International human resource management: overcoming disciplinary sectarianism

The Authors
Mary Keating, School of Business Studies, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland Karen Thompson, School of Business Studies, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland Abstract International human resource management (IHRM) research is becoming an increasingly important topic in light of the relentless pace of globalisation. Three strands of research contribute to our understanding of IHRM, the most dominant being research on human resource management in multinational companies. This paper categorises the literature in the field, highlighting disciplinary introspection within and between each strand. Argues that, by neglecting to embrace the contributions of research from cross-cultural management and comparative human resource management, the field lacks the necessary conceptual and methodological tools to advance. Concludes by suggesting areas where collaboration and cross-fertilisation between disciplines can occur before embarking on the integrative process of theory building. Article Type: Conceptual Paper Keyword(s): Human resource management; Multinational companies; Cross-cultural management,.
Employee Relations Volume 26 Number 6 2004 pp. 595-612 Copyright Emerald Group Publishing Limited ISSN 0142-5455

1. Introduction The body of literature on international human resource management (IHRM) has grown dramatically, resulting from the rapid growth in international business activity. The shift in focus from a domestic to a global business perspective has a profound impact on the corporate human resources management activities (Dowling et al., 1999). Human resource management (HRM) is understood in the broadest sense of the term, encompassing all management decisions and actions that affect the nature of the relationship between the organisation and the employees its human resources (Beer et al., 1984, p. 1). The effective management of an organisation's human resources is vital for the successful implementation of international strategies in multinaltional companies (MNCs; Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1989). In addition, the competitiveness of companies and even nations has increasingly been recognised to stem from the calibre of their people and people management strategies (Pieper, 1990; Porter, 1990; Pucik, 1992). All in all, the globalisation of business has resulted in the increasing recognition of the value of a wellmanaged workforce and the evolution of the human resource function from being viewed as a support function to one of strategic importance (Pucik, 1992; Teagarden and Von Glinow, 1997;

Scullion and Starkey, 2000). Research on HRM in an international context has been approached from a number of different disciplines, including amongst others human resource management, international business, cross-cultural management, strategic management, psychology, comparative management, and by both academics and practitioners. Based on a review of the literature, Clark et al. (1999) conclude a central issue concerns what is constant and what varies across nations (p. 521). The literature covers a wide spectrum of issues, ranging from comparative studies of individual HR practices across the countries to the source(s) of variance in HR strategies in MNC subsidiaries, and as such is a fragmented and seemingly disparate body of knowledge. This article attempts to categorise the varied literature within the field. To this end we draw upon the framework proposed by De Cieri and Dowling (1999) which identifies three broad strands within the field of IHRM: 1. HRM in MNCs[1], focusing on the management of human resources in international companies. 2. Cross-cultural management (CCM), dealing with the impact of cultural difference on management practices. 3. Comparative human resource management (CHRM), comparing HRM systems and practices at both organisational and national levels. We identify that each strand stems from different disciplinary areas and has its own research purpose, research questions, issues, methodologies, findings, weaknesses and strengths. Critically, however, we discern that these three related approaches have remained introverted, not looking beyond disciplinary boundaries for contributions towards the theory-building and methodological design of their research. This article will outline the case for interdisciplinary collaboration in the field of IHRM. First, the three strands of research are described with particular attention given to analysing their strengths and weaknesses. We argue that interdisciplinary collaboration and the cross-fertilisation of ideas between strands should be encouraged in order to facilitate the construction of an inclusive approach to theory building. Specifically, we suggest that our understanding of HRM in MNCs could be improved by incorporating some of the contributions of the other two approaches to international human resource management.

2. HRM in MNCs The literature on HRM in MNCs is the dominant strand in the study of IHRM and explores the strategies employed by multinational companies to manage their human resource (Hendry, 1994; Torrington, 1994; Dowling et al., 1999; Harzing and Ruysseveldt, 2003). Research on HRM in MNCs has been concerned with enabling the international company to effectively achieve its goals and objectives through the development of appropriate HR strategic and practice in the globally dispersed organization (Schuler et al., 1993; Sparrow et al., 1994; Scullion, 1995; Taylor et al., 1996; De Cieri and Dowling, 1999). HRM in MNCs is essentially HRM embedded in the context of international business (De Cieri and Dowling, 1999). In assessing the distinguishing factors between domestic and international HRM, Dowling et al. (1999) conclude that it is [t]he complexities of operating in different countries and employing different national categories of workers that are the main factors that differentiate domestic and international HRM, rather than any major differences between the HRM functions performed (p. 7). HRM in

international organisations is thus more encompassing and more complex than domestic HRM. Discussions of HRM in MNCs deal almost exclusively with expatriate management, implying that managing international work assignments is the only way in which HRM changes in international firms (Harris and Brewster, 1999). However, this defines the field too narrowly. Recent literature is evolving to take a broader, holistic and even strategic view of HRM in MNCs, often referred to as strategic international HRM or strategic HRM in MNCs (Schuler et al., 1993; Taylor et al., 1996; De Cieri and Dowling, 1999).

2.1 What is effective HRM in MNCs? The concept of HRM, as it originally developed in the US as an alternative to traditional personnel management, is inextricably linked with business strategy[2] (Devanna et al., 1984; Schuler and Jackson, 1987). Accordingly, the raison d'tre of HRM is to enable the international organisation to achieve its strategic objectives in order to build and maintain sustainable competitive advantage for the organisation, and as such HRM in MNCs is a means to an end rather than an end in itself. MNCs face dual and conflicting pressures arising from the simultaneous needs for global integration and local differentiation in international companies, and the strategies developed to meet these challenges have important implications for the international HRM function (Prahalad and Doz, 1987; Schuler et al., 1993). Conversely, HRM strategies can, in turn, influence the achievement of organisational strategies (De Cieri and Dowling, 1999). Striking a balance between the conflicting pressures for global integration and local responsiveness within the MNC and creating the appropriate level of globalness and localness is implicit or explicit in all the literature on HRM in MNCs. For instance, Sparrow et al. (1994) argue the successful global management of HR: is best defined as the possession of the skills and knowledge of formulating and implementing policies and practices that effectively integrate and cohere globally dispersed employees, while at the same time recognizing and appreciating local differences that impact on the effective utilisation of human resources (p. 268).

2.2 Theories and models of HRM in MNCs Despite the recognised importance of effective human resource management in MNCs, our understanding of the process and strategies of managing people in these global organisations remains rather limited. Theories of HRM in MNCs try to understand how MNCs organise the HR function and manage their worldwide workforce in order to achieve their organisational goals and objectives. Despite the increasingly global economy, variations in approaches to the management of human resources in MNCs continue to persist, even among MNCs operating in similar environments (Guest and Hoque, 1996; Geary and Roche, 2001). The main body of the literature seeks to establish the sources of variation in HR practices across and between globally dispersed companies. A range of factors, i.e. country of origin, host country, MNC and subsidiary factors, have been identified (see, for example, research by Rosenzweig and Nohria, 1994). Particular attention is paid to the extent that foreign subsidiaries behave as local firms versus the extent to which their HR practices resemble those of the parent corporation, known as the host country effect and the country-of-origin effect, respectively[3]. The country-oforigin effect has been found to exert varying degrees of influence on different practices and in different subsidiaries (Rosenzweig and Nohria, 1994; Ferner, 1997). Nonetheless, the nature of

the host country context affects the extent to which MNCs may implement country-of-origin (human resource) management practices in their subsidiaries (Ferner, 1997). HR practices at subsidiary level tend to be some form of hybrid of the parent and local practices with the relative influence of parent company and host context influences on various HRM practices being a continuum rather than an either/or scenario as is often portrayed (Weber et al., 2000; Tregaskis et al., 2001). Typologies of different approaches to HRM in MNCs have been identified which differentiate approaches to HRM in MNCs according to the level of adaptation to local practices and/or adherence to global practices (e.g. Taylor et al., 1996; Bird et al., 1998; Jansenns, 2001). It is generally recognised that due to the differentiated nature of the organisational and environmental contingencies facing individual subsidiaries, MNCs will not necessarily adopt a uniform approach to managing their human resources throughout the global organisation. Related to the debate regarding the influence of the country-of-origin effect is the extent to which multinationals act as vehicles for transmitting HR practices from the parent country business culture to the host countries in which they operate (Ferner, 1997). There has been particular interest in studying MNCs from highly institutionalised and regulated systems such as Germany to establish if they attempt to drop what they see as the constraining elements of their business systems once they leave their own borders (Ferner, 1997; Ferner and Quintanilla, 1998; Ferner et al., 2001). Reverse diffusion, i.e. the transfer of management practices from subsidiaries to other subsidiaries and/or MNC HQ, has also been the subject of recent exploratory case study research (e.g. Edwards, 1998). Furthermore, despite the now widespread recognition of cultural and institutional differences, there has been a recent resurgence in one-best-wayism in the literature (e.g. Martin and Beaumont, 1998; Blanger et al., 1999). While evidence of both best practice transfer and reverse diffusion has been found, cultural and institutional appropriateness were found to regulate their implementation. Several authors propose models of how HRM fits into the overall global strategy of the MNC. Adler and Ghadar's (1990) research is one of the first to indicate that HRM strategy should be linked to environmental considerations and international business strategy. A comprehensive model of strategic HRM in MNCs was developed by Schuler and colleagues (Schuler et al., 1993) and later revised by De Cieri and Dowling (1999), whereby MNCs are understood to operate in a context of worldwide conditions (exogenous variables) including industry characteristics, country-regional characteristics and inter-organisational networks and organisational-specific contingencies (endogenous variables). HRM is perceived to assist the MNC in achieving its goals and concerns while these goals and concerns also influence the MNC's approach to HRM. Although the literature advocates a strategic approach to HRM in international companies, recent evidence suggests that MNCs still take a short-term, ad hoc and non-strategic approach to HRM (Bird and Beechler, 1995; De Cieri and Dowling, 1997), suggesting that theory has outpaced practice in this area.

2.3 Critique of the literature on HRM in MNCs The conclusions that can be drawn from research in the field of HRM in MNCs have been severely limited by the shortcomings of the research (Ferner, 1997) While progress has been made in understanding HRM in MNCs (Dowling et al., 1999), many agree that the discipline still suffers from the shortcomings identified by Schllhammer (1975) in his review of the early work on HRM in international companies (Scullion, 1995). Research in the discipline to date has been ethnocentric[4], containing an undeniable strong US bias (Adler, 1983; Clark et al., 1999). Further criticisms have been levelled at the managerialist nature of research (Ferner, 1997). This practitioner-focused problem-solving approach has also resulted in a fragmented body of

literature (Hendry, 1994). Although it has been acknowledged that the way forward is to integrate both practitioner and academic concerns and issues to create practice-relevant theory (Tung and Punnett, 1993), there has been little evidence of such an approach to date. The lack of empirical data on HRM practices and policies in MNCs is also widely acknowledged (Harzing, 1999). Many of the models which have been developed are purely conceptual with propositions and hypotheses remaining untested. Where empirical studies are conducted the sample tends to be small or of limited geographical dispersion. Further methodological problems are also highlighted. The HR manager is often the only source of information in studies which may result in interviewers hearing about policy rather than actual practice. Most of the studies are survey based, often suffering from low response rates and small sample sizes (Harzing, 1999). In addition, research has focused almost exclusively on large established international companies rather than small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who are only beginning to internationalise (Scullion, 1999). The vast majority of writers on HRM in MNCs adopt a contingency perspective (Festing, 1997) whereby HR policies for differing environment conditions or business strategies are prescribed. While the contingency approach does highlight the complexities inherent in managing MNCs, it does not explain the reasons for systematic variation between certain variables and the underlying relationships, processes and interdependencies (Festing, 1997). Furthermore, culture, the most frequently cited contingency factor, is often inadequately defined and operationalised. All in all, while the literature has shed some light on the influences on HRM in MNCs, our understanding of how these influence processes occur remains less developed. In summary, the literature on HRM in international companies lacks empirical studies, in particular case-studies which can provide in-depth qualitative data on processes involved in managing HR in the geographically dispersed MNC subsidiaries. Recent years have witnessed an improvement in theory development in this approach (e.g. Schuler et al., 1993; Taylor et al., 1996; De Cieri and Dowling, 1999) and there is an emerging body of non-Anglo Saxon theory and research. Ferner's research project on HRM in US multinationals in the United Kingdom is promising in this regard (Ferner et al., 2004). It is our view that many of the weaknesses of this strand could be overcome if researchers were to draw on some of the contributions of research from the CCM and CHRM approaches.

3. Cross-cultural management Early international human resource management studies focused mainly on the cultural relativity[5] of (human resource) management practices, i.e. that the development of a company's HR policies are subject to cultural influences and that MNCs must take these culturally based differences into account when operating overseas (cf. Hofstede, 1980; Laurent, 1986; Schneider and Barsoux, 1997; Adler, 2003). Although much of this literature is not explicitly labelled IHRM, it deals with issues of cultural differences in management style (Hofstede, 1980), employee motivation (Smith et al., 1996), leadership style (House et al., 1999; Keating and Martin, 2004), negotiation style (Martin, 2004), as well as cross-cultural training and acculturation issues for expatriates (Black et al., 1999). This literature has much to offer the wider field of IHRM in terms of explaining similarities and differences in IHRM. The objective of studies in the cross-cultural management (CCM) approach is to explain differences in employee behaviours and attitudes as well as management practices using culture as an explanatory variable. This contrasts with the HRM in MNCs literature where there may be several organisational and environmental explanatory variables. For explanatory and comparative purposes, culture tends to be operationalised according to psychological dimensions. Some of the most important work in classifying cultures and their value orientations

has been undertaken by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), and their research has been widely appropriated by cross-cultural management researchers, most notably by Hofstede (1980) and more recently by House et al. (1999). This dimensional approach, although the most common method of operationalising culture in cross-cultural studies, is not without its critics (see McSweeney, 2002).

3.1 Issues in cross-cultural management Researchers in CCM are predominantly concerned with investigating whether organisations and HRM practices are converging or diverging. The notion of convergence is central to the ongoing debate about the relationship between globalisation and existing and evolving patterns of national management (Mayer and Whittington, 2002). There are two conflicting two schools of thought on this matter. The culturalists or culture-bound theorists believe that cultural values and norms affect behaviour and attitudes of organisations in the same way as they do day-to-day life. Studies have provided substantial evidence of cultural variety not only in management systems and structures but also in the perceptions of management itself (Hofstede, 1980; Laurent, 1986; Smith et al., 1996; House et al., 1999). As a result, theorists of this school believe that there can be no universal model of management and that management theories and practices from one culture are not necessarily transferable to other cultures. In contrast, culture-free theorists argue that non-cultural environmental factors, such as the level of industrialisation or technological development in a society as well as industry and organisational characteristics, can override the influence of culture in organisations (e.g. Kerr et al., 1960; Hickson et al., 1974). These noncultural factors will act in the same direction upon management practices and organisations in all cultures and as the pressures for convergence get stronger, it is predicted that a worldwide convergence of management practice will occur. Some authors maintain that neither theory alone adequately explains the research findings and that both similarities and differences are evident in organisations around the world. Adler et al. (1986), drawing on Child (1981), suggest that: perhaps [] organisations are becoming more similar in terms of structure and technology (macro-level variables) whereas peoples behaviour within those organisations (micro-level variables) continue to manifest culturally based dissimilarities. Although this argument has been widely accepted in the IHRM literature, McGaughney and De Cieri (1999) have recently argued that the situation is more complex and that both convergence and divergence may occur at both micro- and macro-level variables. The debate continues.

3.2 Critique of cross-cultural research A review of the cross-cultural research consistently reveals major methodological, epistemological and theoretical deficiencies (Clark et al., 1999). The problems and weaknesses of CCM research are widely discussed in the literature (Redding, 1994; Cavusgil and Das, 1997; Caligiuri and Stroh, 1995, Teagarden et al., 1995), leading to optimism that they can be overcome. Many of these problems have been addressed and overcome in the GLOBE[6] project (House et al., 1999). Unlike most previous cross-cultural management research, GLOBE takes a multimethodological approach, combining both quantitative and qualitative instruments of data collection and by using a multidisciplinary, global, collaborative research team to design, conduct

and analyse the research. The members of the GLOBE project define culture as: [the] shared motives, values, beliefs, identities and interpretations or meanings of significant events that result from common experiences of members of collectives and are transmitted across age generations (House et al., 1999, p. 13). Building on Hofstede's four dimensions of culture, GLOBE constructed nine dimensions on the basis of which to describe national societal cultures[7]. Culture is measured through the commonality of practices and values on the nine dimensions. Practices are measured by assessing what is/are common behaviours and practices in the society, whilst values are expressed in response to judgements regarding what should be in the society. It is argued that these culturally derived values and beliefs held by the members of a society will influence both behaviour and institutions in that society and also the extent to which these are viewed as legitimate, acceptable and effective (House et al., 1999). Teagarden et al. (1995), through their idiographic study, have begun the work of conducting cross-cultural collaborative research in IHRM. Going forward, we suggest that GLOBE project may provide useful insights on methodology and that the findings on the dimensions of societal culture can potentially provide a robust explanatory framework for both researchers and practitioners (House, 2004). In summary, CCM literature uses culture as an explanatory variable to explain variance in management practice worldwide. The major contribution of CCM has been the development of a method of operationalising culture on the basis various dimensions. Despite progress on both the methodological and theoretical fronts, the contribution of this approach is weakened by its exclusive focus on culture as an explanatory variable and consequent exclusion of other potential influences.

4. Comparative HRM Comparative HRM (CHRM) involves the comparison of HR systems and practices across nations and regions around the world. Research in this field tends to come predominantly from Britain, and to a lesser extent from the rest of Europe. These researchers have critically observed the nature of the HRM concept as it has been imported into Europe from the United States since the 1980s, and have compared approaches to HRM in various countries. The objective of CHRM research is to describe and explain differences in and identify broad patterns of national HRM systems (Begin, 1992). The rationale for CHRM research is both pragmatic and academic (Brewster and Tyson, 1991). Pragmatically, the corporate quest for competitive advantage and new, more efficient ways of managing human resources across national and cultural boundaries is a motive for undertaking comparative analysis. The academic interest in CHRM is at two levels. At one level, academics wish to understand the economic and social systems that prevail in other countries, including HRM and its institutional context, while at another level they desire to describe and explain how and why variations in national systems of HRM impact firm, industry and even national competitiveness.

4.1 Issues in CHRM Comparative studies of human resource management have consistently revealed that there are significant country differences in HRM around the world. Variations have been attributed to differences in national cultural and institutional (legal, economic and social) environments

(Pieper, 1990; Brewster et al., 2000, Clark, 1996). Nonetheless, as result of the increasing volume of international business and increased interaction with other cultures, studies have sought to establish whether their is any evidence of convergence in HRM models, practices and issues across national borders. While there have been some claims of convergence (Towers Perrin, 1992; Sparrow et al., 1994), the evidence to date remains weak. Even these authors concede that some differences continue to persist and that convergence is not happening on such a large scale as previously predicted (e.g. Kerr et al., 1960; Hickson et al., 1974). There is considerable support for the view that both convergence and divergence are occurring, but at different levels. For example, on the basis of the Price Waterhouse Cranfield Study of HRM in Europe, Brewster et al. (1996) conclude that while there is an increasingly common understanding of the issues in HRM across Europe, organisations continue to differ in how they deal with these issues in practice. CHRM research has thus provided support for the cultural relativity of HRM concepts, theories and models. The need to understand HRM from a European as opposed to a United States perspective has become a dominant theme in the literature (Geppert et al., 2002; Guest, 1990; Pieper, 1990; Brewster et al., 2000; Sparrow and Hiltrop, 1997). These conclusions contradict calls for establishing best practice, as if HR institutions and practices are culture- and institutionspecific, then their applicability and effectiveness in other contexts is questionable and by no means universal.

4.2 CHRM theories and models A number of models and frameworks have been developed in attempts to describe, understand and explain differences in national human resource management systems. Early theories of CHRM were based on existing models of comparative cross-cultural management (such as that by Neghandi, 1983), or existing theories of domestic HRM: for example, Poole (1990) assesses the suitability of the model by Beer et al. (1984) to describe HRM in an international context. In a series of publications, Brewster has sought to develop a model to explain differences in national HRM systems in Europe. The model highlights the various international and national contextual factors which impact upon HRM and the relationship between HRM and corporate strategy (Brewster, 1995). Clark and Mallory (1996) argue that Brewster's work is inherently ethnocentric due to its implicit assumption that the (American) model will be universally applicable. They propose an alternative model of comparative HRM which attempts to overcome the criticisms of Brewster's work by not pre-specifying a model of HRM. The disadvantage of this polycentric approach is that in the absence of any standards it may be difficult to compare results from different countries. A different perspective is taken by Sparrow and Hiltrop (1997) who argue for a more dynamic and change process-oriented framework for studying comparative HRM. They maintain that an examination and understanding of the main processes which drive the transition in HRM, and thus ultimately convergence or divergence is required to understand what factors influence national systems of HRM and how these influence processes occur. In contrast to the above models which examine HRM at a national level, Budhwar and Debrah (2001) develop a conceptual framework for cross-national and comparative HRM research at organisational level. They build on the work of domestic and comparative HRM theorists and, unlike the frameworks described above, include organisational contingency factors such as age and stage in life cycle as well as organisational strategies and policies. However, in its attempt to encompass all potential variables, this model is very complex, containing 42 factors in all, and is

thus most likely to be difficult to test empirically in a comparative context.

4.3 Critique of CHRM research CHRM research to date has been severely weakened by the failure to use theoretical frameworks to support the design of studies conducted and their conclusions. The methodological and conceptual problems associated with CHRM research are well documented (cf. Brewster and Tyson, 1991; Sparrow et al., 1994; Brewster et al., 1996; Clark et al., 1999). Although the objective of CHRM is to describe and explain variations in national HRM systems, there appears to be little consensus among authors as to what HRM constitutes. As such, CHRM research lacks a fundamental prerequisite: agreement on the definition of its dependent variable. Furthermore, comparative studies of HRM tend to be descriptive and lack analysis and explanation. Explanations, where provided, are generally extremely weak, with differences usually attributed to cultural or institutional factors. The use of culture as an explanatory variable for variations in organisational functioning and structuring has been problematic (Clark et al., 1999). The models lack explanatory power as to when and how these factors exert an influence on HRM, the strength of the influence relative to other factors and separating the effects of the various contextual elements. The resultant models fail to provide a systematic explanation for any differences found. Further, there is an absence of a comprehensive descriptive empirical cross-national data on HRM as well as evidence of ethnocentric bias in much of the literature in this approach. In summary, researchers have been critical but not constructive in advancing the field. This approach would benefit from the advances made by the cross-cultural group in terms of addressing the issuing of explicating culture as an explanatory variable. Progress is being made in this direction, as evidenced by the approach adopted by Teagarden et al. (1995) in combining the methodology of the cross-cultural and comparative literatures and building a multidisciplinary, international research team.

5. Advancing the field: overcoming disciplinary sectarianism Table I sets out an integrative framework comparing the three strands in IHRM research. It summarises the research purpose, research questions, issues, methodologies, findings and limitations of each of the three strands of research. Much of the research in the field is introverted in nature, with disciplinary sectarianism evident both within and across each of the three strands. Although each strand is distinct, they are not mutually exclusive. In addition, discernible similarities are identifiable across the approaches. In terms of research focus, for example, all address, albeit in differing guises, the influence of culture on (human resource) management and practices and whether there is any evidence of convergence or divergence in this regard. The general consensus is that universality does not apply to management (or more specifically HR systems) notions and practices. Evidence suggests that international convergence of HR issues is occurring but interpretation of these issues and hence actual practices continues to differ. Methodological shortcomings are evident in all three strands of research, although as we can observe in Table I the researchers in each differ in how they deal with these. As discussed (Cavusgil and Das, 1997; Clark et al., 1999; Kochan et al., 1992) cross-cultural and comparative research is complex, and researchers across all of the approaches must grapple with complex methodological issues and problems. There is consensus in the field that they can be overcome through better research methodology. We agree that a positivist approach is appropriate in comparative research, but stress that it must be augmented by qualitative methods to add greater explanatory sensitivity. We also underscore the need for properly designed empirical research in order to contribute to the development in the field. Both CHRM and HRM in

MNC approaches would benefit from progress made in the CCM in this regard. While in general the objectives of each strand are similar to understand and explain HRM the HRM in MNCs approach perceives HRM as a means to an end (effectiveness and competitiveness) rather than an end in itself. Therefore it regards HRM as an intervening variable, not a dependent variable as in the case of CCM and to a lesser extent CHRM. We concur with the positioning of HRM as a means to an end and that a process model positioning HRM as an intervening variable is appropriate. The model of strategic HRM in MNCs as developed by De Cieri and Dowling (1999) is a good step in this direction. While the cross-cultural management literature has been referred to by writers in both the comparative HRM and HRM in MNCs fields, this has mainly been merely of the name-dropping type (Sndergaard, 1994). A more in-depth understanding of the theories and models of culture from the CCM literature would give researchers in both CHRM and HRM in MNCs a method for explicating exogenous variables and operationalising culture as an explanatory variable. This would facilitate the use of specific dimensions of cultures as explanatory variables or alternatively allowing the cultural distance construct to be operationalised. In turn, contributions from these literatures could inform the CCM literature as to alternative endogenous influences which may moderate the effect of culture on behaviour. Theoretical frameworks from the comparative HRM approach would give researchers on HRM in MNCs an understanding into the role played by both parent country and host country institutions, regulations, cultural norms etc. (i.e. context) on HRM approaches and practices. An understanding of comparative HRM systems is needed to complement and inform the understanding of HRM in MNCs (Boxall, 1995; Schuler, 2000). On the other hand, the literature on HRM in MNCs could contribute to the debate in the comparative approach on the influence of foreign MNCs on national HRMS, on the transfer of MNC HRM into indigenous companies, on the ability to transfer HR practices across national boundaries or on the possibility to create global best practice HR standards. We acknowledge that there is a need to begin the design and development of an overarching theory to integrate the three strands of IHRM into a framework embracing the related disciplinary approaches. The fertilisation of ideas and methodologies between strands will result in an enrichment of research across the field and facilitate the construction of an inclusive approach to theory building which embraces all related disciplinary areas. We suggest that there are benefits to be gained from engaging in collaborative, inter-disciplinary, comparative, cross-cultural dialogue and research. Before embarking on the tortuous journey of theory construction, it is our view that researchers from the three strands must overcome existing disciplinary sectarianism by recognising and acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. In this article, we have attempted to draw attention to the overlaps and gaps between strands hitherto hidden from within disciplines in order to commence this process. Only by overcoming disciplinary sectarianism can the field of IHRM advance and produce (practice) relevant theory.

Table I Integrative framework comparing strands in IHRM research

References Adler, N. (1983), "A typology of management studies involving culture", Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 14 No.2, pp.29-47.

Adler, N. (2003), International Dimensions of Organisational Behavior, 4th ed., Kent Publishing Co., Boston, MA, .

Adler, N., Ghadar, F. (1990), "International strategy from the perspective of people and culture: the North American context", in Rugman, A.M. (Eds),Research in Global Strategic Management, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, Vol. 1: Canada's New Research Agenda, pp.179-205.
Adler, N., Doktor, R., Redding, S.G. (1986), "From the Atlantic to the Pacific century: crosscultural management reviewed", Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No.2, pp.295-318.

Bartlett, C., Ghoshal, S. (1989), Managing across Borders: The Transnational Solution, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, . Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P., Mills, D., Walton, R. (1984), Managing Human Assets, Free Press, New York, NY, . Begin, J. (1992), "Comparative human resources management (HRM): a systems perspective", International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 3 pp.379-408. Blanger, J., Edwards, P., Wright, M. (1999), "Best HR practice and the multinational company", Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 3 pp.53-70. Bird, A., Beechler, S. (1995), "Links between business strategy and human resource management in US-based Japanese subsidiaries: an empirical investigation", Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 26 No.1, pp.23-46.
Bird, A., Taylor, S., Beechler, S. (1998), "A typology of international human resource management in Japanese multinational corporations: organizational implications", Human Resource Management, Vol. 37 No.2, pp.159-72.

Black, J., Gregersen, H., Mendenhall, M., Stroh, L. (1999), Globalizing People through International Assignments, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, . Boxall, P. (1995), "Building the theory of comparative HRM", Human Resource Management, Vol. 5 No.5, pp.5-17. Brewster, C. (1995), "Towards a European model of human resource management", Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 26 No.1, pp.1-22. Brewster, C., Tyson, S. (1991), International Comparisons of Human Resource Management, Pitman, London, . (2000), in Brewster, C., Mayrhofer, W., Morley, M. (Eds),New Challenges for European Human Resource Management, Macmillan, Basingstoke, . Brewster, C., Tregaskis, A., Hegewisch, A., Mayne, L. (1996), "Comparative research in HRM: a review and example", International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 7 No.3, pp.585-604.

Budhwar, P., Debrah, Y. (2001), "Rethinking comparative and cross-national human resource management research", International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 12 No.3, pp.497-515.

Caligiuri, P.M., Stroh, L.K. (1995), "Multinational corporation management strategies and international human resources practices: bringing IHRM to the bottom line", International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 6 No.3, pp.494-507. Cavusgil, S., Das, A. (1997), "Methodological issues in empirical cross-cultural research: a survey of the management literature and a framework", Management International Review, Vol. 37 No.1, pp.71-96. Child, J. (1981), "Contingency and capitalism in the cross-cultural study of organizations", in Cummings, L., Staw, B. (Eds),Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, Vol. Vol. 3 pp.303-56. Clark, T. (1996), "HRM: a unified understanding or a multiplicity of meanings?", in Clark, T. (Eds),European Human Resource Management: An Introduction to Comparative Theory and Practice, Blackwell, Oxford, pp.244-62. Clark, T., Mallory, G. (1996), "The cultural relativity of human resource management: is there a universal model?", in Clark, T. (Eds),European Human Resource Management: An Introduction to Comparative Theory and Practice, Blackwell, Oxford, pp.1-33.
Clark, T., Gospel, H., Montgomery, J. (1999), "Running on the spot? A review of twenty years of research on the management of human resources in comparative and international perspective", International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 10 No.3, pp.520-44.

Cullen, J. (1999), Multinational Management: A Strategic Perspective, Southwestern Publishing, Cincinnati, OH, . De Cieri, H., Dowling, P. (1997), "Strategic international human resource management: an Asia-Pacific perspective", Management International Review, Vol. 37 No.1, pp.21-42. De Cieri, H., Dowling, P. (1999), "Strategic human resource management in multinational enterprises: theoretical and empirical developments", in Wright, P., Dyer, L., Boudreau, J., Milkovich, G. (Eds),Strategic Human Resource Management: An Agenda for the 21st Century, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, . Devanna, M., Fombrun, C., Tichy, N. (1984), "A framework for strategic human resource management", in Devanna, M. (Eds),Strategic Human Resource Management, Wiley, New York, NY, pp.33-51. Dowling, P., Welch, D., Schuler, R. (1999), International Human Resource Management: Managing People in a Multinational Context, 3rd ed., Southwestern Publishing Co., Cincinnati, OH, .

Edwards, T. (1998), "Multinationals, labour management and the process of reverse diffusion: a case study", International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 9 No.4, pp.696-709.

Ferner, A. (1997), "Country of origin effects and HRM in multinational companies", Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 7 No.1, pp.19-37.
Ferner, A., Quintanilla, J. (1998), "Multinationals, national business systems and HRM: the enduring influence of national identity of a process of Anglo-Saxonization", International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 9 No.4, pp.710-31. Ferner, A., Quintanilla, J., Varul, M.Z. (2001), "Country-of-origin effects, host-country effects, and the management of HR in multinationals: German companies in Britain and Spain", Journal of World Business, Vol. 36 No.2, pp.107-27. Ferner, A., Almond, P., Clark, I., Colling, T., Edwards, T., Holden, L., Muller-Camen, M. (2004), "The dynamics of central control and subsidiary autonomy in the management of human resources: case study evidence from from US MNCs in the UK", Organization Studies, Vol. 25 No.3, pp.363-91.

Festing, M. (1997), "International human resource strategies in multinational corporations: theoretical assumptions and empirical evidence from German firms", Management International Review, Vol. Special Issue, No. 1 pp.43-63.
Geary, J.F., Roche, W.K. (2001), "Multinationals and human resource practices in Ireland: a rejection of the new conformance thesis", International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 12 No.1, pp.109-27.

(2002), in Geppert, M., Matten, D., Williams, K. (Eds),Challenges for European Management in a Global Context. Experiences from Britain and Germany, PalgraveMacMillan, Basingstoke, . Guest, D. (1990), "Human resource management and the American dream", Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 27 No.4, pp.377-97. Guest, D., Hoque, K. (1996), "The influence of national ownership and HR practices in UK greenfield sites", Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 6 No.4, pp.50-74. Harris, H., Brewster, C. (1999), "International human resource management: the European contribution", in Harris, H. (Eds),International HRM: Contemporary Issues in Europe, Routledge, London, pp.1-28. Harzing, A.-W. (1999), "MNE staffing policies for the managing director position in foreign subsidiaries: the results of an innovative research method", in Harris, H. (Eds),International HRM: Contemporary Issues in Europe, Routledge, London, pp.67-88. (2003), in Harzing, A.-W., Ruysseveldt, J. (Eds),International Human Resource Management, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, London, .

Hendry, C. (1994), Human Resource Strategies for International Growth, Routledge, London, .
Hickson, D., Hinings, C., McMillan, C., Schwitter, J. (1974), "The culture-free context of organization structure", Sociology, Vol. 8 pp.59-80.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, . House, R.J. (2004), Cultures, Leadership and Organizations: A 62-Nation GLOBE Study, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, . House, R.J., Hanges, P., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S., Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Dickson, M. (1999), "Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE", in Mobley, W., Gessner, M.J., Arnold, V. (Eds),Advances in Global Leadership, JAI Press, Stamford, CT, Vol. Vol. 1.
Jansenns, M. (2001), "Developing a culturally synergistic approach to international human resource management", Journal of World Business, Vol. 36 No.4, pp.429-50.

Keating, M.A. (2004), "International human resource management: some evidence from Ireland and Germany", in Keating, M.A., Martin, G.S. (Eds),Managing Cross-Cultural Business Relations: The Irish-German Experience, Blackhall Publishing, Dublin, pp.14475. (2004), in Keating, M.A., Martin, G.S. (Eds),Managing Cross-Cultural Business Relations: The Irish-German Experience, Blackhall Publishing, Dublin, . Kerr, C., Dunlop, J., Harbison, F., Myers, C. (1960), Industrialism and Industrial Man, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, . Kluckhohn, F., Strodtbeck, F. (1961), Variations in Value Orientations, Harper & Row, New York, NY, . Kochan, I.A., Dyer, L., Batt, R. (1992), "International human resource studies: a framework for future research", in Lewin, D., Mitchell, O.S., Sherer, P.D. (Eds),Research Frontiers in Industrial Relations and Human Resources, Industrial Relations Research Association, Madison, WI, pp.309-37. Laurent, A. (1986), "The cross-cultural puzzle of international human resource management", Human Resource Management, Vol. 25 No.1, pp.91-102.
McGaughney, S., De Cieri, H. (1999), "Reassessment of convergence and divergence dynamics: implications for international HRM", International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 10 No.2, pp.235-50. McSweeney, B. (2002), "Hofstede's model of national culture differences and their

consequences: a triumph of faith a failure of analysis", Human Relations, Vol. 55 No.1, pp.89-118.

Martin, G.S. (2004), "German-Irish business negotiation: the cultural dimension", in Keating, M.A., Martin, G.S. (Eds),Managing Cross Cultural Business Relations: The Irish German Experience, Blackhall Publishing, Dublin, pp.73-105.
Martin, G., Beaumont, P. (1998), "Diffusing best practice in multinational firms: prospects, practice and contestation", International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 9 No.4, pp.671-95.

Mayer, M., Whittington, R. (2002), "For boundedness in the study of comparative international business: the case of the diversified multinational firm", in Geppert, M., Matten, D., Williams, K. (Eds),Challenges for European Management in a Global Context. Experiences from Britain and Germany, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, .
Neghandi, A. (1983), "Cross-cultural management research", Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 14 No.2, pp.115-29.

Pieper, R. (1990), "Introduction: human resource management: an international comparison", in Pieper, R. (Eds),Human Resource Management: An International Comparison, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp.1-26. Poole, M. (1990), "Editorial: human resource management in an international perspective", International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 1 No.1, pp.115. Porter, M. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Macmillan, Basingstoke, . Prahalad, C., Doz, Y. (1987), The Multinational Mission: Balancing Local Demands and Global Vision, Free Press, New York, NY, . Pucik, V. (1992), "Globalization and human resource management", in Barnett, C.K. (Eds),Globalizing Management: Creating and Leading the Competitive Organization, Wiley, New York, NY, pp.61-81. Redding, G. (1994), "Comparative management theory: jungle, zoo or fossil bed?", Organization Studies, Vol. 15 No.3, pp.323-59. Rosenzweig, P., Nohria, N. (1994), "Influences on human resource management practices in multinational corporations", Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 25 No.2, pp.229-51. Schneider, S., Barsoux, J. (1997), Managing across Cultures, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead, . Schllhammer, H. (1975), "Current research on international and comparative management issues", Management International Review, Vol. 15 pp.29-45.

Schuler, R. (2000), "The internationalization of human resource management", Journal of International Management, Vol. 6 pp.239-60.

Schuler, R., Jackson, S. (1987), "Linking competitive strategy with human resource management practices", Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 1 No.3, pp.207-19. Schuler, R., Dowling, P., De Cieri, H. (1993), "An integrative framework of strategic international human resource management", International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 4 No.4, pp.717-64. Scullion, H. (1995), "International human resource management", in Storey, J. (Eds),Human Resource Management: A Critical Text, Routledge, London, pp.352-82. Scullion, H. (1999), "International HRM in medium-sized MNEs: evidence from Ireland", in Brewster, C., Harris, H. (Eds),International HRM: Contemporary Issues in Europe, Routledge, London, pp.48-63.
Scullion, H., Starkey, K. (2000), "In search of the changing role of the corporate human resource function in the international firm", International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 11 No.6, pp.1061-81.

Smith, P., Dugan, S., Trompenaars, F. (1996), "National culture and the values of organizational employees: a dimensional analysis across 43 nations", Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, Vol. 27 No.2, pp.231-64. Sndergaard, M. (1994), "Research note: Hofstede's consequences: a study of reviews, citations and replications", Organization Studies, Vol. 15 No.3, pp.447-56.
Sparrow, P., Hiltrop, J. (1997), "Redefining the field of European human resource management: a battle between national mindsets and forces of business transition", Human Resource Management, Vol. 36 No.2, pp.201-19.

Sparrow, P., Schuler, R., Jackson, S. (1994), "Convergence or divergence? Human resource practices and policies for competitive advantage world-wide", International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 5 No.2, pp.267-99.
Taylor, S., Beechler, S., Napier, N. (1996), "Toward an integrative model of strategic international human resource management", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No.4, pp.959-85.

Teagarden, M., Von Glinow, A. (1997), "Human resource management in cross-cultural contexts: emic practices versus etic philosophies", Management International Review, Vol. Special Issue, No. 1 pp.7-20.
Teagarden, M.B., Von Glinow, M.-A., Bowen, D.E., Frayne, C.A., Nason, S., Huo, Y.P., Milliman, J., Arias, M.E., Butler, M.C., Geringer, J.M., Kim, N.-H., Scullion, H., Lowe, K.B., Drost, E.A. (1995), "Toward a theory of comparative management research: an idiographic case study of the best international human resources management project", Academy of

Management Journal, Vol. 38 No.5, pp.1261-87.

Torrington, D. (1994), International Human Resource Management: Think Globally, Act Locally, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead, . Towers Perrin (1992), Priorities for Gaining Competitive Advantage: A Worldwide Human Resource Study, Towers Perrin, London, .
Tregaskis, O., Heraty, N., Morley, M. (2001), "HRD in multinationals: the global/local mix", Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 11 No.2, pp.34-56.

Tung, R., Punnett, B. (1993), "Research in international human resource management", in Rieger, F. (Eds),International Management Research, Walter de Gruyer, New York, NY, pp.35-53.
Turner, T., D'Art, D., Gunnigle, P. (2001), "Multinationals and human resource practices in Ireland: a rejection of the new conformance thesis: a reply", International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 12 No.1, pp.128-33.

Weber, W., Kabst, R., Gramley, C. (2000), "Human resource policies in European organisations: an analysis of country- and company-specific antecedents", in Morley, M. (Eds),New Challenges for European Human Resource Management, Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp.247-66.