Denmark

Bévort, Frans; Pedersen, John Storm; Sundbo, Jon

doi:10.1515/9783110873504-004

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This raises a key question: what role does management play in the ideal model and practice of the service professionals’ provision of welfare services to citizens? In the standard literature on professions, the role of managers is to empower professionals in daily operations through recognition, appreciation and support (Andersen and Pedersen, 2014; Bevort et al , 1992; Lerborg, 2010, pp. 86-94).…”

Section: Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

The digital society and provision of welfare services

Pedersen

Wilkinson

2018

IJSSP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

The digital society and provision of welfare services

Pedersen

Wilkinson

2018

IJSSP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While differences surely exist within the EU (see, e.g., Ronen and Shenkar, 1985, on country clusters based on work-related attitudes; for example, the Nordic, Germanic, Anglo, and Latin European clusters, with Greece in the near Eastern cluster) (Brewster, 2004), some commonalities can be found. In Finland, as in other Nordic countries, there is a relatively strong and pronounced legislative framework, which means that labor unions play a role with regard to a variety of HRM issues (see also Bévort et al, 1995;Fenton-O'Creevy et al, 2008). Managers can mainly improve the employees' situation with HRM practices, as legislation sets the framework for such practices.…”

Section: Knowledge Protection Needs For Hrm-related Means In Different Geographical Firm Locationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of Employee Knowledge Risks in Multinational, Multilevel Organisations: Managing Knowledge Leaking and Leaving

Olander

Hurmelinna‐Laukkanen

2015

Int. J. Innov. Mgt.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maintaining innovation potential means that ideas, and the people generating those ideas, should be at the firms disposal. Furthermore, the firm should be able to capture value from people's ideas. Losing these people therefore poses risks. Managing these risks is challenging, especially without intra-firm consensus on their role. This study examines how and why perceptions of severity and management of risks related to knowledge leaving and knowledge leaking differ across organisational levels and different firm locations. Depending on what types of differences are present, and why similarities and differences emerge, managers can direct their attention to different control or commitment-enhancing practices to address the risk of harmful knowledge loss and imitation. They should do this in a manner that enables them to maintain the prerequisites for future innovation and a creative work environment, while at the same time allowing global coordination and local adaptation.

show abstract

Section: Liberal Versus Coordinated Market Economiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is line with previous studies that have indicated that in these countries there is a strong and pronounced legislative framework, which ensures that labor unions are consulted on a range of HRM issues such as downsizing and outsourcing. (Bévort, Pedersen and Sundbo, 1995).Thus together with the strong protection of individual rights afforded to employees by laws and agreements, this means that the general autonomy of management is significantly restricted (Kristensen, 1992).Hall and Soskice (2001) observe that a number of European countries, including France, Italy, Spain and Portugal, have somewhat ambiguous positions in relation to the LME/CME distinction.Hall and Gingerich's (2004) index reveals that while these nations may have somewhat weaker institutional capacities for strategic coordination in labor relations than northern European nations, possibly because of the historical nature of their union movements they are clearly positioned towards the CME end of the index's LME/CME continuum.Hall and Gingerich's index also makes it possible to distinguish between countries that, in varying degrees, fall within the LME category in its broader sense. Thus Australia, with its separate state-operated, as opposed to national, industrial relations regime cannot be regarded as a "pure" LME.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Denmark

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

The digital society and provision of welfare services

The digital society and provision of welfare services

Perceptions of Employee Knowledge Risks in Multinational, Multilevel Organisations: Managing Knowledge Leaking and Leaving

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About