Sharing and developing knowledge of organization culture during international assignments

Abstract

This article investigates the sharing and development of knowledge of organization culture during international assignments in multinational enterprises (MNE). Organization culture is presented as a category of knowledge, and the value of this knowledge is discussed in the strategic context of MNE integration and the development of global management competencies. In-depth interview data from 21 cases of international assignments across 13 MNEs are analysed, revealing that assignees play a role in sharing knowledge of organization culture through the process of articulating tacit perspectives held across global units. The data also reveal a role for assignments in the development of comprehension of substantive heterogeneity. This article contributes to our understanding of the developmental aspects of assignments, the utility of assignments as a method for knowledge sharing and the role of international assignments in the integration of MNEs.

Keywords

Cross-cultural management international assignments knowledge multinational enterprises organization culture

Introduction

This article presents organization culture in the multinational enterprise (MNE) as a category of intra-organizational knowledge (Nordhaug, 1998). Following a review of extant paradigmatic approaches to the study of organization culture, a knowledge-based approach is outlined, which locates the study of assignments with core internal strategic issues for the multinational enterprise (MNE), such as MNE integration and the mobilization of knowledge (Kogut and Zander, 1993; Tallman and Fladmoe-Lindquist, 2002). Within this conceptual framework, 21 cases of international assignments are analysed to explore how assignments facilitate the sharing and development of knowledge of organization culture. Novel findings are presented illustrating how knowledge of organization culture is shared during assignments (perspective taking), and the function of assignments in the development of this category of knowledge (comprehension of substantive heterogeneity). By demonstrating how knowledge of organization culture features in the assignment context, this article contributes to a number of contemporary research tracks in international and cross-cultural management: first, the developmental aspects of assignments (Antal, 2000; Caligiuri and DiSanto, 2001; Shim and Paprock, 2002), second, the utility of assignments for knowledge sharing (Riusala and Suutari, 2004) and, third, the function of assignments as an informal approach to MNE integration (Kostova and Roth, 2003).

Multinational enterprises (MNEs) and cross-cultural management research

Traditional ways of conceiving cross-cultural management research have come under increased criticism as being out of step with the realities of a globalized world and the multiplicity of cultural identities and patterns of behaviours coexisting within MNEs. For example, Sackmann and Philips (2004) argue that the ‘work realities’, and hence the research context, in contemporary multinational organizations make applications of the dominant cross-national comparative approaches obsolete. Søderberg and Holden (2002) also call for new analytical approaches to respond to the needs of globalized business and with a growing appreciation that organizations are ‘cultural multiplicities comprising various components . . . organisation culture cannot be treated as an enclosed sphere’ (Styhre et al., 2006: 1296), by researchers or practitioners, and as a consequence organizational culture in a MNE should not be perceived or studied solely as a corporate culture of a controlling unit. Leung et al.’s (2005) review of advances in culture in international management research stressed the dynamic nature of culture in MNEs in the context of its multiple layers and levels and suggested that, while MNEs use corporate culture to develop common perspectives across global units, these units can also cause changes in the organization culture, so that it no longer solely represents the culture of a headquarter unit.

In their analysis of the scientific domain of international cross-cultural management research Søderberg and Holden (2002) contrast a variety of paradigmatic approaches to the study of organization cultures, for example, between functionalists who see cultural systems as ‘essential’ with the existence of common basic set of assumptions (Schein, 1985, 2004), ‘interpretivists’ understanding organization culture as an ever evolving social construction (Smircich, 1983) and even ‘radical humanists’ who take into account the wider organizational and institutional power dynamics in creating organizational identities (Parker, 2000). For scholars within the international human resource management (IHRM) field, any approach to the study of organizational culture must pay particular attention to the complex theoretical nature of MNEs and heed warnings that ‘international management scholars [need] to more carefully consider the special case of the MNE’ (Kostova et al., 2008: 1004).

When studying the special case of the MNE, IHRM scholars have long identified a role for international expatriate assignments in the transfer of organization culture (Baliga and Jaeger, 1984; Ferner et al., 1995; Jaeger, 1983; Martinez and Jarillo, 1989) and have presented the strategically significant argument that the transfer of organization culture during assignments acts as an effective integration mechanism (Harzing, 2001; Martinez and Jarillo, 1989, 1991). More recently, the use of inpatriates to corporate headquarters (HQ) have been prescribed as a means by which an understanding of organization culture can be developed in employees across distant global units (Harvey et al., 2001), thus improving integration. The IHRM approach to the study of organization culture during assignments is paralleled by functionalists who see cultural systems as ‘essential’, with the existence of common basic set of assumptions to transfer. However, warnings that, while MNEs use organization culture to develop common perspectives across their geographically distant units, these units can also cause changes in the global company culture (Leung et al., 2005), reflect a more ‘interpretivist’ understanding of organization culture as an evolving construction (Smircich, 1983). Moreover, parent organization culture evolution is welcomed on the grounds that ‘cultural differences’ need not be seen as problematic, but rather as source of reflective learning in internationally diverse organizations where new insights can challenge existing organizational norms for the better (Gertsen and Søderberg, 2000). Critiquing the view that ‘cultural difference’ must be identified and managed to avoid potential inter-organizational conflict (Sackmann et al., 1997), Søderberg and Holden (2002) reject the sentiment in the literature which exclusively stresses the measurement of obstacles to intra-organizational processes, such as interpersonal communication and interaction. In contrast, understanding cultural differences and their impact on integration might be a source of learning and advantage (Dupriez and Simons, 2000).

When cultural difference as a source of learning and competitive advantage is combined with the established role for assignments in the integration of MNEs a dual purpose of assignments emerges – not only to transfer, but also to develop organization culture. However, despite the literature’s identified role for assignments in the transfer of organization culture, it is not clear that the ‘core organizational or management orientations’ that might constitute an organization culture (Hofstede, 1997) are what expatriate assignees share or what inpatriate assignees might be expected to develop, nor is it clear how such knowledge is shared or developed as a result of an international assignment. As ‘there is a lack of studies of perceptions of culture, especially as related to specific organisational settings’ (Holmquist and Boter, 2004: 356), and a recognized paucity of studies into the actual process of knowledge transfers and development during assignments, there is considerable scope for research into the functions of assignments in this regard (Riusala and Suutari, 2004). A focus on how the assignment context facilitates the sharing and development of knowledge of organization culture is further justified in the context that the tacit dimension of such knowledge is ‘manifested in what we do’ (Tsoukas, 2003: 426). Scholarly definitions of organization culture acknowledge the tacit assumptions underlying its manifestation in specific organizational settings (e.g. Schein, 2004). In light of this, the importance of context cannot be overemphasized, as the codification of such knowledge may be linked to context-dependent social processes (Ancori et al., 2000; Roberts, 2000).

Our study utilizes a hybrid paradigmatic approach consistent with aspects of both functionalists and interpretivist perspectives defining and exploring organization culture as a category of intra-organizational knowledge (Nordhaug, 1998). The objective is to utilize ‘alternative approaches’ for the study of organization culture in MNEs, which explicitly acknowledge the growing ‘complexity of intra-organizational connections and identities’ in the multinational firm (Søderberg and Holden, 2002)

Knowledge of organization culture and its value to the MNE

In contrast to authors who have provided frameworks for depicting and measuring organization culture (Cameron and Quinn, 1999; Denison and Mishra, 1995; Hofstede, 1994, 1997; Hofstede et al., 1990), this article considers organization culture through a knowledge lens, investigating it as a category of intra-organizational knowledge. Intra-organizational knowledge comprises a variety of firm-specific knowledge types that are broadly applicable across a number of different tasks, such as knowledge of political process, organization culture and interpersonal networks (Nordhaug, 1998). Although such knowledge has not previously been explicitly considered in the context of managers in MNEs, it is particularly applicable to the study of organization culture in MNEs due to the cultural distances that may exist between the global units and/or the size and geographic scope of MNEs, all of which have implications for the integration of, and relationships between, global units (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 2002).

If organization culture is defined in line with seminal academic thinking, at its most basic level it represents a set of tacit assumptions about how the world is and ought to be, that is shared and determines perceptions and, to a degree, the overt behaviour of people in the firm (Schein, 2004). As a consequence, knowledge of organization culture amongst employees often represents, at least in part, a tacit form of intra-organizational knowledge, which is impossible to fully codify (Ambrosini and Bowman, 2001), and acquired by the experience of working in the firm and learning through social interaction (Doving and Nordhaug, 2002). As some portion of this knowledge is tacit it is necessary to consider this tacit dimension. Such thinking is evident at the broader organizational level of analysis where international management scholars have considered the role of tacit knowledge in the integrative capabilities of the MNE (Tallman and Fladmoe-Lindquist, 2002), noting that the integration requires mechanisms other than formal systems (Kostova and Roth, 2003). A ‘new management mentality’ and understanding is required if MNEs are to effectively integrate and learn across global units (Ghoshal and Bartlett, 1998: 20) and formal structures must be complemented with softer coordinating methods such as the development of a common organization culture (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1987, 2002).

As noted previously, the IHRM literature has long identified a role for assignments as an integration mechanism and has indirectly considered culture ‘transfer’ through a knowledge lens, noting that one soft aspect of MNE integration is the use of ‘assignments as a mechanism for transferring knowledge. . . a component of which is organisational culture’ (Welch et al., 1994: 478).

Exploring knowledge of organization culture during international assignments

The transfer of organization culture is well established as a motivation for the use of international assignments (Edstrom and Galbraith, 1977; Harzing, 2001; Sparrow et al., 2004). Other insights in the extant literature which are pertinent include the use of assignments as a form of management development (Harzing, 2001), one outcome of which is the development of globally competent managers who are believed to have a better understanding and appreciation of how decisions taken in one unit of the MNE are likely to affect another (Edstrom and Galbraith, 1977). These employees, which Welch et al. (2002) label ‘corporate elites’, are also capable of viewing issues from a multi-unit perspective, a competence that has obvious implications for the management of inter-unit relations.

At the individual level of employees sent on assignments, the knowledge of organization culture that they share or develop can also be expected to be dynamic in that the experience of being sent on assignment can afford the opportunity to share knowledge of organization culture and revaluate it through the assignment experience. This contention is supported by research addressing individual learning, where studies have indicated that knowledge-sharing increases individual learning (Clark et al., 2002) and enhances the cycle of conversion from tacit to more explicit knowledge (Jarvinen and Poikela, 2001; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995, 1996). Indeed many ‘organisational analysts now regard culture as based on shared or partly shared patterns of meaning and interpretation’ (Søderberg and Holden, 2002: 112). Therefore, a broad conceptualization of knowledge sharing is required to study the phenomenon.

Knowledge sharing is defined as formal and informal exchanges through social interaction, through which knowledge is dispersed throughout the MNE (Makela et al., 2004). Knowledge sharing encompasses the concepts of knowledge utilization and transfer, as the act of sharing knowledge requires that knowledge is utilized to some degree. Understanding how an assignment facilitates the sharing and development of knowledge of organization culture requires some understanding of how it is used during the assignment or experienced and understood as a part of the assignment experience. As a category of knowledge, the focus must be on assignees’ perception of what the knowledge of organization culture construct is, and how it is used, shared or developed as a result of an international assignment. In summary we ask, how do international assignments facilitate the sharing and development of knowledge of organization culture in multinational enterprises?

Methodology

To study the processes of assignee knowledge sharing and development the collection of rich empirical material required a non-probability sample containing individual units of analysis deliberately selected by the researchers to reflect certain features of the population (Bryman, 2001; Ritchie et al., 2003). The unit of analysis in this study is conceptualized as a case of an employee on an assignment within an MNE who satisfies two predetermined purposive sampling criteria, relating to firm size and length of service. The nature of the knowledge under investigation is such that firm size will increase its relative intensity and difficulty of acquisition. Therefore, SMEs or firms of less than 1000 employees were excluded from the sample on the grounds that they would fail to symbolize key features relevant to the study. The second criterion inherent in this study is that the assignee has worked in another unit for a period of time prior to the posting and that he/she had at least a corresponding six months on assignment to allow for adequate time for such knowledge to be shared and/or developed during their assignment.

To create this sample, research proposals were sent to the human resources department in the subsidiaries of MNEs operating in both Australia and Ireland. Sampling in Ireland and Australia was considered particularly conducive to the development of a purposive sample of employees on international assignments from foreign-owned firms. Barry and O’Mahony (2004) noted that Ireland, in employment terms, is the most FDI-intensive economy in the EU, with foreign-owned firms accounting for almost 50 percent of Irish manufacturing employment compared to an average of 19 percent for the other EU member states. Similarly, Australia has an FDI to GDP ratio of almost 35 per cent, considerably higher than the 27 per cent average for comparable developed countries (UNCTAD, 2008), thus ensuring we could develop a robust enough sample for analytical generalizations to be valid. A total of 21 in-depth interviews were conducted. A semi-structured interview was chosen as an appropriate strategy for data collection, as it offered the opportunity of assessing views of the actors, and detailed accounts of events enabling insights into the experiences of the assignee during the international posting (Whipp, 1998).

The emergence of a portfolio of assignments types within MNEs (Roberts et al., 1998) suggests that international movements, other than those by expatriates from head office, should be considered as means by which such knowledge can be shared and developed. Assignments between subsidiary units of the MNE (third-country assignees) or assignments from subsidiary units to HQ (inpatriates) may also facilitate the sharing and development of knowledge. In cognizance of this, the sample of assignments included 13 expatriates sent from HO to subsidiaries, four inpatriates sent from subsidiaries to HO and four third-country assignees sent on assignments between two subsidiary units. This heterogeneous purposive sample included assignments between the global units of American, Norwegian, Irish, Indian, and French MNEs.

The term ‘assignees’ is used to reflect the fact that the assignments do not necessarily involve the movement of an expatriate, although it is acknowledged that expatriates are still the most prevalent category of assignees in MNEs (Scullion and Collings, 2006) and are appropriately represented as such in our purposive sample. When the majority of MNEs retain their core personnel and capabilities in their home country (Rugman, 2006), a majority of valuable knowledge both technical and intra-organizational is likely to stem from headquarter locations or, more specifically, locations where key decision-making personnel are headquartered (if not corporate HQ). The sharing and development of knowledge of organizational culture in MNEs during inpatriate and third-country assignments may take different patterns to those for expatriate assignment, but for expected reasons. For example, in the case of third-country assignees the strategic role of the assignees’ home versus host unit in the broader MNE may affect the pattern of knowledge sharing and development (e.g. assignees moving from regional HQs to secondary subsidiaries within that region).

As with assignment type, with other forms of diversity, such as in role variety and nationality, no sample control was assigned, although diversity was monitored and achieved. Thus the utility of heterogeneity in this sample was to maximize analytical generalizations that could be made relating to the unit of analysis, within the bounds of a small qualitative sample. As the primary interest of this study was the process of knowledge sharing and development in the ‘international assignment context’, assignees of various nationalities on assignment in a variety of firms and work roles are comparable and representative of key demographic characteristics of international assignments in MNEs.

In order to generate information regarding knowledge of organization culture, assignees were asked to consider the sharing of such during the assignment, to consider any differences in the values, norms or patterns of behaviour in the host unit and to reflect on what they learned about organization culture in the MNE as a result of the assignment. Focusing interviewees’ attention on their organization and assignment experience from a work-only perspective ensured that organization culture rather than national culture remained the focus of the discussion, an important consideration in international cross-cultural management research (Taylor et al., 2008). Analysis of the interview data followed a cumulative process from basic pattern analysis of the interview data to descriptive coding of assignees’ responses relating to the sharing and development of knowledge of organization culture. The final part of this process involved interpretive coding, which focused on abstract concerns like the conditions under which this knowledge featured during the assignments and assignees perceptions’ of it. For confidentiality reasons, interviewees and participating firms are presented under pseudonyms.

Table 1.

Purposive Sample of International Assignments

Pseudonym – HQ Location	Industry Type	Subsidiary Location/Assignment Context	Interviewee Job Title/Role during Assignment	Firm Size (Total No. Employees Worldwide)	Interview Location¹	Time on Foreign Posting
Expatriate	Assignments from HO
USA1	Medical devices	Manufacturing facility Ireland	USA1Expat1 Business Development Manager	>12,000	Host Unit	> 3 yrs
USA1	Medical devices	Manufacturing facility Ireland	USA1Expat2 Quality/Manufacturing Engineering manager	>12,000	Host Unit	> 3 yrs
USA2	Bio-technology	Manufacturing facility Ireland	USA2Expat1 Supply Chain Manager	>7, 000	Home Unit	> 1.5 yrs
USA3	Information technology	Sales/services manufacturing facility Ireland	USA3Expat1 Technology Development Manager	<142,000	Host Unit	> 2.5 yrs
USA4	Pharmaceuticals	manufacturing facility Ireland	USA4Expat1 Senior Director of Operations	<70,000	Host Unit	> 1 yrs
USA5	Business services, consumer packaged goods	Australasian HQ Sydney Australia	USA5Expat1 Head, Operations Management	<17,000	Host Unit	> 1.5 yrs
IRL/USA	Bio-technology	Sales/services manufacturing R&D facility USA	IRL/USAExpat1 Director of Worldwide Marketing	<2,000	Home Unit	> 1 yr
IRL/USA	Bio-technology	Sales/services Brazil	IRL/USAExpat2 Director of Marketing, Latin America	<2,000	Home Unit	> 3 yrs
INDIA1	Software, banking and financial services	Sales/services and business development Australia	India1Expat1 MD/Country Manager Australia	>1,000	Host Unit	> 1.5 yrs
INDIA2	Software, manufacturing and logistics	Business development Australia	India2Expat1 MD/Country Manager Australia	>4,000	Host Unit	> 1 yr
FRANCE1	Telecommunications	Sales/services/business development Australia	France1Expat1 Business/Technology Development Manager	<58,000	Host Unit	> 1.5 yrs
FRANCE 2	Software and simulation, civil aviation	Sales/services and technology development Australia	France2Expat1 Technological Engineering Manager	> 5,000	Host Unit	> 1.5 yrs
IRELAND1	Engineering/construction	Project management Saudi Arabia	Ireland1Expat1 Project Manager	>5,000	Home Unit	> 2.5 yrs
Inpatriate	Assignments to HO
NORWAY1	Commercial explosives	From Australia to corporate HQ Norway	Norway1Inpat1 Financial Controller/Change Management Role	<3,500	Home Unit	> 2 yrs
USA4	Pharmaceuticals	From manufacturing facility Ireland to corporate HQ USA	USA4Inpat1 Senior Director of Automation and IT	<70,000	Host Unit	> 1.5 yrs
FRANCE1	Telecommunications	From Australia to corporate HQ France	France1Inpat1 Sales and Services Manager	<58,000	Home Unit	> 3 yrs
IRL/USA	Bio-technology	From USA to HQ marketing Ireland	IRL/USA Inpat1 Marketing Manager	<2,000	Host Unit	> 2 yr
ThirdCountry	Assignments
USA4	Pharmaceuticals	Principal European manufacturing facility Ireland to manufacturing France	USA4Third-Country Assignee1Operations Manager	<70,000	Home Unit	> 1.5 yrs
USA4	Pharmaceuticals	Principal European manufacturing facility Ireland to manufacturing France	USA4 Third-Country Assignee2 Shift Manager Chemical Engineering	<70,000	Home Unit	> 2 yrs
USA1	Medical devices	Manufacturing Ireland to manufacturing Puerto Rico	USA1Third-Country Assignee1 Information Technology Manager	>12,000	Home Unit	> 1 yrs
USA6	Financial services	Asia-Pacific regional HQ Singapore to Australia	USA6Third-Country Assignee1 Financial Controller	<275,000	Host Unit	> 1 yr

¹For phone interviews (ExpatUSA2 and InpatUSA4) ‘location’ refers to the location of the interviewee only.

Sharing knowledge of organization culture: perspective taking

In line with contentions in the literature, expatriates believed that an implicit function of their assignment was to embody and share organization cultural values. This function of the assignment was explained by these expatriates in the context of their role as corporate representatives in the subsidiary with comments such as ‘all the expats think that this is a part of their mission’ (USA4Expat1). Some assignees emphasized that the more senior the position held by an assignee, the more intense these expectations. However, a recurring theme in responses from expatriate assignees, irrespective of seniority, was that the manner in which knowledge of organization culture was utilized and shared during assignments was driven by the host unit. That is, when questioning sought working examples of when or how assignees had, or could, fulfil these expectations, interviewees reported that they were called upon to fulfil this role by their host unit peers. In the context of perceptions of HQ attitudes to risk and cost effectiveness (USA2Expat1) explained:

I was asked in meetings ‘what would they think of this’. This makes you a bit like an overseer but it is what you are asked to do by your colleagues . . . to judge it from an American perspective and they will build that into their assessment of where it fits or how it would sit . . . (USA2Expat1)

Assignees recollected that they shared values and perspectives representative of organization culture at the behest of their host unit peers. This finding suggests that assignees’ role in sharing knowledge of organization culture may be, to an extent, a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is what is expected of them in the host unit, irrespective of any explicit expectations that their assignment tasks should include the sharing of corporate perspectives in subsidiaries. This finding also suggests that attempts to codify the tacit dimensions of knowledge of organization culture (such as the perception or assumptions another unit may have about a topic) occurs, in part, as a result of the assignee interpreting the reactions of others rather than them epitomizing such perspectives themselves. The finding that knowledge sharing occurs through perspective taking is significant, not least because it provides validity to the ‘knowledge of organization culture construct’ in that it distinguishes assignee perception of their previous unit’s organization culture from that which is attributable to the assignee as an individual. For example, an American expatriate in Ireland commented that ‘people here would expect me to offer a different opinion some times . . . to sort of brainstorm with my American hat on. You can be asked to wear that hat. It makes sense’ (USA1Expat2).

This finding demonstrates that the process of sharing and mobilizing knowledge of organization culture, in part, occurred on a pull (from host unit) rather than push (from assignee) basis. The assignment provided the host with an opportunity for perspective taking of HQ attitudes in an informal and ongoing basis, and assignees had an opportunity to articulate this knowledge in response to host questioning. One assignee commented that he was expected to take on this role ‘too much’ and suggested that he was explicitly being used in this way by his peers in the host unit, to ascertain the HQ perspective on a variety of issues (examples included perceived openness to ideas and perceptions of organizational political barriers to ideas).

I am asked to be an outsider sometimes. Not to say what I think, but to say what [HQ] might think. In fact, I am asked to do this too much . . . I can tell how they [HQ] might view certain proposals. (USA3Expat1)

Significantly, this assignee had also said that he believed transferring organization culture was part of ‘every trip’ and there that is ‘always a requirement’ to spread organization culture in subsidiaries. The assertion that his peers ask him to take on this role ‘too much’ suggests that, in this case, the process of sharing assumptions and perspectives occurs as much a consequence of the host unit’s expectations as those of the expatriate assignee.

As would be predicted from our extant understanding of the functions of expatriate assignments (i.e. coordination from a HQ perspective (Harzing, 2001)), the data from expatriates were most rich as they articulated perspectives from resource-controlling and politically powerful headquarter units. For the same reasons, third-country assignees provided no insights into the perspective-taking theme, while inpatriates assignees raised the process of articulating perspectives when sharing knowledge of organization culture during their assignment in the opposite direction to expatriates. For example, when describing a change management role he was undertaking during his posting to HQ, (USA4Inpat) utilized his knowledge of subsidiary unit perspectives on ‘the centre’ to anticipate resistance to changes and to articulate ‘how it would go down, from a [name of location of Irish subsidiary] point of view’.

Despite assignees’ role in the sharing of knowledge of organization culture through perspective taking, responses were conditioned by considering the role of formal policy. As would be expected, inpatriate assignees commented on the role of procedural frameworks in promoting a core element of their MNE’s common ‘global culture’ (USA4Inpat1), and ensuring that these elements influence the culture in every unit of the MNE.

When you come here [USA] you see that commonality more . . . But that’s not to say that culture is the same in each of the plants that are being aligned. Corporate will still have a unique view on how this will work. (USA4Inpat1)

However, as all assignees reported diversity in what they saw as the organization cultural paradigm across their host units, the relative prominence of procedural similarities faded significantly relative to the emerging theme based on heterogeneity. Heterogeneity in organization culture across the MNE was discussed in a variety of forms and emerged not only as the dominant theme in the discussion of how knowledge of organization culture featured during the assignment, but actually how assignees were defining this category of knowledge. As a category of knowledge it emerged that knowledge of organization culture requires a comprehension of the substantive heterogeneity that shapes the ‘real’ (IRL/USAExpat1) culture of the MNE, in addition to the corporate paradigm underpinning formal commonalities. Assignees suggested that this is what they and their colleagues in the broader MNE needed to learn, commenting ‘that is something that we [managers from HQ] need to understand’ (France1Expat1).

Developing knowledge of organization culture: comprehension of substantive heterogeneity

A major theme was reflected in responses stressing that knowledge of organization culture should include an understanding of the ‘huge differences’ in culture across subsidiaries. This sentiment is illustrated by Norway1Inpat1 who in theory should have been socialized into a corporate understanding of culture through his inpatriate posting.

There were huge differences really, I mean we were working across 36 different countries and, you know five different businesses . . . within the company there are differences. (Norway1Inpat1)

In other interviews, heterogeneity was discussed first, followed by an explanation of procedural similarities despite substantive differences in the organization culture experienced during the assignments. This interview pattern made it easier to explain why the replication of key procedures does not counterbalance substantive heterogeneity in organization culture across units that ‘should be understood’ (India1Expat1). The suggestion that organization culture should be understood as a heterogeneous phenomenon, with corporate HQ culture as one of its many components, was furthered on a number of grounds. In certain cases (e.g. IRL/USA1 and Norway1) the corporate component in the MNE’s ‘real’ (IRL/USA1) organization culture needed to be understood as a minor organizational cultural influence because of where the MNEs primary markets and operations were located. For example, a senior expatriate assignee who had completed international assignments to several subsidiaries commented:

I think the reality is that if you ask when you see the real culture of this organization, its subsidiaries . . . and there is a more common culture across subsidiaries . . . And I’m very much part of headquarters [in her role a Director of Marketing Worldwide] that’s way I can say it, but there is definitely an arrogance [in HQ] while they’re issuing the directives . . . There are new directors there who do not consider the nature of the organization and the fact that they only represent a quarter of our business . . . You have to go to see what the real needs are. (IRL/USA1Expat1)

The perception that there is a ‘real’ organization culture is significant in itself, not least because it highlights what Parhalad and Doz (1987: 218) call ‘a perception lag’: the problem of HQ being out of touch with perceptions in subsidiaries and being unable to make necessary cognitive shifts.

A variety of contextual differences that assignees believed held practical importance and effect relative to the development of knowledge of organization culture in the MNE were discussed. Interrelated explanations such as the size of host units, the level of hierarchy experienced, the number of support functions, the singularity of role, historical development of the host unit, national cultural context and perceived risk of divestment, were all examples of the data coded under comprehension of substantive heterogeneity. These examples reflected both the sources of substantive heterogeneity and the consequence, explaining how the host unit context necessarily altered the organization culture in that unit and which in turn affected the relationship between global units.

Working with them I get that they’re smaller and approach things differently. More motivated to impress, to show America [corporate HQ], what they’re worth. They have a different relationship with America and a different way of functioning I think because of it. That’s not a bad thing, but I’m aware of it. (USA4Third-County Assignee1)

Differences that could be categorized as measurable ‘dimensions of organisation culture’ (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005), such as the degree to which the subsidiary was process- versus results-orientated or employee- versus job-orientated, arose during discussion of this substantive heterogeneity and were identified as conditions that ‘should be understood’ (India1Expat1).

National cultural differences also arose within explanations of substantive heterogeneity. However, while acknowledging that contextual differences were compounded by national cultural differences, the inclusion of many assignments to culturally close locations (e.g. US-Ireland and US-Australia) provided for a valid analysis of the data within the frame of organization, rather than national, culture. Moreover, as there was no assignment where national differences were used to explain heterogeneity that did not also include at least one of the other factors leading to heterogeneity, it was concluded that national cultural differences were just one of a collection of factors in assignees’ comprehension of substantive heterogeneity. For example, the following explanation of heterogeneity includes a combination of history and size of two subsidiaries in addition to the assignees’ reflections of their culturally distant locations relative to the French HQ.

[Differences] are apparent to me because I worked in Australia and in New Zealand. This is due to the history of the New Zealand subsidiary. Because of an outsourcing agreement with [Public Sector Company] the staff became [France1] employees. But because they were ex-government employees they brought that culture, the public sector . . . I did not have the same type of cultural problems in the Australian subsidiary that I experienced in New Zealand . . . Along with country differences . . . it’s difficult to pin down . . . this relates to the size of the subsidiary here [in Australia] and maybe the public sector background of New Zealand . . . and the nature of Australian managers. Hierarchy is much more important in headquarters in France. But France is very different to both. (France1Expat1)

While it could be expected that differences in cultural norms around hierarchy between countries such as France and Australia would exist, the data suggested that national cultural differences were only partly the source of such heterogeneity. Many other consequences of heterogeneity such as ‘innovativeness’ (IRL/USA1), ‘creativity and accountability’ (USA1Expat1) and ‘inclusiveness’ (France2Expat1) were also explained as a consequence of organizational contextual difference, rather than national cultural difference.

A final component of the data coded under comprehension of substantive heterogeneity that provided an unexpected source of validation for this analysis was the views of inpatriates. Although inpatriate assignments are expected to facilitate the learning of corporate culture (Harvey et al., 2001), the inpatriate assignees interviewed, who acknowledged the distinctive organization culture they experienced during their assignments, in turn reflected on their development of a new appreciation of and the necessary dissimilarity of organization culture across their MNEs. This finding is not at odds with the contention that inpatriates learn corporate culture during their assignments. However, it does suggest that inpatriates’ development of knowledge of organization culture should not be exclusively defined by what they learn to be the corporate component of the MNE’s organization culture.

A lot of cultural differences are necessary between plants . . . reflects what they do. You can send a team of expats to do a culture transfer at the start but when you compare here [HQ] and [the Irish subsidiary] the role of the two; you need to have a very fluid idea about what organization culture should look like. The fact that this place represents the centre, it has a different role and a different culture. It doesn’t matter what nationality you are or what plant you have come here from, your approach has to be different because you are now in the centre. (USA4Inpat1)

These comments indicate that perceptions do and should change depending on the unit’s role in the broader MNE, which in turn instructs that our understanding of the sharing and development of knowledge of organization culture should take this into account.

Finally, as extant international business literature predicts for knowledge sharing in MNEs, the findings presented indicate that assignment context will impact on the sharing and development knowledge of organizational culture. Studies examining contrasting subsidiary roles within MNEs’ global networks (Jarillo and Martinez, 1990; Taggart, 1997), diversity in administrative heritages of global units (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1986, 2002) and contrasting operational challenges across global units (White and Poynter, 1984) are all illustrative of the unique organizational context of the multinational form of organization and of contextual factors that impact on knowledge sharing and development processes in MNEs.

Discussion and implications

This article builds on the notion that assignments act as an integration mechanism by assignees’ role in sharing values and perspectives across units of the MNE. However, at variance with extant literature, the data also reveal a conspicuous role for assignments in the development of an expanded concept of organization culture. There is a palpable fluidity in how assignees define the concept of organization culture and as knowledge which can be shared and developed; the assignment evidently reveals a variety of less visible aspects of culture, including ‘tacit perceptions’, which are worthy of transfer (Schein, 1992).

Our understanding of organization culture in the integration of MNEs can also evolve from this study. Researchers cannot afford to view this informal approach to integration exclusively in its ethnocentric manifestation of transferring or creating a homogeneous organizational identity (Schein, 1985). Although the ‘corporate’ manifestation is important through its presence in, and shaping of, formal practices, this article challenges this potentially limiting understanding of how knowledge of organization culture impacts integration. For example, in the case of expatriates, rather than writing off the assignee’s role in integration as a result of them going-native, or understanding their role as reinforcing a corporate perspective, the assignees’ ability to use their insights from both perspectives and their understanding of substantive contextual differences may provide a better framework to understand assignees’ role in MNE integration. When considering the impact of organization culture on post-merger integration, Styhre et al. (2006) note the importance of individuals’ abilities to take on the role of others in enabling a better understanding of alternative perspectives. The combination of perspective taking and the development of a comprehension of substantive heterogeneity during assignments can play a similar role in improving integration across global units. This study demonstrates how perspective taking during assignments can help to integrate the ‘fragmented unities’ (Parker, 2000) of organization culture through the articulation of tacit perspectives held across the MNE, and in doing so, it provides valuable insights into the process through which internationally mobile human resources act as ‘corporate elites’ in viewing issues from a multi-unit perspective (Welch et al., 2002). From a global talent perspective, the value of developing an ‘interchangeable set of lenses’ (Hamel and Prahalad, 1996) amongst employees cannot be overstated because without these there are considerable constraints on knowledge sharing and therefore, integration (Søderberg and Holden, 2002).

The deliberate focus on organization culture (rather than national culture) in this study is also of value, as Leung et al. (2005: 368) state that ‘recently, scholars have argued that, instead of addressing whether or not national culture makes a differences, it is more useful to address the issue of how and when it makes a difference’ (Earley and Gibson, 2002; Leung et al., 2001; Oyserman et al., 2002). This article indicates that national culture makes a difference inside the firm by its part in creating the substantive heterogeneity that assignees believe to be so important to their knowledge of the organization culture in the MNE. While the need for cultural intelligence and knowledge amongst international managers is well understood in international management research (Earley and Ang, 2003), it has not previously been focused at this intra-organizational level. Recent studies, which indicate that organizational context may increase or decrease the degree to which national culture will impact agreement within groups (Garibaldi de Hilal, 2006), illustrate that that relationship between culturally distant units of MNEs might be better managed with an understanding of organizational as well as national cultural difference, a contention that parallels the views expressed by assignees in their discussion of substantive heterogeneity.

To date, the importance of ‘cross-cultural literacy’ (Hill, 2007) in selling across international markets has led to a prescription of cultural competence that is overtly externally focused, with globally competent managers defined solely by their understanding of the diversity of the global business environment (Matveev and Nelson, 2004). This article indicates that more attention needs to be given to the internal challenges of MNE management and the knowledge and competencies managers might use to address them. Studies such as Pothukuchi et al. (2002), which demonstrated that the negative effect of cultural distance on the performance of international joint-ventures stemmed from differences in organizational rather than national culture, lend support to the proposition that a greater consideration of organizational cultural heterogeneity in international management research is justified.

Cross-cultural competence based on a comprehension of substantive heterogeneity and an enhanced ability to apply multi-unit perspectives promotes an inter-contextual and dynamic notion of organization culture across an MNE, a notion that has broader implications for scholarship. For example, when critiquing basic models of intercultural communication, Brannen (2004) explains that comprehension entails much more than the decoding of linguistic signals (including behaviours or organizational philosophies), because the knowledge base associated with such organizational assets are tacit. In light of this, ‘sense making occurs in context, and when context is not shared, meanings often shift in transfer’ (Brannen, 2004: 603). In an MNE contrasting subsidiary roles and operating contexts may all lead to some idiosyncratic ‘recontextualisation’ (Brannen, 2004) of organizational systems across units. At this organizational level of analysis, knowledge of organization culture is susceptible to some form of recontextualization, however, the development of comprehension of substantive heterogeneity in the MNE enhances comprehension of unshared context across units, thereby increasing awareness of when meanings might shift in transfer.

At a broader societal level of analysis Brannen (2004) defines recontexualization by the role of the historical, political and cultural context in attributing meaning to signs, ultimately explaining the processes by which firms’ assets take on distinct meanings to consumers in new cultural contexts. She suggests that, at the societal level, context-dependent power dynamics and the politics of perception can have an effect on how messages and assets are recontextualized, particularly with the transfer of ‘soft, people-dependent assets’ (Hall, 1993). This scenario is mirrored at the organizational level by scholars who discuss, for example, ‘pathologies to knowledge management’ within MNEs (Peng, 2006). A recontextualization of messages, concepts, or knowledge assets across an MNE may occur in part as a consequence of the contextual variables discussed in this article (i.e. subsidiary operating context or power dynamics between units), which may diminish the accuracy with which knowledge assets are transferred. Just as MNEs can benefit from understanding that recontextualization happens, is ongoing and dynamic across societal contexts where they choose to sell their products (Brannen, 2004), MNEs will also benefit through the development of managers capable of recognizing if and when any forms of recontextualization occur with knowledge assets within their global network of units.

The findings presented here can also complement research that provides frameworks for depicting and measuring organization culture. When applying models of culture to measure the degree to which alignment and integration has or can be achieved between global units (such as Hofstede et al. (1990), used in Pothukuchi et al. (2002)), this codified knowledge would only complement an MNE manager’s experience-based knowledge of organization culture. Knowledge of organization culture could be used to judge or evaluate the results of these measures and to consider the implications for the effective integration of the MNE. Droege and Hoobler (2003) suggest that tacit knowledge is often required for the interpretation and application of codified knowledge, and note that many activities require tacit knowledge to apply codified knowledge effectively. In the example provided here, the application of a subjective knowledge of organization culture, in the context of an objective framework-based measure of cultural differences between units, represents potentially valuable tacit expertise and competence.

In their reconceptualization of cross-cultural management for a globalized business Søderberg and Holden (2002) define cross-cultural management by its role in facilitating interaction and learning at interfaces where knowledge and experiences are shared. They also stress that this requires practitioners to embrace new competencies which go beyond generic cross-cultural awareness and international management academics to develop new analytical concepts. Future research into the competencies of international managers might pay greater attention to firm-specific intra-organizational knowledge which underlies the competence of ‘corporate elites’ who move between the global units of MNEs (Welch et al., 2002). Such research would address the research gap left by the overtly external focus of the global competence discussion evident in the extant literature and would also provide international HR practitioners with a clearer value-added to the use of international assignments relative to external recruitment from the host-country labour market (a staffing strategy that is universally received as a less expensive choice than international assignments (Scullion and Collings, 2006)).

Finally, as a variety of organizational forms are apparent amongst MNEs (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 2002), the task of organizing internationally is by no means uniform across MNEs and, therefore, a uniform ability to merge unit cultures within a multinational organization is unlikely to exist. While acknowledging that research has demonstrated that an MNE can shape culture throughout its global units (Erez-Rein et al., 2004), the findings presented from this study indicate that there is still the potential for a multitude of differences that could impact this process and the MNE’s relative effectiveness in such an undertaking. An enhanced understanding of the process of sharing knowledge of organization culture, and an understanding of the substantive heterogeneity that could impact this process, can increase the effectiveness of the MNE in organizing internationally. With increasingly ‘distributed’ organizational forms emerging (Oliver, 2004; Owen-Smith and Powell, 2004), a knowledge-based approach to the exploration of how organization culture is manifested during assignments can provide new insights into the role of human resources in facilitating and integrating these ‘distributed’ organizational forms and their role in the management of the fragmented unities (Parker, 2000) which characterize organization culture in MNEs.

References

Ancori

Bureth

Cohendet

(2000) Managing knowledge in organisations: an integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science 49(4): 571–82.

Antal

(2000) Types of knowledge gained by expatriate managers. Journal of General Management 26(2): 32, 1231–41.

Ambrosini

Bowman

(2001) Tacit knowledge: some suggestions for operationalization, Journal of Management Studies 38(6): 811–29.

Baliga

Jaeger

(1984) Multinational corporations: control systems and delegation issues. Journal of International Business Studies 15 (Fall): 25–40.

Barry

O’Mahony

(2004) Making sense on the data on Ireland’s inward FDI. In: Proceedings of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland meeting, ERSI, Dublin.

Bartlett

Ghoshal

(2002) Managing across Borders: The Transnational Solution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Bartlett

Ghoshal

(1986) Tap your subsidiaries for global reach. Harvard Business Review 64(6): 84–7.

Bartlett

Ghoshal

(1987) Managing across borders: new organisational responses. Sloan Management Review (Fall): 43–52.

Bartlett

Ghoshal

(2002) Managing across Borders: The Transnational Solution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

10.

Brannen

(2004) When Mickey loses face: recontextualization, semantic fit, and the semiotics of foreignness. Academy of Management Review 29(4): 593–616.

11.

Bryman

(2001) Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

12.

Caligiuri

Di Santo

(2001) Global competence: what is it, and can it be developed through international assignments? Human Resource Planning 24(3): 27–35.

13.

Cameron

Quin

(1999) Diagnosing and Changing Organisational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

14.

Clark

Amundson

Cardy

(2002) Cross-functional team decision-making and learning outcomes: a qualitative illustration. Journal of Business and Management 8(3): 217–36.

15.

Denison

Mishra

(1995) Toward a theory of organisation culture effectiveness. Organisational Science 6: 204–23.

16.

Doving

Nordhaug

(2002) Learning firm specific knowledge and skills: conceptual issues and empirical results. Paper presented at the 3rd European Conference on Organisational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, Athens.

17.

Droege

Hoobler

(2003) Employee turnover and tacit knowledge diffusion: a network perspective. Journal of Managerial Issues 15(1): 50.

18.

Dupriez

Simons

(eds) (2000) La resistance culturelle: Fondements, applications et implications du management intercultural. Brussels: De Boeck & Larcier.

19.

Earley

Ang

(2003) Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions across Cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

20.

Earley

Gibson

(2002) Multinational Teams: A New Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.

21.

Edstrom

Galbraith

(1977) Transfer of managers as a coordination and control strategy in multinational organisations. Administrative Science Quarterly 22 (June): 248–63.

22.

Erez-Rein

Erez

Maital

(2004) Mind the gap: key success factors in cross-border acquisitions. In: Pablo

Javidan

(eds) Mergers and Acquisitions: Creating Integrative Knowledge. Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing, 20–44.

23.

Ferner

Edwards

Sission

(1995) Coming unstuck? In search of the ‘corporate glue’ in an international professional service firm. Human Resource Management 34(3) (Fall): 343–61.

24.

Garibaldi de Hilal

(2006) Brazilian national culture, organisation culture and cultural agreement: findings from a multinational company. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management (Aug.) 6(2): 139.

25.

Gertsen

Soderberg

(2000) Tales of trial and triumph: a narratological perspective on international acquisition. In: Cooper

Gregory

(eds) Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions, Amsterdam: JAI Press, vol. 1, 239–72

26.

Ghoshal

Bartlett

(1998) The Individualized Corporation: A Fundamentally New Approach to Management. London: Heinemann.

27.

Hall

(1993) A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal 14: 607–18.

28.

Hamel

Prahalad

(1996) Competing for the Future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

29.

Harvey

Speier

Novicevic

(2001) A theory-based framework for strategic human resource staffing policies and practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management 12: 898–915.

30.

Harzing

A-W

(2001) An analysis of the functions of international transfer of managers in MNCs. Employee Relations 23(6): 581.

31.

Hill

(2007) International Business: Competing in the Global Market Place, 6th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill-Irwin.

32.

Hofstede

(1994) The business of international business is culture. International Business Review 3(1): 1–14.

33.

Hofstede

(1997) Cultures and Organisations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

34.

Hofstede

(2005) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

35.

Hofstede

Neuijen

Ohayv

Sanders

(1990) Measuring organisation cultures: a quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 286–316.

36.

Holmquist

Boter

(2004) Identifying Cultural Bases in Different Orgnaisational Contexts: Case studies of three Swedish Multinational Companies. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 4(3): 355–69.

37.

Jaeger

(1983) The transfer of organisation culture overseas: an approach to control in the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies 15 (Fall): 91–114.

38.

Jarvinen

Poikela

(2001) Modeling reflective and contextual learning at work. Journal of Workplace Learning 13 (7/8): 282–9.

39.

Jarillo

Martinez

(1990) Different roles for subsidiaries: the case of multinational corporations in Spain. Strategic Management Journal 11(7): 501–12.

40.

Kogut

Zander

(1993) Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies 24: 625–45.

41.

Kostova

Roth

(2003) Social capital in multinational corporations and a micro-macro model of its formation. Academy of Management Review 28(2): 297–317.

42.

Kostova

Roth

Dacin

(2008) Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: a critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review 33: 994–1006.

43.

Leung

Bhagat

Buchan

Erez

Gibson

(2005) Culture and international business: recent advances and their implications for future research. Journal of International Business Studies 36): 357–78.

44.

Leung

Morris

(2001) Justice in the culturally diverse workplace: the problems of over and under emphasis of culture. In: Gilliland

Steiner

Skarlicki

(eds) Theoretical and Cultural Perspectives on Organizational Justice. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, 161–86.

45.

Makela

Kalla

Piekkari

(2004) The clustered multinational: who shares knowledge with whom? Paper presented at European Academy of Management Annual Conference, St Andrews, Scotland.

46.

Martinez

Jarillo

(1991) Coordination demands of international strategies. Journal of International Business Studies 22(3):429–44.

47.

Martinez

Jarillo

(1989) The evolution of research on coordination mechanisms in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies 20(3): 489–514.

48.

Matveev

Nelson

(2004) Cross cultural communication competence and multinational team performance: perceptions of American and Russian managers. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management (Aug.) 4(2): 253.

49.

Nonaka

Takeuchi

(1995) The Knowledge Creating-Company. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

50.

Nonaka

Takeuchi

(1996) A theory of organisational knowledge creation. International Journal of Technology Management 11 (7/8): 833–46.

51.

Nordhaug

(1998) Competence specificities in organisations. International Studies of Management and Organisation 28(1): 8–29.

52.

Oliver

(2004) On the duality of competition and collaboration: network-based knowledge relations in the biotechnology industry. Scandinavian Journal of Management 20: 151–71.

53.

Owen-Smith

Powell

(2004) Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: the effect of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science 15(1): 5–21.

54.

Oyserman

Coon

Kemmelmeir

(2002) Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin 128(1): 3–72.

55.

Parker

(2000) Organizational Culture and Identity. London: SAGE.

56.

Peng

(2006) Global Strategy. United States: Thomson South-Western.

57.

Pothukuchi

Damampour

Choi

Chen

Park

(2002) National and organisation culture differences and international joint venture performance. Journal of International Business Studies 33(2): 243–65.

58.

Prahalad

Doz

(1987) The Multinational Mission: Balancing Demands, Local Demands and Global Vision. New York: Free Press.

59.

Ritchie

Lewis

Elam

(2003) Designing and selecting samples. In: Ritchie

Lewis

(eds) Qualitative Research Practice. London: SAGE, 77–108.

60.

Riusala

Suutari

(2004) International knowledge transfers through expatriates. Thunderbird International Business Review 46(6): 743–70.

61.

Roberts

(2000) From know-how to show-how? Questioning the role of information and communications technology in knowledge transfer. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 12(4): 429–43.

62.

Roberts

Lossek

Ozeki

(1998) Managing the global workforce: challenges and strategies. Academy of Management Executive 12(4): 93–106.

63.

Rugman

(2006) Inside the Multinationals. 25th anniversary edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

64.

Sackmann

Phillips

(2004) Contextual influences on culture research: shifting assumptions for new workplace realities. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 4(3): 370–90.

65.

Sackmann

Phillips

Kleinberg

Boyacigiller

(1997) Single and multiple cultures in international crosscultural management research: Overview. In: Sackmann

(ed.) Cultural Complexity in Organizations: Inherent Contrasts and Contradictions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 14–49.

66.

Schein

(1985) Organization Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

67.

Schein

(1992) Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

68.

Schein

(2004) Organizational Culture and Leadership. 3rd edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

69.

Scullion

Collings

(eds) (2006) Global Staffing. London: Routledge.

70.

Shim

Paprock

(2002) A study focusing on American expatriates’ learning in host cultures. International Journal of Training and Development 6(1): 13–24.

71.

Smircich

(1983) Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly 28: 339–58.

72.

Søderberg

A-M

Holden

(2002) Rethinking cross-cultural management in a globalising business world. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management 2(1): 103–21.

73.

Sparrow

Brewster

Harris

(2004) Globalizing Human Resource Management. London: Routledge.

74.

Spender

J-C

(1996) Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17 (winter special issue): 45–63.

75.

Styhre

Borjesson

Wickenberg

(2006) Managed by the other: cultural anxieties in two Anglo-Americanized Swedish firms. International Journal of Human Resource Management 17(7): 1293–1306.

76.

Taggart

(1997) An evaluation of the integration-responsiveness framework: MNC manufacturing subsidiaries in the UK. Management International Review 37(4): 295–318.

77.

Tallman

Fladmoe-Lindquist

(2002) Internationalization, globalization, and capability-based strategy. California Management Review 45: 116–35.

78.

Taylor

Levy

Boyacıgiller

Beechler

(2008) Employee commitment in MNCs: impacts of organizational culture, HRM and top management orientations. International Journal of Human Resource Management 19(4): 501–27.

79.

Tsoukas

(2003) Do we really understand tacit knowledge? In: Easterby-Smith

Lyles

(eds) The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 410–27.

80.

UNCTAD (2008) World Investment Report 2008: Transnational Corporations and the Infrastructure Challenge. New York and Geneva: UNCTAD.

81.

Welch

Fenwick

De Cieri

(1994) Staff transfers as a control strategy: an exploratory study of two Australian organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management 5(2): 473–89.

82.

Welch

Marschan-Piekkari

Penttinen

Tahvanainen

(2002) Corporate elites as informants in international business research. International Business Review 11(5): 611–28.

83.

Whipp

(1998) Qualitative methods: technique and size. In: Whitfield

Strauss

(eds) Researching the World of Work: Strategies and Methods in Studying Industrial Relations. London: ILR Press.

84.

White

Poynter

(1984) Strategies for foreign-owned subsidiaries in Canada. Business Quarterly 48(4): 59–69.