Actors, Structure, and Processes: A Review and Conceptualization of Global Work Integrating IB and HRM Research

Abstract

As organizations increasingly fulfil their customer needs by getting their work done globally, there is a pressing need for the scientific community to further advance knowledge on global work, especially in terms of how to better conceptualize and integrate it. A particular opportunity for such development involves the cross-fertilization between the International Business (IB) and Human Resource Management (HRM) literatures, which serve as the focal domains to study global work phenomena, but have treated global work largely as separate research streams. We therefore edited a special issue to contribute to a more integrative understanding of various aspects of global work across both domains. In this opening article, we review existing research on global work in the MNE from both IB and HRM perspectives.Subsequently, we present a shared conceptualization of global work that helps integrate theoretical and empirical research in both fields. We then introduce the articles in this special issue, before developing an integrative agenda for future research on global work.

Toward a Framework of Contextualized Assets and Liabilities in Global Leadership: Identity and Power Implications in an African Context

“…Although previous literature has indicated the relevance of cultural identities to global leadership (Fitzsimmons et al, 2013;Lee et al, 2018), more research is needed to integrate the effect of identity in the global leadership phenomenon. Global leaders can be considered as actors in global work (Reiche, Lee, & Allen, 2019), each with their unique socio-cultural backgrounds and identities. These factors should not be overlooked in analyzing global leadership.…”

Flexible global working arrangements: An integrative review and future research agenda

“…In order for multinational enterprises (MNEs) to adapt to increasing volatility, complexity, and uncertainty in the global environment, there is an urgent need to develop and leverage more innovative and flexible forms of global mobility ( Collings & Isichei, 2018 ; Reiche, Lee, & Allen, 2019 ). The acceleration of globalisation in recent decades, coupled with demographic, geopolitical, economic, and information technology (IT) changes and the increased ease of international travel, has seen continued use of expatriate assignments ( Miralles-Vazquez & McGaughey, 2015 ) alongside the rise of other forms which we term – flexible global working arrangements (FGWAs) ( Cascio & Aguinis, 2008 ; Collings, Scullion, & Morley, 2007 ; Shaffer, Kraimer, Chen, & Bolino, 2012 ).…”

“…Previous studies have referred to international working patterns ( Baruch, Dickmann, Altman, & Bournois, 2013 ), global work ( Hinds, Liu, & Lyon, 2011 ), global work experiences ( Dragoni et al, 2014 ; Shaffer et al, 2012 ), and global work arrangements ( Mayrhofer & Reiche, 2014 ; Reiche et al, 2019 ); all of which were broader in their scope including traditional long-term expatriation, which dominate research, and/or virtual collaborations. For example, Reiche et al (2019 , p.360) define global work arrangements as ‘situations in which employees who are collaborating with each other are culturally diverse and often also geographically distant from one another and thus embedded in different national contexts’. In contrast, our systematic review focuses on FGWAs, which we define as; situations where employees physically engage in working internationally as part of their substantive role for a condensed and defined period ranging from one day to up to one year.…”

“…While the review highlights the lack of strategic oversight or sustainable management of FGWAs, our future research agenda calls for greater interrogation of the involvement of the IHRM function in coordinating and supporting FGWAs. In particular, we seek to illustrate how IHRM and international business scholars may work more closely together ( Andersson et al, 2019 ) to unpack the strategic importance of IHRM and more precisely the value-creating nature of FGWAs ( Reiche et al, 2019 ).…”

“…The lack of evidence of strategic or operational considerations, coupled with the considerable adverse physical, psychological, and social aspects reported in the literature, moves us to reporting significant misgivings over the extent to which value creation is realised at an organisational level, and the potential destructive effects that emanate at the individual level. As such, the rise of FGWAs presents a double-edged sword with substantial concern that such work is not being captured as a valuable asset ( Reiche et al, 2019 ). We call for greater theorisation and integration of the strategic IHRM literature to better elucidate the value-creating potential of FGWAs and the role that HR takes in this.…”