This paper explores how the alignment of HR strategy and business strategy relates to organisational performance. It addresses the core question, “Does the alignment of business strategy and HR strategy impact performance?”. Using Miles and Snow's theories of strategic typologies (defender, prospector and analyser) (Miles and Snow, 1978), strategic HR systems (Miles and Snow, 1984a) corresponding to these strategic types and dynamics of fit (tight fit, minimal fit and misfit) (Miles and Snow, 1994), the results of the current study found that organisational performance is best explained by the tight alignment and the minimal alignment of HR strategy and business strategy. One noteworthy result of the study is the viability of using a combination strategy where dimensions from two or more “pure” strategies in a typology can be combined and effectively implemented. Managers are recommended to develop a clear, internally consistent strategy for the firm, but at the same time, they should consider combining elements of different strategies to the extent that the firm's array of strategic resources permits them to do so.
Purpose
– This is a special issue introduction on cross-cultural and comparative diversity management (DM). The purpose of this paper is to present five articles that explore and examine some of the complexities of equality and DM in various countries around the world.
Design/methodology/approach
– In this introductory paper, the authors provide an overview and the current state of literature on comparative research on equality and diversity. The authors also gathered a list of indices that is helpful as secondary data for informing comparative and cross-national research in this domain.
Findings
– To date, comparative work involving two or more countries is scarce with Canada/USA comparisons first appearing in the 1990s, followed by other groupings of countries a decade later. Existing comparative work has started to uncover the dialectics of voluntary and mandated action: both complement each other, although the order in which they appear vary from context to context. This work also acknowledges that there are varying degrees of intensity in the way that legislations may constrain employer action in encouraging a more diverse workforce, and that there is more than a binary choice between blind equality of rights (identity blind) and quota-based policies (affirmative action) available to decision makers.
Originality/value
– The comparative nature of these papers allows the reader to compare and contrast the different approaches to the adoption and implementation of DM. The authors also draw attention to several areas in cross-cultural DM research that have been understudied and deserve attention.
L’objectif de cet article est de présenter une étude de cas des facteurs macro qui ont un impact sur la façon dont une entreprise aborde et conceptualise la gestion de la diversité au Danemark. Un cadre relationnel à plusieurs niveaux a été adopté pour découvrir la situation contextuelle de la gestion de la diversité dans une entreprise manufacturière danoise. Vingt entretiens semi-structurés avec des cadres supérieurs et intermédiaires ont été menés et analysés à l’aide de la méthode Gioia. Les résultats montrent comment les facteurs liés à la diversité au niveau sociétal ont conduit à l’adoption d’un argumentaire « business case » de la gestion de la diversité au niveau organisationnel de l’entreprise concernée. Une orientation sociétale profondément ancrée dans le volontarisme (en contraste avec une obligation légale), combinée à une faible distance de pouvoir, semble favoriser une attitude de type « walk the talk », qui va au-delà de la simple mise en place de la diversité démographique.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.