Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management Practices in Australian and Overseas-Owned Workplaces: Global or Local?

Abstract

This paper compares human resource (HR)and industrial relations (IR)practices in the workplaces of predominantly Australian and predominantly overseas–owned organisations. It advances understanding of HR/IR in Australia and elsewhere by considering two questions. First,whether Australian–owned workplaces have different HR/IR practices from overseas–owned workplaces. Second,whether there has been a convergence or divergence of practices between the two groups in recent years. The analysis is conducted using the Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey data from the years 1990 and 1995 (AWIRS 90/95). The main findings are that there are significant differences in HR/IR practice between Australian and overseas–owned workplaces. Both groups have increased their use of sophisticated HR/IR practices, but the overseas–owned workplaces have increased their usage at a faster pace. On the basis of these findings, we suggest caution in accepting the argument that globalisation pressures necessarily lead to a uniform convergence of HR/IR practices across the globe. While it appears that globalisation has stimulated local and overseas–owned firms to move in qualitatively similar directions, they are doing so at rates sufficiently varied for the gap to be increasing when measured quantitatively. In this sense,the locals might best be described as lagging behind the overseas firms in the adoption of HRM practices.

Similarity or Variation? Employee Representation and Consultation Approaches amongst Liberal Market Economy Multinationals

“…It was noted that Australia has received comparatively less attention in this area with the notable exception of papers that drew on Cranet data (e.g. Walsh, 2001;McGraw and Harley, 2003), although these did not differentiate between domestic firms and domestic MNCs. Due to the significant changes that occurred in the Australian industrial relations system from the 1980s which promoted greater liberalization and potentially provided firms with greater choice on how they approached employee representation and consultation (Townsend, Wilkinson, and Burgess, 2013), a study like this one is a timely and important contribution.…”

“…This led her to suggest that the strongly regulated Australian industrial relations system did not deter innovative practice. Similarly, McGraw and Harley (2003), utilizing two sets of AWIRS data, found that foreign MNCs were using a more sophisticated suite of HR policies and practices compared to domestic firms. Overall, these studies suggest there is substantial scope for firms to introduce novel management practices.…”

“…Existing research has strongly relied on Cranet data or the Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey (AWIRS), which were not specifically focused on MNCs and are now dated (e.g. McGraw and Harley, 2003;Walsh, 2001). These studies certainly pre-date significant changes in the Australian industrial relations institutional environment that promoted greater individualization of the employment relationship (Sappey et al, 2008).…”

Human Resource Management in Multinational Enterprises: Evidence From a Late Industrializing Economy

“…Whilst strong consistency in results has failed to materialize across these different studies, the tentative conclusions suggest that HRM in foreign-owned MNEs is different to that in domestic firms (Geary and Roche 2001;McGraw and Harley 2003). More specifically, it appears that whilst foreign MNEs may have to adapt local practices on occasion (e.g., for cultural and legislative/regulatory reasons), overall they appear to be more formal and sophisticated in terms of their HRM practices (Hiltrop 1999;McGraw and Harley 2003) than domestic organizations.…”

International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 3, No. 12, December 2008

“…In the beginning, multinational companies adopt standardization of human resource management, which believed coherence strategy and coordinate practice can lead to operational effectiveness and efficiency. However, they met difficulties after the international dimension becoming more and more popular as a result of changes in operating environment and structures (McGraw and Harley 2003). Different people in different countries have different culture and conception on organization behavior.…”