staffing
Mary A. Gowan

Executive Summary
Organizations wanting to use a geocentric staffing strategy need to develop and
communicate a value proposition that will attract the most qualified employees.
This article provides a framework for understanding how culture affects the value
proposition offered. The framework proposes that cultural differences will impact
the perception of job and work characteristics, total rewards, and corporate
image—the three main components of a recruitment value proposition.
International experience is proposed as a moderator of the relationship between
cultural differences and these components. Recommendations for organizations
based on the framework and for future research are provided. © 2004 Wiley
Periodicals, Inc.

A
geocentric staffing strategy requires that an organization be able to recruit the
best people in the global marketplace for key jobs. Recruitment success results
when the organization understands the relationship among person-job fit,
person-organization fit, and cultural differences (Valentine, 2000), and recruits
accordingly. Research of staffing by multinational enterprises (MNEs) to date
has not addressed how organizations can create and leverage a value proposition
for recruiting high-potential employees, regardless of their country of origin. In
fact, most recruitment research has focused on recruitment of individuals with-
in the United States, limiting generalizability across geographic borders.
Additionally, much of the international human resources research has been
focused within a particular country or, at best, has been a comparison of a few
countries, which also limits generalizability (Geringer, Frayne, & Milliman,
2002; Von Glinow, 1993).

Mary A. Gowan is an associate professor of management at the George Washington University.

She researches, teaches, and consults on global human resource management issues, including
employee recruitment, performance management, and career development. E-mail:
mgowan@gwu.edu.

Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 46(6) 687–708 • November–December 2004

© 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. • Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
687
DOI: 10.1002/tie.20031
 Mary A. Gowan

The concept of a recruitment value proposition comes from the

brand management literature in marketing and specifically refers to
the value that a firm offers to prospective employees. The goal of
brand management is to create and maintain an identity that differ-
entiates the product from its competitors. Organizations have real-
ized that differentiation requires creating and increasing a product’s
The goal of value to customers, which in turn leads to long-time loyalty.
brand manage- Convergent marketing has to occur to accomplish this goal. In con-
ment is to create vergent marketing, all marketing, sales, and contacts have to con-
and maintain an verge at the customer, which requires really understanding the
identity that dif- customer and what he or she needs (McEachern, 1998).
ferentiates the
product from its Convergent marketing is also necessary in the context of employee
competitors. recruitment. According to J. W. Marriott Jr. (2001), individuals look-
ing for jobs are just as conscious of value as are consumers shopping
for products or services. Thus, employers must recognize that they
need to offer the potential employee the right value proposition and
communicate this information in their recruitment messages.

The goal of creating such a proposition for geocentric staffing has to

be one of understanding what will attract the type of high-potential
employees who can assist the organization in successfully navigating
its global strategy. Many employees are open to the opportunity to
learn and grow as they experience new cultures and take on new chal-
lenges within the organization. Companies can increasingly offer a
wider range of location and job options to these individuals (Dwyer,
1999). The key to attracting them involves becoming an employer of
choice, ensuring that the value proposition offered is more attractive
than that offered by competitors. Becoming an employer of choice
(Lowe & Schellenberg, 2002) entails even greater challenges when
dealing with a multinational applicant pool than just doing so domes-
tically (Marriott, 2001) because of differences in cultural values that
impact preferences for job and work characteristics, total rewards, and
company image.

This article, therefore, adds to the recruitment and international

staffing literature through the development of a framework for
understanding the importance of cultural differences when targeting
a global applicant pool with the recruitment value proposition. The
focus of the framework is on investigating how the components of
such a proposition may be perceived and valued differently by indi-
viduals across cultures. To develop the framework, information is
drawn from current research on employee recruitment, international
human resources, and cultural differences. Just as understanding the
688 Thunderbird International Business Review • November–December 2004
 Development of the Recruitment Value Proposition for Geocentric Staffing

wants, needs, and values of the customer is important for creating a

value proposition for a product or service, so too is understanding
where the applicant is coming from in evaluating job opportunities.

First, I will provide more background on the value of a geocentric

staffing strategy. Next, I will present and develop a recruitment value
proposition model for geocentric staffing. Recommendations for
implementation and future research needs will follow. Experiences at
GM provide a
good example of
GEOCENTRIC STAFFING the value of a
geocentric
Multinational enterprises moving toward an integrated, worldwide approach to
approach to operations understand that national borders can no staffing.
longer serve as defining boundaries for what is done and where it is
done. As a result of this awareness, these more global enterprises
typically adopt a geocentric staffing philosophy, focusing on finding
the best people for key organizational jobs regardless of location.
These MNEs recognize that staff ability is more critical than staff
nationality (Dowling, Welch, & Schuler, 1999). In such organiza-
tions, the ability to capture and transfer critical knowledge surpass-
es the need to use only home country or host country managers to
staff operations.

Experiences at GM provide a good example of the value of a geo-

centric approach to staffing. GM views their Mexican nationals as a
global resource, not just as potential managers in Mexico. They have
used Mexican managers to work on start-ups in other countries, such
as Austria, Hungary, and China (Gowan, Ibarreche, & Lackey,
1996). Such an approach recognizes the value to the company of the
knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) possessed by these managers
and acknowledges that they are a key source of sustainable competi-
tive advantage for the organization (Lowe, Milliman, De Cieri, &
Dowling, 2002).

Companies such as GM, therefore, are developing global employees

who are open to new experiences and who see the opportunity for
international assignments as having value for themselves as well as for
their employers (Dwyer, 1999). Such a strategy recognizes that firms
that want to be major global players must have world-class managers
worldwide. Hence, managers who are multicultural and multilingual,
and who have previous international experience, are highly sought
after by multinational employers (Goodwin, 1999; Harvey, 1997;
Selmer, 2002).

Thunderbird International Business Review • November–December 2004 689

 Mary A. Gowan

Additionally, as organizations continue to identify ways to gain a com-

petitive advantage, they increasingly are acknowledging that employees
are stakeholders in the organization and should be viewed as such rather
than as disposable commodities (Britton, Chadwick, & Walker, 1999).
Just as in domestic operations and, perhaps even more importantly, for
global success, properly designed human resource policies can con-
The staffing deci- tribute significantly to firm performance (Huselid, 1995). Staffing poli-
sions made by cies, which include establishing a recruitment strategy, are a good
multinational example. The staffing decisions made by multinational enterprises can
enterprises can affect the cost structure of the firm either positively or negatively
affect the cost (Erdener & Torbiorn, 1999) and, just as importantly, determine which
structure of the employees will be willing to work for the organization (Dwyer, 1999),
firm either posi- which in turn can affect the ability of the firm to gain and/or maintain
tively or nega- a competitive advantage.
tively…
Further, research has documented the high cost to firms of expatriate
failure and of expatriates who remain on their assignments even though
they fail to adjust (Black, Gregersen, & Mendenhall, 1992; Harzing,
1995), providing a further reason to ensure that there is a good job and
organization fit for the employee. A good fit requires congruence
between what an individual brings to the job and organization and job
and organizational roles, values, practices, and cultures (Cable & Judge,
1996; Valentine, 2000).

In the context of the recruitment of talent for global operations, there-

fore, the successful value proposition must communicate information
about the job and about the work environment in such a way that the
most qualified applicants, both in terms of job and organization fit, will
be interested in working for the organization. Additionally, the com-
munication must be in such a way that the expectations of the applicant
hired will be met (Lowe & Schellenberg, 2002). Recruitment of the
“right” individuals is an efficient and economical means to acquire
employees with multicultural capabilities as opposed to trying to devel-
op such employees (Erdener & Torbiorn, 1999). One way to increase
the likelihood of attracting such individuals is to create the right value
proposition (Cliffe, 1998), which, in a global context, requires paying
attention to the importance of cultural differences.

RECRUITMENT VALUE PROPOSITION MODEL FOR

GEOCENTRIC STAFFING

At its very essence, an employee value proposition spells out, either

figuratively or literally, why high-potential job applicants would want
690 Thunderbird International Business Review • November–December 2004
 Development of the Recruitment Value Proposition for Geocentric Staffing

to work for one company versus another. A company with a success-

ful value proposition has designed the jobs it offers to attract the
applicants it wants to hire for jobs now and for future opportunities
in the organization (Chambers, Foulon, Handfield-Jones, Hankin, &
Michaels, 1998).

The organization’s value proposition for employee recruitment con-

sists of three elements: job and work characteristics, total rewards,
and corporate image. These elements in many ways mirror the mar-
keting concepts for creating a value proposition for products and
services (Lanning, 1998). Specifically, the job and work characteris-
tics correspond to the service or product offered to customers, the
total rewards correspond to the pricing of the product, and the cor-
porate image corresponds to the company brand. Further, since the
focus of the model presented is on developing a recruitment value
proposition, these three factors—job and work characteristics, total
rewards, and corporate image—present a logical way to organize the
information that is most often presented in recruitment messages
(Barber, 1998).

According to the model, the perception of these elements for global

assignments is influenced directly by cultural differences and indi-
rectly by previous international experience. Following a general dis-
cussion of cultural differences, propositions regarding these
relationships will be developed.

Figure 1. Framework for Developing a Geocentric Recruitment Value

Proposition

Previous International
Experience:
• Type
• Number of Years
• Location

Cultural Differences: Perception of Value

• Individualism/Collectivism Proposition:
• Power Distance • Job and Work
• Masculinity Characteristics
• Achievement Orientation • Total Rewards
• Corporate Image

Thunderbird International Business Review • November–December 2004 691

 Mary A. Gowan

Cultural Differences
Culture is a shared meaning system (Shweder & LeVine, 1984;
Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998), a collective program-
ming of the mind (Hofstede, 1984). Extensive research has exam-
ined the concept of national culture and cultural differences in
general and how culture impacts work values and attitudes (e.g.,
…companies Adler & Jelinek, 1986; Hofstede, 1993; Trompenaars & Hampden-
need to under- Turner, 1998). Because so much of culture is associated with val-
stand how ues, and values determine perceptions, cultural differences will
human resource impact interpretation of an employer’s recruitment message just as
and manage- they affect the way other business activities are experienced
ment concepts (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). As Buchholz (1977)
are perceived indicated, an individual’s world is defined by his/her beliefs, and
transnationally… these beliefs make up the information system that provides guid-
ance for the individual’s decisions.

Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) discuss the idea that a

common culture will ultimately be created worldwide as a result of
internationalization. As they note, however, while products and ser-
vices may become common to world markets, the meaning of those
products and services will differ. The same is true of what organi-
zations offer to prospective employees. The organization may com-
municate the same message wherever it advertises for employees,
but the components of that message may be interpreted, and val-
ued, differently.

Thus, in creating a value proposition, an organization adopting a

geocentric staffing strategy has to acknowledge the complexity of
communicating to various cultures why the company should be per-
ceived as the employer of choice. Allowing the ethnocentrism of the
message creator to determine the content of the message is a sure way
to eliminate a substantial number of highly qualified applicants.
Stories abound in fact and folklore about companies that failed at
branding their products in international markets because they didn’t
understand the meanings of words when names and marketing mes-
sages of the products were translated into the language of the coun-
try where the products were to be marketed. Just as critically,
companies need to understand how human resource and manage-
ment concepts are perceived transnationally (Trompenaars &
Hampden-Turner, 1998).

A number of researchers have identified components of cultural dif-

ferences, generally associating them with specific countries or groups
of countries. These components are important to consider when
692 Thunderbird International Business Review • November–December 2004
 Development of the Recruitment Value Proposition for Geocentric Staffing

developing a recruitment value proposition. The most often cited

research of cultural differences is still that of Hofstede (1980).
Hofstede (1980, 1984) identified four dimensions of culture—
individualism-collectivism, power distance, masculinity-femininity,
and uncertainty avoidance.

Other researchers also have identified dimensions of culture. For The United States
instance, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) conducted is classified as a
extensive cross-cultural research and discuss culture in terms of very individualis-
eight dimensions: relationships with people, universalism versus tic country
particularism, individualism versus communitarianism, neutral ver- because of the
sus emotional, specific versus diffuse, achievement versus ascrip- overall tendency
tion, attitudes to time, and attitudes to the environment. Even of U.S. citizens to
earlier, Kluckhohn and Stodtbeck (1961) had identified variations score high on
in cultural dimensions, labeling them as relationship to the envi- measures of
ronment, time orientation, nature of people, activity orientation, individualism.
focus of responsibility, and conception of space. Hofstede’s dimen-
sions (1980), however, continue to be the most often used and
supported in cross-cultural organizational research (e.g., Ryan,
Horvath, Ployhart, Schmitt, & Slade, 2000; Sondergaard, 1994).
Additionally, Hofstede’s dimensions (1980) have direct implica-
tions for the components of the model, and the dimensions iden-
tified by others, such as those of Kluckhohn and Stodtbeck (1961)
and Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998), exhibit a good
deal of overlap with these.

At this point, it is important to note that the focus of the framework

described is on cultural differences at an individual level as opposed
to at a country level; however, research has shown that countries can
generally be clustered by how the citizens of those countries tend to
score on the various cultural dimensions. For example, on Hofstede’s
(1980) individualism/collectivism scale, the United States scored 93
and Mexico scored 31, supporting the views of U.S. citizens as more
individualistic and Mexicans as more collectivistic. The United States
is classified as a very individualistic country because of the overall ten-
dency of U.S. citizens to score high on measures of individualism.
Mexico, on the other hand, is considered to be a collectivistic coun-
try, because research has consistently shown that Mexicans tend to
favor the group, particularly the family, as the focus, rather than the
self (Hofstede, 1980; McGrath, MacMillan, Yang, & Tsai, 1992).
Thus, the United States is typically described as an individualistic
country, and Mexico is described as a collectivistic country even
though there are U.S. citizens who are collectivistic and Mexican
nationals who are individualistic.

Thunderbird International Business Review • November–December 2004 693

 Mary A. Gowan

Consequently, while country names are used in developing the

hypotheses associated with the recruitment value proposition frame-
work, this approach is only used for summary purposes. As already
noted, not all individuals within a country will respond in the same
way. In fact, this last point is especially important for recruiting inter-
national assignees, and is why international experience is included as
Allocentrism is a a moderator of the relationship between cultural differences and the
personality components of the model.
attribute that
corresponds to Much debate has occurred about the appropriate unit of analysis—
collectivism country-level or individual-level—in the cross-cultural literature.
across cultures. Hofstede (1998) notes that using nations as the unit of analysis is
debatable. Doing so assumes a functional equivalency regarding crite-
ria studied. Others have noted that the cultural differences at the
country level may not apply when the individual is the focus of the
analysis (Chen, Chen, & Meindl, 1998). There are, however, values
that do distinguish among nations (Hofstede, 1998; Ronen &
Shenkar, 1985). But these values often belong to individuals as well as
to countries (Hofstede, 1998). Accordingly, researchers have noted
the usefulness of having different terminology to describe dimensions
measured within cultures and across cultures. For example, idiocen-
trism is a personality attribute that corresponds to individualism across
cultures. Allocentrism is a personality attribute that corresponds to
collectivism across cultures. By using such terminology, it becomes
possible to refer to allocentrics in individualistic cultures and idio-
centrics in collectivistic cultures, thus acknowledging both the vertical
and horizontal nature of the individualism/collectivism cultural dif-
ferences (Triandis, Leung, Villareal, & Clark, 1985).

Following is a short overview of each cultural dimension used to rep-

resent cultural differences in developing the recruitment value propo-
sition framework. Each of these dimensions has implications for how
job applicants will perceive job and work characteristics, total
rewards, and corporate image:

Individualism/Collectivism: the extent to which individuals

focus on taking care of self, being independent, and being
unique (e.g., I, me, myself) versus focusing on an in-group
such as family, religion, or organization (e.g., we, they) and
having behavior regulated by that in-group.

Power Distance: the extent to which hierarchy and unequal dis-

tribution of power is accepted versus believing that power
should be evenly distributed.
694 Thunderbird International Business Review • November–December 2004
 Development of the Recruitment Value Proposition for Geocentric Staffing

Masculinity/Femininity: the extent to which dominant values

relate to assertiveness, money, and material possessions as well
as well-defined gender roles versus focus on nurturing, people,
quality of life, and equality for both genders.

Uncertainty Avoidance: the extent to which people need cer-

tainty and clarity versus their comfort with ambiguity and risk Cultural differ-
(e.g., Hofstede, 1984; Triandis, 1990). ences will
impact how job
Based on the extensive research that highlights the importance of and work char-
acknowledging cultural differences in management research, the first acteristics are
proposition offered is: perceived…

Proposition 1: Cultural differences such as individualism/collec-

tivism, power distance, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance
will impact how applicants perceive the components of a firm’s
recruitment value proposition.

Job and Work Characteristics

Job and work characteristics refer to the tasks, duties, and responsi-
bilities required by the job as well as the working environment in
which the job is performed (Gatewood & Feild, 2001) and are typi-
cally described in varying amounts of detail in recruitment messages
(Barber, 1998; Highhouse, Beadle, Gallo, & Miller, 1998). These
characteristics can range from the type of tasks to be performed, such
as structured versus unstructured, to the characteristics of the culture
within the organization, such as describing the work environment as
dynamic or as a “fun place to work.”

Cultural differences will impact how job and work characteristics are
perceived (Harris & Moran, 2000) and, thus, how likely they are to
entice an applicant. For instance, jobs that require more individual
job enrichment and individual goal setting will be more valued by
applicants from an individualistic culture, such as that found in the
United States and Australia. Jobs that involve quality circles, partici-
pation in decision making, and autonomous work groups fit better
with applicants from a collective culture (Erez & Earley, 1993), such
as that found in Korea and Mexico. Additionally, participative deci-
sion making may be less attractive to individuals with a high power
distance orientation, as they may feel that participation is a reflection
of a poor manager (Kirkman & Shapiro, 1997).

Other preferences for job characteristics have been found in research

studies of employees in various countries. Employees in India tend to

Thunderbird International Business Review • November–December 2004 695

 Mary A. Gowan

respond favorably to tighter control and supervision, characteristics

related to higher power distance and lower uncertainty avoidance
(Gopalan & Rivera, 1997), and prefer group cooperation and prob-
lem solving (Cray & Mallory, 1998), characteristics associated with
collectivism.

Italians often Italians often have loyalty to their functional bosses and thus do not
have loyalty to like a matrix organization structure (Trompenaars & Hampden-
their functional Turner, 1998), characteristics in keeping with the more individual-
bosses and thus istic orientation of Italians. In Britain, highly specialized roles are
do not like a acceptable (Cray & Mallory, 1998), which also fits with a more
matrix organiza- individualistic cultural orientation. Employees in Africa, a country
tion structure… usually classified as higher on the power distance orientation, pre-
fer clearly sequenced promotions (Trompenaars & Hampden-
Turner, 1998). For example, studies of employees in Zimbabwe
have shown that defined behaviors and hierarchy, as well as oppor-
tunity for status and esteem, are motivators (Harvey, Carter, &
Mudimu, 2000).

Similarly, in Asia, protocol, status, and rank are important (Harris

& Moran, 2000), suggesting higher power distance; however, care
must be exercised in drawing such a conclusion across all countries
in Asia, as some are typically classified as being higher on power dis-
tance and others as being lower. In Hofstede’s (1980) study, he
found that Indonesia ranked high on power distance while Japan,
Taiwan, and South Korea were moderate to low on power distance,
providing further evidence of the need to look at the individual
level of analysis, especially when respondents are drawn from a
region such as Asia.

Employees in Brazil and Portugal have shown a preference for

unwritten rules for the work environment (Smith, 1996), suggesting
a greater comfort level with uncertainty, and in Poland and Russia,
employees respond favorably to a friendly work environment and
being respected by coworkers (Huddleston & Good, 1999), charac-
teristics associated with a more collectivistic orientation, as well as a
higher femininity orientation.

In an exploratory study of the values and work beliefs in the Arab

countries of Saudi Arabia, meaningful work was highly valued, along
with seeking fulfillment, characteristics associated with high mas-
culinity. Participative beliefs, which are associated with a collectivis-
tic orientation, were also valued (Robertson, Al-Khatib, &
Al-Habib, 2002).
696 Thunderbird International Business Review • November–December 2004
 Development of the Recruitment Value Proposition for Geocentric Staffing

Thus, as these examples demonstrate, preferences for job and work

characteristics are not universal but rather impacted by cultural dif-
ferences. Therefore, based on previous research, I propose that:

Proposition 2: Cultural differences will be related to perceptions

of job and work characteristics offered in a recruitment value
proposition.
…preferences
for job and work
For instance, individuals with a more individualistic orientation will
characteristics
have more positive perceptions of characteristics such as autonomy,
are not universal
independence, and individual-based tasks than those with a more col-
but rather
lectivistic orientation. Individuals with a more collectivistic orienta-
tion will have more positive perceptions of team-based tasks and impacted by cul-
dependence upon others in their work unit. Therefore, tural differences.

Proposition 2a: Individualist/collectivist orientation will be

related to perceptions of job and work characteristics offered in a
recruitment value proposition.

Further, individuals with a higher need for power distance will view a
hierarchical organization structure, clearly defined career paths, and
an autocratic boss more favorably. Individuals with a lower need for
power distance will perceive more favorably an informal organiza-
tional structure and opportunities for participation (Erez & Earley,
1987). Consequently,

Proposition 2b: Need for power distance will be related to per-

ceptions of job and work characteristics offered in a recruitment
value proposition.

Additionally, individuals with a more masculine orientation will per-

ceive jobs and work situations with more clearly defined gender roles,
opportunities for being assertive, and work environments that are
highly task-oriented as favorable. Individuals with a feminist orienta-
tion will perceive jobs and work situations more favorably if they
include greater equality, a caring environment, and a focus on quali-
ty of life and people. Thus,

Proposition 2c: Masculinity/femininity will affect perceptions of

job and work characteristics offered in a recruitment value propo-
sition.

Last, individuals with a high need for certainty will view job and work
more positively if rules are clearly defined and performance criteria
are clearly communicated (Triandis, 1990), whereas those with a
lower need for certainty will perceive job and work more positively if

Thunderbird International Business Review • November–December 2004 697

 Mary A. Gowan

they are granted the opportunity to be entrepreneurial and the work

environment is less formally structured. Therefore,

Proposition 2d: Degree of uncertainty avoidance will affect per-

ceptions of job and work characteristics offered in a recruitment
value proposition.
As the pace of
globalization Total Rewards
increases, orga- On the one hand, the argument could be made that total rewards
nizations need to should be included as part of job and work characteristics. Total
develop interna- rewards are included separately in this model, however, because of
tional compensa- their critical importance and well-documented role in first attracting
tion packages individuals to jobs and then securing the willingness of those select-
that are ed to work for the company.
effective…
As the pace of globalization increases, organizations need to develop
international compensation packages that are effective (Lowe et al.,
2002). For many potential global employees, the total rewards package
(i.e., all forms of financial and tangible services and/or benefits given to
employees as part of their employment) is the most important element
offered in the value proposition. This part of the value proposition is
also the most difficult for the global enterprise to manage efficiently and
cost-effectively due to its complexity. A typical compensation goal is to
attract the most qualified applicants (Lowe et al., 2002), regardless of
location, while maintaining equity and equality within the organization
as well as for the individual who may have to relocate once hired.

Unfortunately, the trend in international compensation has been

largely that of duplicating local practices or adopting headquarter
practices for expatriate managers from the home country. Hence,
organizations tend to take an ethnocentric approach to compensation
(Abdullah & Gallagher, 1995; Hyer, 1993).

It is true, however, that individuals with different cultural orienta-

tions will likely perceive rewards differently. For instance, collectivists
will value group rewards and recognition while individualists prefer
rewards and recognition that focus on what they have done individ-
ually (Erez & Earley, 1993). Studies have validated this perception.
In Japan, a collective culture, the trend is toward group recognition
rewards, although pay is generally based on seniority (Harris &
Moran, 2000), while in France, a more individualistic culture, indi-
vidual incentives are preferred, but not based on competition
(Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). Additionally, in France,
quality of life matters (Harris & Moran, 2000). Individuals with low
698 Thunderbird International Business Review • November–December 2004
 Development of the Recruitment Value Proposition for Geocentric Staffing

power distance are likely to perceive more egalitarian-based compen-

sation systems favorably.

In Germany, another individualistic culture, as in France, individual

incentives not based on competition are preferred (Trompenaars &
Hampden-Turner, 1998). Thus, pay-for-performance would not be
as appealing to many recruits from France and Germany. In Italy, on Individuals with
the other hand, pay-for-performance is more acceptable, but the a more collec-
group would decide whether to have team versus individual incen- tivistic orienta-
tives (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). tion will view
team-based
One trend in global compensation is to put more pay “at risk,” using rewards and
stock ownership schemes as one mechanism for doing so (Dwyer, group recogni-
1999), a type of plan that will work well with individuals who are tion more
okay with ambiguity and risk. For such a plan to work, potential favorably.
employees must value this form of pay. In addition, country laws
(e.g., Gross & Lepage, 2001), as well as local culture (e.g., uncer-
tainty avoidance), will impact the perceived value of a pay plan such
as performance-based pay. Therefore,

Proposition 3: Cultural differences will be related to perceptions

of total rewards offered in a recruitment value proposition.

For instance, individuals with a more individualistic orientation will

have more positive perceptions of rewards and recognition based on
individual performance. Individuals with a more collectivistic orien-
tation will view team-based rewards and group recognition more
favorably. Thus,

Proposition 3a: Individualist/collectivist orientation will be

related to perceptions of total rewards offered in a recruitment
value proposition.

Further, individuals with a higher need for power distance will per-
ceive rewards based on rank in the hierarchy and those associated
with status as preferable, including larger differences between super-
visor and subordinate pay. Individuals with a lower need for power
distance will view more egalitarian rewards favorably (Gómez-Mejia,
Balkin, & Cardy, 2004). Therefore,

Proposition 3b: Need for power distance will be related to per-

ceptions of total rewards offered in a recruitment value proposition.

Additionally, offering benefits and rewards associated with family and

work/life balance will be viewed more favorably by individuals with a

Thunderbird International Business Review • November–December 2004 699

 Mary A. Gowan

more feminine orientation, as will more equitable pay, while individu-

als with a more masculine orientation will perceive rewards in the form
of greater pay and other material rewards as favorable. Consequently,

Proposition 3c: Masculinity/femininity will affect perceptions of

total rewards offered in a recruitment value proposition.
Employees
derive value Individuals with a high need for certainty will perceive rewards that
from being are structured, well-defined, and have clearly communicated criteria
affiliated with as more favorable. Individuals with a greater tolerance for risk and
an organization
ambiguity (which parallels a lower need for certainty) will perceive
rewards that are variable and require more risk as favorable.
whose image is
Therefore,
perceived
positively…
Proposition 3d: Degree of uncertainty avoidance will affect per-
ceptions of total rewards offered in a recruitment value proposition.

Corporate Image
Research of corporate image and reputation is increasingly finding
that perceptions, feelings, and beliefs of various stakeholder groups
have a significant impact on current and future success of organi-
zations (Kitchen & Laurence, 2003). Likewise and logically,
research of recruitment has found that the projected image of the
organization impacts its attractiveness to applicants (e.g.,
Gatewood, Gowan, & Lautenschlager, 1993; Gioia, Schultz, &
Corley, 2000) and, consequently, their likelihood of applying for
jobs in the organization. In the context of recruitment, corporate
image represents what an applicant can expect in the organization
and, therefore, is complementary to “brand image” of products
(Gregory, 1997). Employees derive value from being affiliated
with an organization whose image is perceived positively (Britton
et al., 1999; Hamori, 2003).

For a global firm, the corporate image becomes a critical factor in

attracting the most qualified applicants, regardless of location. In the
domestic literature, factors such as profitability, size, values, norms,
corporate social performance, and pro-environmental actions are
characteristics that affect the external image and the corporate iden-
tity of the firm (e.g., Turban & Greening, 1997; Bauer & Aiman-
Smith, 1996). In a global context, these factors serve as signs to
potential employees of the success of the firm and the fit between
what the individual values and what the organization values.

Research has shown that a better person-organization fit is less like-

ly to lead to turnover (Saks & Ashforth, 1997) and more likely to
700 Thunderbird International Business Review • November–December 2004
 Development of the Recruitment Value Proposition for Geocentric Staffing

lead to greater satisfaction (Kristof-Brown, Jansen, & Colbert,

2002). The perception of “fit,” at least in terms of values, is deter-
mined by cultural differences, which largely determine individual
values. For instance, individuals from more individualistic cultures
are likely to prefer a firm whose image suggests that individual-based
values and norms exist (Erez & Earley, 1993). Such information is
likely to be communicated informally through professional net- Previous experi-
works, as well as formally through official communications used for ence, in general,
recruitment purposes. provides individ-
uals with some
Corporate image, therefore, is an important component for how a meaning in a
recruitment message is perceived. However, given the lack of research particular
of corporate image and cultural differences, I only offer a general setting.
proposition:

Proposition 4: Cultural differences will impact how applicants

perceive the image of a corporation as depicted in a recruitment
value proposition.

The Moderating Effect of Previous International Experience

Previous experience, in general, provides individuals with some
meaning in a particular setting. More and varied experience extends
that understanding and aids adjustment to new settings in situations
where the experience lends itself. Logically, then, previous interna-
tional experience serves as a valuable source of information to prepare
employees for new international experiences (Church, 1982). This
previous experience helps reduce uncertainty and leads to more accu-
rate expectations for a new assignment (Black, Mendenhall, &
Oddou, 1991).

With some exceptions, a positive relationship has generally been

found between prior international experience and general adjustment
(McEvoy & Parker, 1995) and between prior international experi-
ence and interaction adjustment (Shaffer & Harrison, 1998).
Researchers have suggested that it is the process of having learned a
culture different from the employee’s own, not the content knowl-
edge of the other culture, that is beneficial from an international
experience standpoint (Bell & Harrison, 1996). Others have sug-
gested that it is cultural similarity that is the greater value of previous
experience, rather than experience in dissimilar cultures (Black et al.,
1991).

Selmer (2002) provided some support for the cultural similarity argu-
ment. He studied the work adjustment, general adjustment, and
Thunderbird International Business Review • November–December 2004 701
 Mary A. Gowan

interaction adjustment of recently arrived expatriates in Hong Kong

and found that previous experience in non-Asian countries had no
effect on sociocultural adjustment. On the other hand, previous
experience from other Asian countries had a positive effect on work
adjustment. He does note that caution should be exercised in gener-
alizing too much from his study due to the sample used.
…greater inter-
national experi- Overall, there is evidence that previous experience, especially in sim-
ence likely ilar cultures, does ease the adjustment of expatriates to international
affects how a assignments. Consequently, greater international experience likely
firm’s recruit- affects how a firm’s recruitment value proposition is received. That is,
ment value expatriates with greater international experience, whether that expe-
proposition is rience be work, travel, or other international experience, is likely to
received. be open to a different value proposition than those with less experi-
ence, in part because broader experiences reduce the impact of one’s
own cultural orientation through exposure to new ideas and oppor-
tunities. For instance, evidence exists that factors such as affluence
and social mobility contribute to shifts from a collectivistic orienta-
tion to an individualistic orientation (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui,
1990). Therefore,

Proposition 5: An expatriate’s previous international experience

will moderate the relationship between cultural differences and
perception of a firm’s recruitment value proposition.

IMPLICATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONS AND FUTURE

RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Breaugh and Starke (2000) have noted the need for future research
to investigate inferences that may be drawn from recruitment adver-
tisements, one form of recruitment message. The framework pre-
sented here provides a starting point for so doing in a global context.
Overall, this framework suggests that organizations desiring to be
successful using a geocentric staffing strategy must acknowledge and
address the complexity inherent in the strategy itself. That is, the very
essence of the strategy requires that national borders, and, conse-
quently, cultural differences, not be the basis for recruitment and
selection of employees. Individuals, however, are the target of
recruitment efforts and cannot be selected unless they are attracted
to apply for positions with the organization. They will not be attract-
ed to apply without consideration having been given to their cultur-
al differences in the development and conveying of the recruitment
value proposition.
702 Thunderbird International Business Review • November–December 2004
 Development of the Recruitment Value Proposition for Geocentric Staffing

Implications for Organizations

Recruitment research has already provided evidence of positive
effects for the firm of conveying more information and information
that is more specific in recruitment advertisements (e.g., see Breaugh
& Starke, 2000, for a summary of this research). Further, Highhouse
et al. (1998) found that the wording of an ad can affect inferences
about job attributes, such as pay. This research, therefore, suggests …research of
that organizations need to give careful attention to the design of their realistic job pre-
recruitment messages in general. In the global context, as the discus- views highlights
sion of the framework suggests, that may be even more critical. By the utility of pro-
being more descriptive about the job and work characteristics, poten- viding more and
tial applicants will have more information to use as the basis for mak- more accurate
ing inferences about their fit, as determined in large part by their information…
cultural orientation, with the job and organization.

Of course, one might argue that less is better if the goal is to attract
applicant interest without having potential employees self-select out
of the process too early. Research of recruitment, however, suggests
that this could have the reverse effect (Barber & Roehling, 1993).
Further, research of realistic job previews highlights the utility of pro-
viding more and more accurate information such that individuals
who remain in the selection process and are hired will have more pos-
itive views that their expectations have been met (Wanous, 1992).

Before the value proposition can be used in the recruiting message,

however, organizations must understand the role of corporate
image, job design, and reward strategy in the success of a geocen-
tric staffing strategy, and make policy and practice decisions accord-
ingly. This recommendation does not imply that an organization
should try to be all things to all people; that is, an organization
does not have to offer something to all potential employees, regard-
less of their cultural orientation. Rather, organizations have to
acknowledge that decisions made about how to design jobs and
rewards will affect which individuals will be interested in work at
the organization, just as values and preferences affect attraction at
the domestic level, and that the message delivered about those
characteristics will have the consequence of limiting the applicant
pool globally. Consequences, therefore, should be considered at the
time the job and work characteristics are being considered, with the
limitations in mind, as opposed to after the fact. Additionally, given
the potential moderating role of international experience, it is like-
ly that different outcomes will result for different levels of employ-
ees recruited (e.g., more senior international assignees will view the
recruitment value proposition differently than more junior interna-

Thunderbird International Business Review • November–December 2004 703

 Mary A. Gowan

tional assignees, who likely will have less international experience as

a whole).

A critical decision that must also be made is what the “branding” of

the organization will be for attracting future employees. Just as
branding is critical for products and services, so it is for jobs. Further,
…little is known how that brand, or corporate image in the case of recruitment, is con-
about how cor- veyed, will affect who will be interested in the job, just as branding of
porate images products and services impacts who is likely to purchase them.
are defined in
other countries. Future Research Directions
Perhaps the major contribution of this framework is the guidance it
provides for future research. While much is known about recruiting
employees domestically, especially in the United States, virtually no
research has addressed recruitment of employees globally. The World
Wide Web presents opportunities for such recruiting, but no infor-
mation is available about how recruitment messages are received out-
side the culture in which they are developed. As noted in this article,
individuals with greater experience globally are less likely to be influ-
enced by their culture of origin than are those lacking such experi-
ence—but to what extent is not known.

Further, little is known about how corporate images are defined in

other countries. Since this factor is critical to attracting future
employees, research on this topic is especially needed. As Hamori
(2003) notes, the reputation capital of an employing firm can repre-
sent to outsiders an approximation of an individual’s potential con-
tributions. Savvy international assignees recognize this and select
organizations accordingly.

Future research, therefore, is needed to examine the perceptions of var-

ious components of recruitment messages on potential international
assignees. Research needs to identify the dimensions of corporate
image across cultures, how inclusion of various job characteristics are
perceived in recruitment messages, and the perceptions across cultures
of various types of rewards. The goal should not be to create a “one-
size-fits-all” recruitment message, but rather awareness of how various
cultures perceive traditional recruitment messages used by multina-
tional organizations. This information will be a first step in increasing
the likelihood of attracting high-potential international assignees.
Organizations currently often rely on employee referrals for selecting
such employees, but as more organizations seek a global strategy,
recruitment will become a more significant issue, hence the need to
increase our understanding of how to convey the recruitment message.
704 Thunderbird International Business Review • November–December 2004
 Development of the Recruitment Value Proposition for Geocentric Staffing

Additionally, research examining the extent to which previous inter-

national work experience moderates the relationship between cultur-
al differences and the perception of the value proposition will yield
invaluable information for knowing how and where to target recruit-
ment messages. Of particular importance is furthering understanding
of which aspect or aspects of previous international experience (e.g.,
type of experience, location, length of experience) has the greatest
impact on the perception of the value proposition.

Last, research needs to examine the extent to which the perception of

the value proposition actually leads to applying for jobs. Perhaps some
of the components of a value proposition are more important than
others, or perhaps there is some interaction among them that is the
key. Understanding if there is consistency in the relationship of the
components to actually seeking jobs will be important for organiza-
tions engaged in a geocentric staffing strategy. After all, the ultimate
goal of the recruitment value proposition for geocentric staffing is to
attract the initial interest of the best qualified pool of applicants from
whom the highest potential international assignees can be selected.

REFERENCES

Abdullah, A., & Gallagher, E. (1995). Managing with cultural differences. Malaysian
Management Review, 30, 1–18.
Adler, N., & Jelinek, M. (1986). Is “organization culture” culture bound? Human Resource
Management, 25, 73–90.
Barber, A. E. (1998). Recruiting employees. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Barber, A. E., & Roehling, M. V. (1993). Job posting and the decision to interview: A verbal
protocol analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 845–856.
Bauer, T. N., & Aiman-Smith, L. (1996). Green career choices: The influences of ecological
stance on recruiting. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 445–458.
Bell, M. P., & Harrison, D. A. (1996). Using intra-national diversity for international assign-
ments: A model of bicultural competence and expatriate adjustment. Human Resource
Management Review, 6, 47–74.
Black, J. S., Gregersen, H. B., & Mendenhall, M. E. (1992). Global assignments: Successfully
expatriating and repatriating international managers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of inter-
national adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Academy of
Management Review, 16, 291–317.
Breaugh, J. A., & Starke, M. (2000). Research on employee recruitment: So many studies, so
many remaining questions. Journal of Management, 26, 405–434.
Britton, P., Chadwick, S., & Walker, T. (1999). Rewards of work. Ivey Business Journal, 63,
46–52.
Buchholz, R. A. (1977). The belief structure of managers relative to work concepts measured
by a factor analytic model. Personnel Psychology, 30, 567–587.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and orga-
nizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 294–311.
Chambers, E. G., Foulon, M., Handfield-Jones, H., Hankin, S. M., & Michaels, E. G. (1998).
The war for talent. The McKinsey Quarterly, 1, 44–57.

Thunderbird International Business Review • November–December 2004 705

 Mary A. Gowan

Chen, C., Chen, X., & Meindl, J. (1998). How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural
effects of individualism-collectivism. Academy of Management Review, 23, 285–304.
Church, A. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 540–577.
Cliffe, S. (1998). Human resources: Winning the war for talent. Harvard Business Review, 76,
18–19.
Cray, D., & Mallory, G. (1998). Making sense of managing culture. London: International
Thomson Business Press.
Dowling, P., Welch, D., & Schuler, R. (1999). International human resource management:
Managing people in a multinational context. Boston: South-Western College Publishing.
Dwyer, T. (1999). Trends in global compensation. Compensation and Benefits Review, 31,
48–53.
Erdener, C., & Torbiorn, I. (1999). A transaction costs perspective on international staffing
patterns: Implications for firm performance. Management International Review, 39, 89–106.
Erez, M., & Earley, P. (1987). Comparative analysis of goal-setting strategies across cultures.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 658–665.
Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Gatewood, R. D., & Feild, H. S. (2001). Human resource selection (5th ed.). New York:
Harcourt College Publishers.
Gatewood, R. D., Gowan, M. A., & Lautenschlager, G. (1993). Corporate image, recruitment
image, and initial job choice decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 414–427.
Geringer, J. M., Frayne, C. A., & Milliman, J. F. (2002). In search of “best practices” in inter-
national human resource management: Research design and methodology. Human Resource
Management, 41, 5–30.
Gioia, D., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive insta-
bility. Academy of Management Review, 25, 63–81.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Balkin, D. R., & Cardy, R. L. (2004). Managing human resources.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Goodwin, T. (1999). Enter the internationalist. Asian Business, 35, 55–57.
Gopalan, S., & Rivera, J. (1997). Gaining a perspective on Indian value orientations:
Implications for expatriate managers. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 5,
156–179.
Gowan, M., Ibarreche, S., & Lackey, C. (1996). Doing the right things in Mexico. Academy
of Management Executive, 10(1), 74–81.
Gregory, J. (1997). Leveraging the corporate brand. Chicago: NTC Business Books.
Gross, A., & Lepage, S. (2001). Stock options in Asia. SHRM Global Perspectives, 3(1), 8–9.
Hamori, M. (2003). The impact of reputation capital on the career paths of departing employ-
ees. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4, 304–315.
Harris, P. R., & Moran, R. T. (2000). Managing cultural differences: Leadership strategies for
a new world of business. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.
Harvey, J., Carter, S., & Mudimu, G. (2000). A comparison of work values and motives among
Zimbabwean and British managers. Personnel Review, 29, 723–742.
Harvey, M. G. (1997). The impact of the dual-career expatriate on international human
resource management. Journal of International Management, 3, 251–289.
Harzing, A.-W. K. (1995). The persistent myth of high expatriate failure rates. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6, 457–474.
Highhouse, S., Beadle, D., Gallo, A., & Miller, L. (1998). Get ’em while they last! Effects of
information scarcity in job advertisements. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 779–795.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values
(abridged edition). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management
Executive, 7(1), 81–94.
Hofstede, G. (1998). A case for comparing apples with oranges: International differences in
values. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 39, 16–31.

706 Thunderbird International Business Review • November–December 2004

 Development of the Recruitment Value Proposition for Geocentric Staffing

Huddleston, P., & Good, L. (1999). Job motivators in Russian and Polish retail firms. Journal
of Retail & Distribution Management, 27, 383–396.
Huselid, M. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, pro-
ductivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38,
635–672.
Hyer, R. M. (1993). Executive compensation in the international arena. Compensation and
Benefits Review, 25, 49–54.
Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (1997). The impact of cultural values on employee resistance
to teams: Toward a model of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness. Academy of
Management Review, 22, 730–757.
Kitchen, P. J., & Laurence, A. (2003). Corporate reputation: An eight-country analysis.
Corporate Reputation Review, 6, 103–117.
Kluckhohn, F., & Stodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row,
Peterson.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Jansen, K. J., & Colbert, A. E. (2002). A policy-capturing study of the
simultaneous effects of fit with jobs, groups, and organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 985–993.
Lanning, M. J. (1998). Delivering profitable value: A revolutionary framework to accelerate
growth, generate wealth, and rediscover the heart of business. Boulder, CO: Perseus
Publishing.
Lowe, G., & Schellenberg, G. (2002, July 15). Employees’ basic value proposition: Strong HR
strategies must address work values. Canadian HR Reporter, pp. 18, 23.
Lowe, K. B., Milliman, J., De Cieri, H., & Dowling, P. (2002). International compensation
practices: A ten-country comparative analysis. Human Resource Management, 41, 45–66.
Marriott, J. W., Jr. (2001). Our competitive strength: Human capital. Executive Speeches, 15,
18–21.
McEachern, C. E. (1998). Convergent marketing: Executing on the promise of 1:1. The
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 5, 481–490.
McEvoy, G. M., & Parker, B. (1995). Expatriate adjustment: Causes and consequences. In J.
Selmer (Ed.), Expatriate management: New ideas for international business (pp. 97–114).
Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
McGrath, R. G., MacMillan, I. C., Yang, E. A., & Tsai, W. (1992). Does culture endure, or is
it malleable? Issues for entrepreneurial economic development. Journal of Business Venturing,
7, 441–458.
Robertson, C. J., Al-Khatib, J. A., & Al-Habib, M. (2002). The relationship between Arab val-
ues and work beliefs: An exploratory examination. Thunderbird International Business Review,
44, 583–601.
Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and
synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10, 435–454.
Ryan, A., M., Horvath, M., Ployhart, R. E., Schmitt, N., & Slade, L. A. (2000). Hypothesizing
differential item functioning in global employee opinion surveys. Personnel Psychology, 53,
531–562.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). A longitudinal investigation of the relationships
between job information sources, applicant perceptions of fit, and work outcomes. Personnel
Psychology, 50, 395–426.
Selmer, J. (2002). Practice makes perfect? International experience and expatriate adjustment.
Management International Review, 42, 71–87.
Shaffer, M. A., & Harrison, D. A. (1998). Expatriates’ psychological withdrawal from inter-
national assignments: Work, nonwork, and family influences. Personnel Psychology, 51,
87–118.
Shweder, R. A., & LeVine, R. A. (1984). Culture theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, P. (1996). National cultures and the values of organizational employees: Time for
another look. In P. Joynt & M. Warner (Eds.), Managing across cultures: Issues and perspec-
tives (pp. 92–103). London: International Thomson Press.
Sondergaard, M. (1994). Hofstede’s consequences: A study of reviews, citations, and replica-
tions. Organization Studies, 15, 447–456.
Triandis, H. C. (1990). Theoretical concepts that are applicable to the analysis of ethnocen-

Thunderbird International Business Review • November–December 2004 707

 Mary A. Gowan

trism. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-cultural psychology (pp. 34–55). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M., & Clark, F. L. (1985). Allocentric vs. idiocentric ten-
dencies: Convergent and discriminant validation. Journal of Research and Personality, 19,
395–415.
Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism
and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006–1020.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding
cultural diversity in global business. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Turban, D., & Greening, D. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attrac-
tiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 658–672.
Valentine, S. (2000). International person-organization fit: The role of national culture.
International Journal of Management, 17, 295–302.
Von Glinow, M. A. (1993). Diagnosing “best practice” in human resource management prac-
tices. In K. M. Rowland, B. Shaw, & P. Kirkbride (Eds.), Research in personnel and human
resource management, Supplement 3 (pp. 95–112). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wanous, J. P. (1992). Organizational entry. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

708 Thunderbird International Business Review • November–December 2004

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.