The IB/ IHRM interface: Exploring the potential of intersectional theorizing

Abstract

Although the core concepts underlying IB and IHRM provide a common lexicon and epistemology, this commonality is often more implicit than explicit. We highlight not only the common ground but also the lack of critical dialogue between the two fields. This paper asks: What can each field learn from the other? What do scholars from IB learn from IHRM and vice versa? We identify a possible agenda and concerns regarding theory building as a basis for dialogue between the two fields.

How does successive inpatriation contribute to subsidiary capability building and subsidiary evolution? An organizational knowledge creation perspective

“…In line with recent calls for further research into the strategic value of international human resource management (IHRM) more broadly (e.g., Andersson, Brewster, Minbaeva, Narula, & Wood, 2019;McNulty & Brewster, 2017), our study bridges and contributes to both the IHRM and the global strategy literature. Our findings disentangle the explanatory mechanisms through which shortterm functions of inpatriation (the acquisition of task knowledge, language/cultural knowledge, and relational knowledge) develop into long-term functions (building subsidiary absorptive capability, and maintaining access to information), which in turn result in subsidiary capability building and subsidiary evolution.…”

Performance appraisal and MNEs: The impact of different capitalist archetypes

“…The international HRM literature suggests that the way businesses treat their employees has far-reaching implications for other aspects of organizational strategy (Anderson et al, 2019). This includes using appraisals as a basis for rewards, training and development and career planning.…”

“…While appraisal typically is associated more with control (Minbaeva, 2008), deployment of a wider more integrated approach moves the emphasis from technical to social control and incentives for employees to change their behaviors (Neher & Maley, 2019). Such approaches may be indicative of the role of MNEs as 'trendsetters' (Warner, 2005) or 'norm entrepreneurs' (Brookes, Brewster & Wood, 2017) and their recognition of the challenges associated with recruiting, deploying, utilizing, and retaining the 'right' people for each location (Anderson et al, 2019). However, it would be an oversimplification to suggest that they could adopt a common policy or one-size-fits-all approach, given the institutional and cultural differences in the multiple national environments in which MNEs operate which could result in a lack of common norms and values within the organization (Kostova & Roth, 2003).…”

“…The intersection between the international business and the international human resources management (HRM) literatures (Andersson et al, 2019) is attracting increased research interest and is shedding light on the issues faced by multinational enterprise (MNE) units in local and global business environments. How organizations manage the performance of employees in different geographical locations is relevant because the economic and societal norms in different environments govern both employment relationship and labor market rules.…”

Flexible global working arrangements: An integrative review and future research agenda

“…While the review highlights the lack of strategic oversight or sustainable management of FGWAs, our future research agenda calls for greater interrogation of the involvement of the IHRM function in coordinating and supporting FGWAs. In particular, we seek to illustrate how IHRM and international business scholars may work more closely together ( Andersson et al, 2019 ) to unpack the strategic importance of IHRM and more precisely the value-creating nature of FGWAs ( Reiche et al, 2019 ).…”