a longitudinal comparative study among 18 european countries

8/16/2019 A longitudinal comparative study among 18 European countries

1/23

Journal of European Industrial TrainingChanges in HRM in Europe: A longitudinal comparative study among 18 European

countriesIrene Nikandrou Eleni Apospori Nancy Papalexandris

Article in format ion:

To cite this document:Irene Nikandrou Eleni Apospori Nancy Papalexandris, (2005),"Changes in HRM in Europe", Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 29 Iss 7 pp. 541 - 560Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090590510621045

Downloaded on: 11 May 2016, At: 06:35 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 24 other documents.

To copy this document: [email protected]

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3479 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(1991),"Human Resource Management: A European Perspective", Personnel Review, Vol. 20 Iss 6 pp.4-13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000000800

(2003),"Line management responsibility for HRM: what is happening in Europe?", Employee Relations, Vol25 Iss 3 pp. 228-244 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01425450310475838

(2006),"Converging human resource management: A comparison between Estonian and Finnish HRM",Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 1 Iss 1 pp. 82-101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17465260610640895

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:537778 [

For Authors

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelineare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight .com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090590510621045


2/23

Changes in HRM in EuropeA longitudinal comparative study among

18 European countriesIrene Nikandrou, Eleni Apospori and Nancy Papalexandris

Athens University of Economics and Business, Athens, Greece

Abstract

Purpose – To examine HRM strategies and practices and HRM position within organizations invarious cultural, economic and sociopolitical contexts from a longitudinal perspective.

Design/methodology/approach – The study uses the 1995 and 1999 Cranet data in a longitudinalmethodological framework to explore the changes and trends in 18 European countries with regard tocertain HRM issues between the points of time when measurements took place. Country is the unit of analysis, and cluster analysis is used for each of the two waves of data to classify countries intorelatively homogeneous groups/clusters.

Findings – The overall picture is that the 18 countries form two major clusters. Countries in Europecan be systematically clustered in a North/West-South/East distinction, regarding HRM practices.There is no indication of convergence between the major clusters. However, movement from onecluster to another was observed, with Italy and East Germany moving to the North-western cluster.

Research limitations/implications – The level of analysis, which is HR practices at a national(average values) and regional level, is a methodological limitation of the present study. Analysis at thislevel conceals qualitative differences between countries, which are important in the contextualparadigm.

Practical implications – The issue of convergence in HR practices has important implications forHR managers in multinationals who operate in Europe and the transferability of HR practices.

Originality/value – This paper addresses the issue of whether over time there is an increasing“Europeanisation” (convergence) of HRM practices in Europe or not, by studying HR practices in 18European countries.

Keywords Human resource management, Europe

Paper type Research paper

Human resource management has become a significant factor in the management fororganizational success. During the recent years there has been an increasing demandfor the study of HRM from an international and comparative dimension. Increasingglobal competition, technological advances, demand for flexibility and skilledworkforce have contributed to a world which is less differentiated. The multi-nationalcorporation and international trading both benefit from and increase the extent of

similarities between countries. The convergence, to a one-best way of doing things,thesis has received support from the universalist paradigm, dominant in the USA.Contrary to the universalistic paradigm of HRM, the European paradigm has beenbased on the assumption that several contextual factors can contribute to a distinctiveform of HRM in Europe. Those factors can be economic, technological, political, social,cultural, or ideological. In the contextual paradigm these factors are seen as aspects of the subject rather than external influences on it. The focus is on understanding what isdifferent between and within HRM in various contexts.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

Changes in HRMin Europe

541

Received May 2004Revised November 2004

Accepted April 2005

Journal of European Industrial

Training

Vol. 29 No. 7, 2005

pp. 541-560

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0309-0590

DOI 10.1108/03090590510621045

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisterhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htmhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htmhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister


3/23

The European form of HRM, most probably affected by those various contexts – ideological, political, social and so forth – in which it is operating, is characterized byinternal variation among various clusters of countries and, at the same time, byexternal uniformity compared to the rest of the world (Brewster and Larsen, 2000;

Larsen and Brewster, 2000; Mayrhofer et al., 2000). However, at the same time factorssuch as globalization with its connotation, technological advances and fusion andmarket forces develop their own dynamics in all societies and their institutions andorganizations.

Theoretical background and hypothesesWithin the increasingly unified European context, the question raised by theconvergence – divergence discussion is more than justified. Is the demand forEuropean integration creating one distinctive way and converging pattern of HRM or aset of distinct markets defined by distinct national and cultural boundaries contributeto diverging HR practices?

Indeed, the European Union has had implications in countries’ legislation, economy,market forces, and so forth that have developed a dynamic towards convergence.However, although it provides a unified context within which organizations operate, atthe same time, it allows for differences at the national and/or organizational level, dueto cultural and institutional factors. Consequently, the European form of HRM may beconsidered as an outcome of a complex interaction of many of the above-mentionedfactors.

Comparative analysis at the European level is important. Esping-Andersen (1990)who analyzed welfare regimes as a particular aspect of the political context of severalcountries, came up with three distinctive welfare regimes in Europe: liberal,corporatist, and social democratic. Hollinshead and Leat (1995) studied countries withregard to their ideological background; according to their findings European countries

can be grouped into three ideological perspectives:(1) liberal individualism;

(2) liberal collectivism; and

(3) corporatism.

Other studies have focused on the cultural context; Hofstede’s (1994) study on culturalvariations has placed European countries in four groups according to the followingdimensions:

(1) power distance;

(2) uncertainty avoidance;

(3) individualism versus collectivism; and

(4) masculinity versus femininity.

In the human resource management practices context one can find convergent anddivergent areas. The changes exemplified by Europeanisation have brought out theopportunities for re-evaluating human resource management in a broader, regionalrather than national context. Several authors claim that even though countries withinEurope can be rather distinctive from each other in the management of their humanresources, one can distinguish three different models: the Latin Model, the Northern

JEIT29,7

542


4/23

European/Nordic Model and the Anglo-Irish Model of HRM (Brewster and Tyson,1991; Brewster et al., 1993; Brunstein, 1995). On the basis of an assessment of thedifferent degrees of legal requirements it is possible to place the main Europeancountries into categories based on the extent of their legal requirements for

information, consultation and participation. In the highly regulated group one can findGermany, Denmark, The Netherlands, Finland and Sweden. France, Spain, Italy,Norway and Portugal are in the medium regulated group, while the UK and Ireland arein the less regulated group (Leat, 1998).

Ignjatovic and Svetlik (2002) have conducted one of the latest comparative studiesfocused on similarities and differences among European countries on HRM. Using 51indicators from Cranet data, they grouped 24 European countries into four distinctiveclusters having different HRM strategies and practices and position of HRM inorganizations. They also identified four different HRM models:

(1) the Central Southern cluster with the management supportive model;

(2) the Eastern cluster with the management focused model;

(3) the Nordic cluster with the employees focused model; and

(4) the Western cluster with the professional model.

According to Ignjatovic and Svetlik those four groups of countries and, consequently,the four different HRM models could be explained by the North West versus SouthEast cultural division as well as by the distinctive sociopolitical regimes. This studygives us an interesting insight using cross-sectional data.

The present paper based on the above research studies examines HRMstrategies and practices and HRM position within organizations in various cultural,economic and socio-political contexts from a longitudinal perspective. Wehypothesize that, to the extent that HRM is considered the outcome of a

complex interaction of many of the above mentioned factors and that some of those factors have changed for several countries during the last decade, we willobserve considerable changes in HRM in several European countries. Morespecifically, the present study will study the changes in HRM strategies, practicesand its position in organizations during the decade of 1990s that might have takenin several European countries and will try to associate the hypothesized changeswith changes in surrounding contextual factors.

Furthermore, we hypothesize that the changes in HRM will be more drastic amongthe countries of South and East of Europe and that these changes can be associatedwith changes in social, economic, political and cultural level. Finally, we hypothesizedthat the changes will be in a direction that brings more peripheral countries closer to acluster of countries and that the overall differences between clusters have become

smaller during the last decade.It should be mentioned that Mayrhofer et al. (2002) have found a trend toward

divergence from mid-1990s and on; however, they have looked at three specific HRMpractices – level of policy decision making, investments in human capital and variableand performance related elements of compensation systems – and not at a wide rangeof indices of HRM strategies, practices and its position in organizations.

Summing up, the contribution of this paper lies in the fact that it examinesimportant aspects of HRM in Europe from a longitudinal perspective.


543


5/23

Our goal is threefold: first, we want to examine whether a change toward moresimilarities in HRM aspects exists in Europe, second, to identify country specificchanges which may account for a country’s transfer from the periphery closer to acluster, or from one cluster to another. Third, we will try associate HRM changes with

contextual changes that have taken place in Europe during the 1990s.

MethodologySample and measuresThe present study uses the Cranet-E data collected through surveys by the Cranfieldnetwork on European HRM. The network, established in 1989, has collected threewaves of data focused on HRM issues at organizational level, such as, human resourcefunction, management strategy, recruitment and selection, training and development,employee relations and communication in several European countries.

The initial plan was for three waves of data to be used – that is, data from thewaves of 1992, 1995 and 1999 – in a longitudinal methodological framework to explore

the changes and trends in European countries with regard to certain of the abovestated HRM issues between the points of time that measurements took place.

The wave of 1992 had 16 European countries; the wave of 1995 had 20 Europeancountries and the wave of 1999 24 European countries. However, the countries thatwere in all three waves were only 14. Furthermore, the 51 indicators in the 1999 data,that we were initially planning to use were going down to 32 if the other two waves of data were to be used. After a series of preliminary analysis, it was decided to focus ourmain analysis between the two last waves of data – 1995 and 1999 – because by usingthe 1992 we were losing a considerable number of countries and indicators whichrendered the results to be not so meaningful.

The two waves we finally used had 18 common countries and 44 commonindicators. The countries included for the purposes of the present paper are: Belgium,

Bulgaria, Czech, Denmark, Finland, France, East Germany, West Germany, Greece,Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK.

Initially, based on Ignjatovic and Svetlik’s (2002) study we used a number of measurements obtained through the 1999 CRANET survey and transformed into 51indices pertaining to various aspects of HRM issues covering. In particular, the 15 HRareas obtained are (for a more detailed description of the Indices used are presented inTable I):

(1) Position of HRM;

(2) Staffing of HR department;

(3) Utilization of external HR services;

(4) Formalization of HR policies and strategies;(5) Managers’ involvement in HRM;

(6) Employees’ involvement in HRM;

(7) Centralization of HR policy-making;

(8) Internal versus external labor market orientation;

(9) Internal versus external training market orientation;

(10) Employee dynamics;

JEIT29,7

544


6/23

Position of HRM

1 Percentage of organizations with a personnel or human resource department/manager

2 Percentage of organizations in which the head of the personnel/human resources function have

a place on the main board of directors or the equivalent3 Percentage of organizations in which the person responsible for personnel/human resources is

involved in the development of corporate strategy from the outset

4 Percentage of organizations in which the person responsible for personnel/ human resources is

involved in the development of corporate strategy through consultation

5 Scale – the cumulative average on primary responsibility for major policy decisions on five

issues per organization (A þ B þ C þ D þ E) (1 – line management, 5 – HR department)

Staffing of HR department

6 Average number of people employed in the personnel/human resources function per

organization

Formalization of HR policies and strategies

7 Index – cumulative average of organizations having written policy for eight management areasper organization (A þ B þ C þ D þ E þ F þ G þ H)

8 Index – cumulative average of organizations having unwritten policy for eight management

areas per organization (A þ B þ C þ D þ E þ F þ G þ H)

9 Index – cumulative average of organizations having written mission statement, corporate

strategy and personnel/HR management strategy (A þ B þ C)

10 Index – cumulative average of organizations having unwritten mission statement, corporate

strategy and personnel/HR management strategy (A þ B þ C)

Managers’ involvement in HRM

11 Average days of training per year for management per organization

12 Percentage of organizations with an appraisal system in operation for management

13 Index – cumulative average for organizations having an appraisal system in which immediate

superior and/or next level superior contribute (0-none, 2-both)

14 Index – cumulative average of incentive schemes offered by organizations for management

(A þ B þ C þ D)

15 Index – cumulative average of issues (strategy, financial performance and organization of

work) about which organizations are formally briefing management (0 – none, 3 – all)

Employees’ involvement in HRM

16 Average days of training per year for other employees than management per organization

17 Cumulative average of organizations with an appraisal system in operation for other employees

than management (B þ C þ D)

18 Index – cumulative average for organizations having an appraisal system in which employee,

subordinate or peer contribute (C þ D þ E) (0 – none, 3 – all)

19 Index – cumulative average of incentive schemes offered by organizations for other employeesthan management (A þ B þ C þ D)

20 Percentage of organizations with joint consultative committee or works council

21 Index – cumulative average of issues (strategy, financial performance and organization of

work) about which organizations are formally briefing other employees than management

(0 – none, 9 – all)

( continued )Table I.

Variables description


545


7/23

Centralization of HR policy making

22 Scale – location of policy determination for six issues (A þ B þ C þ D þ E þ F)

(1 – international, 4 – local)

23 Index – cumulative average of the level of basic pay determination for management(A þ B þ C þ D þ E)

24 Index – cumulative average of the level of basic pay determination for other employees than

management (A þ B þ C þ D þ E)

Internal versus external labor market orientation

25 Index – cumulative average of organizations recruiting senior personnel or human resource

manager from inside the organization (A þ B)

26 Index – cumulative average of organizations recruiting senior personnel or human resource

manager from outside the organization (C þ D)

27 Index – percentage of organizations with internal recruitment measures (Bþ C)

28 Index – percentage of organizations with external recruitment measures (A þ D þ E)

29 Percentage of organizations substituting managers (all three levels) internally (A)

30 Index – per cent of organizations substituting managers (all three levels) from outside(B þ C þ D)

Internal versus external training market orientation

31 Percentage of organizations that increased their internal training (Aþ B þ D þ E)

32 Percentage of organizations that increased their external training (C)

Employment flexibility

33 Index – percentage of organizations that increased temporal flexible working practices in the

last three years (A þ B þ C þ D þ E þ F þ G þ I)

34 Index – percentage of organizations that increased spatial flexible working practices in the last

three years (J þ K þ L)

35 Index – percentage of organizations that increased proportion of their workforce with temporal

working arrangements for more than 6 per cent (A þ B þ C þ F þ G)

Richness of selection and HR development methods

36 Index – percentage of organizations using career schemes regularly (A þ B þ C þ D þ E þ F)

Focus on marginal groups

37 Index – percentage of organizations that monitor the proportion of marginal groups for

training and promotion (A þ B þ C)

38 Index – cumulative average of targeted groups per organization (Aþ B þ C þ D)

Accent on training

39 Average proportion of the annual salaries and wages bill spent on training

40 Average proportion of employees in internal or external training per organization

HRM evaluation and analysis

41 Percentage of organizations that systematically analyze employee training needs

42 Index – percentage of organizations that always or often use different methods

(A þ B þ C þ D þ E)

43 Scale – frequency of usage of formal evaluation (A þ B)

44 Index – average number of needs and characteristics determined by the appraisal system

(A þ B þ C þ D þ E þ F)Table I.

JEIT29,7

546


8/23

(11) Employment flexibility;

(12) Richness of selection and HR development;

(13) Focus on marginal groups;

(14) Accent on training; and(15) HRM evaluation and analysis.

Overall, the present study used 44 indices that were common in the two waves.

Method of analysisFor the purpose of this study, country is the unit of analysis. Cluster analysis is usedfor each of the two waves of data. “Cluster analysis” is the generic name for a widevariety of procedures that can be used to create a classification. These proceduresempirically form groups or “clusters” of units with high degree of similarities in certaincharacteristics. In particular, cluster analyses are multivariate statistical proceduresthat start with data sets containing information about a sample or, as in our study, apopulation of units and attempt to classify them into relatively homogeneousgroups/clusters.

Most of the uses of cluster analysis can be grouped under four principal purposes:

(1) development of a typology;

(2) investigation of conceptual schemes for grouping units;

(3) hypothesis formation through data exploration; and

(4) hypothesis testing.

The development of typologies accounts for the most frequent use of cluster analysis;however, in most cases of empirical research, many of these goals are combined to form

the basis of the study (Aldenderfer and Blashfield, 1985). In the present study, clusteranalysis is used for three of the above mentioned purposes, that is, the development of typologies that are compared with the findings of the Ignjatovic and Svetlik (2002)study, the investigation of conceptual schemes that will result from grouped units, andthe testing of our hypotheses. In particular, cluster analysis shows how countriesgroup together in terms of the indices used in the analysis. Furthermore, clusteranalysis of the same countries in two points in time, shows how countries move fromone cluster to another, if the indices used change over time.

Previous cross-sectional studies based on Cranet data in the field of HRM have usedthe squared Euclidean distance as a measure of dissimilarity between the cases and theWard’s hierarchical method of clustering of the cases. For comparative purposes thepresent study will use the same method of cluster analysis. Ward’s method is designed

to optimize the minimum variance between the clusters and it has been widely used inmany of the social sciences (Blashfield, 1980)

ResultsCluster analysis of the 18 countries based on the 44 indices of the first wave, 1995,resulted to clusters shown in Figure 1. The overall picture is that the 18 countries formtwo well-defined groups with two sub-groups in each one of the two. The first clusterconsists of 11 countries and includes the countries from western and northern Europe.


547


9/23

The second cluster consists of seven countries and includes the countries, with theexception of Ireland, from southern and eastern Europe. The two clusters meet at thebase of the dendrogram, which means that there are significant differences amongthem.

Indeed, a T-test, as well as non-parametric test of differences – showed that the two

major clusters have statistically significant differences in 15 of the 44 indices. Morespecifically the north-western cluster has HRM in higher position, more formalized HRpolicies, less involvement of managers and more involvement of employees in HRMand more external labor market orientation than the south-eastern countries; however,in the last three years before the survey, they increased their internal training morethan south-eastern countries did. Finally they showed more employment flexibility andmore emphasis on training.

Within each of the main clusters we observe two sub-clusters. In the north-westerncluster we observe the western cluster – consisted of the UK, Switzerland, Sweden,The Netherlands, Belgium Germany France and Spain – and the northern sub-clusterconsisted of Denmark, Norway and Finland. The UK, Switzerland and Sweden, sincethey meet at the uppermost level of the dendrogram showed very close similarities

among themselves and they meet the other five countries of their sub-cluster at fourlevels lower. Of the remaining countries of this sub-cluster, The Netherlands andBelgium are pretty similar in terms of the indices used. Spain and France are the mostperipheral countries of this sub-cluster – they meet the other three countries at twolevels lower towards the base of the dendrogram. In the northern sub-cluster, Denmarkand Norway are very close, while Finland meets them at one level lower.

In the south-eastern cluster, we observe two sub-clusters; Eastern Germany,Czechoslovakia and Italy form one sub-cluster, while Turkey, Ireland, Greece and

Figure 1.Hierarchical clusteranalysis, 1995

JEIT29,7

548

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1108/03090590510621045&iName=master.img-001.jpg&w=330&h=231


10/23

Bulgaria form the other sub-cluster. In the first sub-cluster, East Germany andCzechoslovakia meet at the uppermost level of the dendrogram, which means that theyare pretty similar, in terms of the overall indices of HRM used in the present study.Italy meets them at the second level of the dendrogram. In the other sub-cluster Turkey

and Ireland are pretty similar, followed by Greece. Bulgaria is the most peripheralcountry and meets the rest of the countries of the south-eastern cluster at several levelsdown the dendrogram.

Cluster analysis of the same 18 countries based on the 1999 data, resulted to clustersshown in Figure 2. The overall picture is that the 18 countries form two major clusters(Figure 2). A series of T-tests, as well as non-parametric tests of differences, showedthat of the 42 indices of various HRM issues used in the second wave, the two clustersare significantly different in 14. More specifically the north-western cluster continuesto have HRM in higher position, more formalized HR policies, less involvement of managers and more involvement of employees in HRM, more external labor marketorientation and more employment flexibility than the south-eastern countries. Finally,this time north-western countries showed more centralization of HR policy.

Overall, comparing the significant differences between north-west and south-east inthe two waves of data, we observe that almost the same number of indices, 15 in 1995and 14 in 1999, are significantly different between the two waves (Averages and all thesignificant differences between the clusters in 1995 and 1999 are presented in Table II,while averages and differences obtained for all indexes are presented in Table III).Furthermore, seven indices have significant differences between the two clusters atboth waves and in five of them, the differences in the second wave are greater than inthe first one. This means, that the two clusters do not show any considerable changetowards convergence. However, we observe other kinds of considerable changes.

Figure 2.Hierarchical cluster

analysis 1999


549

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1108/03090590510621045&iName=master.img-002.jpg&w=327&h=231


11/23

More specifically, the two clusters differ significantly in the strategic position of HRmanager. In north-western countries the majority of companies have the head of HRparticipate in the board of directors, while the respective percentage of companies inthe south-eastern sample is considerably lower. It is worth mentioning that thedifference between the two samples in 1999 is greater than in 1995, with greaterdecrease in the number of organizations having the head of HR on the board of

Avg Cluster 1 Avg Cluster 2 Difference 1-2

Position of HRM Index2 Cluster95 59.6091 46.0857 13.5234

Cluster99 57.7077 39.5200 18.1877Index4 Cluster95 22.1454 16.7571 5.3883Index3 Cluster99 48.4154 37.72 10.6954

Formalization of HR policies and strategiesIndex9 Cluster95 1.97001 1.4352 0.53488Index10 Cluster95 0.58536 0.92736 20.342Index8 Cluster99 1.8542 2.3347 20.4805

Managers’ involvement in HRM Index11 Cluster95 6.5073 8.5326 22.0253

Cluster99 5.8434 7.4396 21.5962Index13 Cluster99 1.4205 1.6675 20.2469Index15 Cluster99 2.7115 2.4815 0.2299

Employees’ involvement in HRM Index16 Cluster95 4.4978 7.8255 23.3277Index18 Cluster95 0.6756 0.374 0.3016Index20 Cluster95 78.2546 28.7571 49.4974

Cluster99 82.9462 28.8 54.1462Index21 Cluster95 1.1204 0.8351 0.2853

Cluster99 1.7343 1.2933 0.4410

Centralization of HR policyIndex23 Cluster99 1.2851 1.075 0.2101Index24 Cluster99 1.3094 1.0378 0.2716

Internal versus external labor market orientationIndex26 Cluster95 46.8273 31.1286 15.6987

Cluster99 44.1231 32 12.1231Index30 Cluster95 27.2399 18.6039 8.636

Internal versus external training market orientationIndex31 Cluster95 39.1028 28.8399 10.2629

Employment flexibilityIndex33 Cluster95 26.7112 17.0912 9.62



Accent on training

Index40 Cluster95 38.7256 29.0695 9.6561

Table II.Significant differencesbetween Cluster 1 and

Cluster 2 in 1995 and 1999

JEIT29,7

550


12/23

Avg Cluster 1 Avg Cluster 2 Differences 1-2


Cluster99 92.0 85.1 6.9Index2 Cluster95 59.6 46.1 13.5*

Cluster99 57.7 39.5 18.2*Index3 Cluster95 49.4 42.4 7.0

Cluster99 48.4 37.7 10.7*Index4 Cluster95 22.1 16.8 5.4*


Cluster99 2.5 2.3 0.2

Staffing Index6 Cluster95 21.2 19.3 1.9

Cluster99 17.4 20.4 23.0

Formalization of HR policies and strategies

Index7 Cluster95 2.8 2.6 0.1Cluster99 3.5 3.1 0.4Index8 Cluster95 1.3 1.5 20.2



Cluster99 0.6 0.8 20.2

Managers’ involvement in HRM Index11 Cluster95 6.5 8.5 22.0*





Cluster99 2.7 2.5 0.2*

Employees’ involvement in HRM Index16 Cluster95 4.5 7.9 23.3*





*Cluster99 82.9 28.8 54.1*Index21 Cluster95 1.1 0.8 0.3*

Cluster99 1.7 1.3 0.4*

Centralization of HR policiesIndex22 Cluster95 2.5 2.6 20.1


( continued )

Table III.Clusters’ averages and

differences 1995 and 1999


551


13/23

Avg Cluster 1 Avg Cluster 2 Differences 1-2


Cluster99 1.3 1.0 0.3*

Internal versus external labor Index25 Cluster95 47.1 54.6 27.5






Cluster99 34.9 28.0 7.0

Internal versus external training orientationIndex31 Cluster95 39.1 28.8 10.3*Cluster99 37.4 35.0 2.4

Index32 Cluster95 40.1 43.1 23.0Cluster99 45.8 46.4 20.6

Employment flexibilityIndex33 Cluster95 26.7 17.1 9.6*



Cluster99 32.8 25.5 7.2*

HR development Index36 Cluster95 23.8 21.7 2.0

Cluster99 30.6 27.3 3.3

Focus on marginal groupsIndex37 Cluster95 13.9 8.4 5.5


Cluster99 9.9 6.9 3.0

Accent on training Index39 Cluster95 3.1 3.1 20.1


Cluster99 46.4 39.1 7.4

HRM evaluation and analysisIndex41 Cluster95 74.1 67.6 6.6




Cluster99 3.0 3.3 20.3

Note: * Significant at the 0.05 levelTable III.

JEIT29,7

552


14/23

directors in the south-eastern countries. In 1995, the difference between the two clusterswas in the consultative role of the HR person in the development of the corporatestrategy. In 1999, the considerable gap between the two clusters is in the participationof the HR person in the development of the corporate strategy from the outset. In the

last wave (1999) in both clusters, the percentage of organizations that take into accountHR issues from the outset in the development of corporate strategy decreases withhigher rates of decrease in the south-eastern countries. Overall, in four out of fiveindices describing the position of HRM the differences between the two clusters in thetwo waves are greater, while the role of the HR function seems to be decreasing in thesecond wave, with higher rates in the south-eastern countries.

Formalization of HR policies and strategies is another area where we observesignificant differences between the two clusters. As it was expected, countries in thesouth-eastern cluster scored higher in the area of unwritten policies and strategies. In1999, in both clusters there is an increase in the organizations that have writtenpolicies, but in the north-western countries there is a higher rate of increase. In the last

wave, we also notice that there is significant difference in the level of basic paydetermination for management and employees between the north-west and thesouth-east clusters.

Training is one of the most important issues for HRM. Overall, it seems thattraining is an area where HR practices do not reveal considerable differences betweenthe two clusters which show convergence in 1999. In 1995, the two clusters weredifferent in their emphasis on internal training, and on the average proportion of employees in training, with more organizations in north-western group of countriesproviding internal training and having greater proportion of their employees intraining, internal or external. In terms of the average number of days in training eachmanager receives each year, there are significant differences between the two clustersin both waves. Managers in organizations in the south-eastern countries spend moredays in training than managers in north-western countries. The gap seems to close (asit was expected) in the second wave, even though the difference remains significant.The involvement of managers in the performance appraisal is increasing from 1995 to1999, but it increases at a higher rate in organizations of the south-eastern cluster,making thus the difference between the two groups significant in the second wave. In1999, more companies in both clusters are briefing managers about organizationalissues, however the increase is higher in the north-western cluster, making thedifference between the groups significant.

Employees’ participation in training is also considerably higher in organizations inthe south-eastern cluster only for the 1995 data. In 1999 there seems to be aconvergence between the two groups and the difference is not significant. The two

groups seem also to converge in 1999 in the area of employee involvement in theappraisal system, since in 1995 there was a significant difference between the twogroups in this aspect. Employees’ involvement in managerial decisions throughconsultative committees and/or works councils is differentiated along thenorth-west-south-east axis. It seems that there is a tendency towards divergencebetween the two clusters, since the difference between the groups increases from 1995to 1999, with organizations in countries in the north-western cluster giving increasingemphasis on the use of works councils, while the south-eastern group remains stable.


553


15/23

Moreover, the same tendency towards divergence can be noticed in employees’ briefingabout company’s strategy, financial and organizational issues.

The two clusters differ significantly in their orientation in the external labor marketfor the recruitment of the HR manager. In both waves, more organizations in the

northwest group recruit their HR manager from outside comparing to theorganizations in the southeast group. The gap, even though also significant in thesecond wave, is closing. In 1995, the emphasis in organizations in both clusters was tosubstitute their managers internally, even though a smaller percentage of organizations turned to the external labor market, the difference between thenorth-west and the south-east clusters was significant. In 1999, it seems that there is atendency towards the external labor market for recruitment in both clusters.

In a dynamic environment, flexibility is a demand. The results of our analysis revealthis tendency with organizations in both clusters increasing temporal and spatialflexible working practices. However, organizations in the north-western cluster adoptflexible working patterns at a higher rate, making the differences between the twoclusters in 1999 even greater than they were in 1995.

At the second wave, that is 1999, the first cluster consists of 13 – northern and western – countries and the second cluster of five – eastern – countries. The first considerablechange between 1995 and 1999 is that two countries, that is, Eastern Germany and Italychanged cluster. They moved from the south-eastern cluster north-western cluster. As aresult of this movement, we observe a major rearrangement in the north-western cluster.However, as it was expected, UK, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium andFrance show a remarkable stability with regard to overall HRM indices. In both wavesthey are the western sub-cluster of the north-western cluster. Also Norway and Denmarkshow a considerable stability, while Finland seems that at the second wave has come evencloser to these two countries. These three countries, although at the first wave were bythemselves forming the second sub-cluster of the north-western cluster, at the second wave

they cluster with Germany, Spain, Italy and GDR.In order to look at particular changes that took place between the two waves in

Italy, we compared the difference of the values of all of the 51 indices of Italy with therespective average values of the north-western cluster at wave one (1995) and wavetwo (1999). With regard to Italy we observe the following. In 26 if the 51 indices, thegap between the country’s values and the respective average values of thenorth-western cluster reduced considerably from 1995 to 1999. Furthermore, in sixother indices, Italy not just reduced the gap, but it had values above the average valuestowards the direction of the other north-western countries (Table IV).

Among the HR issues that Italy showed convergence with the north-western clusterare more employees’ involvement in HRM (five out of the six indices reduced the gap),more formalization of HR policies and strategies (four out of five indices reduced the

gap), more external orientation in labour market (six out of the six indices reduced thegap or went beyond it), and in training (two out of the two indices reduced the gap). Also,Italy increased its focus on marginal groups in HRM, in training and in evaluation andanalysis (all of the indices used showed a change towards the north-western cluster).Overall, of all the HR aspects explored in the present study, Italy seems to have remainedstable –between 1995 and 1999 – in centralization policies and employment flexibility;in all other aspects of HR that this study considered, Italy to a more or less degree,showed a change towards the north-western cluster.

JEIT29,7

554


16/23

Avg Cluster 1 Italy Differences 1-2


Cluster99 92.0 93.7 2

1.7Index3 Cluster95 49.4 57.6 28.2

Cluster99 48.4 46.8 1.6


Cluster99 17.4 24.9 27.5

Formalization of HR policies and strategiesIndex7 Cluster95 2.8 2.4 0.4



Cluster99 0.6 0.7 20.1

Managers’ involvement in HRM Index12 Cluster95 74.4 61 13.4



Cluster99 2.7 2.5 0.2

Employees’ involvement in HRM Index16 Cluster95 4.5 4.5 0.0





Cluster99 82.9 69.6 13.3

Centralization of HR policyIndex23 Cluster95 1.3 1.6 20.3

Cluster99 1.3 1.4 20.1



Cluster99 44.1 36.7 7.4





( continued )

Table IV.Italy compared with

North-western Cluster in1995 and 1999


555


17/23

Eastern Germany is the other country that moved from the south-eastern to the

north-western cluster between 1995 and 1999. As we did in the case of Italy, we

compared the difference of the values of all of the 51 indices of Eastern Germany with

the respective average values of the north-western cluster at wave one (1995) and wave

two (1999). In 19 of the 51 indices, the gap between the country’s values and the

respective average values of the north-western cluster reduced considerably from 1995

to 1999. Furthermore, in one index – that showing the percentage of organizations that

monitor the proportion of marginal groups for training and promotion – Eastern

Germany not just closed the gap in 1999, but it had values above the average values

towards the direction of the other north-western countries (Table V).

Among the HR aspects considered in the present study, Eastern Germany showedmore evidence of convergence with the north-western cluster with regard to more

formalization of HR policies and strategies (five out of five indices closed the gap

between 1995 and 1999), and in evaluation and analysis (all of the four indices used

showed a change towards the north-western cluster). Also, Eastern Germany showed a

convergence on external orientation in labor market (three out of the six indices closed

the gap). With regard to other aspects of HR in Eastern Germany like employees

involvement in HR, employment flexibility, position of HRM in organization, external

Avg Cluster 1 Italy Differences 1-2

Internal versus external training orientationIndex31 Cluster95 39.1 36.8 2.3

Cluster99 37.4 42.3 2

4.9Index32 Cluster95 40.1 50 29.9Cluster99 45.8 51.3 25.5

HR development Index36 Cluster95 23.8 14.9 8.8

Cluster99 30.6 31.5 20.9



Cluster99 9.9 12.2 22.3

Accent on training






Cluster99 2.2 2.2 0.0Index44 Cluster95 2.8 2 0.8

Cluster99 3.0 3.2 20.2Table IV.

JEIT29,7

556


18/23

Avg Cluster 1 GDR Differences 1-2


Cluster99 92.0 90.1 1.2Index3 Cluster95 49.4 44.2 5.2Cluster99 48.4 45.4 3.0


Cluster99 17.4 10.7 6.7

Formalization of HR policies and strategiesIndex7 Cluster95 2.8 2.0 0.8




Cluster99 0.6 0.9 2

0.3

Managers’ involvement in HRM Index13 Cluster95 1.0 0.5 0.5


Cluster99 2.7 2.6 0.1

Employees’ involvement in HRM Index20 Cluster95 78.3 18.4 59.9

Cluster99 82.9 93.3 210.4




Cluster99 60.3 56.9 3.4

Internal versus external training orientationIndex31 Cluster95 39.1 18.3 20.8

Cluster99 37.4 21.0 16.4

Employment flexibilityIndex33 Cluster95 26.7 24.5 2.2

Cluster99 29.9 28.8 1.1


Cluster99 13.1 17.1 24.0





Cluster99 3.0 2.2 0.8

Table V.GDR compared with

North-western Cluster in1995 and 1999


557


19/23

orientation in training, seven indices showed change toward the north-western cluster.Overall of, all the HR aspects explored in the present study, West Germany seems tohave remained stable – between 1995 and 1999 – in centralization of HR policies andin emphasis on training; in all other aspects of HR that this study considered, Eastern

Germany to a more or less degree, showed changes towards the north-western cluster.

Discussion and conclusionsThe European Union has promoted the integration among European countries.Toward this objective common policies and procedures have been determined,affecting all member states. At the same time, cultural and institutional factors in eachcountry contribute to the adoption and adaptation of different practices within acommon framework. Understanding similarities and differences within EU isimportant to understand the unique character of the European model of humanresource management.

From our analysis certain conclusions can be drawn:

No indication of convergence between the major clusters – north-west andsouth-east; between the two waves several differences remained unchanged (seven)some differences disappeared but some new emerged.

However, we observed movement from one cluster to another. In accordance with ourhypotheses peripheral countries in one cluster moved to the other cluster. Countries thatwere marginal to the south-eastern group – Italy and Eastern Germany – moved tonorth-western group. The northernization of Italy in HRM may be explained within thecontext of the overall convergence of this country at the economic and legal and politicallevel with the other north-western European Union countries. The westernization of Eastern Germany in HRM was expected to be found in the dynamic analysis of the data.Eastern Germany was the country in the south-eastern cluster with the most rapid andsubstantial changes at the social, political, economic and technological level than any

other country of this group; and that was mainly due to the fact that, a little more than adecade ago, it became part of one of the north-western countries and it started anunparallel with the other eastern countries assimilation process. This assimilationprocess was not without drawbacks in Western Germany at economic level. Althoughmore detailed analysis of the HRM data needed to support the speculation just to bemade, from the dynamic cluster analysis we performed we get the picture that WestGermany between 1995 and 1999 became more peripheral the north-western countries interms of the specific HRM aspects that the present study used.

As a result of the re-arrangement between the clusters, the north-western clusterbecame less homogeneous, while the south-eastern cluster became more homogeneous.

The Cranet-E project offers us a unique opportunity in international comparativeresearch. In this paper, we tried to address the issue of whether over time there is an

increasing “Europeanisation” (convergence) of HRM practices in Europe or not, whichis one of the main objective of the Cranet project. In order to claim that there is a trendtoward convergence or divergence, we need one more wave of data. Clearly, theavailable data show a tendency, but with the inclusion of the data of the 2003 surveywe will be able to reach more safe conclusions. Another methodological limitation of this study is the level of analysis, which is HR practices at a national (average values)and regional level. Analysis at this level conceals qualitative differences betweencountries, which are important in the contextual paradigm. Future research needs to

JEIT29,7

558


20/23

combine quantitative with qualitative data from these countries, in order to arrive at afuller picture of patterns of human resource management in Europe.

ReferencesAldenderfer, M.S. and Blashfield, R. (1985), Cluster Analysis. Quantitative Applications in Social

Sciences, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Blashfield, R. (1980), “The growth of cluster analysis: Tyron, Ward and Johnson”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 15, pp. 439-58.

Brewster, C. and Larsen, H.H. (2000), “The Northern European dimension”, in Brewster, C. andLarsen, H.H. (Eds), Human Resource Management in Northern Europe, BlackwellBusiness, Oxford.

Brewster, C. and Tyson, S. (1991), International Comparisons in Human Resource Management ,Pitman, London.

Brewster, C., Tregaskis, O., Hegewisch, A. and Holden, L. (1993), The European Human Resource Management Guide, Academic Press, London.

Brunstein, I. (1995), Human Resource Management in Western Europe, De Gruyter, Berlin.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton UniversityPress, Princeton, NJ.

Hofstede, G. (1994), “The business of international business is culture”, International Business Review, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-14.

Hollinshead, G. and Leat, M. (1995), Human Resource Management: An International and Comparative Perspective on the Employment Relationship, Pitman, London.

Ignjatovic, M. and Svetlik, I. (2002), “European HRM Clusters”, paper presented at the 2ndInternational Conference on Human Resource Management in Europe: Trends andChallenges, Athens, October.

Larsen, H.H. and Brewster, C. (2000), “Human resource management”, in Brewster, C. and Larsen,

H.H. (Eds), Human Resource Management in Northern Europe, Blackwell Business,Oxford.

Leat, M. (1998), Human Resource Issues of the European Union, Financial Times Management,London.

Mayrhofer, W., Brewster, C. and Morley, M. (2000), “The concept of strategic European humanresource management”, in Brewster, C., Mayrhofer, W. and Morley, M. (Eds), NewChallenges for European Human Resource Management , Macmillan, London.

Mayrhofer, W., Muller, M., Ledolter, J., Strunk, G. and Erten, C. (2002), “Converging for success?European human resource practices and organizational performance in the 1990s – anempirical analysis”, paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on HumanResource Management in Europe: Trends and Challenges, Athens, October.

Further reading

Brewster, C. and Hegewisch, A. (1994), Policy and Practice in European Human Resource Management: The PriceWaterhouseCranfield Survey, Routledge, London.

Brewster, C., Tregaskis, O., Hegewisch, A. and Mayne, L. (2000), “Comparative research inhuman resource management: a review and an example”, in Brewster, C., Mayrhofer, W.and Morley, M. (Eds), New Challenges for European Human Resource Management ,Macmillan, London.


559

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1207%2Fs15327906mbr1504_4&isi=A1980KQ99200004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1207%2Fs15327906mbr1504_4&isi=A1980KQ99200004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1515%2F9783110873504http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0969-5931%2894%2990011-6http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0969-5931%2894%2990011-6http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0969-5931%2894%2990011-6http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0969-5931%2894%2990011-6http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1515%2F9783110873504http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1207%2Fs15327906mbr1504_4&isi=A1980KQ99200004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1207%2Fs15327906mbr1504_4&isi=A1980KQ99200004


21/23

Delery, J. and Doti, H. (1996), “Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management:tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance”, Academy of

Management Journal , Vol. 39, pp. 802-35.

Hendry, C. and Pettigrew, A. (1990), “HRM: an agenda for the 1990s”, International Journal of

Human Resource Management , Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 17-25.Huselid, M. (1995), “The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,

productivity and corporate financial performance”, Academy of Management Journal ,Vol. 38, pp. 635-72.

Papalexandris, N. (1998), “Comparative research on the practices of human resourcemanagement in Europe”, Anthropos kai Ergasia, Vol. 9, July.

Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O. (1985), “Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: a review andsynthesis”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 435-54.

Sparrow, P. and Hiltrop, J.M. (1994), European Human Resource Management in Transition,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Storey, J. (Ed.) (2001), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text , Thomson, London.

Trompenaars, F. (1994), Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Culture and Diversity in Business, Nicholas Brealey, London.

JEIT29,7

560

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256713&isi=A1996VF19100003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256713&isi=A1996VF19100003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09585199000000038http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09585199000000038http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256741&isi=A1995RC50400002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256741&isi=A1995RC50400002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1985ANL5900004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256741&isi=A1995RC50400002http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256713&isi=A1996VF19100003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256713&isi=A1996VF19100003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09585199000000038http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09585199000000038http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1985ANL5900004


22/23

This article has been cited by:

1. Maria Carmen Galang, Intan Osman. 2016. HR managers in five countries: what do they do and why does it matter?. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27:13, 1341-1372. [CrossRef ]

2. Alexandros Psychogios Hull Business School, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom Leslie Thomas

Szamosi Department of Business Administration and Economics, International Faculty of the University of Sheffield, Thessaloniki, Greece Rea Prouska Middlesex University Business School, Department of Leadership, Work and Organisations, Middlesex University, London, UK Christopher Brewster Henley Business School, University of Reading, Reading, UK . 2016. A three-fold framework for understanding HRM practices in South-Eastern European SMEs. Employee Relations 38:3, 310-331. [ Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

3. Giulio Pedrini University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy . 2016. Varieties of capitalism in Europe: an inter-temporal comparison of HR policies. Personnel Review 45:3, 480-504. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

4. Peter McGraw. 2015. Changing patterns of compensation and benefits in multinational and Australiancompanies 1996-2009. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 53:1, 59-82. [CrossRef ]

5. Aminu Mamman, Khamis Zayid Al Kulaiby. 2014. Is Ulrich's model useful in understanding HR practitioners' roles in non-western developing countries? An exploratory investigation across private andpublic sector organizations in the Sultanate Kingdom of Oman. The International Journal of HumanResource Management 25:20, 2811-2836. [CrossRef ]

6. Jane Maley Business & Economics, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia . 2013. Hybrid purposes of performance appraisal in a crisis. Journal of Management Development 32:10, 1093-1112. [ Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

7. Pedro Ribeiro Novo De Melo, Carolina Feliciana MachadoHRM in SMEs in Portugal: An InnovativeProposal of Characterization 217-242. [CrossRef ]

8. Pedro Ferreira, Isabel Neira, Elvira Vieira. 2012. The Strategic Approach to the High-performance

Paradigm: A European Perspective. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 58, 474-482. [CrossRef ]9. Igor Gurkov, Olga Zelenov a, Zakir Saidov. 2012. Mutation of HRM practices in Russia: an application

of CRANET methodology. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 23:7, 1289-1302.[CrossRef ]

10. Andrea Ollo-López, Alberto Bayo-Moriones, Martín Larraza-Kintana. 2011. The impact of country-levelfactors on the use of new work practices. Journal of World Business 46:3, 394-403. [CrossRef ]

11. Peter McGraw, Melissa Peretz. 2011. HRD practices in local private sector companies and MNCsubsidiaries in Australia, 1996–2009. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 22:12,2539-2557. [CrossRef ]

12. Koen Dewettinck, Jonathan Remue. 2011. Contextualizing HRM in comparative research: The role of

the Cranet network. Human Resource Management Review 21:1, 37-49. [CrossRef ]13. Paul Gooderham, Odd Nordhaug. 2011. One European model of HRM? Cranet empirical contributions.

Human Resour ce M anagement Review 21:1, 27-36. [CrossRef ]

14. Chris Brewster, Michael Morley, Ilona BuciunieneRūta KazlauskaitėISM University of Management andEconomics, Kaunas, Lithuania Ilona BučiūnienėISM University of Management and Economics, Kaunas,Lithuania. 2010. HR function developments in Lithuania. Baltic Journal of Management 5:2, 218-241.[ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17465261011045133http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/17465261011045133http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/17465261011045133http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.010http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.010http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.010http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.560867http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2010.07.010http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.581633http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118733202.ch8http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JMD-03-2012-0036http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/JMD-03-2012-0036http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMD-03-2012-0036http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.914053http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/ER-07-2014-0078http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/ER-07-2014-0078http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ER-07-2014-0078http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/17465261011045133http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/17465261011045133http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17465261011045133http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.009http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.010http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.560867http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2010.07.010http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.581633http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1024http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118733202.ch8http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/JMD-03-2012-0036http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JMD-03-2012-0036http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JMD-03-2012-0036http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMD-03-2012-0036http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.914053http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12040http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/PR-04-2014-0069http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/PR-04-2014-0069http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2014-0069http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/ER-07-2014-0078http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/ER-07-2014-0078http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/ER-07-2014-0078http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ER-07-2014-0078http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1072099


23/23

15. Dirk Holtbrügge, Carina B. Friedmann, Jonas F. Puck. 2010. Recruitment and retention in foreign firmsin India: A resource-based view. Human Resource Management 49:3, 439-455. [CrossRef ]

16. Juni ChanKrystal Management Group, Hong Kong, China John BurgessNewcastle Business School,University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia. 2010. Public reporting of HRM practices among selectedHong Kong companies. Journal of Chinese Human Resources Management 1:2, 115-127. [ Abstract] [Full

Text] [PDF]
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/20408001011117653http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/20408001011117653http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/20408001011117653http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/20408001011117653http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20353

a longitudinal comparative study among 18 european countries

Documents