Review 1

Human Resource Management Review
12 (2002) 377 403

www.HRmanagementreview.com
An integrative framework for understanding cross-national

human resource management practices
Pawan S. Budhwara,*, Paul R. Sparrowb,1
a
Cardiff Business School, Colum Drive, Cardiff CF1 3EU, UK

Manchester Business School, Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB, UK
Abstract
Currently, debate in the area of cross-national human resource management (HRM) suggests that
both culture-bound and culture-free factors and variables are important determinants of HRM
policies and practices. HRM is presented as being context-specific and it is argued that with the growth
of new markets world-wide, and increased levels of competition and globalization of business, there is
a strong need for more cross-national HRM studies. However, the literature shows the absence of an
integrated framework, which can help to highlight the different role that context-specific facets of
HRM practices play. The nature of different determinants in different national and regional settings is
rarely analyzed. This paper develops an integrated framework. It delineates the main distinctive facets
associated with national factors, contingent variables, and organizational and human resource (HR)
strategies and policies, that may be used to evaluate cross-national comparative HRM policies and
practices. D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: IHRM; Comparative HRM; Integrative framework; Factors determining HRM
1. Introduction
Over a span of 20 years or so, the topic of human resource management (HRM) has
become one of the most documented in the management literature (Boxall, 1995; Legge,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-2920-875214; fax: +44-2920-874419.

E-mail addresses: budhwar@cardiff.ac.uk (P.S. Budhwar), psparrow@man.mbs.ac.uk (P.R. Sparrow).
1
Tel.: +44-161-275-6564; fax: +44-161-275-6598.
1053-4822/02/$ see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 0 5 3 - 4 8 2 2 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 6 6 - 9
378
P.S. Budhwar, P.R. Sparrow / Human Resource Management Review 12 (2002) 377403
1995; Schuler & Jackson, 1999). Moreover, the increased level of globalization and
internationalization of business, the growth of new markets (such as in Eastern Europe,
China, India, South East Asia, and Latin America), growth of new international business
blocs and an increased level of competition among firms at both national and international
level has resulted in an increase in comparative HRM studies (Brewster, Tregaskis,
Hegewsch, & Mayne, 1996; Clark, Gospel, & Montgomery, 1999). Managers and policymakers now need to know how human resources (HR) are managed in different regions of the
world and how their counterparts in different parts of the globe perceive or react to similar
concepts and pressures. It is also important to have an understanding about the main
determinants of HRM policies and practices in different regional and national settings.
Academics have responded positively to meet the challenges raised by the globalization
of business by investigating a number of issues and problems related to international
business (Hendry, 1996). They have attempted to examine management from a crossnational view point. This comparison of HRM policies and practices at a national level helps
to test the convergencedivergence thesis. The typical questions pursued by comparative
researchers are (Pieper, 1990): (1) How is HRM structured in individual countries? (2) What
strategies are discussed? (3) What is put into practice? (4) What are the similarities and
differences? (5) What is the influence of national factors such as culture, government policy,
and education systems?
Scholars have also developed and proposed different models of HRM both between and
within nations (Boxall, 1995; Brewster, 1995; Guest, 1997; Legge, 1995; Truss & Gratton,
1994). Interestingly, most models of HRM have an AngloSaxon base. As such, from a
global perspective, principles of HRM have been developed from a restricted sample of
human experience. During the infancy stage of HRM literature, such an ethnocentric approach
was understandable and unavoidable. However, with the growth of a global business
village, firms operating in different countries need appropriate information and guidance
to develop their HRM policies and practices. Under such dynamic business conditions, the
relevance of lessons learned from the AngloSaxon experience is questionable. It is therefore
important to examine the extent to which AngloSaxon models of HRM are applicable in
other parts of the world. It has now become clear that the study of HRM needs a cross-national
comparative dimension and an international perspective (Brewster et al., 1996; Clark et al.,
1999; Kochan, Dyer, & Batt, 1992). However, the existing literature does not make it clear
how we should examine the applicability of HRM models in different settings. For further
developments in the field of HRM, it is important to have a framework, which can enable us to
conduct such an analysis.
Some researchers have emphasized a practical best practice framework for diagnosing
HRM practices. Hiltrop (1996) presents 11 dimensions of HRM, which can be used as a
checklist for evaluating the effectiveness of HR practices. These dimensions can also be used
to benchmark HR activities and the relative influence of the best practices on organizational
outcomes. However, in discussing the need to understand HRM in the European context,
Forster and Whipp (1995) reinforce the need for the adoption of a contingent approach,
which can highlight cultural, sectoral, and regional differences in European-wide companies.
They argue against the one best approach, suggesting that it is not practical for the
379
development of global or European HRM strategies. One sensible way of highlighting the
suggested differences among firms in different countries is by identifying the main national
factors (such as culture, industrial sector, and institutions), which significantly influence their
HRM practices.
An important agenda before cross-national HRM researchers if they are to avoid
misinterpreting the situation is to detail clearly both the specific HR issues within a country
as well as the overall HRM recipes pursued by local managers. HRM policies and practices in
a cross-national context are influenced by both culture-bound variables such as national
and organizational culture, institutions, and industrial sector dynamics and culture-free
variables such as age, size, nature, and life cycle stages of organization (Brewster, 1995;
Hofstede, 1993; Jackson & Schuler, 1995; Sparrow, 1995). The degree and direction of
influence of these factors is, however, context-specific, and varies from region to region
(Jackson & Schuler, 1995; Locke & Thelen, 1995). For example, the response of unions to
common competitive pressures (such as the introduction of new production technologies,
large scale restructuring and re-engineering of organizations, and pressure to increase work
flexibility) varies across different countries. Union membership has declined in countries such
as the UK, France, or the US, whereas in Australia and Germany, it has remained stable.
Similarly, since 1989, union membership is on a continuous decline in South Korea due to
changes in the Korean politicaleconomic climate. Such a phenomenon shows that different
institutional configurations mediate in different ways the effects of common international
pressures (see Locke & Thelen, 1995).
However, in order to evaluate and highlight the context-specific nature of HRM in
different national or regional settings, we need to delineate the main factors and variables
that could determine HRM in such settings. The dilemma regarding what factors to include
under broad concepts such as national culture or institutions needs to be resolved. The
issue regarding the selection and choice for certain contingent variables and organizational
and HR strategies and policies (from the long available list) as possible determinants of
HRM also needs serious attention. A sensible way to tackle this mammoth task is to
understand the complex interactions between HRM practices and their determining variables
on the basis of empirical data. However, there is a scarcity of research in this area. This is
partly due to the fact that the number of methodological issues involved in cross-national
research are many and more complex in comparison to national research, and partly due to
the absence of a comprehensive framework for conducting such studies (see Cavusgil &
Das, 1997).
This paper presents an integrated framework which is suitable for evaluating and
comparing HRM policies and practices and examining their main determinants in a crossnational context. Following the established notion that national factors (for example,
national culture and institutions) determine management practices (see Brewster, 1995;
Hofstede, 1993), structure dictates HRM practices (Chandler, 1962; Galbraith & Nathanson, 1978), organizational strategies and policies decide management practices (see Miles
& Snow, 1978, 1984; Porter, 1980, 1985), and contingent variables (such as size, age,
nature of firm) determine organizational practices (see Hickson, Hinings, McMillan, &
Schwitter, 1974; Tayeb, 1987), we consider HRM practices as a dependent variable. The
380
framework should act as an intellectual filing box by highlighting three types of factors
and variables (national, contingent and organizational) for such a purpose.2 It can also be
used to assimilate comparative studies into the body of commonly accepted knowledge of
HRM. The framework developed in this paper contributes to the literature by serving
three purposes:
1. to highlight the main determinants of HRM policies and practices in a cross-national
context. By doing so, it will also:
2. help examine the cross-national applicability of the main models of HRM; and
3. provide a mechanism to test the convergencedivergence thesis in the field of HRM.
Cross-national comparisons can be conducted at various levels (Kochan et al., 1992;
Locke, Kochan, & Piore, 1995). This can range from nation state (which is the focus of
political literature), level of the firm (the focus of labor economics and HRM literature) to
individual level (the focus of social psychology literature). We propose our framework for
investigations and comparisons conducted at both the national and firm levels. One should be
aware of the measurement difficulties in conducting studies including more than one level of
analysis. Most importantly, the type of factors to be used will vary in the two levels of
analysis. Moreover, in comparison to a firm level of analysis, in a cross-national analysis, a
whole range of issues need to be resolved such as ensuring equivalence (e.g., functional,
concept, category, and variable), uniformity in data collection methods, clear time frame of
study, and sampling issues (e.g., Adler, 1983). Further, depending on the level of research
analysis, research designs should specify which of the variables are included and which are
excluded in a particular study. This is only possible if researchers have an understanding
about the total range of variables which are known to have a significant impact on the
examined practices and policies in a particular context. Research should also show how those
excluded variables are being controlled in order to avoid the cross-variable contamination
problem. It is important to note that, depending on the focus of research and theoretical
inheritance, assumptions are set which are then destined to determine particular types of
results (Smith & Meiksins, 1995).
The remaining article is structured as follows. To develop the framework, we first critically
review the existing comparative, contingent, and process constructs that are used to compare
management and HRM practices in a cross-national context. We then detail our proposed
framework for cross-national HRM comparisons. Finally, we discuss the workability of our
framework. The existing literature shows that two main stances dominate the area:
comparative theories and contingency-based theories.
2
The term contingent variable is used in the most basic sense, i.e., to provide a demographic description of the
organization. This categorization has been adopted from an established school of thought on context of
organization structureThe Aston Programme (e.g., Hickson et al., 1974; Tayeb, 1987). However, we agree that
researchers with different backgrounds could use different term(s) such as indogenous, internal environmental,
or internal contextual variables instead of contingent variables.
381
2. Four comparative management frameworks

What can be gleaned from the comparative management literature? It is primarily
interested in studying the similarities and differences among nations and management
systems of different countries (Adler, Doktor, & Redding, 1986; Brewster et al., 1996;
Redding, 1994). The major thrust of the comparative management literature can be broadly
classified into four categories. These are the following.
1. Economic development approach: developed by Harbison and Meyers (1959) and based
on the premise that managerial input plays a significant role in achieving rapid industrial and
economic development. This is basically a macroeconomic approach, concentrating on an
examination of managerial trends and developments. Its basic assumption is that there is an
inherent logic that propels nations towards industrialization.
2. Environmental approach: proposed by Farmer and Richman (1965) and based on the
assumption that managerial effectiveness is a function of external environmental factors
(such as sociocultural, legal political, economic and educational). Compared to the
economic development approach, which primarily focuses on the economic factors in the
environment, this approach assumes that there is a much more sophisticated set of
determinants and conceptualizes the environment in a much broader framework. A number
of researchers (such as Murray, Jain, & Adams, 1976; Negandhi, 1975, 1983) adopted this
approach in part or in full to develop frameworks for cross-cultural comparative management
research. The approach is however criticized for letting the environment crowd out the
comparative analysis.
3. The behavioral approach: developed from the work of scholars working in the field of
organizational behavior (such as Barrett & Bass, 1970; Davis, 1971; Haire, Ghiselli, & Porter,
1966). It is based on the assumption that management practices, as well as managerial
effectiveness, depend on cultural variables such as attitudes, beliefs, values systems,
behavioral patterns, management philosophies, and so forth. Variables in this approach are
operationalized in terms of attitude and values scales (Nath, 1988). This approach attempts to
explain behavioral patterns of individuals and groups in organizational settings and the
impact of cultural variables on management practices and effectiveness.
4. Open systems approach: used to conceptualize organizations and their interaction with
the environment. Negandhi (1975, 1983) describes three kinds of environments in this regard:
organizational (which deals with variables such as size, technology), task (which includes
distributors, suppliers, employees, government, stockholders, and community), and societal
(the macro environment explained in the environmental approach). Negandhis categorization
seems ambiguous and not logical. For example, community as a whole makes more sense if
put under the societal factors. Nevertheless, this approach assumes that the relationship
between HRM and the various factors that make up the national context is complex but can
be understood by comparing the operations of surrounding systems.
All four approaches to comparative management present a broad list of variables and
factors which form the core basis for cross-national management comparisons. The choice for
their selection depends on the nature and aims of the research. However, since they represent
some of the most fundamental principles of analyzing management, it is sensible to consider
382
the impact of these variables and factors on HRM policies and practices in a cross-national
context. Several frameworks have been developed to evaluate HRM at separate levels of
analysis (such as international, MNCs, comparative). Most of these frameworks adopt a
contingency approach and are of US origin.
3. Developments in cross-national HRM: contingency themes

Different scholars in the field of HRM have put forth a number of frameworks for
conducting international HRM research. However, most of these are either normative in
nature, or they present a very complex set of variables that cannot be tested empirically. This
forms the basis of their general criticism. Three contingency frameworks are now briefly
analyzed to highlight the different aspects covered. Largely on theoretical and grounded
theory arguments, the contributions made by these models are that they have built up a
sophisticated awareness of important factors to consider in international HRM comparisons.
3.1. Framework for cross-cultural comparative analysis of personnel policies
Murray et al. (1976) provide a framework for cross-cultural analysis of personnel policies
at the level of analysis of comparative management. It is based on three considerations.
1. There should be a well-specified breakdown of components of the personnel management process. They break personnel management into generic functional processes of
manpower planning, recruitment and selection, training, and development, motivational
systems (employee welfare policies), and collective bargaining. These functions are assumed
to be present in all organization level HRM systems, regardless of national factors.
Researchers such as Easterby-Smith et al. (1995), Hendry (1996), and Welch (1994) have
recently emphasized this consideration for cross-national comparative HRM studies.
2. A detailed specification of the relevant characteristics of the culture. Murray et al. (1976)
adopted and modified Farmer and Richmans (1965) approach in this regard. They conceive
four major segments of what can be called external constraints on management. These
segments highlight the characteristics of culture and assume that it operates in four domains,
which are namely, educational, sociological, political, and legal and economic characteristics
(1976, p. 48). Each segment is further characterized by a number of sub-aspects.
3. The influence of cultural factors varies in regard to validity, priority, feasibility, and
organization in different national setting. Comparative management makes an implicit
assumption that an environmental constraint will have its effect on management in only one
way, i.e., by rendering a given management practice or policy, which is effective in one
setting, invalid in another. That is, something that works in one country will not
necessarily work in another. It can also affect the priority ranking or relative importance of
the various objectives and programs which make up the personnel function, the feasibility of
implementing a given policy or practice, and the organization of any given personnel policy
and practice (Murray et al., 1976, p. 50). In some settings, the personnel function is
undertaken by specialists and in others by line managers.
383
3.2. Framework for determining IHRM management approaches and activities

The work of Welch (1994) is typical of cross-national analysis at the level of multinational
organizations. She has developed a contingency model based on four in-depth comparative
case studies in Australian companies. She suggests a framework for determining international
HRM approaches and activities relevant for expatriate management. Welch specifies three
sets of variables, which determine the generic functions of selection, training and development, compensation and repatriation of overseas employees:
1. contextual variables (such as the host countrys legal system and the cultural distance
between host country and employees country);
2. firm-specific variables (such as the stage of internationalization, type of industry, link
between strategy and structure and organization culture); and
3. situational variables (such as staff availability, location of assignment, need of control, time
factor, locus of decision).
3.3. An integrative framework of IHRM
Schuler, Dowling, and DeCeri (1993) similarly suggest an integrated contingency framework for evaluating strategic international HRM of multinational enterprises (MNEs). They
identify two sets of factors determining strategic international HRM in MNEs. These are:
1. exogenous factors (industry characteristics and country/region characteristics) and
2. endogenous factors (structure of international operations, headquarters international
operations, competitive strategy, and experience in managing international operations).
It is important to note that these factors are broadly competitive in nature, and barring
country/region characteristics, operate at the organizational level. Schuler et al.s theoretical
framework is more complicated than the framework of Murray et al. (1976) and Welch (1994)
as they link these factors to both strategic MNE components (such as inter-unit linkages, i.e.,
how MNEs manage their various operations and internal linkages) and the different strategic
international HRM issues faced (i.e., how MNEs effectively operate within the confines of
local laws, politics, culture and economy). They differentiate three strategic international
HRM functions (orientation, resources and location), four strategic international HRM
policies and practices (staffing, appraising, compensation, and developing) and five MNE
concerns and goals (competitiveness, efficiency, local responsiveness, flexibility, and learning
and transfer). Based on these complicated connections, Schuler et al. (1993) present a number
of theoretical propositions which need to be tested to support the proposed contingencies.
Their framework, then, still needs empirical testing but is felt to be suitable for determining
strategic HRM in MNEs, but still does not truly capture cross-national HRM comparisons.
Having outlined three contingency frameworks, we argue that the contribution of Murray
et al. (1976) still provides a good starting point for developing a conceptual framework for
cross-national HRM comparisons. First, they suggest what should be considered under the
384
broad construct of national culture. More importantly, their framework also focuses attention
on how it influences HRM. Similar processes of influence could be identified for other
national factors of institutions, a dynamic business environment and industrial sector
determinants. Their framework also does not consider the impact of contingent variables
and competitive strategies on HRM policies and practices at the organizational level, as
highlighted by Schuler et al. (1993) and Welch (1994).
4. Comparative process theories

Negandhi (1975, 1983) suggests that one way of incorporating the wide range of
contingent factors and highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of the international management discipline is to ensure that cross-cultural management studies become part of
organization theory. He asserts that a number of developments in organization theory are
relevant for cross-cultural management research. Still reflecting the contingency theory
perspective, he argues that frameworks should include those contextual variables, environmental factors, and sociocultural variables that both impact and provide a comprehensive
cross-cultural understanding of the factors affecting the structuring and functioning of
organizations, and accordingly the management policies and practices. We need to include
all three sets of variables in one model. Negandhi conceptualizes these three sets of variables
by visualizing three successive environments or boundaries. These are the organizational
environment, the task environment and the societal environment. Different facets of these
environments were explained under the open systems approach. While contingency theories
have demonstrated the range of variables that shape HRM policy and the different type of
influence they may have on the HRM process, comparative theories have helped to classify
these variables into different system effects.
Building on this environmental approach to comparative management, and the analysis
provided by Farmer and Richman (1965) and Gronhaug and Nordhaug (1992) propose such a
perspective for international HRM. They argue that two sets of factors can be used to discuss
the nature of international or cross-national management of HR. The first set of factors is
called microenvironmental. In addition to a range of primary factors (such as a subsidiarys
relationship to other parts of MNC), which relate to Schuler et al.s emphasis on inter-unit
linkages, they highlight a series of secondary factors concerning the role of external actors
(including customers, clients, competitors, suppliers of resources, and local public institutions
and interest of organizations). There are also a series of macro-environmental factors, which
are the relevant conditions that are embedded in the surrounding region and country of
operation. These include the socio-economic, institutional (political/legal) and cultural factors
already discussed. Comparative process theories build on traditional contingent approaches,
then, by emphasizing the role of multiple actors, and the influence of broader social factors.
They also introduce a more dynamic perspective into the field. For example, Begin (1992)
proposes a systems perspective for comparative HRM. This perspective draws variations in,
and identifies broad patterns of comparative HRM systems. His framework is also useful for
addressing the convergence debate. To operationalize his framework, he proposes a set of
385
independent variables in the form of different institutions (economic, political, cultural, and
societal), the impact of which dictate different types of HRM system configurations over time
in different national and regional settings. Gronhaug and Nordhaug (1992) use their analysis
of such macro and micro environmental factors to show how they influence different HRM
elements such as acquisition, development, compensation, work system and labor relations.
Emphasizing the need to understand HRM in context, Jackson and Schuler (1995)
propose an integrative framework. To achieve this, they suggest one should consider the
effect of both internal (i.e., technology, structure, size, life cycle stage, and business strategy)
and external (i.e., legal, social, and political environments, unionization, labor market
conditions, industry characteristics, and national cultures) contextual factors on HRM (for
details, see Jackson & Schuler, 1995, p. 254). Like earlier frameworks, this framework also
has limitations. First, the list of factors put under the two contexts is not comprehensive. To
get a complete picture of the scene, especially in a cross-national context, it is important that
researchers should be aware of possible factors, which might influence HRM in a specific
context. Second, the subcomponents of many factors are not presented, as a result, it is not
clear how this framework can be operationalized (e.g., national culture, politics). Third, some
of the factors are used in the traditional sense which also need to be examined with a more
contemporary approach (e.g., industry factor is considered as private versus public, manufacturing versus service, regulated versus unregulated). In the present context, it is also
important to regard industrial sectors as a part of the national business system. Similarly, we
now need to buildon and move ahead of the traditional organizational strategies mentioned in
Jackson and Schulers framework to more generic HR strategies. Such issues are considered
in our framework.
Comparative process theories of management are appropriate for understanding the
development over time of organizational patterns and the effectiveness (or not) of HRM.
Nevertheless, since the time when Negandhi (1975, 1983) proposed his model, much
academic development has taken place in the field of international and comparative
management. Notably, competitive business sector and organizational strategies have been
shown to have an important impact on management practices, as reflected in the more recent
contingency models such as Schuler et al. (1993).
Comparative theories tend to emphasis only a few factors, with aggregated lists of things
that influence national culture. The role of organizational and HR strategy is underplayed, as
is change over time. For example, the impact of trade unions on Indian and British HRM
policies and practices has been significant at different points of time, but their nature and role
in the two countries is different. In India, unions still play a noncooperative role and have an
antagonistic nature. On the other hand, unions in the UK are playing a cooperative and
supporting role (see Budhwar & Sparrow, 1998). Similarly, different sets of contingent
variables and organizational policies and strategies determine HRM practices in different
countries. Empirical studies of HRM in comparative settings tend to reveal the contextspecific nature of HRM. This is seen in the case of India, where the present thrust towards
human resource development (HRD) as opposed to HRM created by recent economic reforms
has significantly influenced the HR functions (see Sparrow & Budhwar, 1997). Similarly, the
recent Asian economic crisis has contributed significantly in speeding-up the transition from
386
the traditionally established HRM practices (more applicable to the Tiger and Dragon
economies), such as life-time employment and seniority-based pay and promotions to
contract-based employment and performance-related pay and promotions (e.g., Khatri,
1999; Rowley, 1998).
An investigation into the influence of different factors (such as national culture and
different national institutions), variables (such as age, size, life cycle stage, or type of
organization) and organizational/HR policies and strategies (such as defender, analyzer, cost
reduction, talent acquisition, or talent improvement) on HRM policies and practices can help
to reveal national similarities and differences and the possible reasons for them. We now
present our conceptual framework.
5. Moving beyond contingency and comparative process models

An argument that runs counter to the HR practices perspective, with its requirement to
concentrate on simple culturally equivalent HR functions is put forward by Begin (1992)
and Boxall (1995). While developing a conceptual framework of cross-national HRM that
draws upon both the international and comparative HRM traditions, Boxall notes it is
important to define HRM in the broadest sense. Why? Because, several distinctive HRM
models exist within firms in a particular country, each of which depends (along with a number
of other factors, such as different institutions and national culture) on a number of distinct
internal labor markets (Boxall, 1995; Hendry, 1996; Osterman, 1994). Within each labor
market, HRM incorporates a range of subfunctions and practices which include systems for
work force governance, work organization, staffing and development, and reward systems
(Begin, 1992). HRM is therefore concerned with the management of all employment
relationships in the firm, incorporating the management of managers as well as nonmanagement labor. Potentially, therefore, it covers a diverse array of styles even within national
cultures (Boxall, 1995, p. 6). Moreover, the aim of comparative HRM should be to involve
comparisons of nations, and the activity of comparison should be associated with explanation
rather than simply description (Poole, 1990). Observed similarities and differences should
therefore be related to theoretical causative factors emerging from broad socio-economic
outcomes (Boxall, 1995).
One of the main criticisms of both the contingency and comparative frameworks is that
they do not present a comprehensive list of factors and variables which determine HRM in a
cross-national context. Moreover, most of the contingency models are proposed for expatriate
management or management in MNEs, not general cross-national HRM comparisons. An
attempt has been made to overcome such limitations in our framework.
5.1. Metalogic factors
The framework in Fig. 1 is developed by considering the contribution of the above
discussed frameworks, and current trends in the HRM, international HRM, cross-national
HRM, and comparative management literature. It also draws upon empirical testing for most
387
Fig. 1. Factors determining cross-national HRM practices.
of its factors and variables (for details, see Budhwar, 1998, 2000; Budhwar & Sparrow, 1997,
1998). The main components of the national factors and variables presented in Fig. 1 are
detailed later. To avoid congestion in Fig. 1, a separate table is formed highlighting the
detailed list of the subcomponents of the factors and variables of our framework (see Table 1
in Appendix A). We place the majority of contingency variables and national factors at the
broader, macro, or outer level. These variables parallel Negandhis organizational and societal
environments, respectively. The contingent variables highlighted by researchers such as
Schuler et al. (1993), Welch (1994), and the Aston Programme (e.g., Hickson et al., 1974)
are incorporated into Negandhis task environment. This allocation is based on the premise
that the impact of different stakeholders, as well as the traditional contingent variables, varies
from firm to firm. Finally, organizational strategies (highlighted in the model by different HR
functions and internal labor markets) are placed at the micro level or inner level. We now
detail and explain the reasoning behind the inclusion of the various factors within each
boundary and delineate the important variables involved. In order to improve the feasibility of
our proposed framework, we identify seven propositions.
There are a series of factors which operate at the national level, which set the overall
climate for international HRM activities by providing a metalogic that guides HRM
choices. Four broad national factors of national culture, institutions, industrial sector, and
dynamic business environment have been identified as significant determinants of this
metalogic, and the resultant HRM policies and practices, in a cross-national context.
388
Proposition 1: Nation states contain unique configurations of industrial/business

sectors, which over a period of time (based on the functional requirements of the sector
and the regional/national characteristics such as culture and dominant institutions of
the geographical area(s) in which a particular is sector based), develop and practice
sector-specific HRM policies and practices.
The inclusion of national culture, institutional arrangements, and changing business
dynamics as a metalogic is based on the work of the many comparative process theories.
Few would question such a positioning. Perhaps of more note is the positioning of the
industrial sector. Out of these four national factors, the industrial sector is the only one, which
can be taken as a contingent variable because it represents the interests of a number of
stakeholders. However, from the study of national business systems (e.g., Rasanen & Whipp,
1992; Whitley, 1992), evidence suggests that the industrial sector is best considered as a
country level or national unit of analysis and is worth considering for national comparisons.
This inference is based on the premise that certain sectors (for example, the forest sector in
Finland, which is an industrial complex of various businesses that has emerged over the last
130 years) are well-connected to similar sectors in other competing countries and to markets
all over the world. Examples of such potent sectors include the Finnish forest sector, the
Danish milk products sector, or the Japanese car sector. All can clearly be distinguished by
the very nature of their social networks, ownership control relationships, and vertical
logistical links. However, all also clearly retain a national character. It is important to bear
in mind that a sector is an accomplishment of many actors, who work in different time periods
and with diverse logics of action. There are always alternative interpretations and applications
of the sectoral business recipe, based on simultaneous factions that emerge in the sectoral
networks. It is then logical to state that nation states contain unique configurations of sectors,
each trying to develop their own business recipe within the national business system
(Rasanen & Whipp, 1992, pp. 4849). Recent research (e.g., Eriksson, Fowler, Whipp, &
Rasanen, 1996) has therefore shown how HRM policies and practices are governed by a
specific sector. Causative influences related to this aspect of sector include (Hiltrop, 1993;
Rasanen & Whipp, 1992):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
common strategies, business logic, and goals;

regulations and standards;
specific requirements or needs associated with supply chain management;
the need for sector-specific knowledge;
informal or formal bench marking against sector competitors;
cross-sector cooperative arrangements;
common developments in business operations; and
sector-specific labor markets or skill requirements.
In terms of operationalizing the framework and testing the first proposition, these are
the phenomena that the independent variable of sector configuration must be designed
to capture.
389
One major limitation of most of the earlier frameworks in the field, which suggest the
impact of national culture on national patterns of HRM, is that they do not highlight the main
aspects of national culture which can help to assess such an impact.
Proposition 2: National culture influences HR policies through a series of identifiable
mechanisms.
National culture is also seen to operate as a meta logic factor. A number of researchers
(such as Easterby-Smith, Mailna, & Yuan, 1995; Hofstede, 1993; Laurent, 1993; Schneider,
1993; Schuler & Rogovsky, 1998; Sparrow, 1995; Tayeb, 1995) have highlighted and
explained the influence of national culture on HRM policies and practices. The definition
and scope of the concept of culture is, of course, debatable (Tayeb, 1994). It is therefore
sensible to examine the impact of those aspects of national culture on HRM, which have a
sound theoretical base. Studies must first hypothesize how national culture is deemed to
influence the operation of HR policies. The most important processes or influence
mechanisms attributed to national culture that have been identified are:
1. The socialization process through which managers are made and through which the
managerial role is defined (Hofstede, 1983, 1993; Schein, 1985; Terpstra & David, 1985;
Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). This influences the competencies that firms feel are necessary
to resource and for subsequent shaping the selection and development systems.
2. The basic assumptions which shape managers behavior (Hofstede, 1983, 1993; Van
Maanen & Schein, 1979). These influence the perceived relevance of HRM practices.
3. Their common value orientations, norms of behavior and customs (Hofstede, 1983, 1993;
Keesing, 1974; Tayeb, 1995). This influences the preferences individuals have for specific
HR policies and the extent to which these policies will actually function effectively.
4. The influence of social elite or pressure groups unique to a country (Keesing, 1974), which
can make the pursuit of specific HR policies politically and socially inappropriate.
5. The unique ways of doing things and management logics in a particular country, which are
reflective of the broader national business system (Sparrow & Hiltrop, 1997; Whitley,
1992).
The impact of the above mentioned aspects of national culture on HRM varies from region
to region. Budhwar & Sparrow (1998) show how these aspects of national culture can be
operationalized and comparative impact of the same on HRM in India and Britain.
Proposition 3: National institutions shape the context of HRM through the level of
organizational autonomy they afford and the legitimacy of HRM practices.
Moving onto the third metalogic factor, researchers in the field of cross-national HRM
have considered in detail the impact of different national institutions on HRM policies and
practices (e.g., Brewster, 1995; Budhwar & Sparrow, 1998; Sparrow & Hiltrop, 1997). Given
the regional focus in much international HRM research, researchers have provided lists of
390
institutions most relevant to broad regional contexts (such as the European Union, the Social
Chapter, patterns of Unions, and the recognition of the Legal set up). There are a number of
institutional systems whose influence on HRM in a cross-national context must be
interpreted. These include:
1. National labor laws (Brewster, 1995; Sparrow, 1995). These influence HRM practices
through the level of organizational autonomy that they imply, the breadth of policies
affected by regulation and the time span through which codification has taken place.
2. The structure, density, and role of trade unions (Brewster, 1995; Tayeb, 1994). These
influence HRM practices in terms of the range of issues on which employees speak, levels
of flexibility that may be pursued and the consequences to the organization of
miscalculating employee attitudes.
3. The educational and vocational set-up (Hiltrop, Despres, & Sparrow, 1995; Sparrow,
1995), which influences the quality of HR and the competencies that must be developed in
the labor market.
4. International business institutions (Morishima, 1995; Zucker, 1987), which can create a
pan-national structure for HRM decision making.
5. Labor market dynamics and overall preferences for internal or external markets (Benson,
1995; Cappelli, 1995; Osterman, 1994), which influences the weight given to different
aspects of HRM such as selection, development or performance management.
6. The role of professional bodies (Torrington, 1993; Zucker, 1987).
7. Employers federations and representative bodies (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991; Scott, 1995;
Zucker, 1987).
8. The legitimate role of consulting organizations (Lowndes, 1996; Scott, 1995; Zucker,
1987), which play a role in the transfer of best practice across organizations.
9. Politics (Jackson & Schuler, 1995) significantly influences most HRM functions through
different actors (such as managers, trade unions, policymakers).
A number of the existing frameworks in the field do indicate the impact of a competitive
business environment on HRM. However, like the factor of national culture, none of the
frameworks provide the main aspects of the competitive environment which can help to
assess the impact of cross-national HRM.
Proposition 4: The dynamic business environment (i.e., the external competitive
business conditions which change at a rapid pace) influences HRM by creating the
competitive stimulation for the adoption of new practices or by making existing HRM
systems more receptive to changed ideas.
HRM research has also demonstrated the impact of dynamic business environments,
characterized mainly by distinctive sets of competitive pressures on HRM policies and
practices at the national level (e.g., Budhwar & Sparrow, 1998; Hendry & Pettigrew, 1992;
Hiltrop, 1993; Sparrow, 1995). Although many of these dynamics are unique to each nation, a
series of developments are pan-national and have been identified as major determinants of
391
IHRM activity. The aspects of a dynamic business environment that have been identified as
influencing HRM policies and practices in a cross-national context are:
1. increased competition and pressures on productivity, quality, or social costs of employment
at both national and international level;
2. the resulting growth of new business alliances or forms of corporate governance (Cappelli,
1995; Sparrow, 1995);
3. automation of information systems and their impact on international business structures
and coordination systems (Hiltrop, 1993);
4. change in the composition and demographics of the work force (Torrington, 1993);
5. downsizing of organizations and the transfer of work across a new international division of
labor (Cappelli, 1995; Soeters & Schwan, 1990); and
6. transfer of convergent best practice, for example, through the Japanization of production
systems, emphasis on customer service, or creation of like-minded international cadres of
managers (Sparrow & Hiltrop, 1994).
5.2. Contingent variables or dependencies
Proposition 5: The influence of national factors and metalogics is dependent on a range
of simple contingent variables. These contingent variables are not independent of each
other and are shaped by the national factors detailed in the first four propositions.
We now delineate the contingent variables in our framework. As mentioned in the
introductory review, a prominent stream of research being conducted by cross-national HRM
researchers has examined the influence of a number of contingent variables on HRM
policies and practices. These are the main mediating factors3 on which the influence of the
previous national factors or metalogics have been seen to depend. These tend to be
expressed as categorical variables, which provide a demographic description of the
organization in terms of its size, structure, technology and age. They are the artifacts
through which the four metalogics outlined above may easily be measured and operationalized. The influence of these contingencies is itself mediated by the four metalogics.
The mediator moderator factors are generally used to measure specific statistical influence, affect, or
variations (between a predictor or independent and a criterion or dependent variable). In this paper, we use the
term mediating factors in a general sense, i.e., A affects B through C (see Baron & Kenny, 1986). For example,
national factors (A) affect HRM policies and practices (B) through different contingent variables (C). It is
important to note that in certain circumstances, the interaction between the different levels of factors and variables
presented in Fig. 1 could create a moderator effect as well (i.e., the effect of A on B changes as values of C
change). For example, influence of national factors (A) on HRM policies and practices (B) will vary with a
variation in the nature of contingent variables (C). For example, Budhwar and Khatri (2001) report that the
influence of trade unions (A) on HRM (B) varies between large (size) Indian public sector (ownership) firms (is
very high) in comparison to small private sector firms (C).
392
Specifically, the various contingent variables shown to determine HRM policies and
practices are the:
1. size of the organization (based on the number of employees) (Cohen & Pfeffer, 1986;
Dimick & Murray, 1978; Jackson & Schuler, 1995; Yuen & Kee, 1993);
2. type of ownership (Dimick & Murray, 1978; Tayeb, 1988);
3. level of technology adopted (Jackson & Schuler, 1995; Perrow, 1967);
4. age of organization (Dimick & Murray, 1978; Tayeb, 1988);
5. presence of a formal HRM department (Fisher & Shaw, 1992);
6. life cycle stage of the organization (Baird & Meshoulam, 1988; Jackson & Schuler, 1995;
Hendry & Pettigrew, 1992);
7. existence of training units in the HR department (Fisher & Shaw, 1992);
8. type of HR strategy (Jackson & Schuler, 1995; Schuler, 1992);
9. union status (Cohen & Pfeffer, 1986; Fisher & Shaw, 1992; Yuen & Kee, 1993);
10. interests of influential stakeholders (Beer, Spector, Lawrence, Quinn Mills, & Walton,
1984); and
11. structure of organization (Jackson & Schuler, 1995; Schuler et al., 1993).
The difference in our framework from contingency approach theorists is that they assume
that these factors are acultural, i.e., although their presence may vary across countries, they
have the same effect on HRM once present. If there is convergence between nations across these
contingencies, it is assumed that convergence in the associated HR policies and practices will
follow. These factors are therefore frequently classified as culture-free (Sparrow & Hiltrop,
1994; Tayeb, 1994). We argue this is a naive assumption, and in our framework we posit a twoway interaction between these two levels. For example, the proportion of firms at any one
particular life cycle stage reflects survival rates, which is itself highly dependent on the
institutional metalogic that operates within a country or region. Some regions within the EU
such as the Rhone-Alps corridor or Italy are noted for their ability to sustain start-up businesses.
5.3. Inner-contextual variables: organizational and HR strategies and policies
Cross-national HRM researchers claim that it is at the first two levels of analysis
discussednational factors and contingent variablesthat they can make useful contributions, by examining the impacts of such determinants on HRM policies and practices (Boxall,
1995; Brewster et al., 1996). These two levels of analysis alone are not sufficient. In order to
get a better understanding of the context-specific nature of HRM practices, an analysis of the
impact of organizational level strategies on them is also important (e.g., Budhwar & Sparrow,
1997; Jackson & Schuler, 1995; Jackson, Schuler, & Rivero, 1989; Miles & Snow, 1984;
Peck, 1994; Schuler & Jackson, 1987). We use the term inner contextual variables in Fig. 1 in
the narrowest sense, i.e., only to represent organizational strategies and policies.
Proposition 6: The impact of contingent variables such as structure, size, and technology is mediated by actions at the organizational level.
393
A review of the literature shows that organizational strategies determine a range of

primary HR functions and policies such as staffing (Guthrie & Olian, 1991), compensation
and rewards (Veliyath, Ferris, & Ramaswamy, 1994), the employment relationship (Peck,
1994) and its associated psychological contracts (Rousseau & Wade-Benzoni, 1994), levels
of work flexibility (Mayne, Tregaskis, & Brewster, 1996), integration of HRM into the
corporate strategy and levels of devolvement of HRM to line managers (Budhwar &
Sparrow, 1997), career management practices (Slocum, Cron, Hansen, & Rawlings, 1985),
the range of internal labor markets or structured employment systems (Osterman, 1994;
Soeters & Schwan, 1990), the requisite type of training and development (Peck, 1994), and
levels of performance (e.g., Guest, 1997; Lahteenmaki, Storey, & Vanhala, 1998; MacDuffie, 1995). These studies confirm the significant impact of organizational strategies on
different HRM practices and the fundamentally important way in which the inner context of
organizations still mediates the role of both national factors and contingent variables such as
size, structure, and technology. For example, organizations run on the basis of Islamic
principles (institutional factor), develop a unique set of internal labor markets (for details,
see Budhwar and Fadzil, 2000), which help them to out perform their competitors. On a
different aspect, research by Mayne et al. (1996) shows how the level of work flexibility
across Europe is determined by different configurations of organizational policies related to
recruitment, training and communication, along with organizational strategies and organizational demographics. These researchers suggest that the changes taking place within
Europe (such as unification of HRM through pan-European institutions, deregulation of
employment protection and the introduction of more flexible working to create additional
employment) are forcing firms to adopt such practices. Examining the cross-national
patterning of levels of work flexibility, integration, and devolvement, the construction of
internal labor markets and structured employment systems then presents a significant
research agenda.
Typologies for characterizing the organizational business strategies used by firms are
abound. However, the two most frequently cited in the discussions of HRM and therefore
worth considering for cross-national analysis are the ones proposed by Miles and Snow
(1978, 1984) and Porter (1980, 1985). Miles and Snow classify organizations as
prospectors, analyzers, defenders, and reactors. These generic strategies dictate
organizations HRM policies and practices. For example, defenders are less concerned
about recruiting new employees externally and are more concerned about developing
current employees. In contrast, prospectors are growing, so they are concerned about
recruiting and using performance appraisal results for evaluation rather than for longer-term
development (for more details, see Jackson & Schuler, 1995; MacDuffie, 1995; Peck,
1994; Slocum et al., 1985). Similarly, Porters (1985) competitive strategies distinguish
firms that compete on the basis of cost leadership, product differentiation, and market
focus. Based on this typology, Schuler and Jackson (1987) used a role behavior
perspective to describe the possible HRM implications of cost-reduction, innovation, and
quality enhancement strategies. They predict that organizations, which pursue a cost
reduction strategy (comparable in many ways to a defender strategy), will emphasize
short-run relationships, minimize training and development, and highlight external pay
394
comparability (Peck, 1994). Legge (1989) makes a similar argument in her critical analysis
of HRM.
Identifying the need to highlight the prevalence of generic HR strategies in organizations
in different national contexts, Budhwar (1998) proposes four HR strategies worth pursuing
for cross-national comparisons. These are:
1. talent acquisition HR strategy (emphasizes to attract the best human talent from external
sources);
2. effective resource allocation HR strategy (its goal is to maximize the use of existing HR by
always having the right person in the right place at the right time);
3. talent improvement HR strategy (aimed to maximize the talents of existing employees by
continuously training them and guiding them in their jobs and career); and
4. cost reduction HR strategy (aimed to reduce the personnel costs to the lowest
possible
level).
Recently, Budhwar and Khatri (2001) operationalized and examined the impact of these
HR strategies on recruitment, compensation, training and development, and employee
communication practices in matched Indian and British firms. The impact of these four
HR strategies varied significantly in the two samples, confirming the context-specific nature
of HRM. On the same pattern, there is a need to identify and examine the impact of other HR
strategies such as high commitment, paternalism, etc.
Do cross-national differences in HRM occur because the various metalogics and contingent factors predispose organizations within one country to one type of domestic HR
strategy? Is each type of strategy evidenced by the same patterns of HR policies and
practices or are there culturally equivalent variations?
Proposition 7: HR strategies are reflected in organizational policies towards primary
HR functions. These organizational policies shape the importance given to specific
bundles of HR practices.
Apart from the above mentioned four HR strategies, recent research shows that organizational policies related to recruitment (such as an emphasis on the recruitment of fresh
graduates), training and development (for example, to monitor training through formal
evaluation after training), and communication (such as to communicate with employees
through immediate superiors) both determine HR practices and policies in a cross-national
setting and can be used to distinguish national groupings of organizations (e.g., Bournois,
Chauchat, & Roussillon, 1994; Brewster & Hegewisch, 1994; Budhwar & Sparrow, 1997;
Dany & Torchy, 1994; Mahoney & Deckop, 1986). For example, research by Budhwar and
Sparrow (1997) reveals how internal organizational policies and strategies related to
recruitment, training and development and employees communication act as significant
determinants of the levels of integration of HRM into the corporate strategy and devolvement
of HRM to line managers practised in Indian firms. These organizational policy variables
represent the internal logic within the HR strategy. Importantly, they were more predictive of
395
the presence of specific HR practices than traditional contingency variables such as age, size,
and nature of the firm. Organizations also have different HR strategies for different levels and
groupings of employees, and this varies across countries. The same study showed that in
comparison to British organizations, Indian organizations shared less financial and strategic
information with lower level employees. This was based on the rationale that management
had less faith in the capability of lower level employees in India and were both less willing
and saw less added-value in sharing such information with this level of employees (Budhwar
& Sparrow, 1997).
It is important to note that a particular inner context such as this is an outcome of an
interplay of many complex factors and variables, as explained above under the discussion
of national factors and contingent variables, and revealing the causeeffect linkages
across these levels of analysis becomes a cross-cultural task. As far as cross-national
HRM research goes, there is then a paucity of empirically grounded studies which detail
the differential reflection of generic HR strategies such as empowerment, up-skilling or
resourcing in the actual set of specific HR practices. The same strategic ends can be
achieved through very different means (HR practices) across countries. The majority of
the studies which have examined the impact of organizational and HR strategies and
policies on HRM policies and practices have been conducted in the AngloSaxon
nations (an exception being research by Budhwar and associates in India). For the field
of IHRM to develop, it is important to examine the impact of different organizational
and HR strategies and policies on HRM policies and practices in different national
settings. This will not only provide a useful tool for comparisons but will also help to
reveal the logic behind the existence and practice of certain HRM functions in specific
nations. This will also help to further develop the ideas about best practice and the
impact of bundles or configurations (see Guest, 1997; MacDuffie, 1995) of
organizational policies on HRM in different settings. Based on this premise, it can be
argued that organizational and HR strategies and policies in different national settings
will determine unique bundles or configurations of HRM policies and practices. The
need for such investigations is crucial considering the present trend towards increased
globalization and internationalization of business.
6. Conclusions
We have argued for the need of a framework that integrates our understanding from
both international HRM and comparative management disciplines. The approaches,
models and theories which we identified in order to develop our framework each deal
with pieces of a larger phenomenon, but one which lacks a comprehensive framework to
tie them together. We have presented the range of main national factors that create a
metalogic for HRM and their various components. We have also delineated the important
contingent variables and outlined the organizational and HR policies and strategies, which
determine HRM policies and practices in a cross-national context. In so doing, it is
important to note that the influence of all the different facets of the four main national
396
factors (i.e., national culture, national institutions, dynamic business environment and
industrial sector), contingent variables (such as size, age, nature, life cycle stage of
organization, presence of unions, and HR strategies) and the HR strategy with its
different organizational strategies and policies of HRM is context-specific. Different
configurations of cultural, institutional, industry sector, or business dynamic metalogics
alter the specific impact that the individual contingency factors have. Understanding the
complex interactions and causes-and-effect relationships between these different sets of
metalogic factors, contingent variables and organizational strategies and policies now
plays a crucial role in highlighting the cross-national but context-specific nature of HRM
in different settings.
Coming to the practical utility of our framework, the proposed framework is suitable for
highlighting the main determinants of HRM in different contexts and settings. We have
provided a detailed list of the factors supported by mainstream research which influence
HRM practices across different levels of analysis, i.e., national factors, contingent
variables, and organizational strategies and policies. All of these factors could and should
be used to determine HRM policies and practices in cross-national settings. The use of
tightly matched samples and the adoption of mixed methodologies should help to identify
the significant predictors of HRM policies and practices in different national settings. This
can be beneficial in many ways. For example, from our examination of the influence of
national factors, contingent variables and organizational policies in Indian and British
firms, we are now in a position to clearly highlight the main influences of HRM in the
two countries. It has also enabled us to understand why the impact of certain factors and
variables on HRM in India and Britain is similar or different (for details, see Budhwar,
1998, 2000; Budhwar & Khatri, 2001; Budhwar & Sparrow, 1998). Such an evaluation is
useful for policymakers to form appropriate HRM policies and practices. For academics,
this can act as a reference point for future similar evaluations. Comparisons based on such
evaluations also help to clarify the convergencedivergence debate (Boxall, 1995;
Brewster et al., 1996). Our empirical analysis confirms the operationalization of our
framework in a cross-national context, more importantly outside the AngloSaxon group
of nations, i.e., in a developing countryIndia. As we have picked-up the core national
factors and variables, which influence HRM, therefore, we believe that this framework is
suitable for examining HRM in different regions of the world (not only in the Anglo
Saxon nations).
The adoption of the proposed framework can help to test the applicability and
relevance of the AngloSaxon models of HRM to different nations. We have outlined
seven specific propositions that need to be tested to identify which causal relationships are
able to be generalized across firms in different countries. These propositions help to
highlight the interplay between actual HRM policies and practices, and the web of
surrounding national factors, contingent variables and organizational and HR strategies
and policies. Such analysis can be used to test the main assumptions of particular HRM
models. For example, the issue of tight-fit (one of the main propositions of the
matching model of HRM) can be evaluated by looking at the impact of accepted
measures, such as involvement of HRM in the corporate strategy at the formulation stage
397
and representation of HRM at the board level (Brewster & Larsen, 1992; Budhwar &
Sparrow, 1997; Mayne et al., 1996; Storey, 1992; Truss, Gratton, Hailey, McGovern, &
Stiles, 1997) on the actual HR practices evident in organizations. The proposed
framework would help to evaluate what are the main reasons for the continued reliance
on specific HR practices (i.e., cultural, institutional, or company philosophy). Similarly,
the main propositions of the Harvard model, such as the influence of stakeholders and
situational variables on HRM and the emphasis given to employee development through
involvement, empowerment and devolution (see Legge, 1995; Storey, 1992; Truss et al.,
1997) could be examined more accurately by adopting the proposed framework in
different national settings. The framework also makes it easier to operationalize such
measures. We have broken the influence of metalogic factors, contingent variables, and
organizational and HR strategies and policies down into a series of constituent influence
mechanisms on cross-national HRM which can be examined through more appropriate
statistical techniques, such as regressions or discriminant analysis, as suggested by Dimick
and Murray (1978) and Guest (1997). All the mentioned analysis has been successfully
conducted in a cross-national comparative HRM context in India and Britain (for details,
see Budhwar, 1998).
Further research is needed to test which HR and organizational strategies and policies
become significant predictors of HRM in different regional settings. More facets of each
national factor will undoubtedly be identified as our research understanding broadens
and deepens. The issue of policy versus practice needs serious consideration. For
example, in many developing countries such as Brazil, Peru and India, there are explicit
policies regarding sexual harassment, discrimination, child labor, minimum wages, etc.
Though a number of factors and variables mentioned in our framework (such as labor
legislation and pressure groups) result in the development of these policies, in practice
these policies are rarely enforced. Similarly, a number of HRM practices are determined
by different factors and variables. For example, the word of mouth method of
recruitment (which is not a policy) has become a prominent practice in unionized
Indian firms (Budhwar & Khatri, 2001). This is due to the pressure created by unions to
recruit relatives of existing employees or of their own choice. Why do HRM policies
not reflect an organizations current practices or the other way? Such issues should form
the agenda of future research. Nevertheless, the proposed framework provides a good
starting point for positioning and mapping much of the existing and proposed crossnational HRM research.
Acknowledgements
We thank Randall Schuler, Paul Blyton, Monir Tayeb, Kieth Whitfield, Peter Turnbull,
anonymous reviewers of HRM Review, David Balkin, and the three anonymous reviewers
of the 99 AOM conference for their useful comments on earlier versions of this article. An
earlier version of this article was presented at the 1999 Academy of Management
Conference, Chicago.
398
Appendix A
National
culture
National factors
Institutions
Socialization
process;
common values,
norms of
behavior, and
customs;
influence of
pressure groups;
assumptions
that shape
managers
perceptions,
insights, and
mindsets;
management
style; meaning
of work and
values; personal
dispositions,
attitudes and
manners;
approaches to
cultural
diversity;
match to the
organization
culture.
National labor
laws; trade
unions; politics;
educational and
vocational
training set up;
labor market;
professional
bodies;
international
institutions;
industry
by itself;
employers
federation;
consulting
organizations;
placement
organizations;
trade bodies;
government
institutions;
local authorities;
voluntary bodies.
Industrial
sector
Dynamic business
environment
Common
strategies,
business logic
and goals;
regulations
and standards;
sector-specific
knowledge;
informal and
formal
benchmarking;
cross-sector
cooperation;
common
developments
in business
operations;
labor or skill
requirements;
merger activity;
workforce
mobility;
capital mobility.
Competition;
business
alliances;
changing
composition
of workforce;
restructuring;
focus on total
customer
satisfaction;
facility of
information
technological
change;
globalization
of business.
Contingent
variables
Organizational
strategies and
policies
HR strategies
and policies
Age of
organization;
size of
organization;
nature of
organization;
status and
ownership
of organization;
product; control;
life cycle stage
of organization;
level of
technology used;
structure;
presence of
unions;
presence
of HRM
department;
presence of HR
strategy;
industry
characteristics;
different
stakeholders
interest.
Prospector;
analyzer;
defender;
reactor; cost
leadership;
innovation;
quality
enhancement;
group work;
product
differentiation;
market focus;
internal labor
markets;
levels of
integration and
devolvement;
nature of work
flexibility.
Talent
acquisition;
talent
improvement;
resource
allocation;
cost reduction;
high
commitment;
high control;
paternalism;
primary HR
functions.
Table 1. Details of subcomponents of factors and variables determining cross-national HRM
399
References
Adler, N. J. (1983). A typology of management studies involving culture. Journal of International Business
Studies, 14, 29 47.
Adler, N. J., Doktor, R., & Redding, G. S. (1986). From the Atlantic to the Pacific century: cross-cultural
management reviewed. Journal of Management, 12, 295 318.
Baird, L., & Meshoulam, I. (1988). Managing two fits of strategic human resource management. Academy of
Management Review, 13, 116 128.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173 1182.
Barrett, G. V., & Bass, B. M. (1970). Comparative surveys of managerial attitudes and behavior. In J. Bodewyn
(Ed.), Comparative management: teaching, research and training (pp. 179 207). New York: New York
University Graduate School of Business Administration.
Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P. R., Quinn Mills, D., & Walton, R. E. (1984). Human resource management.
New York: Free Press.
Begin, J. P. (1992). Comparative HRM: a systems perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 3, 379 408.
Benson, J. (1995). Future employment and the internal labor market. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 33,
603 608.
Bournois, F., Chauchat, J., & Roussillon, S. (1994). Training and development in Europe. In C. Brewster, &
A. Hegewisch (Eds.), Policy and practice in European human resource management ( pp. 122 138).
London: Routledge.
Boxall, P. F. (1995). Building the theory of comparative HRM. Human Resource Management Journal, 5, 5 17.
Brewster, C. (1995). Towards a European model of human resource management. Journal of International Business Studies, 26, 1 22.
Brewster, C., & Hegewisch, A. (Eds.) (1994). Policy and practice in European human resource management.
London: Routledge.
Brewster, C., & Larsen, H. H. (1992). Human resource management in Europe: evidence from ten countries.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 3, 409 433.
Brewster, C., Tregaskis, O., Hegewisch, A., & Mayne, L. (1996). Comparative research in human resource
management: a review and an example. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7,
586 604.
Budhwar, P. (1998). Comparative human resource management: a cross-national study of India and Britain.
Unpublished PhD Thesis, Manchester Business School, England.
Budhwar, P. (2000). Indian and British personnel specialists understanding of the dynamics of their function: an
empirical study. International Business Review, 9(6), 727 753.
Budhwar, P., & Fadzil, K. (2000). Globalization, economic crisis and corporate survival: lessons from a large
Malaysian Islamic Institution. Asia Pacific Business Review, 7(1), 171 198.
Budhwar, P., & Khatri, N. (2001). Comparative human resource management in Britain and India: an empirical
study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(5), 800 826.
Budhwar, P., & Sparrow, P. (1997). Evaluating levels of strategic integration and devolvement of human resource
management in India. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 476 494.
Budhwar, P., & Sparrow, P. (1998). National factors determining Indian and British HRM practices: an empirical
study. Management International Review, 38(Special Issue 2), 105 121.
Cappelli, P. (1995). Rethinking employment. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 33, 563 602.
Cavusgil, S. T., & Das, A. (1997). Methodological issues in empirical cross-cultural research: a survey of the
management literature and a framework. Management International Review, 37, 71 96.
Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clark, T., Gospel, H., & Montgomery, J. (1999). Running on the spot? A review of twenty years of research on the
400
management of human resources in comparative and international perspective. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 10 (3), 520 544.
Cohen, Y., & Pfeffer, J. (1986). Organizational hiring standards. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 1 24.
Dany, F., & Torchy, V. (1994). Recruitment and selection in Europe: policies, practices and methods. In
C. Brewster, & A. Hegewisch (Eds.), Policy and practice in European human resource management
(pp. 68 88). London: Routledge.
Davis, S. M. (1971). Comparative management: cultural and organizational perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Dimick, D. E., & Murray, V. V. (1978). Correlates of substantiative policy decisions in organizations: the case of
human resource management. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 611 623.
Easterby-Smith, M., Mailna, D., & Yuan, L. (1995). How culture sensitive is HRM? A comparative analysis of
practice in Chinese and UK companies. International Journal of Human, 6, 31 59.
Eriksson, P., Fowler, C., Whipp, R., & Rasanen, K. (1996). Business communities in the European confectionery
sector: a UK Finland comparison. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 12, 359 387.
Farmer, R. N., & Richman, B. M. (1965). Comparative management and economic progress. Homewood,
IL: Irwin.
Fisher, C. D., & Shaw, J. B. (1992). Establishment level correlates of human resource practices. Asia Pacific
HRM, 30, 30 46.
Forster, N., & Whipp, R. (1995). Future of European human resource management: a contingent approach.
European Management Journal, 13, 434 442.
Galbraith, J., & Nathanson, D. (1978). Strategy implementation: the role of structure and process. St. Paul:
West Publishing.
Gronhaug, K., & Nordhaug, O. (1992). International human resource management: an environmental approach.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 3, 1 14.
Guest, D. E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 263 276.
Guthrie, J. P., & Olian, J. D. (1991). Does context effect staffing decisions: the case of general managers.
Personnel Psychology, 44, 283 296.
Haire, M., Ghiselli, E. E., & Porter, L. W. (1966). Managerial thinking. New York: Wiley.
Harbison, F., & Meyers, C. A. (1959). Management in the industrial world. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hendry, C. (1996). Continuities in human resource processes in internationalization and domestic business
management. Journal of Management Studies, 33, 475 494.
Hendry, C., & Pettigrew, A. M. (1992). Patterns of strategic change in the development of human resource
management. British Journal of Management, 3, 137 156.
Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., McMillan, C. J. M., & Schwitter, J. P. (1974). The culture-free context of
organization structure: a tri-national comparison. Sociology, 8, 59 80.
Hiltrop, J. M. (1993). Strategic pressures deriving European HRM. European Management Journal, 11, 424 434.
Hiltrop, J. M. (1996). A framework for diagnosing human resource management practices. European Management
Journal, 14, 243 254.
Hiltrop, J. M., Despres, C., & Sparrow, P. R. (1995). The changing role of HR managers in Europe. European
Management Journal, 13, 91 98.
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International
Business Studies, 14, 75 89.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural dimensions in people management. In V. Puick, N. M. Tichy, & C. K. Barnett (Eds.),
Globalizing management ( pp. 139 158). New York: Wiley.
Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1995). Understanding human resource management in the context of organizations and their environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 237 264.
Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S., & Rivero, J. C. (1989). Organizational characteristics as predictors of personnel
practice. Personnel Psychology, 42, 727 786.
Keesing, R. M. (1974). Theories of culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 3, 73 97.
401
Khatri, N. (1999). Emerging issues in strategic HRM in Singapore. International Journal of Manpower, 20
(8), 516 529.
Kochan, T. A., Dyer, L., & Batt, R. (1992). International human resource studies: a framework for future research.
In D. Lewin, O. S. Mitchell, & P. D. Sherer (Eds.), Research frontiers in industrial relations and human
resources ( pp. 309 337). Wisconsin: IRRA Series.
Lahteenmaki, S., Storey, J., & Vanhala, S. (1998). HRM and company performance: the use of measurement and
the influence of economic cycles. Human Resource Management Journal, 8, 51 65.
Laurent, A. (1993). The cross-cultural puzzle of global human resource management. In V. Puick, N. M. Tichy, &
C. K. Barnett (Eds.), Globalizing management ( pp. 174 184). New York: Wiley.
Legge, K. (1989). Human resource managementa critical analysis. In J. Storey (Ed.), New perspectives on
human resource management ( pp. 19 40). London: Routledge.
Legge, K. (1995). Human resource management: rhetorics and realities. Chippenham: Macmillan.
Locke, R., Kochan, T., & Piore, M. (1995). Reconceptualizing comparative industrial relations: lessons from
international research. International Labor Review, 134, 139 161.
Locke, R., & Thelen, K. (1995). Apples and oranges revisited: contextualized comparisons and the study of
comparative labor politics. Politics and Society, 23, 337 367.
Lowndes, V. (1996). Varieties of new institutionalism: a critical appraisal. Public Administration, 74, 181 197.
MacDuffie, J. P. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: organizational logic and
flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Reviews, 48, 197 221.
Mahoney, T., & Deckop, P. (1986). Evolution of the concept and practice in personnel administration/human
resource management. Journal of Management, 12, 223 241.
Mayne, L., Tregaskis, O., & Brewster, C. (1996). A comparative analysis of the link between flexibility and
human resource strategy. Employee Relations, 18, 5 24.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, S. S. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, S. S. (1984). Designing strategic human resources systems. Organization Dynamics, 16,
36 52.
Morishima, M. (1995). Embedding HRM in a social context. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 33, 617 640.
Murray, V. V., Jain, H. C., & Adams, R. J. (1976). A framework for the comparative analysis of personnel
administration. Academy of Management Review, 1, 47 57.
Nath, R. (Ed.) (1988). Comparative management a regional view. Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing.
Negandhi, A. R. (1975). Comparative management and organization theory: a marriage needed. Academy of
Management Journal, 18, 334 344.
Negandhi, A. R. (1983). Cross-cultural management research: trend and future directions. Journal of International
Business Studies, 14, 17 27.
Osterman, P. (1994). Internal labor markets: theory and change. In C. Kerr, & P. D. Staudohar (Eds.), Markets and
institutions ( pp. 303 339). Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
Peck, S. R. (1994). Exploring the link between organizational strategy and the employment relationship: the role
of human resources policies. Journal of Management Studies, 31, 715 736.
Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 31,
194 208.
Pieper, R. (Ed.) (1990). HRM: an international comparison. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Poole, M. (1990). Editorial: human resource management in an international perspective. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 1, 1 15.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York:
Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. L. (Eds.) (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Rasanen, K., & Whipp, R. (1992). National business recipes: a sector perspective. In R. Whitley (Ed.), European
business systems: firms and markets in their national contexts. London: Sage Publications.
402
Redding, S. G. (1994). Comparative management theory: jungle, zoo or fossil bed? Organization Studies, 15,
323 359.
Rousseau, D. M., & Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (1994). Linking strategy and human resource practices: how employee
and customer contracts are created. Human Resource Management, 33, 463 489.
Rowley, C. (Ed.) (1998). Human resource management in the Asia Pacific region: convergence questioned.
London: Frank Cass.
Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. London: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Schneider, S. C. (1993). National vs. corporate culture: implications for HRM. In V. Puick, N.M. Tichy, & C.K.
Barnett (Eds.), Globalizing management ( pp. 160 173). New York: Wiley.
Schuler, R. S. (1992). Linking the people with the strategic needs of the business. Organizational Dynamics,
Summer, 18 32.
Schuler, R. S., Dowling, P. J., & DeCeri, H. (1993). An integrative framework of strategic international human
resource management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 4, 717 764.
Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Organizational strategy and organizational level as determinants of human
resource management practices. Human Resource Planning, 10, 125 141.
Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (1999). Strategic human resource management. London: Blackwell.
Schuler, R. S., & Rogovsky, N. (1998). Understanding compensation practice variations across firms: the impact
of national culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 29, 159 177.
Scott, R. W. (1995). Institutions and organizations. London: Sage Publications.
Slocum, J. W., Cron, W. L., Hansen, R. W., & Rawlings, S. (1985). Business strategy and the management of
plateaued employees. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 133 154.
Smith, C., & Meiksins, P. (1995). System, society and dominance effects in cross-national organizational analysis.
Work, Employment and Society, 9, 241 267.
Soeters, J. L., & Schwan, R. (1990). Towards an empirical assessment of internal market configurations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1, 272 287.
Sparrow, P. R. (1995). Towards a dynamic and comparative model of European human resource management: an
extended review. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6, 481 505.
Sparrow, P. R., & Budhwar, P. (1997). Competition and change: mapping the Indian HRM recipe against world
wide patterns. Journal of World Business, 32, 224 242.
Sparrow, P. R., & Hiltrop, J. M. (1994). European human resource management in transition. London:
Prentice Hall.
Sparrow, P. R., & Hiltrop, J. M. (1997). Redefining the field of European human resource management:
a battle between national mindsets and forces of business transition. Human Resource Management, 36,
201 219.
Storey, J. (1992). Developments in the management of human resources. London: Blackwell.
Tayeb, M. (1987). Contingency theory and culture: a study of matched English and the Indian manufacturing
firms. Organization Studies, 8, 241 261.
Tayeb, M. (1988). Organizations and national culture. London: Sage.
Tayeb, M. (1994). Organizations and national culture: methodology considered. Organization Studies, 15,
429 446.
Tayeb, M. (1995). The competitive advantage of nations: the role of HRM and its socio-cultural context. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6, 588 605.
Terpstra, V., & David, K. (1985). The cultural environment of international business. Ohio: SouthWestern Publishing.
Torrington, D. (1993). How dangerous is human resource management? A reply to Tim Hart. Employee Relations,
15, 40 53.
Truss, C., & Gratton, L. (1994). Strategic human resource management: a conceptual approach. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 5, 663 686.
Truss, C., Gratton, L., Hailey, H., McGovern, P., & Stiles, P. (1997). Soft and hard models of human resource
management: a reappraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 34, 53 73.
403
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Towards a theory of organizational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.),
Research in organizational behavior, vol. 1 (pp. 209 264). Greenwich: JAI Press Inc.
Veliyath, R., Ferris, S. P., & Ramaswamy, K. (1994). Business strategy and top management compensation:
the mediating effects of employment risk, firm performance and size. Journal of Business Research, 30,
149 159.
Welch, D. (1994). Determinants of international human resource management approaches and activities: a suggested framework. Journal of Management Studies, 31, 139 164.
Whitley, R. (Ed.) (1992). European business systems: firms and markets in their national contexts. London: Sage
Publications.
Yuen, E. C., & Kee, H. T. (1993). Headquarters, host-culture and organizational influences on HRM policies and
practices. Management International Review, 33, 361 383.
Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443 464.

Review 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Resource Management Review

12 (2002) 377 403

An integrative framework for understanding cross-national

Cardiff Business School, Colum Drive, Cardiff CF1 3EU, UK

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-2920-875214; fax: +44-2920-874419.

2. Four comparative management frameworks

3. Developments in cross-national HRM: contingency themes

3.2. Framework for determining IHRM management approaches and activities

4. Comparative process theories

5. Moving beyond contingency and comparative process models

Fig. 1. Factors determining cross-national HRM practices.

Proposition 1: Nation states contain unique configurations of industrial/business

common strategies, business logic, and goals;

A review of the literature shows that organizational strategies determine a range of

Table 1. Details of subcomponents of factors and variables determining cross-national HRM

You might also like