The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

xt archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7720.htm

IJM
25,6 Host country specific factors and
the transfer of human resource
management practices in
518
multinational companies
Barbara Myloni
Athens University of Economics and Business, Strategy
and Entrepreneurship Laboratory, Athens, Greece
Anne-Wil K. Harzing
The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Hafiz Mirza
Bradford University School of Management, Bradford, UK
Keywords Human resource management, Multinational companies, National cultures, Greece
Abstract This paper concerns the transfer of human resource management (HRM) practices by
multinational companies (MNCs) to their overseas subsidiaries. It investigates how factors
originating from the cultural and institutional framework of the host country impact on this
transfer. Using data collected from MNC subsidiaries located in Greece and local Greek firms, we
examine the degree to which several HRM practices in MNC subsidiaries resemble local practices.
Our empirical findings indicate that subsidiaries have adapted their HRM practices to a
considerable extent, although some practices are more localised than others. Specifically, practices
that do not fit well with Greek culture or are in contrast to employee regulations show a low level of
transfer. On the other hand, our interviews revealed that significant cultural changes are underway
and that the institutional environment is gradually getting more relaxed, leaving more room to
manoeuvre for MNCs.

Introduction
During the last few decades, companies have been confronted with an increasingly
competitive environment. Forces facilitating globalisation, such as the liberalisation of
international trade, the international integration of production, research and marketing
by major MNCs, as well as the emergence of major economic regions like the European
Union, have enabled companies to invest overseas to gain or maintain competitive
advantage. It has been argued that human assets are an emerging source of
competitive advantage for MNCs (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1991; Schuler and Rogovsky,
1998). HRM is evolving from being just a support function to one of strategic
importance (Teagarden and Von Glinow, 1997). Bartlett and Ghoshal (1991) have
argued that human resource management (HRM) policies and practices are becoming
crucial because they can act as mechanisms for co-ordination and control of
international operations. Values and HR systems help to shape organisational culture
International Journal of Manpower and the people who operate within and influence that culture; and MNCs therefore
Vol. 25 No. 6, 2004
pp. 518-534 attempt to transfer their HRM practices abroad. On the other hand, it has also been
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited argued that HRM constitutes a major constraint when MNCs try to implement global
0143-7720
DOI 10.1108/01437720410560424 strategies (Adler and Bartholomew, 1992). This is mainly due to the complexities
involved in employing and managing people from disparate national and cultural Host country
backgrounds. specific factors
HRM can be seen as part of the overall strategy of the firm. In this respect,
Perlmutter (1969) indicates that an MNC has three strategic choices: ethnocentric,
polycentric and global. However, such a simple typology does not give clear-cut
answers when it comes to the transfer of HRM practices abroad. Other factors, usually
external ones, such as the host country environment, limit the MNC’s freedom to 519
choose among the above strategies. In practice, MNCs are more likely to use a hybrid
strategy and, as Tayeb (1998) puts it, opt for the strategy that fits best with each
subsidiary’s local conditions. In this way, a company that has subsidiaries in many
foreign countries may adopt an ethnocentric strategy for some of them and a
polycentric or even a global one for others. Furthermore, as many authors have argued,
such a typology treats management practices in terms of an overall orientation, which
may overlook an MNC’s internal differentiation (Rosenzweig and Nohria, 1994).
According to this view, a company is an organisation composed of many differentiated
practices. Some of them may be more sensitive to pressures of local adaptation, while
others may be more prone to internal consistency. Similarly, in the same subsidiary,
some management practices might closely follow the parent company ones, while
others may more resemble those of the host country. In addition, there could be yet
other practices that follow a global standard.
A major issue, and one of the central questions in the MNC literature, is the extent to
which subsidiaries act and behave as local firms – local isomorphism – as opposed to
the extent to which their practices resemble those of the parent company or some other
global standard – internal consistency (Jain et al., 1998; Rosenzweig and Nohria, 1994).
More specifically, HRM practices in an MNC “are shaped by the interplay of opposing
pressures for internal consistency and for isomorphism with the local institutional
environment [. . .]” (Rosenzweig and Nohria, 1994, p. 230). Recent research that has
focused on MNC subsidiaries and HRM has already shed light on some of the factors
that affect MNCs’ choices regarding localisation vs internal consistency of HRM
practices (Bae et al., 1998; Beechler and Yang, 1994; Guest and Hoque, 1996; Newman
and Nollen, 1996; Ngo et al., 1998; Rosenzweig and Nohria, 1994).
This paper will contribute to this debate by examining the way in which factors
originating from the cultural and institutional framework of a host country impact on
HRM transfer. According to Clark et al. (1999), only 10.5 percent of the papers they
reviewed in comparative and international HRM used both cultural and institutional
theories to explain their research findings, while around 41 percent did not provide any
explanation at all. In order to describe and explain cross-national differences
adequately, we need to use both approaches to capture a wide range of influences on
HRM transfer Our second major contribution to the debate is our choice of host
country. Greece constitutes an interesting case since little research has focused on
investigating management issues in the Greek context, partly because there is a dearth
of empirical research in management on recently industrialised countries in general.
Such countries often face distinct problems and unique challenges that require specific
attention and the development of a specific body of knowledge. Although Greece can
no longer be considered a developing country, it retains some characteristics in
common with such countries, especially those related to the socio-economic and
cultural environment. Factors such as the tension between old and new cultural values
IJM and institutional volatility characterise the Greek environment. Such issues are of
25,6 particular importance for MNCs that operate in these countries. It can be argued that
the cultural and institutional environment becomes even more crucial for HRM transfer
to host countries that are in a transitional state.
The next section will provide the theoretical underpinnings of this study. Based on
previous research that has focused on cultural and institutional perspectives, we
520 develop specific hypotheses to test the effect of host country factors on HRM transfer.
This is followed by an outline of the Greek cultural and institutional framework. After
a description of the study’s methodology and sample characteristics, we present our
empirical results and provide a discussion of the main findings. The paper concludes
by addressing the limitations of our study, as well as implications for management
research and practice.

Host country specific factors and HRM transfer

Recent research has revealed that companies in different countries differ with respect
to their HRM practices and policies (Ferner, 1997). It has also been noted that
transferring HR policies and practices to different countries can be quite problematic
(Bae et al., 1998; Hofstede, 1980; Kovach, 1994; Rosenweig and Nohria, 1994; Yuen and
Kee, 1993). Some of the major obstacles are closely related to the host country’s cultural
and institutional environment.
Although the dominance of American management theory has led to the belief in
universal management practices that can be applied anywhere, research has shown
that managerial attitudes, values and behaviours differ across national cultures. There
is no single best way to manage an organisation, since – among other factors –
differences in national cultures sometimes require differences in management
practices. Several management writers have adopted a cultural perspective on
organisations (Hofstede, 1980; Jackson, 2002; Laurent, 1983; Trompenaars, 1993).
Central to this approach is that societies/countries are different from each other and
that this distinctiveness is reflected in the way that organisations are managed.
Management and organisation cannot be isolated from their particular cultural
environment.
As with most management practices, HRM practices are based on cultural beliefs
that reflect the basic assumptions and values of the national culture in which
organisations are embedded. This leads to the question of what happens when MNCs
want to transfer some of their HRM practices overseas, especially in cases when the
assumptions that underlie such practices do not fit with the cultures of the recipient
host-countries. Failure to adapt HRM practices to a host-country’s culture can lead to
negative consequences that inhibit a subsidiary’s performance. Existing research
provides evidence that MNCs adapt to a certain degree to national cultures in which
they operate (Beechler and Yang 1994; Schuler and Rogovsky, 1998; Tayeb, 1998). In
addition, subsidiaries that are managed consistently with national cultural
expectations have been found to perform better compared to subsidiaries that are
managed otherwise (Newman and Nollen, 1996).
The above discussion notwithstanding, cultural values are not the only
determinants of individual behaviour that subsequently affects management
practices. People’s behaviour can also be partly explained in terms of social
structures that act as a guide or constraints on individuals, through their roles and
positions within institutions and the functions of these institutions within the entire Host country
social system (Fay, 1996; Lukes, 1973). Research by institutional theorists over the past specific factors
two decades has focused on the impact of social forces on organisational structure and
behaviour. The basic argument is that social institutions influence company practices
in a systematic way, resulting in structures and processes that reflect national patterns
(Sorge, 1995; Whitley, 1992). Empirical research has examined how institutional
systems shape organisations, as a function of their location in the environment, their 521
size, structural position etc. (Scott, 1995). With regard to the transfer of management
practices to host countries, the extent to which firms are able to transfer country of
origin practices depends on host country national business systems and their
institutions, which can either facilitate or inhibit the transfer (Ferner, 1994, 1997). In a
permissive institutional framework with few formal institutions, MNCs are less
constrained in introducing country of origin practices. In contrast, where institutions
are cohesive, integrated and have generated a distinctive business system, it is more
likely that MNCs will have to adapt to the local practice (Gooderham et al., 1999). Host
country legal regulations represent a strong environmental pressure on MNC
subsidiaries (Schuler et al., 1993; Taylor et al., 1996); and the legal environment in
which the MNC subsidiary is embedded can constrain the transfer of HRM practices
from its parent (Beechler and Yang, 1994). Therefore, we hypothesise that:
H1. Because of strong and distinctive cultural and institutional forces in the host
environment HRM practices in MNC subsidiaries located in Greece will
resemble local practices.
One of the strongest influences by local institutions comes from labour unions.
Rosenzweig and Nohria (1994) argue that if a union represents subsidiary employees,
subsidiary HRM practices may be very close to those of local firms. In unionised firms,
even if managers believe that parent HRM practices would be beneficial they may be
unable to implement them because of potential conflict with union rules or employee
attitudes (Beechler and Yang, 1994). We therefore propose that:
H2. The level of transfer of HRM practices will be lower in subsidiaries with local
union representation.
At the same time, although Rosenzweig and Nohria (1994) found that MNC
subsidiaries tend, in general, to adjust to local HRM practices, most of them were not
forced to do so. They tend to comply with local practices in order to gain legitimacy
and acceptance (Gooderham et al., 1999). Therefore, “isomorphism” which is one of the
key concepts of new institutionalism, may not always exert coercive pressure on MNC
subsidiaries. A subsidiary that relies heavily on host country organisations in terms of
technological and managerial expertise, as well as on local suppliers, is likely to be
affected by these actors in terms of its HRM practices, especially if the subsidiary
wants to acquire or maintain a preferred employer status (Hannon et al., 1995;
Rosenzweig and Nohria, 1994). This leads to:
H3. The level of transfer of HRM practices will be negatively related to the degree
of the subsidiary’s interaction with host country organisations.
At this point it is important to note that we examine the transfer of individual HRM
practices, not the overall degree of HRM transfer. Each of the factors affecting HRM
IJM transfer has differing degrees of impact on the transfer of individual practices (Bae
25,6 et al., 1998). Thus, the degree of cultural impact on HRM practices differs according to
the specific practice, subsequently affecting their level of transfer (Lu and Bjorkman,
1997; Rosenzweig and Nohria, 1994). In the same way, practices that are not compatible
with local regulations, that are highly visible or affect a large number of local
employees show a low degree of transfer (Rosenzweig and Nohria, 1994). Therefore, as
522 Lu and Bjorkman (1997) also acknowledge, there is a need to describe and analyse each
HRM practice separately rather than, as in most international HRM research to date,
using an aggregate measure of HRM practices. However, a review of research that
differentiated among HRM practices shows that there are large contradictions as to
which practices are more easily transferred and which are not (EIRR, 2000; Lu and
Bjorkman, 1997; Weber et al., 1998). As one of the main aims of this study is to provide
additional evidence on this issue, we do not propose a directional hypothesis.
Therefore, we expect that:
H4. HRM practices are subject to different degrees of transfer.
The following section discusses how the cultural environment has had an impact on
the management of organisations in Greece and presents research findings on Greek
human resources management. In addition, it gives an outline of the institutional
environment and industrial relations framework and their link with HRM.

Management in Greece: links with culture and institutions

Several studies during the 1980s and early 1990s (Bourantas and Papadakis, 1996;
Bourantas et al., 1990; Papadakis, 1993) reveal that Greek management is characterised
by a concentration of power and control in the hands of top management, which in the
majority of companies consists of the owners and their relatives. Strong family bonds,
one of the main characteristics of Greek culture, have affected the way that companies
are organised and managed (Georgas, 1993). The majority of firms in Greece are small
and family owned, where the manager – who is usually the owner – makes most of the
decisions and is reluctant to delegate authority to his subordinates for fear of losing his
power. Since companies operate in essence as an extended family, there is an
unwillingness to let anyone run them except for family members. The prevailing idea
is that people cannot be trusted unless they belong to one’s extended family, which can
include close friends as well as relatives. According to an analysis by Triandis and
Vassiliou (1972), quoted in Georgas (1993), Greeks showed a high degree of protection,
support and devotion to their in-group, while being hostile and competitive with
members outside of it. Moreover, there is a strict hierarchy and younger members are
expected to show respect to the elder ones and accept their authority. This is in line
with Hofstede’s (1980) findings, according to which Greece scored quite high on the
power distance and collectivism scale. These cultural traits explain to an extent the
“small, family-owned firm” phenomenon in Greece.
HRM has had a late development in Greece. A 1986 survey revealed that only 9
percent of Greek companies with more than 100 employees had an HR department and
only 11 percent had a detailed HR planning policy, as opposed to 52 percent of foreign
subsidiaries (Kristantonis, 1998). During the past 20 years, a few studies (Ball, 1992;
Papalexandris 1991, 1992) have revealed that the use of systematic HR practices is
lower in Greek firms compared to foreign subsidiaries, comprising the following
characteristics: recruitment is less formalised and highly subjective, selection is Host country
centralised and often relies on friends and/or family members, while the use of specific factors
advertisements or university sources is rather limited. Academic qualifications are
important but not always a prerequisite, there is an emphasis on previous experience,
whereas references and recommendations play a very significant role. Compensation is
largely determined at the national/industry level. Promotion is often from inside the
company and is mainly based on family ties, seniority or political connections. 523
Performance appraisal is a delicate issue. Personal likes and dislikes make it difficult
for the appraisal system to be based on objective criteria, whereas external
environmental uncertainty complicates target setting. Owing to close personal
relations, supervisors are reluctant to reveal appraisal information to employees for
fear of creating tension, while appraisal results are not often taken into consideration
for identifying development needs. More recent research has shown that the effects of
national culture on HRM in Greece are quite prominent (Myloni et al., 2004). HR
practices in Greek firms, such as planning, recruitment and performance appraisal are
to a great extent in accordance with the cultural values of Greek society.
For about 40 years, industrial relations in Greece were governed by law and
characterised by a centralised collective bargaining system where the state could
intervene, imposing income policies and banning strike activity (Kristantonis, 1998).
Owing to the highly political roles of the unions and significant governmental
intervention, collective bargaining was often characterised by industrial conflicts. This
has led to a rather hostile relationship among employees, employers and the state, and
created an anti-capitalist union attitude (Kristantonis, 1998). However, since 1990 there
have been significant changes towards independence of collective bargaining from the
state and new legislation, which mainly aims at promoting flexibility in the labour
market. At the same time, there has been a significant decline in the number of unions
to almost half of the figure registered in the 1980s, currently being around 2,300. Union
density was estimated at 25 percent in 1995, 12 percent lower than 1985, and unions are
reported to have lost one-fourth of their membership – with the exception of some
sectors, such as public firms and banks (Kristantonis, 1998). Nevertheless, Karantinos
et al. (2000) argue that the operation of the labour market is still governed by relatively
inflexible rules and regulations that limit their effectiveness. One of the main reasons
behind the reluctant use of such measures is the fact that the transition to more flexible
conditions was not a natural development in the case of Greece. It did not happen
because employers pressed for it, nor was it a result of governmental initiative. It
happened because Greece had to update and harmonise its institutional framework
according to that of other, more developed European countries. Therefore, it may be
some time before legislation has a real impact and such practices become a substantial
part of Greek employee relations.

Methodology
Data collection and sample
Using a survey method, we collected data from HR managers of Greek firms and MNC
subsidiaries. A questionnaire, based on previous work by Schuler and Jackson (1987),
as well as the Price Waterhouse/Cranfield project (Brewster and Hegewisch, 1994), was
developed to assess the various components of a firm’s HRM system. This was
translated to Greek, back translated into English and pre-tested in a pilot study.
IJM The questions focused on HRM practices with respect to managerial employees only.
25,6 Since HRM practices often differ between occupational groups (Bae et al., 1998), we
chose to focus on a relatively narrow category of jobs to limit the need to repeat the
questions for different categories, which would have made the questionnaire too long
and complicated. As a consequence, our results may reveal less adaptation at this level,
since research indicates that HRM practices in MNC subsidiaries are more localised for
524 lower hierarchical levels (Lu and Bjorkman, 1997).
Questionnaires were either completed during interviews or sent by post and
completed in the absence of the researcher. We followed this mixed approach in order
to ensure an acceptable number of replies, since mail surveys have a record of low
response rates (Harzing, 1997). The respondents also provided qualitative data on the
firm’s HRM practices during the interviews. All questionnaires were addressed to
Human Resource Managers of subsidiaries of MNCs located in Greece, as well as to
their equivalents in Greek companies. Since the population of MNCs located in Greece
is rather moderate (around 150 subsidiaries of over 50 employees at the time of the
survey), MNC subsidiaries were chosen regardless of industry, ownership type or size,
in order to be able to have adequate numbers to generate meaningful statistical results.
Greek companies were consequently selected in order to match the industry structure
of the subsidiaries’ sample. Our data collection process took place over a three-month
period, between March and May 2000. In total, from the 269 companies we approached,
150 MNCs subsidiaries and 119 Greek companies, 135 participated in our study,
representing a 50 percent response rate.
We received a total of 82 questionnaires from foreign subsidiaries, while data about
HRM in Greek companies were collected from 53 local firms. A large number of parent
countries were included in our sample, although 75 percent of the MNCs involved were
headquartered in the US, UK, Germany, France and the Netherlands. Greenfield sites
represent 80 percent of the sample, while the rest are acquisitions. In both MNC
subsidiaries and Greek firms, there is an equal representation of manufacturing and
services sectors, with the largest number of responses coming from firms operating in
the following sectors: chemical/pharmaceuticals, electronics, food/beverages, banks
and hotels. The majority of both MNC subsidiaries and Greek firms have more than
200 employees, although Greek firms show a larger average size. Differences in size
between the two samples are statistically significant. However, this selection was made
on purpose as we decided to target companies that were large enough to have an HRM
department and developed HR strategy. Therefore, our sample is only representative of
the large Greek firms and not the total population. There are no statistically significant
differences between responding and non-responding companies in terms of parent
country, industry and size.

Measures
Several items were used to measure the dependent variables, which capture aspects of
HRM practices, such as selection and recruitment, compensation, and performance
appraisal. Respondents were asked to describe how closely these items matched their
organizations’ current HRM practices, in most of the cases on a seven-point Likert
scale. Respondents were also asked to answer a specific question concerning the degree
of transfer that took place in each of these different groups of HRM practices.
Moreover, following Hannon et al. (1995) and Rosenzweig and Nohria (1994),
the questionnaire included questions on the degree of subsidiary’s interaction with host Host country
country organisations and union representation, as well as control variables such as
industry, age and size. All measures are reproduced in the Appendix.
specific factors

Results and discussion

In order to test H1, we initially examined the respondents’ responses concerning the
degree of adaptation of different groups of HRM practices to local practices. Means 525
scores, as presented in Table I, show a considerable degree of adaptation. Interestingly,
compensation practices show a higher level of adaptation, whereas the mean for
performance appraisal practices indicates a higher level of transfer. Therefore, both H1
and H4 are initially supported.
A descriptive analysis of the use of specific selection/recruitment, compensation and
performance appraisal practices in MNC subsidiaries and Greek firms allows for a
clearer picture of HRM transfer. The analysis points to several differences and
similarities. Table II presents those differences that were found statistically significant,
while Table III presents HRM practices that were applied to a similar degree in both
MNC subsidiaries and local firms.

Selection and recruitment

Our results indicate that Greek firms use less standardised selection methods, prefer
internal recruitment and make more use of references and recommendations than MNC
subsidiaries. This is in line with the high levels of family/in-group orientation of the
Greek culture, that leads Greek firms to show a preference for recruiting people they

Degree of adaptation of HRM practices Min Max Mean Standard deviation

Table I.
Compensation 1 6 3.69 1.38 Degree of adaptation of
Selection 1 6 3.48 1.26 HRM practices in MNC
Performance appraisal 1 6 2.84 1.39 subsidiaries

Greek firms Subsidiaries Sig. ( p)

Selection/recruitment
Use of Interviews Less More 0.062
Use of CV data Less More 0.048
Importance of recommendations More Less 0.080
Compensation
National/industry level determines basic pay More Less 0.036
Importance of employee training level More Less 0.042
Importance of employee experience More Less 0.060
Importance of employee seniority More Less 0.000
Performance appraisal
Written performance appraisal reports Less More 0.042 Table II.
Performance appraisal by employee himself/herself Less More 0.000 Significant differences
Performance appraisal by employee’s subordinates Less More 0.060 between Greek firms and
Performance appraisal favouritism More Less 0.006 MNC subsidiaries
IJM Greek firms Subsidiaries
25,6
Selection/recruitment
Use of assessment centres/group interviews Low Low
Use of psychometric tests Low Low
Use of references High High
526 Internal recruitment Moderate Moderate
Selection by informal qualifications Moderate Moderate
Compensation
Company level determines basic pay High High
Individual level determines basic pay Moderate Moderate
Profit-sharing, share options Low Low
Importance of group objectives Moderate Moderate
Importance of individual performance High High
Temporary contracts Low Low
Performance appraisal
Table III. Personal interview with supervisor High High
Similarities between Performance appraisal by employee’s peers Low Low
Greek firms and MNC Results evaluation rather than process High High
subsidiaries Better performance rather than career development High High

already know and trust and base their selection on less objective criteria than MNC
subsidiaries (Myloni et al., 2004). However, it is worth mentioning that interviews and
CVs play a very important role in employee selection in Greek firms, used in 85 percent
of the firms, while references are used in only 55 percent of the firms. Interviews with
HR managers revealed that recommendations and social networking are not so
important as they used to be. Moreover, the preference that Greek firms show for
internal recruitment and informal qualifications criteria is moderate rather than high
(Table III). Such findings may hint at a slow move towards the use of more objective
selection criteria by Greek firms. At the same time, the low percentage of MNC
subsidiaries that use standardised methods such as assessment centres, group
interviews and psychometric tests as opposed to their considerable use of references
and recommendations (even though significantly less than Greek firms), as well as
their preference for internal recruitment and informal qualifications criteria, might
indicate that MNC subsidiaries have adapted their selection methods to local cultural
norms to some extent.

Compensation
Differences were found with regard to the level at which basic pay is determined.
Although Greek companies still rely heavily on national and/or industry collective
agreements, company level determination is gaining importance. The picture is not the
same for MNC subsidiaries. Basic pay is determined mainly at the company and
individual level, although we did not find any significant differences with Greek firms.
National agreements are seldom used by MNC subsidiaries compared to Greek firms.
These results may reflect changes towards a more flexible legislative framework that
leaves some room to manoeuvre for MNCs. Achievement of group objectives and
individual performance were found to be the two most important dimensions in
deciding salary levels for both Greek firms and MNC subsidiaries. Although traditional
characteristics, such as employee training level and experience, as well as seniority, are Host country
still considered more important in Greek firms than in MNC subsidiaries, their level of specific factors
importance is clearly diminishing. On the other hand, collective agreements support
seniority and this is in contrast to performance-related compensation practice that
many MNCs want to introduce. At the same time, seniority is also considered to be
important in labour law for deciding the level of certain employee benefits.
The offer of share options is quite limited in both firm categories, since the stock 527
market is not very developed in Greece and most firms depend largely on bank finance.
Furthermore, the stock market is quite unstable and, as one of the HR managers
characteristically put it, “one cannot depend on such an insecure source for employees’
pay. The majority of employees in Greece prefer immediate payment and do not want
to count on shares that can be cashed in the long term”. Some subsidiaries are able to
give share options which are traded in foreign stock markets, but this only prevails for
a few top executive positions. Culture as well as tax regulations affect the transfer of
fringe benefits. A subsidiary HR manager of a French MNC said: “French law does not
impose high taxes on some of the bonuses as Greek law does, so there is no point in
transferring them to the Greek subsidiary”.
Results also show that the percentage of temporary contracts is quite low in both
firm categories. HR managers reported that headquarters found it problematic to
introduce flexible contracts, as fixed/part-time contracts are not common in Greece. As
one of the interviewees pointed out “everybody wants to have a permanent contract,
this is traditional practice in Greece”. However, the majority of our interviewees
emphasised the fact that the legal framework in Greece is gradually becoming less
complex and more flexible. They also recognised that the relationship between unions
and employers is less tense and that both parties have been engaged in a constructive
social dialogue in order to promote good will and find solutions that will bring
mutual benefit. In addition, managers agree that young employees are not so much
interested in collective agreements and permanent employment, but prefer
performance-related pay.

Performance appraisal
As shown in Table II, written reports are used much more in MNC subsidiaries
than Greek firms. Results also show that personal interviews between supervisor
and employee are highly used in both Greek firms and MNC subsidiaries and the
employee’s supervisor is clearly the person responsible for appraisal in both cases.
However, employees, their peers or their subordinates are less likely to participate in
performance appraisal in Greek firms than in MNC subsidiaries. Performance
appraisal appears to be in a state of development in Greek firms and currently
based on more subjective criteria, which is in line with the high levels of
family/in-group orientation and power distance that characterise Greek culture
(Myloni et al., 2004). Our findings indicate that MNCs have effectuated a
considerable degree of transfer of their performance appraisal practices to their
subsidiaries. On the other hand, it is worth pointing out that it is not so common for
peers and subordinates to participate in the performance appraisal process, even in
MNC subsidiaries. In addition, almost none of the subsidiaries implemented the
360-degree performance appraisal, although the majority of their headquarters make
use of this practice. HR managers reported that the practice faced strong resistance,
IJM especially in unionised subsidiaries. They noted that employees were not ready to
25,6 accept this kind of appraisal and that it would take some time before it could be
applied. Furthermore, Table III indicates that both firm categories use performance
appraisal for promotion purposes rather than career development, and evaluate
results rather than processes. This could be due to the low levels of performance
and future orientation of Greek culture (Myloni et al., 2004).
528 The previous discussion shows that in general MNCs adapt to local conditions up to
a certain extent, depending on the nature of the particular HRM practice. Specifically,
we find certain practices that are very difficult or even impossible to transfer to the
present Greek environment. Some of these practices, such as specific selection
procedures or the 360-degree appraisal, are not in line with cultural norms; in a similar
vein compensation practices such as fringe benefits, temporary contracts etc., are in
contrast to labour regulations. Results are in line with previous research by Weber et al.
(1998) for selection practices, and Lu and Bjorkman (1997), Rosenzweig and Nohria
(1994), and Verburg et al. (1999) for performance appraisal and compensation practices.
We therefore found support for the argument that, due to cultural and institutional
forces, HRM practices in MNC subsidiaries located in Greece will resemble local norms
to some extent, and that different HRM practices are subject to different degrees of
transfer.
Turning to our second hypothesis, we find a significant negative relationship
between employee union membership and HRM transfer for compensation
(Spearman’s rho: 2 0.176, p ¼ 0:062; one-tailed) and performance appraisal
(Spearman’s rho: 2 0.244, p ¼ 0:016; one-tailed), but not for selection. Such findings
could imply that some compensation and performance appraisal practices are subject
to unionisation forces and institutional pressures to a greater degree than selection
practices. Furthermore, our data supported the argument that the level of transfer of
HRM practices will be negatively related to the degree of the subsidiary’s interaction
with host country organisations. Correlations for HRM transfer of selection
(Spearman’s rho: 2 0.196, p ¼ 0:040; one-tailed), compensation (Spearman’s rho:
2 0.215, p ¼ 0:028; one-tailed) and performance appraisal (Spearman’s rho: 2 0.207,
p ¼ 0:033; one-tailed) practices were significant. These findings suggest that MNC
subsidiaries are influenced by the management practices of local organisations with
which they interact.

Culture and institutional interactions with control variables

Industry
Bivariate analysis showed that the banking sector had the lowest level of HRM transfer
in the services industry, something that was also confirmed by our interview findings.
Banks are very localised because of the competitiveness of the local market and
dynamic nature of the sector as increasing numbers of mergers and acquisitions take
place. Banks are also characterised by very strong unions. According to another
interviewee, bank unionism is a major hurdle for the transfer of some HR practices,
something that has led some MNCs to abandon setting up subsidiaries in Greece.
However, it is worth mentioning that sectoral influences on HRM transfer are still
present once the unionisation factor is accounted for.
Age Host country
Bivariate analysis also showed that older MNC subsidiaries had a lower level of HRM specific factors
transfer compared to “middle-aged” ones. Indeed, most of the HR managers in older
subsidiaries admitted that culture was a problem mainly because of the mentality and
way of thinking of the majority of employees who have been working in the same
company for many years. In such cases, people are very difficult to change because
change represents a move away from a familiar situation, their comfort zone. One HR 529
manager said that the subsidiary provided “an excellent working environment,
employees were friends above all and showed high loyalty for the company”. The
parent company found it very hard to transfer some of its HRM practices, particularly
those related to performance appraisal. Under such circumstances an objective system
of appraising employees, using face-to-face interviews and peers’ views was viewed
with great distrust. Another possible reason why older MNC subsidiaries showed a
lower level of transfer is the fact that at the time they were established the Greek
institutional environment was very strict. Complicated labour law and extensive
bureaucratic controls restricted their freedom to introduce some practices.

Size
Our quantitative results showed that the transfer of performance appraisal practices
was significantly higher in small subsidiaries (chi-square: 9.156, p ¼ 0:027; two-tailed),
while selection practices were mostly transferred in both small and medium-sized
(200-500 employees) subsidiaries (chi-square: 7.040, p ¼ 0:075; two-tailed).
Furthermore, the transfer of compensation practices was lower in large subsidiaries,
though not significantly so. Finally, we found larger subsidiaries to be more likely to
use traditional local practices, such as taking into account employee seniority, when
deciding salary levels or relying on national/industry agreements in order to determine
basic pay. At the same time, small subsidiaries are much less likely to recognise
collective bargaining. The implication of such findings is that HRM practices will
generally be more difficult to transfer in large subsidiaries. This is in line with previous
arguments (Gooderham et al., 1999) that large firms should/do adopt more socially
responsible HRM practices, as they have more visibility and are under more pressure
to gain legitimacy and acceptance.

Conclusions and implications

The aim of this paper was to investigate how factors originating from the host
country’s cultural and institutional framework and environment impact on the transfer
of HRM practices to MNC subsidiaries located in Greece. Results indicate that certain
cultural and institutional forces lead MNCs to adapt practices conforming to local
norms up to a point. At the same time, they point to a considerable degree of HRM
transfer, something that results in the use of hybrid HRM practices. As we have
discussed, examining the level of transfer of HRM practices as one block without
distinguishing between individual groups of practices obscures important differences.
Our findings support the argument that certain HRM practices are more localised and
affected by the host country’s cultural and institutional environment, while other
practices are more likely to be integrated throughout the MNC and show a higher level
of conformity to the headquarters’ practices.
IJM In terms of its limitations, the present research suffers from using HR managers as
25,6 the sole respondent for companies in the sample. Although the “key-informant
approach” is widely used (De Cieri and Dowling, 1999), it runs the risk of common
method variance (Philips, 1981). The use of multiple respondents (other managers and
employees at both headquarters and subsidiary level) would serve to validate the
reports of HR managers, but such an approach was not practically feasible. However,
530 the statistical tests – such as Harman’s one-factor test (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986) –
that we undertook to assess the presence of common method variance in our results
indicated that this issue is not likely to be a major concern in our study. A further
limitation is that we focused on HRM practices used only for white-collar employees;
hence blue-collar workers were not included. Our decision in this respect was driven by
the fact that it was not possible to collect information about all employees. However, as
already mentioned, we would expect that HRM transfer in MNC subsidiaries would be
less prominent at lower levels.
This research contributes to the field of international HRM in that it uses both
cultural and institutional factors in order to examine HRM transfer. The study shows
that using only one framework may not be adequate to identify the multiple influences
on the transfer of HRM practices. In addition, the investigation of transfer of HRM
practices to the Greek context makes an important addition to the field, since research
in this area is limited.
Our study has indicated that there are some signs of change in both cultural values
and the institutional framework in Greece. There is a noticeable move towards more
objective criteria in both employee selection and compensation. Performance related
pay is a much more important determinant of employee basic pay than seniority.
Employees give more importance to fairness and have become more individualistic. HR
managers in both MNC subsidiaries and Greek firms revealed that the younger
generation, as well as those who have studied and worked abroad, are more flexible
and willing to change, innovate and initiate/accept new practices. Similarly, the once
heavy regulated environment has become more relaxed and thus there is more
flexibility and room to manoeuvre for MNC subsidiaries. It seems that HRM in Greece
is in a state of development and potentially fundamental change.
Such observations can be of considerable importance to management practice. They
imply that although the Greek cultural/institutional framework might inhibit a
wholesale transfer of HRM practices, it is possible for MNCs to transfer some HRM
practices. Our results could be particularly helpful to MNCs when making important
decisions about which practices are more easily transferred into the Greek
socio-cultural context and which practices have to be adapted to some degree. At
the same time, the changing environment hints towards a need for constant research
and evaluation of which practices are best suited to a specific socio-cultural context at
any given time.

References
Adler, N.J. and Bartholomew, S. (1992), “Managing globally competent people”, The Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 52-65.
Bae, J., Chen, S. and Lawler, J.J. (1998), “Variations in human resource management in Asian
countries: MNC home-country and host-country effects”, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 653-70.
Ball, G. (1992), “Personnel management in Greece: the Spartan profession”, Personnel Host country
Management, pp. 40-4.
specific factors
Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1991), Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution,
London Business School, London.
Beechler, S. and Yang, J.Z. (1994), “The transfer of Japanese-style management to American
subsidiaries: contingencies, constraints and competencies”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 467-91. 531
Bourantas, D. and Papadakis, V. (1996), “Greek management”, International Studies of
Management and Organization, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 13-32.
Bourantas, D., Anagnostelis, J., Mantes, Y. and Kefalas, A.G. (1990), “Culture gap in Greek
management”, Organisation Studies, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 261-83.
Brewster, C. and Hegewisch, A. (Eds) (1994), Policy and Practice in European Human Resource
Management – The Price Waterhouse Cranfield Survey, Routledge, London, New York,
NY.
Clark, T., Gospel, H. and Montgomery, J. (1999), “Running on the spot? A review of twenty years
of research on the management of human resources in comparative and international
perspective”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 520-44.
De Cieri, H. and Dowling, P.J. (1999), “Strategic human resource management in multinational
enterprises: theoretical and empirical developments”, in Wright, P.M., Dyer, L.D.,
Boudreau, J.W. and Milkovich, G.T. (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management: Strategic Human Resources Management in the Twenty-First Century,
Supplement 4, JAI Press, Stamford, CT, pp. 305-27.
EIRR (2000), “The globalisation of human resource management”, European Industrial Relations
Review, Vol. 312, pp. 21-7.
Fay, B. (1996), Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science: A Multicultural Approach, Blackwell
Publishers Inc., Oxford.
Ferner, A. (1994), “Multinational companies and human resource management: an overview of
research issues”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 71-102.
Ferner, A. (1997), “Country of origin effects and HRM in multinational companies”, Human
Resource Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 19-37.
Georgas, J. (1993), “Management in Greece”, in Hickson, D.J. (Ed.), Management in Western
Europe: Society, Culture and Organization in Twelve Nations, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin,
pp. 109-24.
Gooderham, P.N., Nordhaug, O. and Ringdal, K. (1999), “Institutional and rational determinants
of organisational practices: human resource management in European firms”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 507-31.
Guest, D.E. and Hoque, K. (1996), “National ownership and HR practices in UK greenfield sites”,
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 50-74.
Hannon, J.M., Huang, I. and Jaw, B. (1995), “International human resource strategy and its
determinants: the case of subsidiaries in Taiwan”, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 531-54.
Harzing, A.W.K. (1997), “Response rates in international mail surveys: results of a 22 country
study”, International Business Review, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 641-65.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values,
Sage, London.
IJM Jackson, T. (2002), “The management of people across cultures: valuing people differently”,
Human Resource Management, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 455-75.
25,6 Jain, H.C., Lawler, J.J. and Morishima, M. (1998), “Multinational corporations, human resource
management and host-country nationals”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 553-66.
Karantinos, D., Ketsetzopoulou, M. and Mouriki, A. (2000), “To u1smikó Plaísio Pńumish6
532 th6 Agorá6 Ergasía6 (The institutional framework of the Greek labour market)”,
Epiu1v́rhsh Ergasiakv́n Sx1´s1vn (Employee Relations Review), April, No. 18, pp. 80-8.
Kovach, R.C. (1994), “Matching assumptions to environment in the transfer of management”,
International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 83-99.
Kristantonis, N. (1998), “Greece: the maturing of the system”, in Ferner, A. and Hyman, R. (Eds),
Changing Industrial Relations in Europe, 2nd ed., Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford,
pp. 504-28.
Laurent, A. (1983), “The cultural diversity of Western conceptions of management”, International
Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 13 Nos 1-2, pp. 75-96.
Lu, Y. and Bjorkman, I. (1997), “HRM practices in China – Western joint ventures: MNC
standardization versus localization”, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 614-28.
Lukes, S. (1973), Individualism, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Myloni, B., Harzing, A.K. and Mirza, H. (2004), “Human resource management in Greece: have the
colours of culture faded away?”, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 59-76.
Newman, K.L. and Nollen, S.D. (1996), “Culture and congruence: the fit between management
practices and national culture”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 753-79.
Ngo, H., Turban, D., Lau, C. and Lui, S. (1998), “Human resource practices and firm performance
of multinational corporations: influences of country origin”, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 632-52.
Papadakis, V. (1993) “An empirical foundation of strategic investment decision making
processes: contextual influence on process characteristics”, unpublished PhD thesis,
London Business School, University of London, London.
Papalexandris, N. (1991), “A comparative study of human resource management in selected
Greek and foreign-owned subsidiaries in Greece”, in Brewster, C. and Tyson, S. (Eds),
International Comparisons in Human Resource Management, Pitman, London, pp. 145-58.
Papalexandris, N. (1992), “Human resource management in Greece”, Employee Relations, Vol. 14
No. 4, pp. 38-52.
Perlmutter, H.V. (1969), “The tortuous evolution of the multinational corporation”, Columbia
Journal of World Business, Vol. 4, pp. 9-18.
Philips, L.W. (1981), “Assessing measurement error in key informant reports. A methodological
note on organizational analysis in marketing”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18,
pp. 395-415.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organisational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44.
Rosenzweig, P.M. and Nohria, N. (1994), “Influences on HRM practices in multinational
corporations”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 229-51.
Schuler, R.S. and Jackson, S.E. (1987), “Linking competitive strategies with human resource
management practices”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 207-19.
Schuler, R.S. and Rogovsky, N. (1998), “Understanding compensation practice variations across Host country
firms. The impact of national culture”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 159-77. specific factors
Schuler, R.S., Dowling, P.J. and De Cieri, H. (1993), “An integrated framework of strategic
international human resource management”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 717-64.
Scott, R.W. (1995), Institutions and Organizations, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. 533
Sorge, A. (1995), “Cross national differences in personnel and organisation”, in Harzing, A.W.K.
and Van Ruysseveldt, J. (Eds), International Human Resource Management, Sage, London,
pp. 99-123.
Tayeb, M.H. (1998), “Transfer of HRM practices across cultures: an American company in
Scotland”, International Journal of HRM, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 332-58.
Taylor, S., Beechler, S. and Napier, N. (1996), “Toward an integrative model of strategic
international human resource management”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21
No. 4, pp. 959-85.
Teagarden, M.B. and Von Glinow, M.A. (1997), “Human resource management in cross-cultural
contexts: emic practices versus etic philosophies”, Management International Review,
Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 7-20.
Trompenaars, F. (1993), Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in
Business, Nicholas Braeley Publishing, London.
Verburg, R.M., Drenth, P.J.D., Koopman, P.L., Van Muijen, J.J. and Wang, Z. (1999), “Managing
human resources across cultures: a comparative analysis of practices in industrial
enterprises in China and The Netherlands”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 391-410.
Weber, W., Kabst, R. and Gramley, C. (1998), “Human resource policies in European
organisations: country vs company-specific antecedents”, paper presented at the 6th
Conference on International Human Resource Management, Paderborn, 22-28 June.
Whitley, R. (1992), European Business Systems. Firms and Markets in Their National Contexts,
Sage, London.
Yuen, E.C. and Kee, H.T. (1993), “Headquarters, host-culture and organizational influences on
HRM policies and practices”, Management International Review, Vol. 33 No. 4.

Further reading
Jain, H.C. (1983), “Cross-cultural management of human resources and the multinational
corporation”, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 19, pp. 101-13.

Appendix

Level of HRM transfer

Selection/compensation/performance appraisal practices are similar to those of the parent
company as opposed to the local company practice (three items, seven-point Likert scale; similar
to parent – similar to local).

Selection and recruitment

(1) Selection methods used (application forms, assessment centres, psychometric tests,
interviews, CV data, references, group interviews).
IJM (2) Low / high importance of recommendation and/or personal acquaintance with the
potential candidate (seven-point Likert scale; not important – very important).
25,6 (3) Internal / external recruitment (seven-point Likert scale; largely internally – largely
externally).
(4) Selection criteria based on informal qualifications (seven-point Likert scale; not at all –
very much).
534
Compensation
(1) Level of basic pay determination (national/industry, company, individual).
(2) Importance of several items on decisions relating to salary levels: achievement of group
objectives, individual performance, employee age, seniority, training level and
experience (five-point Likert scale; of very little importance – of outmost importance).
(3) Variable pay components (profit-shares, share options, bonuses).
(4) Percentage of temporary contracts.

Performance appraisal
(1) Method(s) used in appraising employee performance (personal interview between
supervisor-subordinate, informal/non-written feedback, written reports).
(2) People who participate in employee performance appraisal (supervisor, employee
himself/herself, peers, subordinates).
(3) Extent to which favouritism influences performance appraisal (seven-point Likert scale;
not at all – very much).
(4) Process / results evaluation (seven-point Likert scale; process – results).
(5) Primary objective of employee performance appraisal (seven-point Likert scale;
performance improvement – career development).

Subsidiary interaction with host country organisations

(1) The degree of the subsidiary’s reliance on local technological and managerial expertise.
(2) The degree of strength of the relationship the subsidiary has with local suppliers.

Union representation
Proportion of employees who are members of a trade union.