Strategic and environmental determinants of HRM innovations in post-socialist Poland

Abstract

In the last two decades, research in human resource management has increasingly focused on the strategic linkage between the activities of the human resource function and the business goals of enterprises. Most of the theoretical and empirical work in this area has focused on the US context. This paper extends this research to a non-US business environment. Speci cally, we examine data from 303 state-owned, domestic private and foreign-owned Polish rms to test how strategic and environmental variables are related to the adoption of human resource innovations. This analysis suggests that business strategies, local labour markets and the presence of foreign competition are related to the complexity and extensiveness of rm-level human resource practices.

A comparative analysis of cultural value orientations of Polish and Turkish employees: implications for international human resource management

“…However, it is worth noting that Poland existed under the rule of three powerful empires (the Austro-Hapsburg, Prussia, and Russia) for over 120 years until its independence in 1918. Furthermore, the Poles have had extensive contacts with the West before and after their independence (Weinstein and Obloj, 2002). Indeed, many scholars believe that the communist system, which lasted only 50 years, was not able to destroy the entrepreneurial spirit of the Polish people (e.g., Woldu et al, 2006;Rajkiewicz, 1998), thus leading many to assume that Poland, on joining EU, should be able to quickly demonstrate a positive cultural fit with other EU nations.…”

Is there Something as an Ex-Yugoslavian HRM Model? – Sticking to the Socialist Heritage or Converging With Neoliberal Practices

“…The HRM function had a personnel rather than an HRM orientation (Morley et al, 2012), which resulted in the absence of clearly articulated human resource strategy (Gurkov & Zelenova, 2009in Morley et al, 2012. However, after the fall of the socialist regimes throughout CEE, in order to respond to free market system pressures, HRM started taking hold in the discourse of management thinking and in emerging practice, began to be institutionalized, and moved from mostly administrative to more business-oriented function (Taylor & Walley, 2002;Weinstein & Obloj, 2002;Brewster et al, 2010;Bourke & Crowley, 2015). Foreign-owned companies especially contributed to the emergence of professional HRM (Svetlik et al, 2010); however, during the transition period East European HRM practices were still considered immature compared to the West (Kiriazov et al, 2000), as the transition period was characterized by years of resistance and vacuum in the personnel area (Karoliny et al, 2009).…”

“…The number of employees is an important determinant of the adoption of HRM as marginal costs of implementing many HRM Brought to you by | MIT Libraries Authenticated Download Date | 5/10/18 4:07 PM programs decrease with the number of employees, and because larger organizations more likely need bureaucratic mechanisms that help foster procedural justice (Weinstein & Obloj, 2002). Regarding ownership (both type and national origin), private organizations and those with foreign equity participation are usually more receptive to the adoption of more sophisticated HRM principles and practices, while state-owned and domestic organizations are less likely to adopt HRM innovations (Tung & Havlovic, 1996;Weinstein & Obloj, 2002;Festing & Sahakiants, 2011;Morley et al, 2012). For example, Weinstein and Obloj (2002) point that state-owned organizations score lower on HRM innovations measure than their privately-owned counterparts, and Zupan and Kaše (2005) underline that in CEE region the Western HRM models are often disseminated to the domestic sector through the subsidiaries of MNCs.…”

“…Regarding ownership (both type and national origin), private organizations and those with foreign equity participation are usually more receptive to the adoption of more sophisticated HRM principles and practices, while state-owned and domestic organizations are less likely to adopt HRM innovations (Tung & Havlovic, 1996;Weinstein & Obloj, 2002;Festing & Sahakiants, 2011;Morley et al, 2012). For example, Weinstein and Obloj (2002) point that state-owned organizations score lower on HRM innovations measure than their privately-owned counterparts, and Zupan and Kaše (2005) underline that in CEE region the Western HRM models are often disseminated to the domestic sector through the subsidiaries of MNCs. Finally, trade unions are usually a conservative force slowing the introduction of new HRM programs (Weinstein & Obloj, 2002).…”

“…Concerning the influence of control variables, it has to be mentioned that these variables are anticipated to be systematically related to the proclivity of organizations to adopt new HRM practices (Weinstein & Obloj, 2002). The number of employees is an important determinant of the adoption of HRM as marginal costs of implementing many HRM Brought to you by | MIT Libraries Authenticated Download Date | 5/10/18 4:07 PM programs decrease with the number of employees, and because larger organizations more likely need bureaucratic mechanisms that help foster procedural justice (Weinstein & Obloj, 2002).…”