Human resource management practices in the context of rising right‐wing populism

Abstract

We review the relationship between the causes and impact of rising right-wing populism and human resource management practice, drawing on the recent experiences of the United States and the United Kingdom. Specifically, we explore the links between right-wing populism and firms and their HRM practices. Although the links between declining standards of work, employment, and populism may be indirect and spatially uneven, each impacts the other in a manner that reinforces existing trends. We pay particular attention to migration and labour mobility, pay dispersion, and job and occupational security. At the level of the workplace, the populist turn undermines workforce diversity and makes transnational mobility more difficult. At the same time, structural pressures mitigating against a greater commitment to employees and their development and well-being contribute to a general climate of insecurity, which, in turn, reinforces populism.

Does work socialisation matter? Worker engagement in political activities, attachment to democracy and openness to immigration

“…Although many firms extol the virtues of a diverse workforce (MacMahon & O'Brien, 2019), their explicit authoritarian nature is more likely to engender negative attitudes to outsiders both within the workplace and more broadly in society. Immigrants have been found to have a positive influence on global talent, innovation, job creation, productivity, trade relationships and influx of capital in advanced societies (Cumming et al, 2020). The challenge for both firms and public policy in a democratic society is to promote workplaces that facilitate strong democratic rather than authoritarian political values.…”

Organizational and comparative institutionalism in internationalHRM: Toward an integrative research agenda

“…However, these conclusions proved premature, leading to a further wave of comparative and other institutionally focused work (Lee & Shin, 2018). These include studies of the German export model's revival and the Scandinavian social democracies’ continued strong performance (Thelen, 2019), the Japanese model's persistence (Gotoh, 2020), populism's recent rise, and new policy departures in the US and the UK (Cumming, Wood, & Zahra, 2020), and large emerging markets’ (most notably China's) ability to pursue distinct national developmental paths (Zhang & Peck, 2016). Thus, a growing body of empirical work confirms the persistence of variations in practices, which is commonly attributed to institutions (Witt & Jackson, 2016; Wood & Allen, 2020).…”

“…Both schools of institutional thought recognize that actors might seek to test, challenge, and remake institutions to suit their own interests. However, to explain the relationship between HRM practices and the political sphere, we may need a more explicit consideration of power and politics in our theoretical frameworks(Cumming et al, 2020). Future research: Organizations and their environment For future HRM research deploying lenses, we advocate a clearer articulation of theoretical assumptions and concepts along with more systematic integration of different lines of theorizing on institutions that will provide a more solid foundation for theory development in international HRM.…”

State Capitalism in International Context: Varieties and Variations

“…Several recent studies examining the performance of SOEs vs. private enterprises also argue that understanding the effect of state ownership requires us to unpack the impact of political institutions and temporary conditions (e.g., financial crises) on SOEs' strategies and performance (Estrin & Pelletier, 2018;Lazzarini & Musacchio, 2018;Tihanyi et al, 2019). In the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, renewed growth was somewhat lopsided and left many people poorer and more insecure than before, triggering right-wing populist backlashes (Cumming, Wood, & Zahra, 2020). There has also been increasing interest in the role of unconventional monetary policy and the uneven effects of quantitative easing and the COVID-19-driven round of bailouts in the US and the UK.…”