Chapter 4

Human Resource Management in

Multinational Corporations
Prakriti Dasgupta, Ronan Carbery and Anthony McDonnell

Introduction
The practice of human resource management (HRM) in multinational corpora-
tions (MNCs) has changed irrevocably over the last decade with the increasing
internationalisation of work, changing demographics, new forms of working
arrangements and the growth of emerging economies. COVID-19 has also pre-
sented new opportunities and challenges for MNCs in terms of managing diverse
workforces and operating both within and across countries. This chapter focuses
on HRM policies, processes and practices in MNCs. The chapter considers the
evolution of HRM in MNCs and synthesises current debates in the literature by
differentiating global, international and comparative HRM. We then consider the
organisation of the HRM function in MNCs and provide an overview of differing
approaches to the implementation of policy and practices. We then focus on one
of the key debates within the study of HRM in MNCs, namely, what are the
issues that impact on the transfer of HRM practices in MNCs? Here we explore
the different factors that may influence a MNC’s decision to transfer their HRM
practices across their foreign subsidiaries. The next section of the chapter focuses
on one of the key practical issues for International Human Resource Manage-
ment (IHRM) which is the management of the MNC staffing operation. We
examine differing staffing approaches and consider emerging forms of new global
working arrangements. We conclude by highlighting methodological issues and
challenges faced by scholars studying HRM in MNCs and address future direc-
tions and reflections for the field.

Evolution of HRM in MNCs

The extant HRM literature emphasises the significance of context in informing
HRM policy, practice and outcome, as both organisations and people do not
operate in a ‘vacuum’ (Cooke, 2018; Mayrhofer et al., 2019). More specifically,
this can be traced back to two key considerations as presented in the Harvard

The Emerald Handbook of Work, Workplaces and Disruptive Issues in HRM, 67–86
Copyright © 2022 Prakriti Dasgupta, Ronan Carbery and Anthony McDonnell
Published under exclusive licence by Emerald Publishing Limited
doi:10.1108/978-1-80071-779-420221008
68 Prakriti Dasgupta et al.

Model of HRM (Beer et al., 1984); the immediate environment within which the
firm operates or ‘Situational Factors’ and ‘Stakeholder Interests’. This formative
framework has often been invoked to extend discussions on continuing globali-
sation, evolution of MNCs and their international HRM practices and policy
choices (Brewster et al., 2016; Mayrhofer et al., 2019; Poole, 1990). The study of
these phenomena, now more commonly referred to as International HRM
(IHRM) research, with an early dominance of the North American management
perspective, has consequently grown into a discipline that aims to generate an
understanding of HRM processes and practices that can be applied or adapted to
organisations to ensure competitiveness and high performance across different
national contexts (Farndale et al., 2017; Rowley and Warner, 2007; Sanders and
De Cieri, 2021; Schuler and Tarique, 2007). At the outset, while it may sound
simplistic, the field of IHRM is quite expansive, ranging from debates around
national culture and cross-cultural management, effectiveness of HR practices in
comparative contexts to the study of strategic HR practices in MNCs, inclusive of
topics related to expatriation and repatriation (Farndale et al., 2017). This
chapter will initially focus on the latter, tracing out the evolution of HRM in
MNCs as a separate research stream within the IHRM discipline.
Early effects of globalisation observed the growth of MNCs and a call for
diverse human resources strategies, management and practices that would enable
the firm to succeed globally. Consequently, within the globalisation literature,
MNCs have received dedicated attention. For an MNC to establish themselves as
a global player and be successful, it requires them to adopt practices that would
make them competitive and responsive in both global and local markets, efficient,
agile and capable of knowledge transfer across their foreign subsidiaries or units
(Sparrow et al., 2004). Thus, early models of IHRM primarily focused on man-
agement of MNCs in a multinational context. Perlmutter (1969), in his seminal
work on the evolution and internationalisation of MNCs, studied the orientation
adopted by MNCs to conduct business around the world, which included con-
siderations about their product offerings, technology adoption, people practice,
staffing, organisational culture and values, management of expatriate workers,
pay and performance etc. The findings from the study categorised management
approaches in MNCs into three distinct orientations; namely, ethnocentric
(towards home-country practices), polycentric (towards host country practices)
and geocentric (towards global best practices), with important implications for
MNC’s strategic approach, operations and staffing plans, which will be discussed
a little later in the chapter. This line of investigation also directed the central focus
of early scholarship and future studies on HRM in MNCs, towards examining the
extent to which processes and practices at foreign subsidiaries resemble that of the
parent company or move towards adopting local firm competitor practices, which
we will discuss by drawing upon critical debates on whether HRM in MNCs is
shaped by a ‘country-of-origin,’ ‘host country’ or ‘dominance effect’, in later
sections of the chapter (Pudelko and Harzing, 2007; Rosenzweig and Nohria,
1994).
Internationalisation of organisations, business functions and work in general
has led to increased permeability of business boundaries that often transcend
 Human Resource Management 69

internal boundaries such as structure, processes, people and external boundaries

including time, space and geographies (Sparrow et al., 2004). Consequently, this
has prompted greater examination on international aspects of firm operation such
as foreign subsidiary management, workforce management, executive staffing and
selection, performance management, training and knowledge transfer with
particular focus on best practices for expatriate management and improving the
experience and success of expatriate workers (Sanders and De Cieri, 2021; Tungli
and Peiperl, 2009). This line of enquiry triggered yet another debate on whether
these organisational and management practices would converge or diverge with
time (Tungli and Peiperl, 2009). Though early studies (c.f. Kerr et al., 1960)
suggested that industrialisation and advances in technology would result in the
global convergence of managerial practices, Hall and Soskice (2001) cite national
and local culture, historical and institutional heritage as forces that contradict the
convergence argument. The chapter considers the ‘convergence’ (strategic
standardisation) versus ‘divergence’ (strategic localisation) debate a little later,
discussing some of the key concerns and issues for organisational implementation
and practice.
In parallel, the IHRM discipline observed the growth of studies that examined
the similarities, and differences, with regard to effectiveness of organisational
management practices across nations and cultures, which came to be known as
the comparative HRM (CHRM) research stream (Brewster et al., 2016; Budhwar
et al., 2017). Sanders and De Cieri (2021) in their systematic literature review
appraising 60 years of research on IHRM and CHRM note that contributions in
CHRM are dedicated to examining the relationship between ‘context’, which may
include local circumstances, market economies, national institutional factors,
such as national culture or values, and their influence on HRM policies, practices
and overall organisational success. More specifically, studies have tried to
compare the relationship between national culture and institutions on certain
individual work-related outcomes like work-life balance, work stress, career
development and leadership development, reaffirming the criticality of con-
textualising HRM practices, interventions and policy decisions (Brewster et al.,
2016; Cooke, 2018; Sanders and De Cieri, 2021).
Additionally, Brewster et al. (2016) note that CHRM research has advanced in
isolation to the ‘HRM in MNC/E’ research stream, despite shared interests and
common debates that show promising potential of informing each other. To
bridge this divide, Sanders and De Cieri (2021) invoke the examination of HRM
in MNCs and CHRM research together as ‘combined International and
Comparative HRM’ or I/CHRM; defined as the study of HRM practices in
MNCs, with focus on examining similarities and differences in these practices
across national contexts, which provides avenues for new research and opportu-
nities for better academic and practitioner engagement going forward.
70 Prakriti Dasgupta et al.

The HR Function, Policy and Practice in MNCs

This section of the chapter discusses some of the predominant approaches in
HRM practice from MNCs in both developed and emerging market economies.
The following countries have been chosen because of their distinctive cultural
contexts which influence their practices and business orientation. The last decade
has also observed growing foreign investment and MNCs from developing
countries such as China and India, showing strong international presence, and
therefore have been included in this discussion. The section provides critical
insights on how the national context, institutional reforms and infrastructure
influences the strategic orientation of the MNC, informing their firm and sub-
sidiary operation decisions, HR management policies and practices.

United States
The United States has occupied a hegemonic position in the global economic
order since 1945, which has been further fortified by its political power and
military strength (Locke, 1966). After World War II, the Marshall Plan and trade
liberalisation emerged as key opportunities for the United States to establish a
market in Europe for American goods and for also transferring the ‘American
model of Management’ to other countries (Djelic, 1998). The competitive
advantage of American firms has been strongly rooted in early workplace inno-
vations such as ‘Taylorism’ and ‘Fordism’ that has been extended to its foreign
subsidiaries by American MNCs, resulting in internationalisation of ‘modern’
work and management practices, often accepted as universal best practices due to
their pervasiveness (Brewster et al., 2016; Cullinane and Cushen, 2019). This
further reinforced the proliferation of American management practices that were
consequently diffused by US MNCs, through their foreign operations, as well as
through management education and consulting. Within this system, a pattern of
centralised control and decision-making has been observed, with emphasis on
standardisation of policies for seamless transfer of organisational capabilities and
management practices to its foreign operations (Ferner et al., 2013).
Hall and Soskice (2001) describe the American business system as a unique
model of economic organisation that relies on the liberal market economy,
characterised by flexible labour markets, contractual market relations and few
institutional barriers relating to labour mobility across firms and workforce size
adjustments. Another distinct feature of the American approach, shaped by its
individualistic ideological underpinnings, has been the adoption of non-union
strategies in management practices by home corporations (Edwards and Ferner,
2002). This is supported by the belief that the firm should ensure the welfare of its
employees, without third-party mediation or involvement (Ferner et al., 2013). In
practice, American firms introduced ‘human relations’ style management prac-
tices and policies such as performance-based pay, job redesign, team work/group
projects, employee feedback surveys etc. to foster a sense of commitment between
the company and the employee (Edwards and Ferner, 2002).
 Human Resource Management 71

Germany
Germany’s national culture, history, industrial and institutional structures is
distinctive from other countries in the European Union and characterised by a
combination of collectivist culture with a highly regulated institutional framework
(Giardini et al., 2005). However, the period after World War II observed the
transition to a ‘social market economy’ that promoted social cohesion and
prosperity for all, with obvious implications for business management practices
(Dickmann, 2003). The German business system can be characterised as
long-termist, with long-term employment planning and policies that encourage
high investments towards staff training and development, attractive incentives
and internal career growth plans to ensure employee retention (Dickmann, 2003;
Giardini et al., 2005). Most policies and HRM practices are oriented towards
development, through education or vocational training that foster professional
knowledge and skill specialisation within a specific field or function (high quality
focus), often perceived as a ‘national competitive advantage’, more specifically in
the context of the automobile industry (Dickmann, 2003). HRM strategies and
industrial relations practices support flexible organisation of work, high degree of
co-operation, employee rights and greater involvement of employees in the
decision-making process through work councils (Muller, 1999). Yet, as contem-
plated by Guest and Hoque (1996), the low transfer of German HRM practices to
German MNC subsidiaries suggests a conscious decision to pursue competitive
local or host country strategies that allow for greater flexibility and use of
context-relevant management practices in conducting business. Holtbrügge and
Berg (2004) also noted that the business and operation strategy of German MNCs
are largely influenced by many sociopolitical factors of their host countries.

China
China has rapidly transformed into an economic powerhouse since its transition
from a ‘command’ economy to one that is characterised by ‘market socialism’
reforms. This has attracted large volumes of foreign direct investments (FDI)
transforming not only China’s business landscape but also advancing the his-
torical development of the HRM function in the country as noted by Cooke and
Budhwar (2015). HRM practices within the command economy was characterised
by centralised planning and administration, life-long employment and welfare
benefits, egalitarian pay, strong state control in staffing practices and low labour
mobility (Budhwar et al., 2017; Warner, 2008). However, these practices evolved
with the adoption of the market socialist economy, into a hybrid system that
espoused certain ‘western-style’ HR and management practices (Zhu, 2019).
Despite the Western influence, it has been noted that Chinese MNCs lag behind
when it comes to international management skills due to the lack of expatriates
with international experience (Zhu et al., 2005). To mitigate this perceived
shortcoming, Chinese MNCs turned towards investments in Europe, by means of
acquiring brands, gaining international experience, marketing capabilities tech-
nical abilities and management skills (Child and Rodrigues, 2005; Zhang and
72 Prakriti Dasgupta et al.

Edwards, 2007). Recent studies have also noted how Chinese MNCs have used
their Australian subsidiaries to acquire advanced knowledge and train expatriates
(Zhang and Fan, 2014). Further, there is little evidence of Chinese MNCs
employing home-country practices in its overseas units (Zhu, 2019). Such an
approach has led to different management practices across the foreign subsidiary
units; for example, Shen and Edwards (2006) note that Chinese MNCs with
subsidiary operations in the United Kingdom mainly adopt decentralised HRM
practices with regard to training or performance management systems, but have
centralised practices for staffing and compensation.

Japan
Japan’s post-war economic growth ‘miracle’ saw Japanese MNCs, predominantly
in the manufacturing sector, succeed both at home and abroad. Characteristic
elements of Japanese style HRM include long-term employment, continuous
improvement and training through job rotation, focus on team orientation,
enterprise unionism seniority/tenure-based pay and promotion policies (Sekiguchi
et al., 2016; Tung, 1984). These practices are aligned and to an extent embedded
into the unique organisational principle of Japanese corporations, with strong
roots in Japan’s national culture, value/belief systems and traditions (Witt, 2014).
This allowed Japanese firms to have a stable, multi-skilled workforce, flexible to
job rotations and with high degree of company-specific knowledge (Peltokorpi,
2013). While Japanese MNCs tried to transfer these ethnocentric practices to their
foreign subsidiaries, the practice of Japanese management practices eventually
faded with the collapse of the ‘bubble economy’ (Endo et al., 2015). This, how-
ever, precludes the successful internationalisation of acknowledged ‘best practices’
in operations/supply-chain management and efficient production planning
(Sekiguchi et al., 2016). Froese and Kishi (2013) identified the ethnocentric
orientation and use of traditional Japanese HRM practices by MNCs in Japan as
the main reason for failure in attracting and retaining global talent. To counter
these challenges, it has been observed that certain emerging Japanese companies
are trying to internationalise their HRM practices, though there is still some
degree of resistance by the larger manufacturing Japanese MNCs (Sekiguchi
et al., 2016).

India
The origins of the HR function in India can be traced back to the early 1920s,
when labour welfare and worker unions were formally recognised through the
Trade Union Act, 1926, followed by the Factories Act, 1948 and other devel-
opments in the field of personnel administration and industrial relations (Jain
et al., 2012). However, a major change in the Indian business landscape came with
the adoption of the economic liberalisation policies by the Indian government in
1991. The period observed an influx of foreign MNCs that wanted to conduct
business in the Indian market, a consequence of which led the environment to
 Human Resource Management 73

become very competitive, and the ‘war-for-talent’ placed many indigenous firms
under significant pressure (Budhwar et al., 2017). In order to compete with foreign
firms, the HR function in Indian firms, earlier referred to as the ‘personnel
function’, became more established and strategically oriented, with organisations
setting up separate HRM departments within their units (Budhwar et al., 2017;
Budhwar and Varma, 2010). Cooke and Saini (2010) suggest that Indian man-
agers and organisations, to a great extent, tend to reflect a Western influence in
their HRM practices, more specifically with regard to training, performance
management, appraisals, staffing and employee referral programmes. However,
these practices are less structured than those in Britain (Budhwar, 2009) and
perhaps can be rooted in India’s colonial past. Additionally, studies have also
reported the role of strong national culture, societal hierarchy, social capital,
political affiliations and institutional factors that heavily influence HRM practices
and management decisions (selection, staffing, promotion and rewards) in Indian
firms (Budhwar and Khatri, 2001; Tymon et al., 2010), though increasing
competition may have motivated change in pockets.

Standardisation Versus Localisation

Convergence Vs Divergence
The extent to which MNCs standardise their global HRM practices is a conse-
quence of the interaction between pressures on local adaptation and global
alignment with extensive debate about the convergence or divergence of man-
agement practices (Festing and Tekieli, 2021). MNCs often endeavour to remain
primarily rooted to their country-of-origin nation, but face challenges with rela-
tively distinct national economies in different host environments, resulting in a
‘think global’, ‘act local’ paradox (Harzing and Noorderhaven, 2008). Scholars
(c.f. Tregaskis and Brewster, 2006) have called for a global approach with
standardised and universal HRM practices to be implemented and promoted
among MNCs, particularly in the context of intense globalisation and market
integration that leads to a relative degree of uniformity and homogeneity in
national employment systems across the globe. Conversely, critics of this
approach argue that MNCs should respect the variations in culture and institu-
tions in local environment and acknowledge the need for great variation in MNC
practices across subsidiaries (Quintanilla and Ferner, 2003). Such dichotomous
debate between the global approach and local responsiveness is reflected in the
convergence and divergence literature with extensive debate as to whether HRM
is becoming similar across all countries (convergence) or whether it will continue
to differ across countries (divergence). The evidence to date regarding this debate
is largely inconclusive in terms of support for either side (Brewster et al., 2008;
Pudelko and Harzing, 2007). Proponents of the convergence thesis (Harbison and
Myers, 1959; Kerr et al., 1960) point to the increasing pressures of globalisation
on companies, particularly those that operate in an international context. These
common pressures, it is asserted, will lead to organisations adopting similar
responses, leading to similarity in management practices across companies.
74 Prakriti Dasgupta et al.

According to this school of thought, we are likely to see a set of dominant or ‘best
practice’ HRM policies emerge to deal with these pressures. These best practices
are argued to likely reflect a US-centric model of HRM, given the significance of
the US way of doing business. Pudelko and Harzing (2008), for example, found
evidence that the HRM practices of Japanese and German MNCs were
converging towards dominant US practice. Organisations that operate across
national borders are more exposed to global competition and thus more likely to
adopt a global business strategy transcending both internal (e.g. people, process
and structure) and external (time and country) influences (Parker, 1998), thereby
accelerating the speed of convergence. MNCs therefore are viewed as the primary
drivers behind the diffusion of the best and universal HRM practices (Kidger
et al., 2004). Morley and Collings (2004) note a trend of standardisation of
employment practices across countries led by powerful MNCs with little attention
paid to the institutional constraints of the host countries.
Proponents of the divergence thesis (Hofstede, 1980; Hall and Soskice, 2001)
disagree with the notion of convergence and argue that, rather than converging,
HRM policies and practices are becoming increasingly diverse across countries
for institutional and cultural reasons. For example, each country has its own
unique mix of institutions – such as educational and training institutions, financial
institutions, industrial relations actors and government agencies – which put
pressure on inward investing MNCs to localise or adopt local HRM practices in
the host country. The most popular framework for understanding differences in
HRM across countries is the varieties of capitalism (VoC) framework (Hall and
Soskice, 2001). This framework identifies two ideal types of capitalist political
economy – a liberal market economy (LME) (e.g. United States) and a coordi-
nated market economy (CME) (e.g. Germany) – which has ensuing implications
as to how HRM is practiced in those countries. For example, in liberal market
economies, characteristics of HRM include strong managerial autonomy, flexible
employment arrangements, performance-related pay and a relatively short-term
perspective on the employment relationship. In coordinated market economies,
dominant HRM characteristics include strong mechanism for worker voice,
constraints on management decision-making, high levels of job security, extensive
training programmes and a comparatively longer-term perspective on the
employment relationship.
Similarly, differences in terms of culture – people’s values, beliefs, attitudes and
behaviours – across countries affect HRM. Hofstede’s (1980) seminal research on
culture focused on identifying and categorising different dimensions of national
culture. The implications of national culture for HRM within a country are
wide-ranging and include the extent to which people are willing to accept hier-
archical structures in the organisations, whether pay is determined at an indi-
vidual or collective level, the extent of employment regulation, and maternity,
paternity and childcare policies.
 Human Resource Management 75

The Transfer of HRM Practices in MNCs

A key strategic concern for MNCs is whether to attempt to standardise or localise
HRM practices in their foreign subsidiaries (Rosenzweig and Nohria, 1994).
MNCs have the ability to transfer practices to all or some of their operations
globally, meaning that HRM practices developed in operations in one country
(usually at the corporate HQ) may be transferred to operations in other countries.
Not all MNCs look to transfer their HRM practices, however, and even where
they do, this transfer of practices can be contested or disrupted by foreign
operations (Edwards, 2011). Edwards and Ferner (2002) and Edwards (2011)
identify four factors that influence the transfer of HRM practices across national
borders within MNCs – country-of-origin effects, dominance effects, international
integration and host country effects. The country from which the MNC originates
exerts a distinct effect on the way labour is managed (Ferner, 1997), giving rise to
country-of-origin effects. MNCs generally retain strong roots in their home
country. For instance, the majority of sales, assets, employment, financial
resources and research and development activity are likely to be located within the
country-of-origin. In addition, individuals from the country of origin are likely to
hold the most senior managerial positions within the company. These strong roots
in the home country mean that senior managers at the company headquarters will
seek to transfer HRM practices to their foreign subsidiaries (Ferner, 1997).
Consequently, many foreign subsidiaries’ HRM practices resemble those of the
parent company in the country of origin. For example, in Ireland, a large-scale
survey of MNCs found evidence of strong country-of-origin effects, particularly
among US MNCs (Lavelle et al., 2009).
Dominance effects reflect the extent to which HRM practices are shaped by the
country that is perceived to set the standards for what are perceived as global best
practices. Smith and Meiksins (1995) assert that there is a dominant hierarchy of
economies within the international system, with economies at the top of this
hierarchy enjoying an influential position. Traditionally, the US economy was
seen as the dominant player and thus many countries looked to it as the source of
best practices. Managers within MNCs, both at the parent company and in
foreign subsidiaries, may look to implement HRM practices from these dominant
economies. Edwards (2011) identifies a number of concerns with the dominance
thesis including the assumption that there are practices common to all firms
within a country and that other countries can identify and replicate them.
Notwithstanding these issues, the dominance effect demonstrates utility in
understanding the transfer of HRM practices (Edwards et al., 2016; Pudelko and
Harzing, 2007).
International integration examines the extent to which international operations
of MNCs which operate across a number of different countries are integrated and
how this affects the transfer of HRM practices. MNCs that are internationally
integrated are defined as those that generate inter-unit linkages between their
operations across countries (Edwards, 2011) and may include whether operations
in one country provide products or services to operations in another; if operations
in different countries perform different types of activities to one another and the
76 Prakriti Dasgupta et al.

extent to which operations in different countries perform similar activities. The

ability to transfer HRM practices in MNCs that outsource or segment their
international operations may be limited as there is no benefit to having stand-
ardised practices. According to Edwards (2011), operations that are standardised
are more likely to benefit from consistent practices and therefore more likely to
transfer their HRM practices.
Host country effects relate to characteristics of the host country’s national
business system that can limit or enhance the ability of MNCs to transfer HRM
practices. These characteristics include labour market institutions, such as
employment legislation, trade unions and works councils, and lack of specific
skills or aptitudes. Vo and Stanton (2011) argue that the critical role of the host
country environment in the transfer of HRM practices not only is associated with
regulatory environment, the union presence and industrial relation systems but
also the history and culture of the host nation. In countries with high levels of
collective bargaining and strong employment legislation, the transfer of HRM
practices may be more difficult. The influence and political capital of MNCs can
mitigate some of these host country effects however, even in countries where
national systems may ostensibly pose barriers to the transfer of HRM practices
(Edwards et al., 2016).

Managing MNC Operations: The Evolving Nature of

Global Staffing
Regardless of the organisational context, staffing is one of the foremost important
aspects of HRM. Several decades on from the first studies on staffing in MNCs
there is much recognition of the importance in aligning staffing and organisa-
tional strategy in order to generate positive performance outcomes (Taylor et al.,
1996). MNCs are faced with greater challenges, vis-à-vis domestic organisations,
when it comes to staffing due to the additional cultural, institutional, legal and
logistical issues that inevitably exist when operating internationally.
The area of staffing practices in MNC subsidiaries has gained considerable
interest amongst scholars particularly in respect to understanding the factors that
influence choices between the use of parent country nationals (PCNs), host
country nationals (HCNs) and third country nationals (TCNs). In this regard,
country of origin represents one of the most long-standing of investigated
determinants (e.g. Collings et al., 2010; Harzing et al., 2016; Harzing and Sorge,
2003; Pudelko and Tenzer, 2013; Tung, 1982; Tungli and Peiperl, 2009). A
considerable body of literature has focused on the adjustment process (Bellak,
2005; Furusawa and Brewster, 2016; Tahir and Azhar, 2013). There has also been
much research that considers the repatriation challenges for individuals and
organisations (Hurn, 1999; Black et al., 1991) which has been shown to negatively
impact supply and staffing of global managers.
Despite many challenges, the demand for expatriates does not appear to have
waned and, if anything, had been increasing in pre-COVID-19 times; however,
the availability of people willing to accept international assignments has not kept
 Human Resource Management 77

pace (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2002; Miralles-Vasquez and McGaughey, 2015).

Central to these supply challenges are the concerns over re-entry challenges for
individuals, disruption to family life and the rise in dual-career couples, along
with the growing uncertainty around geopolitical issues and terrorism (Harvey
and Moeller, 2009).
The domain of global staffing has however become much more complex over
the past few decades on the back of innovations in information and communi-
cation technologies, the opening up and ease of global travel and also the chal-
lenges with respect to traditional long-term expatriate assignments. Moreover,
there is increasing appreciation and need for more agile ways of operating
internationally to deal with the uncertainty and volatility involved in the global
business environment (Meyer et al., 2020; Reiche et al., 2019). This has led to the
emergence of more flexible forms of international assignments in MNCs.
Research on what Jooss et al. (2021) term ‘flexible global working arrangements’
remains at a nascent level vis-à-vis our understanding of traditional expatriation.
This has been a criticism levelled at IHRM scholars in terms of needing to expand
research efforts beyond expatriation (Cooke et al., 2019). The portfolio of options
available to MNCs includes the traditional expatriation assignments, interna-
tional business travellers, short-term international assignees, international com-
muters and rotational assignees (see Table 1). Early research tended to refer to
these as alternative assignments (Meyskens et al., 2009) but Jooss et al. (2021)
critique this perspective arguing that they need to receive greater recognition and
consideration and be seen as a critical component of an MNC’s global mobility
strategy. These forms of global work offer much potential in terms of undertaking
global boundary spanning between headquarters and subsidiaries, between sub-
sidiaries, and with building and maintaining relationships with key international,
external stakeholders and to facilitate knowledge transfer (Barner-Rasmussen
et al., 2014; Duvivier et al., 2019).
While the value that flexible global working arrangements can offer has been
highlighted both within and across organisations (Bozkurt and Mohr, 2011), there
tends to be many assumptions inferred rather than being demonstrated. For
example, cost effectiveness is often seen as a major advantage (Shaffer et al., 2012)
but given there appears to be a lack of oversight and management by MNCs,
which raises much doubt over this. In addition, it can be argued that views of cost
effectiveness are far too simplistic or narrow. In particular, there is a need to
better recognise the detrimental psychological, physical and social aspects that
can regularly appear for individuals (Jooss et al., 2022), which ultimately means a
different form of cost is involved than merely financial. It is also evident that there
is an imbalance in terms of knowledge of the different flexible global working
arrangements with there being a tendency to subsume under the same category at
times. This may be unhelpful given there are some key distinctions between
several of these options (Jooss et al., 2021).
At the organisational level, there is much evidence of international HR func-
tion being very central in the expatriate life cycle due to the accepted under-
standing of their inherent value and the challenges involved in such roles
(Bonache et al., 2001). In comparison, this seems markedly absent in the case of
78 Prakriti Dasgupta et al.

Table 1. Common Global Staffing Options Within MNCs.

Type Description/Definition
Parent country Individuals from the country where the company is
expatriates headquartered are sent to a subsidiary.
Host country nationals Employees hired for roles within their own
country.
Third country Individuals that are neither from home country or
expatriates host country but instead another subsidiary in the
wider MNC network.
Inpatriates Employees from MNC subsidiaries transferred to
the corporate headquarters on a permanent or
semi-permanent basis (Harvey et al., 2000).
International business Regularly travel between home and host locations
travellers or to third-party organisations for undefined
periods (usually from a few days and up to 3 weeks.
Short-term international Assignment of a duration longer than an
assignees international business trip but shorter than 12
months.
International Periodic travel between home and host locations
commuters frequently (e.g. weekly, bi-weekly and monthly)
Rotational assignments Assigned for a prescribed time period in a host
context followed by a break at home before a
further prescribed time period outside the home
country.

flexible global work forms, which seem disaggregated from wider IHRM struc-
tures and supports (Suutari et al., 2013). This is concerning for several reasons
which include the financial cost involved in extensive global travel but perhaps
more so the personal and social costs that appear somewhat hidden with Cohen
and Gossling (2015, p. 1661) pointing to the ‘ominous silence’ that is evident in
relation to the ‘dark’ or negative side of global work. In particular, evidence is
emerging which points to significant work stress, burnout, work–family conflict
and deteriorating personal friendships by those who undertake roles with a sub-
stantial global travel component (Shaffer et al., 2012). Taking such matters
together raises much concern over the (non) realisation of the possible
value-creating capacity that exists through these more flexible global work forms
(Jooss et al., 2021). With the volatility and competitiveness showing no sign of
waning in the global business environment, there is a need for MNCs to consider
on a more strategic level the use of all global mobility types. With the pandemic
having forced much travel to stop across the world, what impact has this had on
 Human Resource Management 79

roles and outcomes? Has it demonstrated alternative ways of undertaking key

roles that don’t require the scale of travel that was occurring pre-pandemic? What
additional challenges has such a global shock had on global workers and MNCs?
What might it do to the supply of more traditional expatriates? These are
indicative questions that both organisations and researchers could usefully engage
with as we move into post-pandemic times.

Conclusions and Future Directions

Methodological rigour remains of central importance to our understanding of the
evolution of HRM in MNCs. Undertaking international and comparative
research is fraught with additional challenges that studies set in a single domestic
setting are not faced with. For example, there are challenges involved in ensuring
translation, functional, conceptual and metric equivalence (Cascio, 2012). This
has been raised in respect to other related disciplines such as International
Business (Aguinis et al., 2020). What this means in practice is that proxy measures
are commonly used which can vary in terms of how psychometrically adequate or
deficient they may be. In addition, common method variance or bias remains a
challenge in respect to this field of studies, given it remains relatively common to
ask senior HR respondents to complete a survey in relation to the organisation’s
HR practices, while also asking them to estimate performance outcomes (Cascio,
2012). A further methodological challenge that has been highlighted in interna-
tional business research and which is likely to hold in the international and
comparative HRM context is the use of idiosyncratic contexts and samples
(Aguinis et al., 2020). What does this all mean? There is a need for researchers in
international and comparative HRM to continue striving to improve the rigour of
their research designs, especially in survey work (c.f. Cascio, 2012). This ranges
from the measures used, to defining the population of interest, the samples drawn
and so on. However, while such methodological concerns exist, we also call for
continued recognition of the inherent challenges that exist in addressing some of
these, and call for pragmatism when undertaking data collection across multiple
country contexts, and how these are evaluated in the peer review process.
Undertaking and coordinating data collection across multiple country contexts
has added difficulty through the limited avenues that exist to obtain funding to
enable data collection with a multi-country approach. This arguably has sub-
stantial impacts on the conception of research projects where scholars decide
certain methodological approaches are unfeasible due to the lack of available
resources. As such, the field may be sacrificing potentially novel methodological
approaches due to the pragmatism required to undertake such research.
Whereas methodological issues salient in comparative research have been
widely discussed in fields such as organisational behaviour (e.g. Schaffer and
Riordan, 2003; Tsui et al., 2007) or marketing (Baumgartner and Steenkamp,
2001; He et al., 2008), such a discussion is still in its infancy in the field of HRM.
However, with an increasing number of comparative studies in HRM research, it
is important to elaborate which methodological standards are crucial for
80 Prakriti Dasgupta et al.

comparative HRM studies and to discuss how these methodological standards

can be implemented into practice equivalent measures of the addressed construct
or measurement characteristics (e.g. interpretation of the scale units). Compara-
tive studies impose their own difficulties such as the administration of surveys
which have to be coordinated and carried out in multiple countries. In particular,
it is important to consider the requirement for an integrated and coordinated
survey design, the standardisation of survey execution, the diagnosis and treat-
ment of non-response bias, and the analytical techniques that are more suited for
comparative research (i.e. moderated regression, multi-level analysis and struc-
tural equation modelling). The Cranfield Project on International Strategic
Human Resource Management (Cranet) provides a useful template in this
respect. Cranet is a large-scale network of scholars from universities across the
world, representing more than 40 countries. Since 1989, Cranet has performed a
survey enquiring into HRM policies and practices in its member countries. This
comprehensive survey of major HRM has been unique in comparative HRM
research with regard to its size, age and composition of network members from all
over the world. A project of this scale enables discussions on how, and if, stan-
dards are treated in a large integrated network of researchers and, thus, can
inform readers about the typical struggles in comparative HRM research. A large
network like Cranet does face the dilemma that, on one hand, the value of
comparative research increases with the number of participating countries but, on
the other hand, meeting the standard and conducting the survey in an integrated,
consistent and methodologically adequate way becomes increasingly difficult as
size increases.
Much IHRM research has also highlighted issues surrounding distance, in
terms of employee selection, training, support, health and safety, as well as
leadership and virtual collaboration. The challenges presented by COVID-19
render these debates ever more pertinent. Forms of remote working and hybrid
working may, for example, lessen the effects of obvious cultural differences in
demeanours, reduce confusions due to verbal language struggles, create electronic
trails that transparently document decision-making processes and save on meeting
time. In addition, geographic distance is not always a measure of psychological
distance, as team members who communicate frequently online and share a
professional or personal identity can even feel closer to each other than people
collaborating face-to-face (O’Leary et al., 2014). Many organisations have
recalled some or all their expatriate workers and have dramatically limited
international business travel (Dickmann and Bader, 2020). The implications for
MNCs are likely to be significant. For example, HR practices that rely on human
interaction and intangible processes, for instance, control and coordination and
knowledge transfer approaches (Edström and Galbraith, 1977; Harzing, 2001)
may be more restricted and may have to be adjusted. There is also scope for
scholarship that examines global talent management and leadership approaches
post-COVID-19, in addition to understanding how MNCs manage the complex
issues of tax and legal implications of managing a remote or hybrid workforce.
 Human Resource Management 81

References
Aguinis, H., Ramani, R.S. and Cascio, W.F. 2020. Methodological practices in
international business research: an after-action review of challenges and solutions,
Journal of International Business Studies, 51, 1593–1608.
Barner-Rasmussen, W., Ehrnrooth, A., Koveshnikova, A. and Mäkelä, K. 2014.
Language and cultural skills as determinants of boundary spanning within the
MNC, Journal of International Business Studies, 45(7), 886–905.
Baumgartner, H. and Steenkamp, J.B.E. 2001. Response styles in marketing research:
a cross-national investigation, Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 43–156.
Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P.R., Mills, D.Q. and Walton, R.E. 1984. Managing
Human Assets, p. 209, New York, NY, The Free Press.
Bellak, C. 2005. Adjustment strategies of multinational enterprises to changing
national competitiveness, International Journal of the Economics of Business, 12(1),
139–162.
Black, J.S., Mendenhall, M.E. and Oddou, G.R. 1991. Toward a comprehensive
model of international adjustment: an integration of multiple theoretical perspec-
tives, Academy of Management Review, 16, 291–317.
Bonache, J., Brewster, C. and Suutari, V. 2001. Expatriation: a developing research
agenda, Thunderbird International Business Review, 43(1), 3–20.
Bozkurt, Ö. and Mohr, A.T. 2011. Forms of cross-border mobility and social capital in
multinational enterprises, Human Resource Management Journal, 21(2), 138–155.
Brewster, C., Mayrhofer, W. and Smale, A. 2016. Crossing the streams: HRM in
multinational enterprises and comparative HRM, Human Resource Management
Review, 26(4), 285–297.
Brewster, C., Wood, G. and Brookes, M. 2008. Recent survey evidence on the human
resource management policies of multinational corporations, British Journal of
Management, 19, 320–342.
Budhwar, P. 2009. Managing human resources in India. In The Routledge Companion
to Strategic Human Resource Management, pp. 435–446, London, Routledge.
Budhwar, P.S. and Khatri, N. 2001. A comparative study of HR practices in Britain
and India, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(5),
800–826.
Budhwar, P., Tung, R.L., Varma, A. and Do, H. 2017. Developments in human
resource management in MNCs from BRICS nations: a review and future research
agenda, Journal of International Management, 23(2), 111–123.
Budhwar, P. and Varma, A. 2010. Guest editors’ introduction: emerging patterns of
HRM in the new Indian economic environment, Human Resource Management,
49(3), 345–351.
Cascio, W.F. 2012. Methodological issues in international HR management research,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 2532–2545.
Child, J. and Rodrigues, S.B. 2005. The internationalization of Chinese firms: a case
for theoretical extension? Management and Organisation Review, 1(3), 381–410.
Cohen, S.A. and Gössling, S. 2015. A darker side of hypermobility, Environment and
Planning A: Economy and Space, 47(8), 166–1679.
Collings, D.G., McDonnell, A., Gunnigle, A. and Lavelle, J. 2010. Swimming against
the tide: outward staffing flows from multinational subsidiaries, Human Resource
Management (US), 49(4), 575–598.
82 Prakriti Dasgupta et al.

Cooke, F.L. 2018. Concepts, contexts, and mindsets: putting human resource man-
agement research in perspectives, Human Resource Management Journal, 28(1),
1–13.
Cooke, F.L. and Budhwar, P. 2015. Human resource management in China
and India. In Handbook of Human Resource Management in Emerging Markets,
pp. 337–356, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing.
Cooke, F.L. and Saini, D.S. 2010. How does the HR strategy support an
innovation-oriented business strategy? An investigation of institutional context and
organisational practices in Indian firms, Human Resource Management, 49(3),
377–400.
Cooke, F.L., Wood, G., Wang, M. and Veen, A. 2019. How far has international
HRM travelled? A systematic review of literature on multinational corporations
(2000–2014), Human Resource Management Review, 29(1), 59–75.
Cullinane, N. and Cushen, J. 2019. Applying Scientific Management to modern
employment relations and HRM. In Elgar Introduction to Theories of Human
Resources and Employment Relations, pp. 53–66, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Dickmann, M. 2003. Implementing German HRM abroad: desired, feasible, suc-
cessful? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(2),
265–283.
Dickmann, M. and Bader, B. 2020, June. Now, Next and beyond: Global Mobility’s
Response to COVID-19, London, EY and The RES Forum. Available at: https://
workplaceinsight.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/RES20-EY-RES-Forum-
Report-Issue-1-12-FINAL-1.pdf
Djelic, M.L. 1998. Exporting the American Model. The Post-War Transformation of
European Business, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Duvivier, F., Peeters, C. and Harzing, A.W. 2019. Not all international assignments
are created equal: HQ-subsidiary knowledge transfer patterns across types of
assignments and types of knowledge, Journal of World Business, 54(3), 181–190.
Edström, A. and Galbraith, J.R. 1977. Transfer of managers as a coordination and
control strategy in multinational organisations, Administrative Science Quarterly,
22, 248–263.
Edwards, T. 2011. The transfer of employment practices across borders in multina-
tional companies. In International Human Resource Management, Eds A.W.
Harzing and A.H. Pinnington, London, Sage.
Edwards, T. and Ferner, A. 2002. The renewed ‘American Challenge’: a review of
employment practices in US multinationals, Industrial Relations Journal, 33(2),
94–111.
Edwards, T., Sanchez-Mangas, R., Jalette, P., Lavelle, J. and Minbaeva, D. 2016.
Global standardization or national differentiation of HRM practices in multina-
tional companies? A comparison of multinationals in five countries, Journal of
International Business Studies, 47(8), 997–1021.
Endo, T., Delbridge, R. and Morris, J. 2015. Does Japan still matter? Past tendencies
and future opportunities in the study of Japanese firms, International Journal of
Management Reviews, 17(1), 101–123.
Farndale, E., Raghuram, S., Gully, S., Liu, X., Phillips, J.M. and Vidović, M. 2017. A
vision of international HRM research, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 28(12), 1625–1639.
 Human Resource Management 83

Ferner, A. 1997. Country of origin effects and HRM in multinational companies,

Human Resource Management, 7(1), 19–37.
Ferner, A., Bélanger, J., Tregaskis, O., Morley, M. and Quintanilla, J. 2013. US
multinationals and the control of subsidiary employment policies, Industrial and
Labor Relations Review, 66(3), 645–669.
Festing, M. and Tekieli, M. 2021. Global alignment or localization? An empirical
examination of global reward management in MNEs from a subsidiary perspec-
tive, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(3), 680–718.
Froese, F.J. and Kishi, Y. 2013. Organisational attractiveness of foreign firms in Asia:
soft power matters, Asian Business & Management, 12(3), 281–297.
Furusawa, M. and Brewster, C. 2016. IHRM and expatriation in Japanese MNCs:
HRM practices and their impact on adjustment and job performance, Asia Pacific
Journal of Human Resources, 54(4), 396–420.
Giardini, A., Kabst, R. and Müller-Camen, M. 2005. HRM in the German business
system: a review, The International Review of Management Studies, 16(1), 63–80.
Guest, D.E. and Hoque, K. 1996. National ownership and Hr practices in UK
Greenfield sites, Human Resource Management Journal, 6(4), 50–74.
Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. 2002. Cultivating a global mindset, The Academy
of Management Executive, 16(1), 116–126.
Hall, P.A. and Soskice, D. 2001. Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations
of Comparative Advantage, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Harbison, F.H. and Myers, C.A. 1959. Management in the Industrial World: An
International Analysis, New York, McGraw-Hill.
Harvey, M. and Moeller, M. 2009. Expatriate managers: a historical review,
International Journal of Management Reviews, 11, 275–296.
Harvey, M.G., Novicevic, M.M. and Speier, C., 2000. An innovative global man-
agement staffing system: a competency‐based perspective, Human Resource Man-
agement, 39(4), 381–394.
Harzing, A.W. 2001. Of bears, bumble-bees, and spiders: the role of expatriates in
controlling foreign subsidiaries, Journal of World Business, 36(4), 366–379. doi: 10.
1016/S1090-9516(01)00061-X
Harzing, A.W. and Noorderhaven, N. 2008. Headquarters–subsidiary relationships
and the country-of-origin effect. In New Perspectives in International Business
Research, Bingley, Emerald Publishing Limited.
Harzing, A.W., Pudelko, M. and Reiche, B.S. 2016. The bridging role of expatriates
and inpatriates in knowledge transfer in multinational corporations, Human
Resource Management, 55, 679–695.
Harzing, A.W. and Sorge, A. 2003. The relative impact of country of origin and
universal contingencies on internationalization strategies and corporate control in
multinational enterprises: worldwide and European perspectives, Organisation
Studies, 24, 187–214.
He, Y., Merz, M.A. and Alden, D.L. 2008. Diffusion of measurement invariance
assessment in cross-national empirical marketing research: perspectives from the
literature and a survey of researchers, Journal of International Marketing, 16(2),
64–83.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related
Values, London: Sage.
84 Prakriti Dasgupta et al.

Holtbrügge, D. and Berg, N. 2004. How multinational corporations deal with their
socio-political stakeholders: an empirical study in Asia, Europe, and the US, Asian
Business & Management, 3(3), 299–313.
Hurn, B.J. 1999. Repatriation – the toughest assignment of all, Industrial & Com-
mercial Training, 31(6), 224–228.
Jain, H., Budhwar, P., Varma, A. and Ratnam, C.S.V. 2012. Human resource man-
agement in the new economy in India, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 23(5), 887–891.
Jooss, S., Conroy, K.M. and McDonnell, A. 2022. Discretion as a double-edged
sword in global work: the perils of international business travelers, Human
Resource Management Journal. doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12420
Jooss, S., McDonnell, A. and Conroy, K. 2021. Flexible global working arrange-
ments: an integrative review and future research agenda, Human Resource Man-
agement Review, 31(4), 100780.
Kerr, C., Dunlop, J., Harbison, F. and Myers, C. 1960. Industrialism and Industrial
Man, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Kidger, P., Jackson-van Veen, M. and Redfern, D. 2004. Transferring the investors in
people concept for the UK to The Netherlands, Journal of European Industrial
Training, 28(6), 499–518.
Lavelle, J., McDonnell, A. and Gunnigle, P. 2009. Human Resource Practices in
Multinational Companies in Ireland: A Contemporary Analysis, Dublin, The Sta-
tionery Office.
Locke, R. 1996. The Collapse of the American Management Mystique, Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
Mayrhofer, W., Gooderham, P.N. and Brewster, C. 2019. Context and HRM: theory,
evidence, and proposals, International Studies of Management and Organisation,
49(4), 355–371.
Meyer, K.E., Li, C. and Schotter, A.P.J. 2020. Managing the MNE subsidiary:
advancing a multi-level and dynamic research agenda, Journal of International
Business Studies, 51, 538–576.
Meyskens, M., Von Glinow, M.A., Werther, W.B., Jr. and Clarke, L. 2009. The
paradox of international talent: alternative forms of international assignments, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(6), 1439–1450.
Miralles-Vazquez, L. and McGaughey, S.L. 2015. Non-traditional international
assignments, knowledge and innovation: an exploratory study of women’s expe-
riences, Prometheus, 33(3), 277–303.
Morley, M.J. and Collings, D.G. 2004. Contemporary debates and new directions in
HRM in MNCs: introduction, International Journal of Manpower, 25(6), 487–499.
Muller, M. 1999. Human resource management under institutional constraints: the
case of Germany, British Journal of Management, 10(1), 31–44.
O’Leary, M.B., Wilson, J.M. and Metiu, A. 2014. Beyond being there: the symbolic
role of communication and identification in perceptions of proximity to
geographically dispersed colleagues, MIS Quarterly, 38(4), 1219–1243.
Parker, B. 1998. Globalisation and Business Practice: Managing across Boundaries,
London, Sage.
Peltokorpi, V. 2013. Job embeddedness in Japanese organisations, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(8), 1551–1569.
 Human Resource Management 85

Perlmutter, H.V. 1969. The tortuous evolution of the multinational corporation.

Columbia, Journal of World Business, 4(1), 9–18.
Pudelko, M. and Harzing, A.W. 2007. Country-of-origin, localization, or dominance
effect? An empirical investigation of HRM practices in foreign subsidiaries, Human
Resource Management, 46(4), 535–559.
Pudelko, M. and Harzing, A.W. 2008. The golden triangle for MNCs, Organizational
Dynamics, 37, 394–404.
Pudelko, M. and Tenzer, H. 2013. Subsidiary control in Japanese, German and US
multinational corporations: direct control from headquarters versus indirect con-
trol through expatriation, Asian Business & Management, 12, 409–431.
Poole, M. 1990. Editorial: human resource management in an international perspec-
tive, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1(1), 1–15.
Quintanilla, J. and Ferner, A. 2003. Multinationals and human resource management:
between global convergence and national identity, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 14(3), 363–368.
Reiche, B.S., Lee, Y.T. and Allen, D.G. 2019. Actors, structure, and processes: a
review and conceptualization of global work integrating IB and HRM research,
Journal of Management, 45(2), 359–383.
Rosenzweig, P. and Nohria, N. 1994. Influences on human resource management
practices in multinational corporations, Journal of International Business Studies,
25(2), 229–252.
Rowley, C. and Warner, M. 2007. Introduction: globalizing international human
resource management, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
18(5), 703–716.
Sanders, K. and De Cieri, H. 2021. Similarities and differences in international and
comparative human resource management: a review of 60 years of research,
Human Resource Management, 60(1), 55–88.
Schaffer, B.S. and Riordan, C.M. 2003. A review of cross-cultural methodologies for
organizational research: a best-practices approach, Organizational Research
Methods, 6(2), 169–215.
Schuler, R.S. and Tarique, I. 2007. International human resource management: a
North American perspective, a thematic update and suggestions for future
research, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(5),
717–744.
Sekiguchi, T., Jintae Froese, F. and Iguchi, C. 2016. International human resource
management of Japanese multinational corporations: challenges and future
directions, Asian Business & Management, 15(2), 83–109.
Shaffer, M.A., Kraimer, M.L., Chen, Y.P. and Bolino, M.C. 2012. Choices, chal-
lenges, and career consequences of global work experiences: a review and future
agenda, Journal of Management, 38(4), 1282–1327.
Shen, J. and Edwards, V. 2006. International Human Resource Management in Chinese
Multinational Enterprises, New York, NY, Routledge.
Smith, C. and Meiksins, P. 1995. System, society and dominance effects in
cross-national organisational analysis, Work, Employment & Society, 9(2),
241–267.
Sparrow, P., Brewster, C. and Harris, H. 2004. Globalizing Human Resource Man-
agement, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
86 Prakriti Dasgupta et al.

Suutari, V., Brewster, C., Ruisala, K. and Syrjäkari, S. 2013. Managing non-standard
international experience: evidence from a Finnish company, Journal of Global
Mobility, 1, 118–138.
Tahir, R. and Azhar, N. 2013. The adjustment process of female repatriate managers
in Australian and New Zealand (ANZ) companies, Global Business Review, 14(1),
155–167.
Taylor, S., Beechler, S. and Napier, N. 1996. Toward an integrative model of strategic
international human resource management, The Academy of Management Review,
21(4), 959–985.
Tregaskis, O. and Brewster, C. 2006. Converging or diverging? A comparative anal-
ysis of trends in contingent employment practice in Europe over a decade, Journal
of International Business Studies, 37(1), 111–126.
Tsui, A.S., Nifadkar, S.S. and Ou, A.Y. 2007. Cross-national, cross-cultural organi-
zational behavior research: advances, gaps, and recommendations, Journal of
Management, 33(3), 426–478.
Tung, R.L. 1982. Selection and training procedures of U.S., European, and Japanese
multinationals, California Management Review, 25(1), 57–71.
Tung, R.L. 1984. Strategic management of human resources in the multinational
enterprise, Human Resource Management, 23(2), 129–143.
Tungli, Z. and Peiperl, M. 2009. Expatriate practices in German, Japanese, U.K., and
U.S. multinational companies: a comparative survey of changes, Human Resource
Management, 48(1), 153–171.
Tymon, W.G., Stumpf, S.A. and Doh, J.P. 2010. Exploring talent management in
India: the neglected role of intrinsic rewards, Journal of World Business, 45(2),
109–121.
Vo, A. and Stanton, P. 2011. The transfer of HRM policies and practices to a tran-
sitional business system – the case of performance management practices in US and
Japanese MNEs operating in Vietnam, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 22(17), 3513–3527.
Warner, M. 2008. Reassessing human resource management ‘with Chinese charac-
teristics’: an overview, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
19(5), 771–801.
Witt, M.A. 2014. Japan: coordinated capitalism between institutional change and
structural inertia, ERN: Empirical Studies of Governance and Institutional
Change.
Zhang, M. and Edwards, C. 2007. Diffusing ‘best practice’ in Chinese multinationals:
the motivation, facilitation and limitations, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 18(12), 2147–2165.
Zhang, M.M. and Fan, D. 2014. Expatriate skills training strategies of Chinese
multinationals operating in Australia, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,
52(1), 60–76.
Zhu, C.J., Cooper, B., De Cieri, H. and Dowling, P.J. 2005. A problematic transition
to a strategic role: human resource management in industrial enterprises in China,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(4), 513–531.
Zhu, J.S. 2019. Chinese multinationals’ approach to international human resource
management: a longitudinal study, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 30(14), 2166–2185.