Internationalization & HRM Strategies across Subsidiaries in Multinational Corporations from Emerging Economies A Conceptual Framework Mohan Thite*

* Department of Employment Relations and Human Resources, Griffith Business School Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia Email: M.Thite@griffith.edu.au; Phone: +61 7 373 57643 Fax: +61 7 3735 7177 Adrian Wilkinson Centre for Work, Organization and Wellbeing, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia Email: Adrian.Wilkinson@griffith.edu.au; Phone: +61 7 373 56792; Fax: +61 7 3735 7177 Dhara Shah Department of Employment Relations and Human Resources, Griffith Business School, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia Email: d.shah@griffith.edu.au

* Corresponding Author

ABSTRACT The rapid rise of multinational Corporations (MNCs) from emerging economies has led to greater interest and urgency in developing a better understanding of the deployment and diffusion of managerial strategies from their perspective and without assuming the prevailing Western ethnocentric orthodoxy. This paper develops a conceptual framework of global HR strategies and practices in MNCs from emerging economies across their subsidiaries in both developed and developing markets. Using data from a pilot study of an Indian MNC, it provides insights and guidance into the motives, strategic opportunities and constraints in cross national transfer of HR policies and practices in a multi-polar world.

Key Words: New Multinationals; Emerging Economies; India; Internationalization Strategies; Global HR Strategies.

1. Introduction In the coming decades, China and India will disrupt workforces, industries, companies, and markets in ways that we can barely begin to imagine (Engardio, 2008: 23)

Research on MNCs has tended to be focused on those from developed countries establishing subsidiaries either in other developed economies (e.g. U.S. to the UK) or into developing economies (e.g. the U.S.A into Latin America). U.S. firms invested in

Europe from before 1939 but the major push came after World War Two (Ferner, Almond, Clark, Colling, Edwards, Holden, & Muller-Camen, 2004). Japanese MNCs began to locate in advanced economies, particularly in the 1980s. While, there has been a rich stream of MNC research in this area, there has been relatively less research on newer industrialized (e.g. Taiwan, India and South Korea) to the more industrialized economies (Glover & Wilkinson, 2007, p.1438). This is a new era which is often referred to as a new geography of investments (UNCTAD, 2004). Whilst most MNCs come from the worlds top five economies, a growing number are from developing and newer industrialized economies. UNCTAD categorizes developing economies into two groups South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore who are newer industrialized and have an established track record as outward investors and those such as India and China that are rapidly developing.

In this paper, we widen the horizon of International HRM to include HRM strategies and practices from emerging economies. The purpose of the paper is to explore

how HRM strategy of the MNCs in emerging economies is formed and how it operates in practice. First, we outline the issues relating to emerging MNCs. Second, we develop a conceptual framework of global HR strategies and practices in MNCS from emerging economies. This provides managerial insights and guidance into the motives, strategic opportunities and constraints in cross national transfer of HR policies and practices. It uses the data from the pilot study of an Indian multinational company to test the conceptual framework and propositions. The paper concludes with a discussion of how our findings relate to existing research and identify directions for future research.

This paper helps identify and analyze the travel of ideas (Delbridge, 1998; Garrahan & Stewart, 1992) between the East and West, in terms of the motive and opportunity behind cross-national transfer of HR policies and practices. Such an understanding of corporate management thinking and practice in Asian MNCs helps practitioners understand their own strengths and weaknesses in the new scheme of things and assists them in strategizing accordingly as to how best to influence the top management layers and players. This would in turn assist them to facilitate a smooth travel of policies and practices across subsidiaries (Ferner, 2009).

2. The New Multinationals The world investment report from UNCTAD (2010) indicates that although developedcountry transnational corporations (TNCs) account for the bulk of global foreign direct investment (FDI), developing and transition economies have emerged as significant outward investors accounting for one quarter of global FDI outflows in 2010, the bulk of

which came from Asia. Similarly, the growth rate of the number of TNCs from developing countries and transition economies over the past 15 years has exceeded that of TNCs from developed countries. Asia dominates the list of 100 largest developing country TNCs. Further, the emerging economies are investing heavily in low-income host countries, generating considerable South-South investment flows (UNCTAD, 2007). It is anticipated that in the new world economy, the balance of power will shift to the East as China and India continue to evolve as two of the most attractive inward as well as outward FDI destination countries.

The growing importance of emerging economies has lead to an upsurge of strategy research on the topic (Wright, Filatotchev, Hoskisson, & Peng, 2005). Research on global HRM has not paid enough attention to MNCs from emerging economies despite of all the management domains, HRM is most sensitive to local context (Rosenzweig & Nohria, 1994). Emerging country MNCs tend to be smaller in size with considerably less resources and international experience than their counterparts from developed markets. This limits their ability to transfer management practices across their subsidiaries (Hussain & Jian, 1999; Lall, 1983; Wells, 1983)Guillen and Garcia-Canal, 2009). While there is growing recognition of and research on this contextual aspect with respect to some relatively advanced Asian economies, such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore (Chang & Taylor, 1999; Chang, Mellahi, & Wilkinson, 2009b; Chang, Wilkinson, & Mellahi, 2007; Glover & Wilkinson, 2007), the two emerging global giants, China and India, have been much less explored (Ferner, 2009).

Previous research on MNCs had identified dual pressures for the need to conform to home country (push force) and host country (pull force) institutional environments when adopting HRM strategies and practices (e.g.Farley, Hoenig, & Yang, 2004; Hillman & Wan, 2005; Rosenzweig & Nohria, 1994). We know very little on how these pressures influence HRM strategies and practices at subsidiary level of MNCs from emerging economies. While previous comparative research on HRM in the Asia Pacific region (Awasthi, Chow, & Wu, 2001; Bae & Lawler, 1998; Chow, Shields, & Wu, 1999; Hofstede, 1993, 1997; Hofstede & Bond, 1988; Ulgado, Yu, & Negandhi, 1994)) has identified the national origin of firms including its national institutions and culture as the key shapers of HRM practices in the region, these studies do not address how cultural and institutional differences affect the dissemination of HRM strategies and practices by MNCs from emerging economies operating in a developed economy (Chang, Wilkinson, & Mellahi, 2007).

A key research question relates to exploring the issues associated with the transfer HR practices across borders within MNCs. As Martin and Beaumont (1998) comment, diffusion has to take into account the local cultural and institutional context and the ability and incentive of local managers to implement best practice (see Glover & Wilkinson, 2007).

3. Country of Origin Effect on Strategy One of the key challenges facing the MNCs is how to balance between the need for global integration and local adaptation. National origin of MNCs is seen as a major

influence in determining this balance (Ngo, Turban, Lau, & Lui, 1998, p. 632). Contrary to Ohmaes (1990) view of a borderless world and nationless corporations, cultural and institutional determinants in the country in which firms were located are seen to be salient determinants arising from a firms context (Chang & Taylor, 1999; Gooderham, Nordhaug, & Ringdal, 1999). Researchers, such as Ferner (1997) and Gamble (2003) examined the issues dealing with how MNCs manage their foreign subsidiaries and concluded that the main influence on the MNCs effort to have a degree of control over their subsidiaries was their country of origin (Harzing & Sorge, 2003; Hu, 1992). Supporting this view, Harzing and Sorge (2003) state that although multinationals are highly internationalized, their organizational coordination and control practices at the international level tend to be explained by their country of origin.

There is empirical evidence that suggests that almost all MNCs have a trace of their country of origin within them. It could be subconscious choices which are influenced by the cultural and institutional characteristics of the country of origin of the MNC or it could be transferred through the people who work in the organization (Harzing & Sorge, 2003). U.S. multinationals have been typically contrasted with Japanese multinationals in respect of their styles of HRM employed in their subsidiaries (Ferner, 1997). Japanese multinationals have the characteristic of being strong but with informal centralization and are highly reliant on establishing international networks (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1992). U.S. multinationals appear to have elaborate systems of control and standardized worldwide systems in place (Ferner, 1997). Moreover, whether the country is high or low on cultural context will also determine the impact of their

country of origin on the IHRM practices. This work draws on the work of Hall (1976) and his distinction between situations where things are less explicit where the context exerts more influence (high context) and those that are much more explicit where the context is less of an influence (low context). Western countries are seen as generally low on cultural context whereas Eastern countries are mainly seen as high on cultural context (Hofstede, 1984). The interplay between national and organizational culture is a significant factor in the success of global mergers, acquisitions and alliances (Thite, 2004).

As stated before, there is relatively little research on the internationalization of emerging economy firms either into other emerging economies or into developed economies (Wright, Filatotchev, Hoskisson, & Peng, 2005, p.25). The strategy literature on emerging economies predominantly use institutional theory followed by resourcebased theory, transaction cost theory and agency theory as conceptual perspectives (Hoskisson, Eden, Lau, & Wright, 2000). MNCs from emerging economies enter developed economies for exploration and other emerging economies for

exploitation(Wright, Filatotchev, Hoskisson, & Peng, 2005). While in the past Japan and Korea internationalized through greenfield expansion, founding their own subsidiaries that mitigated cultural clashes, China and India are expanding mainly through acquisitions in Western countries (Hofstede, 2007). Moreover, their internationalization is very rapid and different from that of the conventional Western MNCs and erstwhile developing country MNCs (Matthews & Zander, 2007). They also

tend to use exporting and FDI as combined and simultaneous strategy, rather than being distant alternatives (Contractor, Kumar, & Kundu, 2007).

Although in absolute terms the MNCs from emerging economies are not very large, they are gaining importance and many companies are now globally diversified. The key advantages for these MNCs are access to the most dynamic growth markets in the world with a vast pool of low cost resources like production workers, engineers and natural resources (Engardio, Arndt, & Geri, 2006). Besides being small, most of the emerging market MNCs are in their early stage of internationalization with limited international experience (Contractor, Kumar, & Kundu, 2007). Correspondingly within the MNCs from the emerging economies, organizational culture, decision making and control on subsidiaries can be noticeably different as compared to their counterparts in developed markets due to national culture and economic differences (Hofstede, 2007).

4. Conceptual Framework This paper deals with strategic international human resource management (SIHRM) that explicitly links HRM with the strategic management processes of the MNCs in emerging economies and emphasizes coordination or congruence among the various HRM practices. It focuses on SIHRM orientation, i.e., the general philosophy or approach taken by top management of the MNC in the design of its overall IHRM system, particularly the HRM systems to be used in its overseas affiliates (Taylor, Beechler, & Napier, 1996, p.966).

According to Taylor et al. (1996), there is a growing consensus that a key differentiator between the corporate winners and losers in the 21 st century will be the effectiveness of the human organization and it is particularly critical in the emerging markets (Strategic Direction, 2007). In the context of IHRM, Ngo, Turban, Lau and Liu (1998) found strong support for the hypothesis that country of origin influences the firms HRM practices. Taylor et al.s (1996) model of IHRM considers that the transfer of HRM policies and practices can go in any direction, not just from home to host countries. Similarly, American and European HRM systems influence and are influenced by East Asian HRM systems (Chew & Zhu, 2002). Empirical studies on the diffusion of HRM practices by MNCs across their subsidiaries indicate that they predominantly adopt hybrid methods, combining both push force for control from headquarters and pull factors for conformity to host country, to suit the markets they are serving (Rose & Kumar, 2007). Global, national and internal pressures play a role in influencing HR strategic recipes and delivery mechanisms (Brewster, Sparrow, & Harris, 2005). Edwards & Rothbard (2000) contrast different approaches to the transfer of employment practices in MNCs and argue for an integrated approach that focuses on interrelationships between markets and institutions on the one hand and the material interests of actors on the other.

4.1. Influencing factors: Research shows that control and coordination mechanisms and diffusion of management practices in an MNC are subject to several external and internal influencing factors (see Figure 1). If the degree of integration between the headquarters and the subsidiary is high

10

it requires higher levels of control and coordination (Taylor, Beechler, & Napier, 1996). With regard to external influencing factors, the MNCs from emerging economies face a double hurdle of liability of foreignness and liability of country of origin with perceived poor global image of their home country (Chang & Taylor, 1999; Chang, Mellahi, & Wilkinson, 2009a; Engardio, Arndt, & Geri, 2006; Ferner, 1997; Ferner, Almond, & Colling, 2005; Smith & Meiskins, 1995). These constraints are further accentuated by liabilities of smallness and newness (Contractor, Kumar, & Kundu, 2007). As Guillen and GarciaCanal (2009) note, they also need to deal with the liability and competitive disadvantage that stems from being latecomers lacking the resources and capabilities of established MNCs from the most advanced countries. Furthermore, the degree and level of integration between headquarters and subsidiaries will also influence the multinationals. Similarly, with regard to internal influencing factors, the strategic framework of the MNC, organizational culture, leadership, decision making and delegation of authority can be considerably different in MNCs from emerging economies than their counterparts in developed markets due to national cultural, economic and political differences (Hofstede, 2007). Proposition1: MNCs from emerging economies adopt control and coordination mechanisms because of the double hurdle they face of liability of foreignness and liability of country of origin.

4.2. Control of subsidiaries in developed markets: MNCs exercise a degree of control over their subsidiaries to ensure their resources and efforts are directed towards attaining the main objectives of the MNC (Chang & Taylor,

11

1999). Control refers to the processes by which an MNC ensures that their subsidiaries operate in a particular way as determined by the headquarters in order to achieve organizational goals (Chang & Taylor, 1999). According to Harzing and Sorge (2003), corporate control comprises of all the mechanisms instituted to tie the operations and decisions within and across components into a larger whole and establish coherence of meaning and purpose within the larger enterprise (p.190). We adopt the Harzings (1999) typology that suggests two dimensional classification between direct (personal & impersonal) and indirect (personal & impersonal) control. Complementary to the above typology is Taylor et al.s (1996) classification of adaptive or polycentric approach vs. exportive or ethnocentric approach to management control of subsidiaries.

Unlike developed country MNCs engaging in forward diffusion of superior home country practices into developing country subsidiaries, emerging economy MNCs utilize the knowledge gained in operating in developed markets to transfer best practices across the entire organization (Zhang, Tsui, Song, Li, & Jia, 2008). They are expected to adopt an adaptive or polycentric approach to management in developed country subsidiaries (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Kaye & Taylor, 1997). In terms of HR strategy, this could mean low internal consistency with the rest of the firm and high external consistency with the external environment. Accordingly, HR practices may include hiring host country managers with local knowledge and transfer of practices both ways, depending on which is seen as working better.

12

Proposition 2: MNCs from emerging economies adopt a predominantly adaptive or polycentric approach to manage their subsidiaries in developed markets.

4.3. Control of subsidiaries in emerging markets: Due to the paucity of empirical literature in this area, we hypothesize that MNCs from emerging economies entering other emerging markets may follow their counterparts in developed markets by adopting an ethnocentric approach. They attempt wholesale transfer of the parent firms HRM systems to their subsidiaries, especially with regard to their core competencies (Pudelko & Harzing, 2007), to achieve high internal consistency. The other reason identified is the limited availability of management and technical skills in some countries (Delios & Bjorkman, 2000; Scullion, 1994). Some authors have noted that MNCs are more likely to adopt an adaptive or polycentric approach in developed countries than lesser-developed countries due to the greater availability of managerial skills in developed countries (Bazeley & Richards, 2000; Richards, 2001; Shen, 2006).

Proposition 3: MNCs from emerging economies adopt predominantly an exportive or ethnocentric approach to managing their subsidiaries in other emerging markets.

Figure-1 presents a diagrammatic representation of the conceptual framework. Insert Figure 1 about here In order to provide an initial test of the conceptual framework, the authors have begun collecting data from a number of Indian MNCs by interviewing senior managers in their 13

headquarters and subsidiaries in both developed and developing markets. As the data collection is still underway, we report the findings from a pilot study conducted at one Indian MNC. Before reporting these findings, we provide a brief overview of Indian MNCs as representatives of emerging economy MNCs so as to provide some context for our work.

5. Indian Multinationals Between 2004 and 2007, Indias outward flow of FDI rose sharply from $2 billion to $14 billion (UNCTAD, 2008). As a result, in 2008, seven Indian multinationals featured in Global Fortune 500 and twenty in Boston Consulting Groups BCG 100 new Global Challengers (Sirkin, Hemerling, & Bhattacharya, 2008, p.23). The services sector constituted 38% of Indian FDI stock in 2006 mainly in IT, communications and software. Indian multinationals are largely private owned and cover a wide range of sectors in energy-related areas (mainly oil and gas), IT services, pharmaceuticals, engineering goods and natural-resource-based manufacturing firms (Ramamurti & Singh, 2009). The Indian firms are showing a clear preference for overseas acquisition as an entry strategy largely in North America and Europe. Over 70% of them prefer complete control over their overseas ventures, mainly to protect their firm specific advantages and also due to the relaxation of government policy restriction on Indian equity participation (Pradhan, 2007). The Indian multinationals seem to represent a new breed of multinationals that build their competitive advantage in novel ways; multinational corporations that derive their advantage from service rather than technological

14

innovations and manufacturing MNCs that straddle a low-cost and medium technology position (Jonsson, 2008, p.6).

Pradhan (2007) believes that the motivators for Indian firms to expand overseas, particularly into the developed markets include the need to acquire new technologies, raw materials, skills and expertise and also to leverage on their trade-supporting infrastructure overseas. This supports Proposition 2, discussed before, that MNCs from emerging economies choose an adaptive or polycentric approach to manage their subsidiaries in developed markets.

With respect to their entry into other developing markets, the approach has been mixed. This is more to do with shifting investment patterns and markets than managerial choice. Prior to the liberalization of the Indian economy in 1991, a small group of largesized family owned Indian firms invested mostly in neighboring developing countries, opting for greenfield investments in joint ventures (Thite & Dasgupta, 2011). In line with Proposition 3, this was predominantly an exportive or ethnocentric approach that involved wholesale transfer of parent firms systems, policies and personnel. Since then, the very nature of Indian outward FDI has undergone fundamental changes and is now characterized by a large number of professionally run firms in the services sector investing mostly in developed countries. The implications of the same will be discussed in the pilot study described below.

15

6. Pilot Study of an Indian Multinational As part of a larger research project that focuses on Indian multinationals as representatives of emerging economy MNCs, the authors conducted a pilot study of a large Indian IT multinational company, referred to here as Alpha Services. Alpha Services is one of the top five Indian consulting and IT services companies with a turnover of about US$ 2.5 billion from its operations in over 44 countries that employ around 45,000 professionals. It operates in three business segments, namely, IT services, Business Process Outsourcing (BPO), and software products. Alpha serves a wide range of industry segments, including manufacturing, banking and finance, insurance, telecommunications, infrastructure, healthcare, retail and transportation. It is publicly listed on the Mumbai and New York Stock Exchange. Its vision is to be one of the five most valuable global integrated IT services and BPO companies in the next few years. Alpha Services has development centers in India, North America, Europe, the Middle East and the Asia Pacific region and serves over 570 global companies. Its overseas revenue mainly comes from North America (59%), Europe (21%) and the Asia Pacific region (20%). The company has been consciously trying to reduce its dependence on any one particular region and has been aggressively diversifying to other regions. It has fullfledged development centers in India, U.S.A, Germany, China and Malaysia. It has 100% subsidiaries in China, Egypt, Mexico and Belgium. Its recent overseas acquisitions include some niche IT services companies in the U.S.A and UK.

Between late 2007 and early 2009, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 19 senior managers of the company at three locations its headquarters

16

in India, subsidiary office in Melbourne, Australia (representing a developed market) and in Shanghai, China (representing a developing market). The interviewees included 5 human resource (HR) managers and 3 business heads at the headquarters; 5 business account managers managing key clients in Australia and the HR Head of the Asia Pacific region based in Singapore and the country head, HR head and 3 business managers in China. All the interviews were conducted face to face except for two telephone interviews. The choice of locations provided a three dimensional perspective of the companys global operations from the stand point of headquarters where strategy is formally formulated and reviewed and subsidiaries in both developed and developing markets where it is intended to be implemented.

The interview protocol consisted of a semi-structured questionnaire to probe various aspects of a companys internationalization strategies, control and coordination mechanisms and staffing practices including talent attraction and retention strategies and corporate culture. In most cases, the questionnaire was circulated prior to the interviews to enable the interviewees to prepare in advance. Each interview typically lasted an hour and was taped and later transcribed. The results from the thematic analysis of the interview data from this study are described below.

6.1. Organizational Structure & Systems: At the apex of this organization lies the Leadership Council, consisting of around 45 top leaders from business and support functions. It is charged with the responsibility to formulate, implement and review strategic policies and priorities on a regular basis. At 17

the heart of Alphas organizational structure lie the Customer Facing Units (CFUs), consisting of Vertical Business Units (VBUs) and Regional Business Units (RBUs). The CFUs are charged with the entire spectrum of customer relationship management and in the process are supported by Horizontal Competency Units (HCUs) that provide the backing of appropriate resources.

The approach to leadership at Alpha is exemplified by the motto every Alphaite (employee) is a leader. Alpha believes that it is in the business of building and developing leaders faster than the competition. Its organizational structure and systems are supposed to be underpinned by its philosophy of enabling leadership with its core concepts of full life cycle business (FLCB) and full life cycle leaders (FLCL). Alpha is said to espouse a philosophy of encouraging employees to think like CEOs whereby every employee is encouraged to consider himself/herself as the chief executive officer (CEO) of the particular task that they perform and the people whom it affects as their investors in the business.

The same performance metrics are supposed to be applied to every employee and position at every location. The metrics assess the performance of each employee on specified built measures, such as people, process and product against specific outcome measures, namely better, larger, faster, cheaper and steadier (repeatable). These metrics mirror the ones followed at its key U.S.-based client which is world renowned for its management systems. According to the Global Head of HR, metrics are the most common communication tool at Alpha. The company claims to take its metrics driven

18

business approach beyond organizational boundaries by involving customers and suppliers as part of its eco-system. According to corporate managers, Alpha is also keen to ensure that every key stakeholder in the company, including managers, employees, customers and suppliers, get the same One Alpha Experience (organizational culture), codified in a manual, throughout its global operations. Its corporate leadership center is geared to groom present and future leaders in the organizations corporate values. The centers mission is to spread the organizational culture to every unit. Senior managers from all over the world are given weeklong induction training at the companys headquarters in India to attend a focused leadership immersion program spearheaded by the top management team.

In the interviews with managers in its subsidiaries, it was apparent that the organization had a decentralized approach. The heads of every business unit managed and took decisions regarding their business units with only major decisions taken at the headquarters. When asked about the influence of national culture or country of origin on the companys growth and thinking, all the HR managers and business heads interviewed at the headquarters asserted that it did not have any influence on the organizational culture or the way they operate, but as pointedly noted by a senior manager at the Australian subsidiary considering that almost 85% of the workforce is Indian, there will surely be the subtle influence of Indian culture.

19

6.2. International Business Strategies: Alpha has been seen as an ambitious and entrepreneurial organization throughout its history. For example, Alpha understood in the late 1990s that it needed to move beyond the established developed markets in the U.S.A and Europe and enter other emerging markets, such as the Middle East and China where it was an early entrant along with other Indian IT firms. Similarly, in mid-1990s, when enterprise resource planning (ERP) was identified as a potential high growth area in the IT industry, Alpha decided to enter this emerging field to exploit the opportunities ahead of its competitors. This paved the way for the global leadership position that Alpha is said to enjoy today in ERP implementation, particularly, in the telecommunications sector. As the Head of Alphas China operations proudly pronounced it is a perfect storm- entrepreneurship, vision and excellent domain tradition that have made Alpha what it is today.

6.3. Global Staffing & HR Systems: Most of the Indian IT companies have operated in international markets, particularly in the developed world from their inception. In terms of strategic and operational policy making, they have remained largely local that is as an Indian company (as reflected in the composition of their top management pool and managerial staffing). Alpha is no exception to this trend but there has been a conscious effort to change this mindset over the years according to the managers interviewed.

For example, Alphas global HR Head believes that with over 45,000 employees spread over 40 countries, the company has reached a critical mass to scale the next level

20

in becoming a truly global company. The desire of Alpha to localize its workforce is reinforced by the statement from Alphas Head of HR in China that Alpha wants to be a Chinese company in China but provide the same global experience to clients, no matter where the operations are carried out. As a policy, Alpha strives to staff locally at least 20% of all positions in all of its overseas operations, 50% of entry level positions and 90% in its non-English speaking geographies, such as China, where possible. Accordingly, today nearly 98% of Alphas workforce in China is staffed locally while in Australia it is nearly 50%. But the senior management positions, from country head to project managers, at both these subsidiaries are still overwhelmingly staffed by expatriates from its Indian headquarters.

From the interviews it was recognized that the recruitment and selection process, career management and performance management were similar across the global operations with the flexibility to accommodate local laws and HR trends and practices. The Business Head in the Australian subsidiary stated that when I started 5 years ago, Alpha being an Indian company, the policies and procedures were very strongly suited to the Indian environment. Now the company has more adapted to Australia but not fully suited to the Australian environment as an Australian company. This sentiment was echoed by the Global Head of HR who agreed that subsidiaries in developed markets needed more flexibility in determining the remuneration structure of managerial staff to attract and retain talent.

21

The main talent management issue or challenge identified was brand value or recognition of the company across the world, which was one of the major concerns identified by the HR managers. While the company was pleased with its employer brand in China where Indian IT companies are held in high esteem for their quality standards and offshoring business process efficiency, the Australian managers generally believed that the global image of the company needed to be strengthened as a high quality services provider. This highlights the constraints that the MNCs from emerging economies face of the liability of foreignness and liability of country of origin, as pointed out before.

7. Managerial Relevance Our pilot study of an Indian MNC offers some interesting insights into the way MNCs from emerging economies strategize and manage their operations in different parts of the world. While Western MNCs have traditionally taken their domestic strengths outward to the rest of the world, the Indian MNCs in the services sector have typically grown first in the developed markets by leveraging on their skills and domain expertise and have pioneered the art of global offshoring services delivery model using a combination of onshore, offshore and near-shore locational strategies. Most of their overseas growth has occurred in the last decade and in a very short span of time, they have spread their global network, mainly via setting up 100% subsidiaries or acquisitions. Despite attempts to localize their workforce in different geographies, their global management team is still predominantly Indian but increasingly their systems and to some extent their management mindset are becoming global.

22

With regard to Proposition 1, our case study illustrates that Indian MNCs do face multiple hurdles in furthering their internationalization strategies. For example, despite their growing global reputation, Indian IT companies still have problems recruiting talent at higher levels due to poor perception of their employer brand. Despite its desire to localize its management team in Australia, Alpha seems to be unable to attract the best local talent and therefore, forced to send expats from India. Accordingly, its corporate control and coordination mechanisms are influenced by the multiple hurdles that it faces as an MNC from an emerging economy. Similarly, with regard to proposition 2, alphas adoption of performance metrics from its key U.S. client and making it a central part of its performance management system is a clear sign of an adaptive approach in managing subsidiaries in developed markets. At the same time, Alpha, along with other top Indian IT companies, has pioneered the art of global offshoring business process and the global services delivery model indicating a two way exchange of best practices. However, Alphas management of its subsidiary in China does not reflect exportive or ethnocentric approach to managing subsidiaries in developing markets, as stated in proposition 3. Alphas

managers seem to indicate that unlike the U.S. and UK markets, they are unfamiliar with the cultural and business environment in China and therefore, would prefer to leave it to the locals to manage the China operations with only broad corporate oversight.

8. Conclusion Despite the increasing trend towards the globalization of trade and commerce and crossnational convergence arising from it, significant differences remain in the way in which

23

different countries organize business activities and more specifically, the management of employees (Brewster, Sparrow, & Harris, 2005; Ferner, 1997). The cultural values framework pioneered by Hofstede (1980) demonstrates the limitations of universalistic models of IHRM that emphasize one-best-way. Even though some have contested the emphasis placed on national culture in international management at the cost of organizational differences (Ericksen & Dyer, 2005; Gerhart & Fang, 2005), the importance of country of origin is a consistent theme in the research in this area (Harzing & Sorge, 2003).

Our conceptual framework adopts a broad approach by examining the key factors, such as cultural differences, institutional differences, organizational differences and the interplay between them (Schuler, Budhwar, & Florkowski, 2002). Any study on MNCs from emerging markets also needs to take into account sectoral variables (Colling & Clark, 2002) in different industry segments, such as IT services and manufacturing. For example, Indian MNCs in the service sector tend to gain the positive benefits of internationalization sooner than manufacturing companies (Contractor, Kumar, & Kundu, 2007, p.401). Our research framework adds value to IHRM research by giving equal weight to both the subsidiary level and to corporate headquarters within a firm (Ferner, 2009).

Increasing investment by emerging economies in developed as well as emerging markets, particularly via mergers and acquisitions means that there is a greater need for management practitioners to understand the ways in which MNCs from emerging

24

economies strategize and act in diffusing and coordinating management practices. For too long, international HR management literature and practice have been embedded in Western thinking and concepts with little cross-pollination (Wright, Snell, & Dyer, 2005, p.876) and an over emphasis on expatriate management, reflecting the ethnocentric bias of North American scholars (Schuler, Budhwar, & Florkowski, 2002). It is clear that the universal or U.S. model does not have applicability to the emerging MNCs. If the East becomes, in popular jargon, the new West we need to develop newer models to aid the understanding of how Asian MNCs, particularly from China and India, are going to exercise corporate control in an increasingly multi-polar world (Pudelko & Harzing, 2007, p.553).

In the 21st century knowledge economy where services and creative industries dominate the economic landscape that is tilting more towards developing and transition economies, the theories and practices applicable to Western MNCs that monopolized the 20th century industrial economy are slowly but steadily giving way to new economic and management paradigms. Accordingly, reexamining the management approaches and practices of MNCs from newer industrialized and developing economies such as India is likely to remain a key research issue for the next decade, given the speed of economic development and the increasing influence and numbers employed by such companies.

Acknowledgements: This study was funded by a grant from the SHRM Foundation, U.S.A. However, the interpretations, conclusions and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the SHRM Foundation.

25

References
Awasthi, V. N., Chow, C. W., & Wu, A. (2001). Cross-Cultural Differences in the Behavioural Consequences of Imposing Performance Evaluation and Reward Systems: An Experimental Investigation. The International Journal of Accounting. 36: 291-309. Bae, J. S.-j. C., & Lawler, J. J. (1998). Variations in Human Resource Management in Asian Countries: MNC Home-Country and Host-Country Effects. The international Journal of Human Resource Management. 9(4): 653-723. Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1992). What is global manager? Harvard Business Review. 70(5): 124- 132. Bazeley, P., & Richards, L. (2000). The NVivo qualitative project book. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication. Brewster, C., Sparrow, P., & Harris, H. (2005). Towards a new model of globalizing HRM. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 16(6): 949-970. Chang, E., & Taylor, S. M. (1999). Control in multinational corporations (MNCs): The case of Korean manufacturing subsidiaries. Journal of Management. 25(4): 541. Chang, Y. Y., Mellahi, K., & Wilkinson, A. (2009a). Control of subsidiaries of MNCs from emerging economies: The case of Taiwanese MNCs in the UK. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 20(1): 75-95. Chang, Y. Y., Mellahi, K., & Wilkinson, A. (2009b). Tensions Arising from Process of Transferring HRM Practices Across Borders: The case of Taiwanese MNCs in the UK In K. Ibeh & S. Daviess (Eds.), Contemporary Challenges in International Business (pp.68-79). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Chang, Y. Y., Wilkinson, A., & Mellahi, K. (2007). HRM strategies and MNCs from emerging economies in the UK. European Business Review. 19(5): 404-419. Chew, I., & Zhu, W. (2002). Factors influencing Singapore managers' career aspiration in international assignments. Career Development International. 7(2): 96. Chow, C. W., Shields, M., & Wu, A. (1999). The Importance of National Culture in the Design of Preference for Management Controls for Multi-National Operations. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 24: 441-502. Colling, T., & Clark, I. (2002). Looking for Americanness: home-country, sector and firm effects on employment systems in an engineering services company. European Journal of Industrial Relations. 8(3): 301-325. Contractor, F. J., Kumar, V., & Kundu, S. K. (2007). Nature of the relationship between international expansion and performance: The case of emerging market firms. Journal of World Business. 42: 401-417. Delbridge, R. (1998). Life on the line in contemporary manufacturing: The workplace experience of lean production and the "Japanese" model. Oxford: Oxford University Press Delios, A., & Bjorkman, I. (2000). Expatriate staffing in foreign subsidiaries of Japanese multinational corporations in the PRC and the United States. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 11(2): 278-293. Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review. 25: 178-199.

26

Engardio, P. (2008). Chindia: How China and India are revolutionising global business. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Engardio, P., Arndt, M., & Geri, S. (2006). Emerging Giants. Business Week, New York, 40, July, 31 Ericksen, J., & Dyer, L. (2005). Toward a Strategic Human Resource Management Model of High Reliability Organization Performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 16(6): 907-935. Farley, J. U., Hoenig, S., & Yang, J. Z. (2004). Key Factors Influencing HRM Practices of Overseas Subsidiaries in China's Transition Economy. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 15(4-5): 688-704. Ferner, A. (1997). Country of Origin effects and HRM in multinational companies. Human Resource Management Journal. 7(1): 19-37. Ferner, A. (2009). HRM in Multinational Companies In A. Wilkinson, N.Bacon, T. Redman & S. Snells (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Human Resource Management (pp.539-558). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ferner, A., Almond, P., Clark, I., Colling, T., Edwards, T., Holden, L., & Muller-Camen, M. (2004). Dynamics of Central Control and Subsidiary Autonomy in the Management of Human Resources: Case Study Evidence from US MNCs in the UK. Organization Studies. 25 (3): 363-391. Ferner, A., Almond, P., & Colling, T. (2005). Institutional theory and the cross-national transfer of employment policy: the case of workforce diversity in US multinationals. Journal of International Business Studies. 36(3): 304-325. Gamble, J. (2003). Transfering Human Resource Practices from the United Kingdom to China: the Limits and Potential for Convergence. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 14(3): 369-458. Garrahan, P., & Stewart, P. (1992). Management control and a new regime of subordination In G. N. Gilbert, R. Burrows & A. Pollerts (Eds.), Fordism and flexibility (pp.107-117). London: Macmillan. Gerhart, B., & Fang, M. (2005). National culture and human resource management: assumptions and evidence. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 16(6): 971. Glover, L., & Wilkinson, A. (2007). Worlds colliding: the translation of modern management practices within a UK based subsidiary of a Korean-owned MNC. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 18(8): 1437. Gooderham, P. N., Nordhaug, O., & Ringdal, K. (1999). Institutional determinants of organizational practices: Human resource management in European firms. Administrative Science Quarterly. 44: 507-531. Gullien, & Garcia Canal, E. (2009). The American model of The multinational firm and the new multinationals from emerging economies. Academy of management perspectives. 23(2): 23-35. Hall, E. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor. Harzing, A.-W. (1999). Managing the Multinationals. An international study of control mechanisms. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Harzing, A.-W., & Sorge, A. (2003). The relative impact of country of origin and universal contingencies in internationalization strategies and corporate control in

27

multinational enterprises: Worldwide and European perspectives. Organization Studies. 24(2): 187. Hillman, A., & Wan, W. P. (2005). The Determinants of MNE Subsidiaries' Political Strategies: Evidence of Insitutional Duality. Journal Of International Business Studies. 36(3): 322-340. Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures Consequences. London: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural Constraints in Management Theories. Academy of Management Review. 7(1): 81-95. Hofstede, G. (1997). The Archimedes effect. Working at the interface of cultures: 18 lives in social science. London: Routledge. Hofstede, G. (2007). Asian management in the 21st century. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 24(4): 411-420. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organisational Dynamics. 16(4): 5-21. Hoskisson, R., Eden, L., Lau, C.-M., & Wright, M. (2000). Strategy in emerging economies,. Academy of Management Journal. 43: 249-267. Hu, Y. S. (1992). Global or stateless corporations are national firms with international operations. California Management Review, 107-126, Hussain, A., & Jian, C. (1999). Changes in Chinas industrial landscape and their implications. International Studies of Management & Organization. 29(3): 5-20. Jonsson, S. (2008). Indian multinational corporations: Low-cost, high-tech or both? . Ostersund, Sweden: Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies. Kaye, M., & Taylor, W. G. (1997). Expatriate culture shock in China: a study in the Beijing hotel industry. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 12(8): 496. Lall, S. (1983). The new multinationals: The spread of third world enterprises. Chichester: Wiley. Martin, G., & Beaumont, P. (1998). Diffusing 'best practice' in multinational firms: prospects, practice and contestation. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 9(4): 671-695. Matthews, J. A., & Zander, I. (2007). The international entrepreneurial dynamics of accelerated internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies. 38(3): 387-403. Ngo, H.-Y., Turban, D., Lau, C.-M., & Lui, S.-Y. (1998). Human resource practices and firm performance of multinational corporations: influences of country of origin. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 9(4): 632-652. Ohmae, K. (1990). The borderless world: Power & strategy in the interlinked economy. London: Collins. Pradhan, J. P. (2007). Growth of Indian multinationals in the world economy: Implications for development. MPRA Paper No. 12360, New Delhi: Institute for Studies in Industrial Development. Pudelko, M., & Harzing, A. (2007). Country-of-origin, localization, or dominance effect? An empirical investigation of HRM practices in foreign subsidiaries. Human Resource Management. 46(4): 535-559.

28

Ramamurti, R., & Singh, J. V. (2009). Indian multinationals: Generic internationalization strategies In R. Ramamurti & J. V. Singhs (Eds.), Emerging multinationals from emerging markets: Cambridge University Press. Richards, M. (2001). U.S. Multinational staffing practices and implications for subsidiary performance in the UK and Thailand. Thunderbird International Business Review. 43(2): 225-238. Rose, R. C., & Kumar, N. (2007). The transfer of Japanese-style HRM to subsidiaries abroad. Cross Cultural Management. 14(3): 240-253. Rosenzweig, P., & Nohria, N. (1994). Influences of human resource management practices in multinational firms. Journal of International Business Studies. 20(2): 229-252. Schuler, R. S., Budhwar, P., & Florkowski, G. W. (2002). International Human Resource Management, Review and Critique. The International Journal of Management Review. 4(1): 41-70. Scullion, H. (1994). Staffing policies and strategic control in British multinationals. International Studies of Management & Organization. 24(3): 86-105. Shen, J. (2006). Factors affecting international staffing in Chinese multinationals (MNEs). International Journal. of Human Resource Management 17(2): 295-315. Sirkin, H. L., Hemerling, J. W., & Bhattacharya, A. K. (2008). Globality: Competing with everyone from everywhere for everything. London: Headline. Smith, C., & Meiskins, P. (1995). System, Society and Dominance Effects in CrossNational Organisational Analysis. Work, Employment and Society. 9(2): 241-308. Strategic Direction. (2007). Training for success in emerging markets Taylor, S., Beechler, S., & Napier, N. (1996). Toward an integrative model of strategic international human resource management. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review. 21(4): 959-985. Thite, M. (2004). Managing People in the New Economy: Targeted HR Practices that Persuade People to Unlock their Knowledge Power. New Delhi ; Thousand Oaks, Calif: Response Books. Thite, M., & Dasgupta, B. (2011). Indian multinationals overseas: Tracking their global footprints In P. Budhwar & V. Varmas (Eds.), Doing Business in India (pp.250265). Abingdon, OX: Routledge. Ulgado, F. M., Yu, C.-M., & Negandhi, A. R. (1994). Multinational enterprises from Asian developing countries: Management and organisational characteristics. International Business Review. 3(2): 123-156. UNCTAD. (2004). World Investment Report 2004: The Shift Towards Services. New York: United Nations. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNCTAD. (2006). World Investment Report 2006: FDI from developing and transition economies: Implications for development: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNCTAD. (2007). World Investment Report 2007: Transnational corporations, extractive industries and development. New York: United Nations. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNCTAD. (2008). World Investment Report 2008: Transnational corporations and the infrastructure challenge. New York: United Nations. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

29

UNCTAD. (2010). World Investment Report 2010: Investing in a low-carbon economy. New York: United Nations. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Wells, L. T. (1983). Third world multinationals: The rise of foreign investment from developing countries. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R. E., & Peng, M. W. (2005). Guest Editors' Introduction, Strategy research in emerging economies: Challenging the conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies. 42(1): 1-33. Wright, P. M., Snell, S. A., & Dyer, L. (2005). New models of strategic HRM in global context. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 16(6): 875881. Zhang, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Song, L. J., Li, C., & Jia, L. (2008). How do I trust thee? The employee-organization relationship, supervisory support, and middle manager trust in the organization. Human Resource Management. 47(1): 111-132.

30

Figure 1: Diffusion of Global HR Strategies & Practices across Subsidiaries in a Multinational Corporation from an Emerging Economy

External Influencing Factors 1. Home Country Factors

(Economic strength; global image; national culture )

Global HR Strategies & Practices Direct

Personal Impersonal Personal

Internal Influencing Factors

1.Strategic framework (business, corporate, international, cooperative) 2.Organizational culture/ leadership 3.Importance of subsidiaries to MNCs bottom line & strategy 4.Mode of subsidiary set-up (Greenfield, M&A ) 5.Headquarters diffusion capacity 6.Subsidiaries absorptive capacity 7.Subsidiaries resource dependency on the headquarters 8.Availability, ability & choice of expatriate managers

Indirect
Impersonal

2. Host Country Factors

(Perceived relative strength of home & host country mgt. practices; Environmental factors (openness of business systems, legal framework, institutions )

3. Industry-specific Factors
(Degree of product integration; level of integration between headquarters & subsidiaries )

Attract

Develop

Retain

Domestic Operations

Subsidiaries in developed countries

Subsidiaries in developing countries

Adaptive Hypotheses

Exportive

31