report on employment practices of multinational companies … · employment practices of...

Fall 11

EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies

Resultreport

C o p e n h a g e n B u s i n e s s S c h o o l D e p a r t m e n t o f S t r a t e g i c M a n a g e m e n t a n d G l o b a l i z a t i o n ( S M G ) C o p e n h a g e n U n i v e r s i t y E m p l o y m e n t R e l a t i o n s R e s e a r c h C e n t r e ( F A O S )


Contents

2 124

Contents

Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................................................................................9

Abbreviationsandconcepts...................................................................................................................................................11

SummaryinDanish....................................................................................................................................................................12

Chapter1: Introduction............................................................................................................................................................21

Studydesign.............................................................................................................................................................................22

Theresearchpopulation.................................................................................................................................................22

Thequestionnaire.............................................................................................................................................................22

Datacollection....................................................................................................................................................................23

Theresearchteam..................................................................................................................................................................24

Reportstructure.....................................................................................................................................................................25

PART1

Chapter2: ProfileofMultinationalsinDenmark...........................................................................................................27

Basiccharacteristics..............................................................................................................................................................27

Countryoforigin................................................................................................................................................................27

Companysizeandcomposition...................................................................................................................................28

Sector......................................................................................................................................................................................30

Ageandfirstsignificantinvestment..........................................................................................................................31

Indicatorsofstrategyandstructure...............................................................................................................................32

Standardization..................................................................................................................................................................33

TheroleofDanishoperationsinaninternationalcontext..............................................................................34

Summary....................................................................................................................................................................................37

Chapter3: TheHRFunction....................................................................................................................................................39

HRpolicyformationandcoordinationacrossborders..........................................................................................39

HRphilosophyandreversediffusion.............................................................................................................................43

Summary....................................................................................................................................................................................45


Contents

3 124

Chapter4: SubsidiaryDiscretion..........................................................................................................................................47

Measuringdiscretion............................................................................................................................................................47

Patternofdiscretion..............................................................................................................................................................47

Summary....................................................................................................................................................................................52

PART2

Chapter5: PayandPerformance..........................................................................................................................................57

Performanceappraisals.......................................................................................................................................................57

Performance‐relatedpaysystems...................................................................................................................................60

Summary....................................................................................................................................................................................63

Chapter6: TrainingandTalentDevelopment.................................................................................................................66

Organizationallearning.......................................................................................................................................................70

Summary....................................................................................................................................................................................73

Chapter7: EmployeeInvolvementandCommunication............................................................................................77

Involvementmechanisms...................................................................................................................................................77

Communicationmechanisms............................................................................................................................................80

Summary....................................................................................................................................................................................83

Chapter8: EmployeeRepresentationandConsultation.............................................................................................85

Employeerepresentation....................................................................................................................................................85

Employeeconsultation.........................................................................................................................................................89

EuropeanWorksCouncil(EWC)......................................................................................................................................91

Summary....................................................................................................................................................................................93

PART3

Chapter9: CompanyPerformance.......................................................................................................................................97

Overallperformance.............................................................................................................................................................97

Product/marketperformance...........................................................................................................................................99

HRperformance...................................................................................................................................................................100


Contents

4 124

Summary.................................................................................................................................................................................102

PART4

Chapter10: ConcludingRemarksandSummary.......................................................................................................104

OriginsandcharacteristicsofMNCsinDenmark..................................................................................................104

Denmark–aknowledgeeconomy?.............................................................................................................................104

ThestructureofHRpolicy–systematiconaworldwidebasisoradhoc?.................................................105

ThecontentofHRpolicy:performanceappraisals...............................................................................................105

Subsidiarydiscretion–payandcountry‐of‐originmatters..............................................................................106

Traininganddevelopment–morepopularinforeign‐basedMNCs..............................................................106

Employeeinvolvement–adaptedtolocalcircumstances..................................................................................108

Employeerepresentationandconsultation–aninstitutionallysensitiveissue........................................109

Companyperformance–highself‐evaluations.......................................................................................................111

Theinstitutionalcontext–decisiveforHRpolicies..............................................................................................111

Chapter11: FutureResearch.............................................................................................................................................112

Communication...............................................................................................................................................................114

EmployeeRepresentation...........................................................................................................................................116

Countryoforigin–norelevanceinaDanishcontext?....................................................................................119

Chapter12: AppendixI:TheQuestionnaires..............................................................................................................123

Chapter13: AppendixII:Frequencies............................................................................................................................124

ListofFigures

Figure1‐1:Reportstructure...................................................................................................................................................25

Figure2‐1:Countryoforigin..................................................................................................................................................28

Figure2‐2:Worldwideemployment...................................................................................................................................28

Figure2‐3:NumberofemployeesinDenmark..............................................................................................................29

Figure2‐4:Numberofmanagers/LOGsemployedinDenmark..............................................................................30

Figure2‐5:Companiesbysector(home‐basedMNCs)...............................................................................................31


Contents

5 124

Figure2‐6:Companiesbysector(foreign‐basedMNCs)............................................................................................31

Figure2‐7:YearsinDenmark(foreign‐basedMNCs)..................................................................................................32

Figure2‐8:Yearsabroad(home‐basedMNCs)...............................................................................................................32

Figure2‐9:PrimaryactivityworldwideandDenmark...............................................................................................33

Figure2‐10:Standardizationvs.adaptation....................................................................................................................34

Figure2‐11:RoleofDanishoperations.............................................................................................................................35

Figure2‐12:Numberofemployeesbyfunction(home‐basedMNCs)..................................................................36

Figure2‐13:Numberofemployeesbyfunction(foreign‐basedMNCs)..............................................................36

Figure2‐14:R&DinDanishoperations(foreign‐basedMNCs)...............................................................................37

Figure3‐1:PresenceofglobalHRbody.............................................................................................................................39

Figure3‐2:PresenceofinternationalHR‐policybody................................................................................................40

Figure3‐3:AttemptstobringHRmanagerstogether.................................................................................................41

Figure3‐4:MNCsystemizationofcross‐regionHRmanagermeetings...............................................................42

Figure3‐5:MechanismsbringingHRmanagerstogether..........................................................................................43

Figure3‐6:ApproachtoHRphilosophy............................................................................................................................44

Figure3‐7:ReversediffusionofHRpractices.................................................................................................................45

Figure4‐1:Areasofdiscretion(foreign‐based).............................................................................................................48

Figure4‐2:Areasofdiscretion(home‐based)................................................................................................................49

Figure4‐3:Meandiscretionscoresforselectedcountries........................................................................................51

Figure4‐4:LevelofDiscretionandGloballyDecidedHRPolicies..........................................................................52

Figure5‐1:Presenceofappraisalsystems.......................................................................................................................57

Figure5‐2:Usesoftheperformanceappraisalsystem...............................................................................................58

Figure5‐3:Managementperformanceevaluation........................................................................................................59

Figure5‐4:Useof360‐degreefeedback............................................................................................................................60

Figure5‐5:Variablepay(managers)..................................................................................................................................61

Figure5‐6:Variablepay(LOG)..............................................................................................................................................61


Contents

6 124

Figure5‐7:VariablepayandHRapproachformanagers..........................................................................................62

Figure5‐8VariablepayandHRapproachforLOG.......................................................................................................62

Figure5‐9:Typesofperformance‐relatedpay...............................................................................................................63

Figure6‐1:Trainingasapercentageofannualemployeecompensation...........................................................66

Figure6‐2:HRapproachandlevelofinvestmentintraining...................................................................................67

Figure6‐3:Successionplanningformanagers...............................................................................................................67

Figure6‐4:Managementdevelopmentprograms.........................................................................................................68

Figure6‐5:Managementdevelopmenttechniques......................................................................................................69

Figure6‐6:Organizationallearning....................................................................................................................................71

Figure6‐7:Techniquesusedtofacilitateinternationalorganizationallearning.............................................73

Figure7‐1:Employeeinvolvement......................................................................................................................................78

Figure7‐2:PatternsofemployeeinvolvementI............................................................................................................79

Figure7‐3:PatternsofemployeeinvolvementII..........................................................................................................79

Figure7‐4:Communicationmechanisms..........................................................................................................................81

Figure7‐5:ProvisionofinformationtotheLOG............................................................................................................82

Figure8‐1:Managementpolicytowardsunionrecognition.....................................................................................86

Figure8‐2:Approachesadoptedbytradeunionrepresentatives..........................................................................86

Figure8‐3Approachtotradeunions..................................................................................................................................87

Figure8‐4:DanishMNCs’tradeunionpolicies...............................................................................................................88

Figure8‐5:Unioninvolvement..............................................................................................................................................89

Figure8‐6:Employeeconsultation......................................................................................................................................90

Figure8‐7Experiencewithmandatoryemployeeconsultationstructures.......................................................91

Figure8‐8:Policyonlocallegalrequirements...............................................................................................................91

Figure8‐9:PresenceofEWCsorsimilarstructures.....................................................................................................92

Figure8‐10:ImpactofEUdirectiveoninformationandconsultation.................................................................93

Figure8‐11:InformationConcerningEWCs....................................................................................................................93


Contents

7 124

Figure9‐1:Overallfinancialperformance........................................................................................................................97

Figure9‐2PerformancerelativetocompetitorsI.........................................................................................................99

Figure9‐3:PerformancerelativetocompetitorsII...................................................................................................100

Figure9‐4:HRperformanceI.............................................................................................................................................101

Figure11‐1:Communication:MeetingsbetweenManagementandtheWorkforce–LME/CME..........114

Figure11‐2:TypesofinformationtoLOGsinDK–LME/CME.............................................................................115

Figure11‐3:TypesofinformationtoLOGsintheglobalcompany–LME/CME...........................................115

Figure11‐4:Tradeunionrecognition–LME/CME....................................................................................................116

Figure11‐5:Unilateralorbi‐lateralmanagementdecisions–LME/CME(workorganization).............117

Figure 11‐6: Unilateral or bi‐lateral management decisions – LME/CME (Sub‐contracting and

outsourcing)...............................................................................................................................................................................117

Figure11‐7:Unilateralorbi‐lateralmanagementdecisions–LME/CME(variablepayschemes).......118

Figure11‐8:Unilateralorbi‐lateralmanagementdecisions–LME/CME(in‐worktraining/upgrading

skills).............................................................................................................................................................................................118

Figure11‐9:Unilateralorbi‐lateralmanagementdecisions–LME/CME(directemployeeinvolvement

schemes)......................................................................................................................................................................................119

Figure11‐10:PolicytowardsLocalLegalRequirements........................................................................................120

ListofTables

Table1:Responserates............................................................................................................................................................23

Table2:MNCsoperatinginDenmark–accordingtomarketsystems..............................................................112

Table3:WhenLMEsmeetCMEs.......................................................................................................................................113

ListofTextboxes

Textbox1:Reversediffusion..................................................................................................................................................46

Textbox2:Highdiscretionversuslowdiscretion.........................................................................................................54

Textbox3:HRasastrategyimplementerversusnoHRatall..................................................................................65

Textbox4:HRasastrategyimplementerversusnoHRatall..................................................................................75

Textbox5:Informationascontrol........................................................................................................................................84


Acknowledgements

8 124

Textbox6:HRMandOrganizationalPerformance........................................................................................................98

Textbox7:CMEversusLME................................................................................................................................................113

Textbox8:ForeignownershipchangesHRpoliciesandmanagement‐employeerelations....................121


Acknowledgements

9 124

Acknowledgements

Thisreportwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithout thesupportofawiderangeoforganizationsand

individuals.

TheDanishCouncilforIndependentResearch/SocialSciences(FSE—ForskningsrådetforErhvervog

Samfund) granted DKK 1.6 million to this project. Without this support, completion of the project

wouldmostlikelyhavebeenimpossible.Weareverythankfulforthisgenerousgrant.

TheCenterforStrategicManagementandGlobalizationatCBSandFAOS–theEmploymentRelations

ResearchCentreprovidedinitialfinancialsupportforthegrantapplicationprocess.Theseedmoney

providedbythesetwoorganizationswasinvaluable.

TheEPMOCprojectwaslaunchedin2005whenourpartnersintheUnitedKingdom,Ireland,Canada

andSpaindesigned theoriginalprojectand thequestionnaire thatwas tobecome theblueprint for

latecomers,includingDenmark.Ourpartnersinthesecountrieshavebeenagreathelpwithregardto

ourmethodologicalquestions,and in thedevelopmentandadjustmentof thequestionnaire tomeet

Danishconditions.Inaddition,whiletheUK,Ireland,CanadaandSpainwerepartofthe“firstwave”of

theEPMOCproject,Denmark/Norway,Mexico,ArgentinaandAustraliaarepartofthe“secondwave”.

We have faced common challenges in trying to adapt our different labor‐market realities to a

somewhat general questionnaire. It has been an enlightening experience to meet with our

counterparts from these countries for two days every year to discuss these issues in an informal,

positiveandhighlyengagingsetting.

Whilethequestionnaireisdesignedtobeapplicableinmanycountriesaroundtheworld, itmustbe

adapted to very different and unique national labor market and HR settings. The Danish and

Norwegianteamshaveworkedinclosecooperationtodevelopthequestionnairesandtocleandatain

ordertodevelopthe finalcommonNordicdataset fortheEPMOCproject. Inthisregard,wewishto

extendaspecialwordofthankstotheNorwegianteammembers:ChristinaRoeSteen,KarenM.Olsen

andPaulGooderhamfromBergenBusinessSchool.

Special recognition goes to Olga Tregaskis of the UK team, and to Patrick Gunnigle and Jonathan

Lavalle of the Irish team, all ofwhom agreed to present theUK and Irish results at aworkshop in

CopenhagenonDecember16,2010.At thesameworkshop,wepresentedthepreliminaryresultsof

theDanishsurvey.Wewould like to thank theworkshop’s45+veryactiveparticipants.Their input

wasinvaluableinthewritingofthereport.WeareespeciallygratefultoCarstenSkovbrofromNmN

Ledelsesrådgivningforthoroughlyreadingthereportandcommentingonouranalysis.


Acknowledgements

10 124

Regardlessofthenumberofpeopleandorganizationsthatsupportourworkintermsoffinancingand

researchassistance,aprojectlikethisisnotfeasiblewithoutthemostimportantactors–thesubjects

ofourstudy.Averybigthankyougoestothe119HRmanagersinDanishMNCsthattookthetimeto

answerourratherextensivequestionnaireduringaperiodwhentheeconomiccrisiswasknockingon

thedoorsofnearlyeveryenterpriseintheworld.

AveryspecialthankgoestothesevenHRmanagersandCEOswhospentseveralhoursinfollow‐up,

face‐to‐faceinterviews.Thoseinterviewsgivethemanytablesandfiguresomeinterestingnuances–

andservetoremindus,asresearchers,ofthemanydetailswemisswhenwefocussolelyonfigures

andpercentages.Withoutthecommitmentoftherespondentsandtheinterviewees,wewouldhaveno

researchandnoreport–andnoinputsforfurtherresearch.

Finally,itshouldbeemphasizedthatthisreportbynomeansrepresentsthefinalresultsofthesurvey.

Infact,thisreportshouldbeseenasafirststeptowardsmanydeeperanalysesintheyearstocome.

ThisreportisagenerallydescriptiveanalysisofDanishMNCsalone.WhentheDanishandNorwegian

datasets are merged with the international dataset (which includes data from the other seven

countries),wewillhavenewand interestingpossibilities.First, as thedatabasewillbe significantly

bigger,wewillbeabletoexaminemorespecificissueswithouttheriskofhavingtoofewobservations.

Second, we will be able to compare how MNCs from one country behave in two or more foreign

institutional settings – for example, how a US company behaves in terms of HR in the UK, Ireland,

Spain and theNordic countries. Third, itwill be possible to analyze howDanish companies behave

abroadonthebasisofaccountsprovidedbyforeignsubsidiariesratherthanDanishheadquartersand

viceversa.


Abbreviationsandconcepts

11 124

Abbreviationsandconcepts

HRM Humanresourcemanagement

IR Industrialrelations

EWC EuropeanWorksCouncil

LOG Largestoccupationalgroup

MNC Multinationalcorporation

SME Smallandmedium‐sizedenterprise

Danishoperations AllofanMNC’soperationswithinDenmark

Home‐basedcorporations

Corporations thatarewhollyormajorityownedbyDanish interests,andthathaveat least500employeesworldwideand100ormoreemployeesworkingoutsideofDenmark

Foreign‐basedcorporations

CorporationsoperatinginDenmarkthatarewhollyormajorityownedbynon‐Danishinterests,andthathaveatleast500employeesworldwideandaminimumof100employeesinDenmark

NACErev.2 StatisticalclassificationofeconomicactivitiesintheEuropeanCommunity1

CoordinatedMarket

Economies(CMEs)

Coordinatedmarketeconomiesrelyonformalinstitutionstoregulatethemarket and coordinate the interaction of firms and firm relations withsuppliers,customers,employees,andfinanciers2

LiberalMarket

Economies(LMEs)

In liberalmarket economies, the problemof coordination between firmsand between firms and their financiers, employees, suppliers, andcustomers is solved throughmarket mechanisms. LMEs are freemarketeconomies2

1ec.europa.eu/eurostat

2http://www.jrank.org/business/pages/948/liberal‐market‐economy‐(LME).html


SummaryinDanish

12 124

SummaryinDanish

Tilstedeværelsen af multinationale virksomheder (Multinational Companies ‐ MNC’er) har stor

betydning for den danske økonomi. En betydelig – og stadig stigende ‐ andel af den danske

arbejdsstyrke er beskæftiget i multinationale selskaber, og de personalepolitikker, som disse

virksomhederimplementerer,fårderforstadigstørrebetydningfordanskelønmodtagere–ogfordet

danskearbejdsmarked–fordipersonalepolitikkerideoftestorevirksomhederindirektekanpåvirke

samarbejds‐ og forhandlingskulturen. I et internationalt forskningsprojekt ’EmploymentPractices of

MultinationalCompanies inOrganizationalContext’har forskerefraflere landesamletnationaledata

omhandlende human ressource management (HRM) og arbejdsmarkedsrelationerne (Industrial

relations ‐ IR).Dendanskedata‐baseer indsamletvia et omfattendespørgeskema, som i2009blev

sendt ud og besvaret af HR‐ledere i danske og udenlandske MNC’er i Danmark. Den danske

undersøgelseerydermeresuppleretmednogleinterviewmedHR‐ledereiMNC’eriDanmark.Deter

deførsteresultaterafdedanskedelafundersøgelsen,derafrapporteresher.

EtoverblikoverMNC’eriDanmark

Den samlede population af MNC’er i Danmark består af 304 udenlandsk‐ejede MNC’er3 hvoraf 88

MNC’erindgåriprojektetsdatabesvarelse(svarprocent:29%)og113danskejedeMNC’er4hvoraf31

indgåridatabesvarelsen(svarprocent:27%).

Flertallet afMNC’er i dendanskedatabesvarelse er ejet af etmoderselskab i et europæisk land.De

skandinaviske lande dominerer, idet en andel på 46 % af MNC’er i Danmark kommer fra

Skandinaviskelande.UdenforEuropadominererMNC’ermedmoderselskabiUSA;deudgør16%.Alt

ialtkommermereend9udaf10afdeMNC’er,deroperereriDanmark,fradevestligeøkonomiske

systemer.Detbetyder,atstørstedelenafudenlandskeMNC’eriDanmarkerejetafetmoderselskabiet

landmed relativt store lighedermed det økonomiske og til en vis grad (arbejdsmarkeds)kulturelle

system,somvihariDanmark.

DeudenlandskeMNC’er er generelt størremålt på antalmedarbejdere enddedanskejedeMNC’er i

vores undersøgelse, med et gennemsnitligt antal medarbejdere i hele koncernen på 60.000 i de

udenlandske MNC’er mod et gennemsnitligt antal medarbejdere i danskejede MNC’er på mellem

1.000‐4.999medarbejdere.

3Enudenlandskejetvirksomhed,deroperereriDanmark,ogsomharmereend500medarbejderepåverdensplan,hvoraf

minimum100afdemeransatiDanmark.

4 En dansk ejet virksomhed, med mere end 500 medarbejdere på verdensplan og mindst 100 ansatte medarbejdere i

Danmark.


SummaryinDanish

13 124

Halvdelen af de MNC’er, som indgår i vores databesvarelse, er fremstillingsvirksomheder. Det er

interessant, taget ibetragtningatdendanskeøkonomioftestbeskrivessomenvidensøkonomi.Man

kunneforvente,atetvæsentligtargumentfor,atMNC’ereinvestererogopkøberdanskevirksomheder

kunneværedethøjeniveauforuddannelseogviden.Forennærmereanalyseafdetteresultatkæves

yderligeremerekvalitativeundersøgelser.

HR‐politikkeniMNC’er–systematiskelleradhoc?

Der er forskel på, i hvilken grad virksomhederne har systematiseret deres HR‐politik på tværs af

moderselskabet og de enkelte datterselskaber. To tredjedele af HR‐lederne angiver, at deres

virksomhed har en ’international HR‐enhed’ og at de ’systematisk samler HR‐ledere på tværs af

landegrænser’.DeudenlandskejedeMNC’erbenyttersigihøjeregradafsådannesystematiseredeHR‐

praksisser,ogvi finderydermere,atvirksomhedensstørrelseharbetydningfor, ihvorhøjgradHR‐

praksisserneersystematiseret.DentredjedelafMNC’eriundersøgelsen,somikkeharsystematiseret

deresHR‐politik,risikereratgåglipafvidensdelingpåtværsafderesselskaberideforskelligelande,

ligesomtalentudviklingmedhenblikpåinternrekrutteringtillederpositionerofteermangelfuldeller

ikke‐eksisterende.

Skønt spredningen af HR‐initiativer typisk finder sted top‐bottom – altså fra virksomhedens

hovedkvarter i moderselskabet til datterselskaberne – så er der i undersøgelsens case‐studier

eksempler på, hvordan nogle datterselskabers’ HR‐initiativer er blevet diffunderet op til

hovedkvarteret og siden er blevet implementeret til resten af virksomhed – et fænomen, som i

forskningenkaldesreversediffusion(afHR‐prakssiser).

Datterselskabernesautonomi

Nåretselskabopkøbeselleretdatterselskabetableres,kanderværebetydeligeforskellepå,ihvilket

omfang,moderselskabet tildelerdatterselskabet autonomi vedrørendebeslutninger omøkonomi og

personale.Detengelskebegrebdiscretiondækkerbegrebsmæssigtbedstdengradafselvstændighed

ogbeslutningskompetence,sommoderselskabettildelerdatterselskaberne.

Analysen af data fra undersøgelsen viser et generelt højt niveau af autonomi blandt de undersøgte

virksomheder indenfor områderne kommunikation, medarbejderinvolvering og

medarbejderrepræsentation. Til gengæld er der et lavere niveau af beslutningsautonomi, når det

gælderaflønning.Deterikkesåoverraskende,dadennefaktorharstorbetydningforvirksomhedens

profitogkonkurrenceevne,ogda løneretområde,somklassiskogmesthåndgribeligtkanregulere

bådedemenneskeligeressourcersmotivationogvirksomhedensoverordnedeøkonomi.


SummaryinDanish

14 124

Virksomhedernes oprindelsesland har betydning for, i hvor høj grad de tildeler datterselskaberne

selvstændighed til at træffe beslutninger indenfor de forskellige HR‐områder. Analysen viser, at

amerikansk ejede virksomheder har en tendens til at tildele datterselskaber i Danmark mindre

autonomi‐sammenlignetmedfxdesvenskejedevirksomheder,hvorHR‐ledereidetdanskeselskab

opleverenrelativthøjgradafselvstændighedibeslutningerne.

HRpraksis

Etformeltevalueringssystem(appraisalandrewardsystems)eretvigtigeredskabindenforHR,hvilket

ogsåafspejlersigiundersøgelsen:75%afMNC’erharetsystem,derevaluererogbelønnerledere,og

68 % har et sådant system for alle andre medarbejdere i virksomheden. Analyserne viser, at

udenlandskejedeMNC’erihøjeregradbenyttersigafdisseredskaberenddedanskeMNC’er.IsærUS‐

baseredevirksomhederbenytterdisseredskaber.

Evalueringernebrugesafmereenden fjerdedelsomet formeltsystemtil at træffebeslutningerom

forflyttelser eller afskedigelser. Samtidig angiver mere end halvdelen af respondenterne, at

systemerne bruges uformelt til at træffe sådanne beslutninger. Dermed er der stor risiko for, at

baggrunden for disse betydningsfulde beslutninger ikke er gennemskuelige formedarbejderne – ej

hellerfordeledere,derevaluerespåensådanbaggrund.

Nårledereskalevalueres,brugervirksomhederneenlangrækkeafredskaber.Detmestanvendteer

individuelle præstationer, tæt fulgt af gruppe‐præstationer, kompetencer samt loyalitet over for

virksomhedensværdier. Sesnærmerepå,omvirksomhedernesnationaleoprindelsespillerenrolle,

ses det, at de svenskeMNC’er i signifikantmindre grad bruger individuelle præstationer og værdi‐

loyalitet som udgangspunkt for leder‐evalueringer. Det antyder, at den skandinaviske tradition for

gruppe‐arbejde og uddelegering af ansvar også slår igennem i mindre individuelt præget

evalueringssystemeridesvensk‐ejedeMNC’er.

’360‐degreefeedback’erenHR‐praksis,sombrugaftotredjedeleafvirksomhederne–ogdetgælder

for både menige medarbejdere og ledere. Lønsystemer med variabel løn bruges af 77 % af

virksomhederne for ledere, mens 60 % bruger sådanne systemer for menige medarbejdere. Til

gengældviseranalysen,atoverskudsdelingogaktieoptionertilmedarbejdereikkeanvendessåoftei

MNC’erne;analysenviser,atdisseredskaberkunerbrugesi20%afvirksomhederneforledereogi

10%foralleandremedarbejdere.

Efteruddannelseogudviklingafmedarbejdere

Efteruddannelseogudviklingafmedarbejderedrejersigom, ihvorhøjgradvirksomhedeninvesterer

ressourceridensmedarbejdere.Omkringhalvdelenafdeadspurgtevirksomhederangiver,at1‐4%af


SummaryinDanish

15 124

virksomhedens årlige udgifter til medarbejderne bliver anvendt til efteruddannelse og udvikling af

medarbejdere,mens omkring to ud af fem brugermindre end 1%.Analysen viser, at udenlandske

MNC’er i Danmark har en tendens til at bruge flere ressourcer på efteruddannelse og udvikling

sammenlignet med de danskejede MNC’er – det er således kun udenlandske virksomheder, som

brugermere end4%på efteruddannelse.Virksomheder, sompåandreområderhar en systematisk

HR‐politik–fxdevirksomheder,somharetglobaltHR‐udvalg–investerertypiskogsåmarkantmerei

efteruddannelseogudvikling.

Planerforgenerationsskifteerrelativtudbredt.43%afdedansk‐ejedeMNC’erharsådanneplanerpå

plads i alle eller nogen af deres organisationer, mens tallet er 50 % for de udenlandsk ejede

virksomheder. Selv om der altså ikke er lavet generationsskifteplanerne på godt halvdelen af

virksomhederne,betyderdetikke,atmanikkeeropmærksompåtalentudviklingen.Næsten70%har

etlederudviklingsprogram,somrettersigmodmedarbejderemedlederpotentiale.Denmestudbredte

måde at udvikle ledere er via globale lederudviklingsprogrammer, typisk baseret på evaluering af

præstationeriforholdtiletdefineretsætafglobalelederkompetencer.

Ét er at udvikle den enkelte medarbejder. Noget andet er at sikre, at organisationen også stadig

udvikles, selv hvis individer forsvinder. En lærende organisation sikrer, at den viden som er i

virksomheden forbliverder, selvnårmedarbejderemedsærligviden rejserherfra. Samtidig formår

den lærende organisation at transformere sig selv, så den konstant forbliver konkurrencedygtig.

Omkring 40 % af virksomhederne i undersøgelsen har en formel politik omkring international

organisatorisklæringsomskalsikre,atvidenbliveriorganisationogatorganisationenudviklersig.De

redskaber, som er mest udbredte for at sikre denne læring, er internationale projekter og

arbejdsgrupper (anvendt af 80 % af de adspurgte virksomheder). Også internationale uformelle

netværk og udsendelse af medarbejdere benyttes af mange virksomheder. Internationale

projektgrupperog task forceserredskaber,som60%afvirksomhederneangiversomvigtigst iden

organisatoriske læring. Igen er der også her en klar sammenhæng: De virksomheder, der har en

systematisk HR‐politik på andre områder, er også dem, der typisk arbejder med systematisk

organisatorisklæring.

Medarbejderinvolveringogkommunikation

Medarbejderinvolvering og kommunikation er vigtige elementer af en virksomheds HR‐praksis.

Medarbejderinvolvering kan have betydning for kvaliteten i det produkt eller den service, som

virksomheden leverer,ogsomsådankandetværeenkonkurrencefaktor.Kommunikationkanvære

afgørendeformedarbejdernestilfredshedogkandermedogsåpåvirkeproduktion,serviceogkvalitet.

Et flertal af de undersøgte virksomheder angiver, at deres systemer formedarbejderinvolvering er


SummaryinDanish

16 124

forskellige fra den ene enhed til den anden. Det indikerer, at MNC’er tilpasser deres

involveringssystemerogkommunikationsstrategitildetenkeltedatterselskabidetenkelteland

Ideudenlandskejedevirksomhedererdenmestanvendtestrategiforinvolveringafmedarbejderne

’problem‐løsningsgrupper’ og ’grupper der skal stå for kontinuerlige forbedringer i virksomheden’.

Disse grupper bruges i højere grad af udenlandsk ejede virksomheder end af dansk‐ejede

virksomheder, og det kan overraske; man kunne forvente, at sådanne gruppedynamiske

arbejdsorganiseringer var anvendt mere i en dansk sammenhæng, hvor man har relativt lange

traditionerforgruppe‐baseretarbejdsorganiseringer.

Når det gælder kommunikation iMNC’er, bruges en bred vifte af kommunikationsmidler. Detmest

udbredte i forbindelsemedkommunikation tildemenigemedarbejdereermødermellem ledereog

mellemledere, nyhedsbreve eller e‐mails – samt virksomhedens intranet. Analysen viser igen, at de

virksomheder, som har en international HR‐enhed eller virksomheder som anvender andre

systematiskeHR‐praksisser,ogsåitypiskarbejdermestsystematiskmedkommunikation.

Når vi ser på, hvad indholdet i kommunikationen med medarbejderne er, peger HR‐lederne på

følgende ‐ i prioriteret rækkefølge: Virksomhedens finansielle situation; information om

investeringsplaner; og bemandingsplaner (ansættelser og afskedigelser). Det skal dog bemærkes, at

undersøgelsensdataindsamling fandt sted i 2009,midtunderden finansiellekrise.Derfor giverdet

ogsåmening,atmangevirksomhederprioritereratinformereomkringdenfinansiellesituationogat

medarbejdernemåske også efterspørger denne information. Det kan dog undre, at information om

bemandingikkeliggerhøjerepålisten,dadetmåformodesatliggemangemedarbejderepåsindeien

tidmedkrise.

Mankunne forvente, at informationeromvirksomhedens finansielle situationogomansættelserog

afskedigelser i højere grad blev formidlet i dansk‐ejede virksomheder end i udenlandskejede

virksomheder, da der i Danmark er en lang tradition for informationsdeling i samarbejdsudvalg.

Analyserneviserimidlertid,atdetforholdersigmodsat;deudenlandskejedevirksomhedertendereri

højeregradatdeledenformforinformationenddedansk‐ejede.

Medarbejderrepræsentationogkonsultation

Gradenafmedarbejderrepræsentationogkonsultationer traditioneltmegetafhængigafdetenkelte

landsloveogpolitikpåområdet–samtikkemindstarbejdsmarkedssystemet(IndustrialRelations–

IR). I Danmark er der en tradition for stærke fagforeninger og en høj overenskomstdækning,

sammenlignetmedandrelandeiverden,ogidetdanskeIR‐systemspillerarbejdsmarkedetsparter–

arbejdsgiverogfagforeninger‐enstorrolleireguleringenafdetdanskearbejdsmarkedviakollektive


SummaryinDanish

17 124

forhandlinger.Medarbejdernesrettighederiforholdtilrepræsentationogkonsultationerstipulereti

Samarbejdsaftalen,oglønmodtagerne–uansetfagforeningsmedlemsskab‐haryderligererettigheder

somerstipuleretiEU‐direktiver,ikkemindstdirektivetomEuropeanWorksCouncils(EWC).

Encentralforskningsinteresseidetteprojektharværetatbelyse,hvorvidtudenlandskejedeMNC’er

har tilpasset sig det danske arbejdsmarked med disse stærke traditioner for samarbejde og

forhandling,elleromdeforsøgeratpåduttedanskemedarbejdereidatterselskaberandretraditioner.

Analysenviser,atfagforeningerneeraccepteretafetstortflertalafdeundersøgtevirksomheder;kun

5 % har svaret, at de ikke går ind for fagforeninger mens hele 53 % tager en tilgang hvor der

samarbejdes med fagforeningerne. Når det gælder danske MNC’er holdninger til fagforeninger i

datterselskaberudenforDanmark,såoverladergodthalvdelendettildatterselskabernesledelseselv

attagebeslutningerrelaterettilfagforeningen–mensentredjedelikkeharnogenpolitikpåområdet.

Denneanalyseindikerer,atsamarbejdetmedfagforeningerihøjgradrelaterersigtildelokaleforhold

–ogderforogsåoverladestildenlokaleledelse,uansetommoderselskabetkommerfraetlandmed

langetraditionerforsamarbejdeogkonsultation–ellerdetmodsatte.

AndredataindikererogsåenrelativtdybrespektforarbejdsmarkedsreguleringeniDanmark.30%af

virksomhederneleveroptildelovmæssigeminimumskravominformationogkonsultation,menhele

54%angiver,atdeoveropfylderkravenei ’nogen’eller ’betydelig’grad.Ogsånårdetgælderemner,

hvor ledelser ikke nødvendigvis skal involvere fagforeningsrepræsentanter, involverer mange dem

alligevel. Det gælder således fleksible lønsystemer og direkte medarbejderinvolvering. Til gengæld

konsulterer størstedelen af virksomhederne ikke fagforeningsrepræsentanter, når det gælder

arbejdsorganisering og outsourcing til andre firmaer (subcontracting). Det kan undre noget, at

fagforeningsrepræsentanter ikke er mere involveret i arbejdets organisering, taget i betragtning at

mange emner i den kollektive overenskomst såvel som samarbejdsaftalerne netop handler om

arbejdets tilrettelæggelse. Outsourcing påvirker indirekte medarbejderne, da de på sigt kan miste

arbejdsopgaver,mendetundrermåskemindre,atderikkekonsulteresomdette,dadetformeltseter

endelafledelsesrettenattræffebeslutningeromdette.

Endelig viser analysen, atmere end fire ud af femMNC’er jævnlig holdermødermellem ledelse og

medarbejderrepræsentantermedhenblikpå informationogkonsultation. I70%afvirksomhederne

dækker disse møder alle medarbejdere – dog har møderne forskellig karakter for de forskellige

grupper.

EuropæiskeSamarbejdsudvalg(ESU)–ellernogettilsvarende‐findesi40%afvirksomhederne,mens

40%ikkehardet.Interessantnokangiver20%afdeadspurgteHR‐ledereikkeatvide,omdereret

sådant udvalg i organisationen, og 60% angiver at fåmeget lidt eller ingen information om ESU’s


SummaryinDanish

18 124

aktiviteter. Det indikerer, at medarbejderinformation og konsultation på internationalt plan fylder

relativtlidtienfemtedelafHR‐ledernesprioriteringerog/ellerkompetenceområde.

Virksomhedernespræstationer

IspørgeskemaundersøgelsenblevHR‐ledernebedtomensubjektivevalueringafderesvirksomheds

præstationersammenlignetmedtilsvarendevirksomhederisammebranche.FlertalletafHR‐lederne

rapporterer, at deres virksomhed har præsteret særdeles godt – faktisk angiver 84 % af

respondenterne i de dansk‐ejede MNC’er og 60 % af respondenterne i de udenlandsk ejede

virksomheder, at virksomhedens generelle præstationer er ”outstanding”. Her er produkt‐ og

markedsresultaternehøjstvurderet,efterfulgtafresultaterneindenforHRogdengenerellefinansielle

performance. Blandt de udenlandskeMNC’er viser analysen, at en større andel af amerikanskeHR‐

lederevurdererderesvirksomhedspræstationersomrelativtdårlige,sammenlignetmedandreledere

iudenlandskejedevirksomheder.

Deninstitutionellekontekst–arbejdsmarkedssystemerneogHR‐politikken

Nåretmultinationaltselskaberinvestererielleretablererenvirksomhedietfremmedland,

møderdeofteetarbejdsmarkedssystem,someranderledesenddet,dekender.Hvordeter

muligt at kontrollere en række virksomhedsinterne HR‐forhold – det handler om

ledelsesretten– såerværtlandets traditioner for reguleringaf arbejdsmarkedsforhold idet

storeogheleudenforMNC’enskontrol.Deninstitutionellekontekstskalforståssomdelokale

forhold, hvorunder MNC’erne opererer, inklusive arbejdsmarkedsrelationer,

arbejdsmarkedslovgivning, det kollektive forhandlingssystem og traditioner for samarbejde

mellem ledelseogmedarbejdere.Disse forhold sætternogle rammer fordetmultinationale

selskabs HR‐politikker, og hvis etMNC ønsker at implementere den sammeHR‐praksis på

tværsaflandegrænser,kannogletiltagkommeikonfliktmedlokaleregelsætogtraditioner.

Teoretiskkananalyserafdisse forhold frugtbart tageudgangspunkt iVaritiesofCapitalism‐

tilgangen, hvor lande kan katagoriseres som liberale markedsøkonomier eller som

koordineret markedsøkonomier. En koordineret markedsøkonomi (CME) er karakteriseret

ved, at formelle institutioner regulerer markedet og koordinerer interaktionen mellem

virksomhederne og deres relationer til kunder, ansatte og investorer. I den liberale

markedsøkonomi(LME)koordineresdisserelationergennemdetfriemarked.

Virksomhederbærerietvistomfanget’institutioneltDNA’medsig,nårdeinvestereriandre

lande, forstået således at arbejdsmarkedstraditioner fra MNC’ens hjemland kan præge


SummaryinDanish

19 124

moderselskabet HR‐politik. Det betyder, at der kan opstå problemer med at forstå andre

landes arbejdsmarkedstraditioner, nårder investeres i pånye arbejdsmarkeder – fxnår en

MNC fra en liberalmarkedsøkonomimed svage fagforeninger og enminimal regulering af

arbejdsmarkedet skal investere i en virksomhed i en koordineretmarkedsøkonomi. Meget

forenkletkanmuligekombinationerillustreressomnedenfor:

OperatinginLMEs OperatinginCMEs

OriginatingfromLMEs Noconflict Turbulencearea

OriginatingfromCMEs Turbulencearea Noconflict

SomalleredepåpegetkommerlangtstørstedelenafMNC’eriDanmarkfravestligelandemed

økonomiske systemerog til envis gradarbejdsmarkedssystemer,derhar lighedermeddet

danske.DelervidetopiforholdtilLME’erogCME’er–oghvadmankankaldeblandinger–

servi,at30virksomhederharmoderselskaber,derkommerfraLME’er–ogdermederdet30

virksomheder, hvor der kunne være potentiale for konfliktermellemmoderselskabets HR‐

politikogdelokalearbejdsmarkedstraditioneriværtslandetDanmark,somerCME.

Påbaggrundafdenneundersøgelsesdataharvi analyseret, omderpåudvalgteparametre,

hvordersærligtkunne forventes forskelle,kan identificeres forskellemellemvirksomheder

medmoderselskabfraetLMEhhv.etCME:

Når det gælder kommunikation, kan der ikke identificeres forskelle mellem LME‐

virksomhederogCME‐virksomhederiDanmark.

Når det gælder medarbejderrepræsentation kan der konstateres forskelle mellem

LME‐ogCME‐virksomheder,erderhellerikkesignificanteforskelle,fxianderkendelse

af fagforeninger. Faktisk konsulterer hele 84 % af LME‐virksomheder

fagforeningsrepræsentanter,nårderskallavesvariablelønssystemer.

Den foreløbige konklusion er altså, at der ikke er forskelle mellem LME‐virksomheder og

CME‐virksomheder, der opererer i Danmark – og at LME‐virksomheder altså i vid

udstrækningsynesattilpassesigdelokalearbejdsmarkedstraditioneriDanmark.

Viskaldogværeopmærksommepåtoting.Fordetførsteerdenneundersøgelseudelukkende

baseret på lederes syn på spørgsmålene. Kvalitative undersøgelser, hvor også

medarbejdersiden indgår, såvel som case‐studier i denne undersøgelse indikerer, at

udenlandskejerskabpåenrækkeområderfaktiskkanforandrerelationerne.


SummaryinDanish

20 124

Fordetandeterdata‐materialetsålille,atdetikkeermuligtatkørestatistisketests.Derfor

vil der være en række meget stærkere resultater, når den danske data‐base bliver kørt

sammenmeddata‐basernefradeotteandrelandeideninternationaleundersøgelse,ogdavil

detværemuligtatleveremeresignifikanteresultaterogatgådyberebagomtalleneomLME

versusCME.


Introduction

21 124

Chapter1: Introduction

Theimportanceofmultinationalcorporations(MNCs)activity intheDanisheconomyisevidentand

such activity plays a crucial role in shaping employment practices in Danish society. Over the last

years,anincreasingnumberofforeignMNCshavediscoveredDenmarkasaprofitablemarketwitha

soundlabormarket.Atthesametime,Danishcompanieshaverapidlyexpandedinternationally.

DespitethisincreaseintheprevalenceofMNCsintheDanisheconomy,thereisnodefinitivepictureof

theways inwhichMNCs inDenmarkorganizeandmanagetheiremployees.Furthermore,ageneral

understandingofhowemploymentpracticesareinfluencedbytheorganizationalformsdevelopedby

international firms as they struggle to respond to the imperatives of globalization is lacking.

Knowledge of how employment practices vary according to key variables, such as organizational

structure, nationality of ownership, sector and size, is patchy at best. Our understanding of the

patternsoftransnationaldiffusionofemploymentpracticeamongMNCswithdifferentorganizational

characteristicsisalsolimited.

In an effort to respond to these gaps in the research, the comparative international project

Employment Practices of Multinational Companies in Organizational Context5 brought leading

internationalresearcherstogetheronnationalteams.Theprojectresultedinarichdatasetusefulfor

testingkeypropositionsconcerningMNCemploymentpracticesintherealmofhumanresource(HR)

andindustrialrelations(IR)management.

This reportpresents thekey findingsof this large‐scale surveyof theemploymentpracticescarried

out in Denmark in both Danish‐ and foreign‐ownedMNCs.We examine four central aspects of the

MNCs’ organization and management in Denmark. First, the strategies, structures and control

mechanisms characterizing the companies are presentedwith the purpose of creating a “profile of

MNCs”operatinginDenmark.Second,weconsidertheroleoftheHRfunctionanditsstructurewithin

MNCs,includingtherelationshipbetweenDanish‐basedoperationsandmanagementatinternational

headquarters. Third, the survey focuseson four substantive areas of employmentpractices, eachof

whichareanalyzedanddescribedinseparatechapters:

Performancemanagementandrewardsystems,

Training,developmentandorganizationallearning,

Employeeinvolvementandcommunication,and

5ThisispartoftheinternationalnetworkINTREPID:“InvestigationofTransnationals'EmploymentPracticesInternationalDatabase”.


Introduction

22 124

Employeerepresentationandconsultation.

Finally, we highlight some tendencies with regards to corporate performance as evaluated by HR

managers.

Overall, this report seeks to communicate the results of the survey in an easy‐to‐understand,

accessiblemanner.Wehope to increase theunderstandingofHRM inMNCsby characterizing their

HRMpractices,andanalyzinghoworganizationalfactorsaffecttheirstructureandperformance.Aswe

move through each part of the survey, we use descriptions and statistics to accentuate our key

findings.

Studydesign

In this section, we briefly describe the process of gathering data for this project – from the

establishmentofthepopulationofMNCstothedevelopmentofthesurveytooltotheexecutionofthe

survey.

Theresearchpopulation

Indevelopingthepopulation,ouraimwastoconstructtwolists:oneofforeign‐ownedcompaniesand

anotherofDanish‐ownedcompanies.Thefirststepinthisregardwastoformulateourdefinitionofan

MNC.Forthispurpose,weusedthedefinitionsprovidedbytheINTREPIDproject:

Foreign‐ownedMNC:Allwhollyormajority foreign‐owned corporation operating in

Denmark,withat least500employeesworldwideandaminimumof100employees in

Denmark.

Danish‐ownedMNC:AllwhollyormajorityDanish‐ownedcorporations,withat least

500employeesworldwideand100ormoreemployeesworkingoutsideofDenmark.

Thelistswerecreatedusingtwodatabases–AMADEUS(Pan‐European)andCDDirect(Danish)–in

which searches could be undertaken on the basis of the above criteria. The company list produced

fromeachdatabasewascross‐checkedandmissinginformation(suchascountryoforigin,ownership

statusandnumberofemployees)wasgatheredusinganumberofgeneralbusiness‐interestwebsites

andindividualMNCswebsites.

Thequestionnaire

The questionnaire consists of core questions from the international research project as well as

questions specific toDenmarkand the researchgroup’s special interests.Themainadditions to the

core questions focus on employee representation and company performance. The questions on

employee representationwere added because of the tradition of high union involvement and high


Introduction

23 124

uniondensityintheNordiccountries.Thequestionsoncompanyperformancewereaddedtoobtain

dataontheeffectivenessofHRfortheperformanceofthecompany.

The surveywasdesignedasaweb‐basedquestionnaireusing software from Inquisite.Twosurveys

were created, one forhome‐basedMNCsandone for foreign‐basedMNCs.Thequestionnaireswere

offered in both Danish and English. The questionnaires are available on the project website:

www.cbs.dk/mnc.

Datacollection

After establishing the studypopulationanddeveloping the survey, thenext stepwas to contact the

companies.Asthequestionnaireinvolvescomplicated,high‐level,HR‐relatedquestions,wecollected

thecontactinformation,name,ande‐mailaddressfortheseniorHRmanager/headofHRinDenmark

for each company/subsidiary. This data collection was undertaken by phone. On the basis of the

contactinformation,apersonalizedinvitationwassentthroughtheInquisitesystem.Eachinvitation

wasfollowedbyareminderemailand,finally,areminderbyphone.

Table2showsthepopulation,thenumberofresponses,andtheresponserateforbothDanish‐owned

andforeign‐ownedcompanies.

Table1:Responserates

Type Foreign‐owned Danish‐owned Total

Population 304 113 417

Responses 88 31 119

Responserate 28.9% 27.4% 28.5%

Foramoredetaileddescriptionof themethodsusedtocollect thedataandtheproblemsthatwere

encounteredduringtheprocess,pleaserefertotheprojectwebsite,www.cbs.dk/MNC,whereyouwill

findvariouspublicationsandmethodpapers.


Introduction

24 124

Theresearchteam

ThisresearchprojectwascarriedoutthroughacooperativepartnershipbetweentheDepartmentof

Strategic Management and Globalization (SMG, Copenhagen Business School) and FAOS –

EmploymentRelationsResearchCentre(DepartmentofSociology,CopenhagenUniversity).

SMGundertakesresearchintothestrategicbehaviorofcompaniesinanincreasinglyglobalizedworld.

This research is carried out in the intersecting field of two disciplines – strategicmanagement and

internationalbusiness–andbuildsupontheuniquemixofideasfromorganizationaleconomicsand

strategictheorythatthedepartment’sgroupofresearchershascultivatedoverthepastsixyears.

TheprojectmanagerfromSMGis:

DanaMinbaeva,AssociateProfessor,PhD

DepartmentofStrategicManagementandGlobalization(SMG)

CopenhagenBusinessSchool

[email protected]

FAOSundertakes research into industrial relations, employee involvement and employee‐employer

relations. The international dimension of the organization’s research focuses on the importance of

internationalactorsfornationalinstitutionalemploymentsystems.MNCsareimportantactorsinthe

international division of labor, a fact highlighted by the regulation of employment relations on an

internationallevel,notleastintheEU.

TheprojectmanagerfromFAOSis:

SteenE.Navrbjerg,AssociateProfessor,PhD

EmploymentRelationsResearchCentre(FAOS)

CopenhagenUniversity

[email protected]

Other members of the project team are student/research assistants Aja Henderson, Helle Aasen,

KristineSvendsen,LarsChristianLundLarsen,MiaPetring,NaomiRosenthal,andSarahBielfromSMG

atCopenhagenBusinessSchool;andAndersSøbergandAskGrevefromFAOS,CopenhagenUniversity.

LanguageeditingwasdonebyTinaPedersen.


Introduction

25 124

Reportstructure

Thisreportisstructuredaroundfourmainparts,eachanalyzingordescribinganimportantaspectof

theMNCanditsemploymentpractices(seeFigure1‐1).Part1beginsbyprofilingthemaincontoursof

the MNCs in terms of their countries of origin, sectors, employment levels, history in Denmark,

business strategies and organizational structures (Chapter 2). The nature of the HR function,

including the relationshipbetween theDanish‐basedoperations and the international enterprise, is

thenexamined(Chapter3).InChapter4,theoveralldiscretiongiventothesubsidiariesisdescribed.

Part 2 consists of four chapters (Chapters 5‐8) that examine the four substantive aspects of

employmentpracticeonwhichthesurveyfocuses.Eachchapterprovidesanoverviewofthepractice,

examinesthepractice inrelationtovariouscompany‐specificvariablesandendswithasummaryof

thekeyfindings.InPart3(Chapter9),theperformanceoftheMNCisdescribed.ResultsfromParts1

and2areusedtodevelopapictureofperformance,andtoassociateitwithemploymentpracticesand

company‐specificvariables.Part4(Chapter10‐11)presentstheoverallconclusionsofthestudyand

futureresearch.

Figure1‐1:Reportstructure

• ProfileofMultinationalsinDenmark• TheHRFunction• SubsidiaryDiscretion

Part1(Chapters2‐4)AgeneraloverviewoftheMNC

• PayandPerformance• TrainingandTalentDevelopment• EmployeeInvolvementandCommunication• EmployeeRepresentationandConsultation

Part2(Chapters5‐8)Analysingemploymentpractices

• CompanyPerformancePart3(Chapter9)

InvestigatingMNCperformance

• ConcludingRemarksandSummary• FutureResearch

Part4(Chapter10‐11)Conclusions


Introduction

26 124

Part1AgeneraloverviewoftheMNC

ProfileofmultinationalDenmark

TheHRfunction

Levelofdiscretion


ProfileofMultinationalsinDenmark

27 124

Chapter2: ProfileofMultinationalsinDenmark

Thischapterprovidesaprofileofthe“typical”MNCinDenmarkbylookingatthethreeaspects.First,

wedescribeanumberoftheMNCs’basiccharacteristics,suchasnationality,sizeandsector.Section2

takesadeeperlookintothestrategiesandstructuresadoptedbyMNCs.Finally,section3addresses

the role that theDanish operations fulfillwithin the international context, e.g.,whether the Danish

sitesperformlowvalue‐addedactivitieswithlittle“strategic”contentorwhethertheyareimportant

partsofMNCswithinternationalresponsibilitiesforproductdevelopmentorR&D.

Basiccharacteristics

Countryoforigin

CountryoforiginisanimportantfactorforMNCsinDenmark,asitcanhaveasignificanteffectonthe

culture, behavior, performance and success of theMNC in Denmark. The distribution of country of

origin is presented in Figure 2‐1.6 The presence of domestic companies in the Danish economy is

evident,with26%of theMNCsoriginating fromDenmark.Throughout thisreport, thesecompanies

are referred to as “home‐based”. The importance of MNCs from the other Nordic countries is

confirmedbythedata,with21%ofallcompaniesinthesurveycomingfromNordicEurope.Thedata

also confirms a substantial presence of European MNCs, which represent 52% of the companies

surveyed.German (10%),UK (6%)andSwiss (7%)MNCs account for the three largestnon‐Nordic,

Europeangroups.US‐ownedcompaniesarealsopresentinsignificantnumbersandaccountfor16%

oftheMNCsparticipatinginthesurvey.

Overall,thedominanceofNordicEuropetogetherwithDenmarkisclear,with47%ofthecompanies

originating fromDenmark,Norway,Sweden,FinlandorIceland.Meanwhile,only6%ofMNCs inthe

surveycomefromtheRestoftheWorldandAsia‐Pacific.

6Thecountriesaregroupedasfollows:theUS,Denmark,NordicEurope(Finland,Sweden,Norway,andIceland),Europe(theUK,France,Germany,Belgium,Switzerland,Spain,Italy,andtheNetherlands),AsiaPacific(Japan,India,andAustralia)andRestoftheWorld(SouthAfricaandOthers).



28 124

Figure2‐1:Countryoforigin

Companysizeandcomposition

On average, foreign‐based MNCs employ more than 60,000 people worldwide. The Danish‐based

MNCs are substantially smaller, with almost 50% employing between 1,000 and 4,999 people

worldwide(seeFigure2‐2).

Figure2‐2:Worldwideemployment

In terms of national variations, US‐ and German‐owned MNCs are considerably larger than other

foreign‐owned companies, with nine US‐owned companies and four German‐owned companies

16%

26%

21%

31%

3% 3%

Inwhichcountryistheoperationalheadquartersofyourultimatecontrollingcompanylocated?

US DK NordicEurope Europe AsiaPacific RestoftheWorld

Base:Home‐ andforeign‐based(n =119)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

WhatisthetotalnumberofemployeesworldwideincludingDenmarkbyheadcount?

Foreign‐based(n=88)

Home‐based(n=31)



29 124

employingmorethan60,000peopleworldwide.SimilartotheDanish‐ownedMNCs,theNordic‐owned

MNCsmostcommonlyemploybetween1,000and4,900peopleworldwide(seeFigure2‐3).

Foreign‐owned companies employ an average of 100‐499 employees in their Danish subsidiaries,

while home‐based MNCs are generally bigger, employing between 1,000 and 4,999 employees on

average in Denmark. Again, there is some national variation around this mean. German‐owned

subsidiaries in Denmark are the largest, with four companies employing between 1,000 and 4,999

peopleandonecompanyemployingmorethan5,000people.Onlytwoforeign‐ownedMNCsemploy

more than5,000people in theDanish economy, originating from theUKandGermany. In aDanish

context, theseareviewedasrelatively largeenterprises,astheeconomyisdominatedbysmall‐and

medium‐sizedenterprises(SMEs).

Figure2‐3:NumberofemployeesinDenmark

Toobtainmoreinformationonthesizefactor,wealsolookatthecompositionoftheworkforce.We

distinguishbetweenthefollowingtwogroups:

Managers: Employeeswho primarilymanage the organization, a department, a subdivision, a

function,oracomponentof theorganization,andwhosemain tasksconsistof thedirectionand

coordinationofthatunit.Inotherwords,managersincludeemployeesabovethelevelofthefirst‐

linesupervision.

Thelargestoccupationalgroup(LOG):Thelargestnon‐managerialoccupationalgroupamong

theemployeesinthe“headcount”inDenmark.Forexample,theLOGinamanufacturingbusiness

mightbesemi‐skilledoperators,while inan insurancecompany itmightbeunderwriters,claims

handlersorcallcenterstaff.

9%

50%19%

19%

3%

WhatisthetotalnumberofemployeesbyheadcountinDenmark?

Upto99

100‐499

500‐999

1000‐4999

5000+

Base:Home‐ andforeign‐based(n=117)



30 124

31% of the companies represented in the survey have between 10 and 24managers employed in

Denmark.Furthermore,28%ofthecompanieshavebetween100and299LOGemployees(seeFigure

2‐4).

Figure2‐4:Numberofmanagers/LOGsemployedinDenmark

Theresultsalsoshowthattheemployee‐managerratioforDanish‐ownedMNCsis10to1;thatis,on

averagethereis1managerperevery10employees.Inthecaseofforeign‐basedMNCs,theemployee‐

managerratiospansfrom10to1toapproximately20to1;thatis,onaverage,thereis1managerper

10‐20employees.

Sector

Sector data provides information on the industries in which theMNCs are primarily engaged. The

sectordatausedinthisstudyisextractedfromtheNACErev.2code.AsshowninFigure2‐5(home‐

based MNCs) and Figure 2‐6 (foreign‐based MNCs), home‐based companies are significantly more

representedinthemanufacturingsectorthanforeign‐ownedMNCs.7Morethanhalfofthecompanies

inourdatasampleareengagedinmanufacturingandconstruction,whileaboutone‐thirdareengaged

inservicesorretailandwholesale.GiventheDanisheconomy’sstatusasa“knowledgeeconomy”,the

highpercentageofmanufacturingcompaniesissomewhatsurprising.

7Chi‐squaretest:significantatthe5%level.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Approximatelyhowmanymanagers/LOGsarethereinthe[companyname]inDenmark?

Managers(n=117)

LOGs(n=116)

Base:Home‐ andforeign‐based



31 124

Figure2‐5:Companiesbysector(home‐basedMNCs)

Figure2‐6:Companiesbysector(foreign‐basedMNCs)

Ageandfirstsignificantinvestment

Figure2‐7depictsthenumberofyearsforeign‐ownedMNCshavebeenpresentinDenmark.37%of

foreign‐ownedMNCs have been present inDenmark formore than 25 years,while only 13%have

been in Denmark for less than 5 years. Figure 2‐8 shows the number of years that home‐based

companies have been present in foreign countries, where the trend is similar. 35% have been

operatingonan international level formorethan25years.However,noneof thesecompanieshave

operatedinternationallyforlessthanfiveyears.

Manufacturingand

construction64%

Retailandwholesale13%

Services23%

Companiesbysector

Base:Home‐based(n=31)

Arigicultureandmining

2%

Manufacturingand

construction35%

Retailandwholesale32%

Services31%

Companiesbysector

Base:Foreign‐based(n=87)



32 124

Figure2‐7:YearsinDenmark(foreign‐basedMNCs)

Figure2‐8:Yearsabroad(home‐basedMNCs)

Intermsofthemodesofentryusedbyforeign‐ownedMNCstoenterDenmark,60%enteredthrougha

merger or acquisition, 24% through a Greenfield investment, and 16% through other types of

investments.Othertypesofinvestmentsincludeformationofasubsidiary,ownproductioninexisting

buildings,franchisingandnewestablishments.

Indicatorsofstrategyandstructure

Inthissection,weexaminethreeindicatorsofMNCstrategy:thelevelofdiversification,thedegreeof

standardizationversusthedegreeofdiversification,andtheroleoftheDanishoperationswithinthe

globalcompany.

37%

30%

20%

13%

HowlongagodidtheworldwidecompanyfirstestablishinDenmark?

25yearsandmore

10‐24years

5‐9years

0‐4years

Base: Foreign‐based(n= 80)

35%

55%

10%

Howlongagodid[COMPANY NAME]establishitsfirstforeignoperation?

25yearsormore

10‐24years

5‐9years

Base: Home‐based(n= 29)



33 124

Levelofdiversificationacrosssectors

ThelevelofdiversificationacrosssectorsmeasurestheextenttowhichMNCoperationsarefocused

on a specific activity, or the extent towhich they have awide range of products and services. The

resultsforthisvariableareshowninFigure2‐9.

Figure2‐9:PrimaryactivityworldwideandDenmark

MostMNCoperationsinDenmarkhavemultipleproductsorservices.64%oftherespondentsindicate

thattheDanishoperationsproduceanumberofproductsorservicesbutnosingleoneaccounts for

more than 70% of sales. The multi‐product nature of these companies does not make them

conglomerates,asonly6%oftherespondentsclassifythemselvesasproducingarangeofunrelated

productsandservices.

Theresultsaresimilarforworldwideoperations:companiesproducingarangeofunrelatedproducts

and services account for 12% of the worldwide operations compared to the 6% of the Danish

operations.Furthermore, in the caseofworldwideoperations,63%of companiesofferanumberof

productsorservicesbutnosingleoneaccounts formorethan70%ofsales.This figures is64%for

Danishoperations.

Standardization

A second dimension that is highly relevant in the context of MNCs is the degree of international

standardizationofproductsandservices.ThisdimensioncanprovideinformationonwhetherMNCs

inDenmarkmanagetheiroperationsdifferentlyacrossregions.

16% 15%

64%

6%8%17%

63%

12%

Asingleproductorservicethataccountsformorethan

90%ofsales

Anumberofproductsandservicesbutoneoftheseaccountsforbetween70%

and90%ofsales

Anumberofproductsandservicesbutnosingleoneoftheseaccountsformorethan

70%ofsales

Arangeofunrelatedproductsandservices

Whichofthefollowingstatementsbestdescribes[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark/worldwide?Thecompanyproduces...

Denmark Worldwide

Base: Home‐ andForeign‐based (n=115‐116)



34 124

The data related to this issue point to the importance of regional standardization. Respondents in

more thanone‐thirdof thecompanies (43% foreign‐ownedand31%homed‐basedMNCs)said that

they “adapted todifferent regionsbut standardizedwithin them”,withanother third (34% foreign‐

ownedand48%home‐basedMNCs)sayingthey“standardizedglobally”(seeFigure2‐10).

Figure2‐10:Standardizationvs.adaptation

TheroleofDanishoperationsinaninternationalcontext

ThissectionexaminestheroleoftheDanishoperationswithinforeign‐basedandhome‐basedMNCs.

Inparticular, itaimstoanswerthefollowingquestion:dotheDanishoperationshaveastrategically

importantroleordotheysimplyserveasa“servicehub”fortheDanishmarket?

24%

43%

34%

21%

31%

48%

Adaptedsignificantlytonationalmarkets

Adaptedtodifferentregionsoftheworldbut

standardisedwithinthem

Standardisedglobally

Aretheworldwidecompany'smostimportantproduct,service(orgroupofproducts,servicesorbrands)...?

Foreign‐based(n=80) Home‐based(n=29)



35 124

Figure2‐11:RoleofDanishoperations

One measure of this factor is the extent to which the subsidiary in Denmark has international

responsibilityforoneormoreproducts.Almosthalfoftheforeign‐ownedcompanies(46%)indicate

thatthey“agree”or“stronglyagree”withthispoint.Furthermore,almost59%ofDanish‐ownedMNCs

indicate that they “agree” or “strongly agree” that international responsibility for one or more

productsorservicesresidesoutsideofDenmark.Thisshowsthatasubsidiaryoutsideofthecountry

oforiginholds“internationalmandates”approximately50%ofthetime(seeFigure2‐11).

A secondmeasureof the role of theDanishoperations iswhether they carryoutR&Dand towhat

degree.R&Disastrategicallyimportantfunctionformanycompanies,asit isoftenthe“heart”ofan

enterprise. In terms of the approximate number of employees employed in the R&D function in

Denmark, thedata show that approximately85%ofhome‐basedMNCshave employees in theR&D

function in Denmark, whereas this is the case for only 62% of the foreign‐based MNCs. Graphical

overviewsofthedistributionofdifferentfunctionsareprovidedinFigure2‐12forhome‐basedMNCs

and in Figure 2‐13 for foreign‐based MNCs. The fact that the non‐R&D functions are distributed

equally in both home‐based and foreign‐based companies indicate that R&D is such an important

functionthatfewenterprisesdareto“outsource”ittosubsidiaries.

29%

9%

16%18%

28%

Stronglydisagree Disagree Neitheragreenordisagree

Agree Stronglyagree

ThecompanyinDenmarkhasinternationalresponsibilityforoneormoreproductsorservicesonbehalfoftheworldwidecompany.

Base: Foreign‐based (n=87)



36 124

Figure2‐12:Numberofemployeesbyfunction(home‐basedMNCs)

Figure2‐13:Numberofemployeesbyfunction(foreign‐basedMNCs)

AfinalmeasureoftheroleofDanishsubsidiariesiswhethersignificantR&DisgeneratedintheDanish

operations relative to the companies’worldwideR&D.Overall,24%of the foreign‐basedcompanies

“agree”or“stronglyagree”thatexpertisehasoriginatedfromDenmark.ThiscanbeseeninFigure2‐

14.

7%

25%

19%

32%

7%

10%

Pleaseestimatetheapproximatenumberofemployeesin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmarkineachofthefollowingcore

functions:

R&D(n=27)

Manufacturing(n=26)

Sales&Marketing(n=29)

CustomerService(n=24)

BusinessServices(finance,IT,payrolletc.)(n=29)

Other(n=15)

7%

46%

19%

10%

11%

7%

Pleaseestimatetheapproximatenumberofemployeesin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmarkineachofthefollowingcore

functions:

R&D(n=76)

Manufacturing(n=76)

Sales&Marketing(n=85)

CustomerService(n=79)

BusinessServices(finance,IT,payrolletc.)(n=85)

Other(n=46)



37 124

Figure2‐14:R&DinDanishoperations(foreign‐basedMNCs)

Summary

ThischapterhasdescribedthecompositionandstrategyofatypicalMNCoperatinginDenmark.The

analysisshowsthat:

The majority of the companies are from Europe, especially Nordic Europe, with only 22%

originating from outside Europe. As such, MNCs operating in Denmark tend to come from

countries that are similar toDenmark.Mostprevalent areNordic companies,whichaccount

for 47% of the sample. Of the non‐European countries, US‐based companies dominatewith

16%. Only 6% of the MNCs are based in the “rest of the world”. In other words, a large

proportionofMNCsoperatinginDenmarkcomefromcountrieswithsimilarbusinessmodels.

IndiscussionsofDenmark’splaceintheinternationalvaluechain,theemphasishasbeenon

theknowledgeeconomyasDenmark’sstrongestpoint.However,50%oftheMNCsinDenmark

areinmanufacturing,whichindicatesthatDanishcompaniesarenotnecessarilyatthetopof

the value ladder. Further research is needed to explore why manufacturing in Denmark is

widespreadamongMNCs.

On average, foreign‐based MNCs in Denmark employ more than 60,000 people worldwide.

DanishMNCsaresignificantlysmaller,withDanishMNCemployingbetween1,000and4,999

peopleonaverage.However,thesituationisreversedintheDanishoperations,whereDanish

MNCsarebigger.Ingeneral,home‐basedcompanieshavebeeninternationalformanyyears–

nohome‐basedMNCshasbeeninternationalforlessthanfouryears.

37%

20% 20%

15%

9%

Stronglydisagree

Disagree Neitheragreenordisagree

Agree StronglyAgree

SignificantexpertiseinR&DwithintheworldwidecompanyisgeneratedintheDanishoperation.




38 124

Arelativelysmallnumberofcompaniesadapttheirmostimportantproductsorservicestothe

nationalmarket.Themajorityofcompaniesinthesampleadapttodifferentregionsofthe

world or standardize globally. Home‐based companies, in particular, have a high degree of

standardization.

In terms of strategic position, the results show that about 50% of the subsidiaries hold

international responsibility forsomeproductsandservices,and24%believe thatsignificant

R&DhasbeenundertakenintheDanishoperations.

Home‐basedMNCstendtofocusononeproduct,whileforeignMNCsarerelativelymorelikely

todiversify.Thiscouldbeconnectedtothehome‐basedMNCs’smallsizerelativeto foreign‐

basedMNCs.


TheHRFunction

39 124

Chapter3: TheHRFunction

Inthepreviouschapter,wedescribedsomekeyfeaturesoftheMNCsoperatinginDenmarkbylooking

at theirbasic characteristics, aswellas thestrategiesandstructures that theyhaveadopted for the

relationshipbetweenheadquarters(HQ)andsubsidiaries.Inthischapter,weelaborateonanumber

ofimportantaspectsofthehumanresource(HR)function.Inparticular,welookattheorganizationof

theinternationalHRfunctionanditsvariousaspects,suchasthemechanismstheMNChasinplaceto

facilitateacoordinatedapproachtoHRacrossnationalborders,thenatureofHRpolicy‐makingbodies

andtheextenttowhichHRstaffarebroughttogetheracrossborders.

HRmanagerswerealsoaskedabout theproportionofnon‐HRmanagers thatspend themajorityof

timeonHRmatters.Wefindthatnon‐HRmanagersinhome‐basedMNCsspendmoretimeonaverage

(15%)thannon‐HRmanagersinforeign‐basedMNCs.(7%).

The chapter ends with an examination of the respondents’ views on the extent and nature of an

internationalphilosophyonthemanagementofemployees,andabriefsummaryofthefindings.

HRpolicyformationandcoordinationacrossborders

OneaspectoftheinternationalHRfunctionthatprovidesameasureofthedegreeofcontroloverHR

policyacrossbordersiswhetherthereisaninternationalHRpolicy‐makingbody.Respondentswere

askedwhethertheircompanieshaveabodywithintheworldwideMNC,suchasacommitteeofsenior

managersthatdevelopsHRpoliciesthatapplyacrosscountries(seeFigure3‐1).


TheHRFunction

40 124

Figure3‐1:PresenceofglobalHRbody

We see that suchbodies arequite common inbothhome‐ and foreign‐based companies, as60%of

home‐basedcompaniesand70%offoreign‐basedcompanieshavesuchaunit inplace.Thisleadsto

anassumptionthatHRis,at least toacertainextent,coordinatedacrossborders.Theprevalenceof

suchunitsvariessomewhatonthebasisofHQnationalityacrossthedifferentregionsbutthisresultis

notstatisticallysignificant(seeFigure3‐2).

Figure3‐2:PresenceofinternationalHR‐policybody

TherespondentswerealsoaskedwhetherDenmarkwasrepresentedonthisbody.Thiscanbeseenas

an indicator that distinguishes Danish operations with a local HR implementer role from Danish

60%

40%

70%

30%

Yes No

Isthereabodywithintheworldwidecompany,suchasacommitteeofseniormanagers,that

developsHRpoliciesthatapplyacrosscountries?

Home‐based(n=30) Foreign‐based(n=87)

72%60% 60%

69%

28%40% 40%

31%

US Denmark Nordic Europe Europe

Isthereabodywithintheworldwidecompany,suchasacommitteeofseniormanagers,thatdevelopsHRpolicies

thatapplyacrosscountries?

No

Yes

Base: Home‐ andforeign‐based(n=117)


TheHRFunction

41 124

Another important indicator is the degree to which theMNCmakes a systematic attempt to bring

managerstogetheracrosscountries.Thisfactormightserveasanindicatorforsystematicknowledge

sharingandorganizationallearningamongsubsidiaries.However,suchsystemizationcanalsobeused

asawayofcontrollingthelocalHRfunctionsbycreatingsharedvalues.

Figure3‐3:AttemptstobringHRmanagerstogether

Justundertwo‐thirds(65%)oftheforeign‐basedcompaniesandslightlymorethanhalf(58%)ofthe

home‐based companies systematically bring HR managers from different countries together (see

Figure3‐3).ThisprovidesfurthersupportforthenotionthatmanyMNCsaredevelopinganintegrated

approachtoHRpolicymaking.Respondentswereaskedwhetherthisactivitytakesplaceontheglobal

orregionallevel.40%indicatedthattheyassembleHRmanagersontheregionallevel,whereas25%

dosoonthegloballevel.Onceagain,thenationalityandsizevariablesareimportantdeterminants.As

Figure3‐4 shows,Danishcompaniesandcompaniesoriginating fromNordicEuropeare those least

likelytosystematicallybringmanagerstogether,whilecompaniesfromEuropeandtheUSaremost

likelytobringmanagerstogether.

58%

42%

65%

35%

Yes No

AreHRmanagersfromdifferentcountriesbroughttogetherinasystematicway?

Home‐based(n=31)



TheHRFunction

42 124

Figure3‐4:MNCsystemizationofcross‐regionHRmanagermeetings

Larger companies, in terms of both global and Danish employment, are more likely to encourage

managerial contact on the global and regional levels. Specifically, 77%of the companies employing

5,000employeesormoreworldwidebringHRmanagerstogetheronbotharegionalandglobalbasis,

whilethecorrespondingfigureforcompanieswithlessthan5,000employeesworldwideisonly41%.

Three of the four companies in our samplewithmore than 5,000 employees inDenmark bringHR

mangers togetheronaglobalandregionalbasis,whileonly62%ofcompanieswith less than5,000

employeesinDenmarkdoso.

Respondentswerealsoaskedaboutthemechanismsusedtofacilitate internationalcontactbetween

HRmanagers–regularmeetings,internationalconferences,taskforcesandvirtualgroups(seeFigure

3‐5) – andhow frequently thosemechanismswereused.The results show that allmechanisms are

widely used in the vast majority of companies, with only 21% of the responding companies not

applying any of the fourmechanisms. Regularmeetings are themost common,while international

conferencesaretheleast,althoughthelatterarestillusedbymorethanhalfofthecompanies.

74%58% 52%

65%

26%42% 48%

35%

US(n=19) Denmark(n=31) NordicEurope(n=25)

Europe(n=37)

AreHRmanagersfromdifferentcountriesbroughttogetherinasystematicway?

No

Yes


TheHRFunction

43 124

Figure3‐5:MechanismsbringingHRmanagerstogether

HRphilosophyandreversediffusion

Another way of examining the international dimension HRM activities is to consider the extent to

whichthereisauniformmanagementstyleacrossborders.Respondentswerepresentedwithaseries

of statements related to the company’s philosophy concerning its employeemanagement style and

asked the extent towhich they agreed or disagreedwith each statement on a scale of 1 to 58 (see

Figure 3‐6). The data show that aworldwide philosophy iswidespread in 37% of the home‐based

MNCsandin46%oftheforeign‐basedMNCs.

8InFigure3‐6thosecompaniesanswering:“agree”(4)and“stronglyagree”(5)toeachofthestatementsaredisplayed.

70%

50%

66%59%

74%

61%70%

65%

RegularMeetings InternationalConferences

TaskForces VirtualGroups

DoescontactbetweenHRmanagersindifferentcountriestakeplacethroughthefollowingmechanisms?

Home‐based(n=27‐29) Foreign‐based(n=83‐86)


TheHRFunction

44 124

Figure3‐6:ApproachtoHRphilosophy

Ingeneral,theanalysisshowsthatonlyaminorityofMNCsengageinreversediffusionofHRpractices

from the subsidiaries to the worldwide organization.When asked whether some of their local HR

practiceshavebeenusedintheMNCworldwide,30%statedthatHRpracticeshadbeentakenupina

fewpartsofthefirm,while60%indicatedthatnoneoftheirHRpracticeswereinuseacrosstheMNC.

Very fewsubsidiaries reported that theirHRpracticeshadbeen implementedglobally.Notably, the

areaof”employeeinvolvementandcommunication”seemstobetheareainwhichlocalHRpractices

aremostoftendiffusedtootherbranchesoftheMNC(seeFigure3‐7).

37%

27% 28%

47% 48%40%

46%

61%

38%

59%

43% 40%

Thereisaworldwideapproachcoveringall

globaloperations

ThereisaregionalapproachcoveringallEuropeanoperations

Thedevelopmentofaspecific

approachislefttointernational

product,serviceorbrandbased

divisions

Thedevelopmentofaspecific

approachislefttonationaloperatingcompanies

Theapproachisreallyamixofthetraditionsofthedifferentnational

operatingcompanies

Traditionsinthecountryoforigin

haveanoverriding

influenceontheapproachtothemanagementofemployees

ApproachtoHRPhilosophy

Home‐based(n=29‐30) Foreign‐based(n=86‐87)


TheHRFunction

45 124

Figure3‐7:ReversediffusionofHRpractices

Summary

This chapter has described the HR functions of MNCs by looking at HR policy development and

coordination,systematicattemptstobringHRmanagerstogether,andmechanismsfordoingso.We

findthat:

About two‐thirds of MNCs in Denmark have an international HR body and a system for

bringing managers together. These systems are somewhat more common in foreign‐based

MNCsthaninDanish‐basedMNCs,partlyduetothesmallersizeofthelatter.

In about one‐third of the foreign‐based MNCs, a Danish representative is part of the

internationalHRpolicy‐makingbody.

The most common way of bringing managers together is through regular meetings, but

internationalconferences,taskforcesandvirtualgroupsarealsowidelyused.

CompaniesadoptavarietyofapproachestotheirHRphilosophy,rangingfromlocaladaptation

toglobalstandardization.

A decision to not bringHRmanagers together or not introduce an internationalHRbody could

have consequences in terms of missed opportunities to encourage knowledge sharing in HR.

Subsidiariesmighthave ideasorpractices relevant tocertainHRproblems,but these cannotbe

spread throughout theorganization if subsidiaryHRmanagersdonotmeet.However, thereare

someexamplesofanHRinitiativefromasubsidiarybeingimplementedinthewiderorganization

(seeTextbox1).

23%

10%

1%

26%

9%

3%

36%

11%

0%

26%

6%

0%

Yes,infewpartsofthefirm Yes,inmajorbusinesses Yes,takenupglobally

HasthecompanyinDenmarkprovidedanynewpracticesinthefollowingareasthathavebeenimplementedelsewhereintheMNC?

Payandperformancemanagement

Training,developmentandorganisationallearning

Employeeinvolvementandcommunication

Employeerepresentationandconsultation

Base: Foreign‐based(n=86‐87)


TheHRFunction

46 124

Textbox1:Reversediffusion

“Wewereaplayground”

ADanishsubsidiaryofaGermanMNCwaspartofa

mergerofsubsidiariesintheNordiccountriesover

15 years ago. Of the more than 100,000 people

employed by the MNC worldwide, the Danish

subsidiary only accounts for around 150. It is,

therefore, relatively small in size. The merged

NordicregionbecameaninspirationfortheGerman

HQ, and was followed by formations of other

regions of similar institutional contexts. The result

of the progressive approach taken in the Nordic

subsidiaries was a higher level of discretion.

AccordingtoaDanishHRmanager:

Backthen,wewereallowedtodoalmostanything

we wanted (in the Nordic subsidiaries), as we

wereviewedasthepioneeringregion.

The Nordic subsidiary became a playground for

organizational experimentation, and it therefore

gradually gained the attention of HQ as top

management began to recognize the potential

benefitsof the “Nordicmodel.”Theresultwas that

the organizational innovations initiated in the

Nordiccountrieswerereplicatedglobally.

Given the variety of institutional contexts in

differentnationalcontexts,overtheyearstheMNC

has developed overall strategies with built‐in

compliance rules. These rules make it possible to

adjust the strategy to local conditions and are

inspiredbythesubsidiaries’experiences:

Ontheimplementationlevel,youhavetointerpret

the decisions made on the strategy level. You

mighthaveastrategy,(…)butthenyoumightrun

into some legislation locally that makes it

impossibletoimplementthestrategyinthatform.

Youhavetorelatetothelocallegislation.

While there is strong reverse diffusion from

subsidiariestoHQ,HQalsomaintainsstrictcentral

control ofHR. Every fifth year, theperformanceof

the subsidiary – including HR – is evaluated. The

focusisthedegreetowhichHQ’sgeneralstrategyis

followed. This is amutual learning process, as HQ

needstounderstandthe institutional limitationsto

whichthesubsidiaryissubject:

We can’t say, “Yeah, whatever…We don’t care

whatHQdoes”.Youcan’tdo that. (…)But it isa

learning process because we go back and tell

them that this is not possible in this country or

region,whilethisispossible.(…)Andtheygoback

andchangetheirpolicies.

ThishasledHQtoadoptasofterapproachtoHRin

subsidiaries:

It isbeing softenedupmoreandmore.The top‐

down management that once was is slowly

disappearing.

By reconciling the inherent contradiction between

centralization and decentralization, this German

MNC is able to leverage the tension between local

requests for more discretion and HQ’s desire for

control. Itusessubsidiaries todevelopHRpolicies,

and to find and develop management talent. In

otherwords,HQ’sHRpoliciesarenot set in stone,

but canbeadjusted to the local context, andHR is

diffusedfromsubsidiariestoHQ.


SubsidiaryDiscretion

47 124

Chapter4: SubsidiaryDiscretion

Chapter 3 touched upon the HR‐related relationship between MNC HQs and subsidiaries, and we

analyzed the level of discretion warded to subsidiaries with regards to HR. In this chapter, we

elaborateontherelationshipbetweenHQandsubsidiariesbylookingmorethoroughlyatsubsidiary

discretionwithregardstoavarietyofissues,includingpayschemes,successionprogramsandunion

recognition.Thelevelofdiscretionisanimportantindicatorofheadquarters’strategywithrespectto

subsidiariesandthewayinwhichtheymanagetheirglobaloperations.ItreflectswhethertheMNCs

focus on the benefits of standardization or give local operations the freedom to adapt to local

challenges.Inaddition,thischapteroffersanoverviewofthelevelsofdiscretionandadiscussionof

thegeneralinfluenceofdiscretioninthesubsidiaries.

Measuringdiscretion

Inthissurvey,“discretion”referstheextenttowhichasubsidiaryhasautonomyoverthemainareas

ofitsemploymentpractices.Thesurveymeasuresdiscretionusing15differentitemswithinthefour

mainareasofHRpolicy:payandperformance,traininganddevelopment,employeeinvolvementand

communication,andtradeunionpolicy.Respondentswereaskedtoevaluatethelevelofdiscretionin

theirorganizationonafive‐pointscalerangingfrom“none”to“fulldiscretion”.

Patternofdiscretion

Summaries of theproportionsof companieswithhigh levels of discretion for the various items are

provided in Figures 4‐1 and 4‐2. Figure 4‐1 illustrates the foreign‐based companies’ perceptions of

their discretion levels. For this purpose, HRmanagerswere asked: “Towhat extent does [COMPANY

NAME] in Denmark have discretion over the determination of the following aspects of pay and

performancepolicy?”Figure4‐2 illustrateshome‐basedcompanies’ self‐perceptionof thediscretion

they give to their subsidiaries. Here, the HR managers were asked: “To what extent do operating

companiesoutsideofDenmarkhavediscretionoverthedeterminationofthefollowingaspectsofpay

andperformancepolicy?”



48 124

Figure4‐1:Areasofdiscretion(foreign‐based)

59%

7%

48%44%

54%48%

73%

62%57%

80%

60%

87% 87%

72% 69%

Towhatextentdoes[COMPANY NAME]inDenmarkhavediscretionoverthedeterminationofthefollowing:

Foreign‐owned



49 124

Figure4‐2:Areasofdiscretion(home‐based)

25%

11%

50%

32%26% 26%

60%56%

52%

77%

54%

81% 78%

60% 63%

TowhatextentdooperatingcompaniesoutsideofDenmarkhavediscretionoverthedeterminationofthefollowingaspects:

Danish‐ownedsubsidiaries



50 124

OnthebasisofFigure4‐1andFigure4‐2,thefollowingconclusionscanbemade:

Overall, the foreign‐ and home‐based MNCs are similar in their level of discretion, with

between60%and80%ofthecompanieshavinghighdiscretionformostofthefactors(with

theexceptionof“payandperformance”).

Bothhome‐basedandforeign‐basedcompanieshavethehighestlevelofdiscretioninrelation

to “provision of information to employees” and “suggestion schemes” (81% and 87%,

respectively).

The lowest degree of discretion for both foreign‐ and home‐based companies is found for

“employeeshareownershipscheme”.

Aclearpatterncanbeseeninthetwofigureswithrespecttopayandperformance,wherethelevelsof

discretionaremuchlowerthanforotheremploymentpractices.Influencesondiscretionforforeign‐

basedcompanies

Thissectiondiscusseshowselectedcompany‐specificcharacteristicsinfluencethelevelofdiscretion.

For thispurpose, anoverall discretion index –basedon the averageof the15 individual items– is

formed.Therelativelysmallnumberofhome‐basedcompaniesmeansthatthefollowingstatisticsare

limitedtoforeign‐basedcompanies.9

First,we lookat the influenceof thecountryoforigin, theageof thesubsidiary,and thesizeof the

Danish operations. For this analysis, Swedish and US companies are compared because Swedish‐

owned companies come from an institutional context similar to Denmark’s, whereas US‐owned

companies come fromadifferent institutional context.Theseare thegroups thatweuse for testing

nationaldifferencesthroughoutthereport,astheyrepresentdifferentinstitutionalsystemsandhavea

substantialamountofrespondentsintheirgroup.

Figure 4‐3provides themean scores for all foreign‐based,US‐based andSwedish‐based companies.

Fromthisfigure,weseethatcompanieswithUS‐basedheadquartershavealowerdegreeofdiscretion

than theirSwedish‐basedcounterparts, and thatSwedish‐ownedsubsidiarieshaveahigheraverage

level of discretion than the sample of all foreign‐based companies. This finding could lead to a

conclusion that US‐based companies prefer a higher level of control over their subsidiaries than

Swedish‐basedcompanies.However,thesedifferencesarenotstatisticallysignificant.

9ThisindexformsareliablescalewithaCronbachalphavalueof0.855.Thisscalehasaminimumof1.47(shouldbemorethan1),amaximumof4.93(shouldbelessthan5)andanaverageof3.6242.



51 124

Figure4‐3:Meandiscretionscoresforselectedcountries

The next element is the age of the subsidiary. Older subsidiaries can be expected to have more

flexibilitytomakedecisions,astheyareintegratedintheirinstitutionalcontexttoahigherdegree.It

can also be argued that the MNC might wish for a higher level of control in the initial phase of

subsidiary establishment due to a higher need for support as well as a desire to influence the

subsidiary’scultureinthedirectionoftheMNC’svaluesandprocedures.However,statisticaltestsof

thecorrelationbetweenageanddiscretionshownosignificantresults.

In addition to the “factual” variables of the MNC, other variables might indicate the degree of

discretioninMNCs.Wethereforeexaminethreedifferentaspects:

1. Standardization or adaptation of products: This aspect is tested to determine whether

there is an association between a focus on standardization of products and the level of

discretion.Theresultsshownosignificantassociationbetweenthesevariables.

2. GloballydecidedHRpolicies:Companieswithaglobalmindsetwithregardstocreatingand

deciding upon HR practices might be expected to provide their subsidiaries with less

discretion.Figure4‐4showsthemeanoftheoveralldiscretionindexforcompaniesanswering

“yes”or“no”tothefollowingquestion:“Isthereabodywithintheworldwidecompany,such

as a committee of seniormanagers, that developsHRpolicies that apply across countries?”

ThefigureshowsthatMNCsthatdonothavesuchabodywithintheworldwideMNCprovide

more discretion on average to their subsidiaries than those companies that have a body

withintheworldwideMNC(althoughthistendencyisnotstatisticallysignificant).

3.62 3.723.29

All Sweden US

MeandiscretionscoresforselectedcountriesBase:Foreign‐based(n=44)



52 124

Figure4‐4:LevelofDiscretionandGloballyDecidedHRPolicies

3. Worldwideapproach:Therespondentsinthesurveywereaskedabouttheextenttowhich

they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: “There is a worldwide approach

covering all global operations” with the objective of testing whether a general worldwide

approach has an influence on the level of discretion. Thiswasnot the case – no significant

correlationwasfoundbetweenthelevelofdiscretionandaworldwideapproachcoveringall

operations.

Summary

This chapter has briefly discussed subsidiary discretion in home‐based and foreign‐based MNCs.

Discretion isdefinedas theextent towhich thesubsidiaryhasautonomyoverdifferentareasofHR

policy.Theresultsforhome‐basedandforeign‐basedMNCsarepresentedseparately,astheyarenot

comparable.Wefindthat:

The subsidiaries enjoy a high level of discretion with regards to communication, employee

involvementandemployeerepresentation.

With the exception of the Danish‐owned operations of Danish companies, a low level of

discretionisfoundintheareasofpayandperformance.

Country of origin matters for discretion. The analyses indicate a general tendency for US

companiestogrant lessdiscretiontotheirsubsidiariesthanthestudypopulation ingeneral.

SubsidiarieswithaSwedishheadquartersenjoyhigherdiscretionthantheaverage.

WhethertheMNChasstandardizedproductsoraworldwideapproachhasnosignificanteffect

ondiscretion.

The finding that, in general, discretion is lower on pay and performance is not surprising. Pay is a

decisivefactorintherelationsbetweenmanagementandemployees,anditisanimportantmotivator.

Itisalsodecisiveforthecompanyprofits.

3.53

3.82

Yes No

Levelofdiscretion:“Isthereabodywithintheworldwidecompany,suchasacommitteeofseniormanagers,thatdevelopsHRpoliciesthatapplyacrosscountries?”

Base:Foreign‐ based(n=44)



53 124

Likewise,employeeshareownershipschemesarealow‐discretionarea.Thiselementisalsocentralto

management’sprerogativeanditisalsoanimportantmotivationalfactorinanycompany.

Asthestudyshows,thelevelofdiscretionawardedto,orobtainedby,subsidiariesvariessignificantly.

In this respect, two case studies reveal the diversity of attitudes toward the centralize‐decentralize

question(seeTextbox2).



54 124

Textbox2:Highdiscretionversuslowdiscretion

“Americahasthelastword”

The Danish subsidiary has no production and no

R&Dactivities – only sales. Over the last 10 years,

thecompany’ssizehasbeenreducedbyhalfandit

no longer has a full‐time HR manager. The

company’s HR policy is dictated by the US

headquarters and implemented via the European

branch’sHRdepartment in Sweden.HRpolicy and

HRmanagersdonotmeetacrossborders.Although

recruitmentintheDanishbranchisuptoeachsub‐

department, it must comply with the rules of the

Swedish HQ. Ultimately, all recruitment occurs

under the supervision of the American HQ. Any

hiring has to be approved by the SwedishHQ and

the Swedish HQ’s HR policy must be approved by

the American HQ. Headcounts are the most

importantfactorforHRintheAmericanHQ:

Once a month, we have to report how many

employeeswehaveandhowmanyworkinghours

theyhave.Twoorthreeyearsago,wehadto lay

off about 10 employees. TheHQ in the US said:

“You have too many employees”. (…) We

contacted the employers’ association but the

unionswerenotinvolved.

The US MNC basically has to approve any HR

decision. The consequences can be dire if such

approvalsarenotobtainedinadvance:

A couple of years ago, the Swedish CEO tried to

introduce a new scale for all of the European

subsidiaries. He was almost fired because he

didn’tget itapprovedby theUSHQ.Youhaveto

be careful – you put your job on the line if you

don’tgetachangeapprovedintheUS.

Accordingly, all HR decisions go through the HR

divisioninSwedenandareapprovedintheUS.HR

policy is decided from the top down, and the

SwedishandUSHQdonotconsultthesubsidiaries:

There is a code of conduct on the Intranet.We

have to read it once a year. By looking at our

users’ profiles, they can checkwhetherwe have

done so. Ifnot, theysendusareminder. (…)You

canread itoryoucanwatchthevideo.Thenyou

havetopassatestafterwards.

TheDanishbranchisnotinvitedtoHRmeetingsin

other countries and, in general, theDanish branch

feelsinferiorintheMNC:

Theyaresofaraway[theUS].Ibelievetheythink:

“Denmark, that’sa smallone–wedon’twant to

wastetimeonthem”.Whenwewritetothem,we

oftenfeeltheydon’treallycare–itdoesn’tmatter

tothem.

ThisAmericanMNCclearlybelieves thebenefitsof

centralization and standardization outweigh the

benefitsoflocaldiscretion.HRpolicyisdetermined

centrally with little or no input from local

subsidiaries, and the MNC seems hostile toward

localinnovation.

“Wedon’treallycooperatewithHQ”

Recognizing the importance of adapting to local

conditions, one German retailer completely

decentralized the company’s HR function. The

freedom provided by this hands‐off approach

means that local HRmanagers are responsible for

identifying and developing training and

development programs, as well as leadership

programs,forthecompany’semployees.TheDanish



55 124

subsidiary is basically independent from the

GermanHQinHRterms:

Idon’treporttotheHRfunctioninGermany.(…)

Wedonot really cooperatewithHQ inGermany

[on HR]. If they have some good ideas, we use

them.Otherwise,wemakeourown strategy,our

ownprioritiesanddoitourway.

ThisdiscretionhasallowedonelocalHRmanagerto

develop an initiative designed to increase female

participation in the labor market. The subsidiary

hasalsoestablishedanacademyforfurthertraining

in Denmark, which is independent of HQ. The

Danish branch aims to be the best in the business

andhasstartedtheacademyforfurthertrainingof

itsemployees. It is institutionalizedand,assuch, is

part of the subsidiary’s headcount – there are

always a certain number of employees involved in

training. These measures were discussed only

between the Danish HR manager and the Danish

CEO, and the GermanHQdid not need to approve

them:

There are no demands from anybody – the only

thingisthatthingshavetoworkout.

HR managers from different subsidiaries do not

meet across countries and there is generally no

cooperation between HR departments in different

countries. This high level of discretion is not a

formulated policy from the German HQ, but is

insteadtheresultofthecorporation’sdevelopment.

TheparentcompanywasestablishedinGermanyin

1960. Greenfield operations were established in

Denmarkin1988.

Casesummary

HRpolicies canbe formed centrally or locally.The

advantage of centrally decided HR policies is that

theycanbeimportantpillarsintheestablishmentof

a common corporate culture and can serve as an

organizational control tooluseful for achieving the

advantagesofglobalscaleandscope.Theadvantage

of decentralized HR policy formation is the

possibilityofadjustingtotheneedsoflocalcultural,

institutional and social environments – including

investmentrelationssystems.Hence,theyaremore

receptivetolocaltrendsandemergingneeds.

Regardless of where HR policies are formed,

anotherimportantissueiswhethertheyareshared

across borders. If a subsidiary establishes a best

practice, it can only be defined as such when

comparedtootherpracticeswithintheMNC,when

thepractice iscommunicated throughout theMNC,

and when the practice is adopted in other MNC

units. In this respect, reverse diffusion allows a

subsidiary to provide inspiration to HQ regarding

an HR policy. In contrast, spillover occurs when a

subsidiary’s HR policies spill over to other

subsidiaries.

Whilethehighlevelofdiscretionincase2ishighly

appreciatedbythesubsidiary’sHRdepartment,itis

alsoobviousthatthereisnoorganizationallearning

in thissetup.HR in theGermanheadquartersdoes

not pick up on ideas and innovations from its

subsidiaries, and HR managers on the subsidiary

leveldonotmeetorshareknowledge.



56 124

Part2Analyzingemploymentpractices

Payandperformance

Training,developmentandorganizationallearning

Employeeinvolvementandcommunication

Employeerepresentationandconsultation


PayandPerformance

57 124

Chapter5: PayandPerformance

AfterestablishingthegeneralpictureofMNCsoperating inDenmark in thepreviousthreechapters,

we now proceed to explore the specific areas of HR practice in MNCs. This chapter focuses on

subsidiarypayandperformancesystems.Itbeginswithanexaminationoftheperformanceappraisal

system,themethodsarethatused,andhowthosemethodsareemployedfordifferentgroupsofstaff.

Second, we look at various reward systems in the subsidiary and the underlying criteria used for

performanceevaluation.

Throughout the chapter, we analyze the effects of various company‐specific variables on pay and

performancepractices.Inthisrespect,welookatattributesfromChapters2and3,suchasnationality

(home‐basedorforeign‐based),size,sector,standardizationandpresenceofglobalHRpolicies.

Performanceappraisals

Performance appraisal systems are widespread among the companies in the survey. 75% of the

companiesreportthattheyhaveaformalsystemofappraisalformanagers,and68%reportthatthey

haveanappraisalsystemfortheLOG(seeFigure5‐1).Thisindicatesthatthemajorityofcompanies

havedevelopedanofficial,formalappraisalsystemforalargeportionoftheiremployees.

Figure5‐1:Presenceofappraisalsystems

Whenlookingintothisresult,wefindseveralinterestingtendencies:

Country effect: There is a significant difference between home‐based and foreign‐based

companies in their probability of having appraisal systems. Foreign‐based MNCs are more

likelytohaveperformanceappraisalsystemsfortheLOG.10Asimilartendencyisevidentfor


68%

32%

75%

25%

Yes No

Isthereasystemofregular,formalappraisalforeachofthefollowinggroupsofemployeesinthe[COMPANY NAME]

inDenmark?

FoLOG(n=117) ForManagers(n=115)


PayandPerformance

58 124

managers,althoughthis isnotstatisticallysignificant.US‐ownedcompanieshavethehighest

frequencyofappraisalsystemsforboththeLOGandmanagers.

GlobalHRpolicies:ThoseMNCswithabody responsible for thedevelopmentof globalHR

policiesaresignificantlymorelikelytohaveperformanceappraisalsystemsforboththeLOG

andmanagersthancompanieswithnosuchunit.11

HRmanagersbroughttogetherinasystematicway:Companiesthatbringtheirmanagers

together in a systematic way also have a significantly higher likelihood of having a formal

appraisalsystemforboththeLOGandmanagersthancompaniesthatdonothavesystematic

meetingsofmanagers.12

One interesting aspect of appraisal systems is whether they use the results of the appraisal in

decisions on redundancy or redeployment. Figure 5‐2 shows that most companies use appraisal

resultsaseitherformalorinformalinputintosuchdecisions.Intotal,71%engageinthispracticefor

theLOGand83%doso formanagers.These figures, togetherwith theaboveresults, indicate that

appraisal systems are used to evaluate and regulatemanagersmore often than the LOG.Notably,

48%ofthecompaniesuseappraisalsystemsasan informal inputfordecisionsonredundancyand

re‐deployment(fortheLOGand/ormanagers).

Figure5‐2:Usesoftheperformanceappraisalsystem

When testing for differences in the use of performance appraisal systems in relation to company

characteristics, no significant differences are found in terms of sectors, global HR units,

standardizationorcountriesoforigin.However,wefindthatcompaniesthatbringmanagerstogether

inasystematicwayusetheoutcomesofperformanceappraisals indecisionsaffectingboththeLOG

11Chi‐squaretest:significantatthe5%level.12Chi‐squaretest:significantatthe5%level.

26%

45%

29%31%

52%

17%

Yes,asaformalinputindecisions

Yes,asaninformalinputindecisions

No

Aretheoutcomesofperformanceappraisalusedasinputsindecisionsonredundancyandre‐deployment

inthe[companyname]inDenmark?

ForLOG(n=82) ForManagers(n=84)


PayandPerformance

59 124

andmanagersmoreoftenthancompaniesthathavenosuchregularmeetings.Overall,however,we

concludethatnospecificfeaturescharacterizecompaniesthatutilizeappraisalstomakedecisionson

redundancyandredeployment.

Another aspect of performance appraisal is found in the criteria that are important for evaluating

managementperformance.Therespondentswereaskedtoassesstheimportanceoffivecriteriaona

scale from not important to very important. As shown in Figure 5‐3, all criteria were found to be

mostly“important”or“veryimportant”inassessingperformance.Individualoutputs,inparticular,are

perceived to be very important, while slightly less importance is attributed to “competences or

personalskills”,“groupoutputtargets”and“behaviorinrelationtocorporatevalues”.

Figure5‐3:Managementperformanceevaluation

Theonlysignificantvariationbetweenthegroups13isfoundwhenlookingatSweden.SwedishMNCs

hasasignificantlylowerperceivedimportanceofindividualquantitativeoutputtargetsandbehavior

in relation to corporate values. The same tendency is true for individual qualitative output targets,

althoughthis isonlyclosetostatisticallysignificant.This is interesting inaScandinaviancontext,as

theNordic countries – especially Sweden–have a long traditionof self‐governing teamwork in the

13Toachieveanacceptablenumberinallgroups,answers1and2weremergedto“notimportant”,3wasrated”ofmediumimportance”,and4and5weremergedto“veryimportant”forthepurposeofthestatisticaltests.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

Individualquantitativeoutputtargets(e.g.,financial,numerical)

Individualqualitative

outputtargets(e.g.,

completionofatask)

Groupoutputtargets(e.g.,forsiteor

businessunit)

Competences'orpersonalskills(e.g.,

leadershiporinnovationskills)

Behaviourinrelationtocorporate"values"

ThinkingabouttheMANAGERSin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark,howimportantarethefollowingkindsofperformanceevaluationsonascaleof

1‐5?

5=Veryimportant

4

3

2

1=Notatallimportant

Base:Home‐ andForeign‐based(n=87)


PayandPerformance

60 124

workplace.ThesedataindicatethatthistraditionisalsoreflectedintheappraisalsystemsofSwedish

MNCs.

We also see that companies that bring HR managers together in a systematic way place more

emphasisonindividualquantitativeoutputtargets.However,nosignificantdifferenceswerefoundfor

othercharacteristics.

Anotherwayof evaluatingperformance isbyusing “multi‐rater reviews”or “360‐degree feedback”.

Thispractice is increasinglypopular inMNCsandhas thebenefitofofferingamoreholisticviewof

individualperformancebyprovidingfeedbackfrompeers,subordinatesandmanagers.Thedatashow

that this practice is widespread: 73% of the respondent companies use 360‐degree feedback to

evaluatetheperformanceofmanagers,and56%usethepracticetoevaluatetheLOG(seeFigure5‐4).

Figure5‐4:Useof360‐degreefeedback

Performance‐relatedpaysystems

After looking at general performance appraisal systems,we now focus on performance‐related pay

systems.First,we investigate theextent towhichvariablepay isused formanagersand theLOG in

MNCs.

73%

56%

ForManagers(n=85)

ForLOGs(n=84)

Isaformalsystemof"360‐degree"feedbackusedinevaluatingtheperformanceofanyofthese

groupsofemployeesin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark?

Base:Home‐ andforeign‐based


PayandPerformance

61 124

Figure5‐5:Variablepay(managers)

Figure5‐6:Variablepay(LOG)

Figures5‐5and5‐6showthatvariablepay ismorewidespreadamongmanagers.77%ofmanagers

havesomeelementofvariablepay,whilethecorrespondingfigurefortheLOGis60%.Companiesthat

systematically bring HR managers together tend to have a higher frequency of variable pay for

managers(seeFigure5‐7).

Yes77%

No23%

Is therevariablepayforthemanagersin[COMPANYMANE]inDenmark?


Yes60%

No40%

IstherevariablepayfortheLOGin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark?



PayandPerformance

62 124

Figure5‐7:VariablepayandHRapproachformanagers

Figure5‐8VariablepayandHRapproachforLOG

Thosecompaniesusingvariablepaywerealsoasked to indicatewhether theyoffered the following

kindsofpaytotheLOGormanagers:

Anapprovedemployee shareownership scheme inwhich the organization establishes a

trustthatacquiressharesonbehalfofemployeesandprovidesemployeeswithpartownership

ofthecompanythroughthoseshares.

Profit sharing, which refers to rewards given to employees over and above their normal

salaries and bonuses. These awards are directly dependent on the levels of profit in the

business.

2931 32

7 812

Yes‐onaglobalbasis Yes‐onaregionalbasis No

Managervariablepayinrelationto"Aremanagersfromdifferentcountriesbroughttogetherinasystematicway?"

Variablepay Novariablepay


23 23 24

1315

18

Yes,onaglobalbasis Yes,onaregionalbasis No

LOGvariablepayinrelationto"Aremanagersfromdifferentcountriesbroughttogetherinasystematicway?"

Variablepay Novariablepay



PayandPerformance

63 124

Share options, through which employees are given the option of buying company shares,

oftenatareducedrate.

AsshowninFigure5‐9,noneofthesetypesofpayarecommon(averageoccurrenceofaround20%).

Again, these pay‐related elements are slightlymorewidespread amongmanagers than LOGs. Share

optionsaretheformofperformance‐relatedpayofferedmostoftentomanagers,closelyfollowedby

employee shareownership schemes. For theLOGs, themostpopular typeofpay is employee share

ownership, followed by share options. The least common type of performance‐related pay for both

managersandLOGsisprofitsharing.

Figure5‐9:Typesofperformance‐relatedpay

In general, although none of the results are statistically significant, home‐based companies tend to

haveahigherfrequencyofalloftheabovetypesofperformance‐relatedpay.Furthermore,companies

that systematically bringHRmanagers together aremore likely to offer employee shareownership

andshareoptionstotheirmanagers.14

Summary

Thischapterhasexaminedthestructureandextentofperformanceappraisalandrewardsystems.We

haveseenthattheexistenceofappraisalsystemsiswidespread:


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

ForLOG(n=107)

ForManagers(n=109)

ForLOG(n=102)

ForManagers(n=101)

ForLOG(n=105)

ForManagers(n=107)

EmployeeShareOwnership ProfitSharing ShareOptions

Doesthecompanyofferthefollowingtypesofperformance‐relatedpay?

Yes No Don'tknow


PayandPerformance

64 124

75% and 68% of companies have appraisal systems for managers and LOGs, respectively.

Hence,appraisalsystemsareusedalmostasoftentomotivateLOGsastomotivatemanagers.

Assuch,theyareanimportantHRtoolforthemajorityofMNCs.

Overall,foreign‐basedcompaniesinDenmarkaremorelikelytohaveappraisalsystemsforthe

LOGandmanagers,althoughthelatterfindingisnotstatisticallysignificant.

US‐basedcompaniesaremorelikelytohaveappraisalsystemsforboththeLOGandmanagers,

as are companies that develop globalHRpolicies through aworldwidebody and those that

systematicallybringHRmanagerstogether.

A high proportion of companies use appraisals as a basis for decisions on redundancy and

redeployment. However, half of the companies use these results only as informal inputs for

suchdecisions.

Companiesuseawidearrayofcriteriatoassessmanagerialperformance.Themostpopularof

these is individual output, but group output, competences and behavior in relation to

corporate values are also important. Interestingly, MNCs originating from Sweden have a

significantly lower perceived importance of individual quantitative output targets and

behavior in relation to corporate values. The same tendency is evident for individual

qualitativeoutputtargets,althoughthisresultisonlyclosetosignificant.Thisisinterestingin

aScandinaviancontext,asNordiccountries–especiallySweden–haveanextensivetradition

of self‐governing teamwork in the workplace. These data indicate that this tradition is

reflectedintheappraisalsystemsofSwedishMNCs.

“360‐degree feedback” is used in about two‐thirds of companies for bothmanagers and the

LOG.

Payschemeswithvariablepayformanagersareimplementedin77%ofthecompanies,while

60%usesomeformofvariablepayfortheLOG.

Employeeshareownership,profit sharingand shareoptionsarenotverypopular,withonly

about20%ofcompaniesusingtheseperformance‐basedpayoptions formanagersandeven

fewerusing them for theLOG.CompanieswithanHRsystemthatbringsmanagers together

andhome‐basedcompaniesemploythesekindsofincentivestoagreaterdegree.

Global HR policy can be used to implement a certainwagepolicy if the institutional setting

allowsit.However,suchstrategiesmayconflictwithindustrialrelationstraditions,especially

in theDanish context,where there is a long tradition of collective bargaining and relatively

equalpay(seeTextbox3).


PayandPerformance

65 124

Textbox3:HRasastrategyimplementerversusnoHRatall

HRasa(wage)strategyimplementer

WhenaDanishsubsidiarywastakenover in1996,

highsubsidiarydiscretionprevailed.However,asa

result of a trend towards consolidation on the

variousmarkets,headquartersbecameincreasingly

controlling.ThistrendhadconsequencesforHR,as

HRprocedureshadtobesimilaracrossborders.

One of the goals of HQ’s policy was to implement

individualizedwages. InDenmark, the focus inthis

respect was on giving more money to units with

individual wage systems. This made a difference,

especiallyamongblue‐collaremployees:

Westrivetoobtainthis[individualwages].When

we had wage negotiations with the blue‐collar

workers, at one plant they accepted individual

regulation. Hence, they got a higher evaluation

percentage. At another plant, the blue‐collar

workers demanded an equalminimumwage for

all.Theygotit,butattheabsoluteminimum.(…)

Thepolicy is individualwages,butthis isnotthe

way that the legislation and agreements work.

Also, it is really difficult to obtain individual

wagesinDenmarkandFinland.

Continuous documentation of HR processes in

different countries has been introduced and HR

managers in the Nordic branches meet monthly.

ThemaingoalistodocumentHRpracticesinorder

to support knowledge sharing and to spread HR

practices:

[Q] So, where is HR in this corporation? Is it

primaryhere?

[A]No,weareeverywhere.

HR is defined centrally and implemented

throughout the organization through

documentation and meetings. HQ defines the

“managementcriteria”,butthelocalunitsarehighly

involvedinfindingmanagementpotential:

Themanagementcriteriaarenotdefinedhere[on

the subsidiary level]. They are defined from the

top, from the Group. But we are launching

initiativesandwearefindinghighpotentials.

Assuch,thelocalbranchesareimplementingHR

strategiesfromaboveandarefindingmanagement

potentialsaccordingtocentrallydefinedcriteria.

FromHQ’spointofview,theglobalHRpolicyis

builtaroundathoroughdocumentationsystem.Itis

alsoviewedasanimportanttoolinotherrespects,

suchastheimplementationofcertainwage

systems.However,thisalsocreatespotentialfor

conflict.


TrainingandTalentDevelopment

66 124

Chapter6: TrainingandTalentDevelopment

Training expenditure can reflect how companies prioritize investments in human resources and,

indirectly,whethertheyviewinvestmentintheiremployeesascentraltotheaccomplishmentoftheir

goals.Figure6‐1showsinvestmentintrainingasapercentageofthecompanies’annualemployeepay

bill. Over 50% of home‐ and foreign‐based companies spend between 1% and 4% of their annual

compensationexpensesontraining.Noneof thehome‐basedcompanies,butalmost10%of foreign‐

basedcompanies, spendmore than4%on training.Overall, foreign‐basedcompanies tend to invest

moreintraining,althoughthisdifferenceisnotastatisticallysignificant.

Figure6‐1:Trainingasapercentageofannualemployeecompensation

Intermsofotherdifferences,aclearpatternariseswhenlookingattheHRsystem.AsshowninFigure

6‐2, companies with a global HR policy body and a systematic way of bringingmanagers together

invest significantly more in training.15 This might indicate that these companies prioritize HR to a

greaterextent.

15Chi‐squaretestsignificantatthe5%level.

4%

40%

56%

0%1%

35%

55%

9%

0% Upto1% Over1%andlessthan4%

Over4%

Whatpercentageoftheannualemployeecompensationin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmarkwasspentontrainingand

developmentforallemployeesoverthepast12months?




67 124

Figure6‐2:HRapproachandlevelofinvestmentintraining

ThenextstepindescribingthetraininganddevelopmentpoliciesofMNCsistolookattheextentof

successionplanningandmanagementdevelopmentprograms.Successionplanningisaprocessused

toidentifyanddevelopmanagementtalentintheorganizationthatwilleventuallysucceedthecurrent

management. The data show that 43% of home‐based companies have succession planning in all

(18%)orsomeoftheiroperations(25%).Forforeign‐basedcompanies,thisfigureisslightlyhigherat

50%(seefigure6‐3).

Figure6‐3:Successionplanningformanagers

No national differences are foundwith regards to succession planning, and the difference between

home‐basedandforeign‐basedMNCsisnotsignificant.However,oneinterestingdifferenceisevident.

29%

71%

56%

44%

0% to 1% Over 1%

HRApproachandLevelofInvestmentinTraining

Systematicwayofbringingmanagerstogether:Yes

Systematicwayofbringingmanagerstogether:No

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Yes,inalloperations

Yes,insomeoperations

No

Thinkingof[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark,isthereaformalsystemofsuccessionplanningforsenior

managers?

Formalsystemforsuccesionplanning,Home‐based(n=28)

Formalsystemforsuccesionplanning,Foreign‐based(n=84)



68 124

Nearlytwo‐thirdsofcompanieswithanHRsystemthatbringsmanagerstogetherinasystematicway

haveasystemforsuccessionplanning,whereasonly21%ofcompanieswithoutthisHRsystemhave

succession planning. No other company characteristics appear to have a significant impact on the

prevalenceofsuccessionplanning.

Another aspect of training policy is the presence ofmanagement development programs. The data

showthatsuchprogramsaremorewidespreadthansuccessionplanningprograms,withalmost70%

ofhome‐andforeign‐basedcompaniesindicatingthattheyhavesuchprogramsinplaceforsomeor

alloperations.

WithregardtotheHRsystem,thesamepatternis foundasforsuccessionplanning.Companiesthat

regularlybringmanagerstogetheraremorelikelytohaveamanagementdevelopmentprogramthan

companiesthatdonot.16ThispatternalsoappliesforcompanieswithaglobalHRpolicybody.Overall,

theseresults indicate thatcompanieswithasystematicHRapproach thatbringsmanagers together

acrossborders anda globalHRpolicybodyplacemoreemphasisondeveloping internal talent and

managers.

Figure6‐4:Managementdevelopmentprograms

Differenttechniquescanbeusedtodevelopmanagementpotential,asshowninFigure6‐5.


0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

Yes,inalloperations

Yes,insomeoperations

No

Does[companyname]inDenmarkhaveamanagementdevelopmentprogramspecificallyaimedatdeveloping

its"highpotentials"orpersonnelwithsenior‐managementpotential?

Managementdevelopmentprogram,Home‐based(n=29)

Managementdevelopmentprogram,Foreign‐based(n=87)



69 124

Figure6‐5:Managementdevelopmenttechniques

Overall,thedistributionissimilaracrossthevarioustechniques.“Formalglobalmanagementtraining”

and“assessmentofperformanceagainstasetofglobalmanagementcompetencies”arethetwomost

popular techniques, with almost 35% of MNCs using them quite extensively or very extensively.

“Short‐terminternationalassignments”aretheleastpopulartechnique,withover50%indicatinglittle

ornouse.Thisisfollowedby“long‐terminternationalassignments”,with49%indicatinglittleorno

useofthetechnique.

When testing fordifferences in companycharacteristics in relation to theuseof thesemanagement

development techniques, the variables are re‐coded to three groups: “strongly disagree” (1) +

“disagree” (2), “neither agree or disagree” (3), “”agree” (4) + “strongly agree” (5).We find several

tendencies:

“Short‐terminternationalassignments”aremorewidespreadinmanufacturingcompaniesand

incompanieswithanon‐standardizedproductapproach.

“Long‐term international assignments” are usedmore often in companies with a global HR

policybodyandanHRsystemthatbringsmanagerstogether.Furthermore,thistechniqueis

usedmoreincompanieswithanon‐standardizedproductapproach.

32% 31% 25%33%

19%

22%18%

16%11%

27%

22%27%

17% 12%

30%

13% 15%

20% 19%

14%

3% 5%14% 15%

3%

ShorttermInternationalassignments(12monthsor

less)

Longterminternationalassignments(morethan12

months)

Formalglobalmanagementtraining

Assessmentofperformanceagainstasetof

globalmanagementcompetencies

Qualificationsprogram(e.g.

MBA,professionalqualifications)

Howextensivelyareeachofthefollowingtechniquesusedforthedevelopmentofhighpotentialsin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark?

Usedveryextensively

Usedquiteextensively

Someuse

Alittleuse

Notusedatall

Base:Home‐ andforeign‐based(n=117‐118)



70 124

“Formal globalmanagement training” ismorewidespread amongmanufacturing companies,

companieswithglobalHRpoliciesandcompaniesthatsystematicallybringmanagerstogether.

“Assessment of performance against a set of global management competencies” is more

prevalent in companies with a global HR policy body and a systematic way of bringing

managers together. Furthermore, it is more common among companies with a non‐

standardizedproductapproach.

“Qualification programs” are usedmore in companies with a global HR policy body and in

companieswithanHRsystemthatbringsmanagerstogether.

In sum, two elements have a significant influence on the choice of technique used for developing

managers:aglobalHRpolicybodyandanHRsystemthatbringsmanagerstogetherinasystematic

way. If these are present, companies use the techniques more extensively. Furthermore, the

prevalence of some of the techniques is affected by the presence of a non‐standardized product

approachoractivitiesinmanufacturing.

Organizationallearning

In this section, we briefly examine the extent to which the organizations have policies on

organizationallearning,aswellasthetechniquesthatareusedtofacilitateorganizationallearning.A

learningorganizationcanbecharacterizedasonethatfacilitateslearningthroughouttheorganization,

and that transforms itself and its resources in order to remain competitive.Organizational learning

ensuresthatknowledgestaysintheorganizationevenwhenemployeesleavetheorganization,i.e.,the

knowledgeisnotdependentonindividuals.



71 124

Figure6‐6:Organizationallearning

About40%ofbothhome‐basedandforeign‐basedcompanieshaveaformalpolicyfororganizational

learning.58%offoreign‐basedMNCsand61%ofhome‐basedMNCshavenosuchpolicy(seeFigure6‐

6). This means that organizational learning is less common than other development techniques.

However,organizationallearningpoliciesmight,infact,belessexplicitorintegratedintootherparts

ofthetrainingsystem.Intermsofdifferencesincompanycharacteristics,wefindthatcompanieswith

integrated HR systems that bring managers together are more likely to have a formal policy for

organizational learning. The trend is similar for companies with a global HR policy, although this

findingisonlyclosetosignificant.

Another interestingaspect is the techniquescompaniesuse to facilitateorganizational learningwith

regardstomanagersinDenmark.Inthisregard,themostcommontechniqueistheimplementationof

internationalprojectgroupsortaskforces,whichareusedinabout80%ofcompanies.Thisisfollowed

by international informal networks,which are found in slightlymore than 60%of both home‐ and

foreign‐based companies. Expatriate assignments are used more extensively in home‐based

companies (about 70%) than in foreign‐based companies (45%). The least‐used technique is

international secondments17 to other organizations, which is used by approximately 15% of the

companies.

17Secondment:atemporarychangeofjobrolesforemployeeswithinthecompanyoratransfertoanotherorganizationforanagreedperiodoftime.

39%

61%

42%

58%

Yesinallorsomeoperations No

Thinkingof[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark,isthereaformalpolicyonorganizationallearning?




72 124

Overall,anumberoftechniquesareusedtofacilitateinternationalorganizationallearning.Intermsof

differencesbetweenMNCswithcertaincharacteristicsandtheprevalenceoforganizationallearning,

thefollowingresultscanbeaccentuated:

“Expatriate assignments” are used more in home‐based companies that have a non‐

standardized product approach and “Expatriate assignments” are also more common in

companieswithanHRsystemformanagers.

“Internationalprojectgroups”aremoreprevalentincompanieswithglobalHRpolicybodies

andHRsystemsformanagers.

InternationalformalcommitteesaremorecommonincompanieswithaglobalHRpolicybody

andasystematicapproachtobringingHRmanagerstogether.

International informal committees are not affected by company characteristics, as size and

sectordonotmakeadifference.

International secondments to other organizations more common among non‐US based

companies, and among companies with a global HR policy body and a systematic way of

bringingmanagerstogether.

Overall,thesepatternssupporttheotherresultspresentedinthischapter.CompanieswithaglobalHR

policybodyandHRsystemsthatbringmanagerstogethermakemoreuseof techniquesto facilitate

organizational learning.To complete thispictureof organizational learning, Figure6‐7 shows those

techniquesrespondentsconsideredtobemostimportantfororganizational learning.Almost60%of

companiesindicatethatinternationalprojectgroupsortaskforcesarethemostimportanttechnique.

Thisisfollowedbyexpatriateassignmentsandinternationalinformalnetworks.



73 124

Figure6‐7:Techniquesusedtofacilitateinternationalorganizationallearning

Summary

This chapter has examined MNC policies and practices with regards to employee training and

development.Wefindthat:

Investments in training are common in MNCs. Almost 50% of MNCs spend 1‐4% of their

annualemployeecompensationexpensesontraininganddevelopment.

Investments ofmore than 4% in training and development are only found in foreign‐based

MNCs.9%offoreign‐basedMNCsspendmorethan4%oftheirannualemployeecompensation

ontraininganddevelopment.

CompanieswithaglobalHRpolicybodyandasystematicwayofbringingmanagerstogether

haveasignificantlyhigherlevelofinvestmentintraininganddevelopment.Lessthan50%of

MNCshaveasystemforsuccessionplanningbutalmost70%haveamanagementdevelopment

program aimed at “high potentials”. In otherwords,more resources are invested in finding

managementpotentialthaninplanningforsuccession.

The most popular ways of developing high‐potential employees are through formal global

managementtrainingandtheassessmentofperformanceagainstasetofglobalmanagement

competencies,techniquesthatareusedquiteextensivelyorveryextensivelybyabout35%of

thecompanies.Overall, theuseof thesetechniques increaseswhentheMNChasaglobalHR

policybodyandasystematicapproachtoHR.

13%

57%

6%

15%

3%6%

WhichoftheseisthemostimportantinternationalorganisationallearningmechanismusedbyMANAGERSwithin[COMPANY NAME]in

Denmark?

Expatriateassignments

Internationalprojectgroupsortaskforces

Internationalformalcommittees

Internationalinformalnetworks

Secondmentstootherorganisationsinternationally

Don'tknow




74 124

Therefore, a clear tendency is that companies with a global HR body, a systematic HR policy of a

system for bringing managers together spend more resources on training and development, on

successionplanningandonfindinghighmanagement‐potentialemployees.

Anotheraspectoftraininganddevelopmentis“organizationallearning”,forwhichwefindthat:

About40%ofthecompanieshaveaformalpolicy.CompanieswithaglobalHRpolicybodyand

systematicHRapproacharemorelikelytohaveaformalpolicy.

International project groups and taskforces are the primary techniques used to facilitate

organizationallearning.Theseareusedbyabout80%ofMNCs.

Internationalinformalnetworksandexpatriateassignmentsarealsowidelyused.

Expatriate assignments are themostwidely used in home‐based companies and companies

with a non‐standardized product approach. International project groups and international

formalcommitteesaremoreprevalentincompanieswithaglobal,systematicapproachtoHR.

Overall,60%ofthecompaniesindicatethatinternationalprojectgroupsandtaskforcesarethe

mostimportanttechniquesusedtofacilitateorganizationallearning.

While international project groups, taskforces and short‐term international assignments are

concrete, hands‐on assignments might very well be part of an organizational learning process.

Therefore, amore qualitative question iswhether such techniques are seen as ad‐hoc solutions

that would have been undertaken regardless of the organization’s desire for organizational

learningorwhethertheyarepartofasystemdirectedtowardsorganizationallearning.

Overall, there is a clear indication that companies that systematically bring managers together

oftenhave a coherent strategy fordevelopingmanagement potential,maintaining thatpotential

andactivelysupportingorganizationallearning.

Even thoughmost MNCs have an HR function at headquarters, some corporations have no HR

policiesorHRmanagersintheirsubsidiaries.Theythereforebasicallydenythemselvesthetools

to keep and develop management talent within the organization. Two case studies serve to

illustrate some of the consequences of not having consistent management potential or

managementdevelopmentsystems(seeTextbox4).



75 124

Textbox4:HRasastrategyimplementerversusnoHRatall

NoHRfunction

NeitherHQnorsubsidiariesinthissmallMNChave

HRmanagers,oranykindofnationalorglobalHR

support. This is evident to the CEO of a small

subsidiary:

Wedon'thaveanHR‐function.Wearetoosmall.

SoalloftheresponsibilityfortheHRfunctionlies

eitherwithmeormyofficemanager.

Even employee performance appraisals are up to

each branch manager. The subsidiary CEOs

themselves only receive performance appraisals if

theytaketheinitiativethemselves:

My linemanager sits in Holland and, generally

speaking,we try to sit down and have a formal

conversationonceayear.At thatpoint, Ialways

say, “Youneed to formally,oras formallyasyou

can,appraisemyperformance.Istillneedtoknow

whichdirectionIshouldbegoingnextyear”.

HRhasarelativelylowpriorityinthecompanyand

secondment–movingfromonepartofthecompany

to another as part of further training or

developmentofmanagementskills‐isnotcommon:

ThereisanaspectinHRofgettingtheleadership

across the countries to think about how to

leveragethefactthatitisagroupstructureona

global scale.But currently [the company] hasn’t

really invested a lot of value in its people

dimensionofleveragingthatoutofthebusinesses.

For example, there is not a lot ofmovement of

peoplearoundthiscompany.Tomyknow,thishas

happenedjustonce.

Thecompanydoesnotgenerallytransferemployees

fromonesubsidiarytoanother.Allinitiativestodo

thingsdifferentlycomefromthesubsidiariesrather

thanfromHQ:

Whenwehadopenspacesinsales,thefirstthingI

didwastogotomylinemanagementandsay:“Is

there anyone who has English speaking

capabilities and foreign sales capabilities that

couldcometoourmarketandfillthisvacancy?”.I

didthisratherthangotothelocalmarketoutside

the company because, actually, across themuch

biggerbusiness, theremustbe somepeoplewith

goodsalesskillsthatcancomeinanddevelopthe

market ...andmayberelishthenewenvironment,

a younger company and a new country. That is

whatwedidandweneedtodomoreofthesame.

Afocusontalentdevelopment

ADanishsubsidiaryofaGermanMNCwaspartofa

mergerofsubsidiariesintheNordiccountriesover

15yearsago.Although theGermanMNChasmore

than 100,000 employees worldwide, the Danish

subsidiaryonlyaccountsforaround150employees.

Itis,therefore,relativelysmallinsize.Eachnational

branch has to find “high potentials” – employees

withmanagement potential who are to be sent to

HQ for management training. At HQ, the high

potentialsareassessed,butveryfewpass.Forlocal

management, this is a big responsibility, especially

giventhehighrejectionrate.

We are careful about putting candidates on the

list,especiallyiftheyhaveabigego.Ifyouhavea

good sales person and this person goes for the

assessment, is weighed against the other

candidatesand found tobe too “light”, then that

person might be broken.Why not keep a good

salespersonratherthansendhimorherabroad

to be broken?We send some employees, telling



76 124

them that the bar is reallyhigh atHQ and that

theymightnotmakeit.

Like many other MNCs, this corporation has an

organization‐wide HR policy. Even then, the

implementation of a new policy is challenging, as

eachcountryhasdifferentinstitutionalsetups:

HRwillalwaysbe local–evenwithin theNordic

context therearenuances.When youare onmy

level[HRimplementation],thenthereisafreecar

policy.Evenifyoutrytomakeapolicyonfreecar

use for the worldwide corporation, you will

quickly meet some barriers in the form of tax

legislationontheoperationallevel.(…)Thesame

istrueforwages.

Thatsaid, thesubsidiaryHRconsultantstill feels it

isimportanttohaveacommonoverallHRstrategy

–not least for thebrandingof the company to the

customers.

Summary

With no central or local HR functions, the first

companydenies itself thepossibilityof findingand

developing talent in the corporation. Initiatives to

hold performance appraisals must come from the

employees rather than the managers. Employees

generally stay at the local subsidiary and the

movementofemployeesaroundtheorganizationis

extremelyrareandhappensonlyontheinitiativeof

theemployeesthemselves.Therefore,thecompany

missesoutonanopportunityforknowledgesharing

and a possibility to develop talent within the

organization. Furthermore, there is a risk that

talented managers may choose to leave the

organization.There is littledoubt thatsizematters

here.Even though thecompanywasestablished in

1906,itnowemploysonly660peopleworldwide.

In contrast, the second company has more than

100,000 employees worldwide. Its HR policy is

highlyorganized,andeachsubsidiaryisresponsible

for finding management potentials and sending

them for further training. While local legislation

might demand some adaptation of the global HR

policy, subsidiaries’ HR managers feel the global

policy is crucial –not least for thebrandingof the

corporationanditsservices.


EmployeeInvolvementandCommunication

77 124

Chapter7: EmployeeInvolvementandCommunication

EmployeeinvolvementandcommunicationisakeyaspectofHR.MNCscanimplementdifferentforms

ofworkorganizationandtechniquesofdirectemployeeinvolvementintheirservicesorproduction,

and involvement can, in turn, become a competitive factor. Communication and information canbe

keystoemployeesatisfactionand,assuch,theycanmakeadifferenceforacompany’soutput,andthe

qualityofitsproductsorservices.

Thischapterbeginswithanexaminationofthetypesofemployee‐involvementpracticesusedbythe

MNCs in our sample, how they are affected by organizational characteristics andwhether they are

standardized across operations. Finally, this chapter reports on the internal communication

mechanisms thatareprimarilyusedby theMNCsand the typesof information thatareprovided to

employees.

Involvementmechanisms

Figure7‐1illustratestheprevalenceofthreedifferentinvolvementmechanisms.Thecompanieswere

asked: “Could you tell me whether you use the following practices in relation to the LOG in your

companyinDenmark?”

The data show that problem solving and continuous‐improvement groups are the employee‐

involvement techniques most commonly used by foreign‐based MNCs (76% of foreign‐based

companies;58%ofhome‐basedcompanies),andthatformallydesignatedteamsarethemostpopular

technique among home‐based MNCs (67% for foreign‐based companies; 71% for home‐based

companies).Teamworkorother involvement inunitsoperatingoutsideDenmark isusedby61%of

theforeign‐basedcompaniesandby60%ofthehome‐basedcompanies.Allmechanismsareusedby

more than half of the companies. Interestingly, appraisal mechanisms (Chapter 4), development

mechanisms(Chapter5)andinvolvementmechanismsareallusedtosimilarextents.



78 124

Figure7‐1:Employeeinvolvement

Whentestingtheprevalenceofthesetechniqueswithrespecttocompanycharacteristics,wefindthe

following:

Formallydesignated teams: US‐based companies tend to use formally designated teams less

oftenthanallothercompanies.However,thisresultisnotstatisticallysignificant.

A system for bringingmanagers together correlateswith use of the teamwork involvement

mechanism.18Teamworkorother involvementwithunits operating outsideDenmark is used

significantlymoreby companieswith cross‐nationalHR systems thanby companies thatdo

nothavesuchsystems.

Asamajorityofcompaniesuseinvolvementmechanisms,thenextquestioniswhetherthesesystems

are standardized across operations. Respondents were therefore asked about the degree to which

employee‐involvement practices are similar across the global organization. Almost 75% of the

companies state that their employee involvement practices are somewhat diverse or vary

substantially,while lessthan20%statethattheyhavebroadlysimilarorverysimilarpractices(see

Figure7‐2).


61% 68% 76%60% 71%

58%

Teamworkorotherinvolvementpracticesinoperatingcompanies

outsideDenmark

Formallydesignatedteams Problem‐solvingorcontinuousimprovementgroups

CouldyoutellmewhetheryouusethefollowingpracticesinrelationtotheLOGin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark?

Foreign‐based(n=88) Home‐based(n=30‐31)



79 124

Figure7‐2:PatternsofemployeeinvolvementI

In termsoforganizationaldifferencesand theprevalenceof employee involvementmechanisms,no

significant results are found. We conclude that employee involvement practices are diverse and

independentofourchosenorganizationalvariables.Forcomparison,Figure7‐3,whichdemonstrates

thepatternofemployeeinvolvementinDanishoperations,showsthatalthoughthemajorityofsites

have involvement systems, these systems differ from site to site. This indicates that involvement

systemsare,ingeneral,locallybased.

Figure7‐3:PatternsofemployeeinvolvementII

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Verysimilaracrossalloperations

Broadlysimilarbutwithsomevariations

Similartosomeextentbutwithsubstantial…

Fairlydiverse

Verydiverse

Don'tknow

Wouldyousaythatpracticesinrelationtoemployeeinvolvementintheworldwidecompanyare:


18%

51%

20%

11%

38%

46%

13%

4%

Anidenticalorsimilarpatternexistsacrossall

ormostsites

Allormostsiteshaveinvolvementsystems,buttheydifferfromsiteto

site

Somesiteshaveinvolvementsystemswhileothersdonot

Notapplicable(1siteonlyinDenmark)

Whichofthefollowingmostcloselycorrespondstothepatternofemployeeinvolvementin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark?

Foreign‐based(n=80) Home‐based(n=24)



80 124

Communicationmechanisms

Theextenttowhichanorganizationcommunicateswithitsemployees,andhowitdoesso,canhavea

significant impact on employee satisfaction and retention. Further, these practices often reflect an

MNC’soverallHRstrategy.

Inthisregard,respondentswereaskedtoindicatewhichcommunicationmechanismswereregularly

usedfortheLOGwithintheDanishoperations.Multipleanswerswereallowed.Figure7‐4illustrates

theprevalenceofeachtechniqueforbothhome‐basedandforeign‐basedcompanies.Theresultsshow

that,withtheexceptionofsuggestionschemes,allmechanismsareusedextensivelyby60%to90%of

thecompanies.Meetingsbetweenseniormanagersand linemanagersandmeetingsbetweensenior

managers and the entire workforce are used in almost every MNC, indicating that face‐to‐face

interaction iswidespread.Newsletters and emails, and company intranets are alsopopularwaysof

communicatingwiththeLOG.Overall,home‐basedcompaniesusethesemechanismsslightlyless,but

thepatternsofhome‐basedandforeign‐basedusagedonotdiffertoagreatextentandnostatistical

difference is foundbetween them.Attitudeoropinion surveysare an exception,with foreign‐based

MNCsbeingmorelikelytousethistechnique(althoughthisresultisonlyclosetosignificant).



81 124

Figure7‐4:Communicationmechanisms

Theeffectoforganizationalcharacteristicsdifferssomewhatbetweenthemechanisms:

Attitudeoropinion surveysareused significantly19more in companies thathavea globalHR

developingbodyandsystematizedmeetingsamongHRmanagers.

Companieswithastandardizedproductapproacharelesslikelytohaveacompanyintranet.

Thenextstepistomovefromtechniquestocontextintermsofthetypesofinformationprovidedto

employees.Therespondentswereaskedtostatewhichtypeofinformationwasregularlyprovidedto

theLOGabouttheworldwideMNCandtheDanishcompany.

Overall, employees are most often informed about the financial position of the company. 94% are

informed about this aspect of the Danish operations, while 83% are informed about the financial

positionoftheglobalcompany.Alittlelessthanhalfofthecompaniesinformtheiremployeesabout

investmentplansfortheDanishbranch,whileone‐thirdcommunicateaboutinvestmentsinrelationto


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Meetingsbetweensenior

managersandthewholeoftheworkforce

Meetingsbetweenlinemanagersorsupervisors

andemployees

Attitudeoropinionsurveys

Suggestionschemes

Systematicuseof

managementchaintocascade

information

Newslettersoremails

Acompanyintranetproviding

informationtoemployees

WhichofthefollowingcommunicationmechanismsareregularlyusedfortheLOGwithin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark?

Foreign‐based(n=83‐87)

Home‐based(n=25‐31)



82 124

theworldwidecompany.StaffinginDenmarkisanissuethatemployeesareinformedaboutinhalfof

the MNCs, while just one in four regularly inform their employees about staffing plans for the

worldwideoperation(seeFigure7‐5).

Figure7‐5:ProvisionofinformationtotheLOG

Various interesting tendencies (although only close to being statistically significant) are evident in

relationtothelinkbetweenorganizationalcharacteristicsandthecommunicationofdifferenttypesof

informationtoemployees:

Financial position of the company in Denmark: This type of information is most frequently

provided in manufacturing companies. All manufacturing companies in our data sample

regularlyprovideinformationabouttheirfinancialpositiontoemployees.

Investment plan for the company in Denmark: Manufacturing companies tend to inform

employees about investment plans, as do companies with a non‐standardized product

approach.

StaffingplansforthecompanyinDenmarkaremorecommonlycommunicatedinforeign‐based

companiesthaninhome‐basedcompanies.

Financial position of the worldwide company is more frequently communicated in

manufacturingcompanies.

Investmentplans for theworldwidecompany are communicated to the sameextent inhome‐

andforeign‐basedcompanies.

Staffing plans for theworldwide company are communicatedmore often in companies with

globalHRdevelopingbodiesandsystematicmeetingsofHRmanagers.

94%86%

46%35%

50%

28%

AboutDKcompany Aboutworldwidecompany

WhichofthefollowingtypesofinformationareregularlyprovidedtotheLOGwithin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark?

Financialpositionofthecompany Investmentplanforthecompany

StaffingplansforthecompanyBase:Home‐ andForeign‐based



83 124

Summary

This chapter has examined the employee involvement and communication techniques used by the

MNCs.Itshowsthat:

The most popular techniques for employee involvement among foreign‐owned MNCs are

problem‐solvinggroupsandcontinuousimprovementgroups,whileformallydesignedteams

aremostcommonamonghome‐basedMNCs.

Teamworkor other involvementpractices, and formallydesignated teamsareused inmore

than60%offoreign‐ownedMNCs.

Employeeinvolvementtechniquesareseldomstandardizedworldwideandmostcompaniesstatethat

their employee involvement practices are diverse or vary substantially. This indicates that MNCs

adjust their local communication strategies to a high degree. Alternatively, they may allow local

managerstodeterminethecommunicationstrategies.

Foreign‐basedMNCsemployproblem‐solvinggroupsandcontinuousimprovementgroupstoahigher

extentthanDanish‐basedMNCs.Althoughsuchgroupsmightbeexpectedtobemorewidespreadin

Danish‐basedcompanies,asgroup‐basedworkunitshavealongtraditioninDenmark,thisisnotthe

case. Furthermore, the fact that teamwork or other involvementwith operating companies outside

Denmarkareusedsignificantlymorebycompanieswithcross‐nationalHRsystemsthanbycompanies

that do not use such systems indicates that factors other than traditions related to a certainwork

designareatstake.Furtherresearchisneededinthisregard.

VariouscommunicationmechanismsareusedbythevastmajorityoftheMNCs:

The most common mechanisms used to communicate with the LOG are meetings between

managersandlinemanagers,employeenewsletters,emailsandintranetsites.

Communication mechanisms are used more often in companies with global HR developing

bodiesandsystematicmeetingsamongHRmanagers

Finally,thechapterexaminedthetypesofinformationregularlyprovidedtotheLOGabouttheDanish

andtheworldwideoperations.Wefindthat:

Themostcommontypeofinformationsharedwithemployeesrelatestothefinancialposition

ofthecompany,withinformationoninvestmentplansandstaffingplansinsecondandthird

place,respectively.

Manufacturing companies provide information to employeesmore often than companies in

otherindustries.



84 124

Intermsofthecontentofinformation,theresultsshowthatinformationaboutthefinancialpositionof

the company is very common. However, the survey was carried out in 2009 at the height of the

financial crisis. Accordingly both management and employees in any private enterprise could be

expected to have been attentive to the company’s economic development, which could explain the

prevalence of this type of information in our data set. At the same time, however, surprisingly few

companiesshareinformationonstaffingplans.Duringafinancialcrisis,itwouldgenerallybeexpected

thatstaffingplansandinformationonpossiblerestructuringswouldbeofgreatinteresttoemployees.

Whydomanufacturingcompaniesshareinformationoninvestmentplansandthefinancialpositionof

thecompanywithemployees toahigherdegree thanother companies?Onepossibleexplanation is

thatuniondensity ishigheramongblue‐collarworkers inmanufacturingcompanies.Unionstendto

ensurethattheawarenessofemployees’rightstobeinformedandconsultedishigh,whichmayput

pressureonmanagerstosharethisknowledge.

Theamountofinformationoncompanies’financialpositionsandstaffingplansmightbeexpectedto

behigherinDanish‐basedMNCsbecauseofDenmark’slongtraditionofwell‐functioning,cooperative

committees in which such information is typically shared. However, this is not the case. Instead,

foreign‐basedcompaniesseemtosharesuchinformationwithLOGstoagreaterextentthanDanish‐

basedcompanies.

Finally, it is important tonote that information isnot thesameasco‐determination,co‐influenceor

evenconsultation.Whileinformationisnormallyfoundatthebeginningofacontinuumthatextends

toconsultation,co‐influenceand,ultimately,co‐determination, information–andthesurveillanceof

whoisusingit–canalsobeusedbyHRtocontrolemployees(seeTextbox5).

Textbox5:Informationascontrol

One American‐based MNC regularly informs its

employeesaboutmanagementdecisionsandithasa

code of conduct on its intranet. However, this

intranet information system also functions as a

controlmechanism:

There isacodeofconduct– it isonthe intranet.

Wehavetoreaditonceayear.Bylookingatour

users’profile,managementcancheckwhetherwe

have read through it. If not, they send us a

reminder. (…)You can read the codeor you can

watch a video. Then you have to pass a test

afterwards.

HQcancheckuserprofiles,whichindicatewhich

employeesreadinformationontheintranetand

when.However,HQisbasicallynotinterestedin

subsidiaryinput:

A couple of years ago, the Swedish CEO tried to

introduce a new scale for all of the European

subsidiaries. He was almost fired because he

didn’tget itapprovedby theUSHQ.Youhaveto

be careful – you put your job on the line if you

don’tgetachangeapprovedintheUS.


EmployeeRepresentationandConsultation

85 124

Chapter8: EmployeeRepresentationandConsultation

Inthischapter,weseektoincreasetheunderstandingofemployeerepresentationandconsultationin

MNCs.Traditionally, thisareahasbeenhighlydependentonnationalsystemsof legislation,politics,

industrialrelations(IR)andcollectiveagreements,whichdifferwidelybetweencountries.

DenmarkhasalongtraditionofhighuniondensityandanIRsysteminwhichthesocialpartnersplay

a decisive role in regulating the labormarket through collective bargaining. The level of employee

representation and consultation involvement is stipulated in the Danish Cooperative Agreement

(Samarbejdsaftalen), which is supported by EU directives on consultation and European Works

Councils (EWC).One interestingquestion iswhether foreign‐ownedMNCs tend toadopt theDanish

perspective, especiallywhen they come fromadifferent systemof cooperation and consultation, or

whethertheytrytoimposetheirowntraditionsontheirDanishsubsidiaries.

Thischapterisseparatedintothreesections.Thefirstdescribesthecompanies’approachestounion

representation. The second discusses the nature of employee consultation in MNCs, and the final

sectioninvestigatesthepresenceandinfluenceofEuropeanWorksCouncils.

Employeerepresentation

Denmark is known for its high union density as well as the impact of unions on labor market

regulationsandonbusinessactivities.Forforeign‐basedMNCs,thismightposeachallenge.

Companies were asked: “How would you describe the policy of management towards union

recognitioninDenmark?”.Only5%oftheMNCssurveyedarenotinfavorofunionrecognition,with

therestbeingequallydistributedbetween“infavorof”and“neutraltowards”unionrecognition(see

Figure 8‐1). In terms of the link between organizational differences and company views on union

recognition, no significant results are found. It is surprising that nomajor differences can be seen

betweenhome‐basedandforeign‐basedcompaniesinthisregard,asitmightbeexpectedthathome‐

basedMNCs wouldbemoreusedtounionsand,hence,morelikelytohaveapositiveperceptionof

them.



86 124

Figure8‐1:Managementpolicytowardsunionrecognition

Figure8‐2:Approachesadoptedbytradeunionrepresentatives

The companies were also asked about the approach they felt that trade union representatives

generallyadopted.AsshowninFigure8‐2,53%ofmanagersfeelthetradeunionrepresentativeshave

acooperativeapproach,whileonly4%feeltheirapproachisadversarial.

Thisvariableisclearlyaffectedbycompanycharacteristics,withindustryandeconomytypehavinga

stronginfluence.Inparticular,wefindthat:

47%

5%

48%

Howwouldyoudescribethepolicyofmanagementtowardsunionrecognitionwithin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark?

Infavourofunionrecognition Notinfavourofunionrecognition

Neutraltowardsunionrecognition


53%

4%

27%

16%

Thinkingabouttradeunionsinthe[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark,whatapproachdothetradeunionrepresentativesgenerally

adopt?

Acooperativeapproach

Anadversarialapproach

Itdependsontheissue

Don'tKnow…




87 124

Marketeconomy:US‐ownedcompanies feel thatunionrepresentativesare lesscooperative

than Swedish‐owned companies (see Figure 8‐3). Swedish‐owned companies come from an

institutionalcontextthatissimilartotheDanishcontext,whereasUS‐ownedcompaniescome

fromadifferentinstitutionalcontext.

Sector: Trade union representatives are considered more cooperative by HR managers in

manufacturingcompaniesthanbyHRmanagersinothersectors.

Figure8‐3Approachtotradeunions

AnotherissueforanalysisisthetradeunionpoliciesfoundintheforeignoperationsofDanish‐based

MNCs.Figure8‐4showsthat17%ofthesecompanieshaveageneralpolicyofbargainingwithtrade

unions.Almostone‐thirdhavenopolicywhatsoever,andabouthalfofthecompaniesleavethepolicy

makingtosubsidiaries,whichareexpectedtoadapttolocalstandards.20Thisisaclearindicationthat

thisfield,inparticular,ishighlycontext‐sensitive,whichmakesitnecessaryforMNCstoprovidelocal

managerswithmorediscretion.

20Unfortunately,thesamplesizeforhome‐basedcompaniesistoosmalltoperformtestsonorganizationalcharacteristics.

26%

11%

37%

71%

0%

29%

Acooperativeapproach Anadversarialapproach Itdependsontheissue

Thinkingabouttradeunionsin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark,whatapproachdothetradeunion

representativesgenerallyadopt?

US‐basedcompanies(n=19) Swedish‐basedcompanies(n=14)



88 124

Figure8‐4:DanishMNCs’tradeunionpolicies

Overall, theabovehighlights the fact that tradeunionsarewidelyaccepted.Mostcompanieshavea

neutralorpositiveapproachtoworkingwithunions,andthereisahighdegreeoflocaladaptationto

the local industrial relations system. However, in which areas do the companies include union

representativesindecisionmaking?

Inanefforttoanswerthisquestion,theMNCswereaskedtodescribetheirpoliciesforvariousmatters

related to the LOG. With regard to the variables “work organization” and “sub‐contracting/

outsourcing”, management typically makes decisions on its own. However, 43% of the companies

involve unions or union representatives in the work organization, while 17% involve them when

decisionsaretobemadeonsub‐contractingandoutsourcing.Intermsofpaymentschemes,in‐work

traininganddirectemployee‐involvementschemes,aboutone‐thirdofthecompaniesmakedecisions

ontheirown,one‐thirdmakedecisionsjointlywithunionrepresentativesandone‐thirdconsultunion

representatives (see Figure 8‐5). In these areas, therefore, more than two‐thirds of the companies

involveemployeerepresentatives.

30%

47%

17%

6%

Intermsofthecompany'soperationsoutsideDenmark,whichofthefollowingstatementscomesclosesttocapturing

yourpolicytowardstradeunions?

Thereisnopolicy

Weexpectlocalmanagementtofollowthelocalpracticeintheindustryand/orlocality

Itisgeneralpolicytobargainwithtradeunions,eitherdirectlyorindirectlythroughanemployers'associationDon'tknow

Base:Home‐based (n=30)



89 124

Figure8‐5:Unioninvolvement

When testing for the organizational differences, only a few notable results appear.With regards to

“workorganization”,manufacturingcompaniesfrequentlymakedecisionsontheirownandlessoften

in jointcooperationwithunionrepresentatives.This is interesting,asmanufacturingcompaniesare

alsosignificantlymore“cooperative”intheirapproachandaretypicallymoreunionized.

Employeeconsultation

Aswith employee representation, employee consultation can provide an indication of the extent to

whichemployeesareinvolvedindecisionmaking.Figure8‐6showsthat82%ofthecompanieshold

meetings on regular basis with the purpose of consulting their employees. No organizational or

countrycharacteristicsaffectthisvariable.Companiesholdingsuchmeetingswerealsoaskedwhether

those meetings covered all employees or were limited to certain employee groups. Around 75%

answeredthatthemeetingscoveredallgroupsofemployees,althoughinsomecompanies,eachgroup

haddifferentarrangements.Onlyaround20%oftheMNCsstatedthatthemeetingscoveredonlysome

employeegroups.

58%

82%

30% 28% 31%27%

10%

35% 35% 35%

15%8%

35% 36% 34%

Workorganisation Sub‐contractingandoutsourcing

Variablepaymentsschemes

In‐worktraining/upgradingskills

Directemployeeinvolvementschemes

WhichbestdescribesthepolicytowardsworkingwithinrelatingtotheLOGs:

Managementdecidesonitsown

Managementconsultsunionrepresentative

Managementdecidesjointlywithunionrepresentatives

Base:Home‐ andForeign‐based(n=80‐86)



90 124

Figure8‐6:Employeeconsultation

21

Thecompanieswerethenaskedwhethertheyhadexperienceinworkingwithmandatoryemployee

consultationstructures.57%confirmedthattheyhadexperiencewithsuchstructures.Asurprisingly

highamountofthecompaniesanswered“don’tknow”,whichindicatesthattheaverageHRmanager

might not be fully aware of the concept (see Figure 8‐7). The data show that companieswith HR‐

developmentbodiesandsystematicwaysofbringingmanagerstogetherhavemoreexperiencewith

thesestructures.

21By“thislevel”itmeansthatforexampleDanishHQcallsinmeetingswithemployeerepresentativesfromalltheunitsinDenmark.

Yes82%

No18%

Areregularmeetingsheldbetweenmanagementandemployeerepresentativesatthislevelinthe[COMPANY

NAME]inDenmarkforthepurposeofinformationprovisionandconsultation?




91 124

Figure8‐7Experiencewithmandatoryemployeeconsultationstructures

As this area is somewhat affectedby local legislation, collective agreements or (EU‐)directives, the

companieswerealso askedabout their level of compliancewith legal requirements. In this respect,

54%ofthecompaniesexceedtheminimumlegalrequirements,while30%ofthecompaniesfocuson

minimumcompliance.9%havenopolicyonthisissue(seeFigure8‐8).

Figure8‐8:Policyonlocallegalrequirements

EuropeanWorksCouncil(EWC)

One of themost important regulations on employee consultation and involvement in Europe is the

European Works Council (EWC) requirement. As a part of the European Council Directive of

57%19%

24%

Doestheworldwidecompanyhaveexperienceinoperatingwithmandatoryemployee

consultationstructures?

Yes

No

Don'tknow


9%

30%

39%

15%

7%

Thereisnopolicy

Minimumcompliancewithlegalrequirementsonemployeeinformationandconsultation

Togosomewhatfurtherthanlegalrequirements

Togoconsiderablyfurtherthanlegalrequirements

Don'tknow

Whichofthefollowingstatementscomesclosesttocapturingtheglobalcompany'spolicyonconsultationandinvolvement?

Base: Home‐ andforeign‐based(n=67)



92 124

September22,1994,companiesofacertainsize thatareactivebeyondtheirnationalbordersmust

haveanEWC.22

ThecompanieswerethereforeaskedaboutthepresenceofanEWCorsimilarstructurethatcovered

their Danish operations, and whether the companies prompted any changes in employee

representationwithinthelastthreeyears.Thedatashowthatalmost40%ofthecompanieshavean

EWCorasimilarstructure,andslightlymorethan40%donot(seeFigure8‐9).Whenaskedwhether

the EU directive on Information and Consultation prompted any changes in arrangements for

employee representation in Denmark, slightly more than 10% of the respondents answered “yes”.

Again,thepercentageof“don’tknow”’answersishigh,whichindicatesthatthismightnotbeanarea

familiartoHRmanagers.

The results show that organizational characteristics have some impact on the prevalence of EWCs.

Foreign‐basedcompaniesaremorelikelytobecoveredbyanEWCorsimilarstructure.Thismightbe

explainedbythefactthatthesecompaniesaregenerallylargerintermsofthenumberofemployees

(see Chapter 3) and, as such, more likely to be covered by the EWC directive. There is also a

significantlyhigherpercentageof companiescoveredby theEWCamongcompanieswithglobalHR

policydevelopmentunitsandasystematicwayofbringingmanagerstogether.23

Figure8‐9:PresenceofEWCsorsimilarstructures

22Moreinformationonthecouncils,theirpurposeandrelevantprocedurescanbefoundat:http://eur‐lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31994L0045:EN:HTML.


38%

41%

21%

IsthereaEuropeanWorksCouncil(EWC)orsimilarEuropean‐levelstructurewhichcovers[COMPANY NAME]

inDenmark?

Yes

No

Don'tknow




93 124

Figure8‐10:ImpactofEUdirectiveoninformationandconsultation

58%ofrespondentsstatedthattheyreceivedlittleornoinformationabouttheactivityandmeetings

oftheEWC.ThissupportsthesuggestionthatHRmanagersmaynotbeveryfamiliarwiththeconcept

oftheEWC(seeFigure8‐11).

Figure8‐11:InformationConcerningEWCs

Summary

This chapter has outlined results and tendencies with regards to employee representation and

consultationinMNCsoperatinginDenmark.Unionsarerecognizedoracceptedbythevastmajorityof

these MNCs, which is not surprising given the high union density and the country’s tradition of

cooperation.Inaddition,wefindthat:

11%

52%

37%

Overthepastthreeyears,hastheEUDirectiveonInformationandConsultationpromptedanychangesinarrangementsforemployeeconsultationinDenmark?

Yes

No

Don'tknow


29%

13%58%

DoyoureceiveinformationabouttheactivityandmeetingsoftheEWC?

SystematicallyatthetimeofEWCmeetings

Periodically,onan"asnecessary"basis

LittleornoinformationabouttheEWCreceived




94 124

Only5%ofMNCsdonotfavorofunionrecognitionand53%adoptacooperativeapproach.

Approximately50%of theDanish‐basedcompanies leavedecisionson tradeunionrelations

outsideofDenmarkuptolocalmanagementandaboutone‐thirdhavenopolicy.Thisindicates

that cooperation with unions is a highly context‐sensitive area that local managers are

consideredbestsuitedtohandle.

Although 30% of companies meet only the minimum legal requirements for employee

information and consultation, 54% exceed the requirements. This indicates a rather deep

respectfortherules.

Thecompaniesconsultorjointlydecidewithunionrepresentativesonissuessuchasvariable

payment schemes, in‐work traininganddirect employee‐involvement schemes inmore than

two‐thirdsoftheMNCs.

The majority of the companies make their own decisions on work organization and sub‐

contractingwithoutconsultingunionrepresentatives.Inthisregard,employeerepresentatives

might be expected to bemore involved inwork organization, asmany aspects of collective

agreements deal affect work organization and as this issue directly affects employees. In

contrast, sub‐contracting affects employees only indirectly and could be considered a

management prerogative (though subcontracting could also have serious consequences for

companyemployees).

Withregardsto“workorganization”,manufacturingcompaniesdecidemoreontheirownthan

incooperationwithunionrepresentatives.Thisisinteresting,asmanufacturingcompaniesare

alsosignificantlymore“cooperative”intheirapproachtounionsandoftenaremoreunionized.

Foremployeeconsultation,thedatashowthatmorethan80%ofthecompaniesholdregular

meetingsbetweenmanagementandemployeerepresentativesforthepurposesofinformation

provisionandconsultation.In70%oftheMNCs,thesemeetingscoverallemployees,although

theremightbedifferentarrangementsforcertainemployeegroups.

With regards to European Works Councils and their impact on employee consultation in

Denmark, almost40%of the companieshaveanEWCor a similarEuropean‐level structure,

while 40% do not. The former figure is surprisingly low given that most companies in the

survey would be expected to meet the baseline criteria for being required to establish a

EuropeanWorksCouncil.24

24 In a European context, of the estimated 2,264 companies covered by the legislation, some 828 (34%) have EWCs inoperation, although the number of active EWCs is higher because some companies have set up more than one(http://www.etuc.org/a/125).IntheDanishcase,aboutone‐thirdofthecompaniescoveredbytheagreementhaveanEWC(639outof1865)(http://coindustri.inforce.dk/sw15703.asp).



95 124

OneinterestingresultisthatmanyHRmanagers(20%)donotknowwhethertheircompany

hasanEWC.Inaddition,almost60%receivelittleornoinformationabouttheactivitiesinthe

EWC.Thisindicatesthatemployeeconsultationontheinternationallevelisnotanimportant

issueforHRmanagers.

Part 3 Companyperformance


CompanyPerformance

97 124

Chapter9: CompanyPerformance

Thechapter is separated into three sections, eachcoveringanaspectofperformancemeasures.We

startwitha sectiononMNCs’overallperformance, thencontinuewithasectiononproduct/market

performance,and finishwithadiscussionofHRperformance. Itshouldbenotedthat thissection is

unique to the Danish part of the international survey and has the purpose of evaluating various

subjectiveperformanceindicatorsoftheMNC.

Note that all performance measures represent the subjective evaluations of the individual HR

managers.25Inaddition,wesharetheresultsofseveralstudiesoftheeffectofspecificHRMpractices

onobjectiveperformancemeasures,suchassalesperemployee(seeTextbox6).

Overallperformance

TheHRmanagerswereaskedtoevaluatetheirorganizations’performanceoverthepastthreeyears

relative to the performance of other companies in their sector. Figure 9‐1 clearly shows that HR

managersgenerallybelievetheircompanyperformsbetterthantheircompetitors,withbetween56%

and66%indicatingrelativelystrongperformance.Onlyalimitedpercentageoftherespondentsstate

thattheircompanyperformedpoorly.Giventhefactthatthesurveywascarriedoutattheheightof

theglobalfinancialcrisis,thisresultissurprisinglypositiveforallmeasuresofoverallperformance.

Figure9‐1:Overallfinancialperformance

25 In the questionnaire, all performance measures were measured using a five‐point scale ranging from “poor” to“outstanding”. For statistical purposes, these scores are merged into three groups: poor (1 and 2), average (3) andoutstanding(4and5).

25%

30%

33%

30%

56%

57%

62%

66%

ProfitGeneration

Turnover

Performancerelativetocompetitors

Overallperformance

SubjectivePerformanceEvaluationRelativetoCompetitors

Poor Average Outstanding

Base:Home‐ andforeign‐based(n=116‐117)


CompanyPerformance

98 124

Textbox6:HRMandOrganizationalPerformance

In a separate study entitled “HRM and

Organizational Performance – Testing the effect of

strategic moderators” (Henderson, 2011), the

relation between High Performance HR practices

andorganizationalperformanceisexaminedforour

data set (foreign‐basedMNCs). The study’s central

hypothesis is thatHRpracticeshavepositiveeffects

onorganizationalperformance (measured in terms

ofsalesperemployee).

Four HRM practices are used to examine the

hypothesis: performance‐based compensation,

training, internal communication, and competence

andperformanceappraisals.

The study finds that “performance‐based

compensation” is the largest contributor to MNC

productivity and that it has a positive effect on

organizationalperformance.Itiscloselyfollowedby

“training”,whichalsomakesapositivecontribution.

“Internal communication” and “competence and

performanceappraisal”,incontrast,arefoundtobe

negativeforMNCproductivity.

The study also examines the effect of strategic

moderators on the strength and direction of the

relationship between HRM and organizational

performance. In particular, the study investigates

whetherahighdegreeofintegrationmoderatesthe

relationship between HRM andMNC performance.

The empirical tests show that performance‐based

compensation is positively moderated by global

integration, so that investments in performance‐

based compensation have a stronger effect on

productivity if global integration is high. This

indicates that global integration is a significant

moderator of the relationship between HRM and

performance.

The overall conclusion of the study is that MNCs

wishing to maximize productivity (organizational

performance) should have a high degree of global

integration and focus their HRM investments on

performance‐basedcompensationandtraining.

Intermsofthelinkbetweenorganizationalcharacteristicsandperspectivesonfinancialperformance,

no trend is evidentwith respect to overall performance.However, for the individual components, a

numberofresultsshouldbenoted:

Turnover:Companiesthatsystematicallybringmanagerstogetheraremorelikelyto indicate

poorperformancethancompaniesthatdonothavesuchregularmeetingsamongmanagers.

Performance relative to competitors: The data show that home‐based companies are more

likelytoindicateoutstandingperformance(84%).Thecorrespondingfigureforforeign‐based

companies is far lower at 60%. This striking result might be a clear sign that companies

operatingintheirownmarketwillusuallyreportbetterperformancethanforeigncompanies.

Figure9‐2illustratesthisdifference.


CompanyPerformance

99 124

Figure9‐2PerformancerelativetocompetitorsI

Product/marketperformance

Theproduct/marketperformanceindicatorsincludefouritems:customer/clientsatisfaction,market

share, development of new products/services, and quality of products/services. Companies were

askedtoevaluatetheirorganizations’performanceoverthepastthreeyearsrelativetothatofother

companiesintheirsector.

First,we find a high proportion of positive evaluations,with “outstanding” accounting for between

63% and 82%of all responses (see Figure 9‐3). In particular, “quality of products/services” scores

high, with less than 1% of HR managers indicating poor performance. Second, “customer/client

satisfaction”scoreshigh,with71%ofHRmanagersindicatingoutstandingperformance.

0%

16%

84%

5%

35%

60%

Poor Average Outstanding

Howistheperformanceof[COMPANY NAME]inDenmarkrelativetocompetitors?

Home‐based(n=31)



CompanyPerformance

100 124

Figure9‐3:PerformancerelativetocompetitorsII

As with overall financial performance, company characteristics appear to have no general impact

acrossthemeasures.However,therearesomenotableresultsforindividualvariables:

Customer/clientsatisfaction:Thisvariableisaffectedbythepresenceofasystemforbringing

managerstogether,whichtendstoleadtoanevaluationof“average”performance.Companies

withoutsuchasystemtendtoevaluatetheirperformanceas“outstanding”.

Marketshare:ThismeasureisaffectedbyUSownership–US‐basedcompaniesindicatepoorer,

moreaverageperformancethannonUS‐basedcompanies.Again,HRmanagersinhome‐based

companies indicateoutstandingperformanceon thismeasure toamuchgreaterextent than

HRmanagersinforeign‐basedcompanies.

HRperformance

This finalsectionfocusesontheperceivedperformanceofHRrelativetothatofothercompanies in

thesamesector.Thesemeasurescover theabilitiesof theMNCstorecruitandretainemployees,as

wellastheirgeneralrelationswithemployees.Theresultsshowasimilarpatternacrossthedifferent

measures, with “outstanding” indicated in 61% to 69% of the cases. All measures show a low

frequencyof“poor”performance(seeFigure9‐4).

17%

29%

23%

26%

82%

64%

63%

71%

Qualityofproducts/services

Developmentofnewproducts/services

Marketshare

Customer/clientsatisfaction

Howwouldyoucompareyourcompany'sperformanceinDenmarkwiththatofyourcompetitorswithrespecttothefollowing(pastthreeyears)?

Poor

Average

Outstanding

Base: Home‐ andForeign‐based(n=115‐117)


CompanyPerformance

101 124

Figure9‐4:HRperformanceI

Therespondentswerealsoaskedtoassessthejobsatisfactionoftheiremployeesandtheirabilityto

retainessentialemployees(seeFigure9‐5).

Figure9‐5:HRPerformanceII

The evaluation of HR performance is affected by various company and institutional characteristics.

However,nopatterncoversallofthevariables.Ontheindividuallevel,HRmanagersinnon‐US‐based

companies tend to evaluate job satisfaction in their companies higher than managers in US‐based

companies.Inaddition,thepresenceofglobalHRpoliciesleadstoahigherscoreonthisdimension.

26%

32%

28%

26%

69%

61%

69%

69%

Abilitytorecruitessentialemployees

Abilitytoretainessentialemployees

Manager‐employeerelations

Generalemployeerelations

Subjectiveperformanceevaluationrelativetocompetitorsoverthepastthreeyears

Poor

Average

Outstanding

Base: Home‐ andForeign‐based (n=117)

29%

19%

65%

72%

JobsatisfactionofemployeesinDenmark(n=117)

Abilitytoretainessentialemployees(n=118)

SubjectiveevaluationofHRperformance

Poor

Average

Outstanding


CompanyPerformance

102 124

Summary

This chapter has summarized HR managers’ subjective evaluations of their companies’ financial

performanceintermsofoverallperformance,product/marketperformanceandHRperformance.The

majority of the HRmanagers report that they believe their companies outperform competitors on

most measures, with “outstanding performance” reported in the vast majority of cases.

Product/marketperformance is ratedhighest,HRperformance isratedsecondandoverall financial

performanceisratedthird.Acrossallvariables,poorperformanceisseldomindicated.

Companycharacteristicsappeartohavenoclearimpactontheperformancescores.However,HR

managersinthehome‐basedcompaniesinoursamplegenerallyreportbetterperformancethanHR

managersintheforeign‐basedcompanies,withHRmanagersinUS‐basedcompaniesreportingthe

lowestscores.Withregardsto“turnover”and“customer/clientsatisfaction”,companiesthathave

systemizedinteractionsofHRmanagersevaluatetheirperformancelower.Finally,HRperformanceis

positivelyaffectedbythepresenceofaglobalHR‐developmentbody.

Part4Conclusion

FutureResearch


ConcludingRemarksandSummary

104 124

Chapter10: ConcludingRemarksandSummary

The last nine chapters have reported themain results from the survey of employment practices of

MNCs in Denmark. In this chapter, the results are summed up and areas for future research are

discussed.

OriginsandcharacteristicsofMNCsinDenmark

ThemajorityofMNCsoperatinginDenmarkareheadquarteredinEuropeand47%oftheMNCsinthe

sampleinthissurveyoriginatefromtheScandinaviancountries.OfthecountriesoutsideEurope,US‐

basedcompaniesdominate(16%).The“restoftheworld”isonlyrepresentedby6%ofthecompanies

inourdataset.Inotherwords,anoverwhelmingmajorityofMNCsoperatinginDenmarkcomefrom

countrieswithsimilarculturalandbusinessenvironments.

In terms of size, foreign‐based companies employmore than 60,000 peopleworldwide on average.

DanishMNCsaresignificantlysmaller–withDanishMNCemployingonaveragebetween1,000and

4,999people.Ingeneral,theMNCsoperatinginDenmarkhavebeeninternationalformanyyears.In

fact,allhome‐basedcompanieshavebeeninternationalforatleastfouryears.

A relatively small number of companies adapt their most important products or services to the

nationalmarket(themajorityofcompaniesinoursampleadaptto“differentregionsoftheworld”or

“standardizeglobally”).Home‐basedMNCstendtofocusonasingleproduct,whileforeignMNCsare

relativelymorelikelytodiversify.Thisfindingcouldbeconnectedtotherelativelysmallsizeofhome‐

basedMNCs. In terms of strategic positioning, the results show that about 50%of the subsidiaries

have international responsibility for someproductsandservices,while24%believe that significant

R&DhasbeenundertakenintheDanishoperations.

Denmark–aknowledgeeconomy?

IndiscussionsofDenmark’splaceintheinternationalvaluechain,theemphasishastypicallybeenon

Denmark as a knowledge economy. However, 50% of the MNCs in Denmark are active in

manufacturing, which indicates that Danish companies are not necessarily at the top of the value

ladder.The limitsof thepresentsurveypreventus fromfurtherelaboratingonthis finding,butthis

result supplements qualitative studies showing that MNC takeovers in Denmark often result in a

restructuring(i.e.,downsizing)ofR&Dandsalesactivities,andthemaintenanceofactivitieshandled

by blue‐collar labor (Navrbjerg & Minbaeva, 2009). Further research is needed to explore why

manufacturingisacommoninvestmentareaforMNCsinDenmark.



105 124

ThestructureofHRpolicy–systematiconaworldwidebasisoradhoc?

The systemization ofHR policies amongMNCs varies. HRmanagerswere asked about the kinds of

coordination techniques their companies employed. About two‐thirds of the companies have an

internationalHRbodyandasystemforbringingmanagerstogether.Thesetechniquesaresomewhat

morecommonamongforeign‐basedMNCsthanamongDanish‐basedMNCs,andsizeisanimportant

explanatoryfactor.Themostcommonwayofbringingmanagerstogetheristhroughregularmeetings,

butinternationalconferences,taskforcesandvirtualgroupsarealsowidelyused(morethan50%of

thecompanies).Inaboutone‐thirdoftheforeign‐basedMNCs,aDanishrepresentativeispartofthe

internationalHRbody.

A decision to refrain frombringingHRmanagers together or introducing an internationalHRbody

couldmean that the companywill fail toexploit knowledge‐sharingpossibilities inHR.Subsidiaries

mighthave ideas about andpractices for tackling certainHRproblems, but these cannotbe spread

throughouttheorganizationifHRmanagersfromsubsidiariesdonotmeet.Casestudiesinthisreport

show that some subsidiary HR initiatives have been implemented in their respective worldwide

organizations,aphenomenonknownas”reversediffusion”.

ThecontentofHRpolicy:performanceappraisals

AppraisalandrewardssystemscanbeanimportantHRtool.Thesurveyshowsthatappraisalsystems

arewidespread:75%ofcompanieshaveappraisalsystemsformanagers,while68%haventhemfor

the LOG. Therefore, appraisal systems are used almost as often to motivate LOGs as to motivate

managers.

Overall,foreign‐basedcompaniesaremorelikelytohaveappraisalsystemsfortheLOGsthanDanish‐

based companies. The same is true for appraisal systems formanagers, although this finding is not

statistically significant. In terms of other company characteristics, the analyses show thatUS‐based

companies are more likely to have appraisal systems for both the LOG and managers than other

companies,asarecompaniesthatdevelopglobalHRpoliciesthroughaworldwidebodyandthosethat

systematicallybringHRmanagerstogether.

Morethan25%ofMNCsrelyonappraisalresultsasaformalbasisfordecisionsonredundancyand

redeployment.However,halfofthecompaniesusethemonlyasaninformalinputforsuchdecisions.

This indicates that these important decisions about work life are quite opaque to managers and

employees

Companiesuseawidearrayofcriteriatoassessmanagerialperformance,withthemostpopularbeing

individual output. Groupoutput, competences andbehavior in relation to corporate values are also



106 124

important. In terms of the characteristics of companies in relation to the various performance

assessment approaches, MNCs originating from Sweden have a significantly lower perceived

importanceofindividualquantitativeoutputtargetsandbehaviorinrelationtocorporatevalues.The

sametendencyisevidentforindividualqualitativeoutputtargets,althoughthisfindingisonlycloseto

significant.ThisisinterestinginaScandinaviancontext,asNordiccountries,especiallySweden,havea

longtraditionofself‐governingteamworkintheworkplace.Thesedataindicatethatthistraditionis

reflectedintheappraisalsystemsofSwedishMNCs.

Evaluation systems along the line of “360‐degree feedback” are used in about two‐thirds of the

companiesforbothmanagersandtheLOGs.Variablepayschemesformanagersareinplacein77%of

thecompanies,while60%usesuchschemesfortheLOG.

Employeeshareownership,profitsharingandshareoptionsarenotverypopularprograms(average

prevalence of 20% formanagers; lower for LOGs (around 10%)) However, companies with an HR

systemthatbringsmanagerstogetherandhome‐basedcompaniesemploythesekindsofincentivesto

ahigherdegree.

Subsidiarydiscretion–payandcountry‐of‐originmatters

Discretion isdefinedas theextent towhich thesubsidiaryhasautonomyoverdifferentareasofHR

policy. In general, the subsidiaries enjoy a high level of discretionwith regards to communication,

employee involvement and employee representation. In one area, however, foreign‐owned

subsidiariesshowabelow‐averagelevelofdiscretion:payandperformance.

Thefact thatdiscretion is lowerwithregardtopayandperformance isnotverysurprising.Pay isa

decisive factor in the relations between management and employees and, because it serves as an

importantmotivator and is also decisive for the profit of the enterprise, it is also a typical area of

conflict. This conflict can be addressed individually (through individual contracts) or collectively

(throughacollectiveagreement),andthetypicalnationalsetupdependsoninstitutionaltraditions.

Ingeneral,countryoforiginmattersfordiscretion.Thedataindicatethatcompaniesoriginatinginthe

USgenerallygrant lessdiscretionto theirsubsidiarieswhencomparedto thepopulation ingeneral.

SubsidiarieswithaSwedishHQenjoyanabove‐averagelevelofdiscretion.

Traininganddevelopment–morepopularinforeign‐basedMNCs

Training expenditure can reflect how companies prioritize investments in human resources and,

indirectly,whethertheyseeinvestmentintheiremployeesascentraltotheaccomplishmentoftheir

goals.



107 124

Investments in training are common in MNCs. Almost 50% spend 1‐4% of their annual employee

compensation expenses on training and development. However, more foreign‐based MNCs spend

morethan4%ontraining–9%offoreign‐basedMNCsspendmorethan4%oftheirannualpaybillon

traininganddevelopment,whilethecorrespondingfigureforDanish‐basedsubsidiariesis0%.

Intermsofcompanycharacteristics,theanalysisshowsthatcompanieswithaglobalHRpolicybody

andasystematicwayofbringingmanagerstogethermakesignificantlymoreinvestmentsintraining

anddevelopment.ThisisagainanindicationthatasystematicHRpolicyinoneareaaffectspoliciesin

otherareas.

Successionplanningisaprocessusedtoidentifyanddevelopmanagementtalentintheorganization

toeventuallysucceedthecurrentmanagement.Thedatashowthatfor43%ofhome‐basedcompanies

have succession planning in place in all or some of their operations. More than 50% have no

successionplanningatall.Forforeign‐basedcompanies,thislatterfigureisslightlylower(49%),while

theamountofforeign‐basedcompanieswithaformalsuccessionplanningsystemisahigher(50%).

The development of talent within an organization can be worthwhile, as the transaction costs

associatedwithbuyingmanagementskillscanbeveryhigh.WhilearelativelyhighnumberofMNCs

do not have a succession plan, they are generally aware of management talent. Almost 70% of

companieshaveamanagementdevelopmentprogramaimedathigh‐potentialemployees.Thesedata

indicatethatmoreresourcesare invested in findingmanagementpotential than inmakingplans for

succession.

Themostpopularwayofdevelopinghigh‐potentialemployeesisthroughformalglobalmanagement

trainingandassessmentsofperformancerelativetoasetofglobalmanagementcompetencies.These

techniquesareusedquiteextensivelyorveryextensivelybyabout35%ofthecompanies.Overall,the

useofthesetechniquesincreaseswhentheMNChasaglobalHRpolicybodyorasystematicapproach

toHR.

Anotheraspectoftraininganddevelopmentis“organizational learning”.Alearningorganizationcan

becharacterizedasonethatfacilitateslearningaswellastransformsitselfanditsresourceswiththe

purpose of remaining competitive. Organizational learning ensures that knowledge stays in the

organization even if employees leave the organization, i.e., the knowledge is not dependent on

individuals. The survey shows that approximately 40% of the companies have a formal policy on

organizationallearning.Again,companieswithaglobalHRpolicybodyandasystematicapproachto

HRaremorelikelytohaveaformalpolicy.



108 124

Internationalprojectgroupsor taskforcesare theprimarymethodsused to facilitateorganizational

learning.Theyareusedinabout80%ofcompanies.Inaddition,internationalinformalnetworksand

expatriate assignments are widely used. Expatriate assignments are most common in home‐based

companies and in companies with a non‐standardized product approach. Overall, 60% of the

companiessurveyedindicatethatinternationalprojectgroupsandtaskforcesarethemostimportant

techniquesused to facilitateorganizational learning.Hands‐onassignmentsmightalsobepartofan

organizationallearningprocess.Amorequalitativequestion,therefore,iswhethersuchtechniquesare

seenasnecessaryad‐hocsolutionsandthatalsomightleadtoorganizationallearning,orwhetherthey

arepartofasystematiclearningsystemdirectedatorganizationallearning.

Overall, there is a clear indication that companies that bring managers together often also have a

coherentstrategyforthedevelopmentofmanagerialpotential,formaintainingthatpotentialandfor

activelyworkingonorganizationallearning.Likewise,companieswithaglobalHRbody,asystematic

HRpolicyora system forbringingmanagers together typicallyusemore resourceson trainingand

development,onsuccessionplanning,andonfindinghigh‐potentialemployees.

Employeeinvolvement–adaptedtolocalcircumstances

EmployeeinvolvementandcommunicationarekeyaspectsofHR.MNCscanimplementdifferentwork

organizations and techniques of direct employee involvement in their services or production, and

employee involvement can serve as a competitive factor in terms of product or service quality.

Communication and information can be important in terms of employee satisfaction and, as such,

mightaffecttheoutputofacompany,andthequalityofitsproductsorservices.

Employee involvement techniquesare seldomstandardizedworldwide–most companies state that

theiremployeeinvolvementpracticesarediverseorvarysubstantially.ThisindicatesthatMNCstend

to adjust their communication strategies locally and/or let local managers determine the

communication strategies. This alsohighlights thenecessity of adjusting the involvementpolicies to

local circumstances, in that MNCs recognize that the same policy may not be relevant for all

subsidiaries.

The most popular technique for employee involvement among the foreign‐owned MNCs is the

establishment of problem‐solving groups and continuous improvement groups. Formal teams are

mostcommonamongthehome‐basedMNCs.However,teamworkorotherinvolvementpracticesand

formallydesignatedteamsareusedinmorethan60%oftheforeign‐ownedMNCs.

Interestingly, foreign‐based MNCs employ problem solving groups and continuous improvement

groups to a higher extent than Danish‐based MNCs. One might expect such groups to be more



109 124

widespread in Danish based companies, as this type of work organization has a long tradition in

Denmark,butthisisnotthecase.Thefactthatteamworkorotherinvolvementpracticesinoperating

companies outsideDenmark areused significantlymoreby companieswith such cross‐nationalHR

systemsthanbycompaniesthatdonotusesuchsystemindicatesthatotherfactorsthantraditionsfor

acertainworkdesignareatstake.Furtherresearchintothisresultisthereforeneeded.

Various communicationmechanisms are used by the vastmajority of MNCs.When communicating

with LOGs, the most common mechanisms are meetings between managers and line managers,

employee newsletters or emails, and intranet. The communication mechanisms are generally used

more in companies with global HR‐development bodies and those in which HR managers meet

regularly.

The analysis shows that the most common type of information given to an LOG relates to the

company’sfinancialposition,whileinformationoninvestmentplansandstaffingplansareinsecond

andthirdplace,respectively.However,weshouldbearinmindthatthesurveywascarriedoutin2009

at the height of the financial crisis. Accordingly, both management and employees in any private

enterprise could be expected to have been attentive to the economic development of the company,

whichmightexplainthisstudy’sfindingrelatedtothedistributionofinformation.However,itismore

surprising that thererelatively fewcompaniesshare informationonstaffingplans. In themidstofa

financial crisis, onemight expect information on staffing plans and possible restructurings to be of

greatinteresttoemployees.

ThelevelofinformationonfinancesandstaffingplansmightbeexpectedtobehigherinDanish‐based

companies because the country has a long‐standing tradition of well‐functioning cooperative

committees inwhichsuch information is typicallyshared.However, this isnot thecase,as foreign‐

based companies seem to share such informationwith LOGs to a greater extent thanDanish‐based

companies.

Employeerepresentationandconsultation–aninstitutionallysensitiveissue

Employee representation and consultation is traditionally an area highly dependent on national

systemsoflegislation,politics,industrialrelations(IR)andcollectiveagreements,whichdifferwidely

betweencountries.DenmarkhasalongtraditionofhighuniondensityandanIRsysteminwhichthe

socialpartnersplayadecisiverole inregulatingthelabormarketthroughcollectivebargaining.The

levelofemployeerepresentationandconsultationinvolvementisstipulatedintheDanishCooperative

Agreement(Samarbejdsaftalen),andthisisfurthersupportedbyEU‐directivesonconsultationandon

EuropeanWorksCouncils(EWCs).



110 124

One interesting aspect is whether foreign‐ownedMNCs are likely to adopt the Danish perspective,

especiallywhentheycomefromadifferentsystemforcooperationandconsultation,orwhetherthey

trytoimposetheirowntraditionsonthesubsidiary.Theanalysisshowsthatunionsarerecognizedor

acceptedby thevastmajorityofMNCsoperating inDenmark.Only5%ofMNCsarenot in favorof

unionrecognition.53%adoptacooperativeapproach.

In terms of policies for trade unions outside of Denmark, about half of the companies leave the

decisionuptolocalmanagementandaboutone‐thirdhavenopolicy.Thisindicatesthatcooperation

withunionsisahighlycontext‐sensitiveareathatlocalmanagersareconsideredbestsuitedtohandle.

30%ofMNCsadheretotheminimumlegalrequirementsonemployeeinformationandconsultation,

while 54%of theMNCs go “somewhat” or “considerably” further than the legal requirements. This

mightindicatearatherdeeprespectbyMNCsinDenmarkforlaborrelatedlegislationsandrules.

On issues such as variable payment schemes, in‐work training and direct employee involvement

schemes,companiesconsultordecide jointlywithunionrepresentatives inmorethantwo‐thirdsof

thetime.However,withregardstoworkorganizationandsub‐contracting,themajorityofcompanies

make decisions without consulting union representatives. For work organization, employee

representativesmightbeexpectedtobemoreinvolved,asmanyissuesincollectiveagreementsdeal

with work organization and as this issue directly affects employees. Sub‐contracting, in contrast,

affects employees only indirectly and could be viewed as a management prerogative (although

subcontractingcanhaveseriousconsequencesfortheemploymentatthecompany).

The results also show that more than 80% of the companies hold regular meetings between

managementandemployeerepresentativesforthepurposeofinformationprovisionandconsultation.

In70%ofMNCs,thesemeetingscoverallemployees,althoughtheremaybedifferentarrangements

fordifferentgroups.

WithregardstoEuropeanWorksCouncilsandtheirimpactonemployeeconsultationinDenmark,the

resultsshowthatalmost40%of thecompanieshaveanEWCorasimilarEuropean‐levelstructure,

while40%donot.The former figure issurprisingly low,asmostcompanies in thesurveywouldbe

expectedtomeetthelegalcriteriaunderwhichaEuropeanWorksCouncilisrequired.26

26 Of the estimated 2,264 companies covered by the legislation, some 828 (34%) have EWCs in operation, although thenumberofactiveEWCsishigherbecausesomecompanieshavemorethanone(http://www.etuc.org/a/125).



111 124

Interestingly, 20% of HR managers do not know if their enterprise has an EWC, and almost 60%

receivedlittleornoinformationabouttheEWCs’activities.Thisindicatesthatemployeeconsultation

onaninternationallevelisnotanimportantissueforHRmanagers.

Companyperformance–highself‐evaluations

The survey asked HR managers about their subjective evaluations of the company’s financial

performance. Questions were asked on the overall performance of the company, product/market

performanceandHRperformance.

Themajorityof theHRmanagers report that their companiesperformverywell,with “outstanding

performance” reported in the vast majority of cases (84% of home‐based managers and 60% of

foreign‐basedmanagers). Product/market performance is ranked highest,whileHR performance is

second and overall financial performance is third. Across the variables, poor performance is only

indicatedinveryfewcases.

HRmanagersinthehome‐basedcompaniesinoursamplegenerallyreportbetterperformancethan

theHRmanagersintheforeign‐basedcompanies,withHRmanagersinUS‐basedcompaniesreporting

thelowestscore.Withregardstotheperformancemeasuresof“turnover”and“customer/client

satisfaction”,thepresenceofasystematicwayofbringingHRmanagerstogetherleadstoalower

evaluationofperformance.Finally,HRperformanceispositivelyaffectedbytheexistenceofaglobal

HRdevelopmentbody.

Theinstitutionalcontext–decisiveforHRpolicies

ManagersofMNCswillencounterdifferentbusinesssystemsastheyinvestinorestablishsubsidiaries

indifferentcountries.WhileabroadrangeofHRpoliciescanbecontrolledwithintheMNCandwhile

manyof those issuesareconsideredpartofmanagement’sprerogative, thecountry’sorganizational

contextis,forthemostpart,beyondtheMNC’scontrol.

“Organizationalcontext”referstothelocalconditionsunderwhichtheMNCoperates,includinglabor

market relations, the labor market legislation, the collective bargaining system, and level of

cooperationbetweenmanagementandemployees.Theseinstitutionalsettingsformaframeworkfor

theHRpolicythatanMNCcanimplementinasubsidiary.Throughoutthisreport,severalreferences

havebeenmadetotheinstitutionalcontextoftheMNCsoperatinginDenmark.Inthenextchapterwe

offersomefutureresearchperspectivesinthisarea.


FutureResearch

112 124

Chapter11: FutureResearch

CMEsandLMEsinDenmark

Animportant–andwidelydiscussed–approachtotheanalysisoftheinfluenceofinstitutionalcontext

onthecoordinationoftheeconomyistheVarietiesofCapitalism(VoC)approach(seeTextbox7).The

critiqueoftheVoCconceptisoverwhelming,asisthediscussionofwhichcountriesareLMEsorCMEs.

Itisbeyondthescopeofthisreporttogointothisdiscussion.However,inthischapterweindicatethe

possibilitiesforfurtherresearchinthisarea.Incategorizingcountry‐of‐originsinoursample,weuse

Hall and Gingerich (2004). However, we also create a group of “cross‐over” countries in order to

derive“cleaner”archetypaldatatowithwhichtowork.

Withinthesample,wefindamixofforeign‐basedMNCsoriginatedfromLMEsandCMEs.Asdiscussed

inChapter2,theCMEsdominate.Assuch,ourfirstconclusionisthatthemajorityofMNCsoperating

inDenmarkcomefrombusinesssystemssimilartoDanishone.Thisalsomeansthatthepossibilityof

workingin“turbulentareas”betweenMNCs’HRunitsandlocalsubsidiaryHRunitsislimited.Tobe

moreprecise,wewouldonlyexpectsomekindof“turbulence”in30ofthecasesstudiedhere.

Table2:MNCsoperatinginDenmark–accordingtomarketsystems

CoordinatedMarketEconomies(CMEs) Finland(227),Norway(6),Sweden(15),France(5),Germany

(12),Belgium(1),Switzerland(8),Netherlands(2),Japan(2)

LiberalMarketEconomies(LMEs) US(19),India(1), Australia(1),SouthAfrica(1),Israel(1),UK

(7)

Cross‐overEconomies Spain(1),Italy(1),Iceland(2)

Following the arguments of the VoC approach, we should experience some kind of differences in

employmentpracticesbetweenforeignfirmsoperatinginDenmark,depepdingontheirorigin(LMEs

vs.CMEs).Basically,weexpected:

1) MNCsoriginatingfromLMEswillhavea“harder”HRpolicywithloweremployeeinvolvement,

moreindividualizedmanagement‐employeerelationsandalowerlevelofunionrecognition.

2) WheninvestinginsubsidiariesinCMEslikeDenmark,MNCsoriginatingfromLMEswilladhere

to the labor market system in the host country and, as such, there will be no difference

betweentheHRpoliciesinLME‐basedcompaniesandCME‐basedcompanies.

27Numbersinparenthesesindicatethenumberofcompaniesoriginatingfromthecountry.


FutureResearch

113 124

Textbox7:CMEversusLME

According to the Varieties of Capitalism (VoC)

approach,whichwasintroducedbyHallandSoskise

(2001), the methods firms use to resolve the

coordination problems they face vary across

economic contexts. In liberal market economies

(LMEs), firms solve coordination problems via

“hierarchies ad competitivemarket arrangements”

(Hall and Soskice, 2001: 8). In coordinatedmarket

economies (CMEs), firms depend more on non‐

marketrelationships.

Given these two approaches, what happens when

enterprises from one market system invest in

subsidiaries in another market system? In other

words, what happens if an MNC from an LME

wishestooperateinaCMEorviceversa?Whenan

MNCoriginating fromanLME(e.g., theUK)moves

intoanLMEinstitutionalenvironment(e.g.,theUS),

the situation entails relatively limitedpotential for

conflict. In both countries, theMNCoperates in an

environmentwhere there is a limited tradition for

listeningtoemployeesasacollectiveandemployee

expectations are typically adjusted to this fact.

Hence, clashes are few and limited. The same

applies when an MNC from a CME (e.g., Norway)

comes into contactwith another CME institutional

structure (e.g., Denmark). Actors in northern

Europe expect a relatively high level of employee

empowerment and employment practices often

offer what the employees demand, e.g., a work

design that emphasizes the importance of the

employee.Inbothcases,thedegreeofconvergence

in terms of a common understanding of

management‐employee relations is high and

conflictsarelimited(Hyman,2004).

Table3:WhenLMEsmeetCMEs

Operatingin

LMEsOperatingin

CMEs

OriginatingfromLMEs

NoconflictTurbulence

area

OriginatingfromCMEs

Turbulencearea Noconflict

Thesituationcanbequitedifferent,however,when

an MNC originating from an LME encounters, for

example,anorthernEuropeanIRsystems(atypical

example of a CME), or when an MNC originating

fromaCMEmove intoanLME. In the formercase,

“hard”HRMpolicies(typicalforLMEfirms)tendto

meets an IR system with a tradition of employee

involvement and high union penetration

(Kristensen and Zeitlin, 2005). This creates a

potential for conflict, as described by several

authors analyzing American MNCs operating in

Ireland (see, e.g., Edwards and Ferner, 2002;

Collings et al., 2005; Gunnigle et al., 2005). Less

analyzed are cases where an MNC from a CME

comes into contact with an LME institutional

structure, as would be the case when a northern

EuropeanMNCestablishesanAmericansubsidiary.

This situation does not necessarily lead to conflict

or turbulence, at least not between management

and employees. However, turbulence might arise

between the management of the parent company

and the management of the subsidiary, as the

parent company might enforce “soft” HRM in a

“hard”IRsystem.Theformeris likelytobeanHR‐

approachthat localmanagement isunfamiliarwith

and might even feel is “wrong”.


FutureResearch

114 124

Usingourdata,wehavetestedthesetwohypothesesandcomparedthefirmsinoursamplealonga

numberofvariousdimensions,rangingfromemployeeinvolvementtoemployeerepresentationand

discretion.Overall, althoughwe findanumberofdifferences inour testsof thesehypotheses,none

werestatisticallysignificant.28Thisisaninterestingfindinginlightofboththeoryandrecentworkin

thearea.Belowwewillelaborateonourfindingsunderthreesub‐headings:communication,employee

representationandcountry‐of‐origin.

Communication

MNCs operating from CMEs would traditionally take all stakeholders into account when making

decisions.Hence,ahigherlevelofinformationontheenterpriselevelwouldbeexpectedincompanies

fromCMEsthaninthosecomingfromLMEs.However,theresultsshowthatthereisnodifferencein

theuseofvarious information‐sharing techniques, suchasmeetingswith theentireworkforce.This

means that the proportion of managers that hold meetings with the entire workforce as a

communicationmechanismincompaniesoriginatingfromCMEcountriesisnotsignificantlydifferent

fromtheproportionofcompaniesoriginatingfromLMEcountries.

Figure11‐1:Communication:MeetingsbetweenManagementandtheWorkforce–LME/CME

For other communications techniques, like meetings between line managers or supervisors and

employees;attitudeandopinionsurveys;suggestionschemes;andsystematicuseofmanagementchains


81%

19%

83%

17%

Yes No

WhichofthefollowingcommunicationmechanismsareregularlyusedfortheLOGwithin[companyname]in

Denmark?Meetingsbetweenseniormanagersandtheentiretyofthe

workforce

TotalCME TotalLME



FutureResearch

115 124

to cascade information, the same pattern emerges. There is no significant difference between

companiesoriginatingfromLMEsandCMEs.

In terms of information on more sensitive issues, like the financial position of the company,

investmentplansandstaffingplans,Figures10‐2and10‐3showsimilarresults.

Figure11‐2:TypesofinformationtoLOGsinDK–LME/CME

Figure11‐3:TypesofinformationtoLOGsintheglobalcompany–LME/CME

The expectation that foreign‐based MNCs originated from CMEs share information in general with

employeestoahigherdegreeisnotsupportedbythesedata.

Yes No Yes No Yes No

Financial position of thecompany

Investment plan for thecompany

Staffing plans for thecompany

CME (n = 51‐54) 94% 6% 51% 49% 58% 42%

LME (n = 30) 90% 10% 37% 63% 47% 53%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

WhichofthefollowingtypesofinformationareregularlyprovidedtotheLOGwithin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark?

Yes No Yes No Yes No

Financial position of thecompany

Investment plan for thecompany

Staffing plans for thecompany

CME (n = 46‐50) 88% 12% 41% 59% 36% 64%

LME (n = 30) 77% 23% 23% 77% 17% 83%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

WhichofthefollowingtypesofinformationareregularlyprovidedtotheLOGwithin[COMPANY NAME]intheglobalcompany?


FutureResearch

116 124

EmployeeRepresentation

Anevenmoresensitiveissueisemployeerepresentation.Uniondensityandthestrengthofunionsare

oftenconsiderablyhigherinCMEsthaninLMEs.Hence,theexpectationisthatcompaniesoriginating

fromCMEswillbemorelikelytoinvolveunionrepresentativesthancompaniesfromLMEs.Themost

decisivequestionhereisunionrecognition.WhileFigure10‐4showsdifferencesbetweenCMEsand

LMEs,therearetoofewobservationsinourdatasettorunastatisticaltest.

Figure11‐4:Tradeunionrecognition–LME/CME

WithregardtowhetherMNCsinvolveunionsondifferentmattersormakedecisionsontheirown,we

see very little differences between companies from LMEs and CMEs.Due to too few observations,

answersfrom1+2(managementdecidesonitsown)and3+4+5(managementconsultsordecidesjointly

with union representatives) aremerged. As shown in the figures below, though the results are not

statisticalsignificant.

24%

48%

13%

13%

2%

19%

30%

15%

15%

22%

NositesintheDanishoperations

AllsitesintheDanishoperations

MostsitesintheDanishoperations

SomesitesintheDanishoperations

Thecompany'ssingleDanishsite

ThinkingoftheLOGin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark,aretradeunionsrecognised forthepurposesofcollective

employeerepresentationat?

LME CME



FutureResearch

117 124

Figure11‐5:Unilateralorbi‐lateralmanagementdecisions–LME/CME(workorganization)

Figure11‐6:Unilateralorbi‐lateralmanagementdecisions–LME/CME(Sub‐contractingandoutsourcing)

59%

41%

63%

37%

Managementdecidesonitsown Managementconsultsordecidesjointlywithunionrepresentatives

WhichbestdescribesthepolicytowardsworkingwithunionsonthefollowingmattersrelatingtotheLOG:

workorganization

CME(n=39) LME(n=19)

85%

15%

74%

26%



Sub‐contractingandoutsourcing

CME(n=39) LME(n=19)


FutureResearch

118 124

Figure11‐7:Unilateralorbi‐lateralmanagementdecisions–LME/CME(variablepayschemes)

Figure11‐8:Unilateralorbi‐lateralmanagementdecisions–LME/CME(in‐worktraining/upgradingskills)

41%

59%

16%

84%



Variablepaymentschemes

CME(n=39) LME(n=19)

30%

70%

25%

75%



In‐worktraining/upgradingskills

CME LME


FutureResearch

119 124

Figure11‐9:Unilateralorbi‐lateralmanagementdecisions–LME/CME(directemployeeinvolvementschemes)

Althoughnoneoftheresultsarestatisticallysignificant,someoftheresultspointindirectionsthatare

contrarytoexpectations.Forexample,itmightbeexpectedthatvariablepayschemeswouldbemore

unilaterally used in MNCs originating from LMEs. However, the data indicate the opposite: while

management decides on its own in 41%of the CME companies, it does so in only 16%of the LME

companies. Furthermore, 84% of the LME‐based companies consult or decide jointly with union

representatives.

Countryoforigin–norelevanceinaDanishcontext?

Overall, we might conclude that there are no statistically significant differences between MNCs

originating from LMEs and CMEs with regards to their levels and kinds of employee involvement,

communicationandunionrecognition.This isa strong indication thatMNCsadjust theiroverallHR

policiestothelocalDanishconditionstoaveryhighdegreeandthattheDanishbusinessmodelseems

tobeabletoforceMNCstoadheretothegeneralrulesofthegameontheDanishlabormarket.Thisis

alsoconfirmedbythefactthat58%ofthecompanieshaveapolicytogoconsiderablyorsomewhat

furtherthanthelegalrequirementsofthehostcountry.

38%

62%

37%

63%


Whichbestdescribesthepolicytowardsworkingwithunionsonthefollowingmattersrelatingtothe[LOG

NAME]:Directemployeeinvolvementschemes

CME(n=34) LME(n=19)


FutureResearch

120 124

Figure11‐10:PolicytowardsLocalLegalRequirements

However, this is only the HR managers’ view of the situation. More comprehensive qualitative

analyses,whichencompassviewsfrommanagersandemployeerepresentatives,indicatethatforeign

ownershipchangesHRpoliciesandmanagement‐employeerelations,albeitinthe“softer”areas(see

Textbox8).Thesepartlycontradictorydataindicateaneedformoredetailedresearchonthisissue.

Thecomprehensiveinternationaldatabasecoveringninecountrieswillundoubtedlybeofgreatvalue

for further research, not least because several of the results from the Danish survey are not

statistically significantbecause thereare too fewobservations.Givenabiggerdatabase, researchers

willbeabletorunteststhatmightmakeborder‐lineresultsmoreconcrete.

12%

30%

58%

5%

37%

58%

Thereisnopolicy Minimumcompliancewithlegalrequirements

Togosomewhat/orconsiderablyfurtherthan

legalrequirements

Whichofthefollowingstatementscomesclosesttocapturingthecompany’sglobalpolicy?

CME LME



FutureResearch

121 124

Textbox8:ForeignownershipchangesHRpoliciesandmanagement‐employeerelations

In countries with CMEs, Industrial Relations

systems are centered on high trust between the

state,employerandemployeeorganizations,which

has been built and sustained over the years.

However, by employing HQ‐originated work

organization practices, foreign investors might

undermine this trust, questioning the resilience of

the IRsystems.Yet,weknowrelatively littleabout

how a particular company‐wide initiative is

implemented and operationalized in highly

regulated countries. The paper by Navrbjerg and

Minbaeva published in International Journal of

Human Resource Management contributes to this

gapbyanalyzingwhetherandhowachangeinwork

organization practices following a takeover by a

MNCaffectsthelocalIRsysteminCMEs.

The authors analyzed four enterprises located in

Denmarkovera10‐yearperiodtoshedlightonhow

the cooperation at the enterprise level and

consequently,theDanishIRsystem,areaffectedby

the foreign takeovers. The companieswere visited

three times: in1995;2001;and2005.For the first

investigation, the four companies were chosen

becausetheyhadinterestingHRrelationsandwork

organizations (teamwork, just‐in‐time, totalquality

managementetc.)andnot least,HRM,whichatthe

timewasarelativelynewconceptinDenmark.The

purposeoftheinvestigationwastoexplorehowthe

Danish IRsystemmatched thesenewmanagement

concepts.All companieswere industrialplantsand

as such the classical arena for industrial relations.

Moreover, thecompanieswerechosen fromapool

of companies that had presented themselves as

vanguards of HRM issues at conferences, in the

media,etc.Assuch,theywerethoughtofaspossible

benchmarks for the development of HRM in a

Danish context. Another parameter was that

companies were big enough to employ an HRM

manager.

Methodologically speaking, the two later

investigationswere spin‐offs from the first one.At

thetimeofthefirstinvestigation,allfourcompanies

wereDanishowned,andat leasttwoofthemwere

onthevergeofbecomingMNCs,buyingsubsidiaries

in other countries. When the companies were

revisitedin2001,threeofthefourhadbeenbought

byforeignMNCsandthelastoneremainedDanish.

There were some interesting dynamics in the

interplay between the HQ‐originated HR and the

DanishIRsystem.Thispushedtheauthorstorefine

the original goals of the study and focus on the

consequencesofmanagerialinterventionsfollowing

acquisitions (in the form of the imposedHRM) on

the cooperation and IR system locally. All the

companies were revisited in 2005 when the HR

relationswereexpectedtohavestabilizedafterthe

turmoil of the takeovers. The authors kept the

fourthcompanythatdidnotexperiencechanges in

theownershipasacontrolsincethatallowedthem

tomake sure that the observed changes were not

caused by the general development in Danish

economyorchanges inthedynamicsoftheDanish

labormarket.

Theanalysis in1995wasthemostcomprehensive:

15 to 18 interviews were carried out within each

enterprise, with top management, middle

management, union representatives and rank and

file employees.All in all, 73 interviewsweremade

in the four enterprises in 1995. The interviews in

2000 and 2005 were less comprehensive. Then,

three to five interviews with main actors like HR

managersandshopstewardswerecarriedoutin


FutureResearch

122 124

each enterprise. In 2000, 14 interviews were

carried out in three enterprises, and in 2005, 16

interviews in four enterprises. In total 103

interviewswereconductedovera10‐yearperiod.

It was found that none of the MNCs studied tried

directlytointerfereinthelocalIR.Toahighdegree,

management seems to accept the Danish written

and unwritten rules of the game. Neither local

management nor employees could point out

situationswheretheMNCHQhadtriedtoquestion

thecollectiveagreementreached.

Still, a number of HQ initiatives that are within

management prerogative indirectly affect relations

between employees and local management. In the

long run, theymay affect the collective bargaining

systemassuch.Inparticular,theresultsshowthata

shift from a stakeholder to shareholder

management style and the increaseddegree ofHQ

control have an effect on the whole co‐operative

atmosphere in each of the companies. To changes

like these, employees first react with increased

absenteeism and consequently turnover. If the

employees' 'voice' is unheard and foreign

management continues tightening up work

organizational practices, employees pull back

flexibility which was previously reached in local

agreements between management and employees'

representatives. That jeopardizes the fine‐tuned

balance achieved between the centralized and

decentralizedagreementsthatareatthecoreofthe

Danish IR. So, by exercising their management

prerogative, the MNC management disturbs the

finely tuned balance between management and

employees to such a degree that it undermines a

long and strong tradition for cooperation, possibly

giving rise to long‐term consequences for national

IRsystems.

Source:Navrbjerg,S.andMinbaeva,D.(2009)HRM

and IR in Multinational Corporations: Uneasy

Bedfellows? International Journal of Human

ResourceManagement,20(8),pp.1720‐1736


AppendixI:TheQuestionnaires

123 124

AppendixI:TheQuestionnaires

Home-based questionnaire – Denmark

Page 1

SURVEY OF EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES OF MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES OPERATING IN DENMARK

Home-based – English version

SECTION A: INTRODUCTION

Please select a language: English ............ 1 Danish .................. 2 First page:

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES OF MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES Welcome to the survey! The completion of the survey is expected to take about 30-40 minutes. You can stop any time, save your entries and resume the completion of the survey later. You can navigate forward and backward by using the arrows at the top and the bottom of the page. We highly recommend saving the survey after completion of each page. Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in this study.

A1. Can you confirm that the company is wholly or majority Danish-owned? By “majority owned” we

mean at least 50% is owned by a Danish-based company Yes .................. 1 No ........................ 2

IF NO REVERT TO PAGE ASKING FOR CONTACT INFO Page for contact info: To the previous question you replied that your company is not majority Danish owned (that at least 50% is owned by a overseas-based company). If this is correct, please write your name and e-mail below and we will invite you to the survey of overseas-owned firms operating in Denmark. If your company is majority Danish-owned please return to the previous page and correct your response to the previous question. [box name] [box E-mail] If the ownership structure is more complicated please contact us by entering your message and email below. Please click finish to submit your response. [box name] [box e-mail] [box message] Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in this study. A2. What is the name of the ultimate controlling company you work for? ____________________________________________________________ A3. Are you located at? The global HQ of the worldwide company ........... .............. 1

The HQ of the operating units in Denmark ............... ......... 2

Other (please specify) _______________ ............................... 3

[COMPANY NAME]


Page 2

A4. What is your job title?

HR/Personnel Director………………………………..…………... 1 HR/Personnel Senior Manager/ Manager……………………….... 2 HR/Personnel Senior Officer……………………………….……... 3 HR/Personnel Officer………...…………………………………… 4 HR/Personnel Executive………………………………………….. 5 HR/Personnel Assistant……………..……………………………. 6 Other (please specify) _______________………………………... 7 A5. For which of the following policy levels do you have any HR responsibilities: Tick all that apply

Global HR policy…………………............... 1 Regional HR policy………......................... 2 HR policy in Denmark……........ 3 Other (please specify) __________…........ 4

A6. How long have you worked for [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? Please write number of years. _________________________ In the rest of the questionnaire when we ask you questions about [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark, we would like you to think of all operation units in Denmark. A7. In how many foreign countries does the company have operating sites? 1 country………………………………….…... ...... 1 2 – 5 countries………...…….………………… ..... 2 6 or more countries…………………………… ..... 3 A8. Does [company name] in Denmark have? 1 site………………………………….…... ............. 1 2 – 5 sites………...…….………………… ............. 2 6 or more sites…………………………… ............. 3 A9. What is the total number of employees worldwide including Denmark by headcount?

Up to 99 employees …………... .......................... 1 100 – 499 employees…………... ......................... 2

500 – 999 employees…………... ......................... 3 1,000 – 4,999 employees………. ........................ 4 5,000 – 29.999 employees………….…... ............ 5 30.000 – 59.999 employees………….…... .......... 6 60.000 +……….………….…... ............................. 7 A10. What is the total number of employees by headcount in the following geographical regions?

Denmark Europe (excluding Denmark) North America Asia-Pacific Rest of the world


Page 3


500 – 999 employees…………... ......................... 3 1,000 – 4,999 employees………. ........................ 4 5,000 + employees………….…... ........................ 5

None ... ……….….. .............................. 6 Don’t know ....... … ……….…... ........... 7

A11. Please estimate the approximate number of employees in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark in each

of the following core functions

Number

Research & Development (R&D) .................... _________

Manufacturing Operations ................................ _________

Sales and Marketing ......................................... _________

Customer Service ............................................. _________

Business Services (finance, IT, payroll, etc) .... _________

Other ................................................................. _________ A12. When was the company first established? Please write the year ____________ A13. What year did it establish its first foreign operation? Thinking of the first significant investment outside of Denmark– ignoring minor sales presence. _____________ A14. How many of the top five management positions in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark are filled by

individuals from outside Denmark? 1..... ................ . 1 2 ............ .......... 2 3..... ............... .. 3 4...... ................ 4 5 ...................... 5 None .............. 6

Don’t know ..... 7 A15. To what degree (percentage) has the following changed in the worldwide company in the last 3 years? Can be both positive and negative. Only approximate numbers are necessary.

Number of employees ______________ (%) Sales ______________ (%)

A16. Approximately what percentage of revenues of [COMPANY NAME] comes from sales abroad?

0% ...................................................... 1 1-25% ................................................. 2 26-50% ............................................... 3 51-75% ............................................... 4 76-100% ............................................. 5 Don’t know .......................................... 6


Page 4

A17. Is the worldwide company state or partly state owned? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 Don’t Know ....... 3 A18. Is the worldwide company privately owned or are its shares publicly traded? Privately owned ........................... 1 Publicly traded ............... 2

A19. Which of the following statements best describes [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? The company produces…

1 A single product or service that accounts for more than 90% of sales

2 A number of products and services but one of these accounts for between 70% and 90% of sales

3 A number of products and services but no single one of these accounts for more than 70% of sales

4 A range of unrelated products and services

5 Don’t know A20. Which of the following statements best describes the worldwide operations? The worldwide company produces…

1 A single product or service that accounts for more than 90% of sales

2 A number of products and services but one of these accounts for between 70% and 90% of sales

3 A number of products and services but no single one of these accounts for more than 70% of sales

4 A range of unrelated products and services

5 Don’t know A21. Is the worldwide company‟s most important product, service or brand (or group of products,

services or brands)? Help: With „most important‟ we want you to think of the product, service or brand that generates the most revenue.

Adapted significantly to national markets ............................................................... 1 Adapted to different regions of the world but standardised within them ................. 2 Standardised globally ............................................................................................. 3 Don’t know .............................................................................................................. 4 A22. Are any of the components, products and services of [company name] in Denmark produced for operations of the worldwide company based outside Denmark?

Yes – all.......................................... 1 Yes – some but not all..................... 2 No – none....................................... 3 Don’t know...................................... 4

A23. Do other parts of the worldwide company supply components, products or services to [company name] in Denmark?

Yes........................... 1 No........................... 2 Don’t know................ 3


Page 5

SECTION B: WORKFORCE COMPOSITION

Throughout the questionnaire the focus will be on your policies and practices in relation to the following two main groups of staff.

B1. Approximately how many managers are there in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?

0 .................................... 1 1 – 9 .............................. 2 10 – 24 .......................... 3 25 – 49 .......................... 4 50 – 99 .......................... 5 100 – 249 ...................... 6 250 – 499 ...................... 7 500 – 749 ..................... 8 750 – 999 ...................... 9 1000 – 2999 .................. 10 3000 – 4999 .................. 11 5000+ ............................ 12 Don’t Know .................... 13

B2. Approximately, how many LOG are there in [company name] in Denmark? Help: This includes staff who work regularly, but excludes occasional staff. By regularly we mean there is a mutual expectation that the employee works on an ongoing basis for your company

0 .................................... 1 1 – 9 .............................. 2 10 – 24 .......................... 3 25 – 49 .......................... 4 50 – 99 .......................... 5 100 – 249 ...................... 6 250 – 499 ...................... 7 500 – 749 ..................... 8 750 – 999 ...................... 9 1000 – 2999 .................. 10 3000 – 4999 .................. 11 5000+ ............................ 12 Don’t Know .................... 13

1. Managers - employees who primarily manage the organisation, or a department, subdivision,

function, or component of the organisation and whose main tasks consist of the direction and coordination of the functioning of the organisation. In other words managers refer to those above the level of first-line supervision.

2. The LOG (largest occupational group) – the largest non-managerial occupational group among

the employees in the ‘headcount’ in Denmark. For example, in a manufacturing business it might be semi-skilled operators, and in an insurance company it might be call centre staff.


Page 6

SECTION C. THE HR FUNCTION

C1. What percentage of the managers spends the majority of their time on HR matters in [COMPANY

NAME] in Denmark? ___________ (%) C2. On which of the following issues is information on the operating units in Denmark monitored by

management in a higher organizational level? Help: By "a higher organizatonal level" we mean e.g. senior management in Denmark, international business HQ, European HQ (in Denmark or elsewhere) or global HQ. Please tick all that apply Managerial pay packages…………………………………………………... ............... 1 Management career progression…………………………………………… .............. 1 Overall labour costs………………………………………………………... ................. 1 Numbers employed (headcount)……………………………………………............... 1 Staff turnover………………………………………………………………. .................. 1 Absenteeism………………………………………………………………… ................ 1 Labour productivity………………………………………………………… .................. 1 Workforce composition by diversity (e.g. gender, ethnicity, disability etc. ..................................................................... 1 Employee attitude and satisfaction…………………………………………. .............. 1 None of these ......................................................................................................... 1

Don’t know .............................................................................................................. 1 Other (please specify)____________________ .................................................... 1 C3. On which of the following issues is information on the operating units outside Denmark monitored by management in a higher organizational level? Help: By "a higher organizatonal level" we mean e.g. senior management in Denmark, international business HQ, European HQ (in Denmark or elsewhere) or global HQ.

Please tick all that apply Managerial pay packages…………………………………………………... ............... 1 Management career progression…………………………………………… .............. 1 Overall labour costs………………………………………………………... ................. 1 Numbers employed (headcount)……………………………………………............... 1 Staff turnover………………………………………………………………. .................. 1 Absenteeism………………………………………………………………… ................ 1 Labour productivity………………………………………………………… .................. 1 Workforce composition by diversity (e.g. gender, ethnicity, disability etc. ..................................................................... 1 Employee attitude and satisfaction…………………………………………. .............. 1 None of these ......................................................................................................... 1

Don’t know .............................................................................................................. 1 Other (please specify)____________________ .................................................... 1 C4. Is there a body within the worldwide company, such as a committee of senior managers, that

develops HR policies that apply across countries?

1 Go to C5 2 Go to C6 3 Go to C6


Page 7

C5. Is there someone from outside Denmark on this body/committee? Yes ................... 1 No ......................... 2 Don’t know……… 3 C6. Are HR managers from different countries brought together in a systematic way?

Yes – on a global basis 1 Yes – on a regional basis 2 No 3 4 C7. How frequently does contact between HR managers in different countries take place through any

of the following mechanisms:

Weekly Monthly Quarterly Annually Other Ad hoc Never

Regular meetings ........................... ............. 1 .......... 2 .......... 3 ......... 4 ...... 5 .......... 6 ....... 7 International Conferences .............. ............. 1 .......... 2 .......... 3 ......... 4 ...... 5 .......... 6 ....... 7 Task Forces .................................... ............. 1 .......... 2 .......... 3 ......... 4 ...... 5 .......... 6 ....... 7 Virtual Groups e.g. conference calls ............ 1 .......... 2 .......... 2 ......... 4 ...... 5 .......... 6 ....... 7

Now think about your company‟s approach concerning its management of employees. C8. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements. Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly N/A Don’t Disagree agree nor Agree know disagree

There is a worldwide approach covering all global operations………. ................................ 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7

There is a regional approach covering all European operations ...................................... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7

The development of a specific approach is left to international product, service or brand based divisions .................................... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7

The development of a specific approach is left to national operating companies .............. 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7

The approach is really a mix of the traditions of the different national operating companies .... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7

Traditions in the country of origin have an overriding influence on the approach to the management of employees……… ........... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7

C9. Have the operating companies outside Denmark provided any new practices in the following

areas that have been taken up elsewhere in the worldwide company:

No Yes, Yes, Yes, Don’t in a few parts in major taken Know of the firm businesses up globally

Pay and performance management .................. 1 ........... 2 ................. 3 ............. 4 .............. 5

Training, development and

organisational learning ............................. 1 ........... 2 ................. 3 ............. 4 .............. 5

Employee involvement and communication ...... 1 ........... 2 ................. 3 ............. 4 .............. 5

Employee representation and consultation........ 1 ........... 2 ................. 3 ............. 4 .............. 5


Page 8

SECTION D. PAY AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

D1. Is there a system of regular formal appraisal for each of the following groups of employees in

[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? Yes No Don’t know

For LOG ........................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3 For MANAGERS ............................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

IF NEITHER STAFF GROUP IS CODED „YES‟ GO TO D7

IF ONLY ONE CODED „YES‟ GO TO D2

IF BOTH STAFF GROUPS ARE CODED „YES‟ GO TO D2

D2. Is a „forced distribution‟ applied to the results of appraisals for the following employee groups in

[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? Help: By forced distribution we mean a certain % of employees have to be in a particular performance category or rating, e.g. 10% are poor performers, 70% are reasonable performers, and 20% are top performers Please include formal and informal policy.

Yes No Don’t know

For LOG ........................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3 For MANAGERS ............................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3




D3. What is the top and bottom percentages of this forced distribution for each of the following

employee groups in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? For LOG: ............................................. Top __________% Bottom _______% For MANAGERS: ................................ Top __________% Bottom _______%

Don’t know (For managers Top)............ 1

Don’t know (For managers Bottom) ...... 1

Don’t know (For LOG Top).................... 1

Don’t know (For LOG Bottom)............... 1

D4. Is a formal system of „360-degree‟ feedback used in evaluating performance of any of these groups of employees in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?

Yes No Don’t know

For LOG .............................. 1 ............. 2 ..................... 3 For MANAGERS ................. 1 ............. 2 ..................... 3

D5. Are the outcomes of performance appraisal used as inputs in decisions on redundancy and redeployment in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? Yes, Yes, No N/A Don’t know as a formal input as an informal input in decisions in decisions

For LOG ........................................... 1 ............... ................ 2 ................ 3 ............. 4 .......... 5 For MANAGERS ............................... 1 ............... ................ 2 ................ 3 ............. 4 .......... 5


Page 9

D6. Thinking about the MANAGERS in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark, on a scale of 1-5 how important are the following kinds of performance evaluation?

Not at all important Very important Don’t know

Individual quantitative output targets………. ........... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 .... ......... ... 6

(e.g. financial, numerical)

Individual qualitative output targets ………. ............ 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 .... ......... ... 6

(e.g. completion of a task)

Group output targets ………. ................................... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5................. 6

(e.g. for site or business unit)

‘Competences’ or personal skills ………. ............... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5................. 6

(e.g. leadership or innovation skills)

Behaviour in relation to corporate ‘values’ ............ … 1 ........ 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5................. 6

D7. Does [not answered] in Denmark offer employee share ownership, profit sharing or share

options to any employees in each of these groups?

Employee share ownership Profit Sharing Share Options Yes No Don’t Yes No Don’t Yes No Don’t Know Know Know

For LOG Name ............. 1 ....... 2 .......... 3 ................... 1 ...... 2 ...... 3 ............. 1 ....... 2 .... 3


For managers ................ 1 ....... 2 .......... 3 ................... 1 ...... 2 ...... 3 ............. 1 ....... 2 .... 3

D8. Is there variable pay for the following groups in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? Help: By variable pay we mean merit pay, performance related pay, performance related bonuses or payment by results.

Yes No Don’t Know

For LOG .............................. 1 ................... 2 ................... 3

For MANAGERS .................. 1 ................... 2 ................... 3 IF „YES‟ FOR LOG AT D8, ASK D9, IF „NO‟, GO TO D10

Help: 1. Approved employee share ownership scheme is where the organisation establishes a trust which

acquires shares on behalf of employees and provides employees with part ownership of the company. 2. Profit sharing refers to rewards given to employees in addition to normal salary and bonuses which are

dependent on the levels of profit in the business.

3. Share options is where employees are given the option of buying company shares, often at a reduced rate


Page 10

D9. For LOG receiving variable pay in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark, how important are each of the following factors in determining variable pay?


Individual performance ………. ...................... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ............... .......... 6

Work group performance

(e.g. team or departmental performance)…… 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ............... .......... 6

Organizational performance

(e.g. site, region, company) ………. .............. 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ............... .......... 6

D10. Using the scale below, to what extent do operating companies outside of Denmark have

discretion over the determination of the following aspects of pay and performance policy? The operating companies outside Denmark have... Use codes 1-5 N/A Don’t know

Relating pay levels in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark

to market comparators (e.g. aiming to be in top quartile .. ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6

Employee share ownership schemes in

[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark....................................... ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6

Performance appraisal system:

For managers…………………............................ ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6

For LOG . ........................................... ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6

Variable payments scheme:

For managers…………………............................ ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6

For LOG…… …… .................................... ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6

N/A: There is “no typical” situation: the level of discretion varies widely across different overseas operations

1 2 3 4 5

The operating companies outside Denmark have no discretion (must implement policy set by a higher organisational level such as corporate or regional HQ).

The operating companies outside Denmark have a little discretion.

The operating companies outside Denmark have some discretion (can develop policy within the guidelines/framework set by a higher organisational level).

The operating companies outside Denmark have quite a lot of discretion.

The operating companies outside Denmark have full discretion (can set own policy).


Page 11

D11. Using the scale below, to what extent does [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark have discretion over the determination of the following aspects of pay and performance policy?

The operating company in Denmark have... Use codes 1-5 N/A Don’t know






For MANAGERS………………… ....................... ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6

For LOG… ………… ............................. ___________ .............. 7 ............................. 6


For MANAGERS………………… ....................... ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6

For LOG………… ........................................... ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6

N/A: There is no clear separation between higher levels of management (e.g. international business HQ, European HQ or global HQ) and management of the Danish operations.

1 2 3 4 5

The operating company in Denmark have no discretion (must implement policy set by a higher organizational level such as corporate or regional HQ).

The operating company in Denmark have a little discretion.

The operating company in Denmark have some discretion (can develop policy within the guidelines/ framework set by a higher organisational level).

The operating company in Denmark have quite a lot of discretion.

The operating company in Denmark have full discretion (can set own policy).


Page 12

E. TRAINING, DEVELOPMENT AND ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING

E1. What percentage of the annual pay bill in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark was spent on training and development for all employees over the past 12 months?

0% ............................................ 1 Up to 1% .................................. 2 Over 1% and less than 4% ...... 3 Over 4% ................................... 4

Don’t Know………………………5 E2. Thinking of [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark is there a formal system of succession planning for

senior managers?

Yes in all operations................. 1 Go to E3

Yes in some operations ........... 2 Go to E3

No ........................................... 3 Go to E4

Don’t Know .............................. 4 Go to E4 E3. Is this system also used in other parts of the worldwide company? Yes in all operations................. 1 Yes in some operations ........... 2 No ........................................... 3 Don’t Know ............................... 4 E4. Does [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark have a management development programme specifically

aimed at developing its „high potentials‟ or senior management potential?



No ........................................... 3 Go to E6

Don’t Know ............................... 4 Go to E6 E5. Is this system also used in other parts of the worldwide company? Yes in all operations................. 1 Yes in some operations ........... 2 No ........................................... 3 Don’t Know ............................... 4 E6. How extensively are each of the following techniques used for the development of these

managers in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?

1 2 3 4 5

Not used at all A little use Some use Used quite extensively

Used very extensively

Use codes 1-5 Don’t know N/A

Short term International assignments (12 months or less) ... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7

Long term international assignments (more than 12 months) ____________ ............ 6 ....................... 7

Formal global management training ...................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7

Assessment of performance against a set of global management competencies ......................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7

Qualifications programme (e.g. MBA, professional qualifications) .......................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7


Page 13

E7. How many expatriates from the company‟s foreign operations are currently working on long-

term assignments (i.e. more than 12 months) in Denmark? Please include all types of long-term assignments for any purpose.

Type 0 if none. Help: Expatriates in this question refers to employees from operating companies outside Denmark who are currently working on assignment in Denmark.

Number………. 2 _______ Don’t know………. 1 E8. How many expatriates from [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark are currently working on long-term (i.e.

more than 12 months) assignments overseas? Please include all types of long-term assignments for any purpose.

Type 0 if none. Help: Expatriates in this question refers to employees of the company‟s operations in Denmark who are currently on assignment in operations of the worldwide company abroad.

Number………. 2 _______ Don’t know………. 1 E9. To what extent do you agree with each of the following statements for LOG in [COMPANY NAME] in

Denmark: Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree agree nor Agree know disagree

On-the-job learning (experience gained on the job) is more valuable than off-the-job classroom training and development ………. .......... 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6

Investment in training is critical to either

developing or retaining key skills in this company …. 1 ......... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6

E10. To what extent do you agree with each of the following statements for MANAGERS in [COMPANY

NAME] in Denmark:

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree agree nor Agree know disagree

Our company favours internal promotion over

external management recruitment ………. .............. 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6

International experience is a key criterion

for career progression at senior levels. ………. ...... 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6 In this section you will be asked about the mechanisms you use for organisational learning on an international level. By this we mean mechanisms used to create new knowledge involving MANAGERS from different country operations or to transfer knowledge across the international organisation. E11. Thinking of [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark is there a formal policy on organisational learning?

Yes in all operations ........... 1 Go to E12

Yes in some operations ...... 2 Go to E12

No ....................................... 3 Go to E13

Don’t Know ......................... 4 Go to E13


Page 14

E12. Is this system also used in other parts of the worldwide company? Yes in all operations................. 1 Yes in some operations ........... 2 No ........................................... 3 Don’t Know ............................... 4 IF ANSWERED “YES” TO E12: E13. To what extent is the organizational learning policy for the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark and the

worldwide company similar? Not at all similar Highly similar Don’t know

....................................................................... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ............... .......... 6

E14. Thinking about managers, do [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark use any of the following to facilitate

international organisational learning?

Yes No Don‟t Know

Expatriate assignments………………………. ....................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

International project groups or task forces ............................................ 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

International formal committees’ ........................................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

International informal networks ............................................................. 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

Secondments to other organisations internationally (e.g. to suppliers, customers, universities, private R&D facilities) ........ 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

[ONLY ASK E15 IF MORE THAN ONE „YES‟ CODED IN E14. OTHERWISE GO TO E16] (E15. Which of these is the most important international organisational learning mechanism used by

MANAGERS within [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?

Expatriate assignments………………………. ....................................... 1

International project groups or task forces ............................................ 2

International formal committees’ ........................................................... 3

International informal networks ............................................................. 4

Secondments to other organisations internationally (e.g. to suppliers, customers, universities, private R&D facilities) ........ 5

Don’t know ............................................................................................ 6


Page 15

E16. Using the scale below, to what extent do operating companies outside of Denmark as a whole have discretion over the determination of the following training and development policies? The operating companies outside Denmark have…

Use codes 1-5 Don’t N/A Know

Training and development policy ...................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7

Policy on organisational learning ...................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7

Policy on succession planning for senior managers ........ ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7

N/A: There is no “typical” situation: the level of discretion varies widely across different overseas operations

E17. Using the scale below, to what extent do [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark have discretion over

determining the following training and development policies?

The operating company in Denmark have…


Training and development policy ...................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7

Policy on organisational learning ...................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7

Policy on succession planning for senior MANAGERS___________.................... 6 ....................... 7


1 2 3 4 5






1 2 3 4 5







Page 16

F. EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNICATION

This section is about policies on employee involvement and communication, starting with the involvement of employees in the work process. F1. Could you tell me whether you use the following practices in relation to the LOG in [COMPANY

NAME] in Denmark?

Yes No Don‟t Know

Formally designated teams in which employees have responsibility for organising their work and carrying out a set of tasks ...................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

Groups where employees discuss issues of quality, production or service delivery such as problem-solving or continuous improvement groups………………………. ......................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

F2. Which of the following most closely corresponds to the pattern of employee involvement in

[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?

An identical or similar pattern exists across all or most sites ................................................... 1

All or most sites have involvement systems, but they differ from site to site ............................ 2

Some sites have involvement systems while others do not ..................................................... 3

Not applicable (1 site only in Denmark] .................................................................................... 4

Don’t Know ............................................................................................................................. … 5 F3. How important have each of the following been in providing examples of employee involvement that have been taken up in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?

Not drawn Source of very on at all important examples

Specific practices elsewhere in the worldwide

company… ................................................................. . ............. 1 ........... 2 .......... 3 ....... 4 ....... 5

Formal model of good practice codified

elsewhere in worldwide company ........................ ………. ....... 1 ........... 2 .......... 3 ....... 4 ....... 5

Examples drawn from other firms ………. .................. ............. 1 ........... 2 .......... 3 ....... 4 ....... 5 F4. Does [COMPANY NAME] regularly use teamwork or other employee involvement practices in your operating companies outside Denmark? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 Don’t Know ....... 3 F5. Would you say that practices in relation to employee involvement in the worldwide company are: Very similar across all operations .......... .......................... 1 Broadly similar but with some variations .......................... 2 Similar to some extent but with substantial variations ................ 3 Fairly diverse ......... ...................... .......................... 4 Very diverse ........... ...................... .......................... 5

Don’t know ............. ...................... .......................... 6 F6. Does [COMPANY NAME] regularly use project teams or task forces, embracing employees other

than MANAGERS, that function across more than one operating unit in Denmark? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 N/A .................... 3 Don’t Know ..... 4 IF F6 = YES ASK F7; IF NO, N/A OR DK GO TO F9


Page 17

F7. Do these groups in Denmark also include employees from outside Denmark? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 NA ..................... 3 Don’t Know ..... 4 IF F7 = YES ASK F8; IF NO GO TO F9 F8. How common is the cross-national structure of these teams?

Very rare Very common

....................................................................... 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 ........... 5 F9. Which of the following communication mechanisms are regularly used for the LOG within


Yes No Don‟t Know

Meetings between senior MANAGERS

and the whole of the work force ..................................................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

Meetings between line MANAGERS or supervisors and employees (sometimes called briefing groups) ................................................................. 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

Attitude or opinion surveys ............................................................................. 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

Suggestion schemes ...................................................................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

Systematic use of management chain to cascade information ...................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

Newsletters or emails ..................................................................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

A company intranet providing information to employees’ ............................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3 F10. Which of the following types of information is regularly provided to the LOG within [COMPANY

NAME] in Denmark?

Yes No Don‟t Know

Financial position of the company………………………. ....................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

Investment plan for the company………………………... ...................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

Staffing plans for the company………………………….. ....................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3 F11. Which of the following types of information is regularly provided to the LOG within [COMPANY

NAME] about the worldwide company?

Yes No Don‟t Know



Staffing plans for the company………………………….. ....................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3 F12. Are there project teams or task forces embracing employees other than MANAGERS that

function across more than one operating unit, used in foreign operations? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 N/A .................... 3 Don’t Know ..... 4


Page 18

F13. Using the below scale, to what extent do the operating companies outside of Denmark have

discretion over the determination of the following aspects of employee involvement and communication policy?

The operating companies outside Denmark have… Use codes 1-5 Don’t N/A Know

Involvement of employees in work process, e.g. team work or problem-solving groups ............. ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7

Attitude or opinion surveys ........................................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7

Suggestion schemes ........................................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7

Provision of information to employees ............................. ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7

N/A: There is no “typical” situation: the level of discretion varies widely across different overseas operations F14. Using the scale below, to what extent does [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark have discretion over

the determination of the following aspects of employee involvement and communication policy?



Involvement of employees in work process, e.g. team work or problem-solving groups ............. ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7


Suggestion schemes ........................................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7

Provision of information to employees ............................. ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7


1 2 3 4 5






1 2 3 4 5







Page 19

SECTION G. EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION AND CONSULTATION

The following questions are about employee representation, employee influence and unions. The questions aim to identify possible differences in cooperative culture in the countries in which your company is operating, and to elaborate if different kinds of cooperation influence HR-policies across borders. G1. How would you describe the policy of management towards union recognition within [COMPANY

NAME] in Denmark?

In favour of union recognition ................... 1 Not in favour of union recognition................... 2 Neutral towards union recognition ................... 3

G2. Thinking of the company‟s operations outside Denmark, which of the following statements

comes closest to capturing your policy towards trade unions? There is no policy .............................................................................................. 1 It is general policy not to bargain with trade unions,

either directly or indirectly through an employers’ association .................. 2 We expect local management to follow the local practice in the industry

and/or locality… ......................................................................................... 3 It is general policy to bargain with trade unions,

either directly or indirectly through an employers’ association .................. 4 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................ 5 G3. Thinking of the LOG in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark, are trade unions recognised for the purposes

of collective employee representation at?

No sites in the Danish operations................... 1 All sites in the Danish operations .................. 2 Most sites in the Danish operations................... 3 Some sites in the Danish operations................. 4 The company’s single Danish site ................... 5

ASK G4 IF CODE 2,3, 4 OR 5 AT G3 IF CODE 1 AT G1 GO TO G5 G4. Are there any non-union based structure(s) of collective employee representation used? Tick all that apply Yes, at sites where there is no trade union recognition.................. 1 Yes, at sites where there is also trade union recognition............... 1 No .................................................................................................. 1 G5. Is there collective bargaining with trade unions over pay and major conditions (e.g. working time) at any of the following levels covering all or some of the [LOG NAME] within the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? Tick all that apply, multi-code only allowable for codes 2, 4, and 5

At Danish company level, covering all sites...................................... 1 At the company’s single Danish site.................................................. 1 Covering more than one, but not all Danish sites............................... 1 At individual site level.................................................................................. 1 At industry level, covering more than one employer.................................... 1 There is no collective bargaining over pay.................................................. 1


Page 20

G6. Thinking about trade unions in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark, what approach do the trade union

representatives generally adopt? A cooperative approach…………………... ............... 1 An adversarial approach………………….. ............... 2 It depends on the issue……………………................ 3 Don’t Know………………………………. ................... 4 ASK G7 IF CODED 2, 3, 4 OR 5 AT G3 (I.E. UNIONS RECOGNISED AT LEAST AT ONE SITE) G7. Using this rating scale, which best describes the policy towards working with unions on the following matters relating to the LOG:

1 2 2 4 5

Management decides on its

own

… Management consults union representatives

… Management decides jointly

with union representatives

1 2 3 4 5 Don’t know

Work organisation ………. ............................. 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6

Sub-contracting and outsourcing ……. .......... 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6

Variable payments schemes .......................... 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6

In-work training/ upgrading skills ................... 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6

Direct employee involvement schemes ....... 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6

G8. Using the scale below, to what extent do operating companies outside Denmark have discretion over the setting of policy on relations with trade unions? The operating companies outside Denmark have… Use codes 1-5 Don’t N/A Know

Union recognition .. ........................................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7

Scope of union involvement in decision-making .............. ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7

To what extent do operating companies outside

Denmark have discretion over determining

employee consultation policy ........................................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7

N/A: There is no “typical” situation: the level of discretion varies widely across different overseas operations

1 2 3 4 5







Page 21

G9. Using the scale below, to what extent does the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark have discretion over setting the following elements of policy trade unions? The operating company in Denmark have... Use codes 1-5 Don’t N/A Know

Union recognition .. ........................................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7

Scope of union involvement in decision-making .............. ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7

To what extent do operating companies outside


employee consultation policy ........................................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7

N/A: There is no clear separation between higher levels of management (e.g. international business HQ,

European HQ or global HQ) and management of the Danish operations G10. Are regular meetings held between management and representatives of employees at this level in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark for the purpose of information provision and consultation? Help: By “regular” we mean: more than once a year. By “this level” we mean that for example Danish HQ calls in meetings with employee representatives from all the units in Denmark. Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 Don’t Know ....... 3 ASK G11 IF YES AT G10 [IF NO GO TO G12] G11. Do these meetings cover…? All employees under a single arrangement ............................................................................. 1 All employees, but with different arrangements for different groups ......................................... 2 Some groups of employees under a single arrangement............................................................. 3 Some groups of employees, but with different arrangements for different groups....................... 4 Other ...................................................................... 5 G12. Which of the following statements best describes management‟s relative emphasis in [COMPANY

NAME] in Denmark on mechanisms for communicating and consulting with employees?

Emphasis on direct communication and consultation........................................................... 1 Emphasis on indirect communication and consultation (e.g. through joint consultative committee or company council)........................................... 2 Equivalent emphasis on direct and indirect communication and consultation ........................ 3

G13. Does the worldwide company have experience of operating with mandatory employee consultation structures (e.g. works councils) that are required in some countries overseas? Yes 1 No 2 Don’t Know 3 IF YES ASK G14, IF NO GO TO G15

1 2 3 4 5







Page 22

G14. Which of the following statements comes closest to capturing the worldwide company‟s policy?

There is no policy……………………………………………………….. 1 Minimum compliance with legal requirements on employee information and consultation..................................... 2 To go somewhat further than legal requirements............................ 3 To go considerably further than legal requirements......................... 4 Don’t know ...................................................................................... 5

G15. Over the past 3 years, has the EU Directive on Information and Consultation prompted any

changes in arrangements for employee consultation in Denmark? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 Don’t Know ....... 3 G16. Is there a European Works Council (EWC) or similar European-level structure which covers


Yes ...... 1 Go to G17 No ........ 2 Go to H1 Don’t Know 3 Go to H1 G17. Which of the following statements best describes the overall nature of the European Works

Council in Denmark?

Management provides minimal information required for compliance, there is little or no dialogue with employee representatives over issues; and no impact on decision outcomes ............................................................................................ 1

Management provides information slightly beyond that required for compliance ................................. 2

Management provides information somewhat beyond that required for compliance; there is a substantive dialogue with employee representatives on a limited range of issues; and a limited impact on decision outcomes ................................................................................... 3

Management provides information considerably beyond that required for compliance ........................ 4

Management provides information far beyond that required for compliance; there is substantive dialogue with employee representatives over a wide range of issues; and an extensive impact on decision outcomes ............................................................................ 5

Don’t Know ............................................................................................................................................ 6 G18. Do you receive information about the activity and meetings of the EWC?

Systematically at the time of EWC meetings......................... 1 Periodically, on an ‘as necessary’ basis ................................. 2 Little or no information about the EWC received..................... 3


Page 23

Section H: Company Performance

This is the final section of the questionnaire. H1. How would you compare performance of the [not answered] in Denmark over the past three years with that of other competitors in your sector?

Poor Outstanding

Quality of products/services 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5

Development of new products/services 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5

Profit generation 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5

Turnover 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5

Market share 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5

Ability to recruit essential employees 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5

Ability to retain essential employees 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5

Customer/client satisfaction 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5

Manager-employees relations 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5

General employee relations 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5

H2. Please rate the following series of statements about the role of the operations outside Denmark within the worldwide company. 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree The operations outside Denmark have international responsibility for one or more products or services on behalf of the worldwide company

1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5

Significant expertise in R&D within the worldwide company is generated outside Denmark operations

1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5

H3. How important is/are your overseas subsidiary/subsidiaries to the global performance of the

parent company?

Not at all important ............................. 1 Of little importance ............................. 2 Somewhat important .......................... 3 Important ............................................ 4 Very important .................................... 5 Don’t know .......................................... 6

H4. Has this level of importance changed over the past five years?

Significantly decreased ...................... 1 Slightly decreased .............................. 2 Stayed about the same ...................... 3 Slightly increased ............................... 4 Significantly increased ........................ 5 Don’t know .......................................... 6


Page 24

H5. How would you assess…? Poor Outstanding

The job satisfaction of the employees

at [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? 1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5

The ability of [COMPANY NAME] in

Denmark to retain essential employees? 1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5 The overall performance of the

[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? 1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5

H6. How is the performance of the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark relative to competitors?

Poor Outstanding

1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5

H7. Please rank the importance of the following factors in influencing decisions on new investments or new mandates for your [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? 1 being the most important factor and 7 the least important factor.

Rank

Labour Availability ................................................................................. ______

Labour costs ......................................................................................... ______

The industrial relations climate ............................................................. ______

Overall operating costs

(NB should be: General infrastructure (e.g. transportation) .................. ______

Overall operating costs ......................................................................... ______

The capacity of the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark to innovate development of goods, services and processes ......................... ______

Financial incentives (including taxes) ................................................... ______

Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in this study. Please let us know if you are interested in … Tick all that apply

1 Receiving a report benchmarking the employment practices of your company relative to the rest of the Danish sample

1 Participating in a seminar where in-depth results of the worldwide survey will be presented by leading researchers within International Human Resource Management.

1 Receiving the full result report Click "Finish" to submit the survey.

Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark

Page 1

SURVEY OF EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES OF MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES OPERATING IN DENMARK

Foreign-based – English version

SECTION A: INTRODUCTION

Please select a language: English ............ 1 Danish .................. 2 First page:

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES OF MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES Welcome to the survey! The completion of the survey is expected to take about 30-40 minutes. You can stop any time, save your entries and resume the completion of the survey later. You can navigate forward and backward by using the arrows at the top and the bottom of the page. We highly recommend saving the survey after completion of each page. Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in this study.

A1. Can you confirm that the company is wholly or majority foreign-owned? By “majority owned” we

mean at least 50% is owned by a foreign-based company Yes .................. 1 No ........................ 2

IF NO REVERT TO PAGE ASKING FOR CONTACT INFO Page for contact info: To the previous question you replied that your company is not majority Foreign owned (that at least 50% is owned by a Danish-based company). If this is correct, please write your e-mail below and we will invite you to the survey of Danish-owned firms. If your company is Foreign-owned please return to the previous page and correct your response to the previous question. [box name] [box E-mail] If the ownership structure is more complicated please contact us by entering your message and email below. Please click finish to submit your response. [box name] [box e-mail] [box message] Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in this study. A2. What is the name of the Danish operations that you work for? By Danish operations we mean the

operational units of the worldwide company located in Denmark.

________________________________________________

A3. What is the name of the ultimate controlling company you work for? ____________________________________________________________ [COMPANY NAME]


Page 2

A4. In which country is the operational head quarters of your ultimate controlling company located? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A5. Are you located at?

The global HQ of the worldwide company............... 1

The HQ of the operating units in Denmark......... …. 2

Other (please specify) _______________..……….. 3 A6. What is your job title?

HR/Personnel Director………………………………..…………... 1 HR/Personnel Senior Manager/ Manager……………………….... 2 HR/Personnel Senior Officer……………………………….……... 3 HR/Personnel Officer………...…………………………………… 4 HR/Personnel Executive………………………………………….. 5 HR/Personnel Assistant……………..……………………………. 6 Other (please specify)…………………………………………... 7

A7. How long have you worked for the COMPANY IN DENMARK ? Please write number of years ___________________________ A8. For which of the following policy levels do you have any HR responsibilities: Tick all that apply Global HR policy…………………............... 1 Regional HR policy……….......................... 1 HR policy in Denmark………...................... 1 Other (please specify) ___________ 1 In the rest of the questionnaire when we ask you questions about [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark, we would like you to think of all operation units in Denmark. A9. In how many foreign countries does the company have operating sites? 1 country………………………………….…... ...... 1 2 – 5 countries………...…….………………… ..... 2 6 or more countries…………………………… ..... 3 A10. Does [company name] in Denmark have? 1 site………………………………….…... ............. 1 2 – 5 sites………...…….………………… ............. 2 6 or more sites…………………………… ............. 3 A11. What is the total number of employees worldwide including Denmark by headcount?


500 – 999 employees…………... ......................... 3 1,000 – 4,999 employees………. ........................ 4 5,000 – 29.999 employees………….…... ............ 5 30.000 – 59.999 employees………….…... .......... 6 60.000 +……….………….…... ............................. 7


Page 3

A12. What is the total number of employees by headcount in the following geographical regions? Denmark Europe (excluding Denmark) North America Asia-Pacific Rest of the world


500 – 999 employees…………... ......................... 3 1,000 – 4,999 employees………. ........................ 4 5,000 + employees………….…... ........................ 5

None……………………………………..…….…... . 6

Don’t know …………………………….…... .......... 7

A13. Please estimate the approximate number of employees in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark in each

of the following core functions.

Number

Research & Development (R&D) .......................... _________

Manufacturing Operations ..................................... _________

Sales and Marketing .............................................. _________

Customer Service .................................................. _________

Business Services (finance, IT, payroll, etc).......... _________

Other … ................................................................. _________ A14. When was the worldwide company first established? Please write the year ____________(year) A15. What year did it establish its first foreign operation? Thinking of the first significant investment outside of country of origin – ignoring minor sales presence. _____________ (year)

A16. What year did the worldwide company first establish in Denmark? Thinking of the first significant investment in Denmark - ignoring minor sales presence.

_____________ (year) A17. Was this through…? A Greenfield investment ..... 1 A merger or acquisition ....... 2 Other (please specify) ........ 3 ______________________________ A18. How many of the top five management positions in the [Company Name] in Denmark are filled

by…?

Individuals who previously worked for the company in country of origin? None 1 Don’t know 2

Number 3 _________


Page 4

Individuals from other parts of the world-wide company? i.e. outside Denmark but not the country of origin

None 1 Don’t know 2

Number 3 _____________ A19. To what degree (percentage) has the following changed in the worldwide company in the last 3 years? Can be both positive and negative. Only approximate numbers are necessary.

Number of employees _____ (%) Sales _____ (%)

A20. Approximately what percentage of revenues of [COMPANY NAME] comes from sales abroad?

0% ...................................................... 1 1-25% ................................................. 2 26-50% ............................................... 3 51-75% ............................................... 4 76-100% ............................................. 5 Don’t know .......................................... 6

A21. Is the worldwide company state or partly state owned? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 Don’t Know ....... 3 A22. Is the worldwide company privately owned or are its shares publicly traded? Privately owned ........................... 1 Publicly traded ............... 2

A23. Which of the following statements best describes the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? The company produces… A single product or service that accounts for more than 90% of sales …………………………………… 1 A number of products and services but one of these accounts for between 70% and 90% of sales…. 2 A number of products and services but no single one of these accounts for more than 70% of sales.. 3 A range of unrelated products and services………………………………………………………………….. 4 Don’t know………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 5 A24. Which of the following statements best describes the worldwide operations? The worldwide company produces… A single product or service that accounts for more than 90% of sales …………………………………… 1 A number of products and services but one of these accounts for between 70% and 90% of sales…. 2 A number of products and services but no single one of these accounts for more than 70% of sales.. 3 A range of unrelated products and services………………………………………………………………….. 4

5 A25. Is the worldwide company‟s most important product, service or brand (or group of products,

services or brands)...? Help: With „most important‟ we want you to think of the product, service or brand that generates the most revenue.

Adapted significantly to national markets ............................................................... 1 Adapted to different regions of the world but standardised within them ................. 2 Standardised globally ............................................................................................. 3 Don’t know ........................................................................................................ ….. 4


Page 5

A26. Are any of the components, products and services of [company name] in Denmark produced for operations of the worldwide company based outside Denmark?

Yes – all.......................................... 1 Yes – some but not all..................... 2 No – none....................................... 3 Don’t know...................................... 4

A27. Do other parts of the worldwide company supply components, products or services to [company name] in Denmark?

Yes........................... 1 No........................... 2 Don’t know................ 3


Page 6

SECTION B: WORKFORCE COMPOSITION

Throughout the questionnaire the focus will be on your policies and practices in relation to the following two main groups of staff:

B1. Approximately how many managers are there in the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?

0 .................................... 1 1 – 9 .............................. 2 10 – 24 .......................... 3 25 – 49 .......................... 4 50 – 99 .......................... 5 100 – 249 ...................... 6 250 – 499 ...................... 7 500 – 749 ..................... 8 750 – 999 ...................... 9 1000 – 2999 .................. 10 3000 – 4999 .................. 11 5000+ ............................ 12 Don’t Know .................... 13

B2. Approximately, how many LOG are there in [company name] in Denmark? Help: This includes staff who works regularly, but excludes occasional staff. By regularly we mean there is a mutual expectation that the employee works on an ongoing basis for your company

0 .................................... 1 1 – 9 .............................. 2 10 – 24 .......................... 3 25 – 49 .......................... 4 50 – 99 .......................... 5 100 – 249 ...................... 6 250 – 499 ...................... 7 500 – 749 ..................... 8 750 – 999 ...................... 9 1000 – 2999 .................. 10 3000 – 4999 .................. 11 5000+ ............................ 12 Don’t Know .................... 13

1. Managers – employees who primarily manage the organisation, or a department, subdivision,

function, or component of the organisation and whose main tasks consist of the direction and coordination of the functioning of the organisation. In other words managers refer to those above the level of first-line supervision.

2. The LOG (largest occupational group) – the largest non-managerial occupational group among

the employees in the ‘headcount’ in Denmark. For example, in a manufacturing business it might be semi-skilled operators, and in an insurance company it might be call centre staff.


Page 7

SECTION C. THE HR FUNCTION

C1. What percentage of the managers spend the majority of their time on HR matters in [COMPANY

NAME] in Denmark? _____________ % C2. On which of the following issues is information on the operating units in Denmark monitored by

management outside of Denmark? Help: BY “A HIGHER ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL” WE MEAN E.G. SENIOR MANAGEMENT IN DENMARK, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS HQ, EUROPEAN HQ (IN DENMARK OR ELSEWHERE) OR GLOBAL HQ.

Please tick all that apply Managerial pay packages…………………………………………………... ............... 1 Management career progression…………………………………………… .............. 1 Overall labour costs………………………………………………………... ................. 1 Numbers employed (headcount)……………………………………………............... 1 Staff turnover………………………………………………………………. .................. 1 Absenteeism………………………………………………………………… ................ 1 Labour productivity………………………………………………………… .................. 1 Workforce composition by diversity (e.g. gender, ethnicity, disability etc.) ............ 1 Employee attitude and satisfaction…………………………………………. .............. 1 None of these ......................................................................................................... 1

Don’t know .............................................................................................................. 1 Other (please specify) _____________________________ ................................. 1 C3. Is there a body within the worldwide company, such as a committee of senior managers, that

develops HR policies that apply across countries?

1 Go to C4 2 Go to C5 3 Go to C5 C4. Is there someone from Denmark on this body/committee? Yes ................... 1 No ......................... 2 3 C5. Are HR managers from different countries brought together in a systematic way?

Yes – on a global basis 1 Yes – on a regional basis 2 No 3 4 C6. How frequently does contact between HR managers in different countries take place through any

of the following mechanisms:

Weekly Monthly Quarterly Annually Other Ad hoc Never

Regular meetings ................................. ............. 1 .......... 2 .......... 3 ......... 4 ...... 5 .......... 6 ....... 7 International Conferences.................... ............. 1 .......... 2 .......... 3 ......... 4 ...... 5 .......... 6 ....... 7 Task Forces ......................................... ............. 1 .......... 2 .......... 3 ......... 4 ...... 5 .......... 6 ....... 7 Virtual Groups e.g. conference calls .... ............. 1 .......... 2 .......... 2 ......... 4 ...... 5 .......... 6 ....... 7


Page 8

Now think about your company‟s approach concerning its management of employees. C7. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements: Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly N/A Don’t Disagree agree nor Agree know disagree

There is a worldwide approach covering all global operations………. ................................ 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7

There is a regional approach covering all European operations ...................................... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7

The development of a specific approach is left to international product, service or brand based divisions .................................... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7

The development of a specific approach is left to national operating companies .............. 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7

The approach is really a mix of the traditions of the different national operating companies .... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7

Traditions in the country of origin have an overriding influence on the approach to the management of employees……… ........... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7

C8. Has [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark provided any new practices in the following areas that have been

taken up elsewhere in the worldwide company: No Yes, in Yes, Yes, Don’t few parts in major taken Know of the firm businesses up globally

Pay and performance management ........................... 1 ...... 2 ................... 3 ............. 4 ............. 5

Training, development and organisational

learning ....................................................................... 1 ...... 2 ................... 3 ............. 4 ............. 5

Employee involvement and communication ............... 1 ...... 2 ................... 3 ............. 4 ............. 5

Employee representation and consultation ................ 1 ...... 2 ................... 3 ............. 4 ............. 5


Page 9

SECTION D. PAY AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

D1. Is there a system of regular formal appraisal for each of the following groups of employees in

[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? Yes No Don’t know For LOG ..................................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3 For managers ............................................. 1 ............. 2 ............. 3




D2. Is a „forced distribution‟ applied to the results of appraisals for the following employee groups in

[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? Help: By forced distribution we mean a certain % of employees have to be in a particular performance category or rating, e.g. 10% are poor performers, 70% are reasonable performers, and 20% are top performers Please include formal and informal policy.

Yes No Don’t know For LOG ..................................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3 For managers ............................................. 1 ............. 2 ............. 3



IF BOTH STAFF GROUPS ARE CODED „YES‟ GO TO D3 D3. What is the top and bottom percentages of this forced distribution for each of the following

employee groups in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? For LOG: ............................................. Top _________% Bottom _______% For managers: ..................................... Top _________% Bottom _______%

Don’t know (For managers Top)............ 1

Don’t know (For managers Bottom) ...... 1

Don’t know (For LOG Top).................... 1

Don’t know (For LOG Bottom)............... 1

D4. Is a formal system of „360-degree‟ feedback used in evaluating performance of any of these groups of employees in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?

[CODE ONE FOR EACH GROUP]

Yes No Don’t know

For LOG ............................................ 1 ............. 2 ..................... 3 For managers .................................... 1 ............. 2 ..................... 3

D5. Are the outcomes of performance appraisal used as inputs in decisions on redundancy and redeployment in the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? Yes, Yes, No N/A Don’t know as a formal input as an informal input in decisions in decisions

For LOG Name .......................................... 1 ............... ................ 2 ................ 3 ............. 4 .......... 5 For managers ............................................. 1 ............... ................ 2 ................ 3 ............. 4 .......... 5


Page 10

D6. Thinking about the MANAGERS in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark, on a scale of 1-5 how important

are the following kinds of performance evaluation?


Individual quantitative output targets………. ........... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 .... ......... ... 6

(e.g. financial, numerical)

Individual qualitative output targets ………. ............ 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 .... ......... ... 6

(e.g. completion of a task)

Group output targets ………. ................................... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5................. 6

(e.g. for site or business unit)

‘Competences’ or personal skills ………. ................ 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5................. 6

(e.g. leadership or innovation skills)

Behaviour in relation to corporate ‘values’ …. ......... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5................. 6

D7. Does [Company Name] in Denmark offer employee share ownership, profit sharing or share

options to any employees in each of these groups?


For LOG .................. ……. 1… 2. ............... 3 ................... 1 ...... 2 ........... 3 ............. 1 ....... 2 .... 3


For managers .............. . 1 ..... 2 .......... 3 ................... 1 ...... 2 ...... 3 ............. 1 ....... 2 .... 3

D8. Is there variable pay for the following groups in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? Help: By variable pay we mean merit pay, performance related pay, performance related bonuses or payment by results.

Yes No Don’t Know

For [LOG Name] ........................... 1 ................... 2 ................... 3

For managers ................................ 1 ................... 2 ................... 3 IF „YES‟ FOR LOG AT D8, ASK D9, IF „NO‟, GO TO D10

Help: 1. Approved employee share ownership scheme is where the organisation establishes a trust which

acquires shares on behalf of employees and provides employees with part ownership of the company. 2. Profit sharing refers to rewards given to employees in addition to normal salary and bonuses which are

dependent on the levels of profit in the business.

3. Share options is where employees are given the option of buying company shares, often at a reduced rate


Page 11

D9. For LOG receiving variable pay in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark, how important are each of the

following factors in determining variable pay? Not at all important Very important Don’t know

Individual performance ………. ............................... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ............... .......... 6

Work group performance

(e.g. team or departmental performance)………. .... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ............... .......... 6

Organizational performance

(e.g. site, region, company) ………. ........................ 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ............... .......... 6

D10. To what extent does [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark have discretion over the determination of the following aspects of pay and performance policy? Use codes 1-5 from Aspect of pay and performance policy Use codes 1-5 N/A Don’t know






For MANAGERS………………… ....................... ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6

For LOG . ........................................... ____________ ............. 7 ..............................


For MANAGERS………………… ....................... ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6

For LOG . ........................................... ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6

N/A: There is no clear separation between higher levels of management (e.g. international business HQ,

European HQ or global HQ) and management of the Danish operations.

1 2 3 4 5

The [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has no discretion (must implement policy set by a higher organizational level such as corporate or regional HQ).

The [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has a little discretion.

The [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has some discretion (can develop policy within the guidelines/ framework set by a higher organisational level).

The [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has quite a lot of discretion.

The [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has full discretion (can set own policy).


Page 12

E. TRAINING, DEVELOPMENT AND ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING

E1. What percentage of the annual pay bill in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark was spent on training and development for all employees over the past 12 months?

0% ............................................ 1 Up to 1% .................................. 2 Over 1% and less than 4% ...... 3 Over 4% ................................... 4

Don’t Know………………………5 E2. Thinking of [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark is there a formal system of succession planning for

senior managers?



No ........................................... 3 Go to E4

Don’t Know…………………..... 4 Go to E4 E3. Is this system also used in other parts of the worldwide company? Yes in all operations................. 1 Yes in some operations ........... 2 No ........................................... 3 Don’t Know…………………..... 4 E4. Does [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark have a management development programme specifically

aimed at developing its „high potentials‟ or senior management potential?



No ........................................... 3 Go to E6

Don’t Know ............................... 4 Go to E6 E5. Is this system also used in other parts of the worldwide company? Yes in all operations................. 1 Yes in some operations ........... 2 No ........................................... 3 Don’t Know…………………..... 4 E6. How extensively are each of the following techniques used for the development of these

managers in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?

1 2 3 4 5

Not used at all A little use Some use Used quite extensively

Used very extensively

Technique … Use codes 1-5 Don’t know N/A Enter one code only

Short term International assignments (12 months or less) ... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7

Long term international assignments (more than 12 months) ____________ ............ 6 ....................... 7

Formal global management training ...................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7

Assessment of performance against a set of global management competencies ......................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7

Qualifications programme (e.g. MBA, professional qualifications) .......................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7


Page 13

E7. How many expatriates from the company‟s foreign operations are currently working on long-term

assignments (i.e. more than 12 months) in Denmark? Please include all types of long-term assignments for any purpose.

Type 0 if none. Help: Expatriates in this question refers to employees from operating companies outside Denmark who are currently working on assignment in Denmark.

Number………. 2 _______ Don’t know………. 1 E8. How many expatriates from [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark are currently working on long-term (i.e.

more than 12 months) assignments overseas? Please include all types of long-term assignments for any purpose.

Type 0 if none. Help: Expatriates in this question refers to employees of the company‟s operations in Denmark who are currently on assignment in operations of the worldwide company abroad.

Number………. 2 _______ Don’t know………. 1 E9. To what extent do you agree with each of the following statements for LOG in [COMPANY NAME] in

Denmark: Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree agree nor Agree know disagree

On-the-job learning (experience gained on the job) is more valuable than off-the-job classroom training and development ………. .......... 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6

Investment in training is critical to either

developing or retaining key skills in this company …. 1 ......... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6

E10. To what extent do you agree with each of the following statements for MANAGERS in [COMPANY

NAME] in Denmark:

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree agree nor Agree know disagree

Our company favours internal promotion over

external management recruitment ………. .............. 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6

International experience is a key criterion

for career progression at senior levels. ………. ...... 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6


Page 14

In this section you will be asked about the mechanisms you use for organisational learning on an international level. By this we mean mechanisms used to create new knowledge involving MANAGERS from different country operations or to transfer knowledge across the international organisation. E11. Thinking of [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark is there a formal policy on organisational learning?

Yes in all operations ........... 1 Go to E12

Yes in some operations ...... 2 Go to E12

No ....................................... 3 Go to E13

Don’t Know ......................... 4 Go to E13 E12. Is this system also used in other parts of the worldwide company? Yes in all operations .... 1 Yes in some operations ..... 2 No ........ 3 Don’t Know........ 4 E13. To what extent is the organizational learning policy for the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark and the

worldwide company similar? Not at all similar Highly similar Don’t know

....................................................................... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ............... .......... 6

E14. Thinking about MANAGERS, do [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark use any of the following to

facilitate international organisational learning?

Yes No Don‟t Know

Expatriate assignments………………………. ....................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

International project groups or task forces ............................................ 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

International formal committees’ ........................................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

International informal networks ............................................................. 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

Secondments to other organisations internationally (e.g. to suppliers, customers, universities, private R&D facilities) ........ 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

[ONLY ASK E15 IF MORE THAN ONE „YES‟ CODED IN E13. OTHERWISE GO TO E15] E15. Which of these is the most important international organisational learning mechanism used by

managers within [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?

Expatriate assignments………………………. ....................................... 1

International project groups or task forces ............................................ 2

International formal committees’ ........................................................... 3

International informal networks ............................................................. 4

Secondments to other organisations internationally (e.g. to suppliers, customers, universities, private R&D facilities) ........ 5

Don’t know ............................................................................................ 6


Page 15

E16. Using the scale below, to what extent do [company name] in Denmark have discretion over

determining the following training and development policies?


Use codes 1-5 Don’t Know NA

Training and development policy .......................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7

Policy on organisational learning ........................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7

Policy on succession planning for senior managers ............. ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7


1 2 3 4 5

The [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has no discretion (must implement policy set by a higher organizational level such as corporate or

regional HQ).

The [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has a little

discretion.

The [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has some discretion (can develop policy within the guidelines/ framework set by a higher organisational level).

The [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has quite a lot

of discretion.

The [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has full

discretion (can set own policy).


Page 16

F. EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNICATION

This section is about policies on employee involvement and communication, starting with the involvement of employees in the work process. F1. Could you tell me whether you use the following practices in relation to the LOG in [COMPANY

NAME] in Denmark?

Yes No Don‟t Know

Formally designated teams in which employees have

responsibility for organising their work and carrying out a set of tasks 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

Groups where employees discuss issues of quality, production or service delivery such as problem-solving or continuous improvement groups………………………. ......................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

F2. Which of the following most closely corresponds to the pattern of employee involvement in


An identical or similar pattern exists across all or most sites ................................................... 1

All or most sites have involvement systems, but they differ from site to site ............................ 2

Some sites have involvement systems while others do not ..................................................... 3

Not applicable (1 site only in Denmark] .................................................................................... 4

Don’t Know ....................................................................................................................... …..… 5 F3. How important have each of the following been in providing examples of employee involvement that have been taken up in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?

Not drawn Source of v. on at all important examples

Specific practices elsewhere in the worldwide

company…. ................................................................. ............. 1 ........... 2 .......... 3 ....... 4 ....... 5

Formal model of good practice codified

elsewhere in worldwide company ........................ ………. ....... 1 ........... 2 .......... 3 ....... 4 ....... 5

Examples drawn from other firms ………. .................. ............. 1 ........... 2 .......... 3 ....... 4 ....... 5 F4. Does the [COMPANY NAME] regularly use teamwork or other employee involvement practices in your operating companies outside Denmark? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 Don’t Know ....... 3 F5. Would you say that practices in relation to employee involvement in the worldwide company are: Very similar across all operations .......... .......................... 1 Broadly similar but with some variations .......................... 2 Similar to some extent but with substantial variations ................ 3 Fairly diverse ......... ...................... .......................... 4 Very diverse ........... ...................... .......................... 5

Don’t know ............. ...................... .......................... 6 F6. Does [company name] regularly use project teams or task forces, embracing employees other than managers, that function across more than one operating unit in Denmark? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 N/A .................... 3 Don’t Know ..... 4 IF F6 = YES ASK F7; IF NO, N/A OR DK GO TO F9


Page 17

F7. Do these groups in Denmark also include employees from outside Denmark? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 N/A .................... 3 Don’t Know ..... 4 IF F7 = YES ASK F8; IF NO GO TO F9 F8. How common is the cross-national structure of these teams?

Very rare Very common

....................................................................... 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 ........... 5 F9. Which of the following communication mechanisms are regularly used for the LOG within


Yes No Don‟t Know

Meetings between senior MANAGERS and the whole of the

work force ....................................................................................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

Meetings between line managers or supervisors and employees (sometimes called briefing groups) ....................................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

Attitude or opinion surveys ............................................................................. 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

Suggestion schemes ...................................................................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

Systematic use of management chain to cascade information ...................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

Newsletters or emails ..................................................................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3

A company intranet providing information to employees’ ............................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3 F10. Which of the following types of information is regularly provided to the LOG within [COMPANY

NAME] in Denmark?

Yes No Don‟t Know



Staffing plans for the company………………………….. ....................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3 F11. Which of the following types of information is regularly provided to the LOG within [COMPANY

NAME] about the worldwide company?

Yes No Don‟t Know



Staffing plans for the company………………………….. ....................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3 F12. Are there project teams or task forces embracing employees other than managers that function

across more than one operating unit, used in foreign operations? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 NA ..................... 3 Don’t Know ..... 4


Page 18

F13. To what extent does [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark have discretion over the determination of the following aspects of employee involvement and communication policy….? The operating company in Denmark have… Use codes 1-5 Don’t Not Know Applicable

Involvement of employees in work process, e.g. team work or problem-solving groups ................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7


Suggestion schemes . ........................................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7

Provision of information to employees ................................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7


1 2 3 4 5

[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has no discretion (must implement

policy set by a higher organisational level such as corporate or regional HQ).

[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has a little

discretion.

[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has some discretion (can develop policy within the

guidelines/framework set by a higher organisational

level).

[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has

quite a lot of discretion.

[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has full discretion (can set own

policy).


Page 19

SECTION G. EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION AND CONSULTATION

The following questions are about employee representation, employee influence and unions. The questions aim to identify possible differences in cooperative culture in the countries in which your company is operating, and to elaborate if different kinds of cooperation influence HR-policies across borders.

G1. How would you describe the policy of management towards union recognition within [COMPANY

NAME] in Denmark? In favour of union recognition ................... 1 Not in favour of union recognition................... 2 Neutral towards union recognition ................... 3 G2. Thinking of the LOG in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark, are trade unions recognised for the purposes

of collective employee representation at? No sites in the Danish operations................... 1 All sites in the Danish operations.................. 2 Most sites in the Danish operations................... 3 Some sites in the Danish operations................. 4 The company’s single Danish site ................... 5 ASK G3 IF CODED 2,3, 4 OR 5 AT G2, IF CODE 1 AT G2 GO TO G4 G3. Are there any non-union based structure(s) of collective employee representation used? Tick all that apply Yes, at sites where there is no trade union recognition.................. 1 Yes, at sites where there is also trade union recognition............... 1 No .................................................................................................. 1 G4. Is there collective bargaining with trade unions over pay and major conditions (e.g. working time) at any of the following levels covering all or some of the [LOG NAME] within the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? Tick all that apply, multi-code only allowable for codes 2, 4, and 5

At Danish company level, covering all sites.................................................. 1 At the company’s single Danish site .................................................. 1 Covering more than one, but not all Danish sites .................................. 1 At individual site level........................................................................................... 1 At industry level, covering more than one employer............................................ 1 There is no collective bargaining over pay............................................................. 1

G5. Thinking about trade unions in the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark, what approach do the trade

union representatives generally adopt?

A cooperative approach…………………... .......... 1 An adversarial approach………………….. .......... 2 It depends on the issue……………………. ......... 3 Don’t Know………………………………. .............. 4 ASK G6 IF CODED 2, 3, 4 OR 5 AT G2 (I.E. UNIONS RECOGNISED AT LEAST AT ONE SITE)


Page 20

G6. Using this rating scale, which best describes the policy towards working with unions on the following matters relating to the [LOG NAME]:

1 2 2 4 5 Management decides on its

own

… Management consults union representatives

… Management decides jointly

with union representatives

1 2 3 4 5 Don’t know

Work organisation ………. ................................ 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6

Sub-contracting and outsourcing……. .............. 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6

Variable payments schemes ............................. 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6

In-work training/ upgrading skills ....................... 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6

Direct employee involvement

schemes .................................................... 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6

G7. Using this rating scale, to what extent does the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark have discretion over setting the following elements of policy trade unions?

The operating company in Denmark have… Use codes 1-5 Don’t Not Know Applicable

Union recognition ....... ____________ ............................ 6 .................................... 7

Scope of union involvement in decision-making ................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7

To what extent does [the [COMPANY NAME] outside


employee consultation policy? ................................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7

N/A: There is no clear separation between higher levels of management (e.g. international business HQ, European HQ or global HQ) and management of the Danish operations. G8. Are regular meetings held between management and representatives of employees at this level in the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark for the purpose of information provision and consultation? Help: By “regular” we mean: more than once a year By “this level” we mean that for example Danish HQ calls in meetings with employee representatives from all the units in Denmark Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 Don’t Know ....... 3 ASK G9 IF YES AT G8 [IF NO GO TO G10]

1 2 3 4 5

[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has no discretion (must implement

policy set by a higher organisational level such as corporate or regional HQ).

[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has a little

discretion.

[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has some discretion (can develop policy within the

guidelines/framework set by a higher organisational

level).

[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has

quite a lot of discretion.

[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has full discretion (can set own

policy).


Page 21

G9. Do these meetings cover… ? All employees under a single arrangement ............................................................................. 1 All employees, but with different arrangements for different groups ......................................... 2 Some groups of employees under a single arrangement............................................................. 3 Some groups of employees, but with different arrangements for different groups....................... 4 Other .................................... ................................. 5 G10. Which of the following statements best describes management‟s relative emphasis in the

[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark on mechanisms for communicating and consulting with employees?

Emphasis on direct communication and consultation........................................................... 1 Emphasis on indirect communication and consultation (e.g. through joint consultative committee or company council)........................................... 2 Equivalent emphasis on direct and indirect communication and consultation ........................ 3 G11. Does the worldwide company have experience of operating with mandatory employee consultation structures (e.g. works councils) that are required in some countries overseas? Yes 1 No 2 Don’t Know 3 G12. Which of the following statements comes closest to capturing the worldwide company‟s policy? There is no policy……………………………………………………….. 1

Minimum compliance with legal requirements on employee information and consultation..................................... 2 To go somewhat further than legal requirements............................ 3 To go considerably further than legal requirements......................... 4 Don’t know ...................................................................................... 5

G13. Over the past 3 years, has the EU Directive on Information and Consultation prompted any

changes in arrangements for employee consultation in Denmark? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 Don’t Know ....... 3 G14. Is there a European Works Council (EWC) or similar European-level structure which covers


Yes ...... 1 Go to G19 No ........ 2 Go to H1 Don’t Know 3 Go to H1 G15. Which of the following statements best describes the overall nature of the European Works

Council in Denmark?

Management provides minimal information required for compliance, there is little or no dialogue with employee representatives over issues; and no impact on decision outcomes ................................................................................................... 1

Management provides information slightly beyond that required for compliance ................................ 2

Management provides information somewhat beyond that required for compliance; there is a substantive dialogue with employee representatives on a limited range of issues; and a limited impact on decision outcomes ......................................................................................... 3

Management provides information considerably beyond that required for compliance....................... 4

Management provides information far beyond that required for compliance; there is substantive dialogue with employee representatives over a wide range of issues; and an extensive impact on decision outcomes .................................................................................. 5

Don’t Know ........................................................................................................................................... 6


Page 22

G16. Do you receive information about the activity and meetings of the EWC?

Systematically at the time of EWC meetings......................... 1 Periodically, on an ‘as necessary’ basis ................................. 2 Little or no information about the EWC received..................... 3


Page 23

Section H: Company Performance

This is the final section of the questionnaire. H1. How would you compare performance of the [not answered] in Denmark over the past three years with that of other competitors in your sector?

Poor Outstanding

Quality of products/services 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5

Development of new products/services 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5

Profit generation 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5

Turnover 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5

Market share 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5

Ability to recruit essential employees 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5

Ability to retain essential employees 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5

Customer/client satisfaction 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5

Manager-employees relations 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5

General employee relations 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5

H2. Please rate the following series of statements about the role of the [company name] in Denmark. 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree

The [company name] in Denmark has international responsibility for one or more products or services on behalf of the worldwide company

1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5

Significant expertise in R&D within the worldwide company is generated in the operations in [company name] in Denmark.

1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5

H3. How important is [company name] in Denmark to the global performance of the parent company?

Not at all important ............................ 1 Of little importance ............................ 2 Somewhat important ......................... 3 Important ........................................... 4 Very important ................................... 5 Don’t know ......................................... 6

H4. Has this level of importance changed over the past five years?

Significantly decreased ...................... 1 Slightly decreased .............................. 2 Stayed about the same ...................... 3 Slightly increased ............................... 4 Significantly increased ........................ 5 Don’t know .......................................... 6


Page 24

H5. How would you assess? Poor Outstanding The job satisfaction of the employees

at [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? 1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5

The ability of [COMPANY NAME] in

Denmark to retain essential employees? 1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5 The overall performance of

[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? 1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5

H6. How is the performance of [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark relative to competitors?

Poor Outstanding

1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5

H7. Please rank the importance of the following factors in influencing decisions on new investments or new mandates for your [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? 1 being the most important factor and 7 the least important factor.

Rank

Labour Availability ........................................................................................... ______

Labour costs ................................................................................................... ______

The industrial relations climate ....................................................................... ______

General infrastructure (e.g. transportation) .................................................... ______

Overall operating costs ................................................................................... ______

The capacity of the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark to innovate in the development of goods, services and processes ................................... ______

Financial incentives (including taxes) ............................................................. ______

Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in this study. Please let us know if you are interested in … Tick all that apply 1 Receiving a report benchmarking the employment practices of your company relative to the rest of the Danish sample 1 Participating in a seminar where in-depth results of the worldwide survey will be presented by leading researchers within International Human Resource Management.

1 Receiving the full result report Click "Finish" to submit the survey.


AppendixII:Frequencies

124 124

AppendixII:Frequencies

Home‐based MNCsHere we include the total number of foreign‐based companies responded to our survey (31).

Count Percent Please select a language:

English 2 6,45 Danish 29 93,55

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Can you confirm that the company is wholly or majority Danish‐owned? By "majority owned" we mean at least 5+% is owned by a Danish‐based company.

Yes 31 100,00Total Responses 31 100,00 %

Are you located at? (Not Answered) 1 3,23

The global HQ of the worldwide company 25 80,65 The HQ of the opera ng units in Denmark 5 16,13

Total Responses 31 100,00 % What is your job tle?

(Not Answered) 2 6,45 HR/Personnel Director 15 48,39

HR/Personnel Senior MANAGER/ MANAGER 6 19,35 HR/Personnel Officer 2 6,45

HR/Personnel Execu ve 2 6,45 Other 4 12,90

Total Responses 31 100,00 % For which of the following policy levels do you have any HR responsibili es Tick all that apply

(Not Answered) 1 2,63 Global HR policy 18 47,37

Regional HR policy 3 7,89 HR policy in Denmark 14 36,84

Other 2 5,26Total Responses 38 100,00 %

In how many foreign countries does the company have opera ng sites? 1 country 1 3,23

2 ‐ 5 countries 7 22,58 6 or more countries 23 74,19

Total Responses 31 100,00 % Does [NAME] in Denmark have?

(Not Answered) 3 9,68 1 site 8 25,81

2 ‐ 5 sites 9 29,03 6 or more sites 11 35,48

Total Responses 31 100,00 %What is the total number of employees worldwide including Denmark by headcount?

(Not Answered) 3 9,68 500‐999 5 16,13

1000‐4999 13 41,94 5000‐29.999 10 32,26

Total Responses 31 100,00 % Denmark

Up to 99 1 3,23 100‐499 7 22,58 500‐999 9 29,03

1000‐4999 12 38,71 5000+ 2 6,45

Total Responses 31 100,00 %

Europe (excluding Denmark) (Not Answered) 1 3,23

100‐499 13 41,94 500‐999 5 16,13

1000‐4999 11 35,48 5000+ 1 3,23

Total Responses 31 100,00 % North America

(Not Answered) 5 16,13 Up to 99 4 12,90 100‐499 7 22,58 500‐999 3 9,68

1000‐4999 2 6,45 None 9 29,03

Dont know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %

Asia‐Pacific (Not Answered) 4 12,90

Up to 99 7 22,58 100‐499 6 19,35 500‐999 5 16,13

1000‐4999 3 9,68 None 5 16,13


Rest of the world (Not Answered) 7 22,58

Up to 99 2 6,45 100‐499 10 32,26 500‐999 1 3,23

1000‐4999 2 6,45 None 7 22,58


How many of the top five management posi ons in [NAME] in Denmark are filled by individuals from outside Denmark?

(Not Answered) 1 3,23 1 3 9,68 2 5 16,13 3 1 3,23

None 21 67,74Total Responses 31 100,00 %

Which of the following statements best describes [NAME] in Denmark? The company produces… (Not Answered) 1 3,23

A single product or service that accounts for more than 90% of sales 3 9,68A number of products and services but one of these accounts for between 70% and 90% of sales 3 9,68A number of products and services but no single one of these 21 67,74accounts for more than 70% of sales

A range of unrelated products and services 2 6,45 Don't know 1 3,23


Which of the following statements best describes the worldwide opera ons? The worldwide company produces…

(Not Answered) 1 3,23A single product or service that accounts for more than 90%of sales 2 6,45A number of products and services but one of these accounts for between 70% and 90% of sales 5 16,13A number of products and services but no single one of these accounts for more than 70% of sales 19 61,29

A range of unrelated products and services 2 6,45 Don't know 2 6,45

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Is the worldwide company's most important product, service or brand(or group of products, services or brands)?

(Not Answered) 1 3,23 Adapted significantly to na onal markets 6 19,35

Adapted to different regions of the world but standardisedwithin them 9 29,03 Standardised globally 14 45,16

Don't know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %

Are any of the components, products and services of [NAME] in Denmark produced for opera on of the worldwide company based outside Denmark?

(Not Answered) 1 3,23 Yes ‐ all 2 6,45

Yes ‐ some but not all 24 77,42 No ‐ none 3 9,68


Do other parts of the worldwide company supply components, products or services to [NAME] in Denmark? (Not Answered) 1 3,23

Yes 23 74,19 No 7 22,58

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Approximately what percentage of revenues of [NAME] comes fromsales abroad?

(Not Answered) 4 12,90 1‐25% 3 9,68 26‐50% 3 9,68 51‐75% 7 22,58 76‐100% 11 35,48


Is the worldwide company state or partly state owned? (Not Answered) 1 3,23

Yes 1 3,23 No 29 93,55

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Is the worldwide company privately owned or are its shares publicly traded?

(Not Answered) 1 3,23 Privately owned 19 61,29

Publicly traded 11 35,48Total Responses 31 100,00 %

Approximately, how many MANAGERS are there in [NAME] in Denmark? 1 – 9 2 6,45

10 – 24 6 19,35 25 – 49 4 12,90 50 – 99 4 12,90

100 – 249 10 32,26 250 – 499 3 9,68

1,000 – 2999 2 6,45


Approximately, how many LOG are there in [NAME] in Denmark? (Not Answered) 1 3,23

1 ‐ 9 1 3,23 10 ‐ 24 1 3,23 25 ‐ 49 1 3,23

100 ‐ 249 5 16,13 250 ‐ 499 3 9,68 500 ‐ 749 4 12,90 750 ‐ 999 3 9,68

1,000 ‐ 2999 10 32,26 5,000+ 1 3,23

Don't Know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %

On which of the following issues is informa on on the opera ng units in Denmark monitored by managment in a higher organizational level? Please tick all that apply

Managerial pay packages 28 14,74 Management career progression 24 12,63

Overall labour costs 26 13,68 Numbers employed (headcount) 27 14,21

Staff turnover 18 9,47 Absenteeism 20 10,53

Labour produc vity 14 7,37 Workforce composi on by diversity (e.g. gender, ethnicity,disability etc.) 10 5,26

Employee a tude and sa sfac on 22 11,58 Don't know 1 0,53

Total Responses 190 100,00 %On which of the following issues is informa on on the opera ng units outside Denmark monitored by managment in a higher organizational level? Please tick all that apply




Labour produc vity 10 6,54Workforce composi on by diversity (e.g. gender, ethnicity,disability etc.) 6 3,92

Employee a tude and sa sfac on 17 11,11 None of these 1 0,65

Don't know 1 0,65 Other 1 0,65

Total Responses 153 100,00 %Is there a body within the worldwide company, such as a commi ee of senior managers, that develops HR policies that apply across countries?

(Not Answered) 1 3,23 Yes 18 58,06 No 12 38,71

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Is there someone from outside Denmark on this body/commi ee?


Total Responses 31 100,00 %Are HR managers from different countries brought together in a systema c way?

Yes ‐ on a global basis 15 48,39 Yes ‐ on a regional basis 3 9,68

No 13 41,94Total Responses 31 100,00 %

Regular mee ngs (Not Answered) 4 12,90

Weekly 1 3,23 Monthly 6 19,35 Quarterly 5 16,13

Annually 3 9,68 Other 1 3,23 Ad hoc 3 9,68

Never 8 25,81Total Responses 31 100,00 %

Interna onal Conferences (Not Answered) 3 9,68



Task Forces (Not Answered) 2 6,45




Virtual Groups e.g. conference calls (Not Answered) 2 6,45


Other 1 3,23 Ad hoc 5 16,13


There is a worldwide approach covering all global opera ons (Not Answered) 1 3,23

1 6 19,35 2 5 16,13 3 3 9,68 4 4 12,90 5 7 22,58

N/A 3 9,68 Don't know 2 6,45

Total Responses 31 100,00 %There is a regional approach covering all European opera ons

(Not Answered) 1 3,23 1 4 12,90 2 4 12,90 3 8 25,81 4 4 12,90 5 4 12,90

N/A 5 16,13 Don't know 1 3,23


The development of a specific approach is le to interna onal product, service or brand based divisions (Not Answered) 2 6,45

1 7 22,58 2 3 9,68 3 7 22,58 4 3 9,68 5 5 16,13

N/A 3 9,68 Don't know 1 3,23

Total Responses 31 100,00 %The development of a specific approach is le to na onal opera ng companies

(Not Answered) 1 3,23 1 5 16,13 2 3 9,68 3 6 19,35 4 9 29,03 5 5 16,13

N/A 1 3,23 Don't know 1 3,23

Total Responses 31 100,00 % The approach is really a mix of the tradi ons of the different na onal opera ng companies

(Not Answered) 2 6,45 1 5 16,13 2 2 6,45 3 5 16,13 4 11 35,48 5 3 9,68

N/A 2 6,45 Don't know 1 3,23

Total Responses 31 100,00 % Tradi ons in the country of origin have an overriding influence on the approach to the management of employees

(Not Answered) 1 3,23 1 3 9,68 2 6 19,35 3 6 19,35 4 7 22,58 5 5 16,13

N/A 1 3,23 Don't know 2 6,45

Total Responses 31 100,00 % Pay and performance management

(Not Answered) 2 6,45 No 14 45,16

Yes, in few parts of the firm 7 22,58 Yes, in major businesses 2 6,45

Yes, taken up globally 2 6,45 Don't know 4 12,90

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Training, development and organisa onal learning

(Not Answered) 1 3,23 No 19 61,29

Yes, in few parts of the firm 7 22,58 Yes, taken up globally 2 6,45


Employee involvement and communica on (Not Answered) 2 6,45

No 15 48,39Yes, in few parts of the firm 8 25,81

Yes, in major businesses 1 3,23 Yes, taken up globally 3 9,68


Employee representa on and consulta on (Not Answered) 3 9,68




For LOG Yes 15 48,39 No 15 48,39


For MANAGERS (Not Answered) 1 3,23

Yes 19 61,29 No 11 35,48

Total Responses 31 100,00 % For LOG




Yes 6 19,35 No 7 22,58


For LOG Don't know

(Not Answered) 27 77,14 Top 4 11,43

Bo om 4 11,43Total Responses 35 100,00 %

For MANAGERS Don't know



For LOG (Not Answered) 12 38,71

Yes, as a formal input in decisions 4 12,90 Yes, as an informal input in decisions 11 35,48





Individual quan ta ve output targets (e.g. financial, numerical) (Not Answered) 11 35,48

1 1 3,23 3 2 6,45 4 7 22,58 5 10 32,26

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Individual qualita ve output targets (e.g. comple on of a task)

(Not Answered) 11 35,48 3 2 6,45 4 11 35,48 5 7 22,58

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Group output targets (e.g. for site or business unit)

(Not Answered) 11 35,48 1 1 3,23 2 3 9,68 3 3 9,68 4 4 12,90 5 9 29,03

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Competences' or personal skills (e.g. leadership or innova on skills)

(Not Answered) 12 38,71 1 2 6,45 2 1 3,23 3 4 12,90 4 10 32,26 5 2 6,45

Total Responses 31 100,00 % Behaviour in rela on to corporate 'values'

(Not Answered) 11 35,48 1 1 3,23 2 1 3,23 3 5 16,13 4 8 25,81 5 5 16,13



Total Responses 31 100,00 % For MANAGERS



Employee share ownership (Not Answered) 5 16,13

Yes 8 25,81 No 18 58,06


Profit Sharing (Not Answered) 6 19,35

Yes 3 9,68 No 21 67,74


Share Op ons (Not Answered) 5 16,13

Yes 6 19,35 No 19 61,29


For MANAGERSEmployee share ownership




Yes 7 22,58 No 15 48,39



Yes 9 29,03 No 16 51,61


For LOG Yes 15 48,39 No 16 51,61

Total Responses 31 100,00 % For MANAGERS

Yes 25 80,65 No 6 19,35

Total Responses 31 100,00 % Individual performance

(Not Answered) 16 51,61 1 2 6,45 4 4 12,90 5 9 29,03

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Work group performance (e.g. team or departmental performance)

(Not Answered) 16 51,61 1 2 6,45 2 1 3,23 3 2 6,45 4 3 9,68 5 7 22,58


Organiza onal performance (e.g. site, region, company) (Not Answered) 16 51,61

1 2 6,45 2 3 9,68 3 1 3,23 4 4 12,90 5 5 16,13

Total Responses 31 100,00 % Rela ng pay levels in [NAME] in Denmark to market comparators (e.g. aiming to be in top quar le)

(Not Answered) 2 6,45 ... no discre on 8 25,81

... a li le discre on 2 6,45 ... some discre on 5 16,13

... quite a lot of discre on 3 9,68 ... full discre on 2 6,45

Don't know 5 16,13 N/A 4 12,90

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Employee share ownership schemes in [NAME] in Denmark




Don't know 7 22,58 N/A 4 12,90

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Performance appraisal system: For MANAGERS



... full discre on 4 12,90 Don't know 5 16,13

N/A 5 16,13Total Responses 31 100,00 %

Variable payments scheme: For MANAGERS (Not Answered) 2 6,45 ... no discre on 5 16,13



Don't know 5 16,13 N/A 5 16,13

Total Responses 31 100,00 % Performance appraisal system: For LOG




Don't know 6 19,35 N/A 4 12,90


Variable payments scheme: For LOG (Not Answered) 1 3,23 ... no discre on 7 22,58



Don't know 6 19,35 N/A 5 16,13

Total Responses 31 100,00 % Rela ng pay levels in [NAME] in Denmark to market comparators(e.g. aiming to be in top quar le)

... no discre on 1 3,23 ... a li le discre on 1 3,23

... some discre on 3 9,68 ... quite a lot of discre on 9 29,03



Employee share ownership schemes in [NAME] in Denmark (Not Answered) 2 6,45 ... no discre on 7 22,58



Don't know 3 9,68 N/A 6 19,35

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Performance appraisal system: For MANAGERS

... no discre on 2 6,45 ... some discre on 2 6,45


Don't know 2 6,45 N/A 3 9,68

Total Responses 31 100,00 % Variable payments scheme: For MANAGERS

... no discre on 1 3,23 ... a li le discre on 1 3,23




Performance appraisal system: For LOG ... no discre on 3 9,68




Variable payments scheme: For LOG ... no discre on 4 12,90



Don't know 2 6,45 N/A 6 19,35

Total Responses 31 100,00 %What percentage of the annual pay bill in [NAME] in Denmark was spent on training and development for all employees over the past 12 months?

(Not Answered) 2 6,45 0% 1 3,23

Up to 1% 10 32,26 Over 1% and less than 4% 14 45,16


Thinking of [NAME] in Denmark is there a formal system of succession planning for senior managers? Yes in all opera ons 5 16,13

Yes in some opera ons 7 22,58 No 16 51,61


Is this system also used in other parts of the worldwide company? (Not Answered) 19 61,29

Yes in all opera ons 3 9,68 Yes in some opera ons 8 25,81


Does [NAME] in Denmark have a management development programme specifically aimed at developing its high potentials' or senior management potential?


No 9 29,03 Don't Know 2 6,45

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Is this system also used in other parts of the worldwide company?

(Not Answered) 12 38,71 Yes in all opera ons 7 22,58


Total Responses 31 100,00 %Short term Interna onal assignments (12 months or less)

(Not Answered) 1 3,23 1 6 19,35 2 7 22,58 3 9 29,03 4 5 16,13 5 2 6,45


Long term interna onal assignments (more than 12 months) (Not Answered) 1 3,23

1 6 19,35 2 6 19,35 3 8 25,81 4 8 25,81 5 1 3,23


Formal global management training 1 9 29,03 2 6 19,35 3 2 6,45 4 6 19,35 5 5 16,13

Don't know 1 3,23 N/A 2 6,45

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Assessment of performance against a set of global management competencies

1 12 38,71 2 4 12,90 3 3 9,68 4 3 9,68 5 5 16,13

Don't know 1 3,23 N/A 3 9,68

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Qualifica ons programme (e.g. MBA, professional qualifica ons)

1 3 9,68 2 11 35,48 3 9 29,03 4 5 16,13 5 2 6,45


How many expatriates from the company's foreign opera ons are currently working on longterm assignments (i.e. more than 12 months) in Denmark? Please include all types of long‐term assignments for any purpose. Type 0 if none

(Not Answered) 4 12,90 Don't know 6 19,35

Number 21 67,74Total Responses 31 100,00 %

How many expatriates from [NAME] in Denmark are currently working on long‐term overseas? (i.e. more than 12 months) assignmentsPlease include all types of long‐term assignments for any purpose. Type 0 if none.



Thinking of [NAME] in Denmark is there a formal policy on organisa onal learning? Yes in all opera ons 6 19,35






Our company favours internal promo on over external management recruitment 1 1 3,23 2 1 3,23 3 7 22,58 4 16 51,61 5 6 19,35

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Interna onal experience is a key criterion for career progression at senior levels

1 2 6,45 2 6 19,35 3 9 29,03 4 8 25,81 5 6 19,35

Total Responses 31 100,00 % On‐the‐job learning (experience gained on the job) is more valuable than off‐the‐job classroom training

and development 1 1 3,23 3 8 25,81 4 11 35,48 5 10 32,26


Investment in training is cri cal to either developing or retaining key skills in this company 1 1 3,23 2 1 3,23 3 4 12,90 4 14 45,16 5 11 35,48

Total Responses 31 100,00 % To what extent is the organiza onal learning policy for [NAME] in Denmark and the worldwide company

similar? 1 = Not at all similar … 5 = Highly similar (Not Answered) 6 19,35

1 1 3,23 2 1 3,23 3 2 6,45 4 5 16,13 5 4 12,90


Expatriate assignments Yes 22 70,97 No 9 29,03

Total Responses 31 100,00 % Interna onal project groups or task forces

Yes 25 80,65 No 5 16,13


Interna onal formal commi ees Yes 11 35,48 No 16 51,61

Don't Know 4 12,90


Interna onal informal networks Yes 21 67,74 No 9 29,03


Secondments to other organisations internationally(e.g. to suppliers, customers, universities, private R&D facilities)



Which of these is the most important interna onal organisa onal learning mechanism used by MANAGERS within [NAME] in Denmark?

(Not Answered) 3 9,68 Expatriate assignments 7 22,58

Interna onal project groups or task forces 17 54,84 Interna onal formal commi ees 1 3,23

Secondments to other organisa ons interna onally (e.g. tosuppliers, custom 1 3,23 Don't know 2 6,45

Total Responses 31 100,00 % Training and development policy




Don't know 1 3,23 N/A 3 9,68

Total Responses 31 100,00 % Training and development policy Policy on organisa onal learning




Don't know 1 3,23 N/A 3 9,68

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Policy on succession planning for senior managers




Don't know 3 9,68 N/A 5 16,13


Training and development policy (Not Answered) 1 3,23




Policy on organisa onal learning (Not Answered) 1 3,23 ... no discre on 1 3,23




Policy on succession planning for senior MANAGERS (Not Answered) 1 3,23 ... no discre on 1 3,23



Don't know 1 3,23 N/A 2 6,45

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Formally designated teams in which employees have responsibility for organising their work and carrying out a set of tasks

Yes 22 70,97 No 7 22,58

Don’t Know 2 6,45Total Responses 31 100,00 %

Groups where employees discuss issues of quality, produc on or service delivery such as problem‐solving or continuous improvement groups

Yes 18 58,06 No 8 25,81


Which of the following most closely corresponds to the pa ern of employee involvement in [NAME] in Denmark?

An iden cal or similar pa ern exists across all or most sites 9 29,03All or most sites have involvement systems, but they differfrom site to site 11 35,48Some sites have involvement systems while others do not 3 9,68

Not applicable (1 site only in Denmark) 1 3,23 Don't Know 7 22,58

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Specific prac ces elsewhere in the worldwide company

(Not Answered) 4 12,90 1 11 35,48 2 5 16,13 3 5 16,13 4 5 16,13 5 1 3,23


Formal model of good prac ce codified elsewhere in worldwide company (Not Answered) 4 12,90

1 11 35,48 2 6 19,35 3 7 22,58 4 2 6,45 5 1 3,23

Total Responses 31 100,00 % Examples drawn from other firms

(Not Answered) 3 9,68 1 8 25,81 2 6 19,35 3 11 35,48 4 2 6,45 5 1 3,23

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Does [NAME] regularly use teamwork or other employee involvement prac ces in your opera ng companiesoutside Denmark?



Would you say that prac ces in rela on to employee involvement inthe worldwide company are: (Not Answered) 1 3,23

Very similar across all opera ons 2 6,45 Broadly similar but with some varia ons 6 19,35

Similar to some extent but with substan al varia ons 7 22,58 Fairly diverse 11 35,48

Very diverse 2 6,45 Don't Know 2 6,45

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Does [NAME] regularly use project teams or task forces, embracing employees other than MANAGERS, that function across more than one operating unit in Denmark?

Yes 22 70,97 No 3 9,68 N/A 2 6,45


Do these groups in Denmark also include employees from outsideDenmark? (Not Answered) 10 32,26

Yes 16 51,61 No 2 6,45 N/A 1 3,23


How common is the cross‐na onal structure of these teams?1=Very rare ... 5=Very common (Not Answered) 16 51,61

2 3 9,68 3 5 16,13 4 4 12,90 5 3 9,68


Are there project teams or task forces embracing employees other than MANAGERS that func on across more than one operating unit, used in foreign operations?

(Not Answered) 1 3,23 Yes 14 45,16 No 7 22,58 N/A 2 6,45


Mee ngs between senior MANAGERS and the whole of the workforce (Not Answered) 1 3,23

Yes 23 74,19 No 6 19,35


Mee ngs between line MANAGERS or supervisors and employees (some mes called briefing groups) (Not Answered) 1 3,23

Yes 27 87,10 No 3 9,68

Total Responses 31 100,00 % A tude or opinion surveys

Yes 20 64,52 No 11 35,48

Total Responses 31 100,00 % Sugges on schemes



Systema c use of management chain to cascade informa on (Not Answered) 2 6,45

Yes 20 64,52 No 5 16,13


Newsle ers or emails Yes 28 90,32 No 3 9,68

Total Responses 31 100,00 %A company intranet providing informa on to employees'

Yes 26 83,87 No 4 12,90


Financial posi on of the company Yes 30 96,77 No 1 3,23

Total Responses 31 100,00 % Investment plan for the company

Yes 12 38,71 No 16 51,61


Staffing plans for the company Yes 11 35,48 No 19 61,29


Financial posi on of the company (Not Answered) 2 6,45

Yes 27 87,10 No 2 6,45




Staffing plans for the company (Not Answered) 2 6,45

Yes 6 19,35 No 20 64,52


Involvement of employees in work process, e.g. team work or problem‐solving groups (Not Answered) 1 3,23 ... no discre on 3 9,68



Don't know 1 3,23 N/A 3 9,68





Don't know 1 3,23 N/A 2 6,45





Don't know 2 6,45 N/A 2 6,45

Total Responses 31 100,00 % Provision of informa on to employees




Don't know 1 3,23 N/A 2 6,45


Involvement of employees in work process, e.g. team work orproblem‐solving groups ... no discre on 3 9,68




A tude or opinion surveys ... no discre on 4 12,90

... a li le discre on 7 22,58 ... quite a lot of discre on 4 12,90

... full discre on 13 41,94 N/A 3 9,68



... a li le discre on 4 12,90 ... quite a lot of discre on 4 12,90



Provision of informa on to employees (Not Answered) 1 3,23 ... no discre on 2 6,45




Thinking of the LOG in [NAME] in Denmark, are trade unions recognised for the purposes of collec veemployee representationat?

No sites in the Danish opera ons 4 12,90 All sites in the Danish opera ons 18 58,06

Most sites in the Danish opera ons 1 3,23 Some sites in the Danish opera ons 3 9,68

The company's single Danish site 5 16,13Total Responses 31 100,00 %

Are there any non‐union based structure(s) of collec ve employeerepresenta on used Tick all that apply (Not Answered) 8 25,00

Yes, at sites where there is no trade union recogni on 1 3,13Yes, at sites where there is also trade union recogni on 11 34,38


How would you describe the policy of management towards union recogni on within [NAME] in Denmark? In favour of union recogni on 16 51,61

Not in favour of union recogni on 2 6,45 Neutral towards union recogni on 13 41,94


Thinking of the company's opera ons outside Denmark, which of the following statements comes closest tocapturing you policy towards trade unions?

(Not Answered) 1 3,23 There is no policy 9 29,03

We expect local management to follow the local prac ce inthe industry and 14 45,16It is general policy to bargain with trade unions, eitherdirectly or indirectly t 5 16,13


Is there collec ve bargaining with trade unions over pay and major condi ons (e.g. working me) at any of the following levels covering all or some of the LOG within [NAME] in Denmark? Tick all that apply

(Not Answered) 2 6,06 At Danish company level, covering all sites 8 24,24

At the company's single Danish site 2 6,06Covering more than one, but not all Danish sites 4 12,12

At individual site level 4 12,12At industry level, covering more than one employer 1 3,03

There is no collec ve bargaining over pay 12 36,36Total Responses 33 100,00 %

Thinking about trade unions in [NAME] in Denmark, what approach do the trade union representa ves generally adopt?

A coopera ve approach 18 58,06 It depends on the issue 10 32,26

Don't Know… 3 9,68Total Responses 31 100,00 %

Work organisa on (Not Answered) 4 12,90

1 7 22,58 2 5 16,13 3 7 22,58 4 3 9,68 5 2 6,45


Sub‐contrac ng and outsourcing (Not Answered) 4 12,90

1 12 38,71 2 7 22,58 3 2 6,45 4 1 3,23


Variable payments schemes (Not Answered) 4 12,90

1 3 9,68 2 4 12,90 3 8 25,81 4 2 6,45 5 7 22,58


In‐work training/ upgrading skills (Not Answered) 5 16,13

1 3 9,68 2 3 9,68 3 9 29,03 4 6 19,35 5 3 9,68

Don't know 2 6,45


Direct employee involvement schemes (Not Answered) 4 12,90

1 4 12,90 2 1 3,23 3 11 35,48 4 5 16,13 5 2 6,45


Union recogni on (Not Answered) 2 6,45 ... no discre on 3 9,68



Don't know 2 6,45 N/A 2 6,45

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Scope of union involvement in decision‐making




Don't know 2 6,45 N/A 3 9,68

Total Responses 31 100,00 % To what extent do opera ng companies outside Denmark have discre on over determining employee

consultation policy? (Not Answered) 2 6,45 ... no discre on 2 6,45



Don't know 2 6,45 N/A 2 6,45

Total Responses 31 100,00 % Union recogni on (Not Answered) 1 3,23 ... no discre on 2 6,45



Don't know 1 3,23 N/A 2 6,45

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Scope of union involvement in decision‐making




Don't know 1 3,23


To what extent do opera ng companies outside Denmark have discre on over determining employeeconsultation policy?




Don't know 1 3,23 N/A 2 6,45

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Do you receive informa on about the ac vity and mee ngs of theEWC?

(Not Answered) 27 87,10 Systema cally at the me of EWC mee ngs 2 6,45

Li le or no informa on about the EWC received 2 6,45Total Responses 31 100,00 %

Which of the following statements best describes the overall nature of the European Works Council in Denmark?

(Not Answered) 26 83,87Management provides informa on somewhat beyond thatrequired for com 2 6,45Management provides informa on considerably beyond thatrequired for co 2 6,45Management provides informa on far beyond that requiredfor compliance 1 3,23

Total Responses 31 100,00 % Is there a European Works Council (EWC) or similar European‐level structure which covers [NAME] in

Denmark? (Not Answered) 2 6,45

Yes 5 16,13 No 18 58,06


Over the past 3 years, has the EU Direc ve on Informa on and Consulta on prompted any changes in arrangements for employee consultation in Denmark?



Does the worldwide company have experience of opera ng with mandatory employee consulta on structures (e.g. works councils) that are required in some countries overseas?



Do these mee ngs cover...? (Not Answered) 7 22,58

All employees under a single arrangement 12 38,71All employees, but with different arrangements for differentgroups 9 29,03Some groups of employees under a single arrangement 2 6,45


Which of the following statements best describes management's rela ve emphasis in [NAME] in Denmark on mechanisms for communicating and consulting with employees?

Emphasis on direct communica on and consulta on 18 58,06Emphasis on indirect communica on and consulta on (e.g.through joint co 4 12,90Equivalent emphasis on direct and indirect communica onand consulta on 9 29,03


Which of the following statements comes closest to capturing the worldwide company's policy? (Not Answered) 16 51,61

There is no policy 3 9,68Minimum compliance with legal requirements on employeeinforma on and 5 16,13To go somewhat further than legal requirements 5 16,13To go considerably further than legal requirements 2 6,45

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Are regular mee ngs held between management and representa ves of employees at this level in [NAME] in Denmark for the purpose of information provision and consultation?

Yes 24 77,42 No 6 19,35


Quality of products/services (Not Answered) 1 3,23

‐ 5 16,13 ‐ 14 45,16

Outstanding 11 35,48Total Responses 31 100,00 %

Development of new products/services (Not Answered) 1 3,23

Poor 1 3,23 ‐ 1 3,23 ‐ 4 12,90 ‐ 14 45,16


Profit genera on (Not Answered) 1 3,23

‐ 5 16,13 ‐ 7 22,58 ‐ 6 19,35


Turnover (Not Answered) 1 3,23

‐ 1 3,23 ‐ 8 25,81 ‐ 12 38,71


Market share (Not Answered) 1 3,23

‐ 1 3,23 ‐ 5 16,13 ‐ 15 48,39


Ability to recruit essen al employees (Not Answered) 1 3,23

‐ 2 6,45 ‐ 6 19,35 ‐ 16 51,61


Ability to retain essen al employees (Not Answered) 1 3,23

‐ 1 3,23 ‐ 9 29,03 ‐ 14 45,16


Customer/client sa sfac on (Not Answered) 1 3,23

‐ 1 3,23 ‐ 5 16,13 ‐ 20 64,52


Manager‐employees rela ons (Not Answered) 1 3,23

‐ 1 3,23 ‐ 6 19,35 ‐ 19 61,29


General employee rela ons (Not Answered) 1 3,23

Poor 1 3,23 ‐ 1 3,23 ‐ 6 19,35 ‐ 18 58,06


The job sa sfac on of the employees at [NAME] in Denmark? ‐ 1 3,23 ‐ 6 19,35 ‐ 19 61,29


The ability of [NAME] in Denmark to retain essen al employees? ‐ 2 6,45 ‐ 5 16,13 ‐ 20 64,52


The overall performance of the [NAME] in Denmark ‐ 9 29,03 ‐ 18 58,06


The opera ons outside Denmark have interna onal responsibility for one or more products or services company on behalf of the worldwide

(Not Answered) 2 6,45 1 5 16,13 2 1 3,23 3 6 19,35 4 10 32,26 5 7 22,58


Significant exper se in R&D within the worldwide company is generated outside Denmark opera ons (Not Answered) 3 9,68

1 7 22,58 2 5 16,13 3 10 32,26 4 5 16,13 5 1 3,23

Total Responses 31 100,00 % How important is/are your overseas subsidiary/subsidiaries to the global performance of the parent

(Not Answered) 2 6,45 3 4 12,90 4 7 22,58 5 18 58,06

Total Responses 31 100,00 %Has this level of importance changed over the past five years? 1=Significantly decreased, 2=Slightly decreased, 3=Stayed about the same, 4=Slightly increased, 5=Significantly increased

(Not Answered) 2 6,45 2 2 6,45 3 6 19,35 4 10 32,26 5 10 32,26


How is the performance of the [NAME] in Denmark rela ve to compe tors? ‐ 5 16,13 ‐ 18 58,06


Please let us know if you are interested in … Tick all that apply (Not Answered) 5 8,06

Receiving a report benchmarking the employment prac cesof your compan 24 38,71Par cipa ng in a seminar where in‐depth results of theworldwide survey w 14 22,58

Receiving the full result report 19 30,65Total Responses 62 100,00 %

Foreign‐based MNCsHere we include the total number of foreign‐based companies responded to our survey (88). However, 2 number of responses were deleted from the sample used in the report and follow up anaylysis as they were incomplete or insufficient.

Count Percent Please select a language:

English 3 3,33 Danish 87 96,67

Total Responses 90 100,00 %Can you confirm that the company is wholly or majority foreign‐owned? By "majority owned" we mean atleast 50% is owned by a foreign‐based company.

Yes 90 100,00Total Responses 90 100,00 %

Are you located at? The global HQ of the worldwide company 2 2,22 The HQ of the opera ng units in Denmark 74 82,22

Other (Please specify) 14 15,56Total Responses 90 100,00 %

What is your job tle? (Not Answered) 4 4,44

HR/Personnel Director 32 35,56 HR/Personnel Senior Manager/Manager 38 42,22

HR/Personnel Officer 2 2,22 HR/Personnel Assistant 4 4,44


For which of the following policy levels do you have any HR responsibili es Tick all that apply Global HR policy 8 7,02

Regional HR policy 31 27,19 HR policy in Denmark 67 58,77


Count PercentIn how many foreign countries does the company have opera ng sites?

(Not Answered) 2 2,22 1 country 3 3,33

2 ‐ 5 countries 13 14,44 6 or more countries 72 80,00

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Does [NAME] in Denmark have?

(Not Answered) 1 1,11 1 site 21 23,33

2 ‐ 5 sites 45 50,00 6 or more sites 23 25,56

Total Responses 90 100,00 %What is the total number of employees worldwide including Denmark by headcount?

(Not Answered) 7 7,78 100‐499 1 1,11 500‐999 6 6,67

1000‐4999 16 17,78 5000‐29.999 19 21,11

30.000‐59.999 18 20,00 60.000+ 23 25,56

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Denmark


1000‐4999 10 11,11 5000+ 2 2,22


Europe (excluding Denmark) (Not Answered) 2 2,22

Up to 99 3 3,33 100‐499 6 6,67 500‐999 4 4,44

1000‐4999 17 18,89 5000+ 42 46,67


North America (Not Answered) 11 12,22

Up to 99 7 7,78 100‐499 7 7,78 500‐999 1 1,11

1000‐4999 5 5,56 5000+ 23 25,56

None 15 16,67 Dont know 21 23,33

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Asia‐Pacific


1000‐4999 6 6,67 5000+ 24 26,67

None 10 11,11 Dont know 23 25,56

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Rest of the world


1000‐4999 9 10,00 5000+ 23 25,56

None 10 11,11 Dont know 25 27,78

Total Responses 90 100,00 %Individuals who previously worked for the company in country oforigin?

(Not Answered) 6 6,67 None 51 56,67

Don't know 5 5,56 Number 28 31,11

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Was this through...? (Not Answered) 5 5,56

A greenfield investment 21 23,33 A merger or acquisi on 51 56,67

Other (please specify) 13 14,44Total Responses 90 100,00 %

Individuals from other parts of the worldwide company? i.e. outside Denmark but not the country of origin. (Not Answered) 4 4,44

None 55 61,11 Don't know 9 10,00

Number 22 24,44


Which of the following statements best describes [NAME] inDenmark? The company produces… (Not Answered) 1 1,11

A single product or service that accounts for more than 90%of sales 16 17,78A number of products and services but one of theseaccounts for between 7 14 15,56A number of products and services but no single one ofthese accounts for m 53 58,89

A range of unrelated products and services 6 6,67Total Responses 90 100,00 %

Which of the following statements best describes the worldwide opera ons? The worldwide company produces…

(Not Answered) 2 2,22A single product or service that accounts for more than 90%of sales 7 7,78A number of products and services but one of theseaccounts for between 7 14 15,56A number of products and services but no single one ofthese accounts for m 54 60,00

A range of unrelated products and services 13 14,44Total Responses 90 100,00 %

Is the worldwide company's most important product, service or brand (or group of products, services or brands)? (Not Answered) 2 2,22

Adapted significantly to na onal markets 19 21,11Adapted to different regions of the world but standardisedwithin them 34 37,78

Standardised globally 27 30,00 Don't know 8 8,89

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Are any of the components, products and services of [NAME] in Denmark produced for opera on of the

worldwide company based outside Denmark? (Not Answered) 2 2,22

Yes ‐ all 6 6,67 Yes ‐ some but not all 45 50,00

No ‐ none 31 34,44 Don't know 6 6,67

Total Responses 90 100,00 %Do other parts of the worldwide company supply components, products or services to [NAME] in Denmark?



Approximately what percentage of revenues of [NAME] comes from sales abroad? (Not Answered) 7 7,78

0% 7 7,78 1‐25% 10 11,11 26‐50% 7 7,78 51‐75% 15 16,67 76‐100% 22 24,44


Is the worldwide company state or partly state owned? (Not Answered) 1 1,11

Yes 4 4,44 No 84 93,33


Is the worldwide company privately owned or are its shares publicly traded? (Not Answered) 3 3,33 Privately owned 28 31,11

Publicly traded 59 65,56Total Responses 90 100,00 %

Approximately, how many MANAGERS are there in [NAME] inDenmark? (Not Answered) 3 3,33

0 2 2,22 1 – 9 16 17,78

10 – 24 30 33,33 25 – 49 16 17,78 50 – 99 11 12,22

100 – 249 9 10,00 250 – 499 1 1,11


Approximately, how many LOG are there in [NAME] in Denmark? (Not Answered) 3 3,33

0 2 2,22 1 ‐ 9 2 2,22

25 ‐ 49 5 5,56 50 ‐ 99 13 14,44

100 ‐ 249 27 30,00 250 ‐ 499 16 17,78 500 ‐ 749 8 8,89 750 ‐ 999 4 4,44

1,000 ‐ 2999 4 4,44 3,000 ‐ 4,999 2 2,22

5,000+ 1 1,11 Don't Know 3 3,33

Total Responses 90 100,00 % On which of the following issues is informa on on the opera ng units in Denmark monitored by

management outside of Denmark? Please tick all that apply (Not Answered) 1 0,21




Labour produc vity 41 8,65Workforce composi on by diversity (e.g. gender, ethnicity,disability etc.) 25 5,27

Employee a tude and sa sfac on 48 10,13 None of these 3 0,63

Don't know 1 0,21 Other 2 0,42

Total Responses 474 100,00 %Is there a body within the worldwide company, such as a commi ee of senior managers, that develops HRpolicies that apply across countries?



Is there someone from Denmark on this body/commi ee? (Not Answered) 31 34,44

Yes 22 24,44 No 36 40,00


Are HR managers from different countries brought together in asystema c way? (Not Answered) 1 1,11

Yes ‐ on a global basis 21 23,33 Yes ‐ on a regional basis 36 40,00


Regular mee ngs (Not Answered) 3 3,33




Interna onal Conferences (Not Answered) 6 6,67

Quarterly 2 2,22 Annually 23 25,56

Other 7 7,78 Ad hoc 20 22,22


Task Forces (Not Answered) 5 5,56




Virtual Groups e.g. conference calls (Not Answered) 3 3,33




There is a worldwide approach covering all global opera ons (Not Answered) 2 2,22

1 10 11,11 2 14 15,56 3 13 14,44 4 25 27,78 5 16 17,78

N/A 3 3,33 Don't know 7 7,78


There is a regional approach covering all European opera ons (Not Answered) 2 2,22

1 3 3,33 2 13 14,44 3 10 11,11 4 27 30,00 5 26 28,89

N/A 2 2,22 Don't know 7 7,78

Total Responses 90 100,00 % The development of a specific approach is le to interna onal product, service or brand based divisions

(Not Answered) 3 3,33 1 10 11,11 2 14 15,56 3 20 22,22 4 24 26,67 5 9 10,00

N/A 4 4,44 Don't know 6 6,67

Total Responses 90 100,00 %The development of a specific approach is le to na onal opera ng companies

(Not Answered) 2 2,22 1 5 5,56 2 9 10,00 3 18 20,00 4 38 42,22 5 13 14,44

N/A 2 2,22 Don't know 3 3,33

Total Responses 90 100,00 % The approach is really a mix of the tradi ons of the different na onal opera ng companies

(Not Answered) 2 2,22 1 11 12,22 2 18 20,00 3 13 14,44 4 30 33,33 5 7 7,78

N/A 4 4,44 Don't know 5 5,56

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Tradi ons in the country of origin have an overriding influence on the approach to the management of

employees (Not Answered) 3 3,33

1 8 8,89 2 19 21,11 3 20 22,22 4 18 20,00 5 17 18,89

N/A 2 2,22 Don't know 3 3,33

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Pay and performance management

(Not Answered) 2 2,22 No 53 58,89


Yes, taken up globally 1 1,11 Don't know 5 5,56


Training, development and organisa onal learning (Not Answered) 2 2,22




Employee involvement and communica on (Not Answered) 2 2,22


Yes, in major businesses 10 11,11 Don't know 4 4,44

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Employee representa on and consulta on

(Not Answered) 3 3,33 No 52 57,78




Yes 65 72,22 No 23 25,56



Yes 68 75,56 No 18 20,00



Yes 15 16,67 No 46 51,11



Yes 18 20,00 No 43 47,78


For LOG Don't know



For MANAGERS Don't know





No 20 22,22 N/A 2 2,22




No 12 13,33 N/A 2 2,22


Individual quan ta ve output targets (e.g. financial, numerical) (Not Answered) 22 24,44

1 1 1,11 2 5 5,56 3 3 3,33 4 23 25,56 5 36 40,00

Total Responses 90 100,00 %Individual qualita ve output targets (e.g. comple on of a task)

(Not Answered) 22 24,44 1 1 1,11 2 3 3,33 3 7 7,78 4 29 32,22 5 28 31,11

Total Responses 90 100,00 %Group output targets (e.g. for site or business unit)

(Not Answered) 22 24,44 1 1 1,11 2 4 4,44 3 10 11,11 4 18 20,00 5 34 37,78


Competences' or personal skills (e.g. leadership or innova on skills) (Not Answered) 23 25,56

2 4 4,44 3 20 22,22 4 26 28,89 5 17 18,89

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Behaviour in rela on to corporate 'values'

(Not Answered) 22 24,44 1 1 1,11 2 4 4,44 3 13 14,44 4 18 20,00 5 32 35,56



Yes 40 44,44 No 25 27,78



Yes 51 56,67 No 15 16,67


For LOGEmployee share ownership




Yes 6 6,67 No 69 76,67



Yes 9 10,00 No 67 74,44


For MANAGERSEmployee share ownership



For MANAGERS Profit Sharing




Yes 22 24,44 No 53 58,89



Yes 56 62,22 No 30 33,33

Don't Know 1 1,11



Yes 67 74,44 No 21 23,33

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Individual performance

(Not Answered) 34 37,78 1 4 4,44 2 3 3,33 3 6 6,67 4 15 16,67 5 28 31,11

Total Responses 90 100,00 %Work group performance (e.g. team or departmental performance)

(Not Answered) 35 38,89 1 4 4,44 2 7 7,78 3 12 13,33 4 14 15,56 5 16 17,78


Organiza onal performance (e.g. site, region, company) (Not Answered) 34 37,78

1 3 3,33 2 10 11,11 3 11 12,22 4 14 15,56 5 16 17,78


Rela ng pay levels in [NAME] in Denmark to market comparators (e.g. aiming to be in top quar le) (Not Answered) 2 2,22 ... no discre on 10 11,11



Don't know 2 2,22 N/A 3 3,33

Total Responses 90 100,00 %Employee share ownership schemes in [NAME] in Denmark




Don't know 4 4,44 N/A 10 11,11


Performance appraisal system: For MANAGERS (Not Answered) 2 2,22 ... no discre on 15 16,67



Don't know 3 3,33 N/A 3 3,33

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Variable payments scheme: For MANAGERS




Don't know 2 2,22 N/A 4 4,44

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Performance appraisal system: For LOG




Don't know 2 2,22 N/A 4 4,44

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Variable payments scheme: For LOG




Don't know 2 2,22 N/A 4 4,44

Total Responses 90 100,00 %What percentage of the annual pay bill in [NAME] in Denmark was spent on training and development for all employees over the past 12 months?

(Not Answered) 6 6,67 0% 1 1,11

Up to 1% 27 30,00 Over 1% and less than 4% 41 45,56

Over 4% 7 7,78 Don't Know 8 8,89

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Thinking of [NAME] in Denmark is there a formal system of succession planning for senior managers?






No 6 6,67 Don't Know 7 7,78

Total Responses 90 100,00 %Does [NAME] in Denmark have a management development programme specifically aimed at developing its high potentials' or senior management potential?







Short term Interna onal assignments (12 months or less) (Not Answered) 3 3,33

1 30 33,33 2 20 22,22 3 17 18,89 4 10 11,11 5 2 2,22

Don't know 2 2,22 N/A 6 6,67

Total Responses 90 100,00 %Long term interna onal assignments (more than 12 months)

(Not Answered) 3 3,33 1 30 33,33 2 15 16,67 3 23 25,56 4 9 10,00 5 5 5,56

Don't know 1 1,11 N/A 4 4,44

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Formal global management training

(Not Answered) 3 3,33 1 21 23,33 2 13 14,44 3 18 20,00 4 18 20,00 5 12 13,33

Don't know 3 3,33 N/A 2 2,22


Assessment of performance against a set of global management competencies (Not Answered) 3 3,33

1 27 30,00 2 9 10,00 3 11 12,22 4 19 21,11 5 13 14,44

Don't know 2 2,22 N/A 6 6,67

Total Responses 90 100,00 %Qualifica ons programme (e.g. MBA, professional qualifica ons)

(Not Answered) 3 3,33 1 20 22,22 2 20 22,22 3 26 28,89 4 12 13,33 5 2 2,22

Don't know 3 3,33 N/A 4 4,44

Total Responses 90 100,00 % How many expatriates from the company's foreign opera ons are currently working on long‐term

assignments (i.e. more than 12 months) in Denmark? Please include all types of long‐term assignments for any purpose. Type 0 if none



How many expatriates from [NAME] in Denmark are currently working on long‐term (i.e. more than 12 months) assignment overseas? Please include all types of long‐term assigments for any pupose. Type 0 if none



Thinking of [NAME] in Denmark is there a formal policy on organisa onal learning? (Not Answered) 2 2,22


No 50 55,56 Don't Know 3 3,33





Our company favours internal promo on over external management recruitment (Not Answered) 1 1,11

1 3 3,33 2 4 4,44 3 35 38,89 4 29 32,22 5 17 18,89

Don't know 1 1,11


Interna onal experience is a key criterion for career progression at senior levels (Not Answered) 1 1,11

1 8 8,89 2 22 24,44 3 23 25,56 4 21 23,33 5 14 15,56


On‐the‐job learning (experience gained on the job) is more valuable than off‐the‐job classroom training and development

(Not Answered) 2 2,22 2 3 3,33 3 21 23,33 4 39 43,33 5 23 25,56


Investment in training is cri cal to either developing or retaining key skills in this company (Not Answered) 2 2,22

2 1 1,11 3 4 4,44 4 42 46,67 5 40 44,44


To what extent is the organiza onal learning policy for [NAME] in Denmark and the worldwide company similar? 1 = Not at all similar.. 5 = Highly silimar

(Not Answered) 9 10,00 1 13 14,44 2 6 6,67 3 10 11,11 4 17 18,89 5 7 7,78


Expatriate assignments (Not Answered) 4 4,44

Yes 40 44,44 No 45 50,00


Interna onal project groups or task forces (Not Answered) 2 2,22

Yes 70 77,78 No 18 20,00

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Interna onal formal commi ees



Interna onal informal networks (Not Answered) 2 2,22

Yes 55 61,11

No 26 28,89 Don't Know 7 7,78


Secondments to other organisa ons interna onally (e.g. tosuppliers, customers, universi es, private R&Dfacilities)



Which of these is the most important interna onal organisa onal learning mechanism used by managers within [NAME] in Denmark?

(Not Answered) 12 13,33 Expatriate assignments 7 7,78

Interna onal project groups or task forces 44 48,89 Interna onal formal commi ees 5 5,56 Interna onal informal networks 16 17,78

Secondments to other organisa ons interna onally (e.g. tosuppliers, custom 2 2,22 Don't know 4 4,44

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Training and development policy




Total Responses 90 100,00 % Policy on organisa onal learning





Policy on succession planning for senior managers (Not Answered) 4 4,44 ... no discre on 5 5,56



Don't know 3 3,33 N/A 1 1,11

Total Responses 90 100,00 %Formally designated teams in which employees have responsibilityfor organising their work and carrying outa set of tasks



Groups where employees discuss issues of quality, produc on or service delivery such as problem‐solving orcontinuous improvement groups



Which of the following most closely corresponds to the pa ern of employee involvement in [NAME] in Denmark?

(Not Answered) 2 2,22An iden cal or similar pa ern exists across all or most sites 14 15,56All or most sites have involvement systems, but they differfrom site to site 41 45,56Some sites have involvement systems while others do not 16 17,78

Not applicable (1 site only in Denmark) 9 10,00 Don't Know 8 8,89

Total Responses 90 100,00 %Specific prac ces elsewhere in the worldwide company

(Not Answered) 4 4,44 1 15 16,67 2 19 21,11 3 27 30,00 4 20 22,22 5 5 5,56

Total Responses 90 100,00 %Formal model of good prac ce codified elsewhere in worldwidecompany

(Not Answered) 5 5,56 1 13 14,44 2 19 21,11 3 33 36,67 4 16 17,78 5 4 4,44

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Examples drawn from other firms

(Not Answered) 4 4,44 1 10 11,11 2 20 22,22 3 33 36,67 4 19 21,11 5 4 4,44

Total Responses 90 100,00 %Does [NAME] regularly use teamwork or other employee involvement prac ces in your opera ng companies outside Denmark?



Would you say that prac ces in rela on to employee involvement inthe worldwide company are: (Not Answered) 2 2,22

Very similar across all opera ons 4 4,44 Broadly similar but with some varia ons 10 11,11

Similar to some extent but with substan al varia ons 30 33,33 Fairly diverse 28 31,11

Very diverse 12 13,33 Don't Know 4 4,44

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Does [NAME] regularly use project teams or task forces, embracing employees other than managers, that

function across more than one operating unit in Denmark? (Not Answered) 2 2,22

Yes 65 72,22 No 11 12,22 N/A 9 10,00

Don't Know 3 3,33


Do these groups in Denmark also include employees from outside Denmark? (Not Answered) 26 28,89

Yes 49 54,44 No 13 14,44 N/A 2 2,22

Total Responses 90 100,00 % How common is the cross‐na onal structure of these teams? 1=Very rare ... 5=Very common

(Not Answered) 42 46,67 1 5 5,56 2 7 7,78 3 12 13,33 4 19 21,11 5 5 5,56

Total Responses 90 100,00 %Are there project teams or task forces embracing employees other than managers that func on across more than one operating unit, used in foreign operations?

(Not Answered) 1 1,11 Yes 39 43,33 No 18 20,00 N/A 9 10,00


Mee ngs between senior MANAGERS and the whole of the workforce (Not Answered) 2 2,22

Yes 70 77,78 No 16 17,78


Mee ngs between line MANAGERS or supervisors and employees (some mes called briefing groups) (Not Answered) 1 1,11

Yes 81 90,00 No 7 7,78


A tude or opinion surveys (Not Answered) 1 1,11

Yes 70 77,78 No 17 18,89


Sugges on schemes (Not Answered) 4 4,44

Yes 52 57,78 No 33 36,67


Systema c use of management chain to cascade informa on (Not Answered) 1 1,11

Yes 64 71,11 No 20 22,22


Newsle ers or emails (Not Answered) 1 1,11

Yes 83 92,22 No 5 5,56


A company intranet providing informa on to employees' (Not Answered) 1 1,11

Yes 75 83,33 No 13 14,44



Yes 82 91,11 No 6 6,67





Yes 48 53,33 No 40 44,44



Yes 70 77,78 No 13 14,44


Investment plan for the company (Not Answered) 2 2,22

Yes 29 32,22 No 50 55,56



Yes 24 26,67 No 56 62,22


Involvement of employees in work process, e.g. team work orproblem‐solving groups (Not Answered) 2 2,22 ... no discre on 3 3,33








Sugges on schemes (Not Answered) 3 3,33 ... no discre on 4 4,44


... full discre on 53 58,89 N/A 11 12,22

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Provision of informa on to employees




Total Responses 90 100,00 % Thinking of the LOG in [NAME] in Denmark, are trade unions recognised for the purposes of collec ve

employee representationat? (Not Answered) 4 4,44

No sites in the Danish opera ons 18 20,00 All sites in the Danish opera ons 38 42,22

Most sites in the Danish opera ons 11 12,22 Some sites in the Danish opera ons 11 12,22

The company's single Danish site 8 8,89Total Responses 90 100,00 %

Are there any non‐union based structure(s) of collec ve employee representa on used Tick all that apply (Not Answered) 24 25,53

Yes, at sites where there is no trade union recogni on 13 13,83Yes, at sites where there is also trade union recogni on 21 22,34


How would you describe the policy of management towards unionrecogni on within [NAME] in Denmark? (Not Answered) 1 1,11

In favour of union recogni on 41 45,56 Not in favour of union recogni on 4 4,44 Neutral towards union recogni on 44 48,89

Total Responses 90 100,00 %Is there collec ve bargaining with trade unions over pay and major condi ons (e.g. working me) at any of the following levels covering all or some of the LOG within [NAME] in Denmark?Tick all that apply, multi‐code only allowable for codes 2,…

(Not Answered) 3 3,19 At Danish company level, covering all sites 14 14,89

At the company's single Danish site 8 8,51Covering more than one, but not all Danish sites 18 19,15

At individual site level 15 15,96At industry level, covering more than one employer 6 6,38

There is no collec ve bargaining over pay 30 31,91Total Responses 94 100,00 %

Thinking about trade unions in [NAME] in Denmark, what approach do the trade union representa vesgenerally adopt?

(Not Answered) 4 4,44 A coopera ve approach 44 48,89 An adversarial approach 4 4,44

It depends on the issue 22 24,44 Don't Know… 16 17,78


Work organisa on (Not Answered) 23 25,56

1 19 21,11 2 19 21,11 3 17 18,89 4 3 3,33 5 5 5,56


Sub‐contrac ng and outsourcing (Not Answered) 23 25,56

1 37 41,11 2 14 15,56 3 6 6,67 4 3 3,33 5 3 3,33


Variable payments schemes (Not Answered) 22 24,44

1 12 13,33 2 7 7,78 3 22 24,44 4 13 14,44 5 9 10,00


In‐work training/ upgrading skills (Not Answered) 22 24,44

1 9 10,00 2 11 12,22 3 22 24,44 4 19 21,11 5 4 4,44


Direct employee involvement schemes (Not Answered) 24 26,67

1 10 11,11 2 11 12,22 3 17 18,89 4 12 13,33 5 8 8,89


Union recogni on (Not Answered) 2 2,22 ... no discre on 5 5,56



Don't know 13 14,44 N/A 5 5,56


Scope of union involvement in decision‐making (Not Answered) 2 2,22 ... no discre on 5 5,56



Don't know 10 11,11 N/A 6 6,67

Total Responses 90 100,00 % To what extent do opera ng companies outside Denmark have discre on over determining employee

consultation policy? (Not Answered) 2 2,22 ... no discre on 7 7,78



Don't know 23 25,56 N/A 13 14,44

Total Responses 90 100,00 %Do you receive informa on about the ac vity and mee ngs of theEWC?

(Not Answered) 9 10,00 Systema cally at the me of EWC mee ngs 23 25,56

Periodically, on an 'as necessary' basis 11 12,22Li le or no informa on about the EWC received 47 52,22

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Which of the following statements best describes the overall nature of the European Works Council in

Denmark? (Not Answered) 51 56,67

Management provides minimal informa on required forcompliance, there 3 3,33Management provides informa on slightly beyond thatrequired for complia 4 4,44Management provides informa on somewhat beyond thatrequired for com 15 16,67Management provides informa on considerably beyond thatrequired for co 4 4,44Management provides informa on far beyond that requiredfor compliance 3 3,33


Is there a European Works Council (EWC) or similar European‐level structure which covers [NAME] inDenmark?



Over the past 3 years, has the EU Direc ve on Informa on and Consulta on prompted any changes in arrangements for employee consultation in Denmark?



Does the worldwide company have experience of opera ng with mandatory employee consulta on structures (e.g. work counsils) that are required in some countries overseas?



Do these mee ngs cover...? (Not Answered) 20 22,22

All employees under a single arrangement 33 36,67All employees, but with different arrangements for differentgroups 17 18,89Some groups of employees under a single arrangement 13 14,44Some groups of employees, but with different arrangementsfor different gr 6 6,67


Which of the following statements best describes management'srela ve emphasis in [NAME] in Denmark on mechnanisms for communicating and consulting with employees?

(Not Answered) 4 4,44Emphasis on direct communica on and consulta on 35 38,89Emphasis on indirect communica on and consulta on (e.g.through joint co 18 20,00Equivalent emphasis on direct and indirect communica onand consulta on 33 36,67

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Which of the following statements comes closest to capturing the worldwide company's policy?

(Not Answered) 37 41,11 There is no policy 3 3,33

Minimum compliance with legal requirements on employeeinforma on and 16 17,78To go somewhat further than legal requirements 21 23,33To go considerably further than legal requirements 8 8,89


Are regular mee ngs held between management and representa ves of employees at this level in [NAME] in Denmark for the purpose of informa on provision and consulta on?



Quality of products/services (Not Answered) 2 2,22

Poor 1 1,11 ‐ 15 16,67 ‐ 52 57,78


Development of new products/services (Not Answered) 4 4,44

‐ 6 6,67 ‐ 29 32,22 ‐ 40 44,44


Profit genera on (Not Answered) 3 3,33

Poor 7 7,78 ‐ 11 12,22 ‐ 22 24,44 ‐ 31 34,44


Turnover (Not Answered) 3 3,33

Poor 1 1,11 ‐ 13 14,44

‐ 28 31,11 ‐ 32 35,56


Market share (Not Answered) 4 4,44

Poor 2 2,22 ‐ 14 15,56 ‐ 22 24,44 ‐ 36 40,00


Ability to recruit essen al employees (Not Answered) 2 2,22

‐ 3 3,33 ‐ 25 27,78 ‐ 47 52,22


Ability to retain essen al employees (Not Answered) 2 2,22

Poor 1 1,11 ‐ 6 6,67 ‐ 29 32,22 ‐ 38 42,22


Customer/client sa sfac on (Not Answered) 3 3,33

‐ 3 3,33 ‐ 26 28,89 ‐ 52 57,78


Manager ‐ employees rela ons (Not Answered) 2 2,22

‐ 2 2,22 ‐ 28 31,11 ‐ 51 56,67


Manager ‐ employees rela ons General employee rela ons

(Not Answered) 2 2,22 ‐ 3 3,33 ‐ 26 28,89 ‐ 51 56,67


The job sa sfac on of the employees at [NAME] in Denmark? (Not Answered) 3 3,33

‐ 6 6,67 ‐ 28 31,11 ‐ 46 51,11


The ability of [NAME] in Denmark to retain essen al employees? (Not Answered) 2 2,22

‐ 8 8,89 ‐ 18 20,00

‐ 46 51,11 Outstanding 16 17,78


The overall performance of the [NAME] in Denmark (Not Answered) 3 3,33

Poor 2 2,22 ‐ 3 3,33 ‐ 31 34,44 ‐ 43 47,78


Do [NAME] in Denmark have interna onal responsibility for one or more products or services on behalf of the worldwide company

(Not Answered) 2 2,22 1 25 27,78 2 8 8,89 3 14 15,56 4 16 17,78 5 25 27,78

Total Responses 90 100,00 % Significant exper se in R&D within the worldwide company is generated in [NAME] in Denmark

(Not Answered) 2 2,22 1 32 35,56 2 17 18,89 3 17 18,89 4 13 14,44 5 9 10,00

Total Responses 90 100,00 % How important is [NAME] in Denmark to the global performance of the parent company? 1=Not at all

important, 2 = Of little importance, 3 = somewhat important, 4 = important, 5 = very important (Not Answered) 2 2,22

1 11 12,22 2 29 32,22 3 14 15,56 4 19 21,11 5 14 15,56


Has this level of importance changed over the past five years? 1=Significantly decreased, 2=Slightly decreased,3 = stayed about the same, 4 = slightly increased, 5 = significantly increased

(Not Answered) 2 2,22 1 1 1,11 2 11 12,22 3 35 38,89 4 20 22,22 5 16 17,78


How is the performance of the [NAME] in Denmark rela ve to compe tors? (Not Answered) 4 4,44

Poor 1 1,11 ‐ 3 3,33 ‐ 31 34,44 ‐ 42 46,67


Please let us know if you are interested in … Tick all that apply (Not Answered) 14 7,69

Receiving a report benchmarking the employment prac cesof your compan 67 36,81

Par cipa ng in a seminar where in‐depth results of theworldwide survey w 38 20,88 Receiving the full result report 63 34,62


report on employment practices of multinational companies … · employment practices of...

Documents