Similarities and differences in international and comparative human resource management: A review of 60 years of research

• Published date: 01 January 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22028
• Date: 01 January 2021
• Author: Helen De Cieri,Karin Sanders

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Similarities and differences in international and comparative

human resource management: A review of 60 years of

research

Karin Sanders

1

| Helen De Cieri

2

1

School of Management, UNSW Business

School, Sydney, Australia

2

Department of Management, Monash

Business School, Monash University,

Melbourne, Australia

Correspondence

Karin Sanders, School of Management, UNSW

Business School, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, 2052

NSW, Australia.

Email: k.sanders@unsw.edu.au

Abstract

In this article, we review similarities and differences in articles in the research field of

international and comparative human resource management (HRM), published in

Human Resource Management over the past 60 years. The extensive review and anal-

ysis, based on 189 conceptual articles, reviews, and empirical studies, identified sev-

eral trends. First, the two distinct research streams in this research field (HRM in

MNEs and comparative HRM) have grown over the decades and moved from con-

ceptual articles in the beginning to almost exclusively empirical studies in more

recent years. Second, in addition to the two research streams, in more recent years

we identified a third research stre am that combines elements of HRM in MN Es

and comparative HRM research. Th ird, the research field has become mo re femi-

nized, with an increasing numbe r of female (first) authors, and has become more

international, with more authors affi liated with non-US universities in the mo re

recent time periods. Finally, whil e the research streams show some differ ences in

the content of their research, we do n ot find evidence that the streams dev eloped

in isolation. Based on our analys is, we provide suggestions for fut ure research on

international and comparative HRM a nd identify current implications for HR

practitioners.

KEYWORDS

comparative HRM, content analysis, HRM in multinational enterprises, international HRM,

literature review, trends

1|INTRODUCTION

Due to continuing globalization, intern ationalization of work, chang-

ing demographics, and the growth of emergi ng economies, the land-

scape for international business has changed irrev ocably. There are

new opportunities and challenges for multinational enterprises

(MNEs), such as managing diverse workf orces and operating both

within and across countries (Budhwar, Tung , Varma, & Do, 2017;

Cooke, Wood, & Horwitz, 2015), and for re searchers who strive to

advance understanding of human resource (HR) pract ices in MNEs

and to compare the management of workfor ces between different

countries. In particular, HR practition ers in MNEs are required to

develop and implement HR policies and pract ices that are respon-

sive to local economic, institution al, and cultural conditions while

also integrating and supporting th eir global activities (Björkman &

Welch, 2015). The study of these phenom ena has been labeled as

the field of international HRM research , broadly defined as “all HR

activities in their internal and external con texts as they impact the

processes of managing HRs in organizations throughout the global

environment to enhance the experience of multiple stake holders”

Karin Sanders and Helen De Cieri have contribute equally to this paper.

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.22028

Hum Resour Manage. 2021;60:55–88. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrm © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC. 55

(Schuler & Tarique, 2007, p. 718). While we co ncur with this defini-

tion, we argue that the term “internationa l and comparative HRM”is

a more inclusive term that better represe nts the multiple research

streams that have emerged.

More specifically, there are two widely recognized research

streams in this research field. On one hand, HRM in multinational

enterprises (MNEs) research refers to the study of how people are man-

aged in MNEs, with particular attention to people who work across

national borders (Brewster, Mayrhofer, & Smale, 2016; Cooke, Wood,

Wang, & Veen, 2020; Farndale et al., 2017). This research stream

examines the “standardization versus localization of HR practices”

debate by investigating the capacity of MNEs to attract, develop and

deploy talented employees and to get them to work effectively

despite differences in culture, language and locations. On the other

hand, comparative HRM (CHRM) research, largely concerned with ques-

tions about why and to what extent there are differences in HR prac-

tices across countries, focuses on the way that people work and

examines the differences between countries in the way firms manage

their workforces (Brewster & Mayrhofer, 2012; Hall & Wailes, 2010;

Patel & Budhwar, 2017). According to comparative HRM scholars, dif-

ferent HR systems arise from differences in specific historical, cultural

and institutional heritage in certain countries.

While scholars agree on the focus of research within each

research stream, there is a range of views about the connection

between the two streams. At one end of the spectrum, Patel and

Budhwar (2017) refer to comparative HRM as an area of study dis-

tinct from HRM in MNEs and the standardization—differentiation

debate. At the other end of the spectrum, Brewster et al. (2016) argue

that “much of the content of these streams of IHRM is shared, in par-

ticular the standardization—differentiation debate”(p. 285). They sug-

gest that the streams share interests in aspects of time, process and

context, while treating these aspects in different ways. As a result,

Brewster and his colleagues acknowledge that the two research

streams “have largely developed in isolation as opposed to informing

each other”(Brewster et al., 2016, p. 285), and recognize that

research in the two streams has seldom crossed paths. Similarly

Cooke et al. (2020), based on earlier (e.g., De Cieri, Wolfram Cox, &

Fenwick, 2007) and more recent reviews (Björkman & Welch, 2015)

conclude that HRM in MNEs research “has for too long focused rather

narrowly on expatriate management”(p. 59), and ignored the effect of

contextual circumstances (culture and institutions). In this article, we

adopt a position similar to Brewster et al. and Cooke et al. in our

understanding of the connection between the two research streams

of HRM in MNEs and CHRM.

Inspired by Brewster et al. (2016), we also identified a third

research stream that seems to combine elements of both HRM in

MNEs and comparative HRM research. We label this research stream

“combined international and comparative HRM”(combined I/CHRM)

and define it as “the study of HR practices in MNEs with an emphasis

on similarities and differences in the effectiveness of HR practices

between countries”(see Figure 1).

To provide the foundation for our work, we review articles in the

field of international and comparative HRM published in the 60 years

since the inception of one of the most prestigious HRM journals in

the field: Human Resource Management (Wiley). Human Resource Man-

agement is uniquely positioned as the only HRM journal in the Finan-

cial Times (FT) 50 journal list and the only HRM journal with the

explicit stated aim of bridging the gap between HR practitioners and

academics. In celebration of the 60th anniversary of Human Resource

Management, our aim with this paper is to contribute to the field of

international and comparative HRM in the following two important

ways. First, by reviewing the research in the streams of HRM in

MNEs, CHRM, and combined I/C HRM in one review, we aim to pro-

vide insight in the three distinct yet related research streams, and to

explore the notion that the research streams have been largely devel-

oped in isolation (Brewster et al., 2016). In this way, we believe that

the review is of interest for both scholars and HR practitioners across

the research streams. While more scholars have reviewed research in

the HRM in MNEs stream (see Cooke et al., 2020), review articles on

CHRM and combined I/C HRM research are scarce.

Second, different from recent reviews (Brewster et al., 2016;

Cooke et al., 2020), our review across 60 years provides a very broad

HRM in MNEs

The study of HR practices in

multinational enterprises (e.g.

Cooke et al. 2020; Brewster et

al. 2016; Farndale et al. 2016;

Comparative HRM

The study of similarities and

differences in the effectiveness of

HR practices between countries

(e.g. Patel & Budhwar, 2017;

Brewster & Mayrhofer, 2012;

Hall & Wailes, 2010)

Combined I/CHRM

The study of HR practices in

multinational enterprises with

an emphasis on similarities and

differences in the effectiveness

of HR practices between

countries

FIGURE 1 Field of HRM in MNEs, comparative and combined International and Comparative Human Resource Management Research

56 SANDERS AND DE CIERI

overview of the “HRM in MNEs”and “comparative HRM”research

streams, as well as the emerging “combined I/C HRM”stream. We

examine the characteristics of the articles (type of the article, and

authors), content (theoretical framework and research topic), the

methodological choices, and the practical implications of the studies

over time. As Bainbridge, Sanders, Cogin, and Lin (2017) have argued,

“informed methodological choices are central to both the production

and consumption of research”and “strong research methodologies

make it possible to address challenging problems and produce findings

that contribute to a robust body of knowledge”(p. 887). In practical

terms, HR practitioners can use the knowledge and insights from this

review as a basis for evidence-based management. As such, our

review aims to provide a better understanding of both the status quo

and the dynamic trends in the research streams, and consequently in

the broad research field of international and comparative HRM.

In our review, we follow the recent editorial by Post, Sarala,

Gatrell, and Prescott (2020), who propose a multi-faceted approach

for fashioning theoretical contributions in review articles. More spe-

cifically, they propose the following “set of avenues for developing

theory”(p. 351): exposing emerging perspectives, analyzing assump-

tions, clarifying constructs, establishing boundary conditions, testing

new theory, theorizing with system theory, and theorizing with mech-

anism. On this basis, our review can be characterized as an “exposing

emerging perspectives”review as our goal is to compare the insights

from the different research streams in which HRM in MNEs can be

seen as an older and more established researchstream, and CHRM and

combined I/C HRM can be seen as relatively younger and more

recently emerging researchstreams. Although the development of new

theory is beyond the scope of our review, we hope that by exposing

emerging perspectivesour paper will provide a meaningful contribution

to advance the fieldof international and comparative HRM.

Before we explain our methodology and present the results, we

discuss previous reviews on related topics and discuss how our review

builds on and extends these reviews. In the last section we present, as

suggested by Post et al. (2020), both an integrative analysis (synthesis)

of existing research (Torraco, 2016) and a generative analysis (creating

new ideas) based on our review of prior literature, to provide a plat-

form for future scholarship and practice (Gatrell & Breslin, 2017).

1.1 |Previous related reviews

Our review builds on and goes beyond previous reviews in the field of

international and comparative HRM. First, we build on the review by

Hayton, Piperopoulos, and Welbourne (2011) that included 1,191 arti-

cles published in 190 issues of Human Resource Management over

50 years, between 1961 and 2010. According to Hayton et al. in the

first two decades (1961–1971 and 1972–1982) the journal was domi-

nated by conceptual and opinion pieces with relatively modest empiri-

cal research. In the 1983–1999 period, the authors conclude that

there was a “dramatic growth of interest in the practice of HRM in

multinationals”(p. 701). The final period covered in their review

(2000–2010) can be characterized by more appreciation for

international HRM and context, in which “much research on these

phenomena is being performed by scholars around the world”(pp.

701–702). Our review differs from Hayton et al.'s (2011) review. For

example, Hayton et al. defined an international study as “a study

involving non-US subjects”and identified a so-called“first international

article published by HRM”about Israeli Kibbutzim (Golomb, 1968).

Given our focus is on the field of international and comparative HRM,

which includes scholarship conducted in more than one country

(CHRM), we did not include Golomb'sarticle in our analysis. In addition,

our review takes a broader time frame(60 years), thereby updating the

coverage of literatureto reflect the current state of knowledge.

Second, we build on Cooke et al.'s (2020) review of research on

HRM in multinational corporations (MNCs), which examined 342 arti-

cles from 39 journals in the business and management field published

between 2000 and 2014. In our review, we extend the time frame yet

are more selective by focusing only on Human Resource Management.

In addition, although Cooke, Liu, Liu, and Chen (2019) included 11

comparative HRM articles, all of these were related to research on

MNCs (combined I/C HRM in our definition). Our review casts a wider

net by addressing the entire field of international and comparative

HRM. Finally, our review differs from the previous work by going

beyond the content of the articles to (also) focus more explicitly on

the details of the research design of the studies.

Our review also builds on yet is different from the review article by

Bainbridge et al. (2017) on the pervasiveness and trajectory of methodo-

logical choices made in terms of validity for the multiple HR practices—

outcome relationship. Their content analysis of 281 quantitative studies

published between 1995 and 2014 in seven management and six HRM

journals shows that there have been a high incidence of potentially prob-

lematic cross-sectional rather than longitudinal or experimental studies,

as well as single-informant rather than multiple informant research

designs. We build on their contribution by analyzing the internal, exter-

nal, construct and statistical conclusion validity aspects of the research

designs used in the quantitative international and comparative HRM arti-

cles to allow a comparison between their review and ours.

In summary, in our review we build on and extend previousrelated

reviews by focusing on similarities and differences in the field of inter-

national and comparativeHRM research over a time frame of 60 years

of articles in one journal, namely Human Resource Management.Fur-

ther, we focus on both content and research designs of the articles, as

well as on the practical implicationsraised by the articles in our sample.

2|METHOD

2.1 |Sample and procedure

This review draws upon studies in any of the issues published in

Human Resource Management between 1961 and 2020 to identify

trends and developments throughout these decades in the HRM in

MNEs, comparative, and combined I/C HRM research streams. For

the year 2020 we included the published and “early view”articles that

are available at the time of writing this review (May/June 2020). To

SANDERS AND DE CIERI 57