Institutional theory and the cross-national transfer of employment policy: the case of ‘workforce diversity’ in US multinationals

Abstract

Published in the AbstractThis paper uses a comparative institutionalist approach combined with a power/interests perspective to examine the processes whereby diversity policy is "internationalized" by US multinational companies. It argues that the process of policy transfer to UK subsidiaries is complicated by incomplete and contested "institutionalization" of diversity within the US itself, and by differing conceptions of diversity between the US and the UK. The ability of actors within the UK subsidiaries to mobilize and deploy specific power resources allows them to resist the full implementation of corporate diversity policy, leading to a range of compromise accommodations. It is argued that the findings have more general implications for analyzing the transfer of HR practices between national business systems.

Guest Editors’ Introduction: People Management and Emerging Market Multinationals

“…Smith and Meiksins (1995) argue that the transfer of best practices between countries is influenced by a hierarchical order between national economies which creates dominance effects whereby "firms from countries lower in the hierarchy may perceive an interest in adopting practices from those based in more dominant economies. Conversely, firms in dominant economies may tend to assume that their practices are superior and capable of transfer to less dominant hosts" (Ferner et al, 2005). By the same token, one would expect managers and employees at subsidiaries in developed countries may believe that they possess superior managerial and technical knowledge to that of firms from emerging countries, and as a result may question the legitimacy and viability of managerial practices originating from a country they perceive as less developed and economically inferior to their own.…”

Crossing the streams: HRM in multinational enterprises and comparative HRM

“…These have revealed the important role that power relations and micro-political processes play in determining the use and effectiveness of different HRM control mechanisms over time (Martin & Beaumont, 1999;Ferner, 2000). They have contributed a more dynamic view of HRM standardisation by demonstrating that standardisation, centralisation in particular, should be seen as being subjected to continual negotiation between parent and subsidiary, and is thus better viewed as comprising contested processes of 'oscillation' between greater global integration and greater local responsiveness Ferner, Almond, & Colling, 2005;Sippola & Smale, 2007). However, whilst case studies can be informative about mechanisms (see the next section about process), they are a poor way of judging overall trends or showing representative change over time.…”

“…A major conclusion from these studies, which notably tend to adopt the subsidiary perspective, is that processes of HRM standardisation and adaptation, and HRM practice enactment more broadly, are fraught with difficulty. More specifically, drawing on power relations and the micro-political perspective, HRM centralisation and formalisation are highly contested and political processes, characterised by the use of power resources by both MNE headquarters and subsidiary management (Almond et al, 2005;Ferner, 2000;Ferner et al, 2005). Subsidiary actors, by leveraging their role as 'interpreters' of the local HRM environment, are seen as influential, capable of shaping the patterns of HRM standardisation and adaptation that unfold .…”

Organizational learning as a situated routine-based activity in international settings

“…Geppert and Matten, 2006;Edwards et al, 2005;Ferner et al, 2005). It is this variant of institutional theory, which has informed various studies in comparative research, that informs our investigation (e.g.…”