Co‐determination and strategic integration in German firms

Wächter, Hartmut; Müller‐Camen, Michael

doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2002.tb00072.x

Cited by 48 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Within the co-determination structure, works councils are important HR actors at the company level. Because they are encouraged to cooperate in HR issues, they can take on more strategic roles in place of the HR department (Waechter & Muller-Camen, 2002).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The human resource department's role and conditions that affect its development: Explanations from Austrian CEOs

Brandl

Pohler

2010

Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The human resource department's role and conditions that affect its development: Explanations from Austrian CEOs

Brandl

Pohler

2010

Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These bodies are legally entitled to co-determination, consultation, and access to important information, and thereby represent an additional restriction on the degree of managerial autonomy that is not found in the LME context (Wächter and Müller-Camen, 2002). Table 7 seems to suggest that the effect of unionization may be greater in CMEs than in LMEs, and this is plausible since in CMEs labor unions play an import role as guardians of the, legally mandated, labor market institutions.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Human resource management in US subsidiaries in Europe and Australia: centralisation or autonomy?

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explore determinants of subsidiary autonomy in setting HRM practices within US parented MNEs, in Europe and Australia. We examine both the effect of strategic context, and the effect of the institutional location of the subsidiary. We find that US MNEs show greater centralization of control over HRM where the subsidiary faces global markets, in coordinated market economies versus liberal market economies, and where union density is low.Keywords: International HRM, subsidiary management, neo-institutional theory, strategic context, centralized control, multinationals 3 HRM IN US SUBSIDIARIES IN EUROPE AND AUSTRALIA: CENTRALIZATION OR AUTONOMY?Although an important source of competitive advantage for multinational enterprises (MNEs) may lie in their ability to deploy organizational and management capabilities worldwide, many MNEs have chosen, for strategic reasons, to concede considerable autonomy to their subsidiaries in designing their own management systems (Kostova and Roth, 2002;Noorderhaven and Harzing, 2003;Myloni et al., 2004). As Harzing (2000) has demonstrated, subsidiary autonomy in human resource management (HRM) is a feature of MNEs that are generally classified as multi-domestics; that is, MNEs whose subsidiaries have domestic mandates involving a local market scope accompanied by considerable latitude to engage in local product modification and local adaptation of marketing.On the other hand there are those, such as Birkinshaw and Hood (1998), who view subsidiary autonomy as not only determined by the relationship of the head office to its subsidiaries, but also by the nature of the local institutional environment in which the subsidiary operates. They argue that the nature of local legal conditions, the cultural environment, and the influence of the local authorities will all impinge on the degree to which subsidiaries have local control over their HRM systems.The aim of this paper is to combine these two perspectives by simultaneously examining the effects of the strategic role of the subsidiary and the institutional environment in which the subsidiary is located, in relation to the degree of centralization of control of HRM policies imposed by corporate headquarters. We examine the influence of the strategic role of the subsidiary in the sense of whether it has a purely local market orientation or whether it serves international markets. At the same time we investigate the impact of the environment in which the subsidiary is located by differentiating between the response of the MNE to the broad institutional setting at the level of national business systems (Whitley, 1992;Lane, 1992;Sorge, 1995;Foss, 1999;Hollingsworth, 2003;Redding, 2005) in which the subsidiary is located and, separately, the impact of labor unions on MNEs' ability to exert centralized control (e.g., Ortiz, 1998;Giardini et al., 2005;Singe and Croucher, 2005).We argue that US MNEs operate in relation to host country environments on the basis of both "economic rationality" and "normative rationality" (Oliver, 1997). ...

show abstract

“…According to Müller (1999: 126), the American concept of HRM in particular 'has emerged as one of the most important prescriptions for a world-wide convergence of managerial practices'. However, its adaptability to the European context has often been put into question as its individualist and market driven values run counter to the more collectivist and regulated environment in Europe (see, for example, Ferner and Hyman, 1994;Guest, 1990Guest, , 1994Brewster and Bournois, 1993;Brewster, 1994Brewster, , 1995Kirkbride, 1994) and particularly in Germany (Wächter and Muller-Camen, 2002). As far as the Japanese corporate environment is concerned, the American HRM-model is regarded as contradicting in many ways the broad concept of 'respect for people' (Kono and Clegg, 2001) and the aim of 'human resource development' (Ballon, 2002).…”

Section: Context Objectives and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 98%

Cross-national learning from best practice and the convergence-divergence debate in HRM

Pudelko¹

2005

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The chief objective of this paper is to develop suggestions as to how to learn from best practices in HRM across national borders. The analysis is based on survey data gathered from 232 HRM managers from American, Japanese and German top 500 companies. The managers provide information on how the HRM model of their respective country is characterized and from which of the other two country models they seek inspiration. The concrete attributes of the models considered worth adopting are described in detail and future developments with regards to convergence of the HRM models explored. The empirical data suggest that HR managers from all three countries expect a partial convergence towards a hybrid model. Curiously, the model that comes closest to this hybrid -the German one -is also the one that rates lowest as a source of inspiration. An argument is made that in order to better understand learning from best practice and resulting convergence tendencies, research should seek more insights regarding the knowledge of managers about foreign management models, their perceptions of these models, and how these perceptions are generated.

show abstract

Co‐determination and strategic integration in German firms

Cited by 48 publications

References 39 publications

The human resource department's role and conditions that affect its development: Explanations from Austrian CEOs

The human resource department's role and conditions that affect its development: Explanations from Austrian CEOs

Human resource management in US subsidiaries in Europe and Australia: centralisation or autonomy?

Cross-national learning from best practice and the convergence-divergence debate in HRM

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About