De Cieri et al_2007_A review of IHRM

them to anatomization, in which the body (of knowledge) is divided into its component organs and marked or wounded by ‘incised lesions on the body of organizational life’ (Burrell 1996, 645). In drawing this provocative analogy, Burrell is referring both to inscription, or the process by which scientists organize and stabilize systems of evidence (see Letiche and Hagemeijer 2004) and to Foucault (1977)’s interest in the body as a key site for the intersection of knowledge and power through definition of the normal and disciplining of variance. More generally, it is a criticism of science and the search for stable, foundational truths that typify enquiry derived from positivism, which assumes a dualist and objectivist relationship between the researcher and what can be known about the research subject. According to Burrell (1996), Foucault was concerned with the application of classification schemes as attempts to capture reality, suggesting that they discipline both the speaker and the subject of the scheme. With respect to the latter, there is concern that such separation silences, mutilates and even kills the subject of its inquiry (Burrell 1996; Clegg and Hardy 1996; Hardy and Clegg 1997). Burrell (2003, 528, citing Dale 2001) has recently warned that, since the object of analysis must be dead in order for such classification to proceed, ‘we must be very wary of the anatomizing urge and its role in organization theory’. The associated danger is that IHRM is guilty of the same action on a global scale, despite best intentions.

Therefore, we heed postmodernist critique of ‘attempt[s] to provide an all-encompassing explanation’ (Stablein 1996, 509) through means such as consensus or integration that typify not only IHRM but also organization and management theory more generally. Indeed, De Cock and Jeanes (2006, 20) have recently commented that theory development has concentrated on the integration of existing models and on the unification of ‘so-called false differences’. Important here is Lyotard’s view that grand narratives such as communism, capitalism, liberal democracy and psychoanalysis, where a single truth ‘claims to explain history

December 2007

and humanity’ (Letiche 2004, 68), form explanatory systems that produce a totalization of thought and do violence by excluding those singular aspects of life that they cannot explain. As interpreted by Letiche (2004, 64), Lyotard (1984) would have distrusted such explanations or narratives as descriptive accounts of how things are, arguing instead that they are representations, that ‘[w]hat appears to be mere narrative is almost always strongly normative, prescriptive and/or aesthetic’.

With attention shifting from foundation and substance to form and representation, ironic forms of writing are often used to show ‘disdain for attempts to legitimize claims of theoretical supremacy’ (Martin and Frost 1996, 612) and to encourage the serious play of ideas (Deetz 2001) and recognition of indeterminacy (see Cooper and Burrell 1988; Hassard 1993) rather than integration (see also Alvesson and Deetz 1996). Under this view, theory is merely a representational form (Calás and Smircich 1996), and a theoretical field such as IHRM does not necessarily develop as ‘a linear tale of progress’ (Martin and Frost 1996, 612). Instead, it is constituted through language and through other discursive practices that frame ‘what can and cannot be said about a given phenomenon’ at a particular historical point (Hancock and Tyler 2001, 23, with reference to Foucault). Theorizing, under this view, is a much more modest and temporary endeavour where theories are but ‘petits recits’/‘small stories’ (see Calás and Smircich 1996, 651, with reference to Lyotard) or ‘partial interpretations’ (Czarniawska and Sevon 1996, 3). It is also a reflexive or unsettling process, in which researchers question and explore taken- for-granted assumptions and limitations of their research and theorizing processes, highlighting their tentative and fallible nature (see Cunliffe 2003; Grandy and Mills 2004).

Such analysis raises some clear directions for future development of IHRM theory and associated research, for our intent is to encourage greater awareness of assumptions among those who aim to contribute to further developments in this field. There have been

some moves towards a questioning of the dominant integrative stance in IHRM (Mendenhall 1999; Peltonen 2006), and the emergence of critical institutionalist literature on HRM in multinational corporations (see for example, Gooderham et al. 1999). There have also been efforts to review and document the contributions that have been made with respect to application of various theoretical perspectives to IHRM (De Cieri and Dowling 2006; Schuler and Jackson 2005; Stahl and Björkman 2006), without attempting to integrate these. We support these steps away from the dominant paradigm, and seek to push the field of IHRM further towards a questioning and exploration of its stance.

We have suggested that the field of IHRM deserves theoretical disputation, and we should like to stimulate others’ interests, informed by the problematizing, or questioning of the taken-for-granted, of HRM (e.g. Guest 1991; Keenoy 1999; Legge 1995; Peltonen 2003; Townley 1994), of management strategy (e.g. Alvesson and Willmott 1996; Knights and Morgan 1991; Whipp 1996) and of their intersections (Grandy and Mills 2004; Jacques 1999).

Reframing the Subject: New Thinking in

IHRM Theory and Research

As a first step, we suggest that IHRM may benefit from broadening the language, including new metaphors (cf. Clegg and Grey 1996; Green and Ruhleder 1995). If, for example, attention is directed away from the narrow category of expatriate managers, the emphasis of research could reach beyond expatriation and expatriates to the hybrid categories of IHRM’s potential diasporas, migrants, exiles, refugees and nomads (Pieterse 1994; see also Kilduff and Corley 1999). Further, if theorizing itself becomes nomadic rather than integrative and ‘ranges across the territories of intellectual life’ (Hardy and Clegg 1997, S14), and, as we have noted above, ‘move[s] across levels of analysis’ (Guillén 2001, 255), authors may also feel freer to draw from postmodern and

critical theory3 to raise awareness of and reflection on IHRM research and teaching.

Some possibilities for research in these directions have recently been summarized by Peltonen (2006), who, for example, draws on postcolonial theory (Prasad 2003; Said 1978) within his discussion of how attention to issues of power, domination and ideology may reframe the study of expatriate assignments and research into HRM in MNC subsidiaries. Further, Westwood (2004) has proposed a postcolonial research methodology for the field of international business, as a critique and alternative to the dominant paradigm. If IHRM research is to become postcolonial, let us shift its focus, ask new questions, and hear more not only from those who are placed, but from those who are displaced or exist in the ‘lacunae of the globalization debate in business’ (Clegg and Grey 1996, 306). Paraphrasing Holvino’s (1996) questions posed to frame a postcolonial reading of organization development, some examples for future research could include: examination of the raced, gendered, classed subject of IHRM; identification of how the ‘other’ is represented in IHRM; representation of readings of IHRM that support the status quo, that is, current gender, race and class relations; use of the subjectivity of women, the exile, the worker, to destabilize dominant readings and critique current arrangements in which IHRM is embedded; and production of ‘different’ meanings when IHRM texts are read from socially constructed and embodied positions (cf. Banerjee and Linstead 2004; see also Jack and Westwood 2006).

In his analysis, Peltonen (2006) argues that it is important to examine how power effects result from the mutual implication of both colonizers and colonized. Similarly, and with specific reference to comparative management, Westwood (2001, 273) has pointed out that ‘[t]he Other has always had strategies of resistance, of denial, of re-appropriation of mirroring, of imitation and hybridity, of return and of repositioning’. For example, Westwood cites Bhabha’s (1995) discussion of hybridity ‘as a mimetic response, wherein “locals” take

on and mimic the colonial’, partly appropriating the colonizer but also remaining different (Westwood 2001, 274).

Future Directions: Towards Imitation

Following Peltonen and Westwood, we argue that imitation is particularly relevant to theorists, practitioners and recipients of IHRM, for it allows for attention to and description of such dynamics of parody and resistance as well as to isomorphism in the description and assessment of IHRM theory and practice. Imitation, which we define as the copying of another’s form, practice or claim to legitimacy, can therefore achieve different ends, depending on its purpose, and we argue that assessment of the extent and form of imitation is particularly relevant to IHRM, as it can be directed at the analysis of mimicry and variety in local practices, in training and development strategies and even in the growth of IHRM in relation to associated developments in related fields such as HRM and business strategy. Rather than integration, which assumes that big theory is better theory, as discussed above, we suggest that analysis of imitation deliberately redirects attention to how and why existing practices and disciplines are adopted and adapted. Rather than assume that integration indicates progress and that progress is an incontestable aim, we argue that shifting attention from the achievement of integration to the nature of imitation offers us the potential to address a wider range of interests. As such, imitation draws attention to reconsidering the taken-for-granted rather than to subsuming ‘other’ past or present differences within a larger practical or theoretical project. Thus, we see imitation as a reflexive rather than assimilative movement, for reflexivity, or the notion that we must think about our own thinking (Johnson and Duberley 2003; Weick 1999), demands a ‘turning back’ and unsettling of representation in organizational research and theorizing (Cunliffe 2003; Lawson 1985).

Further, we argue that imitation, particularly in the form of mimicry, both resists and

December 2007

supplements integrative theory development. Just as postcolonial theory ‘can serve as a powerful tool to subvert the “objective”, “scientific” claims that privilege western forms of knowing’ (Banerjee and Linstead 2004, 226), mimicry has been used as a specific device by Luce Irigaray to ‘jam the theoretical machinery’ of Freudian and post-Freudian analysis (Whitford 1999, 126). Such literatures may well inform research and writing not only into the experience of the Other in IHRM (cf. Westwood 2006), but its theoretical development, appropriation and perhaps paler imitation of the dominant literatures in the fields of strategy and of international management.

Between the extremes of subversive mimicry and theoretical isomorphism, mimesis also offers emancipatory potential. For example, in the realm of aesthetics, Adorno’s conception of mimesis was not the Platonic notion of the copy but, instead, ‘a truly protean concept, refer[ing] to an archaic openness to the other’ (Zuidervaart 1997, 7). Such a perspective may well inform analysis of the responses of hostcountry nationals, and, indeed, of HRM practices among MNE subsidiaries where there is neither complete adoption of headquarter-led strategies and practices nor resistance in an obvious form. For, as explained by Jay (1997, 35), ‘By refusing to imitate, be assimilated entirely to, a bad external reality ... works of art hold out the hope for a more benign version of mimesis in a future world beyond domination and reification’.

Through such examples, we aim to engage interest and provoke discussion among theorists, researchers and practitioners in the field of IHRM by introducing analysis of imitation rather than achievement of integration as a criterion for assessing future developments. In particular, we hope that this discussion will sensitize future researchers to the presence of imitation (whether in appropriation, mimicry, parody or other, hybrid forms) in the subjects of their enquiry as well as in the methods, theoretical frameworks and styles of writing they adopt and that, in doing so, they will give deliberate attention to the politics of their

research endeavours: to whom and what may be privileged, exoticized, marginalized or even silenced along the way (cf. Jack and Westwood 2006).

The Recognition of Context and the

Restriction of Channels

As noted above, an important place to commence analysis of imitation in IHRM is to examine its derivation from HRM and to analyse the ways in which the arena of IHRM has become defined and recognized (cf. Townley 1998). For example, the cultural values of the US may be particularly important in understanding recent extensions of HRM. Arguably the most vocal proponent of this position, Guest has suggested that HRM is ‘American, optimistic, apparently humanistic and also superficially simple’ (Guest 1990, 379), and has argued that HRM can be seen as a contemporary manifestation of the American dream owing to its emphases on the potential for human growth, the desire to improve opportunities for people at work, and the role of strong leadership reinforced by strong organizational culture (Guest 1990). With direct application to IHRM, Brewster (1995, 1999) has emphasized the importance of contextual factors for HRM and Schuler et al. (2002, 41) have proposed that ‘IHRM should be studied within the context of changing economic and business conditions’.

Despite such approaches, US values have continued to underlie international business research over most of the past twenty-five years. This may well be ‘a matter of research following practice’ (Wright and Ricks 1994, 699), and while we call for efforts that look beyond the concerns and goals of multinational enterprises, we also recognize the context in which the field of IHRM is located. In the postwar era, the success of American MNEs provided a significant impetus for international business research. Thus, the issues and countries most often studied were those most relevant to American firms, American perspectives and American managers (Godkin

et al. 1989). Substantial progress has been, and continues to be, made towards increasing attention to cross-cultural or international issues, yet many challenges relevant to IHRM remain (Schuler and Jackson 2005).

To understand the progress and the limitations evident in IHRM research, it is also useful to reflect upon the outlets for scholarly publication of IHRM research. For example, Thomas et al. (1994) analysed the country coverage of the lead journal for the Academy of International Business, the Journal of International Business Studies, over the 25 years of its existence, finding ‘a substantial expansion in the journal’s geographic reach over the years, but also a somewhat narrow “mental map”, with many countries and areas receiving only minimal coverage’ (Thomas et al. 1994, 675). There have been noteworthy recent efforts to address such limitations (Statement of Editorial Policy 2005). Similarly, an analysis conducted by editors of the Academy of Management Journal found encouraging evidence of increases in the amount and breadth of international management research published in that journal between 1970 and 2004 (Kirkman and Law 2005). However, they noted some significant limitations, such as underrepresentation of scholars from Eastern Europe, Africa, Latin/South America and the Middle East, a lack of research using data collected from those regions, and a lack of gender diversity (female authors are under-represented). The identification of deficiencies in research is consistent with Peterson’s (2004) analysis of articles published in Journal of International Business Studies, Academy of Management Journal and Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990–1999. Overall, ongoing critique has identified the need for international management (including IHRM) research, and research outlets, to become more inclusive (Ozbilgin 2004; Schuler et al. 2002; Wong-Mingji and Mir 1997; also see Werner and Brouthers 2002).

Indeed, we note the emergence of critical literature relevant to IHRM (see for example, Gooderham et al. 1999; Peltonen 2006), and the proposed sub-theme of ‘critical approaches to

international human resource management’ planned for the 2007 Conference of the European Group for Organization Studies (http://www.egosnet.org/conferences/collo23/ sub_33.shtml); clearly, others share our inter- est in reframing the field of IHRM.

In this paper, we have argued that, while theoretical extension and integration may well be important to ‘cover’ the increasingly complex phenomena of IHRM, empirical work and definitional articulation should not remain narrow. In response, and in provocation, we suggest imitation rather than integration as a more modest criterion for assessing future theoretical directions. Imitation, as we have argued, may include a range of stances. It allows both analysis from within IHRM (cf. Atkin et al. 2004) and is informed by perspectives from postcolonial, feminist and aesthetic theory from without IHRM. It may be serious, and it may also be playful; a form of theoretical misbehaviour with serious intent (cf. Ackroyd and Thompson 1999). Although never complete, it forces theorists and practitioners to re-examine, question and seek to broaden the focus of what we write and what we do without a simple over-turning of contemporary IHRM (cf. Linstead 1993).

We recognize that our approach has limitations. First, we have not included prescriptions for researchers to develop the field, because to do so would be inconsistent with our own critique of over-specification. We acknowledge that some readers will prefer prescription; our aim is to provoke discussion and reconsideration of what is valued within the field of IHRM, rather than to develop propositions for operationalization and empirical assessment. Second, we recognize that we have drawn from organizational studies and critical international management literatures in developing our suggestions and that, in so doing, we may well be accused of the very theoretical integration that we decry. We are also aware that our analysis may be quite confronting for some readers, as it includes reference to perspectives that are far removed from the mainstream of IHRM, although better established

December 2007

in organization and management studies. For scholars within those fields, we shall not have gone far enough. Hence, this call for imitation, rather than further integration or, indeed, disintegration, is a first step toward the more ambitious engagement with the larger questions related to risk management, social security and to globalization itself.

Notes

1Contact author for correspondence: Helen De Cieri, Professor and Director, Australian Centre for Research in Employment and Work, Department of Management, Monash University, PO Box 197, Caulfield East, Victoria 3145, Australia. Telephone: +613 9903-2013 Fax: +613 9903-2718, e-mail: Helen.decieri@buseco.monash.edu.au

2Cooper (1989) uses these words to describe Derrida’s term logocentrism:

Texts normally rest on the (usually unexamined) assumption that language is a means for the communication of thoughts. Consequently, thoughts take prime place and language is seen simply as a vehicle for the transmission of thought. Derrida calls this mental strategy ‘logocentrism’, as it centres human experience around the concept of an original ‘logos’ or presupposed metaphysical structure (e.g. mind, soul, reason, etc.) that validates and gives meaning to human activities ... Logocentrism is ... a structure with a fixed centre or point of origin that also censors (i.e. to ‘centre’ is also to ‘censor’) the self-errant tendencies in the text. (Cooper 1989, 482)

3For comparisons of these perspectives, see Alvesson and Deetz (1996) and Lawrence and Phillips (1998). More specifically, Hardy and Leiba-O’Sullivan (1998) compare mainstream, critical and Foucauldian perspectives on empowerment, drawing on Lukes (1974), and Kallinikos (1997) compares the views of Habermas and Lyotard on emancipation.

References

Ackroyd, S. and Thompson, P. (1999). Organizational Misbehaviour. London: Sage.

Adler, N.J. (2002). Global managers: no longer men alone. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13, 743–760.

Adler, N.J. and Bartholomew, S. (1992). Managing globally competent people. Academy of Management Executive, 6, 52–65.

Alvesson, M. and Deetz, S. (1996). Critical theory and postmodernism approaches to organization studies. In Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (eds), Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage, pp. 191–217.

Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1996). Making Sense of Management: A Critical Introduction. London: Sage.

Atkin, I., Hassard, J. and Wolfram Cox, J. (2004). Beyond a boundary? Exploring the ‘extra’ of organization theory and analysis. Paper presented at the Australasian Caucus of the Standing Conference on Organizational Symbolism, Brisbane, QLD.

Bacharach, S.B. (1989). Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 496–515.

Banerjee, S.B. and Linstead, D. (2004). Masking subversion: neocolonial embeddedness in anthropological accounts of indigenous management. Human Relations, 57, 221–247.

Bartlett, C. and Ghoshal, S. (1992). Transnational Management: Text, Cases, and Readings in Cross Border Management. Boston, MA: Irwin.

Bartlett, K., Lawler, J., Bae, J., Chen, S. and Wan, D. (2002). Differences in international human resource development among indigenous firms and multinational affiliates in East and Southeast Asia. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13, 383–406.

Bhabha, H. (1995). Location of Culture. London: Routledge.

Boddewyn, J.J., Toyne, B. and Martinez, Z.L. (2004). The meanings of ‘international management’.

Management International Review, 44, 195–212. Borgatti, S.P. and Foster, P.C. (2003). The network

paradigm in organizational research: a review and typology. Journal of Management, 29, 991–1013.

Bowen, D.E. and Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: the role of ‘strength’ of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29, 203–221.

Brannen, M.Y. (2004). When Mickey loses face: recontextualization, semantic fit, and the semiotics of foreignness. Academy of Management Review,

29, 593–616.

Brewster, C. (1995). Towards a ‘European’ model of human resource management. Journal of International Business Studies, 26, 1–22.

Brewster, C. (1999). Strategic human resource management: the value of different paradigms.

Management International Review, 39(3), 45–64, special issue.

Brewster, C. and Suutari, V. (2005). Global HRM: aspects of a research agenda. Personnel Review, 34(1), 5–21.

Brewster, C., Sparrow, P. and Harris, H. (2005). Towards a new model of globalizing HRM. International Journal of Human Resource Management,

16, 953–974.

Buckley, P. (2002). Is the international business research agenda running out of steam? Journal of International Business Studies, 33, 365–373.

Budhwar, P.S. and Sparrow, P.R. (2002). An integrative framework for understanding cross-national human resource management practices. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 377–403.

Burrell, G. (1996). Normal science, paradigms, metaphors, discourses and genealogies of analysis. In Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (eds),

Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage, pp. 642–658.

Burrell, G. (2003). The future of organization theory: prospects and limitations. The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory: Meta-theoretical Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 525–535.

Calás, M.B. and Smircich, L. (1993). Dangerous liaisons: the ‘feminine-in-management’ meets ‘globalization’. Business Horizons, 36, 71–81.

Calás, M.B. and Smircich, L. (1996). From ‘the woman’s’ point of view: feminist approaches to organization studies. In Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (eds), Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage, pp. 218–257.

Calás, M.B. and Smircich, L. (1999). Past postmodernism? Reflections and tentative directions.

Academy of Management Review, 24, 649–671. Caligiuri, P., Phillips, J., Lazarova, M., Tarique I. and

Bürgi, P. (2001). The theory of met expectations applied to expatriate adjustment: the role of crosscultural training. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 357–372.

Cavusgil, S.T. and 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. Chakravarthy, B.S. and Perlmutter, H.V. (1985).

Strategic planning for a global business. Columbia Journal of World Business, 20, 3–10.

Chia, R. (1997). Essai: thirty years on: from organizational structures to the organization of thought.

Organization Studies, 18, 685–707.

Clegg, S.R. and Grey, J.T. (1996). Metaphors of globalization. In Boje, D.M., Gephart, R.P. Jr and Thatchenkery. T.J. (eds), Postmodern Management and Organization Theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 293–307.

Clegg, S.R. and Hardy, C. (1996). Representations. In Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (eds),

Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage, pp. 676–708.

Cooper, R. (1989). Modernism, post modernism and organizational analysis 3: the contribution of Jacques Derrida. Organization Studies, 10, 479– 502.

Cooper, R. and Burrell, G. (1988). Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis: an introduction. Organization Studies, 9(1), 91–112.

Cray, D. and Mallory, G. (1998). Making Sense of Managing Culture. London: International Thomson Business Press.

Cunliffe, A.L. (2003). Reflexive inquiry in organizational research: questions and possibilities. Human Relations, 56(8), 983–1003.

Czarniawska, B. and Joerges, B. (1996). Travels of ideas. In Czarniawska, B. and Sevon, G. (eds),

Translating Organizational Change. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, pp. 13–48.

Czarniawska, B. and Sevon, G. (1996). Introduction. In Czarniawska, B. and Sevon, G. (eds), Translating Organizational Change. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 1–12.

Dale, K. (2001). Anatomising Embodiment and Organization Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Dallalfar, A. and Movahedi, S. (1996). Women in multinational corporations: old myths, new constructions and some deconstruction. Organization, 3, 546–559.

Davies, I.R.L., Sowden, P.T., Jerrett, D.T., Jerrett, T. and Corbett, G.G. (1998). A cross-cultural study of English and Setswana speakers on a colour triads task: a test of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 1–15.

De Cieri, H. and Dowling, P.J. (2006). Strategic human resource management in multinational enterprises: developments and directions. In Stahl, G.K. and Björkman, I. (eds), Handbook of Research in International Human Resource Management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 15–35.

De Cock, C. and Jeanes, E.L. (2006). Questioning consensus, cultivating conflict. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(1), 18–30.

Deetz, S. (2001). Conceptual foundations. In Jablin, F.M. and Putnam, L.L. (eds), The New Handbook

December 2007

of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research and Methods. London: Sage, pp. 1–46.

Deng, P. (2004). Outward investment by Chinese MNCs: motivations and implications. Business Horizons, 47, 8–16.

Dowling, P.J. (1999). Completing the puzzle: issues in the development of the field of international human resource management. Management International Review, 39(3), 27–43.

Dowling, P.J. and Welch, D.E. (2004). International Human Resource Management. Managing People in a Multinational Context, 4th edition. London: Thomson.

Doz, Y. and Prahalad, C.K. (1991). Managing DMNCs: a search for a new paradigm. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 145–164.

Earley, P.C. and Singh, H. (1995). International and intercultural management research: what’s next?

Academy of Management Journal, 38, 327–340. Edwards, P., Ferner, A. and Sisson, K. (1996). The

conditions for international human resource management: two case studies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7, 20–40.

Engle, A.D., Mendenhall, M.E., Powers, R.L. and Stedham, Y. (2001). Conceptualizing the global competency cube: a transitional model of human resources. Journal of European Industrial Training,

25, 346–353.

Evans, P., Pucik, V. and Barsoux, J.-L. (2002). The Global Challenge. Frameworks for International Human Resource Management. New York: McGrawHill/Irwin.

Ferris, G.R., Hochwarter, W.A., Buckley, M.R., Harrell-Cook, G. and Frink, D.D. (1999). Human resources management: some new directions.

Journal of Management, 25, 385–421.

Fiss, P.C. and Hirsch, P.M. (2005). The discourse of globalization: framing and sensemaking of an emerging concept. American Sociological Review,

70, 29–52.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Forster, N. (1997). The persistent myth of high expatriate failure rates: a reappraisal. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 414–433.

Ghoshal, S. and Westney, W.E. (eds) (1993). Organization Theory and the Multinational Enterprise. London: Macmillan.

Godkin, L., Bray, C.E. and Caunch, C.L. (1989). The U.S.-based cross-cultural management research in

the eighties. Journal of Business and Economic Perspectives, 15, 37–45.

Gooderham, P.N., Nordhaug, O. and Ringdal, K. (1999). Institutional and rational determinants of organizational practices: human resource management in European firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 507–531.

Grandy, J. and Mills, A.J. (2004). Strategy as simulacra? A radical reflexive look at the discipline and practice of strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 41(7), 1153–1170.

Green, C. and Ruhleder, K. (1995). Globalization, borderless worlds, and the Tower of Babel. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 8, 55–68.

Guest, D.E. (1990). Human resource management and the American dream. Journal of Management Studies, 27, 377–397.

Guest, D.E. (1991). Personnel management: the end of orthodoxy? British Journal of Industrial Relations,

29, 149–175.

Guillén, M. (2001). Is globalization civilizing, destructive or feeble? A critique of five key debates in the social science literature. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 235–260.

Hancock, P. and Tyler, M. (2001). Work, Postmodernism and Organization. London: Sage.

Hardy, C. and Leiba-O’Sullivan, S. (1998). The power behind empowerment: implications for research and practice. Human Relations, 51, 451–483.

Hardy, C. and Clegg, S. (1997). Reflexivity without relativism: reflexivity in post-paradigm organization studies. British Journal of Management, 8(special issue), S5–S17.

Harrison, D.A., Shaffer, M.A. and Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P. (2004). Going places: roads more and less traveled in research on expatriate experiences. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 23, 199–247.

Harzing, A.-W. (1995). The persistent myth of high expatriate failure rates. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6, 457–474.

Harzing, A.-W. (2002). Acquisitions versus Greenfield investments: international strategy and management of entry modes. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 211–227.

Harzing, A-W. and Christensen, C. (2004). Expatriate failure: time to abandon the concept? Career Development International, 9(7) 616–626.

Harzing, A-W. and Van Ruysseveldt, J.V. (eds) (2004). International Human Resource Management, 2nd edition. London: Sage.

Hassard, J. (1993). Postmodernism and organizational analysis: an overview. In Hassard, J. and Parker, M. (eds), Postmodernism and Organizations. London: Sage, pp. 1–23.

Hearn, J. (1996). Deconstructing the dominant: making the one(s) the other(s). Organization, 3, 611–626.

Heenan, D.A. and Perlmutter, H.V. (1979). Multinational Organization Development. A Social Architectural Perspective. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.

Holvino, E. (1996). Reading organization development from the margins: outsider within. Organization, 3, 520–533.

Jack, G. and Westwood, R. (2006). Postcolonialism and the politics of qualitative research in international business. Management International Review,

46, 481–501.

Jacques, R. (1999). Developing a tactical approach to engaging with ‘strategic’ HRM. Organization, 6, 199–222.

Jay, M. (1997). Mimesis and mimetology: Adorno and Lacoue-Labarthe. In Huhn, T. and Zuidervaart, L. (eds), The Semblance of Subjectivity: Essays in Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory. Cambridge and London: MIT Press, pp. 29–53.

Johnson, P. and Duberley, J. (2003). Reflexivity in management research. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1279–1303.

Kallinikos, J. (1996). Mapping the intellectual terrain of management education. In French, R. and Grey, C. (eds), Rethinking Management Education. London: Sage, pp. 36–53.

Kallinikos, J. (1997). Classic review. Science, knowledge and society: The postmodern condition revisited. Organization, 4, 114–129.

Kamoche, K. (1996). The integration-differentiation puzzle: a resource-capability perspective in international human resource management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7, 230– 244.

Keenoy, T. (1999). HRM as hologram: a polemic.

Journal of Management Studies, 36, 1–23. Kilduff, M. and Corley, K.G. (1999). The diaspora

effect: the influence of exiles on their cultures of origin. M@n@gement, 2, 1–12.

Kirkman, B. and Law, K. (2005). From the editors: international management research in AMJ: our past, present and future. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 377–386.

Knights, D. and Morgan, G. (1991). Corporate strategy, organizations, and subjectivity: a critique.

Organization Studies, 12, 251–273.

Kobrin, S.J. (1994). Is there a relationship between a geocentric mind-set and multinational strategy?

Journal of International Business, 25, 493–512. Kumra, S. (1996). The organisation as a human

entity. In Oswick, C. and Grant, D. (eds), Organisation Development: Metaphorical Explorations. London: Pitman, pp. 35–53.

Lawrence, T.B. and Phillips, N. (1998). Commentary: separating play and critique. Postmodern and critical perspectives on TQM/BPR. Journal of Management Inquiry, 7, 154–160.

Lawson, H. (1985) Reflexivity: The Postmodern Predicament, La Salle, IL: Open Court.

Lecraw, D.J. (1977). Direct investment by firms from less developed countries. Oxford Economic Papers, 29, 442–457.

Legge, K. (1995). Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities. Basingstoke: Macmillan Business.

Letiche, H. (2004). Jean-François Lyotard. In Linstead, S. (ed.), Organization Theory and Postmodern Thought. London: Sage, pp. 64–87.

Letiche, H. and Hagemeijer, R.E. (2004). Linkages and entrainment. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 365–382.

Liu, X., Buck, T. and Shu, C. (2005). Chinese economic development, the next stage: outward FDI? International Business Review, 14, 97–115.

Linstead, S. (1993). From postmodern anthropology to deconstructive ethnography. Human Relations, 46, 97–120.

Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.

Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. St. Paul: University of Minnesota Press.

Martin, J. and Frost, P. (1996). The organizational culture war games: a struggle for intellectual dominance. In Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (eds), Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage, pp. 599–621.

McMahan, G.C., Virick, M. and Wright, P.M. (1999). Alternative theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management revisited: progress, problems and prospects. In Wright, P.M., Dyer, L.D., Boudreau, J.W. and Milkovich, G.T. (eds),

Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management: Strategic Human Resources Management in the Twenty-First Century, Supplement 4. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Mendenhall, M.E. (1999). On the need for paradigmatic integration in international human resource

December 2007

management. Management International Review,

39(3), 65–87.

Miller, D. and Mintzberg, H. (1983). The case for configuration. In Morgan, G. (ed.), Beyond Method. Newbury Park: Sage, pp. 57–73.

Nkomo, S. and Ensley, M.D. (1999). Déjà vu: human resource management’s courtship of strategic management. Organization, 6, 339–348.

Novicevic, M.M. and Harvey, M. (2001a). The changing role of the corporate HR function in global organizations of the twenty-first century. International Journal of Human Resource Management,

12, 1251–1268.

Novicevic, M.M. and Harvey, M. (2001b). The emergence of the pluralism construct and the inpatriation process. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 333–356.

Ozbilgin, M. (2004). ‘International’ human resource management. Academic parochialism in editorial boards of the ‘top’ 22 journals on international human resource management. Personnel Review, 33(2), 205–221.

Peltonen, T. (2003). The powers of the human resource manager: authority and accountability in the Finnish personnel professionals’ discourse on ‘HRM’. In Gilson, C.H.J., Grugulis, I. and Willmott, H. (eds), Critique and Inclusivity: Opening the Agenda. Proceedings of Critical Management Studies Conference, 7–9 July, Lancaster: Lancaster University.

Peltonen, T. (2006). Critical theoretical perspectives on international human resource management. In Stahl, G.K. and Björkman, I. (eds), Handbook of Research in International Human Resource Management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 523–535.

Peng, M.W. (2004). Identifying the big question in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 99–108.

Perkins, S.J. (2003). Globalisation and IHRM: partners in comparative perspective? Journal of European Industrial Training, 27, 461–472.

Peterson, R.B. (2004). Empirical research in international management: a critique and future agenda. In Marschan-Piekkari, R. and Welch, C. (eds),

Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 25–55.

Peterson, R.B., Sargent, J., Napier, N.K. and Shim, W.S. (1996). Corporate expatriate HRM policies, internationalization, and performance in the world’s largest MNCs. Management International Review,

36, 215–230.

Pfeffer, J. (2005). Changing mental models: HR’s most important task. Human Resource Management, 44, 123–128.

Pieterse, J.N. (1994). Globalisation as hybridisation.

International Sociology, 9(2), 161–184.

Prahalad, C.K. and Lieberthal, K. (1998). The end of corporate imperialism. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 69–79.

Prasad, A. (ed.) (2003). Postcolonial Theory and Organizational Analysis. London: Palgrave.

Pucik, V. (1997). Human resources in the future: an obstacle or a champion of globalization? Human Resource Management, 36, 163–167.

Quintanilla, J. and Ferner, A. (2003). Multinationals and human resource management: between global convergence and national identity. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 363–368.

Ramamurti, R. (2004). Developing countries and MNEs: extending and enriching the research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies,

35, 277–283.

Redding, S.G. (1994). Comparative management theory: jungle, zoo or fossil bed? Organization Studies, 15, 323–359.

Reed, M. (1993). Organizations and modernity: continuity and discontinuity in organization theory. In Hassard, J. and Parker, M. (eds), Postmodernism and Organizations. Sage: London, pp. 163–182.

Reed, M. (1996). Organizational theorizing: a historically contested terrain. In Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (eds), Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage, pp. 31–56.

Roehling, M.V., Boswell, W.R., Caligiuri, P., Feldman, D., Graham, M.E., Guthrie, J.P., Morishima, M. and Tansky, J. (2005). The future of HR management: research needs and directions.

Human Resource Management, 44, 207–216. Rosenzweig, P.M. and Nohria, N. (1994). Influences

on human resource management practices in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 25, 229–251.

Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.

Schöllhammer, H. (1975). Current research in international and comparative management issues.

Management International Review, 15(2–3), 29– 40.

Schuler, R.S., Budhwar, P.S. and Florkowski, G.W. (2002). International human resource management: review and critique. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(1), 41–70.

Schuler, R.S., Dowling, P.J. and De Cieri, H. (1993). An integrative framework of strategic international human resource management. Journal of Management, 19, 419–459.

Schuler, R.S. and Jackson, S.E. (2005). A quartercentury review of human resource management in the U.S.: the growth in importance of the international perspective. Management Revue, 16(1), 11–35.

Schuler, R.S. and Tarique, I. (2005). Alliance forms and HR issues, implications and significance. In Shenkar, O. and Reuer, J. (eds), Handbook of Strategic Alliances. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 219–240.

Scullion, H. and Paauwe, J. (2004). International human resource management: recent developments in theory and empirical research. In Harzing, A.-W. and Van Ruysseveldt, J. (eds), International Human Resource Management, 2nd edition. London: Sage, pp. 65–88.

Selmer, J. (2001). Expatriate selection: back to basics? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 1219–1233.

Silverman, D. (1970). The Theory of Organisations. London: Heinemann.

Sparrow, P. and Brewster, C. (2006). Globalizing HRM: the growing revolution in managing employees internationally. In Cooper, C. and Burke, R. (eds), The Human Resources Revolution: Why Putting People First Matters, London: Elsevier.

Statement of Editorial Policy (2005). Journal of Inter- national Business, 36. www.palgrave-journals.com/ jibs/journal/issuelist2005.html.

Stablein, R. (1996). Data in organization studies. In Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (eds),

Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage, pp. 509–525.

Stahl, G.K. and Björkman, I. (eds) (2006). Handbook of Research in International Human Resource Management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Suder, G.G.S. (ed.) (2004). Terrorism and the International Business Environment. The SecurityBusiness Nexus. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Sundaram, A.K. and Black, J.S. (1992). The environment and internal organization of multinational enterprises. Academy of Management Review, 17, 729–757.

Suutari, V. and Tornikoski, C. (2001). The challenge of expatriate compensation: the sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction among expatriates. International Journal of Human Resource Management,

12, 389–404.