This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104On: 01 Oct 2021Access details: subscription numberPublisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

The Routledge Companion to International Human ResourceManagement

David G. Collings, Geoffrey T. Wood, Paula M. Caligiuri

Sociology and international human resource management

Publication detailshttps://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315761282.ch3

Gilton KlerckPublished online on: 21 Nov 2014

How to cite :- Gilton Klerck. 21 Nov 2014, Sociology and international human resource managementfrom: The Routledge Companion to International Human Resource Management RoutledgeAccessed on: 01 Oct 2021https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315761282.ch3

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete oraccurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3

3Sociology and international

human resource managementGilton Klerck

Introduction

As corporations increasingly strive to expand their operations across national boundaries, humanresource managers are compelled to develop an enhanced appreciation of and responsivenessto the impact of different national contexts on the managerial form and function. The activitiesof multinational corporations (MNCs) influence the working lives of a growing number ofemployees in many different countries, and the sheer scale of their operations poses formidablechallenges to conventional human resource management (HRM) practices. In the field of inter -national human resource management (IHRM), scholars have endeavoured to assist practitionersby conducting research that is routinely framed by two questions: (a) what is general and universalin the management function; and (b) what is peculiar or specific to one nation or culture? Acentral theoretical concern underlying the field of IHRM is the tension between globalintegration and local adaptation. Straddling an escalating number of national spaces, MNCs areever more concerned with the particularities of the institutional and normative frameworks ofthe countries within which they operate. An understanding of these national characteristics isimperative because MNCs do not organise their activities in a vacuum, but rather in the contextof the multiple structural, organisational and cultural landscapes on which they operate. To besure, given their often-substantial resources, MNCs may also play a part in constructing theseenvironments (Almond et al., 2005; Boyer et al., 1998; Ferner & Quintanilla, 1998), which islikely to shape the experiences of employees and employers in the host countries. In other words,all national social relations have global as well as local conditions of existence and impacts.

The discipline of sociology – as a study of the social structures, relations and processes ofsociety – has much to offer the field of IHRM. This is reflected in the recent calls for ‘moresocietally embedded organisational research’ as evinced by the proliferation of studies drawingon neo-institutional theory, national business systems approach and cross-cultural perspectivesin management studies (Peltonen & Vaara, 2012:69). A disregard of epistemological andontological concerns, in particular, tends to be a persistent and debilitating source of weaknessin management studies. Drawing on a realist-inspired sociology, for instance, would allow forthe eschewal of a triple set of twinned mistakes: the ontological errors of voluntarism and reification,the constitutive errors of individualism and collectivism, and the epistemic errors of methodological

29

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 individualism and social determinism (Bhaskar, 1979). The relational structure of societies and

their irreducibility to individuals are essential insights for non-reductionist studies in IHRM.However, since all the social sciences are principally anchored at the level of the nation-state,there are limits to the insights into the study of transnational organisations and processes thatIHRM may derive from sociology. Although

none of the founding figures of sociology formally identified their object of study with thenation state, just such an ocularcentric identification nonetheless characterized much oftheir work. This was hardly surprising given both the founders’ own practical politicalinvolvements and the fact that they were writing in the age of nationalism, when the drawingand defending of boundaries was a major preoccupation of governmental powers. Nor wasit surprising that their successors should so seldom question this identification, given thatthey were writing in the context of the formation of an inter-national system whose rivalrieshad such cataclysmic consequences . . . Nor, finally, is it surprising that today there shouldbe so much talk of ‘sovereignty at bay’, when there is only one superpower, whenmultinational corporations appear to be the new ‘lords of human kind’, [and] when nationsare ceding some of their powers of governance to supranational bodies.

(Woodiwiss, 1997:90–91)

Deepening our understanding of the transnational domain is fundamentally a multidisciplinarytask. Interdisciplinarity, however, raises questions about the interactive learning interfacebetween two or more disciplines. This interface is bound to be fractured and pluralistic givenvariations in disciplinary openness to ‘external’ knowledge; divisions between different fieldswithin disciplines; diverse research methods, cultures and objectives; and so on. Moreover, callsfor greater interdisciplinarity are usually associated with two, conflicting trends (O’Reilly, 2009;Syed et al., 2010). On the one hand, demands to explore beyond (especially national) boundaries,localities, field sites and exclusivities are accompanied by calls for sociology to embraceinterdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity or even post-disciplinarity. Distinctions between disciplinesin the social sciences are described as parochial, imperialist, reductionist and devoid of ontologicalor epistemological justification. By providing access to various sources and types of knowledge,interdisciplinarity offers a considerably broader learning interface than is the case with a largelyinsular discipline. That is, it allows disciplines to use each other as repositories of knowledgeand reservoirs of tacit expertise. On the other hand, there are appeals to recall or to redefinesociology’s core, respect its scientific distance from related disciplines, defend a professionalsociology that can engage in public debates in an informed way, or celebrate sociology as the‘flagship discipline’ of the social sciences. Fears of the permeability, disintegration and dissipationof sociology are reflected in calls to safeguard its disciplinary boundaries, to maintain its coreideas, to defend its scientific objectivity against external threats, and to protect its status as the‘guardian of humanity’. On this view, sociology can contribute to and learn from otherdisciplines or fields, and must be open to new ideas and new developments, but it must notcompromise its distinctive, core identity (O’Reilly, 2009:219–221). These tensions are also evidentin IHRM.

In this chapter, we consider the impact of sociology on HRM and, by extension, on IHRM.First, we consider the fact that this impact is mediated by sociology’s internal differentiation,following Burawoy, into four types: professional, policy, critical and public. This four-fold schemedepicts a division of sociological labour, within which sociologists specialise in one or moretypes of knowledge. The division of labour also represents a configuration of domination amongthe four types of knowledge that vary over time and by country. Of particular significance in

Gilton Klerck

30

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 the present conjuncture of ‘third-wave marketization’ is the public sociologist, who must ‘fight

for a countermovement that foregrounds society rather than installing a despotic state orappealing to a market utopia’ (Burawoy, 2009:197). Making sense of the relationships betweensociology and associated disciplines requires not only an awareness of the distinct objectives andpurposes of the various sociologies, but also an appreciation of the key problematics in thediscipline. Sociological explanations of the multilayered relations between structural conditionsand human agency provide IHRM with the means to evade the reductionism associated witha social atomistic ontology and its epistemological manifestation, methodological individualism.Next, we consider the divisions between the functional, analytical and critical strands withinHRM. These divisions add another layer of complexity to the task of assessing the impressionthat sociology has left on IHRM. While mainstream HRM has generally shown some reluctanceto draw on industrial sociology, analytical HRM has revealed some ambivalence to do so andcritical HRM has eagerly and extensively deployed concepts from industrial sociology.

A focus on the limitations of and divisions within HRM is necessary since these are largelycarried over into the field of IHRM. In particular, a research agenda dominated by performancemeasures and a managerialist conception of the firm typify the functionalist strands of IHRM.The central focus areas of IHRM are filtered through an integration-differentiation matrix thattrades on a contrast between ‘best-practice’ and ‘best-fit’ managerial practices. As with HRM,the influence of sociology on IHRM is variegated and this variegation is partly dependent onthe methodological and ideological orientation of the scholar/s in question. Comparingmainstream analyses from IHRM with sociologically orientated perspectives on work andemployment reveals significant differences, including the nature/level of analysis and theconceptualisation of conflict in the workplace. Finally, the role of institutions is especiallyimportant in any assessment of sociology’s impact on the study of management in general andIHRM in particular. Following a concise sketch of neo-institutionalist and economic sociology,some of the fundamental applications of institutional theory in the IHRM literature are brieflyoutlined.

Sociology: professional, policy, critical and public

Evaluating the impact of sociology on other disciplines is complicated by the fact that it is intern-ally differentiated. In a series of papers, Burawoy (2004, 2005, 2007, 2009) distinguishes fourtypes of sociology – namely, professional, policy, critical and public – each with its own distinc-tive practice and purpose, its own notion of truth and politics. The universality of this schemefollows from two fundamental questions: first, ‘knowledge for whom?’ and second, ‘knowledgefor what?’ For Burawoy (2009:191–192), policy sociology is explicitly aimed at solving‘problems’ as defined by clients, developing strategies and providing solutions. Professionalsociology pursues ‘puzzles’ defined by research programmes. This is how science develops: takingas given a range of assumptions that define a paradigm and then grappling with its internalcontradictions and external anomalies. Professional sociology, according to Burawoy (2007),lies at the heart of the discipline and occupies a privileged position in the division of sociologicallabour: it supplies the necessary tools and techniques and advances knowledge that allows theother sociologies to flourish.

Sociologists, ingrained in a research programme, cannot pursue these puzzles and at the sametime question the assumptions on which these puzzles are based. To do so, they need criticalsociologists who specialise in questioning assumptions. In other words, because sociology is partof the society it studies, Burawoy (2004) argues that the discipline needs a critical sociology tointerrogate and when necessary criticise the foundations and assumptions on which professional

Sociology and international HRM

31

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 sociology rests. Here, Burawoy (2009) cites Sorokin’s critique of the obsession with quantification

or Gouldner’s critique of structural functionalism. Critical sociologists take professional sociologyto task for failing to examine the ideological and normative underpinnings that unwittinglypromoted particular visions of society, which benefit one segment of the population at the expenseof others. If critical sociology involves a dialogue with other sociologists about the foundationsof professional sociology, public sociology is the dialogue about the foundations of society withpublics beyond the academy. Public sociology, according to Burawoy (2004), also differs fromthe other three forms in that it explicitly engages in dialogue with these publics about issuesthat are morally and politically important.

In an effort to clarify his conception of public sociology, Burawoy (2009:192–193) draws acontrast between ‘traditional’ and ‘organic’ public sociology. Traditional public sociologyincludes the celebrities of the discipline – such as C. Wright Mills, Pierre Bourdieu and AnthonyGiddens – whose works bring a sociological perspective to public issues, or, in the memorablephrase of Mills, turn private troubles into public issues. They do so by the specifically sociologicalexercise of showing the interconnection between micro-experience and macro-structure.According to Mills, a key part of the ‘sociological imagination’ is a willingness to combine ‘ideasthat no-one expected were combinable’. The publics addressed by traditional public sociologyare broad, thin, passive and mainstream, with an amorphous presence. For Mills, Bourdieu andGiddens, sociological education emanates from above in the sense that ‘dialogue’ is characterisedby a one-way flow of communication from author to public.

Organic public sociology, by contrast, assumes that subjugated populations possess, in thewords of Antonio Gramsci, a kernel of good sense contained in their common sense (ibid.). Inthis regard, sociological education is an unmediated dialogue between sociologist and public,employing sociological concepts to reveal and elucidate the fundamental insights into socialstructure that everyone possesses. Public sociology engages directly with specific publics in specificsettings and focuses on the specific interests of whatever public the sociologist is working with.Here, Burawoy (2009) cites educators such as Paulo Freire and feminists like Dorothy Smith,who believe in working from the experience of the oppressed. Alain Touraine’s action sociology,which is also included, develops the insights of activists in social movements through thediscussions and interventions coordinated by sociologists. In this case, the public is thick ratherthan thin, local rather than broad, active rather than passive, oppositional rather than mainstream.The organic public sociologist,

who works in the trenches of civil society, is invisible and very different from the traditionalpublic sociologist, whose effectiveness depends upon his or her visibility . . . There is oftena deep animosity between the two types of public sociologist. The traditional publicsociologist regards close encounters with publics as contaminating whilst the organic publicsociologist regards knowledge incubated in the academy as serving the powers that be. Thismutual hostility has its roots within the academic hierarchy as well as ideology, but I willargue that each benefits from the presence of the other – the traditional public sociologistgives overarching direction and legitimacy to and receives energy and insight from theintense involvement of the organic public sociologist.

(Burawoy, 2009:193)

This four-fold scheme depicts a division of sociological labour, within which sociologists specialisein one or more types of knowledge and through which they move as their careers develop.The division of labour also represents a configuration of domination among the four types ofknowledge that vary over time and by country.

Gilton Klerck

32

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 Despite divisions and conflicts between protagonists of the various types of sociology,

Burawoy (2009:195) argues that a thriving sociology requires all four types of knowledge, andthat underlying their antagonism there is a fundamental interdependence, the foundation of a‘symbiotic division of labour’. For example, professional sociology acquires its vitality frominfusions of public sociology, advances under pressure from critical sociology, and is often sustainedby policy sociology. The antagonists are all locked into a common division of labour, and ‘tothe extent that professional sociology becomes irrelevant, critical sociology becomes dogmatic,policy sociology becomes servile or public sociology becomes populist, that is, to the extentany given type lose touches with and loses respect for the others, all suffer, and our disciplineloses its vitality’ (ibid.). For Burawoy (2009:196), this ‘putative unity-in-division’ or ‘antagonisticinterdependence’ is grounded in the standpoint sociologists share, namely the standpoint of civilsociety. To be sure, the claim that sociologists study the world from the standpoint of civilsociety does not mean that they only study civil society. Rather, they study the state or theeconomy, for example, from the standpoint of their social benefits and/or consequences. Giventhe wide-ranging implications of and the notable reservations still attached to ‘public sociology’,it is hardly surprising that it has sparked a rigorous and extensive debate (see Blau & Smith,2006; Bridger & Alter, 2010; Clawson, 2007; Jeffries, 2009; Nichols, 2007; Swedberg, 2007).

Making sense of the relationships between sociology and associated disciplines requires notonly an awareness of the distinct objectives and purposes of the various sociologies, but also anappreciation of the key problematics in the discipline. The core of sociology, according to Scott(2005, cited in O’Reilly, 2009:222)), revolves around a framework of ideas about socialrelations: all human activity is socially embedded; the ‘social’ constitutes inter-subjectivephenomena that are irreducible to biology or psychology, to individual actions or the meaningsattributed to them; inter-subjective phenomena form social structures (social facts, forms of sociallife, norms and institutions) which, in turn, are reproduced by and form the conditions forindividual and collective actions by becoming embedded in social relations, embodied astendencies, acknowledged or witnessed by actors in the form of rules or laws, or simply actedupon as norms and conventions; and these social structures are relational, institutional andembodied (cited in O’Reilly, 2009:222). Sociology is therefore an emergent set of ideasdesigned to explain ‘the social’ in terms of the interrelationship of social actors and social structures.This work occupied the foundational theorists, who conceptualised the social in terms of amaterialist conception of history (Karl Marx), the existence of objective social facts (EmileDurkheim), meaningful action (Max Weber) or emergent forms of social life (Georg Simmel).It is continued in the work of contemporary theorists, who conceive of the social using a theoryof practice (Pierre Bourdieu), structuration theory (Anthony Giddens) or analytical dualism(Margaret Archer). It is advanced by developing concepts, which are designed to avoid thereduction of conditions to actions and vice versa, such as habitus and field, positioned-practices,internalised structures or performance and embodiment.

Neither subjectivist explanations of society as the product of conscious human activities norobjectivist explanations of society as existing independently of conscious human activities areadequate (Archer, 1995). The social dimension is not captured by the reified position ofstructuralism that reduces humans to mere bearers of structures or by the spontaneist conceptionof voluntarist humanism in which everything can be explained in terms of human activity. Theobjectivist emphasis on the role that institutions play in shaping the conduct of (pliable andlargely reactive) individuals suggests that society creates people. In subjectivist conceptions, humanagency exercises an active, formative and recursive influence on social institutions in the sensethat people create society. In reality, however, society does not directly create people any more

Sociology and international HRM

33

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 than people directly create society. This is unavoidable since social structures, as the ‘sedimented

deposits of past actions’, become the conditions of subsequent activities (Lawson et al., 1996:146).Simply combining these approaches will not solve the problem: it makes no sense simultaneouslyto posit a voluntaristic idealism whereby individuals create the social structure and a mechanicaldeterminism whereby people are essentially the product of their situation. While social structuresand intentional action presuppose each other, they are quite different kinds of things and cannotbe reduced to, or reconstructed from, each other. Indeed, Bhaskar (1979:43–44) argues thatthere is a real distinction – an ‘ontological hiatus’ – between human agency and social structures:

[If], following Durkheim, one regards society as providing the material causes of humanaction, and following Weber, one refuses to reify it, it is easy to see that both society andhuman praxis must possess a dual character. Society is both the ever-present condition (materialcause) and the continually reproduced outcome of human agency. And praxis is both work,that is conscious production, and (normally unconscious) reproduction of the conditions ofproduction, that is society.

He refers to the former as the ‘duality of structure’ and the latter as the ‘duality of praxis’.Society is not the creation of unconditional human agency, nor does it exist independently ofit; individuals neither completely determine, nor are they completely determined by, socialstructures. Bhaskar (1979) is therefore proposing a conception that people, in their consciousactivity, for the most part unconsciously reproduce (and occasionally transform) the structuresgoverning their substantive activities of production. Human action is necessarily dependent onthe existence of social structures and these depend on being reproduced through such activity.Social structures impose limits on the acts we can perform, but they do not determine ouractions. Human agents have the potential to engage in transformative practice, albeit withinspecific limits. This means structures are both enabling and constraining, albeit in a specificallydetermined manner. In other words, people reproduce and sometimes transform society, butthey do not create it ab initio since they always transform existing material conditions. The roleof sociology is to explore the multi-layered relations between structural conditions (such asdispositions, institutions, constraints, norms) and human agency (such as desires, meanings,intentions, actions).

Bhaskar rejects atomistic views of society for implying that knowledge of society can bereduced to knowledge of people. His relational alternative to atomistic models of societyunderlines the fact that our social acts presuppose relations of various kinds – for instance, oneis an employee only because of one’s relation to an employer. Yet, the relations and the relatedindividuals may be ontologically independent in the sense that it is possible to focus study onthe relations (which endure through changes of the related individuals), or on individuals (whomay circulate around the network of relations that is society). The ontology of social atomismalong with its epistemological manifestation, methodological individualism, remains a form ofreductionism. The subject matter of social science cannot be reduced to principles governingthe behaviour of human individuals and descriptions of their situations. Bhaskar follows andbuilds upon the insight of Marx that society is not only a sum of individuals, but also comprisesthe totality of positions and social relations in which these individuals stand. Social reality isthus conceived as ‘intrinsically dynamic and complexly structured, consisting in human agency,structures and contexts of action, none of which are given or fixed, and where each presupposeseach other without being reducible to, identifiable with, or explicable completely in terms of,any other’ (Lawson, 1997:159). The relational conception of social forms entails that

Gilton Klerck

34

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 the social conditions for the substantive activities of transformation in which agents engage

can only be relations of various kinds. And the transformational model entails that theseactivities are essentially productions. The subject matter of sociology is, thus, precisely: relationsof production (of various kinds).

(Bhaskar, 1979:56)

On this view, social phenomena are not things, but relations. As Bhaskar (1989:28–29) puts it:

Sociology is not concerned, as such, with large-scale, mass or group behaviour (conceivedas the behaviour of large numbers, masses or groups of individuals). Rather it is concerned,at least paradigmatically, with the persistent relations between individuals (and groups), andwith the relations between these relations (and between such relations and nature and theproducts of such relations).

Bhaskar’s transformative model of social activity accounts for the fact that, in their interactionswith society, human agents act as both its effects and its causes. In order to combine these insights,we need

a system of mediating concepts, encompassing both aspects of the duality of praxis,designating the ‘slots’, as it were, in the social structure into which active subjects mustslip in order to reproduce it; that is, a system of concepts designating the ‘point of contact’between human agency and social structures. Such a point, linking action to structure, mustboth endure and be immediately occupied by individuals.

(Bhaskar, 1979:51)

This mediating system is that of the positions occupied by individuals, and of the practices inwhich, by virtue of their occupancy of these positions (and vice versa), they engage. ‘Now suchpositions and practices, if they are to be individuated at all, can only be done so relationally’(ibid.). The relations with which the social sciences are concerned must therefore be concep -tualised as holding between the positions and practices (‘positioned-practices’), not between theindividuals who occupy or engage in them. While the existence of social structures as a conditionfor and outcome of human practice is a necessary feature of all societies, the specific form ofthese structures is of an historical character, which has been determined by (among others) classantagonisms, cultural practices and institutional frameworks.

Human resource management: functional, analytical and critical

It is not only the divisions within sociology, but also those in management studies in generalthat complicate the task of assessing the impression which the former discipline has left on thelatter. Management studies, as Knights and Willmott (1997) show, are defined by the social divisionof labour between researcher and practitioner as well as that within academia. In addition, muchof the mainstream management scholarship is characterised by a disregard (aversion?) for broaderquestion of meta-theory (see Edwards, 2005; Fleetwood & Hesketh, 2008; Syed et al., 2010;Thompson & Vincent, 2010). This is particularly prevalent in the HRM literature and lies atthe root of many of its limitations and oversights. As Keegan and Boselie (2006:1506) note, ‘debateson meta theory, the linguistic turn, and reflexivity have not taken root or changed the way mostresearch is undertaken and published in the field of HRM’. Consequently, they argue, debatesin HRM tend to be narrow, technocratic, managerialist, exclude consideration of broader

Sociology and international HRM

35

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 moral, social and political questions on HRM practice and policy, and are lagging behind leading

edge theoretical developments in social scientific analysis evident in other fields of managementand organisation theory. This has been an enduring problem.

In one of the two influential reports published in 1959 on the state of research in businessschools in the USA, Gordon and Howell bluntly stated: ‘[the] business literature is not, in general,characterized by challenging hypotheses, well developed conceptual frameworks, the use ofsophisticated research techniques, penetrating analysis, the use of evidence drawn from relevantunderlying disciplines – or very significant conclusions’ (cited in Agarwal & Hoetkera,2007:1305). Given the embryonic nature of management as a discipline at the time, it is notsurprising that related disciplines had a significant impact on its development. Drawing directlyon established and related disciplines was an obvious way to establish and secure the legitimacyof management as a discipline, increase the depth and reach of management research, and allowmanagement studies to benefit from the established research techniques and conceptual matricesof the related disciplines. Drawing parallels with the knowledge base of an evolving industry,Agarwal and Hoetkera (2007:1305–1306) argue that the relative importance of knowledge from outside a discipline’s boundaries decreases as the discipline matures. In its formative years, management turned to related disciplines for not only ‘content’ or theories, but also for‘method’ or intellectual rigour (Knights & Willmott, 1997). As management matured, giventhe development of management-specific research and graduate training, both forms of borrow -ing become observably less important. Starting at a level of published research output muchlower than that of economics, psychology or sociology, management surpassed sociology in theearly 1990s and has come close to economics in recent years.

Drawing on the division in management research between ‘micro’ (focuses on individualsand teams) and ‘macro’ (focuses on organisations and extra-organisational issues), Agarwal andHoetkera’s (2007) survey of selected literature reveals the dominance of a single discipline (i.e.psychology) in micro-oriented articles. In macro-orientated articles, citations to psychology,economics and sociology have been roughly equal indicating the lack of a singular dominantdiscipline. However, while the macro-oriented research in management is multidisciplinary, itonly draws on one discipline at a time. The relevance of multiple disciplines to manage-ment, according to Pfeffer (1993:615), has led to the lack of strong paradigm development asmanagement scholars regard the field as a multidisciplinary ‘[large] tent in which fundamentallyany theoretical perspective or methodological approach is as valid as any other’. This view iscommon among mainstream management scholars and reflects the tensions between practicalrelevance and academic rigour (Syed et al., 2010). Although they acknowledge the value toman age ment studies of theories and methodologies introduced by scholars from relateddisciplines, Agarwal and Hoetkera (2007:1318) believe that the extent to which value is cap -tured depends on the ability of the management discipline to assimilate relevant perspectives,which itself relates to whether consensus exists on the value of a ‘disciplined integration of multipleperspectives’.

There is a significant discrepancy between the pervasive promotion of interdisciplinarity andits limited manifestation in management research and teaching (Knights & Willmott, 1997).While management scholars routinely characterise HRM as a multidisciplinary field, reviews ofpublished work only reveal strong links with psychology – which may be due to the field’searly development and the academic discipline of its early theorists and practitioners – but onlyindirect links to political, economic and sociological perspectives (Warner, 2011:3227). Onlya minority of papers in the leading, largely US-based HRM journals provide an adequate cultural,historical or social setting for their contribution. Liang et al. (2010) reach a similar conclusionin terms of the material published in the leading Chinese language management journals.

Gilton Klerck

36

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 According to Warner (2011:3228), a significant proportion of the published work has a

conventional ‘managerialist’ perspective and the paradigm increasingly invoked in the globalacademic marketplace has a decidedly North American orientation. Furthermore, HRM researchgenerally is premised on a micro-level understanding of management action at firm level, whichfails to account for supra-organisational influences or constraints on management behaviour(Collings, 2008:175). The HRM literature appears

to be too narrowly focused and insufficiently interdisciplinary. More specifically, it maybe said to often lack a firm cultural/historical grounding. It may also be more likely tohave a psychologist’s perspective, rather than an economist’s or sociologist’s (or for thatmatter, an anthropologist’s) orientation . . . Hardly any studies in HRM deal directly withthe main props of sociology, such as class, status and power. Only a few HRM scholarsconcern themselves, however, with industrial conflict . . . Much of the work in HRM,too, is socially uncritical . . . A considerable amount of research on the other hand doesdeal with psychologists’ constructs, such as commitment, trust and so on. In a number ofcases, academically fashionable topics such as empowerment, high-performance HR,organizational citizenship and so on are prevalent . . . We can advance as a generalizationthat the preponderance of studies does appear to be rather more micro- than macro-oriented.

(Warner, 2011:3229–3230)

Unsurprisingly, the value of multi-disciplinarity in management studies is the subject of intensedebate, which largely turns on the rigour-versus-relevance dilemma. To use a recent example,Markóczy and Deeds (2009) draw on a narrow empiricism, which characterises much ofmainstream HRM, forcefully to reject Zahra and Newey’s (2009) call for interdisciplinary researchas a means to (a) develop new theories at the interface of theories from sister and base disciplinesin management, (b) challenge accepted norms and paradigms, and (c) open up the field todiscussion and exploration. For Markóczy and Deeds (2009:1079), paradigmatic developmentrequires a ‘consensus on theory, methods and focal phenomena’, while Zahra and Newey’smodel of interdisciplinary research leads ‘the discipline of management away from consensusand towards a permanent condition of subservience to the “mother” disciplines which theyadvise we draw upon to have “impact”’. Appealing to an atavistic scientism, Markóczy andDeeds (2009) suggest that management scholars need to develop the same confidence in theirwork that physicists have in theirs. That is, management scholars need to trust that the methods,the results and the theories of management studies provide ‘unique value, insights and knowledgeof their own and can stand on their own without continual reference to and integration oftheories from our base disciplines or sister disciplines’ (Markóczy & Deeds, 2009:1079). A narrowly defined ‘professional relevance’ takes precedence over broadly conceived notionsof ‘academic rigour’.

For scholars in this mould, advocating interdisciplinary research as the best way of conductinghigh impact management threatens the management discipline’s ability to build legitimacy andidentity, and may even endanger the long-term existence of its scholars as a professional group.Calling for Kuhnian ‘normal science’, Markóczy and Deeds (2009:1080) suggest thatmanagement research can only create value when theory development has been uniquelymotivated by the challenges faced by firms and managers. On this view, HRM should be more,not less, impervious to influences from disciplines such as sociology:

our larger and more important critiques apply to . . . the continual call for interdisciplinaryresearch in management . . . [It] is time for management to grow up and quit placing its

Sociology and international HRM

37

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 fate in the hands of other disciplines. Researchers need to focus on the development of a

cohesive, critical mass of studies that clearly differentiates from economics, psychology andsociology . . . Rather than strengthening the discipline, the continual focus on inter -disciplinary theory building is holding back the paradigmatic development so crucial torealizing the promise of the discipline of management.

(Markóczy & Deeds, 2009:1086; see also Hambrick, 2007)

Arguing along similar lines, Agarwal and Hoetkera (2007:1319) claim that the advancementof management research requires more than simply conducting psychology-, sociology- oreconomics-based research in a business setting. This, they suggest, would create little value beyondthat available in the particular related discipline. Rather, it is necessary to connect disciplinaryinsights with those generated by the ‘increasingly rich management discipline’, thereby generatingunique theoretical advances that would help address a major critique of management researchand education: that it no longer relates to ‘real business problems’ (ibid.). A significant proportionof HRM research has been dedicated to understanding the maximising of efficiency througheffectively managing human resources (see Boselie et al., 2005; Hesketh & Fleetwood, 2008;Marchington and Grugulis, 2000; Paauwe, 2009). As a ‘distinct discipline’, management hasgreatly benefited from related disciplines, but management researchers need to be cautious aboutinteractions with the related disciplines and need to ‘examine these connections more closelyto ensure that they do not bind us, but rather enable us to provide valuable insights regardingmanagement practice’ (Agarwal & Hoetkera, 2007:1320).

A more recent review of HRM studies appearing in leading American and Britishmanagement journals revealed that theoretical development in the HRM field remainedrelatively limited (Batt & Banerjee, 2011). For example, most studies tended to draw on twobroad theoretical paradigms: (a) micro-theories of organisational behaviour and individualmotivation, cognition or affect; and (b) theories of human capital and the resource-based viewof the firm. Even the papers that addressed new issues or developments in HRM rarely wentbeyond traditional HRM perspectives or embraced interdisciplinary approaches to analysis.Although there were some recent papers adopting broader theoretical perspectives, for example,industrial relations or sociological perspectives such as institutional theory and social capital theory,these studies constituted only a small minority of the papers reviewed (Batt & Banerjee, 2011).In fact, there are not even sustained attempts to synthesise the contributions of differentspecialisms within management studies (Knights & Willmott, 1997). Hence, there is not muchevidence to suggest that management scholars have decisively moved the discipline beyondGordon and Howell’s caustic assessment made more than half a century ago.

The deficiencies of the managerialist agenda of HRM are increasingly a matter of concerneven among some mainstream HRM scholars. For instance, in their introduction to a key HRMhandbook, Boxall et al. (2007:4) argue for an ‘analytical’ approach to HRM, which ‘privilegesexplanation over prescription’, in order ‘to emphasize that the fundamental mission of theacademic management discipline of HRM is not to propagate perceptions of “best practice” in“excellent companies” but, first of all, to identify and explain what happens in practice . . .[and] account for the way management actually behaves’. As Caldas et al. (2011) also point out,the limitations inherent in the dominant HRM-performance research question and in theprevalent managerialism have meant that most research has been largely empirical and theoreticaldevelopment in the HRM field remains relatively limited. The sweeping and complex researchagenda that is required to address these concerns will compel HRM researchers to draw on amuch broader set of theories than has historically been the case. More fundamentally,

Gilton Klerck

38

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 the theoretical frameworks used continue to be focused on the micro-level and founded

on positivist principles, most notably psychological theories of motivation, economictheories of human capital, and the resource-based view of the firm. These frameworks areconsistent with strategic HRM’s conceptualization of the firm as an atomistic actor, withlittle or no attention paid either to the institutional environment or to the political andeconomic relationships in which firms are embedded.

(Delbridge et al., 2011:487)

From its more established and pervasive influence in organisation studies, critical theory hasevolved into HRM and its context. Despite the ‘concessions’ from some management scholars,critical HRM scholars (see Alvesson & Willmott, 2003; Delbridge & Keenoy, 2010; Keegan &Boselie, 2006; Kelemen & Rumens, 2008; Legge 1995) and critical scholars in associateddisciplines (see Fleetwood & Hesketh, 2008; Thompson, 2011; Watson, 2004) continue to drawattention to the narrowness and conservatism of the mainstream HRM approach. The pro -gression of critical management studies since the 1990s – drawing on Marxist, critical, feminist,post-modernist, post-structural and post-colonial theories – was characterised by ideologicalcriticism, an emphasis on the social construction of reality, and a general questioning of extantsocial orders, dominating practices, ideologies, discourses and institutions (Alvesson & Deetz,2000; Alvesson & Willmott, 1996). Fournier and Grey (2000) argue that critical managementstudies is organised around three core propositions: (a) ‘non-performativity’ – a disavowal ofthe automatic and unquestioning commitment to conventional business outcomes such as profitmaximisation as inherently and inexorably the top priority in organisations; (b) ‘de-naturalisation’– a recognition that the way things are is not natural, rational or inevitable and therefore couldbe different; and (c) ‘reflexivity’ – a rejection of the positivistic assumption that reality exists‘out there’ waiting to be captured by the researcher in favour of recognising the role of theresearcher in the construction of knowledge (see also Peltonen & Vaara, 2012).

The key substantive and methodological criticisms of the mainstream include the obsessionwith linking HRM and business performance, an unreflexive acceptance of the managerialistperspective, assumptions of unitarism and universalism, the decontextualization of managementpractices, and the dominance of functionalist and/or positivist approaches (see Delbridge &Keenoy, 2010; Janssens & Steyaert, 2009; Keegan & Boselie, 2006; Keenoy, 2009; Khan &Ackers, 2004). In fact, critical management studies is presented as ‘the only alternative to a stylizedUS-based, global managerial HRM paradigm, with a narrow positivist focus on business per -form ance and individual behaviour, grounded in labour economics and managerial psychology’(Ackers, 2011:324). Essentially, critical management scholars do not find mainstream manage -ment to be either ‘intellectually coherent and/or ethically defensible’ (Willmott, 1995:36). Thegoals of critical management studies include challenging the oppressive character of managementand organisation; maintaining a critical stance towards instrumental reason; opposing dominantpower, ideology, managerial privilege, and hierarchy; and analysing relations between powerand knowledge, with the aim of showing how forms of knowledge, which appear to be neutral,serve to legitimise asymmetrical relations of power (see Adler et al., 2007; Alvesson et al., 2009;Keenoy, 1997; Kelemen & Rumens, 2008). According to Alvesson and Willmott (1992:1),

The disciplines of management are generally understood to be devoted to the (scientific)improvement of managerial practice and the functioning of organizations. It is assumedthat questions directly and indirectly connected to efficiency and effectiveness are central;and that knowledge of management is of greatest relevance (only) to managers.

Sociology and international HRM

39

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 Like public sociologists, critical management scholars seek not just to explain social reality

but also to change it. The primacy of instrumental rationality over social and human needsaccentuates the need for organisational change, with the role of the researcher being to guidechange in organisational processes. Critical researchers recognise that their work is value-ladenand that their findings should help organisational members to understand the conditions fororganisational change (Grimes, 1992:29). That is, critical scholars enter the research site withexplicit philosophical assumptions and political objectives (Kincheloe & McLaren, 1994:140).Critical perspectives on management are closely tied to the ideas of emancipation from oppres -sive beliefs and institutions, and organisational learning geared towards exposing the structuresof dominance that (re)produce the social relationships and cultural practices within the organ -isation. Critical scholars tend to question the prevailing positivist consensus and its technocraticagenda, bemoan the dearth of ethnographic research, criticise the attempts to apply natural science methodology to management research, and reject the treatment of models of managementas systems of free-floating ideas in favour of exploring the social mechanisms that (re)producethem (see Alvesson & Deetz, 2000; Hesketh & Fleetwood, 2008; Piekkari & Welch, 2011;Syed et al., 2010).

Critical management studies offer philosophically and socially grounded critiques of thedominant ideology in Western society and the institutions which reproduce that ideology (Grimes,1992:26). At the core of the critical theory lies a desire to develop a more rational, enlightenedsociety through a process of critical reflection on the organisation and existing institutions andideologies (Alvesson & Willmott, 2003). Critical researchers attempt to use their work as a formof social or cultural criticism and accept that ‘all thought is fundamentally mediated by powerrelations that are social and historically constituted; that facts can never be isolated from thedomain of values or removed from some form of ideological inscription; that language is centralto the formation of subjectivity and that certain groups in any society are privileged over others’(Kincheloe & McLaren, 1994:140). Focusing on injustices and inequalities, critical managementstudies underscores the relations of domination in organisations, encourages collaborativeengagement with the less powerful, and views the role of the researcher as identifying strategiesfor change. Central in many of these arguments are the sociological concepts used to explainmost social behaviour: institution, network, power and cognition (Dobbin, 2004).

From the late 1970s, concepts and insights from sociology were incorporated into a formof ‘engaged scholarship’ revolving around a ‘sociology of work and employment’ approach,which was a critical and analytical alternative to the prescriptive and functionalist scholarshipin personnel management, with its emphasis on prescribing ‘best practices’ in labour management(Watson, 2010:916). This approach was fuelled by a number of critical strands, including Weberianorganisational theory and Marxian labour process theory, and enabled a searching study ofmanagerial practices with the objective of understanding them rather than advising managershow ‘best’ to manage. Despite this sociologically inspired approach, an emphasis on ‘best practice’was revived by the emergence of academic HRM, most notably in influential papers by Pfeffer(1993) and Huselid (1995).

Being ‘critical’, for much of the contemporary HRM literature, means not venturing toofar from the mainstream and making sterile pronouncements about the distinction between‘rhetoric’ and ‘reality’. A ‘critical’ label for the study of HRM would be ‘unnecessary if socialscience were to be seen as intrinsically critical in the sense of continuously challenging taken-for-granted assumptions about social institutions and practices and constantly acknowledgingthat conflicts of interest, social and economic inequalities and unintended consequences oforganisational initiatives are an undeniable part of the reality of the social world’ (Watson,2010:927). Systematic analyses of academic journal coverage of HRM show a ‘dominance of

Gilton Klerck

40

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 consensus-oriented discourse [that is] prescriptive, positivist, managerial, functionalist and

strategic’ (Keegan & Boselie, 2006:1505–1506). The rationalistic, unitary view of the firm, whichinforms much of the HRM literature, largely rules out the possibility of unintended and/orunanticipated consequences, disconnects managerial practices from the wider social and institu -tional context, and overlooks the often-competing interests and objectives shaping the behaviourof actors at various levels within the organisation (Kristensen & Zeitlin, 2005).

The analytical weakness of the unitarist conception of the work organisation, which so muchHRM research tends to adopt, has long been exposed by the industrial relations tradition. Inthe latter, it is conventional to emphasise the social embeddedness of labour practices, whereasthe universalist tradition of much HRM research means that this has been less explored in theHRM literature (Farndale et al., 2008:2007). Industrial relations scholars place greater emphasison conflict and power than cooperation and normative integration, and any sense of ‘good’industrial relations proffered invariably rests on a post hoc situational analysis, rather than onany transportable formula for national institutional reform (Ackers, 2011; Edwards et al., 1994).In contrast to HRM, industrial relations have historically drawn extensively on sociology ingeneral and radical workplace sociology in particular. As a result, the industrial relations traditionis sympathetic to labour and has an open, flexible theoretical stance that enables it to thrive inan interdisciplinary environment (see Ackers & Wilkinson, 2003). From the 1970s, as Ackers(2011:307) shows, the British industrial relations tradition ‘centred on a major programme ofworkplace research, increasingly informed by sociology and energized by a debate betweenpluralism and Marxism’. This trend was reflected in (a) the sociological turn of Alan Fox, RichardHyman, Eric Batstone, and others, which drew pluralist industrial relations into dialogue with the radical sociology of work, thereby invigorating and renewing both areas of study; and(b) the sceptical and empirical engagement with management, which laid an intellectualfoundation for the work of Sisson and others on HRM since the 1980s (ibid.). The combinationof these two strands provided a legacy that is central to the contemporary field of work andemployment relations.

Oswick et al. (2011:320) reveal the widespread ‘borrowing’ from sociology in the variousfields of management studies – for example, institutional theory (DiMaggio), discourse theory(Fairclough), social network theory (Granovetter), labour process theory (Braverman),structuration theory (Giddens), and actor network theory (Latour). Critical approaches, inparticular, have drawn extensively from sociology to analyse management and organisations associal rather than simply technical phenomena, which are deeply implicated in the (re)productionof structures of domination and/or exploitation. Significantly, however, Adler et al. (2007:132–133) show how critical management studies have drawn on different aspects of Weber and Durkheim as compared to mainstream management scholarship. The latter uses Weber tonaturalise the assumption that large, complex organisations must be organised in a bureaucraticform, even if it is inveterately alienating. Critical management studies scholars find in Weberresources for critical analyses. On the one hand, Weber is mobilised in the assessment of marketrelations as vehicles for domination, in the appraisal of bureaucracy as embodying the ‘iron cage’of modernity, and in the critique of the advance of formal over substantive rationality. On theother hand, some critical scholars draw on Weber’s argument that bureaucracy can be a rampartagainst domination while others find in Weber a stimulus for charting the lived realities ofmanagerial work. Durkheim is used by mainstream research in ways that naturalise the anomicconditions of the modern world, whereas critical research uses Durkheim to comment on theseconditions and suggests that alternatives are possible.

Despite major differences in the assessments and forecasts given by mainstream HRMscholars at the centre and critical scholars at the margins of the discipline, according to Delbridge

Sociology and international HRM

41

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 et al. (2011:486) there are some important points of convergence. First, HRM research has been

too narrowly focused on the individual organisation, and even specific management practiceswithin the firm, without sufficient weight being given to the historical, institutional, economic,and social contexts of these organisations and their practices. Second, despite enduring dis -agreements, there is some consensus emerging around broadening the range of actors and voicesthat are included in the HRM research agenda, especially those of employees. For instance,Boselie et al. (2009:464) suggest that the critical and mainstream strands of HRM research are‘growing closer together’ and are united in the view that there is ‘a need for small-scale, contextualstudies of HRM and a more inclusive, value-based understanding of employees, managers andother stake-holders of the organization’. However, as Cai et al. (2011) among others point out,the opinions of non-managerial employees have been largely neglected in work on HRM, whichtends to rely exclusively and problematically on managers as respondents.

Third, there is a growing appreciation of the need to broaden the objectives of HRM researchand to develop a research agenda that seeks explanation over description or universalist prescrip -tion. Arguably, convergence on these point is more apparent than real: critical scholars haveshown that mainstream HRM researchers routinely overlook extra-organisational stakeholdersand that a pluralist understanding of organisations has fatal consequences for the unitaristfoundations of mainstream HRM and its managerialist agendas (see Collings, 2008; Delbridge& Keenoy, 2010; Janssens & Steyaert, 2009).

Drawing an explicit connection to Burawoy’s call to harness sociology’s ‘longstandingcritical imagination’, which reminds us ‘the world could be different’, Watson (2010:927–928)argues that it is possible to work in a ‘critical participative’ way in ‘interactive engaged’ research.The latter should not underestimate the degrees of conflict of interest that exist in employmentsituations, nor should it exclude the wider public in the sense of equipping the citizens of societywith an understanding of the realities of their situations and prospects. Such an understandingis vital if meaningful public debate about social change, work and employment is to occur (Syedet al., 2010). However, this advocacy raises the question of the extent to which academic HRMresearchers have an interest in, a capability for, or the legitimacy to support going beyond beingscholars to act as public intellectuals. The challenge, therefore,

is to bring into this debate all of those who are interested in the academic study of HRM.If HRM research is going to have an impact on all of those in society whose lives areaffected by HRM practices, then a debate about how it can be taken into the public arenaneeds to occur. This requires bringing together, on the one hand, those who are currentlyhappy devoting their efforts to identifying ways in which employment managementpractices might enhance the ‘performance’ or the ‘competitive advantage’ of employingorganisations and, on the other hand, those who currently dissociate themselves from suchwork by attaching the word ‘critical’ to their work.

(Watson, 2010:928)

It is difficult to envisage a study of HRM practices in the absence of concepts such as socialconstruction, discourse, contradiction, struggle, identity, contingency, and so on. There are,however, three caveats to consider. First, appreciating the socially constructed nature of socialphenomena is not a licence for the kind of voluntarism that makes them merely discursivelyrevisable (Bhaskar, 1989). Social institutions have a structural integrity, which limits and enableswhat they can and cannot do. Second, an obvious way to pursue a critical agenda is for theresearcher straightforwardly to attach their work to a particular political agenda; to engage in

Gilton Klerck

42

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 an ‘oppositional’ form of critical study. A hazard in this regard, according to Janssens and Steyaert

(2009:143), is that ‘a form of criticism which only resists HRM tends to remain within theexisting frame(s) and offers no theoretical alternative’. But even if this is avoided, there remainsa significant problem for any kind of critical management studies concerning itself with theemancipation of particular social groups (Alvesson & Willmott, 1992). Pragmatic realismpresents this kind of critical strategy with an especially tough challenge; it recognises that apragmatically worthwhile piece of knowledge has the potential to be helpful to anyone whoreads it, regardless of his or her interests or concerns (Watson, 2010:926).

International human resource management

While HRM has become a dominant perspective through which the employment relations ofcapitalist corporations are evaluated, this rise to dominance has come at the cost of a narrowingof the research agenda and an increasing reliance on managerialist and economistic theories ofthe firm, which reflect a broader free-market, anti-statist orientation within HRM. Theseconcerns are especially pertinent to IHRM: it has focused primarily on ‘the policies, practicesand strategies of HRM practitioners in individual multinational enterprises, exhibiting both amanagerialist perspective and an organizational level of analysis at the cost of a wider assessmentof the context of employment relations, their negotiated and local nature, and their range ofpotential outcomes’ (Delbridge et al., 2011:483–484). Broader questions of corporate governanceare also closely tied to different paradigms or ways of conceptualising the organisation or firm(Aguilera & Jackson, 2010). IHRM has therefore been vulnerable to the same flaws as HRMmore generally (Dowling, 1999; Keating & Thompson, 2004), but with the problem furtherintensified because it has been dominated by a particularly narrow set of concerns centred onthe managers and management practices of large, Western MNCs.

There is a persistent, albeit largely unheeded, disquiet about the limited progress that hasbeen made towards establishing a systemic treatment of the sources of cross-national labourmanagement diversity that is genuinely useful in explaining the reasons for and nature of thatdiversity (see Almond & Menendez, 2012; Clark et al., 1999; Hyman, 2004; Paauwe & Boselie,2007; Peltonen & Vaara, 2012). Much of this lack of progress can be traced to prevailingepistemological and ontological assumptions. Empiricist conceptions of causation and/orvoluntarist notions of strategic choice lie at the root of the failure by HRM researchers to accountfor the tendential, emergent and contradictory properties of managerial responses to theenvironment. These concerns are brought into stark relief when HRM turns its ethnocentricgaze to the developing world (see Adeleye, 2011; Elvira & Davila, 2005; Jackson, 2012; Lehrer& Delaunay, 2009). As Caldas et al. (2011:442) contend,

it seems reasonable that ideas such as naturalization and an exclusive focus on efficiencyand control, which are typical of the criticism of HR management in general, would alsoapply to IHRM. The typical positivism of HR research seems, indeed, to have crossedfrontiers and, in the same way as its domestic equivalent, has concentrated on scientificapproaches that favor the transposition of an objectivist and naturalizing epistemology of social phenomena in the cross-frontier context, which may magnify its limitations and deficiencies as a scientific field. If, in a domestic environment, the generalization ofconcepts and the extrapolation of tendencies were already debatable, any attempt toreproduce this across frontiers gives rise to even more suspicion, and its rigor to even greaterdoubt.

Sociology and international HRM

43

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 Recent applications of post-colonial theory to the study of MNCs encourages a

conceptualisation of these corporations in terms of not only a clash between different ‘logics ofappropriateness’, but also an unequal encounter between colonising (mostly Northern) andcolonised (typically Southern) organisational actors (Boussebaa et al., 2012:470). For criticalscholars, the IHRM approach explains the neo-colonialist movements of MNCs in practice(Caldas et al., 2011; Clark et al., 1999; Peltonen, 2006). That is, they embed global-local tensionsin longstanding, macro-level processes of colonial and imperial domination. Such a perspectiveis necessary because the various national contexts across which the MNC operates are not merelyseparate and different institutional settings; they are also social formations that have been imbri-cated in a complex and shifting hierarchy of nations over centuries. Presently, the USA maybe seen as a ‘society-in-dominance’ – that is, a society ‘deemed to represent “modernity” orthe future, and act . . . as a measure of “progress” and “development”’ – that provides a modelof employment practices that are viewed as ‘best practices’ at the global level (Smith & Meiksins,1995:256). Similarly, drawing on the insights of global labour process theory, discourse analysisand transnational feminism will deepen IHRM’s understanding of the ways in whichasymmetrical power relations, structured inequalities, discursive and institutional practices, andthe politics of identity shape the actions of MNCs (Peltonen & Vaara, 2012).

Although Björkman and Stahl (2006) and Peltonen (2006) correctly point out the difficultyof establishing the parameters of IHRM, given its infancy as a distinct discipline, certain broadinferences have been drawn about the IHRM field. This field, according to Jain et al. (1998:553),has evolved along at least three distinct, although interrelated, lines of inquiry. The first of these,outwardly the most developed, concerns the application of HRM techniques in the managementof expatriate employees. The literature in this area is extensive and consists of descriptive,prescriptive and analytical work. In general, the focus is on the concerns of companies in assuringthat the HRM practices utilised contribute to organisational effectiveness. Delbridge et al.(2011:484) encourage a move beyond this narrow focus at the enterprise level to situate thestudy of IHRM within wider economic, organisational, political and institutional contexts. Inan explicit attempt to challenge the managerialism of mainstream HRM, Delbridge et al. (2011)build on the concerns of those placing the emphasis on ‘comparative HRM’ and a broader,‘societally embedded’ approach. In so doing, they seek to contribute to an emerging interestin critical HRM and to accentuate the need for a broader research focus, which will exposethe fundamental weaknesses of universalist assumptions and demand a wider range of theoret-ical resources be brought to bear than has been the case in mainstream IHRM (see also Keating& Thompson, 2004; Peltonen & Vaara, 2012). In particular, Delbridge et al. (2011:484–485)argue for the broadening of IHRM through the development of a wide-ranging research agenda,which (a) extends beyond the organisation to give weight to context; (b) goes beyondmanagerialism to give voice to the multiple actors involved; and (c) eschews universalism toacknowledge the contingent and emergent nature of management, and embraces the full rangeof relevant theories in order to examine and explain (as opposed to describe and prescribe) aspectsof IHRM.

A second area, which has been largely descriptive, deals with national HRM systems. It isconcerned with understanding the types of HRM practices typically utilised within a givencountry with regard to indigenous employees, as well as comparing such practices cross-nationallyor cross-culturally (see Edwards et al., 2007; Morley & Collings, 2004; Schuler et al., 2002). A third major area concerns the interplay between MNCs, host countries and HRM practicesas applied to host-country nationals. The principal focus of research dealing with the host-countryHRM practices of MNCs is largely on the extent to which MNCs should or do localize versusimport HRM practices (see Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989; Clegg et al., 1998; Fu & Kamenou, 2011;

Gilton Klerck

44

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 Jain et al., 1998; Ngo et al., 1998; Schuler et al., 1993). As Morgan (2012) points out, this is

conceptualised in terms of a dual institutional logic: the micro-politics within MNCs versus the macro-politics between MNCs and the institutions of the national business system. Neo-institutional perspectives increasingly predominate in the accounts of national variations in the HRM practices of MNCs. These accounts are couched in terms of a distinction betweenliberal and coordinated market economies, which revolves largely around degrees of institutionaldensity.

Mounting criticisms of the global integration versus local responsiveness framework encour -aged the refinement and introduction of a number of distinctions to characterise the variousapproaches adopted by MNCs (see Almond, 2011; Boussebaa et al., 2012; Edwards & Kuruvilla,2005; Ferner et al., 2004; Keating & Thompson, 2004; Whitley et al., 2003). According toEdwards (2011), there are diverse ways in which MNCs operate and despite the role of techno -logical developments in building linkages between the operations of MNCs across countries,these linkages can take many different forms, shaped in part by the character of the nation-states from which the MNCs originate and the sectors in which they operate. For Lertxundiand Landeta (2012), approaching strategies of exportation/adaptation as two exclusive alternativesoversimplifies the issue, undervalues the distinction between general policies and specificpractices, does not do justice to the different levels of study, and fails to go beyond convergenceand divergence of management systems to cross-convergence. To be sure, localisation versusimportation is not an all-or-nothing proposition: in practice, firms are likely to draw on bothlocal and imported HRM practices. The mix of local versus imported practices depends on arange of factors manifesting themselves at various levels – some specific to the parent companyand some specific to the host-country subsidiary and its environment – which may lead toheadquarters-subsidiary tensions that undermine the development of unified global organisationalstructures (see Almond & Ferner, 2006; Blunsdon & Reed, 2003; Boussebaa et al., 2012; Edwardset al., 1996; Geppert & Williams, 2006; Kristensen & Zeitlin, 2005).

Findings from analyses of papers appearing in leading IHRM journals confirm the limitationsof the field, which include a narrow focus on the attitudes of top managers of MNCs, apreponderance of performance management issues, and American- or British-centric researchwith almost all the empirical studies carried out in advanced countries with large corporations(see Batt & Banerjee, 2011; Clark et al., 1999; De Cieri et al., 2007; Gerhart, 2008; Harvey,2002; Warner, 2005). As voices and organisations other than those that are traditionally heardin the IHRM literature grow more relevant in the globalised context, the emphasis in HRMon furthering the managerial agenda via a narrow focus on performance issues in MNCs fromthe developed economies becomes increasingly irrelevant to and disconnected from employmentrelationships. In fact, Delbridge et al. (2011:489–490) argue that

IHRM will become increasingly irrelevant to both researchers and practitioners if it doesnot extend and replenish the theoretical resources at its disposal in order to allow a morecomprehensive and compelling articulation of the increasingly diverse and complex rangeof issues that are important in managing people in international contexts. This needs to gobeyond the ‘global integration-local responsiveness’ framework that has been useful fordescriptive purposes but cannot embrace the complexity inherent in such global dynamicsnor offer the multi-level analytical framing that will be required in seeking explanations ofempirical findings.

The integration argument is that there are universal best practices which can be cost-effectivelyand fairly adopted across the organisation worldwide (Pfeffer, 1994). The differentiation

Sociology and international HRM

45

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 approach focuses on the need to fit HRM practices to local conditions, rejecting the notion

of one best way of doing things in all contexts (Delery & Doty, 1996). This integration/differentiation terminology is closely linked to debates about the value of HRM, which relateto the opposition between universalistic claims of ‘best-practice’ and contextualised accountsof ‘best-fit’ (see Almond, 2011; Brewster et al., 2008; Farndale & Paauwe, 2007; Kim et al.,2010; Lertxundi & Landeta, 2012; Paauwe & Boselie, 2003). The idea that organisations areembedded in a wider institutional environment and that their behaviour is a response to marketpressures as well as formal and informal institutional pressures is juxtaposed to the idea thatcertain human resource practices are universally successful. Besides the significant methodologicalweaknesses in universalistic accounts of HRM ‘bundles’ (see Hesketh & Fleetwood, 2008;Kaufman, 2010; Marchington & Grugulis, 2000; Paauwe, 2009), the implication is thatemployers are largely unconstrained in their ability to manage employees and to construct controlmechanisms in the workplace. Since it fails to take seriously the institutional nature of theemployment relationship, this conception is fundamentally flawed (Marsden, 2004). Socio logicallybased studies consistently show that the negotiation of order and the institutionalisation of thewage-effort bargain in the workplace are far more contested, intricate, muddled and contradictorythan is generally assumed in the mainstream HRM literature (see Beynon & Nichols, 2006;Edwards, 1986; Jermier et al., 1994; Knights et al., 1985; Pritchard et al., 2000; Smith et al.,1991).

Sociology and international human resource management

As with HRM, the influence of sociology on IHRM is variegated. Part of this variegation isdependent on the methodological and ideological orientation of the scholar/s in question. Inthis regard, Collinson and Morgan (2009) identify two distinct theoretical approaches andconceptual frameworks in the literature on MNCs. The first approach regards MNCs as broadlypositive and progressive. In this view, MNCs are agents of economic progress, principal factorsin the expansion of the international division of labour, and the diffusers of modern technologyand production techniques, which generalise the benefits of globalisation. This approach drawslargely from economics and is based on ‘issues of performance, ownership, prices and costs,profit maximization, markets and hierarchies, internationalization, rational agents and strategicintent’ (Collinson & Morgan, 2009:6).

The second view is that MNCs reflect both the increasing concentration of capital and the growing integration of production on an international scale. MNCs seek to maximise theexploitation of the workforce, strengthen the economic grip of the developed societies on thenatural and human resources of developing countries, and transcend the regulatory institutionsanchored at the level of the nation-state, thereby ‘fermenting international rivalries’ (Collinson& Morgan, 2009:5). MNCs exercise this power by locating plants in countries with what theyconsider less restrictive regulatory environments, by lobbying governments and internationalinstitutions, by comparing performance across the MNC, and by squeezing costs in subsidiariesthrough coercive comparisons and threats to relocate production. This view is loosely based onsociology with an emphasis on ‘issues of social relations, contexts, institutions, learning, interestgroups, power, authority and exploitation’ (Collinson & Morgan, 2009:6). This distinction ismirrored in the debate in IHRM between the so-called functionalists and the opposing criticalapproach (Caldas et al., 2011:435). Whereas the functionalist tradition focuses attention oneconomic considerations and the transfer of HRM best practices across borders, criticalapproaches tend to highlight sociopolitical issues and point out that IHRM, just as domestic

Gilton Klerck

46

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 HRM, would be ultimately concerned with maintaining managerial control and power relations

in organisations.Comparing mainstream analyses from IHRM with sociologically orientated perspectives on

work and employment reveals significant differences. Voss points to three noteworthy, under -lying premises that differ between these perspectives (cited in Collings, 2008:176–177). First,the nature and level of analysis – while HRM research focuses almost exclusively on endo-genous factors within the firm, sociologically orientated perspectives expand the analysis toexogenous influences, such as the economy, society and culture (see Ackers & Wilkinson, 2003;Bélanger et al., 1994; Marginson et al., 1988; Rubery & Grimshaw, 2003; Whitley & Kristensen,1997). Accordingly, sociologically based research has the potential to provide insights into aspectsof labour management in MNCs – such as trade union recognition, collective bargaining andemployee participation – that are often neglected in the mainstream IHRM literature, whichviews the firm as an atomistic entity operating without political challenges.

Sociologically orientated work and employment studies may also be distinguished from IHRMbased on their consideration of the responses of other industrial relations actors (such as thestate, employers’ organisations, trade unions, works councils and work groups) towardsmanagerial strategies in MNCs. Furthermore, as corporations have adopted networked formsof organisation and outsourced a growing number of operations, the firm as the unit of analysishas become problematic (Grabher, 1993). This makes it perilous to attribute firm profitabilityto the HRM strategy of a principal firm when it depends on the management of a complexsupply chain and tiers of subcontractors in different contexts over which HRM has little or nocontrol (Delbridge et al., 2011). There are also broader, more significant and compelling issuesthan maximising MNC performance that have come to the fore since the advent of globalisationand neoliberalisation. These have encouraged sweeping changes to the structures and institutionsof the traditional employment relationship, and are characterised by the rise of new forms oforganisation, flexible work, polyvalent skills, the emergence of new multinational actors and soon (see Thornley et al., 2010; Usami, 2009).

In a review of the literature, Clark et al. (1999:534–536) outline some of the key characteristicsof research on IHRM: (a) it has a greater focus on functions, such as hiring, compensation andtraining, and therefore does not integrate the results obtained with issues like the organisationof work or industrial relations; (b) it is predominantly quantitative, using questionnaires whichmay not be appropriate for the study of complex themes like cultural differences or the adjustmentof practices; (c) there are few longitudinal studies; (d) it focuses mainly on the most industrialisedcountries in the North; (e) it tends to be ethnocentric, since it uses theories and instrumentslargely developed in Anglo-Saxon countries and then reproduces them as if they were universallyapplicable; (f) in general, it indicates, but does not explain the differences or similarities betweencountries, and when they are explained, the cultural and institutional factors (commonlysupported by the work of Geert Hofstede) are the most widely mentioned, with little indicationof either the nature of these factors or how they exercise an influence on the research topic;(g) it is more directed towards the study of top managers than the production or white-collarworkers within MNCs; (h) it shows little evidence of cross-fertilisation of relevant debates fromrelated disciplines; and (i) it fails to explore the role of wider regulatory agencies such as thestate in any meaningful way. Work and employment studies tend to adopt contrasting positionson all these characteristics.

Second, the understanding of conflict in the workplace – while IHRM is largely premisedon a unitarist understanding of conflict, sociologically orientated perspectives provide alternativeperspectives such as pluralism (Khan & Ackers, 2004). The weaknesses of IHRM’s narrowly

Sociology and international HRM

47

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 unitarist and economistic approach to understanding the employment relationship are widely

explored in the field of industrial relations, for example. In contrast to IHRM studies, socio -logically orientated perspectives are more likely to focus on the role of power struggles andstructural determinations in society; emphasise the antagonisms between the parties; be sensitiveto conflict, uncertainty and tension; and recognise the significance of collective groups ofemployees, often represented by a trade union, as a pluralist interest group within the firm (seeAlonso & Martinez-Lucio, 2006; Edwards, 2005; Kaufman, 2008; Wilkinson & Townshend,2010). The collective determination of terms and conditions employment, in particular, is anarea of study where work and employment relations scholars have a significant advantage overIHRM researchers. Indeed, IHRM research has been widely criticised for its lack of considerationof the significance of power in management. As Edwards and Kuruvilla (2005) note, sinceinstitutional factors do not have determining effects, there is scope for organisational politicsand power to shape the ways in which MNCs manage their international workforces. Theyfurther note that the impact of power has also been largely neglected in studies of the global–local debate in IHRM research (see also Edwards & Bélanger, 2009; Geppert & Williams, 2006). Arguably, a sociologically orientated perspective, with pluralist underpinnings, wouldassist researchers in addressing these and other related deficiencies and in advancing theory inthe field.

Third, the fundamental reason for unions – sociologically orientated perspectives challengethe managerial assumption that trade unions are a response to bad management, a failure ofHRM policies and/or the work of agitators. Rather, they are a means of redressing the powerimbalance between labour and management. Despite the extensively debated shortcomings ofBraverman’s (1974) seminal work, what must be retained from his analysis is a rejection of theview of the employment relationship as merely an exchange relationship, as primarily a site ofnegotiation rather than of exploitation. Given the lack of a theory of power in IHRM, theconsideration of power is one of the key means through which industrial relations research cancontribute to a better understanding of management in MNCs. The analysis of collectivebargaining by industrial relations scholars reveals the significant contribution of industrialsociology to elevating the discussion of bargaining ‘styles’, ‘values’ and ‘power’ beyond a narrowfocus on the workplace (Ackers, 2011:319).

Particularly significant in the context of the global business environment within which MNCsoperate is the fact that, like other social relations, attempts to regulate and control theemployment relationship have unintended consequences, which may conflict with employers’original intentions. These insights are derived from an essential feature of the employmentrelationship: the employer can only purchase the employee’s capacity to work and has to ensurethat this capacity is realised. Hence, there can be no fully determinate ex ante model of labourmanagement. For individual capitalists as for capital in general, according to Hyman (1987:30),there is no ‘one best way’ of managing the contradictions of capitalist production, only ‘differentroutes to partial failure’. The implementation of managerial strategies is shaped by a host ofcontextual factors and invariably generates unforeseen and unintended consequences. Managerialstrategy is therefore best conceptualised as ‘the pragmatic choice among alternatives none ofwhich can prove [entirely] satisfactory’ (ibid.). While this is occasionally acknowledged in theIHRM field, given the unitarist underpinnings of much of its research, it is typically assumedthat these tensions can be overcome through the application of ‘best practice’ techniques, whichtend to pay no heed to exogenous influences and solutions.

The role of institutions is especially important in any assessment of sociology’s impact onthe study of management in general and IHRM in particular. For instance, in contrast to theidea of ‘best practice’, the notion of ‘best fit’ draws strongly on neo-institutional theory

Gilton Klerck

48

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 (Lertxundi & Landeta, 2012). The foundational works in sociology exemplify the discipline’s

central concern with explaining institutions (see Adler et al., 2007; Arts, 2004; Dobbin, 2004).Durkheim introduced the idea of institutions as systems of shared beliefs, norms and collectivesentiments that mould social behaviour. Weber pioneered the interpretive study of social institu -tions through his comparative analysis of cultural beliefs, economy and polity. Parsons laterdeveloped a structural-functionalist framework that conceived of institutions as organisedsystems of shared cultural beliefs, norms and values.

Sociology’s longstanding concern with explaining institutions is particularly significant giventhe difficulties encountered in explaining institutional factors by using the concepts and methodsof associated disciplines such as (neoclassical) economics. As Nee (2003) points out, economistsinterested in studying social institutions have found that the more they come to understand theworkings of institutions as endogenous to social processes in society, the more their work mustaddress questions that require them to integrate sociological variables. Generally, neo-institutionalism in economics and sociology is unified around the belief that neoclassical eco -nomics is severely limited by (among others) its unrealistic behavioural assumption of individualutility maximisation and its improbable supposition of zero-transaction costs, which imply thatextant institutions, social relations and cultural beliefs are extraneous to explanations of economicand organisational life. The common starting point of these approaches is the claim thatinstitutions matter and that understanding institutions and institutional change is a principal taskof the social sciences.

Sociological neo-institutionalists – such as John Meyer, Richard Scott, Paul DiMaggio andWalter Powell – have reshaped the study of organisations by analysing how institutional contextand cultural beliefs shape their behaviour. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) introduce into neo-institutional theory the ideas of Weber, which is evident in their account of how organisationalfields emerge and then constrain the actions of agents under conditions of uncertainty.Sociological perspectives include the cognitive-cultural as well as the regulatory dimension,thereby offering a broader understanding of institutions, which takes into account that institutionsnot only constrain but also enable social actors by framing social situations and making senseof them (see Heidenreich, 2012; Ebner & Beck, 2008; Kostova et al., 2008). Neo-institutionaleconomic sociology, according to Nee (2003), includes ideas and insights from this organisationalresearch programme, and integrates these into a framework of sociological research that examinescontext-bound rationality shaped by custom, networks, norms, cultural beliefs and institutionalarrangements. For Nee (2003), institutions are not simply the formal and informal constraintsthat stipulate the structure of incentives or discrete institutional elements (such as beliefs, norms,organisations and communities) of a social system, but fundamentally involve individual and/orcollective actors, who pursue real interests in concrete institutional structures.

Economic sociology is heterogeneous and diverse, with no single, dominant theoreticalperspective. The influence of Weber and Parsons is pervasive. So too is the ideas of Polanyiconcerning the ‘economistic fallacy’ of equating the economy with the market and his conceptof ‘embeddedness’. The latter idea is often employed in a loose sense as largely synonymouswith the view that the economy is part of a larger institutional structure. Granovetter (1985),however, uses the notion of embeddedness in a more precise way, to mean that economic actiontakes place within the networks of social relations that constitute the social structure. This entailsan explanation of organisational diversity that cannot be reduced to the mere search forefficiency by atomistic individuals or firms. The choices made by actors are influenced by theirsocial relations and by their cognitive and normative attitudes (see Arts, 2004; Beckert, 2003;Trigilia, 2004). While Granovetter’s embeddedness approach laid the basis for the revitalisationof the sociological study of economic life, his singular emphasis on the nature of interpersonal

Sociology and international HRM

49

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 ties and the structure of networks contributed to a narrowing of the scope of economic sociology

from the broader institutional canvass in the foundational writings of Weber, Schumpeter andPolanyi (Nee, 2003). Moreover, others have argued that economic action is embedded not onlyin the social structure but also in culture (Aguilera & Jackson, 2010; Almond & Menendez,2012). In this regard, Zukin and DiMaggio (1990) have attempted to distinguish between differ-ent kinds of embeddedness, such as cognitive, cultural, structural and political. The debate onembeddedness draws attention to the flaws of over- or under-socialised accounts of firms incomparative cross-national studies (Krippner & Alvarez, 2007). In comparative institutionalanalyses, the embeddedness of MNCs is analysed as (among others) the outcome of the closeinterconnections between a ‘national business system’ and firms’ governance systems (Whitley,1999) or as the alternative paths of organising businesses and management created by different‘societal effects’ (Sorge, 2004). Even so, the concept of embeddedness remains in need of greatertheoretical specification and empirical exploration.

Economic sociologists – such as Neil Fligstein, Richard Swedberg and Victor Nee – arguefor a change in emphasis towards an explanation of how institutions interact with socialnetworks and norms to mould and guide economic action (Nee & Swedberg, 2005). The neo-institutional model essentially holds that organisational survival is determined by the extent ofalignment with the institutional environment. For instance, MNCs operating in a new contextare subject to ‘a range of forces (coercive, mimetic and normative) to develop a HRM approachthat is perceived to be legitimate to influential stakeholders within this context’ (Lertxundi &Landeta, 2012:1788–1789). While allowing for a nominal amount of agency, neo-institutionalistslargely suggest that the incorporation of institutionally mandated elements allows organisationalactors to portray the organisation as legitimate, thereby enhancing its likelihood of survival(Kostova et al., 2008). Sociological approaches, as Heidenreich (2012:573) shows, broaden theanalysis by focusing on the influence of the wider institutional milieu on MNCs (‘macro-institutional embeddedness’), the micro-political and cognitive-cultural dimensions of agency(‘micro-institutional embeddedness’) and the interdependency between transnational and othersocial spaces (‘organisational embeddedness’).

An increasing number of IHRM scholars are applying institutional theory to the study ofMNCs since it provides fertile theoretical ground for examining a wide range of critical issuesand allows for theorising at multiple levels of analysis, which is essential for understanding MNCs(see Björkman & Gooderham 2012; Brewster et al., 2008; Farndale et al., 2008; Ferner &Quintanilla, 1998; Geppert & Williams, 2006; Jackson & Deeg, 2008). In general, most IHRMscholars draw extensively from neo-institutionalism and utilise the concepts of organisationalfield, legitimacy, isomorphism, and mechanisms of institutional pressures.

Kostova et al. (2008:994–997) identify the following fundamental applications of institutionaltheory in the current IHRM literature: (a) to conceptualise national environments in terms ofregulatory, cognitive and normative ‘pillars’, introducing concepts such as country institutionalprofile; (b) to conceptualise processes of large-scale transformation of national systems throughthe notions of institutional transition, upheaval and imperfection; (c) to explain comparativenational business systems based on institutional embeddedness; (d) to explain similarities in practicesacross organisations resulting from isomorphic pressures; (e) to study constraints on the diffusionand institutionalisation of organisational practices across borders and units of MNCs; and (f) toexplain the relationship between MNCs and their host environments based on notions such aslegitimacy and liability of foreignness. Institutions are therefore symbolic, economic, politicaland legally sanctioned orders that are reproduced and dynamically transformed by embeddedsocial actors, who are, in turn, moulded by these institutions (Heidenreich, 2012:556). Anextended embeddedness concept, which assimilates the roles of agency, multi-dimensional

Gilton Klerck

50

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 institutions and the co-evolution of individual and corporate actors and structures, may facilitate

a wider perception of the social construction of MNCs. In addition, if terms such ‘political’and ‘economic’ institutions are understood as applying to underlying generative mechanisms(rather than events or things), all of which may govern any particular institution and codetermineits activities, many misconstructions may be avoided.

Conclusion

The task of assessing the role of sociology in IHRM is complicated by several factors, chiefamong which is the fact that neither discipline is homogenous. On the one hand, both areasof study draw on a number of distinct disciplines. On the other hand, the different fields ofsociology have had a differential influence on the various sub-fields of HRM. The sociologyof work and organisations as well as economic sociology have had a significant impact on studiesin IHRM that explore issues such as embeddedness, institutions, human resource development,knowledge flows, social capital, network relations, corporate social responsibility, research anddesign, and the role of culture and discourse. By contrast, sociological theories and conceptsare less evident in what are arguably the mainstream concerns of IHRM. In many ways, theemphasis in industrial sociology on conflict, contradiction, struggle and reflexivity is inimicalto the stress on consensus, integration, harmony and best practice by the mainstream HRMliterature. Furthermore, although notions such as ‘path dependence’ and ‘embeddedness’ havestrong sociological roots, the path dependence and embeddedness of corporate governancearrangements are explained by different generative mechanisms across the theoretical paradigmsin HRM.

A key challenge posed by interdisciplinarity is sustaining disciplinary rigour without sacrificingsocial relevance. Burawoy’s call for the creation of a public sociology, which is more relevantand useful to the people whom sociologists study and with whom they work, represents oneof the more meaningful responses to the longstanding and increasingly compelling criticism thatthe disciplines of higher education are out of date, out of touch, and are failing to address pressingsocietal issues. Public sociology is therefore a commendable attempt to bolster the discipline.However, as Burawoy (2005) also shows, professional work needs to be protected, at somelevel, since sociology can have no public, critical or policy face without tried and tested methodsas well as accumulated bodies of knowledge. In this regard, disciplinary work is vital becauseit exposes the pitfalls of focusing on one aspect of the social: on structure at the expense ofagency, on global at the cost of local, on policies at the expense of practices, on institutions atthe cost of culture, on stability at the expense of change, and so on. This is apparent, for instance,in the failure by many IHRM scholars to disentangle the relative influence of MNC internaland external regulative, normative and cultural processes as well as explore the sub-nationalembeddedness of MNCs.

Research shows that ‘the notion of the global corporation transcending national boundariesis, very largely, myth’ (Ferner, 1997:19) and that the creation of a transnational social space isa precarious and exacting task because it requires balancing the conflicting demands of localand corporate embeddedness (Morgan, 2001:11). Distinct strategies of competitiveness are forgedin the context of conflicting organised interests, with particular organisational and institutionalresources, which struggle to assert discrete paths of restructuring in a context of specific strategicselectivities (Jessop, 2011). Despite these and other challenges, there are some encouraging signsof (elements within) HRM shifting away from the rather bland and prescriptive approach ofearlier accounts towards a stress on the negotiability, uncertainties and contested nature of themanagerial process. Yet, this shift is largely confined to the critical margins of the discipline.

Sociology and international HRM

51

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 Sociology has much to offer IHRM in this regard. For instance, it would call much more attention

to the ambiguities, contradictions, silences and tensions that always plague strategic action.Taxonomies of managerial practice – a key concern and focus of HRM – must reflect endo -

genous as well as exogenous opportunities and constraints as mediated through prevailingnormative and institutional frameworks, discursive apparatuses, organisational structures andregulatory mechanisms. Variation in managerial behaviour is rooted in different configurationsof regulatory mechanisms, diverse dynamics and trajectories, and specific institutional arrange -ments. Consequently, it is necessary to conceptualise general taxonomic categories not only interms of successive phases of development, but also in terms of ‘historically coexistent and competinglocal alternatives’ (Peck, 1996:120). When imported, managerial practices tend to be translatedand recombined with local practices before they are adopted, only certain dimensions of theseimported practices are fully implemented, and their adaptation often leads to new or hybridforms of these practices (Aguilera & Jackson, 2010; Boyer et al., 1998). While ‘hybridisation’is a pervasive phenomenon across and within national capitalisms, the hybridisation thesis shouldnot be reduced to the claim that organisational variety is purely a product of the way employershave modified the guiding principles of HRM in response to the requirements of the localinstitutional context. A significant part of the variety within and between firms is a product ofmanagerial efforts to draw on local institutional and normative resources in ways that offer distinctcompromises between conflicting interests in the workplace. Research on hybridisation hasfrequently deployed it in an undifferentiated, mechanical fashion that impedes multi-scalar analysisand conceptual bricolage (Gamble, 2010). The constitution and institutional bases of hybridisationare empirical questions that require detailed historical evidence of the processes of institutionaldiffusion, borrowing, clashes and complementarity. Broad generalised categories are inadequateto explore the complex dynamics and diverse patterns of hybridisation. This suggests that thebinary opposition between best-practice and best-fit HRM is poor reflection of the variety inmanagerial practices. Ultimately, ‘hybridisation’ is proof of the constitutive heterogeneity,discontinuity and contingency of actual managerial practices.

Although dominant national regulatory models tend to place limits on the patterns of workand employment relations, there are no a priori rules dictating how diverse regulatory mechan -isms will be coordinated in a specific empirical context. This is partly a product of thedifferential interaction across time and space between the institutional processes associated withproduction, reproduction and social regulation (Peck, 1996). Given the variety of levels at whichthe employment relationship may be coordinated and the non-zero-sum articulation of marketsand institutions, it is misleading to classify managerial practices in terms of a simple contrastbetween the relative influence of markets and institutions. The forms that regulation assumesand the dynamics that it displays are determined in large measure by the structures andpropensities of the object that is to be regulated. The employment relationship is dependenton numerous mechanisms of reproduction, regularisation and governance capable of generatingthe social rules and conventions necessary for its cohesion and durability. As a complex andcontingently realised ‘fit’ between institutional mediation and capital accumulation, labourregulation is patterned by prevailing institutional frameworks; unevenly realised across space,time and scales; and inherently unstable and conflict-ridden. A search for coherent regulatorymodes is misguided: regulation is always emergent and tendential rather than being achieved(Painter & Goodwin, 1995). In other words, the reality of local ‘regulatory dialectics’ isincompatible with the idea of a standard set of solutions that can be applied independently oflocal contexts. This approach allows us to proceed beyond mere taxonomies of managerial prac -tices to explore their conditions of possibility, emergent properties, contradictions, reproductionand propensity for transformation.

Gilton Klerck

52

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 References

Ackers, P. (2011) The changing systems of British industrial relations, 1954–1979: Hugh Clegg and theWarwick sociological turn, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 49:2, 306–330.

Ackers, P. & Wilkinson, A. (eds.) (2003) Understanding work and employment: Industrial relations in transition.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Adeleye, I. (2011) Theorising human resource management in Africa: Beyond cultural relativism, AfricanJournal of Business Management, 5:6, 2028–2039.

Adler, P. S., Forbes, L. C. & Willmott, H. (2007) Critical management studies, The Academy of ManagementAnnals, 1:1, 119–179.

Agarwal, R. & Hoetkera, G. (2007) Faustian bargain? The growth of management and its relationshipwith related disciplines, Academy of Management Journal, 50:6, 1304–1322.

Aguilera, R. V. & Jackson, G. (2010) Comparative and international corporate governance, The Academyof Management Annals, 4:1, 485–556.

Almond, P. (2011) Re-visiting country of origin effects on HRM in multinational corporations, HumanResource Management Journal, 21:3, 258–271.

Almond, P. & Ferner, A. (2006) American multinationals in Europe: Managing employment relations across nationalborders. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Almond, P. & Menendez, M. C. G. (2012) Cross-national comparative human resource management andthe ideational sphere: A critical review, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23:1, 1–17.

Almond, P., Edwards, T., Colling, T., Ferner, A., Gunnigle, P., Müller-Camen, M., Quintanilla, J. &Wächter, H. (2005) Unraveling home and host country effects: An investigation of the HR policiesof an American multinational in four European countries, Industrial Relations, 44:2, 276–306.

Alonso, L. & Martinez-Lucio, M. (eds.) (2006) Employment relations in a changing society: Assessing the post-Fordist paradigm. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H. (1992) On the idea of emancipation in management and organization studies,Academy of Management Review, 17:3, 432–464.

Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H. (1996) Making sense of management: A critical analysis. London: Sage.Alvesson, M. & Deetz, S. (2000) Doing critical management research. London: Sage.Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H. (eds.) (2003) Studying management critically. London: Sage.Alvesson, M., Bridgman, T. & Willmott, H. (eds.) (2009) The Oxford handbook of critical management studies.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.Archer, M. (1995) Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Arts, W. A. (2004) The new economic sociology of market regulation: A budding research program,

Tijdschrift voor Economie en Management, 49:2, 239–270.Bartlett, C. & Ghoshal, S. (1989) Managing across borders: The transnational solution (2nd edition). Boston:

Harvard Business School Press.Batt, R. & Banerjee, M. (2011) The scope and trajectory of strategic HR research: Evidence from American

and British journals, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22:1, 1–24.Beckert, J. (2003) Economic sociology and embeddedness: How shall we conceptualize economic action?

Journal of Economic Issues, 37, 769–787.Bélanger, J., Edwards, P. K. & Haiven, L. (eds.) (1994) Workplace industrial relations and the global challenge.

Ithaca: ILR Press.Beynon, H. & Nichols, T. (eds.) (2006) Patterns of work in the post-Fordist era: Fordism and post-Fordism.

Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar.Bhaskar, R. (1979) The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. Sussex:

Harvester.Bhaskar, R. (1989) Reclaiming reality: A critical introduction to contemporary philosophy. London: Verso.Björkman, I. & Stahl, G. K. (2006) International human resource management research: An introduction

to the field. In: Björkman, I. & Stahl, G. K. (eds.), Handbook of research in international human resourcemanagement. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1–11.

Björkman, I. & Gooderham, P. N. (2012) International human resource management research andinstitutional theory. In: Stahl, G. K., Björkman, I. & Morris, S. (eds.), Handbook of research in internationalhuman resource management (2nd edition), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 472–489.

Blau, J. & Smith, K. E. I. (eds.) (2006) Public sociologies reader. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Blunsdon, B. & Reed, K. (2003) The effects of technical and social conditions on workplace trust, International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 14:1, 12–27.

Sociology and international HRM

53

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 Boselie, P., Dietz, G. & Boon, C. (2005) Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance

research, Human Resource Management Journal, 15:3, 67–94.Boselie, P., Brewster, C. & Paauwe, J. (2009) In search of balance – managing the dualities of HRM:

An overview of the issues, Personnel Review, 38:5, 461–471.Boussebaa, M., Morgan, G. & Sturdy, A. (2012) Constructing global firms? National, transnational and

neocolonial effects in international management consultancies, Organization Studies, 33:4, 465–486.Boxall, P., Purcell, J. & Wright, P. (2007) Human resource management: Scope, analysis and significance.

In: Boxall, P., Purcell, J. & Wright, P. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of human resource management. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1–16.

Boyer, R., Charron, E., Jürgens, U. & Tolliday, S. (eds.) (1998) Between imitation and innovation: The transferand hybridization of productive models in the international automobile industry. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Braverman, H. (1974) Labor and monopoly capitalism: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. NewYork: Monthly Review Press.

Brewster, C., Wood, G. & Brookes, M. (2008) Similarity, isomorphism or duality? Recent surveyevidence on the human resource management policies of multinational corporations, British Journal ofManagement, 19:4, 320–342.

Bridger, J. C. & Alter, T. R. (2010) Public sociology, public scholarship, and community development,Community Development, 41:4, 405–416.

Burawoy, M. (2004) Public sociologies: Contradictions, dilemmas, and possibilities, Social Forces, 82:4,1603–1618.

Burawoy, M. (2005) 2004 Presidential address: For public sociology, American Sociological Review, 70, 4–28.Burawoy, M. (2007) Public sociology vs. the market, Socio-Economic Review, 5, 356–367.Burawoy, M. (2009) Public sociology in the age of Obama, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science

Research, 22:2, 189–199.Cai, Z., Morris, J. L. & Chen, J. (2011) Explaining the human resource management preferences of

employees: a study of Chinese workers, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22:16,3245–3269.

Caldas, M. P., Tonelli, M. J. & Lacombe, B. M. B. (2011) IHRM in developing countries: Does thefunctionalist vs. critical debate make sense south of the equator? Brazilian Administration Review, 8:4,433–453.

Clark, T., Gospel, H., & Montgomery, J. (1999) Running on the spot? A review of twenty years of researchon the management of human resources in comparative and international perspective, International Journalof Human Resource Management, 10:3, 520–544.

Clawson, D. (ed.) (2007) Public sociology: Fifteen eminent sociologists debate politics and the profession in the twenty-first century. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Clegg, S. R., Ibarra-Colado, E. I. & Bueno-Rodriquez, L. (eds.) (1998) Global management: universal theoriesand local realities. London: Sage.

Collings, D. G. (2008) Multinational corporations and industrial relations research: A road less travelled,International Journal of Management Reviews, 10:2, 173–193.

Collinson, S. & Morgan, G. (2009) Images of the multinational firm. In: Collinson, S. and Morgan, G.(eds.) Images of the multinational firm. Oxford: Wiley, 1–22.

De Cieri, H., Cox, J. & Fenwick, M. (2007) A review of international human resource management:Integration, interrogation, imitation, International Journal of Management Reviews, 9:4, 281–302.

Delbridge, R. & Keenoy, T. (2010) Beyond managerialism? International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 21:6, 799–817.

Delbridge, R., Hauptmeier, M. & Sengupta, S. (2011) Beyond the enterprise: Broadening the horizonsof International HRM, Human Relations, 64:4, 483–505.

Delery, J. E. & Doty, H. D. (1996) Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Testsof universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions, Academy of Management Journal,39:4, 802–835.

DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W. (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collectiverationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48:2, 147–160.

Dobbin, F. (2004) The sociological view of the economy. In: Dobbin, F. (ed.) The new economic sociology:A reader. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1–46.

Dowling, P. J. (1999) Completing the puzzle: Issues in the development of the field of international humanresource management, Management International Review, 39:3, 27–43.

Gilton Klerck

54

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 Ebner, E. & Beck, N. (2008) (eds.) The institutions of the market: Organizations, social systems and governance.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.Edwards, P. (1986) Conflict at work: A materialist analysis of workplace relations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Edwards, P. (2005) The challenging but promising future of industrial relations: Developing theory and

method in context-sensitive research, Industrial Relations Journal, 36:4, 264–282.Edwards, P. & Bélanger, J. (2009) The multinational firm as a contested terrain. In: Collinson, D. & Morgan,

G. (eds.) Images of the multinational firm. Chichester: Wiley & Sons, 193–216.Edwards, P., Bélanger, J. & Haiven, L. (1994) The workplace and labour regulation in comparative

perspective. In: Bélanger, J., Edwards, P. K., and Haiven, L. (eds.) Workplace industrial relations and theglobal challenge. Ithaca: ILR Press, 3–22.

Edwards, P., Ferner, A. & Sisson, K. (1996) The conditions for international human resource management:Two case studies, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7:1, 21–40.

Edwards, T. (2011) The nature of international integration and human resource policies in multinationalcompanies, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 35:3, 483–498.

Edwards, T., & Kuruvilla, S. (2005) International HRM: National business systems, organizational politicsand the international division of labour in MNCs, International Journal of Human Resource Management,16:1, 1–21.

Edwards, T., Colling, T. & Ferner, A. (2007) Conceptual approaches to the transfer of employment practices in multinational companies: An integrated approach, Human Resource Management Journal, 17:3,201–217.

Elvira, M. M. & Davila, A. (2005) Emergent directions for human resource management research in LatinAmerica, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16:12, 2265–2282.

Farndale, E. & Paauwe, J. (2007) Uncovering competitive and institutional drivers of HRM practices inmultinational corporations, Human Resource Management Journal, 17:4, 355–375.

Farndale, E., Brewster, C. & Poutsma, E. (2008) Coordinated vs. liberal market HRM: The impact ofinstitutionalization on multinational firms, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19:11,2004–2023.

Ferner, A. (1997) Country of origin effects and human resource management in multinational companies,Human Resource Management Journal, 7:1, 19–37.

Ferner, A. & Quintanilla, J. (1998) Multinationals, national business systems and HRM: The enduringinfluence of national identity or a process of ‘Anglo-Saxonization’, International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 9:4, 710–731.

Ferner, A., Almond, P., Clark, I., Colling, T., Edwards, T., Holden, L. & Muller-Carmen, M. (2004)The dynamics of central control and subsidiary autonomy in the management of human resources:Case study evidence from US MNCs in the UK, Organisation Studies, 25:3, 363–391.

Fleetwood, S. and Hesketh, A. (2008) Theorising under-theorisation in research on the HRM-performancelink, Personnel Review, 37:2, 126–144.

Fournier, V. & Grey, C. (2000) At the critical moment: Conditions and prospects for critical managementstudies, Human Relations, 53:1, 7–32.

Fu, Y. & Kamenou, N. (2011) The impact of Chinese cultural values on human resource policies andpractices within transnational corporations in China, International Journal of Human Resource Management,22:16, 3270–3289.

Gamble, J. (2010) Transferring organizational practices and the dynamics of hybridization: Japanese retailmultinationals in China, Journal of Management Studies, 47:4, 705–729.

Geppert, M. & Williams, K. (2006) Global, national and local practices in multinational corporations:Towards a sociopolitical framework, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17:1, 49–69.

Gerhart, B. (2008) The growth of international human resource management, International Journal of HumanResource Management, 19:10, 1989–1994.

Grabher, G. (ed.) (1993) The embedded firm: On the socioeconomics of industrial networks. London: Routledge.Granovetter, M. (1985) Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness, American

Journal of Sociology, 91:3, 481–510.Grimes, A. J. (1992) Critical theory and organizational sciences: a primer, Journal of Organizational Change,

5:1, 26–30.Hambrick, D. (2007) The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy

of Management Journal, 50, 1346–1352.Harvey, M. (2002) Human resource management in Africa: Alice’s adventures in wonderland, International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 13:7, 1119–1145.

Sociology and international HRM

55

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 Heidenreich, M. (2012) The social embeddedness of multinational companies: A literature review, Socio-

Economic Review, 10, 549–579.Hesketh, A. & Fleetwood, S. (2008) Beyond measuring the human resources management–organizational

performance link: Applying critical realist meta-theory, Organization, 13:5, 677–699.Huselid, M. (1995) The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and

corporate financial performance, Academy of Management Journal, 38:3, 635–672.Hyman, R. (1987) Strategy or structure: Capital, labour and control, Work, Employment and Society, 1:1,

25–56.Hyman, R. (2004) Is industrial relations theory always ethnocentric? In: Kaufman, B. E. (ed.) Theoretical

perspectives on work and the employment relationship. Madison: Cornell University Press, 265–292.Jackson, G. and Deeg, R. (2008) Comparing capitalisms: Understanding institutional diversity and its

implications for international business, Journal of International Business Studies, 39:4, 540–561.Jackson, T. (2012) Cross-cultural management and the informal economy in sub-Saharan Africa: Implica -

tions for organization, employment and skills development, International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 23:14, 2901–2916.

Jain, H. C., Lawler, J. J. & Morishima, M. (1998) Multinational corporations, human resource managementand host-country nationals, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9:4, 553–566.

Janssens, M., & Steyaert, C. (2009) HRM and performance: A plea for reflexivity in HRM studies, Journalof Management Studies, 46:1, 143–155.

Jeffries, V. (ed.) (2009) Handbook of public sociology. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Jermier, J. M., Knights, D. & Nord, W. R. (eds.) (1994) Resistance and power in organizations. London:

Routledge.Jessop, B. (2011) Rethinking the diversity and variability of capitalism: On variegated capitalism in the

world market. In: Lane, C. & Wood, G. (eds.) Capitalist diversity and diversity within capitalism. London:Routledge, 209–237.

Kaufman, B. E. (2008) Paradigms in industrial relations: Original, modern and versions in-between, BritishJournal of Industrial Relations, 46:2, 314–339.

Kaufman, B. E. (2010) SHRM theory in the post-Huselid era: Why it is fundamentally misspecified, IndustrialRelations, 49:2, 286–313.

Keating, M. & Thompson, K. (2004) International human resource management: Overcoming disciplinarysectarianism, Employee Relations, 26:6, 595–612.

Keegan, A. & Boselie, P. (2006) The lack of impact of dissensus inspired analysis of developments in thefield of human resource management, Journal of Management Studies, 43:7, 1492–1511.

Keenoy, T. (1997) Review article: HRMism and the languages of re-presentation, Journal of ManagementStudies, 34:5, 825–841.

Keenoy, T. (2009) Human resource management. In: Alvesson, M., Bridgman, T. & Willmott, H. (eds.)The Oxford handbook of critical management studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 454–472.

Kelemen, M. L. & Rumens, N. (2008) An introduction to critical management research. London: Sage.Khan, A. S. & Ackers, P. (2004) Neo-pluralism as a theoretical framework for understanding HRM in

sub-Saharan Africa, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15:7, 1330–1353.Kim, S., Wright, P. & Su, Z. (2010) Human resource management and firm performance in China:

A critical review, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 48:1, 58–85.Kincheloe, J. L. & McLaren, P. (1994) Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In Denzin,

N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage, 138–157.Knights, D. and Willmott, H. (1997) The hype and hope of interdisciplinary management studies, British

Journal of Management, 8:1, 9–23.Knights, D., Willmott, H. & Collinson, D. (eds.) (1985) Job redesign: Critical perspectives on the labour process.

Aldershot: Gower.Kostova, T., Roth, K. & Dacin, M. T. (2008) Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations:

A critique and new directions, Academy of Management Review, 33:4, 994–1006.Krippner, G. R. & Alvarez, A. S. (2007) Embeddedness and the intellectual projects of economic

sociology, Annual Review of Sociology, 33:1, 219–240.Kristensen, P. H. & Zeitlin, J. (2005) Local players in global games: The strategic constitution of a multinational

corporation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Lawson, C., Peacock, M. & Pratten, S. (1996) Realism, underlabouring and institutions, Cambridge Journal

of Economics, 20:1, 137–151.Lawson, T. (1997) Economics and reality. London: Routledge.

Gilton Klerck

56

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 Legge, K. (1995) Human resource management: Rhetorics and realities. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Lehrer, M. & Delaunay, C. (2009) Multinational enterprises and the promotion of civil society: The challengefor 21st century capitalism, California Management Review, 51:4, 126–147.

Lertxundi, A. & Landeta, J. (2012) The dilemma facing multinational enterprises: Transfer or adaptationof their human resource management systems, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23:9,1788–1807.

Liang, X., Xie, J. & Cui, Z. (2010) A survey of human resource management in China, International Journalof Human Resource Management, 21:12, 2079–2094.

Marchington, M. & Grugulis, I. (2000) ‘Best practice’ human resource management: Perfect opportunityor dangerous illusion? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11:6, 1104–1124.

Marginson, P., Edwards, P. K., Martin, R., Purcell, J. & Sisson, K. (1988) Beyond the workplace: Managingindustrial relations in the multi-establishment enterprise. Oxford: Blackwell.

Markóczy, L. & Deeds, D. L. (2009) Theory building at the intersection: Recipe for impact or road tonowhere? Journal of Management Studies, 46:6, 1076–1088.

Marsden, D. (2004) Employment systems: Workplace HRM strategies and labor institutions. In: Kaufman,B. E. (ed.) Theoretical perspectives on work and employment. Champaign: Industrial Relations ResearchAssociation, 77–103.

Morgan, G. (2001) The multinational firm: Organizing across institutional and national divides. In: Morgan,G., Kristensen, P. H. & Whitley, R. (eds.) The multinational firm: Organizing across institutional and nationaldivides. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–24.

Morgan, G. (2012) International business, multinationals and national business systems. In: Wood, G. &Demirbag, M. (eds.) Handbook of institutional approaches to international business. Cheltenham: EdwardElgar, 18–40.

Morley, M. J. & Collings, D. G. (2004) Contemporary debates and new directions in HRM in MNCs:Introduction, International Journal of Manpower, 25:6, 487–499.

Nee, V. (2003) New institutionalism, economic and sociological. Available online at http://www.soc.cornell.edu/faculty/nee/pubs/newinstitutionalism.pdf.

Nee, V. & Swedberg, R. (eds.) (2005) The economic sociology of capitalism. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress.

Ngo, H., Turban, D., Lau, C. & Lui, S. (1998) Human resource practices and firm performance ofmultinational corporations: Influences of country origin, International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 9:4, 632–652.

Nichols, L. T. (ed.) (2007) Public sociology: The contemporary debate. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.O’Reilly, K. (2009) For interdisciplinarity and a disciplined, professional sociology, European Journal of

Social Science Research, 22:2, 219–232.Oswick, C., Fleming, P. & Hanlon, G. (2011) From borrowing to blending: Rethinking the processes

of organizational theory building, Academy of Management Review, 36:2, 318–337.Paauwe, J. (2009) HRM and performance: Achievements, methodological issues and prospects, Journal of

Management Studies, 46:1, 129–142.Paauwe, J. & Boselie, P. (2003) Challenging ‘strategic HRM’ and the relevance of the institutional setting,

Human Resource Management Journal, 13:3, 56–70.Paauwe, J. & Boselie, P. (2007) HRM and societal embeddedness. In: Boxall, P., Purcell, J. & Wright,

P. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of human resource management. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 166–184.

Painter, J. & Goodwin, M. (1995) Local governance and concrete research: Investigating the unevendevelopment of regulation, Economy and Society, 24:3, 334–356.

Peck, J. (1996) Work-place: the social regulation of labor markets. New York: The Guilford Press.Peltonen, T. (2006) Critical theoretical perspectives on international human resources management. In:

Bjorkman, I. & Stahl, G. K. (eds.) Handbook of research in international human resource management.Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 523–535.

Peltonen, T. & Vaara, E. (2012) Critical approaches to comparative HRM. In: Brewster, C. & Mayrhofer,W. (eds.) Handbook of research on comparative human resource management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar,69–89.

Pfeffer, J. (1993) Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependentvariable, Academy of Management Review, 18:4, 599–620.

Pfeffer, J. (1994) Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston: Harvard Business SchoolPress.

Sociology and international HRM

57

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

16:4

8 01

Oct

202

1; F

or: 9

7813

1576

1282

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7813

1576

1282

.ch3 Piekkari, R. & Welch, C. (eds.) (2011) Rethinking the case study in international business and management

research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Pritchard, C., Hull, R., Chumer, M. & Willmott, H. (eds.) (2000) Managing knowledge: Critical investigations

of work and learning. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Rubery, J. & Grimshaw, D. (2003) The organization of employment: An international perspective. Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan.Schuler, R., Dowling, P. & De Cieri, H. (1993) An integrative framework of strategic international human

resource management, Journal of Management, 19:2, 419–459.Schuler, R. S., Budhwar, P. S. & Florkowski, G. W. (2002) International human resource management:

Review and critique, International Journal of Management Reviews, 4:1, 41–70.Smith, C., & Meiksins, P. (1995) System, society and dominance effects in cross-national organizational

analysis, Work, Employment and Society, 9:2, 241–267.Smith, C., Knights, D. & Willmott, H. (eds.) (1991) White-collar work: The non-manual labour process. London:

Macmillan.Sorge, A. (2004) Cross-national differences in human resources and organisation. In: Harzing, A. W. &

Van Ruyssevekdt, J. (eds.) International human resource management. London: Sage.Swedberg, R. (2007) Public sociology and economic sociology: Introductory remarks, Socio-Economic Review,

5, 319–326.Syed, J., Mingers, J. & Murray, P. A. (2010) Beyond rigour and relevance: A critical realist approach to

business education, Management Learning, 41:1, 71–85.Thompson, P. (2011) The trouble with HRM, Human Resource Management Journal, 21:4, 355–367.Thompson, P. & Vincent, S. (2010) Beyond the boundary: Labour process theory and critical realism.

In Thompson, P. and Smith, C. (eds.) Working life: Renewing labour process analysis. Basingstoke:Palgrave, 47–69.

Thornley, C., Jefferys, S. & Appay, B. (2010) Globalization and precarious forms of production and employment:Challenges for workers and unions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Trigilia, C. (2004) Unbalanced growth: Why is economic sociology stronger in theory than in policies?Paper presented at the International Conference on Economic Sociology: Problems and Prospects,University of Crete, Rethymno, 8–10 September.

Usami, K. (ed.) (2009) Non-standard employment under globalization: Flexible work and social security in thenewly industrializing countries. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Warner, M. (2005) Whither international human resource management? International Journal of HumanResource Management, 16:5, 870–874.

Warner, M. (2011) Society and HRM in China, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22:16,3223–3244.

Watson, T. J. (2004) Human resource management and critical social science analysis, Journal of ManagementStudies, 41:3, 447–467.

Watson, T. J. (2010) Critical social science, pragmatism and the realities of HRM, International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, 21:6, 915–931.

Whitley, R. (1999) Divergent capitalisms: The social structuring and change of business systems. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Whitley, R. & Kristensen, P. H. (eds.) (1997) Governance at work: The social regulation of economic relations.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Whitley, R., Morgan, G., Kelly, W. & Sharpe, D. (2003) The changing Japanese multinational: Application,adaptation and learning in car manufacturing and financial services, Journal of Management Studies, 40:3,643–672.

Wilkinson, A. & Townshend, M. (eds.) (2010) The future of employment relations: New paradigms, newdevelopments. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Willmott, H. (1995) What’s been happening in organisation theory and does it matter? Personnel Review,24:8, 33–53.

Woodiwiss, A. (1997) Behind governmentality: Sociological theory, pacific capitalism and industrialcitizenship, Citizenship Studies, 1:1, 87–114.

Zahra, S. A. & Newey, L. R. (2009) Maximizing the impact of organization science: Theory-building atthe intersection of disciplines and/or fields, Journal of Management Studies, 46:6, 1059–1075.

Zukin, S. & DiMaggio, P. (1990) Introduction. In: Zukin, S. & DiMaggio, P. (eds.) Structures of capital:The social organization of the economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gilton Klerck

58