De Cieri et al_2007_A review of IHRM

Introduction

If defined in terms of the worldwide flow of capital, knowledge and other resources concomitant with increasing growth in the scope and scale of competition, the globalization of business, with its emphasis on the interconnection of international product markets (Harzing 2002), increases the requirement for understanding ways in which multinational enterprises (MNEs) may operate effectively.

While the determinism of such an increase may be questioned (see Perkins 2003), a major aspect of this understanding is based in the field of international management and its dimension of international human resource management (IHRM) (Dowling 1999; Schuler et al. 2002). In this paper, we review and critique the development of IHRM in the context of calls for greater integration in its theoretical and research emphases from within the field, and of postmodern and postcolonial

perspectives from without. In response to these calls, we aim to provoke discussion among IHRM theorists, researchers and practitioners by introducing imitation rather than integration as an approach to analysing future developments. Imitation, we argue, is a reflexive movement in which IHRM theorists and practitioners draw reference to what they have learned from existing practices and disciplines, rather than try to integrate or subsume the past by claiming new and more encompassing approaches to their subject. Consistent with greater attention to reflexivity in organizational research and with greater sensitivity to local context within the politics of globalization, we argue that the analysis of imitation both resists and supplements integrative theory development.

This paper presents a valuable step in the development of IHRM because we give explicit attention to concerns that IHRM appears to be reproducing the flawed universalist assumptions of the broader fields of international management and international business (cf. Westwood 2001, 2006). The dominance of naïve empiricism (after Cray and Mallory 1998) and the search for an integrative, all-encompassing theoretical base has led to the neglect of diverse voices. Although Perkins (2003, 462) has questioned ‘optimistic’ and ‘uncritically functionalist’ notions of globalization and has suggested that IHRM may be perceived as globalization’s ‘junior partner’ (Perkins 2003, 461), scholars in IHRM have, by and large, failed to engage with important social and structural questions. Such questions include those related to the difficulties of managing across national borders, the consequences of cross-national shifts in employment for a nation’s social security obligations and the potential for globalization to have destructive effects on national employment and identity (e.g. Guillén 2001). Other questions have to do with the very constitution of globalization as a discourse that may privilege particular positions, depending on whether it is presented as beneficial and civilizing, destructive in terms of democracy or the natural environment, and

present now or exaggerated and only partial (Fiss and Hirsch 2005; Perkins 2003).

As an important step toward broadening engagement, we build on and respond to comprehensive reviews of the IHRM field conducted by leading scholars (e.g. Schuler et al. 2002; Scullion and Paauwe 2004) and, in so doing, seek to encourage others to interrogate the narrow focus of IHRM: to question its assumptions, inclusions, exclusions and effects (see also Harrison et al. 2004; Peltonen 2003, 2006). In particular, why was this research field dominated for so long by a focus on expatriates? Who, or what, has remained ignored? While there have been efforts to guide future research in IHRM (e.g. Brewster and Suutari 2005; Schuler et al. 2002), questions remain about how researchers in this field may best identify and analyse the emerging issues and realities of managing people in multinational enterprises.

In order to develop our argument for a new direction for IHRM scholarship, this review is divided into four sections. First, we outline the growth and nature of the field of IHRM. Second, we discuss calls for greater theoretical integration within this field, suggesting that such calls are based both on the particular nature of MNEs as IHRM’s organizational context and on the inadequacies of the existing theoretical and research base. One consequence of such limitations has been the careful articulation of a narrow range of descriptive typologies and terminology that serve to reproduce ethnocentrism and elitism in IHRM. In the third section, we draw on postmodern and postcolonial perspectives to interrogate these limitations. Fourth, we propose a way to overcome IHRM’s exclusions by detailing some possibilities for theory development that are imitative rather than integrative, and discuss implications for the conduct of future research. While much of this analysis may also be relevant to a broader critique of rational choice approaches to international management, or to management studies more generally, we draw on specific examples from IHRM as a vivid illustration of

a field of growing importance where increasingly entrenched conceptual and empirical limitations may affect both its scholars and its practitioners.

The Growth and Nature of IHRM

As defined by Peltonen (2006, 523), IHRM is ‘a branch of management studies that investigates the design and effects of organizational human resource practices in cross-cultural contexts’. While human resource management (HRM) is relevant within a single country, IHRM seeks to explore added complexity due to a diversity of national contexts of operation and to the inclusion of different national categories of workers (Dowling 1999; Evans et al. 2002; Schuler et al. 2002). In sum, IHRM is an area of research and practice that is embedded in international management, which is in turn embedded in the broad field of international business.

The development of international management and IHRM reflects their interdependence, for it has also been claimed that the development of international management has extended from a specific interest ‘to achieving an enlightened understanding’ of HRM in international contexts (Earley and Singh 1995, 329). Given this relationship, it is not surprising that the meanings of ‘international management’ have been debated (Boddewyn et al. 2004), and that those of ‘IHRM’ have been left unstated (see for example, influential texts by Dowling and Welch (2004), Evans et al. (2002) and Harzing and Van Ruysseveldt (2004) that chart the evolution of IHRM and outline its distinguishing features, but do not specify its meaning). However their meanings are defined or implied, a key assumption in both international management and IHRM is that liberal understanding will lead to improved utilization of human resources, congruent with organizational strategic objectives (Boddewyn et al. 2004; Roehling et al. 2005).

A major aspect of IHRM research has been concerned with co-ordination across national

December 2007

borders via the cross-national transfer of management and management practices (Evans et al. 2002) and a related area of research has developed in comparative HRM (Dowling 1999). More recent discussions of IHRM have included a broader consideration of HRM in multinational enterprises (Evans et al. 2002; Schuler et al. 2002). The organizational context in which much IHRM is considered is, therefore, that of multinational corporations, and particularly their headquarters. Multinational enterprise (MNE) or multinational corporation (MNC) are the generic terms used to describe such corporations in most of the international management literature (Sundaram and Black 1992). Multinational enterprises take various organizational forms, with transnational enterprises (TNEs), those with substantial, actively managed direct investment in foreign countries as integral parts of the enterprise both in strategic and in operational terms, often viewed as the most complex or sophisticated (Bartlett and Ghoshal 1992). However, research into organizational forms, not all of which display formal IHRM structures, is further raising awareness of the complexities and challenges of international management and the implications for IHRM. Recent research has looked beyond the large MNEs to explore IHRM issues in organizational forms such as small MNEs (Sparrow and Brewster 2006), strategic networks (Borgatti and Foster 2003) and cross-border alliances (Schuler and Tarique 2006).

Another important area of research explores IHRM issues in the context of developing countries. While much of this research has focused on inward FDI, such as foreign investors operating in China (Zhu 2005), there is emerging research investigating the challenges faced by MNEs based in developing economies that are expanding their outward foreign direct investment (OFDI). For example, there is increasing awareness of the significant, emerging phenomenon of Chinese OFDI. While the topic of OFDI from developing countries has generated a stream of international business research since the late 1970s (Lecraw

1977; Ramamurti 2004), recent evidence suggests that trends in Chinese OFDI, which include growing utilization of OFDI to obtain strategic assets and proprietary knowledge (Deng 2004), create unexplored challenges for Chinese MNEs (Liu et al. 2005). This has led IHRM scholars to begin to explore the effect of outward FDI on IHRM in Chinese MNEs (Zhang 2003).

In line with researchers’ and practitioners’ increasing attention to the strategic nature of IHRM and to the implications of strategy for organizational performance (De Cieri and Dowling 2006), IHRM has been extended into strategic IHRM (SIHRM), which has been defined as: ‘human resource management issues, functions, and policies and practices that result from the strategic activities of multinational enterprises and that impact the international concerns and goals of those enterprises’ (Schuler et al. 1993, 422).

These issues, functions, policies and practices encompass human resource planning, staffing, industrial/labour relations, employee development, performance management and compensation. This combination may also be thought of as the core of the human resource system (Bowen and Ostroff 2004). For example, the IHRM function of an MNE might be responsible for activities ranging from the global leadership development, to working with line managers to attract, develop and retain a global workforce. Thus, IHRM extends the claims to integration and legitimacy that are important in the differentiation of both strategic HRM from HRM and of HRM from personnel management (Guest 1991; Peltonen 2006). International human resource management is increasingly viewed by those within the field as a key aspect of MNE strategic planning and implementation, with some leading scholars now describing the field as ‘global’, rather than ‘international’, HRM (Brewster and Suutari 2005; Brewster et al. 2005). Recently, scholars have debated the future of the broad field of international business and sought to identify the ‘big questions’ that researchers may address (Buckley 2002;

Peng 2004). For example, Peng (2004, 102) posited the encompassing question of ‘What determines the international success and failure of firms?’ However, and before IHRM scholars enter into this debate, we suggest that we first need to question the assumption that big theory will assist in the answering of big questions, and we commence our argument by tracking the growth of the field of IHRM.

Theory Development: The Pushes for Integration and Specification

Writing in the early 1990s, Ghoshal and Westney (1993) suggested several opportunities for the application of organization theory to MNEs, yet noted a lamentable lack of theorizing related to these organizations. They observed that organization theorists had not developed an explicit focus on MNEs and that empirical work related to theory testing had tended to be restricted to organizations operating within a defined geographical area and industry sector. Since then, numerous theoretical perspectives have been applied to examine influences on and effects of IHRM, including the resourcebased view, economic, institutional, social network/social capital, organizational support and critical theoretical perspectives (see Stahl and Björkman’s (2006) edited volume for a collection of varied perspectives; also see Schuler and Jackson (2005)). In this section, we discuss efforts to integrate some of the multiple theoretical perspectives in IHRM research and note that such efforts are congruent with the application of multiple, complementary theoretical perspectives to the field of strategic HRM (McMahan et al. 1999).

The Case for Integrative Theory

Theory building in IHRM is based on two assumptions. The first of these is that MNEs ‘require special theory-building efforts in order for researchers to comprehensively understand this organizational form’ (Sundaram and Black 1992, 752). Under this view, IHRM may be best understood via integration of multiple

disciplinary bases and theoretical perspectives to explain the complex empirical phenomena under investigation. While the first generation of IHRM research has been atheoretical, or mono-theoretical, based on cross-cultural comparisons and heavily reliant on description, the use of integrative, multi-theoretical approaches involving, for example, neo-institutional, resource-based and resource dependence perspectives has since developed. This integration has been augmented by recent research (e.g. Novicevic and Harvey 2001a; Tregaskis 2003). Indeed, there are ‘signs that a more integrated, eclectic approach is emerging ... as researchers strive to weave together elements taken from a variety of theoretical perspectives’ (Quintanilla and Ferner 2003, 364).

The second assumption is that the available theories are inadequate (Schuler et al. 1993; Taylor et al. 1996). For example, there has been a large literature focused on micro-level variables related to the cross-national transfer of employees and management practices (e.g. Engle et al. 2001; Zhang 2003). However, it is increasingly argued that a comprehensive understanding of IHRM requires much more than a traditional focus on such micro-level IHRM issues. As highlighted above, macrolevel factors such as security and global risk management demand attention and investigation to reveal their implications for IHRM policies and practices (Suder 2004), and it has been argued that the complexity of globalization and global events invites multi-theoretical, multi-level analysis. For example, and following Guillén’s (2001) sociological analysis of the debate surrounding globalization, several researchers (for example, Evans et al. 2002; Mendenhall 1999; Von Glinow et al. 2004) have encouraged the integration of theoretical perspectives and research methodologies that bridge the micro–macro gap, ‘i.e. that move across levels of analysis from the worldsystem to the nation-state, the industry, sector, community, organization, and group’ (Guillén 2001, 255).

A further reason why theoretical integrations have been promoted is that international

December 2007

and comparative management research and, more specifically, IHRM research, has received criticism on several grounds. These include arguments that much of the earlier research was descriptive and lacking in analytical rigour, using little more than ‘raw data’, in Bacharach’s (1989) terms. It was also seen as ad hoc and expedient in research design and planning; self-centred in the sense that the existing research literature is frequently ignored and lacking a sustained research effort to develop case material (Schöllhammer 1975; see also Redding 1994). In addition, many IHRM studies suffered from small sample size, low response rates, and have been restricted to quantitative analysis (Peterson et al. 1996; also see Tayeb 1994). International human resource management researchers face the challenge of deciphering the conceptual and functional equivalence of measures such as survey instruments (Von Glinow et al. 2002) and the many methodological problems inherent in much of the international business literature. Further work is needed if mainstream researchers are to overcome such methodological problems and to develop an understanding of the field with theoretical rigour and concrete operationalization of terms (De Cieri and Dowling 2006; Peterson 2004). For example, there are particular opportunities both to improve the validity and reliability of survey measures (a single HR manager is often the sole respondent for each MNE represented in a sample) and to develop case work based on ideographic techniques and emic concepts (Teagarden et al. 1995). While there are numerous examples of recent, more rigorous research in IHRM, there are many areas where gaps remain, as identified by scholars such as Brewster and colleagues (Brewster et al. 2005; Brewster and Suutari 2006). In terms of its subject, IHRM research has in many ways transformed from a focus on the specifics of expatriation and other practices (cf. Harrison et al. 2004; Selmer 2001; Suutari and Tornikoski 2001; Tung 1998) towards investigation of variables at multiple levels and of the relationships between them (De Cieri and Dowling 2006). We agree that it

is important for the IHRM field to understand the dynamics of expatriation, while recognizing that expatriation is no longer the main focus for many IHRM researchers and practitioners (Schuler and Jackson 2005).

In response to the identified gaps, theoretical integration has been presented as a means of guiding research efforts to help to overcome limitations identified in extant literature (Ferris et al. 1999; Mendenhall 1999) for, from a normal science perspective, theory development is assessed more in terms of its inclusions than its exclusions (cf. Chia 1997; Reed 1996). For example, there have been attempts to offer integrative frameworks for the study and understanding of (strategic) IHRM, such as those by Schuler et al. (1993) and Taylor et al. (1996); also see Budhwar and Sparrow (2002). Several IHRM scholars cite the presentation of conceptual frameworks as a sign of progress in the development of ‘an integrative paradigm of the IHRM process’ and of ‘attempts to integrate the IHRM process into the overall strategic planning of a multinational organization’ (Ferris et al. 1999, 396). As Brewster and Suutari (2005, 7) have described in some detail: ‘Even these integrative models, however, do not fully answer some of the criticisms that have been levelled against the fields of IHRM and SIHRM’, and they go on to propose a tentative new model of globalizing HRM.

In response, we argue that it is important to question, and even to interrogate, this deliberate trend towards theoretical integration because integration carries with it the risk that IHRM theory and research will fall into the trap of reproducing practical ethnocentrism at the theoretical level. In part, the latter has been assisted through the specification of typologies and terminologies that have been adopted largely without question within the IHRM literature.

The Articulation of Typologies and

Terminology

Thus, aside from the need to interrogate such deliberate attention to theoretical integration,

we also argue that the very language of IHRM also deserves more attention because speakers of a language ‘are locked into the world view given to them by their language’ (Davies et al. 1998, 2). In raising awareness of ‘whose narrative becomes orthodoxy’ (and whose does not) (Brannen 2004, 604), we propose that there is a need to develop better understanding of the implications of language in multinational corporations and IHRM research.

As an example of an enduring and prominent application of language in IHRM, we note that certain typologies and terminology depictive of IHRM have been vigorously and persistently articulated and applied. These may assist theory building and research activity as well as enhance decision choices for IHRM practitioners. The risk here is that terminology and the structuring of it into descriptive typologies can impose narrow and exclusive meanings (Westwood 2004), as we shall now discuss.

Typologies in IHRM. It is widely recognized that an imperative for IHRM and the realization of MNE goals is the balance of often conflicting needs of two dimensions: global coordination (integration) and local responsiveness (differentiation). These dimensions have received a great deal of attention in international management research (e.g. Doz and Prahalad 1991; Quintanilla and Ferner 2003; Rosenzweig and Nohria 1994).

The most enduring typology in IHRM-related research is that of Heenan and Perlmutter (1979), who identified MNE headquarter orientations towards subsidiaries, based on how executives in organizations thought about doing business around the world. With specific regard to the implications for IHRM, the typology is often referred to as MNE international staffing orientation (Dowling and Welch 2004). This typology has been through several iterations and is usually described as identifying four approaches through the EPRG Profile: ethnocentric, polycentric, regiocentric or geocentric (Chakravarthy and Perlmutter 1985; Heenan and Perlmutter 1979). Another typology that

has been well utilized in research and practice is that developed by Bartlett and Ghoshal (1992). These authors constructed a typology of four strategic mindsets: international, multinational, global and transnational.

The authors of both typologies clearly stated that no one type was more efficacious than another, and we also stress their particular point that ‘one firm can occupy more than one cell of a typology’ (Edwards et al. 1996, 24). Some writers argue that these predispositions and mindsets represent evolutionary stages in the development of an MNE, with geocentric and transnational being ideal forms. However, the existence of a truly geocentric or transnational organization remains subject to some debate, and it is not surprising that attempts to establish the link between both ideal forms have been inconclusive. As Kobrin (1994, 495– 496) has suggested, this ‘entails an unwarranted teleological assumption of an evolutionary path whose end point (both positively and normatively) is a transnationally integrated firm organized globally with geocentric managerial attitudes and policies’.

While recognizing the contributions of those typologies to IHRM research, we suggest that scholars need to be mindful that ‘[p]erception is always guided by conception’ (Kallinikos 1996, 39) and that conceptual categories, like measuring instruments, produce rather than reflect ‘the dimensional reality of the measured object’ (Hardy and Clegg 1997, 87). For instance, the dominant organizational ‘reality’ of MNEs has until recently been that of large, mature organizations following a linear progression through stages of internationalization. While it may be argued that observations of large MNEs are also applicable to small to medium-sized MNEs (Sparrow and Brewster 2006), discussion of IHRM in small to mediumsized MNEs and ‘new’ organizational forms, such as international new ventures, has received minimal attention, despite their prominence in global markets (Zahra 2005).

Terminology and translation in IHRM. Like all others, the language of IHRM has its own

December 2007

vocabulary. In this respect, IHRM has followed the example set by international business research in developing and utilizing terminology that ranges from aphorisms to abbreviations. These developments serve to extend the typologies discussed above, to confer legitimacy to the field and to establish implicit hierarchies within that field.

For example, think global, act local has been widely adopted as an aphorism reflecting a transnational mindset. This is sometimes supported by the hybrid glocal, or glocalization (Pieterse 1994). While the terms global and globalization have been central to the development of IHRM research and practice, there remains debate about definition and implications. For example, we note that many researchers and practitioners (mis-)use global when actually referring to transnational issues (cf. Pucik 1997). This might be a matter of translation, as global can be indicative of the reach or intended reach of MNEs, or it might refer to situations or factors that affect organizations worldwide (Boddewyn et al. 2004). Given the emerging use of the term ‘global HRM’ to describe this field and noted above (e.g. Brewster et al. 2005), clear explication and careful consideration of the term is warranted. In addition, Czarniawska and Joerges (1996, 22) have criticized the essentializing of the adjectives local and global, arguing that global is not total, nor is it above or beyond local (see also Welge and Holtbrügge 1999).

Many other terms require explanation in order to become accessible to novices to the field. For example, terms that refer to employee categories in MNEs include PCN, HCN and TCN. Parent-country national (PCN) refers to a person of the same nationality as the MNE headquarters, as introduced above. Host-country national (HCN), sometimes called local national, refers to a person of the same nationality as an MNE subsidiary. Thirdcountry national (TCN) refers to a person of a third nationality, employed either in the MNE parent country or in an MNE subsidiary. Mindful that definition and precision are required to enable communication among

those developing IHRM theory and research, we suggest that denotations also guide the IHRM field and act as powerful tools of influence both for and by practitioners.

An example of such repetition without question has been seen in the literature on expatriate failure, which has perpetuated the assumptions that the individual (not the MNE) is at fault and also that failure rates are high. Harzing’s (1995) examination of the expatriate literature suggests that these assumptions were based on unreliable guesses made in the 1960s, with little subsequent validation, and her work sparked off some debate (Forster 1997; Harzing and Christensen 2004).

International human resource management’s examination of the dynamics of expatriation has led to a further articulation of labels that have been applied to employees in MNEs who are transferred for work purposes. These labels include: expatriate, inpatriate, transpatriate and repatriate. Expatriation may include the transfer of parent-country nationals, hostcountry nationals and third-country nationals who are employees of an MNE (Dowling and Welch 2004; Harrison et al. 2004). Expatriate relocation involves the transfer of these employees – and often their families – for work purposes, between two country locations and for a period of time that is deemed to require a change of address and some degree of semi-permanent adjustment to local conditions. Hence, an expatriate is someone living (and perhaps working) in a host country, while remaining a citizen of one’s home country. The label repatriate is applied to any of the above when they return home after an overseas assignment. Further, an inpatriate is a HCN or TCN relocated ‘in’ to the parent country headquarters (Adler and Bartholomew 1992). Hence, we note that use of the word inpatriate implies an ethnocentric orientation, even though inpatriate managers should, eventually, provide the staffing foundation for a more pluralistic IHRM approach (Novicevic and Harvey 2001b). Transpatriate is the label applied to a PCN, HCN or TCN (i.e. anyone) transferred on an international assignment in a firm

pursuing a transnational mindset (Adler and Bartholomew 1992).

As Calás and Smircich (1993) and Hearn (1996) argued in their analyses of the consequences of globalization, we note also that gender discrimination has been an issue in expatriate selection and career development, excluding women on the basis of oversimplifications and myths concerning sex role stereotypes in host countries (Adler 2002; Dallalfar and Movahedi 1996).

As a specific example, within the dominant area of expatriate management, and in recognition of the fact that many expatriate employees are relocated with their spouses/partners and children, we note the usage of the term trailing spouse, which usually refers to the wife as the majority of expatriates in USA, Australia and Europe are male (Adler 2002). Often, the spouse/partner cannot get a work visa, or is not expected to work, and the psychological implications of such change in the social status and self-identity of the expatriate have been well-documented (e.g. Caligiuri et al. 2001). Thus, despite the opening of IHRM’s definitional territory, the voices and values heard may well be those of the elite explorers and senior managers rather than those of stakeholders such as the lower level participants who are left behind, or those indigenous to the territory being explored. As Hardy and Leiba- O’Sullivan (1998, 460) wrote, with reference to Foucault: ‘because prevailing discourses are experienced as reality, alternative discourses are difficult to conceive of, let alone enact (Ashley 1990). In such cases, resistance can only be conceived of in terms of prevailing discourses and is subsequently “colonized” by them’ (our emphasis).

Calás and Smircich (1993) allow us to recognize that gender problems in this field go beyond those of the trailing spouse and, extending the notion of colonization beyond the geographical and discursive to the epistemological, these authors have considered postcolonial possibilities as a means of including positions that might otherwise be relegated to the margin of romanticized or oppressed other

(Calás and Smircich 1996, 1999; see also Nkomo and Ensley 1999; Pieterse 1994; Westwood 2004). Relevant here is the overall neglect of host-country nationals in research for, as we have noted above, IHRM literature and research has been dominated by consideration of the importance of the expatriate assignment, particularly the training and preparation of soon-to-be expatriates at the expense of the remainder of the workforce, particularly the host-country work force (Brewster and Suutari 2006; Selmer 2001). As Bartlett et al. (2002, 384) have noted:

[N]oticeably lacking from the international HRD [human resource development] literature is an examination of the training and development of hostcountry nationals who are employed in the affiliates of multinational corporations, especially those in nonmanagerial positions, and a comparison of such workers to employees in host-country indigenous firms ... [T]he values and practices of HRD for host-country national employees in multinationals is likely to influence HRD in indigenous firms, and this in turn may have significant implications for the long-term development of a nation’s human capital.

Despite some criticism and efforts to address this from within the IHRM field (Mendenhall 1999), this dominant perspective is enduring. Even when the focus has been on training host-country nationals, that training has reflected a headquarters-centric, expatriationdriven approach. For instance, areas that have been addressed include preparation of hostcountry nationals to ‘get along’ with expatriates (Vance and Ring 1994) and the types and levels of training provided by headquarters in relation to the MNE’s strategic human resource orientation (Bartlett et al. 2002). The comparison of the voices of Mexican, Indonesian and US host-country workers on expatriate pre-departure training by Vance and Paik (2002) perhaps indicates a move to seek host-country national perspectives on training.

In addition, Cavusgil and Das (1997) note the need to address within-country crosscultural differences, noting, for example, that India has more than a dozen official languages

December 2007

in addition to numerous dialects (see also Prahalad and Lieberthal 1998). While certain research methods and practices may be applicable and effective in one cultural setting, changes to suit local requirements are inevitable for transfer across cultures and international applications, and it is not surprising that the importance of national culture remains an enduring debate in international business research (Peng 2004).

From Integration and Articulation to Exclusion: A Call for Shifting the Focus of Theory Development in IHRM

Thus, the push for greater articulation of IHRM has drawn attention to the need for greater methodological sensitivity. While we do not question the importance of such efforts, we do suggest that a major challenge for development of IHRM theory and research is to revisit some of IHRM’s typologies and terminology and to interrogate the field from different theoretical standpoints in order to consider whether the articulation of IHRM assists theory development or instead subordinates ‘any prospective counter-discourse’ (Reed 1993, 167; cf. Hassard 1993).

Early Critique: Inclusions and Exclusions

It could be argued that such concern is premature, given that typologies are not really theories at all and are often descriptive rather than explanatory. From this standpoint, the prevalence of typologies over theory development in IHRM may simply indicate that the field is at an early stage of development, serving as a helpful orienting and explanatory endeavour (Miller and Mintzberg 1983). However, Bacharach (1989, 497) suggested that typologies ‘may well serve as precursors to theories’, and the descriptive nature of its typologies may not preclude IHRM from critical examination, for all typologies are (only) a form of representation, a term interpreted by Kallinikos (1996, 39) as implying ‘the proactive bracketing, selection, perception and

investigation of particular and limited aspects of the world’ (see also Weick 1995, 388).

Whether or not a typology can ever be purely descriptive, it is worth remembering that problems with typologies include their static nature and their reduction of complexities to one or two dimensions. Kobrin, for example, was unable to answer ‘the question of how an organization develops a geocentric mindset’ (1994, 507), and this question remains unanswered, despite its ongoing interest to IHRM researchers and practitioners (e.g. Pfeffer 2005). While there has been a broadening in the definitional categories of IHRM, the perspective overwhelmingly remains MNE headquarters-centric and to some extent still reflects the view that ‘all that is needed is to take account of “local” circumstances while formulating global, integrative strategy and then simply act on what the corporate center perceives to be good for the subsidiary/unit’ (Kamoche 1996, 232). Despite its espoused incorporation of strategic variety, IHRM may be imperialistic:

Indeed, there seems to be an underlying view that IHRM is all about the selection and deployment of expatriate managers to distant lands, providing them with a survival kit on how to fit into ‘strange cultures’ and finding something for them to do upon their return. (Kamoche 1996, 230)

This ‘traditional’ (or dominant) view of IHRM has promoted an institutional logic centred on the MNE headquarters, overlooking the perspectives of subsidiaries. In particular, the EPRG framework is predicated on home-country attitudes and beliefs reflecting assumptions about the extent to which foreigners and/or compatriots are competent and trustworthy to make key decisions about how international business should be conducted, and it is noteworthy that the framework was developed based on a decision analysis by an expert panel of senior executives from (mainly US) multinational firms.

This conception of an organization as having a strategic mindset, even where there is an ongoing consensus between members of the

organization about the attitudes towards multinationalization, seems problematic (cf. Czarniawska and Joerges 1996; Silverman 1970). Presumably, the predisposition is that of a head office, however minimal its role, still holding on to that strategic function and thus to the centre of power (Green and Ruhleder 1995).

Perhaps it is time for IHRM theorists to consider critiques of logocentrism in addition to those of ethnocentrism,2 and we suggest that IHRM typologizing should extend beyond the mind, predisposition or personality orientation of its planners (cf. Kumra 1996; Martin and Frost 1996; Welge and Holtbrügge 1999). As we have suggested, IHRM is at risk of becoming a field of scholarship depicted by bipolar dimensions (e.g. global–local; integration–differentiation) that are crafted and refined to legitimate a basis for theory, research, practice and teaching. However, we are concerned that the focus on the separation of global–local and integration–differentiation lines has oversimplified the terrain of IHRM, and note Kallinikos’ (1996, 37) argument that ‘management implies and reproduces compartmentalization and fragmentation as a means of mastery and control’.

Further, we suggest that the extensive use of typological classifications has particular implications for a field of research that is inherently ‘international’ and which encourages construction of inter-organizational networks and boundaryless organizations. Novicevic and Harvey (2001b, 341) have argued that the shift towards new, decentralized, organizational forms such as global networks ‘calls for the legitimization of a complementary, pluralistic perspective’, which they provide in an extended framework for IHRM, one that provides additional taxonomic categories to cover its contemporary form.

Reconsidering Precision and Criteria for Theoretical Progress in IHRM

However, it is worth noting that Burrell (1996) is critical of notions of such separation, likening