See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325485995
Global Talent Management and Performance in Multinational Enterprises: A
Multilevel Perspective
Article in Journal of Management · June 2018
DOI: 10.1177/0149206318757018
CITATIONS
202
READS
2,727
3 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Book on macro-perspectives on talent management View project
Positive and Negative Politics in Organizations View project
David G. Collings
Trinity College Dublin
126 PUBLICATIONS 7,775 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Kamel Mellahi
The University of Warwick
137 PUBLICATIONS 9,976 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Wayne F Cascio
University of Colorado
190 PUBLICATIONS 14,287 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by David G. Collings on 01 June 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Global Talent Management and Performance in Multinational Enterprises:
A Multilevel Perspective
David G. Collings
Dublin City University
Kamel Mellahi
University of Warwick
Wayne F. Cascio
University of Colorado Denver
Please cite as:
Collings, D.G., Mellahi, K. & Cascio, W.F. (2018). Global Talent Management
and Performance in Multinational Enterprises: A Multilevel Perspective. Journal
of Management, doi. 10.1177/0149206318757018
Acknowledgements: The authors are grateful for the detailed and constructive feedback
from the reviewers, the guest editors, and particularly action editor Sebastian Reiche on
earlier versions of this manuscript. They are also grateful for feedback on earlier versions of
the paper presented at research seminars at Aalto Business School, Finland, Nanyang
Business School, Singapore, and Warwick Business School in the UK.
Corresponding author. David G. Collings, Leadership & Talent Institute, DCU Business
School, Dublin City University, Glasnevin, Dublin 9, Ireland
Email. [email protected]
ABSTRACT
The link between global talent management (GTM) and multinational enterprises’ (MNEs)
performance has not been theorised or empirically tested. We develop a theoretical
framework for how GTM links to performance at the headquarters (HQ), subsidiary, and
individual employee levels. Using the resource-based view as a frame, we highlight the
routines of pivotal positions, global talent pools, and a differentiated HR architecture as
central to GTM. We show that at the HQ level, an MNE’s adoption of a global, multidomestic, or transnational strategy determines the objectives of the GTM system and
significantly influences the performance of the enterprise. At the subsidiary level, the
alignment between HQ intentions and subsidiary implementation of GTM routines is a key
variable in our analysis. We consider the effects of these higher-level factors on individual
performance through the lens of human-capital resources, focusing on how individual human
capital can translate or amplify to a unit-level human-capital resource. We argue that, through
the vertical fit of these higher-level factors with GTM routines at a given level, an MNE can
develop an effective GTM system and expect that to translate into sustainable performance
aligned with objectives set at headquarters. The paper concludes with an agenda for future
research.
Keywords: Global Talent Management; Routines; Dynamic Capabilities; Human Capital;
MNE Strategy; Alignment; Performance
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 1
GLOBAL TALENT MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE
IN MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES:
A MULTILEVEL PERSPECTIVE
INTRODUCTION
One of the greatest challenges facing multinational enterprises (MNEs) is building
strong talent pipelines (Al Ariss, Cascio, & Paauwe, 2014; Cascio & Boudreau, 2016;
Tarique & Schuler, 2010; Schuler, Jackson, & Tarique, 2011). Globally, more than 75% of
CEOs highlighted lack of available skills and capabilities as a primary threat to the growth
prospects of their organisations (PwC, 2017). Furthermore, a recent study of CEOs in the US
identified their top three priorities as talent, operating in a global marketplace, and regulation
and legislation (Groysberg & Connolly, 2015). In many ways, these issues are interrelated.
They highlight the increasing complexity and dynamism that characterise the current global
business environment, and they underscore the global talent challenge (Farndale, Scullion, &
Sparrow, 2010; Tarique & Schuler, 2010; Tung, 2016). This challenge emphasises the
importance of integrating human capital on a global scale, to execute corporate strategy and
generate sustainable performance levels across an MNE’s network. These and other trends
have brought global talent management (GTM) to the fore for C-suite leaders and human
resource professionals in MNEs (Scullion, Collings, & Caligiuri, 2010). However, MNEs
struggle to actually implement GTM. Indeed, a lack of capability in this area is regularly
identified as a key skills gap of HR professionals (Mercer, 2016). In the MNE context, the
demands are amplified by the requirement to develop talent strategies that account for the
cultural, institutional, and legislative complexity of the global operating environment.
The literature on GTM remains diffuse and there is little evidence that firms do
manage talent effectively on a global scale (Cascio & Boudreau, 2016). A central issue is the
lack of a shared understanding of how to define GTM. Following Vaiman, Scullion, and
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 2
Collings (2012), we define GTM in general terms as the attraction, selection, development,
and retention of the highest-performing employees in the most pivotal positions globally.
This definition recognises the importance of human resources on a global scale, in a wider
sense than of global elites, whom scholars often identify as the focus of GTM systems (c.f.
Reiche, 2007).
While the global context allows MNEs to draw from a global pool of talent, it also
creates challenges, such as adapting talent strategies to the diverse, dynamic conditions that
characterise the global environment. In other words, how the MNE defines, conceptualises,
and identifies global talent and how it manages that talent within multiple MNE contexts are
central questions (Allen, Lee, & Reiche, 2015). Another central focus of GTM is greater
differentiation in HR systems. This reflects a trend in the wider HR literature since the mid-
1990s. Differentiation recognises the limitations of an overly simplistic perspective on
investments in human capital and questions the value of a single “optimal HR architecture”
for the management of all employees (Lepak & Snell, 1999). This perspective also recognises
that a single set of best practices can actually destroy value for organisations, and it advocates
differentiation in strategic decision making (Bonabeau, 2004). Implementing such a
differentiated approach on a global scale makes GTM particularly challenging.
A key limitation in the research on GTM has been a failure to develop theoretical and
empirical insights into how GTM links to organisational performance. While GTM currently
enjoys considerable legitimacy as an area of practice, scholars continue to question its
intellectual roots (Al Ariss et al., 2014; Schuler et al., 2011; Scullion et al., 2010). Thus,
understanding the relationship between GTM and MNEs’ performance is important for
establishing the academic legitimacy of the field. As an initial step in this process, this paper
develops a theoretical framework that describes how GTM links to organisational
performance. This is a complex endeavour; the cultural, linguistic, spatial, and temporal
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 3
distances underpinning global work (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989; Kostova, Neil, & Hoenen,
2016), combined with the fact that such work unfolds in distinct political, economic, and
societal institutions, make GTM particularly challenging (Allen et al., 2015; Mellahi &
Collings, 2010). Understanding the link between GTM and MNE performance requires a
multilevel consideration of the links that bridge the macro-micro divide (Molloy, Ployhart, &
Wright, 2011; Wright & Boswell, 2002).
The concept of routines is central to our treatment of GTM. As we elaborate below,
routines are repetitive, recognisable patterns of interdependent actions among various actors
through which work is accomplished. We explore how GTM routines influence the
performance of MNEs at three levels: headquarters, subsidiary, and individual.
Our treatment differs from much of the literature on talent management generally and
GTM in particular, which tends to focus either on the micro or macro level (c.f. Tarique &
Schuler, 2010). For example, at the micro level a growing body of literature focuses on star
employees and individual performance or variations in star employees’ performance (Aguinis
& O’Boyle, 2014; Call, Nyberg, & Thatcher, 2015). Likewise, at the macro level, the
literature largely focuses on the exogenous and endogenous drivers of GTM systems and
processes (Tarique & Schuler, 2010) or the GTM routines and systems themselves
(Beamond, Farndale, & Härtel, 2016; Collings, 2014; Farndale et al., 2010). The failure to
conceptualise the impact of GTM on organisational performance at multiple levels is,
therefore, a key limitation in our current understanding of this area.
We adopt a top-down approach to theorising. Earlier conceptualisations of talent
management focus on individual employees or human capital as the key locus of competitive
advantage. In contrast, we follow more recent theorising in strategic human resource
management (SHRM), which distinguishes practices that impact human capital from the
human capital itself, in terms of how these practices configure human capital to drive
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 4
competitive advantage (Wright & McMahon, 2011). Hence, human capital is of little
economic value unless it is deployed in a manner consistent with an organisation’s strategic
intent (Becker & Huselid, 2006; Bowman & Hird, 2014). The organisational capabilities that
harness this human capital are as central as the human capital itself (Delery & Roumpi, 2017;
Linden & Teece, 2014) for illuminating the links between GTM and MNE performance.
Thus, collective interactions, interconnections, and path dependence become primary
foci (Bowan & Hird, 2014). Adopting a contingency perspective, we argue that an MNE’s
competitive strategy is a key factor for understanding the link between GTM and
performance. Specifically, whether an MNE adopts a global, multi-domestic, or transnational
strategy determines the objectives of the GTM system and significantly influences
performance at the HQ level. At the subsidiary level, alignment between HQ intentions and
subsidiary implementation of GTM routines is a key variable in our analysis. At the
individual level, we consider the effects of these higher-level factors on individual
performance and focus on how individual human capital can amplify to a unit-level humancapital resource in the MNE context. We argue that through the vertical fit of these higherlevel factors with GTM routines at a given level, an MNE can develop an effective GTM
system and expect it to translate into sustainable performance aligned with objectives set at
headquarters.
The paper begins by offering a detailed definition of GTM and outlining the routines
that we see as central to it. Thereafter, we develop a theoretical framework that considers
GTM and performance at the HQ, subsidiary, and individual levels. We conclude with a
discussion of the implications for practice and an agenda for further research to deepen our
understanding of this important emerging area.
DEFINING GLOBAL TALENT MANAGEMENT
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 5
Given the lack of clarity over the intellectual and conceptual boundaries of GTM (Al
Ariss et al., 2014; Cascio & Boudreau, 2016; Schuler et al., 2011; Scullion et al., 2010), it is
important to be explicit about how we define it. We defined GTM in general terms above.
Building on Mellahi and Collings (2010: 143), we now define GTM more specifically as (1)
the systematic identification of pivotal positions that differentially contribute to an
organisation’s sustainable competitive advantage on a global scale; (2) the development of a
talent pool of high-potential and high-performing incumbents who reflect the global scope of
the MNE to fill these roles; and (3) the development of a differentiated HR architecture to fill
these roles with the best available incumbents, to ensure their continued commitment to the
MNE.
Defining GTM in this way broadens the agenda beyond the senior organisational
leaders who are often assumed to be its focus, and underscores the importance of other
pivotal positions that disproportionately contribute to the organisation’s sustainable
competitive advantage (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2007; Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Huselid &
Becker, 2011). These positions are defined in two ways: (1) by their centrality to an
organisation’s strategy and the potential for significant performance variation between an
average and a top performer in those roles (quality pivotal); or (2) for their potentially
significant impact on strategic objectives when the quantity of people who occupy those roles
increases (quantity pivotal) (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2007; Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Becker
& Huselid, 2006). Furthermore, the development of talent pools that reflect the global scope
of the MNE emphasises the importance of employees at subsidiaries as well as at HQ and
further challenges the assumption that HQ employees alone are the focus of GTM.
In practice, however, the strategy adopted by the MNE will determine the level of
diversity in global talent pools. Finally, the development of a differentiated HR architecture
to support the deployment and retention of this talent pool requires the MNE to develop a
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 6
GTM strategy that is aligned with the MNE’s competitive strategy. We argue that better
management of this pool of critical employees will likely have the greatest impact on value
creation within the firm (Delery & Shaw, 2001; Lepak & Snell, 1999). In the international
context, the cross-border development, deployment, orchestration, and recombination of this
talent pool is even more complex (Zahra et al., 2017). Effective management ensures that the
talent pool helps to deliver the MNE’s strategic intent by generating and developing the
knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs); motivation; and opportunities
required to deliver superior firm-level outcomes (Arthur, 1994; Huselid, 1995; Delery &
Doty, 1996; Delery & Roumpi, 2017). Central to each element of the definition is ensuring
that the GTM strategy is enacted in the context of the MNE’s strategy, capabilities, and
potential. This brings the resource-based view (RBV) to the fore as a theoretical lens (Linden
& Teece, 2014).
Global Talent Management as a Dynamic Capability
In contrast to earlier approaches to talent management that tend to focus solely on
individual human capital, this perspective emphasises the organisational capabilities that
harness this human capital as the fulcrum of GTM (Collings, 2014; Linden & Teece, 2014).
Dynamic capabilities refer to “the capacity of [the] organization to purposefully create,
extend, or modify its resource base” (Helfat et al., 2007: 4). Such capabilities reflect the
firm’s capacity to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal, and potentially external,
resources to respond to rapidly changing business contexts (Linden & Teece, 2014).
Dynamic capabilities emphasise the unique ways that an MNE can execute business
processes to implement its strategy; this is a central concern for gaining and sustaining
competitive advantage. These capabilities are path dependent, reflecting an MNE’s unique
history, assets, and capabilities (Bowan & Hird, 2014). In more stable environments in which
production and distribution focus on a relatively well-defined portfolio of goods and services,
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 7
capabilities tend to be more stable (ordinary capabilities). However, in fluid contexts, more
dynamic capabilities are required (Linden & Teece, 2014). The global context reflects two
key elements of dynamic capabilities. First is the well-rehearsed challenge of developing
global coherence while recognising the unique features and nuances of the different countries
in which an MNE operates. Second is the adaptation, integration, and reconfiguration of
internal and external assets to match opportunities in the global marketplace (Griffith &
Harvey, 2001; Teece et al., 1997). Furthermore, because the contexts in which most MNEs
operate reflect high levels of complexity and flux, static conceptualisations of human-capital
requirements are considered ineffective (Cascio & Aguinis, 2008; Lepak et al., 2011).
Dynamic capabilities also underline the potential future value of human capital, which may
be greater than its current value (Lepak et al., 2011). However, the stock of human capital
does not itself represent a dynamic capability (Teece et al., 2010). Dynamic capabilities
therefore manifest in the MNE’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure both internal
(such as human capital) and external resources, in response to dynamic global business and
environmental contexts (Linden & Teece, 2014). In other words, how individual
competencies are combined and how employees interact in productive combinations are
central to dynamic capacities. The complexity of the global environment in which MNEs
operate makes this alignment particularly challenging. Below we outline how GTM routines
can help MNEs to exploit the firm’s capabilities and maximise the contribution of the talent
pool.
Routines
Routines are the means through which MNEs reconfigure intangible assets, such as
human and social capital, to respond creatively to the dynamic and unpredictable business
conditions that characterise the global business environment (Teece et al., 1997). They are
the building blocks of capabilities (Salvato & Rerup, 2011). We define routines as repetitive,
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 8
recognisable patterns of interdependent actions among various actors through which work is
accomplished (Feldman & Pentland, 2003). They help guide organisational activity, create
stability, and boost efficiencies in organisations (Feldman & Pentland, 2003; Gupta &
Govindarajan, 2002; Parmigiani & Howard-Grenville, 2011). Three routines emerge as
central to an MNE’s ability to deliver on its GTM strategy: identification of pivotal positions,
the development of global talent pools, and the development of a differentiated HR
architecture.
To manage global talent, a first step is to identify positions that are quality or quantity
pivotal, at least in the near term, because the competitive environments that MNEs face are
dynamic and changing constantly; positions that are pivotal today might change in response
to changes in the business model. For example, neither Intel nor Microsoft gained a foothold
in the mobile market, which was transformed after Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007.
Positions that were pivotal in the age of desktop personal computers are no longer so in the
age of tablets and smartphones. Only when these pivotal positions are identified can an MNE
begin to identify high-potential individuals who might fill those positions (development of a
global talent pool) and develop a differentiated HR architecture to ensure that the individuals
have the KSAOs required to perform in critical positions and to maximise their motivation
and commitment to the firm. The relationship among the three routines is therefore dynamic
and sequentially interdependent. As explained below, the three routines depend heavily on
the competitive strategy adopted by an MNE. This perspective is wholly consistent with our
treatment of dynamic capabilities because it reflects the process through which the MNE
creates and adapts its resource base in response to environmental changes, such as those
associated with the mobile-phone market (Eisenhart & Martin, 2000; Teece, 2007).
Routine 1: Pivotal positions. Pivotal position are defined by their centrality to
organisational strategy combined with the extent to which a change in the quality or quantity
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 9
of people in them generates gains in strategically important outcomes (Becker & Huselid,
2006; Boudreau & Ramstad, 2007; Cascio & Boudreau, 2016; Collings & Mellahi, 2009).
Cascio and Boudreau (2016) argue that these positions provide a focus for GTM that
recognises not only the present pivotal positions but also those likely to be so in the future,
thereby reflecting the dynamic element of pivotal positions. Developing organisational
routines for the identification of pivotal positions is premised on differentiation within
organisations, with greater focus on strategic than non-strategic positions (Becker & Huselid,
2006) or on positions that can provide above-average impact than on those that promise only
marginal impact (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2007). Organisations should invest resources
disproportionately in those positions that offer the greatest potential for return (Huselid &
Becker, 2011). The routine of identifying pivotal positions ensures that human and social
capital resources are configured appropriately and that organisations can respond creatively
to the dynamic, unpredictable business conditions that characterise the global business
environment (Teece et al., 1997). As we outline below, an MNE’s strategy will significantly
affect the dispersion of critical positions across the organisation and of the nationalities of
people deployed in those positions. Furthermore, pivotal positions are not static; they require
periodic reevaluation to ensure that they reflect strategic priorities at a particular time.
Routine 2: Global talent pools. A second routine is the identification of global talent
pools. These pools comprise high-performing and high-potential incumbents, and the global
diversity of this pool should reflect the MNE’s strategic orientation. In line with more recent
contributions to human-capital theory, this routine mirrors a shifting emphasis on “flow” or
“process” notions of human capital, as opposed to the more traditional “static” or “stock”
perspective of human capital (Buron-Jones & Spender, 2011). Such a perspective is
necessary in the context of the MNE, in which the environment is constantly in flux and static
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 10
conceptualisations of human-capital requirements are redundant (Cascio & Aguinis, 2008;
Cascio, Boudreau, & Church, 2017; Lepak et al., 2011).
The management of risk in talent systems has emerged as a key theme in this debate
(Cappelli, 2008; Cascio & Boudreau, 2012; 2014). In particular, GTM risks directly reflect
risk driven by uncertainty regarding business demands. Cappelli (2008) argues that managing
the internal talent pipeline, or talent pool, is analogous to moving products through a supply
chain. This management also helps to forge the career paths of the organisation’s global
talent (Collings, 2014). Development in global talent pools focuses on development within
the broader context of the organisation rather than on the requirements of a particular role
(Collings & Mellahi, 2009). Rather than developing talent in narrow, specialised ways, this
perspective facilitates broader talent development and the emergence of competencies that
may be useful across a range of roles (Cappelli, 2008). Such talent pools facilitate
development consistent with the organisation’s values. In the global context, this perspective
can also help to develop capabilities required to operate effectively (Chung, Park, Lee, &
Kim, 2015; Levy, Beechler, Taylor, & Boyacigiller, 2007). For example, in MNEs that adopt
a transnational strategy, developing a globally diverse talent pool comprising individuals with
knowledge and experience of both the MNE (parent-firm human capital) and the local
context (local-specific human capital) (Chung et al., 2015) is a key objective. Corporate
coordination of these talent pools is important. In contrast, MNEs that pursue a multidomestic strategy have less need for corporate integration and focus on developing multiple
talent pools with high levels of local-specific human capital (we discuss this in more detail
below). Hence, developing global talent pools is central to meeting the MNE’s requirements
to integrate, build, and reconfigure both internal (talent within the firm) and external (talent
not yet employed by the MNE) resources in response to dynamic global business and
environmental contexts (Linden & Teece, 2014). This routine also facilitates a more flexible
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 11
approach to workforce readiness, for which the requirements of a position may shift over
time.
Routine 3: Differentiated HR architecture. The final routine we consider is the
development of a differentiated HR architecture. A well-established literature on highperformance work systems (HPWS), consistent with the RBV, broadly supports the
relationship between HR practices and various organisational-level outcomes (Arthur, 1994;
Huselid, 1995; Jiang, Lepak, Hu, & Baer, 2012; Delery & Doty, 1996). Such HPWSs
generally incorporate some or all of the following: flexible job assignments, rigorous and
selective staffing, extensive training and development, developmental and merit-based
appraisal, competitive compensation, and extensive benefits (Takeuchi, Lepak, Wang, &
Takeuchi, 2007). A key theme in this literature is the role of superior organisational processes
in delivering sustainable competitive advantage (Boxall, 1998). While high levels of human
capital are necessary for superior performance, they are not sufficient to deliver sustainable
competitive advantage. To do so, human capital must be appropriately leveraged (Wright &
McMahon, 2011). Competitive advantage is achieved through the interaction of the talent
pool and appropriate HR practices (Wright et al., 1994). The bundling of human capital with
other organisational resources, such as lab space for research scientists, is also central to the
development of dynamic capabilities (Nyberg et al., 2014). Thus, management of the talent
pool must be part of the firm’s broader deployment of its resources as it exercises dynamic
capabilities in service of its strategy (Linden & Teece, 2014).
More recently, this literature has also recognised the potential of differentiation,
premised on the notion that better management of the core workforce will likely have the
greatest impact on value creation and sustainable competitive advantage (Delery & Shaw,
2001; Lepak & Snell, 1999; Schmidtt, Pohler, & Willness, 2017). This perspective is
consistent with the logic underpinning the routine of differentiating the HR architecture. It
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 12
emphasises the disproportionate investment of resources in positions offering the greatest
potential for return (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2007; Huselid & Becker, 2011), and building the
sustainable performance of employees who occupy them. The development of an efficient
HR architecture may contribute to organisational performance by increasing the talent pool’s
KSAOs, the performance alignment of employees in critical positions, and their work
motivation and organisational commitment (Collings & Mellahi, 2009).
In the global context, we recognise the importance of both parent-firm human capital
(relevant expertise and experience in managing integrated operations across an MNE’s
network) and local-specific human capital (essential knowledge and skills to successfully
respond to the idiosyncratic, local subsidiary context) (Chung et al., 2015). A key objective
of the differentiated HR architecture is to develop appropriate levels of each type of human
capital consistent with the MNE’s strategy (we expand this discussion below). As an
organisational routine, a differentiated HR architecture offers a means of configuring human
capital to respond creatively to the dynamic, unpredictable business conditions that are
central to MNE performance (Teece et al., 1997).
Interdependence of the routines. As noted, we perceive the three GTM routines as
sequentially interdependent, because the operationalisation of each routine depends on the
previous one (Thompson, 1967; Turner, 2014). This means that each routine is situated
within a broader ecology of routines that generates coherence and complementarity among
them (Birnholtz, Cohen, & Hoch, 2007; Galunic & Weeks, 2002). This complementarity is
both conceptual and technical (Baron & Kreps, 1999), strengthening the power of the
interdependence among the routines (Galunic & Weeks, 2002). In conceptual terms, the
routines of pivotal positions, global talent pools, and differentiated HR architecture are
grounded in the idea of workforce differentiation (Becker & Huselid, 2011).
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 13
Technical complementarity focuses on the extent to which the outputs from one
routine are useful inputs to another (Baron & Kreps, 1999; Galunic & Weeks, 2002). Thus,
the identification of pivotal positions clearly informs the requirements of the global talent
pool; both, in turn, inform the requirements of the differentiated HR architecture. There is
also the potential for a dynamic element of technical complementarity, whereby, in what has
been termed “a developmental mode,” the data being transferred lead to the development of
the subsequent routine. For example, if new pivotal positions were to emerge in response to
an environmental factor, such as in a firm like Nokia, in response to the emergence of
smartphone technology, this would prompt a recasting of the requirements of the global talent
pool and elements of the differentiated HR architecture. Such recasting also recognises the
importance of context and of aligning the composition of the MNE’s collective humancapital portfolio with changes in the external environment (Ployhart et al., 2014). Overall, the
assembly and appropriate sequencing of the three routines create a higher level of dynamic
capability in GTM.
GTM, MNE STRATEGY, AND PERFORMANCE
The HRM and GTM literatures debate whether the link between GTM and MNE
performance is universal or contingent. Drawing on the wider talent-management literature,
the universal TM best-practice perspective implies a single set of TM practices that
organisations can adopt to improve performance (Pfeffer, 1994). In contrast, the contingency
view posits that the effectiveness of GTM depends on the MNE’s strategy to gain a
competitive advantage. We adopt the latter perspective, consistent with our top-down
approach to theorising, and argue that the MNE’s strategy influences the link between GTM
and MNE performance. Specifically, we argue that higher performance is contingent on the
fit between an MNE’s strategy and its GTM system, because the management of talent, more
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 14
than other employees, must be tightly linked to strategy development and execution (Linden
& Teece, 2014).
The central tenet of the contingency perspective is that no universal approach to GTM
exists; rather, the appropriateness of GTM systems depends on the overall degree of
congruence with the MNE’s competitive strategy. Fit refers to the extent to which GTM
systems support and are compatible with the MNE’s strategy. Fit between GTM systems and
the MNE’s competitive strategy is important because the latter determines how resources are
allocated throughout the MNE and has important implications for the discretionary power of
subsidiaries to allocate resources and make important GTM decisions (Bartlett & Ghoshal,
1989). Having appropriate talent deployed in subsidiaries is also central to ensuring that
subsidiary actors make effective decisions regarding product and market segments (Linden &
Teece, 2014). The deployment process reflects the importance of GTM routines for
exploiting the MNE’s dynamic capabilities at the subsidiary level.
We adopt Bartlett and Ghoshal’s (1989) typology of MNE strategies. Several
empirical studies support the typology (Harzing, 2000; Leong & Tan, 1993), which is used
widely to understand the association between MNEs’ competitive strategies and HRM
practices (Schuler, Dowling, & De Cieri, 1993) and performance outcomes. The typology is
built around two dimensions: autonomy to adapt to local needs versus the need for global
coordination. The strategy that an MNE pursues depends on a range of factors. Following
previous studies, we focus on three strategies: global, multi-domestic, and transnational. We
exclude the international strategy, which received neither significant empirical nor conceptual
support (Harzing, 2000), and the regional strategy, which has similar theoretical logic and
implications as those of the multi-domestic strategy. The level of analysis in the multidomestic strategy simply shifts from the country to the regional level.
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 15
MNEs pursuing a global strategy coordinate their activities from HQ and seek to
enhance worldwide performance through the sharing and pooling of resources and the
integration of activities across affiliates (Zou & Cavusgil, 1996). This results in greater
interdependence between HQ and its subsidiaries. Subsidiaries are less likely to be given
much autonomy in MNEs that follow a global strategy. Thus, fit is high when MNEs
pursuing a global strategy use GTM routines that are highly centralised from HQ, allowing
relatively little scope for adaptation to the local context. For example, pivotal positions will
largely be concentrated in HQ. When pivotal positions are located in subsidiary units, they
are more likely to be filled by parent-country nationals (PCNs) (Andersson, Björkman, &
Forsgren, 2005; Scullion & Starkey, 2000), owing to the perceived superiority of HQ talent
and the desire to maintain tight control over subsidiary operations (Taylor et al., 1996). Given
this orientation, PCNs will dominate global talent pools, with limited opportunities for
subsidiary talent, particularly those located in peripheral affiliates, to be nominated to the
global talent pool (Scullion & Starkey, 2000; Mellahi & Collings, 2010). These pools will be
coordinated at the HQ level, with emphasis on deploying PCNs to pivotal positions globally
(Farndale et al., 2010). Similarly, the HR architecture is likely to be centrally designed, with
limited opportunity for local adaptation (Taylor et al., 1996).
A multi-domestic strategy, in contrast, is “one in which a MNE manages its overseas
affiliates as independent businesses, where the activities of one overseas affiliate do not
affect the activities of another affiliate” (Taylor et al., 1996: 967). MNEs structured on a
multi-domestic basis pursue a local market-oriented strategy, with emphasis on performance
in the host country, high responsiveness to local situational contingencies, and limited
dependence on the MNE network. Subsidiaries of MNEs that pursue a multi-domestic
strategy depend more on local business environments for their resources than do MNEs that
follow a global strategy; therefore, these subsidiaries are relatively independent of other
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 16
subsidiaries and HQ, as they enjoy a higher level of autonomy (Roth, 1992). As a result,
subsidiaries in MNEs pursuing a multi-domestic strategy generally compete internally to
acquire resources to augment their human capital, and seek to avoid unnecessary intervention
from HQ.
Fit between GTM routines and MNE strategy in MNEs that follow a multi-domestic
strategy is reflected in a highly diverse set of pivotal positions that vary among subsidiaries,
depending on each subsidiary’s role and local context. Subsidiary leadership teams will
determine the pivotal positions appropriate to their units, with little interference from HQ.
Multiple talent pools will also likely be organised at the national level. Such talent pools will
focus on identifying high-performing and high-potential talent within the unit or country,
with limited reference to global talent systems or processes. In brief, the emphasis will be on
maximising the capacity to perform in the local context. Finally, the HR architecture will
focus on differentiating HR offerings for high-performing employees, based on local
institutional and market norms.
A third, transnational strategy combines characteristics of the global strategy with
those of the multi-domestic strategy. It comprises an integrated, interdependent network of
different units, in which HQ plays a less dominant role (Harzing, 2000). It is considered the
optimal configuration for simultaneously achieving global integration and local
responsiveness. Transnational MNEs have higher flows of human resources between
individual subsidiaries and HQ than do MNEs that follow a multi-domestic strategy. Under
this strategy, pivotal positions should be dispersed widely across the MNE’s network and
corporate HR should manage them on a coordinated basis (Farndale et al., 2010; Scullion &
Starkey, 2000). Likewise, global talent pools operate with higher levels of cultural diversity.
This approach recognises the potential value of talent regardless of location and the benefits
of integrating subsidiary and HQ competence in the MNE. These talent pools are more likely
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 17
to be coordinated and managed on an integrated basis at the HQ level (Scullion & Starkey,
2000). The HR architecture displays elements of global integration and local responsiveness,
and subsidiary HR has the autonomy to adapt global policies for the local market and cultural
norms while ensuring that all systems align with global HR strategies (Taylor et al., 1996).
We propose the following proposition on the basis of the above discussion:
Proposition 1: MNE strategies influence the effectiveness of GTM routines; when GTM
routines fit MNE strategy, MNE performance will be higher, such that
Proposition 1a. In MNEs pursuing global strategies, GTM routines will lead to
higher performance when they are highly centralised from HQ.
Proposition 1b. In MNEs pursuing multi-domestic strategies, GTM routines will
lead to higher performance when they are decentralised to foreign affiliates.
Proposition 1c. In MNEs pursuing transnational strategies, a hybrid approach
combining centralisation and decentralisation of GTM routines will lead to
higher performance than will either pure centralisation or full decentralisation.
THE SUBSIDIARY LEVEL OF MNEs: THE MODERATING ROLE OF
ALIGNMENT
While MNEs develop their overall GTM systems at the HQ level, they are
implemented at the subsidiary level. We argue that GTM systems that align closely with an
MNE’s strategy and with the local context lead to better subsidiary performance and
enhanced MNE effectiveness. Organisational alignment is considered a higher order of
dynamic capability (Powell, 1992) that acts as a “linking pin” (Linkert, 1961), connecting
and synchronizing HQ’s intentions and subsidiaries’ GTM implementation. Research has
shown that such alignment positively associates with MNE and subsidiary performance (Luo
& Park, 2001; Cui, Griffith, & Cavusgil, 2005). Alignment requires the subsidiary to
understand the different facets of the GTM routines, to possess the necessary motivation to
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 18
internalise them, and to be able to implement them effectively as HQ intends (Ferner,
Almond, & Colling, 2005).
The degree of similarity between HQ’s subsidiary-specific intentions for a transferred
GTM routine and a subsidiary’s implementation of that routine reflects alignment (Ahlvik et
al., 2016; Lazarova et al., 2016). An important determinant of alignment is the subsidiary’s
position within the MNE’s network of affiliates (Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1990; Bouquet &
Birkinshaw, 2008), such that subsidiaries occupying central positions within the MNE’s
network are more likely to align their GTM practices with HQ intentions. While scholars
have defined centrality in various ways (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003), we define it in terms
of interdependence (Mariolis & Jones, 1982) that increases subsidiary and HQ reliance on
each other for the fulfilment of their tasks.
We focus on subsidiary centrality as the determinant of alignment between HQ
intention and subsidiary implementation of GTM practices, for several reasons. First,
centrality has been regarded as a major predictor of subsidiary behaviour and capability
(Forsgren et al. 2005; Ghoshal & Nohria, 1989; Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1990) and is a
prerequisite for a subsidiary’s power and influence over MNEs’ decisions (Bouquet &
Birkinshaw, 2008:485). Ghoshal and Barlett (1990: 616) argue that subsidiaries’ role, power,
and performance arise “from their centrality within the network.” Centrality has also been
shown to enhance a subsidiary’s ability to assimilate new knowledge and to improve
interpretation of HQ directives and implementation of management practices (Najafi-Tavani,
Giroud, & Andersson, 2014). Overall, this body of research suggests that high centrality
deepens a subsidiary’s knowledge base and strengthens its capacity to implement HQ policies
effectively (Bouquet & Birkinshaw, 2008; Andersson, Forsgren, & Holm, 2001).
Second, drawing on resource-dependence theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), we
expect that when interdependence is high, HQs will pay special attention to a subsidiary’s
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 19
behaviour and performance, will provide the subsidiary with more resources, and have a
greater desire to manage interdependence between the subsidiary and the MNE’s network
(Newburry, 2001). This interdependence occurs through intensive interaction and knowledge
sharing between central subsidiaries and the HQ (Andersson et al., 2002), which will improve
alignment and implementation of GTM routines. In addition, in line with social-networktheory predictions (Nelson, 1989), mutual interdependence leads to more communication
between central subsidiaries and HQ and, as a result, greater alignment between the two
entities. Communication between central subsidiaries and HQ grants the former more voice
and influence (Ghoshal & Nohria, 1990; Bouquet & Birkinshaw, 2008). This is important, as
alignment is not solely about the implementation, integration, and internalisation of HQ GTM
policies; it is also about subsidiary actors having the opportunity to influence the design of
GTM routines to begin with (Ahlvik et al., 2016). Hewett, Roth, and Roth (2003) reported
that the subsidiary-headquarters relationship often reflects the extent to which a subsidiary
participates in setting goals for MNE practices. For example, subsidiaries that contribute to
the design and development of the differentiated HR architecture are more likely to view
those practices as reflecting their own views and priorities and, therefore, are more likely to
align their practices with HQ intentions.
Third, alignment requires that subsidiary managers share an accurate understanding of
HQ goals and objectives and that HQ managers understand a subsidiary’s needs and unique
context (Kathuria, Joshi, & Porth, 2007). Through continuous communication and
interactions with HQ, central subsidiaries have the opportunity to influence HQ managers’
understanding of subsidiaries’ needs and capabilities. This feedback loop is central to the
effective alignment and transfer of GTM routines (Ahlvik et al., 2016). Higher levels of
alignment between HQ and subsidiaries in GTM will lead to more careful consideration of
the local context in the design of a differentiated HR architecture. Moreover, as a result of
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 20
intensive flows of top-down (from HQ to subsidiaries) and horizontal (from other
subsidiaries) information about GTM routines, central subsidiaries can understand different
aspects of GTM routines and appreciate how the routines are intended to influence MNE
performance. Hence, central subsidiaries are more likely to understand, endorse, and commit
to implementing GTM routines than are peripheral subsidiaries. Furthermore, accurate
understanding of GTM system elements and how the three routines are connected increases
the likelihood that central subsidiaries implement the routines in a complementary way as
intended, rather than as separate, independent practices. This will preserve the coherence and
complementarity of the routines’ ecology (Galunie & Weeks, 2002). We argue that this
holistic approach to the implementation of GTM routines will enhance the subsidiary’s
performance.
Finally, central subsidiaries have enhanced capabilities to implement GTM routines
because they receive more resources than peripheral subsidiaries do. As a result, they are able
to reconfigure their GTM practices according to HQ intentions. Moreover, given that HQ
intentions evolve over time, continuous knowledge flow through interaction enables central
subsidiaries to develop a dynamic ability (Alagaraja & Shuck, 2005) to adapt and
continuously align and realign their GTM practices with HQ intentions.
By virtue of their central position, interconnected subsidiaries interact more
intensively with HQ and other subsidiaries than their peripheral counterparts do. Subsidiaries
that interact more with HQ are more likely to synchronize their practices with the MNE’s
overall competitive strategy, to have more resources at their disposal, and to contribute to and
draw expertise from the MNE’s global talent pool, compared to subsidiaries that do not
regularly interact with HQ. For example, because they are on HQ’s “radar system” (Mellahi
& Collings, 2010), central subsidiaries are more likely to have higher numbers of parentcountry national (PCN) expatriate employees and of local employees transferred as
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 21
expatriates to HQ and other subsidiaries. This situation grants opportunities to central
subsidiaries’ talent to observe and understand HQ priorities (Collings et al., 2010; Smale et
al., 2015). Such rich interactions facilitate knowledge sharing between individuals (Tsai &
Ghoshal, 1998) and make it easier for subsidiary actors to learn about and obtain help in
integrating GTM routines in the subsidiary (Ahivik & Bjorkman, 2015).
An additional important outcome of interaction is subsidiaries’ internalisation of
GTM routines. As Kostova (1999) indicates, internalisation refers to how the subsidiary
attaches meaning to GTM routines and infuses them with value. Bjorkman and Lervik (2007)
distinguish implementation (replication), integration (linking with other relevant practices at
the subsidiary), and internalisation (subsidiary stakeholders’ commitment to and value placed
on transferred practices). Managers internalise practices when they perceive them to be
legitimate. GTM routines become legitimate when subsidiary managers perceive them to be
“desirable, proper, and appropriate” (Suchman, 1995: 574). Rich interaction with HQ creates
a context in which subsidiaries’ managers form a common interpretation of GTM routines
with those of HQ and appreciate their importance. This will induce commitment to GTM
routines and elicit appropriate behaviour and attitudes required for their effective
implementation. Without the intensive interaction, subsidiaries may not fully understand the
MNE’s GTM system and HQ intentions. Instead, subsidiaries tend to interpret GTM routines
idiosyncratically, possibly leading to ineffective implementation of the routines.
For example, we know that in culturally or institutionally distant locations, local
managers could leverage the idiosyncrasies of the local context to dismiss or modify the
routines, based on the argument that they are inappropriate and would be ineffective in that
context (Lazarova et al., 2016). Thus, elements of the HR architecture, such as the
performance management system, may be implemented in ways that are inconsistent with the
system’s intentions. This may manifest in subsidiary managers failing to nominate their most
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 22
talented employees to the global talent pool (Cappelli, 2008), to minimise the risk of losing
top talent. Furthermore, research has shown that when subsidiaries deviate from HQ
intentions in order to adapt GTM routines to the local context, fragmentation may diminish
the subsidiary’s ability to leverage its core competitive advantage (Lazarova et al., 2016).
Szulanski and Jensen (2006) attribute this to a process of “presumptive adaptation,” whereby
practices are adapted to the local market in the absence of a full understanding of the
complex, causal relationship between those practices and performance.
On the basis of the above analysis, we propose that alignment between HQ GTM
intentions and subsidiary implementation directly moderates the relationship between GTM
routines and subsidiary performance. We therefore propose the following proposition:
Proposition 2: Alignment of GTM routines at the subsidiary level with HQ
intentions will moderate the relationship between GTM routines and subsidiary
performance, such that performance is higher in more-aligned subsidiaries than
in less-aligned subsidiaries.
We expect that the proposed performance benefits of alignment are contingent on the
MNE’s strategy. This is because the conditions facilitating or inhibiting the implementation
of GTM routines at subsidiary levels in MNEs pursuing a multi-domestic strategy differ from
those of MNEs pursuing global or transnational strategies. We propose that alignment might
not play a salient role in MNEs pursuing a multi-domestic strategy, because of the
autonomous nature of subsidiaries in MNEs in that context. Subsidiary autonomy leads to
weak interdependencies among subsidiaries in MNEs pursuing multi-domestic strategies,
which will manifest in less interaction between HQ and subsidiaries; this decreased
interaction will make HQ’s ability to develop and diffuse highly standardised GTM routines
more challenging. Therefore, we expect more variation in the transfer and implementation of
GTM routines across subsidiaries in MNEs pursuing multi-domestic strategies (Ahlvik et al.,
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 23
2016; Lazarova, Peretz, & Fried, 2016). As discussed above, variation may compromise the
effectiveness of GTM routines at the subsidiary level as a result of “presumptive adaptation”
(Lazarova et al., 2016; Szulanski & Jensen 2006).
An additional challenge in MNEs pursuing a multi-domestic strategy is the so-called
agency issue, whereby the goals of the subsidiary and the HQ may not align (Kostova, Nell,
& Hoenen, 2016; Mellahi & Collings, 2010). In such a business strategy, subsidiaries often
engage in internal competition and generally are rewarded (or punished) for their own
performance (Mellahi & Collings, 2010; Makela et al., 2010). As noted, research has
indicated a disincentive for subsidiary managers to nominate their most talented employees
or, on occasion, an incentive to nominate less-capable ones (Cappelli, 2008) to the global
talent pool, to minimise the risk of losing top talent. In short, sharing top talent may not be
perceived to be in the best interests of subsidiary leaders, particularly in MNEs pursuing
multi-domestic strategies (O’Donnell, 2000).
From an RBV perspective, the desire to internalise ownership-specific advantages
drives the transfer of GTM routines, by replicating foreign subsidiaries’ employment
practices that HQ perceives to be advantageous (Taylor 2006). However, while higher levels
of implementation of GTM routines can reflect high levels of corporate integration, there is
no guarantee that recipients will internalise those routines (Bjorkman & Lervik, 2007;
Kostova et al., 2016). Ahlvik and Bjorkman (2015) confirmed empirically that formal control
strongly correlates with implementation and integration but weakly correlates with
internalisation. Thus, we propose the following proposition:
Proposition 3: Alignment between GTM routines and subsidiary performance
will be weaker in MNEs pursuing multi-domestic strategies than in MNEs
pursuing global or transnational strategies.
GTM ROUTINES AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 24
We are interested in how GTM routines help individual employees to deliver
performance outcomes linked to the MNE’s strategic intent. Proponents of talent
management have advocated loading the organisation with star performers to generate
superior performance. Based on a micro-perspective, this literature rests on the notion that
since individual KSAOs relate positively to performance regardless of context, a more-isbetter approach is most appropriate (c.f. Ployhart & Moliterno, 2011). However, context does
matter (Johns, 2006, 2017), and recent research indicates the potentially destructive effect of
too many stars in organisations (Groysberg, Polzer, & Elfenbein, 2011). Moreover,
individual-level human capital is not necessarily isomorphic with firm-level human capital
(Ployhart & Molierno, 2011). In other words, while individual human capital may translate
into individual-level performance (Kim et al., 2015), team- or unit-level performance will not
necessarily reflect this (Ployhart & Molierno, 2011). Hence, a more nuanced understanding
of performance recognises the distinction between ability and behaviour in individual stars.
While stars may be a relatively small proportion of a subsidiary’s employees (10–
20%), they are likely to contribute disproportionately to subsidiary performance. Star
employees are defined by their capacity to display disproportionately high, prolonged
performance relative to peers (Aguinis & O’Boyle, 2014; Call et al., 2015; O’Boyle &
Kroska, 2017). Research demonstrates a power distribution in star performance, reflecting the
fact that overall productivity is largely attributable to a small minority of workers who
generate substantial output (O’Boyle & Kroska, 2017). Stars also generate multiplicative
value, as opposed to additive value, in their contributions to higher-level outcomes (O’Boyle
& Kroska, 2017). This is not to discount the role of other employees at the subsidiary level,
such as so-called “B-players” or workhorses, who play key roles by enabling stars and
performing well in less-pivotal roles (Groysberg & Lee, 2008). An MNE’s HR architecture
must be appropriately designed to maximise the contribution of these individuals because
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 25
individual capability and performance may not be fully isomorphic with firm-level outcomes
(Ployhart & Moliterno, 2011).
Human capital, “the knowledge, information, ideas, skills, and health of individuals”
(Becker, 1993: 3) relevant for achieving economic outcomes (Ployhart et al., 2014), is a
central construct in the consideration of individual performance. Human capital is, in turn,
disaggregated into general (deployable across a broad range of organisations) and firmspecific (limited application to the organisational context in which it is accrued) (Becker,
1964; Nyberg & Wright, 2015). However, given the complex environment in which global
work unfolds (Allen et al., 2015; Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989; Kostova, Neil, & Hoenen, 2016),
employees’ cognitive abilities to operate in culturally, linguistically, spatially, and temporally
distant environments calls for a more nuanced understanding of firms’ specificity of human
capital. Chung and colleagues’ (2015) distinction between parent-firm human capital and
local-specific human capital, introduced above, is also an important consideration. These
authors demonstrated empirically the positive effect of the alignment of subsidiary strategy
and human capital on subsidiary performance.
From Individual Human Capital to Subsidiary Performance
We draw on recent literature on human-capital resources to show how individual
performance can contribute to subsidiary performance. While human capital encompasses an
individual’s KSAOs that are relevant for achieving economic outcomes, human-capital
resources emphasise the capacity to produce output rather than the KSAOs themselves
(Ployhart et al., 2014). In other words, how can individuals or teams use their human capital
to solve problems that customers think are important? Key to this distinction is that humancapital resources must be accessible for unit-relevant purposes (Nyberg et al., 2014). This
implies that individual human capital can be transferred and amplified into a valuable unit
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 26
level resource––a human-capital resource (Ployhart & Moliterno, 2011)––when GTM
routines are deployed in a manner that fits the MNE’s strategy.
The concept of emergence is the central mechanism for explaining how individual
human capital can translate into unit-level outcomes. An emergent phenomenon originates
“in the cognition, affect, behaviors, or other characteristics of individuals, is amplified by
their interactions, and manifests as a higher-level, collective phenomenon” (Kozlowski &
Klein, 2000: 55). Emergence can manifest in different ways: from composition, in which the
higher-level phenomena are created through the homogeneity of lower-level phenomena, to
complication, in which the higher-level phenomena are created through the heterogeneity of
lower-level phenomena (Ployhart & Moliterno, 2011). A key theoretical benefit of this
construct is its emphasis on context.
For example, while the literature suggests that stars can represent human-capital
resources at the individual level owing to their disproportionate importance to unit-level
outcomes (see Nyberg et al., 2014: 377), a rich literature reinforces the importance of context
in star performance. For example, Huckman and Pisano (2006) demonstrated that cardiac
surgeons’ performance varied across the different hospitals where they performed surgeries.
The authors demonstrated that surgeries in hospitals where the surgeon performed a higher
volume of procedures had better patient outcomes. A broad literature also confirms the
challenges that star employees face in maintaining high performance when they move to new
organisations (see Dokko & Jiang, 2017 for a summary). This work indicates the importance
of complementary assets, such as equipment, facilities, and other team members that enable
performance, even for highly skilled or star performers (Campbell, Ganco, Franco, &
Agarwal, 2012; Dokko & Jiang, 2017). These findings confirm that individual human capital
is simply the capacity for action, a reserve or supply that must be directed towards action
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 27
through emergence (Ployhart et al., 2014). Thus, complementary assets represent an
important contextual element of human-capital emergence, even for star employees.
Studies from the micro literature generally view such combinations of complementary
assets in the context of emergence. Emergence explains aggregation, “a process that occurs
over time, is shaped simultaneously by contextual and individual factors, and ultimately
occurs through interaction and interdependence” (Ployhart et al., 2014: 383). Hence, humancapital emergence is the process of “assembling” valuable unit-level resources, by responding
to the dynamic environment in which the MNE finds itself and assembling constellations of
assets inside the firm to service customer needs (Helfat et al., 2007; Ployhart & Moliterno,
2011). Individual human capital is the foundation of this assembling process.
The firm’s task environment is central to enabling and amplifying human-capital
emergence (Ployhart & Moliterno, 2011). With complexity comes a decreased likelihood that
individual human capital will be isomorphic with the human-capital resource (Ployhart &
Cragun, 2017). More-complex task environments, such as those that characterise
multinational contexts, require increased coordination and integration. This makes the task of
enabling and amplifying human-capital emergence in the MNE particularly challenging.
GTM routines are emergence-enabling processes for transferring individual human-capital
resources into subsidiary performance. This notion is consistent with the subsidiaryalignment construct introduced above and is central to the MNE’s strategic orientation.
For example, under a global strategy, parent-firm human capital is likely to be key for
achieving the MNE’s strategic objectives (Scullion & Collings, 2006). Hence, GTM routines
should be biased towards deploying employees with high levels of parent-firm human capital
at the subsidiary unit. PCN expatriates dominating the talent pool and occupying pivotal
positions are likely to reflect this process. For these positions, the differentiated HR
architecture should emphasise the selection of individuals with high levels of cognitive and
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 28
behavioural abilities to operate in culturally, linguistically, spatially, and temporally distant
environments (Allen et al., 2015; Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989; Kostova et al., 2016). To build
their parent-firm human capital, these individuals should be highly socialised at HQ. They
may perceive this socialisation, along with their selection to the global talent pool, as a signal
of the MNE’s commitment to them and its investment in their development. In return, they
are likely to be highly motivated. Insights from social-exchange theory show that when
organisations invest in employees, they are likely to reciprocate with positive contributions to
their organisations (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Gelens et al., 2015).
The downside of a global approach is that local employees in pivotal positions in
subsidiary operations are likely to perceive injustice and a lack of career opportunities and,
hence, to display lower levels of commitment and motivation (Scullion & Collings, 2006).
They are also less likely to display high levels of parent-firm human capital, owing to a lack
of exposure to HQ and lack of involvement in global development programmes. Given that
these employees may perceive less opportunity to develop in these structures, they may view
their career opportunities as limited to the host country (Scullion & Collings, 2006; Tan &
Mahoney, 2006). Hence, they are more likely to identify with the subsidiary than with HQ.
This, combined with lower levels of parent-firm human capital, will likely translate into
agency issues and lower levels of human-capital emergence (Reade, 2001; Reiche, 2007).
These individuals may also end up leaving the MNE as they leverage their prior experience to
work in other MNEs in the host country.
In multi-domestic orientations, the localised approach to identification and
management of pivotal positions strongly affects the composition of an MNE’s talent pool.
The HQ level is more likely to focus on a national than on a global talent pool. Historically,
however, a key constraint of this approach is that decentralised management structures and
control systems are incongruent with resource sharing across the organisation. In a multi
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 29
domestic strategy, subsidiaries are generally judged and rewarded for subsidiary-level
performance, often with little attention to the MNE’s overall performance. This focus results
from the relatively high levels of local-specific human capital displayed by subsidiary
employees. This process makes the incentives that motivate employees of a highly central
subsidiary pursuing a multi-domestic strategy different from those of a subsidiary following a
global or transnational strategy.
While HQ generally seeks to leverage critical resources to generate a global
competitive advantage, subsidiary-level managers in multi-domestic strategies have little
incentive to do so. Hence, opportunities for subsidiary talent may be perceived to be limited,
owing to lack of visibility or support from local managers (Makela et al., 2010; Mellahi &
Collings, 2010). This perception has the potential to limit the performance of these
employees. However, the routine of a global talent pool, combined with a differentiated HR
architecture, is associated with building parent-firm human capital. Global development and
networking programmes, mentoring programmes, and so forth are likely to increase this
talent pool’s parent-firm human capital and identification with HQ. Key mechanisms
underpinning this development include acculturation through contact with other members of
the global talent pool and through global development programmes, both of which create
opportunities for cross-unit social interaction (Smale et al., 2015). In such contexts, effective
deployment of GTM routines is likely to increase human-capital emergence.
Finally, a transnational strategy by definition requires talent with high levels both of
parent-firm and local-firm human capital. Given the diversity of global talent pools,
individuals at subsidiary levels should perceive auspicious opportunities for career
development within the MNE. Because these subsidiaries are likely to have more PCN
expatriate employees and greater representation of subsidiary talent in the global talent pool,
subsidiary employees will have more frequent and deeper opportunities to develop parent
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 30
firm human capital (Collings et al., 2010; Smale et al., 2015). Similarly, the exposure of PCN
employees to the local context should facilitate richer interactions, greater knowledge sharing
(Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998), and, hence, greater levels of local-firm human capital in PCN
employees. This outcome, in turn, will yield opportunities for high levels of human-capital
emergence. This logic suggests the following propositions.
Proposition 4: The amplification of individual human capital to unit-level human
capital (measured in subsidiary performance) will be higher when global talent
routines fit an MNE’s strategic orientation, such that
Proposition 4a. In MNEs pursuing global strategies, the amplification of
individual human capital to unit-level human capital (measured in subsidiary
performance) will be higher when GTM routines develop higher levels of parentfirm human capital at subsidiary levels.
Proposition 4b. In MNEs pursuing multi-domestic or transnational
strategies, the amplification of individual human capital to unit-level human
capital (measured in subsidiary performance) will be higher when GTM routines
develop higher levels of both local-firm human capital and parent-firm human
capital at subsidiary levels.
DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA
Scholars widely acknowledge the critical importance of identifying, attracting,
developing, managing, and retaining talent able to handle the global complexity that
characterises the environment in which MNEs operate (Allen et al., 2015). Global talent
management has been identified as a potential source of competitive advantage for
effectively engaging this complexity. However, research has not adequately examined the
performance impact of GTM. As a result, our understanding of the link between GTM
implementation and organisational performance is still rudimentary; as yet we do not
understand the potential value of GTM. This article builds on recent research on GTM,
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 31
IHRM, and multinational strategy, to develop a theoretical framework that describes the link
between talent management in MNEs and performance at the HQ, subsidiary, and individual
levels. Empirical verification of the GTM-performance link is a key step for strengthening
the legitimacy of GTM as an area of research and practice.
The proposed framework provides an important first step. We make several important
contributions to the literature on IHRM in general and GTM in particular. First, the
framework introduces three routines central to GTM: pivotal positions, global talent pools,
and a differentiated HR architecture. From a resource-based perspective, these routines are a
central means of guiding organisational activity that creates stability and boosts efficiencies
across the MNE. These routines further emphasise the importance of collective interactions,
interconnections, and path dependence in delivering sustainable performance in the MNE
(Bowan & Hird, 2014). Such an approach also broadens the agenda beyond senior
organisational leaders (who are often considered central to the MNE’s global talent
programme) and highlights the importance of pivotal positions that disproportionately
contribute to organisational performance. Overall, these routines offer a means to address the
potential failure to translate individual-level human capital into firm-level performance
(Ployhart & Moliterno, 2011).
Our approach focuses on the routines as concepts, which is called the ostensive aspect
of routines (Feldman, 2000). In contrast, the performance aspect of routines focuses on
routines in practice (Feldman, 2000). While the former dimension designates the general and
abstract pattern of routines, the latter refers to “specific actions, by specific people, in specific
places and times” that operationalise them (Feldman & Pentland, 2003: 101). The
performance focus on routines highlights questions of agency (Baum & Singh, 1994;
Pentland, 1995).
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 32
These perspectives recognise that organisational routines are both effortful and
emergent and that individuals engaged in routines adapt their actions as their understandings
of what they can do and the consequences of their actions manifest (Feldman, 2000: 613).
Hence, organisational routines are dynamic, owing to processes of (re)production through
time and space and through the ongoing effort of actors (Feldman, Pentland, D’Adderio, &
Lazarick, 2016). This fact raises a particular challenge in the context of the MNE, in which
capability and agency issues impact the implementation of corporate routines at the
subsidiary level (Bjorkman & Lervik, 2007; Kostova et al., 2016). While we raise these
issues in our discussion of the subsidiary level, a more process-oriented approach is likely to
shed greater light on the performance aspects of routines.
Second, the framework underscores the critical role of context, namely, the MNE’s
strategic orientation. We start from the well-established assumption that it is essential to
consider contextual differences in management practices and performance (Allen et al., 2015;
Bamberger, 2008; Johns, 2006, 2017). We note that an effective operationalisation of GTM
routines in one MNE may not be as effective in another. Specifically, the effectiveness of the
GTM routines’ implementation is contingent on the MNE’s strategy. We draw on the MNE
strategy literature to explain why the variance in the GTM-performance relationship can
partly be explained by the MNE’s strategic orientation. Specifically, we argue that global and
transnational strategies require significantly different GTM implementation, compared to
multi-domestic strategies.
By introducing an MNE’s strategy as a key contingency variable, we provide a more
nuanced approach to the study of GTM and performance. Future research should consider
MNE strategy as an important determinant of effective operationalisation of GTM policies
and practices and their impact on MNE performance. We expect significant divergence in the
effectiveness of GTM implementation among MNEs pursuing different strategic orientations.
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 33
In particular, strategy shapes GTM routines and influences the extent to which they are
adapted to local contexts. In addition to identifying effective operationalisation of GTM
routines, studies that examine GTM-performance links in MNEs pursuing similar strategies
could help to identify moderating variables and boundary conditions. These might include,
for example, the impact of organisational factors, such as size and international experience;
institutional factors, such as union density; or characteristics of competitive environments.
Additionally, studies that compare the effectiveness of GTM policies and practices, such as
the operationalisation of various routines, across different strategies may help to explain how
MNE strategy mediates the impact of GTM on performance.
One limitation of our framework at the HQ level is the sole focus on an endogenous
variable, specifically, the MNE’s strategy. Future research should consider exogenous
variables such as institutional distance, environmental complexity, and dynamism. Scholars
have long established that MNEs cannot simply adopt HRM practices that fit the firm’s
strategy, but MNEs must also consider local environmental requirements (Lazarova et al.,
2016; Taylor et al., 2006). We assume that strategies are path dependent and hard to change.
As a result, our framework does not consider the dynamic interaction between an MNE and
its competitive environment. This line of enquiry requires longitudinal, qualitative research
that tracks the interplay among GTM implementation, MNE strategy, and changes in
institutional and competitive environments.
Third, having highlighted the importance of MNE strategies for examining the link
between GTM and MNE performance, we identified important subsidiary-level factors that
are crucial for understanding this association. We argue that considerable variations in GTMperformance links exist across subsidiaries within the same MNE. The first factor that causes
this variation is the level of alignment between HQ intentions and subsidiary implementation
of GTM routines. We reasoned that alignment is more likely to be evident, and hence
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 34
important, in MNEs pursuing a global or transnational strategy. We argue that central
subsidiaries are more likely and able than peripheral subsidiaries to align their GTM practices
with HQ intentions. We posit that alignment moderates the relationship between HQ GTM
routines’ implementation and subsidiary performance. Such interaction suggests fertile topics
for future research on GTM within MNEs. Building on the proposed framework, we suggest
that future research on the relationship between GTM and MNE performance should examine
empirically how subsidiary alignment interacts with an MNE’s strategy in the shaping of
GTM routines. In turn, the impact on subsidiary performance, as well as on overall MNE
performance, should also be explored.
The role of alignment raises important questions that warrant empirical consideration.
Future research might examine the different types of alignment in subsidiaries and their
relative and combined impact on the GTM-performance link. For instance, a subsidiary may
be fully aligned with HQ intentions regarding one GTM routine and not other routines. A
challenge that needs to be addressed is the measure of alignment. We argue that alignment is
more likely to occur in central subsidiaries. We propose that the interdependence between the
focal subsidiary, HQ, and other subsidiaries captures subsidiary centrality. This centrality can
also be captured by the degree of centrality, measured by the number of connections the
subsidiary has with other subsidiaries, and the closeness of the subsidiary, measured by the
institutional or geographical distance between the subsidiary, other subsidiaries, and HQ.
Those measures may open up interesting avenues for research on the GTM-performance link.
For instance, closeness to HQ may affect talent visibility, whereas the degree of
connectedness may influence the number of pivotal positions.
We suggest that interaction is a key mechanism through which central subsidiaries
align themselves with HQ’s intentions and understanding. We emphasise the implementation
of GTM routines rather than HQ intentions. We deepen the well-established local-adaptation
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 35
global-standardisation literature of HRM practices at subsidiary levels. That view is built on
HQ intentions to influence practices throughout the MNE and the resistance of subsidiaries.
Our proposed framework emphasises HQ’s intentions and knowledge of subsidiaries and
subsidiaries’ interpretation and internalisation of HQ practices. Whereas the literature focuses
on HQ’s intended practices, we focus here on the factors that determine what is actually
implemented at the subsidiary level. The broader literature on HRM in MNEs has recently
advocated such emphasis (Ahlvik et al., 2016). We posit that the closer the alignment of HQ
intentions and understanding with subsidiaries’ ability, motivation, and opportunity to
internalise HQ practices, the higher a subsidiary’s performance will be. Future research
should therefore distinguish between HQ’s intended strategy when transferring GTM routines
to subsidiaries and actual GTM routines. The depth of alignment between HQ intentions and
a subsidiary’s understanding and internalisation of HQ practices will likely influence
divergence between the two. Case studies that elucidate the process and outcomes of
(mis)alignment, together with the interactions and negotiation processes between HQ and
subsidiaries during the transfer and implementation of GTM routines, are obviously needed.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Our framework has some important implications for GTM practice. First, we strongly
advocate a contingency approach to talent management and caution against the adoption of a
single best means of managing talent on a global basis. Drawing on an extensive body of
research, we emphasise the importance of MNE strategy in the design of any GTM system.
We advocate an approach to GTM that begins by identifying pivotal positions that have the
greatest potential impact on organisational performance. These positions should broaden the
talent discussion beyond leadership succession, often the narrow focus of GTM systems. The
strategy should determine the nature and distribution of these positions in the MNE’s global
network.
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 36
Second, we argue for the value of global talent pools as a strategy to manage the
global-talent supply chain and to ensure that MNEs have the necessary quality and quantity
of high-performing and high-potential incumbents to deliver on their strategic intent. Again,
strategy should strongly influence the level at which these talent pools are coordinated and
the international distribution of their membership. Finally, we strongly advocate a
differentiated approach to HR for individuals in the talent pool to ensure they have the
KSAOs required to perform at a high level consistent with the MNE’s strategic intent. We
argue that the sequencing of these routines is central to their effectiveness. Hence, in
developing GTM systems, MNEs should follow these suggestions sequentially and in an
integrated way. Additionally, we stress the importance of alignment for ensuring that
subsidiary implementation of the GTM routines is consistent with HQ intentions.
CONCLUSIONS
The link between GTM and MNE performance has not previously been explored
theoretically or empirically. For practitioners, a better understanding of this link would help
managers understand how GTM can enhance performance. From an academic perspective,
understanding this link is key to developing the legitimacy of GTM as an area of research. To
explain this link, we propose a framework based on routines, strategy, subsidiary alignment,
and individual human capital. By including key factors at the HQ, subsidiary, and individual
levels, the framework offers nuanced insights and potential avenues of research regarding the
link between GTM routines and performance. We hope that our proposed framework
provides a foundation for future research that seeks to deepen our understanding of that link.
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 37
REFERENCES
Aguinis, H., & O’Boyle, E. H. 2014. Star performers in twenty-first-century organizations.
Personnel Psychology, 67: 313-350.
Ahlvik, C., & Björkman, I. 2015. Towards explaining subsidiary implementation, integration,
and internalization of MNC headquarters HRM practices. International Business
Review, 24: 497-505.
Ahlvik, C., Smale, A., & Sumelius, J. 2016. Aligning corporate transfer intentions and
subsidiary HRM practice implementation in multinational corporations. Journal of
World Business, 51: 343-355.
Alagaraja, M., & Shuck, B. 2015. Exploring organizational alignment-employee engagement
linkages and impact on individual performance: A conceptual model, Human
Resource Development Review, 14: 17-37.
Al Ariss, A., Cascio, W. F., & Paauwe, J. 2014. Talent management: Current theories and
future research directions. Journal of World Business, 49: 173-179.
Allen, D.G., Lee, Y.T., & Reiche, S. 2015. Global work in the multinational enterprise: New
avenues and challenges for strategically managing human capital across borders. Call
for papers, special issue. Journal of Management.
Andersson, U., Björkman, I., & Forsgren, M. 2005. Managing subsidiary knowledge
creation: The effect of control mechanisms on subsidiary local embeddedness.
International Business Review, 14: 521-538.
Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Holm, U. 2002. The strategic impact of external networks:
subsidiary performance and competence development in the multinational
corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 979-996.
Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Holm, U. 2001. Subsidiary embeddedness and competence
development in MNCs a multi-level analysis. Organization Studies, 22: 1013-1034.
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 38
Arthur, J.B., 1994. Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and
turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 670-687.
Bamberger, P. 2008. From the editors beyond contextualization: Using context theories to
narrow the micro-macro gap in management research. Academy of Management
Journal, 51: 839-846.
Baron, J.N., & Kreps, D.M. 1999. Consistent human resource practices. California
Management Review, 41: 29-53.
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. 1999. Managing across borders: The transnational solution.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Baum, J. A., & Singh, J. V. (Eds.). 1994. Evolutionary dynamics of organizations. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Beamond, M. T., Farndale, E., & Härtel, C. E. 2016. MNE translation of corporate talent
management strategies to subsidiaries in emerging economies. Journal of World
Business, 51: 499-510.
Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. 2006. Strategic human resources management: Where do we
go from here? Journal of Management, 32: 898-925.
Becker, G. S. 1993. Human capital, third edition. Chicago, Il: Chicago University Press.
Becker, G. S. 1964. Human capital. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Birnholtz, J.P., Choen M.D., & Hoch, S.V. 2007. Organizational character: On the
regeneration of Camp Popular Grove. Organizational Science. 18: 315-332.
Björkman, I., & Lervik, J. E. 2007. Transferring HR practices within multinational
corporations. Human Resource Management Journal, 17: 320-335.
Björkman, I., & Mäkelä, K. 2013. Are you willing to do what it takes to become a senior
global leader? Explaining the willingness to undertake challenging leadership
development activities. European Journal of International Management, 7: 570-586.
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 39
Björkman, I., Ehrnrooth, M., Mäkelä, K., Smale, A., & Sumelius, J. 2013. Talent or not?
Employee reactions to talent identification. Human Resource Management, 52: 195-
214.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. Transaction Publishers.
Blumberg, M., & Pringle, C. D. 1982. The missing opportunity in organizational research:
Some implications for a theory of work performance. Academy of Management
Review, 7: 560–569.
Bonabeau, E. 2004. The perils of the imitation age. Harvard Business Review, 82: 45-54.
Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. 2007. Beyond HR: The new science of human capital.
Boston, MA, Harvard Business Press.
Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Managing power in the multinational corporation: How
low-power actors gain influence. Journal of Management, 34: 477-508.
Bowman, C., & Hird, M. 2014. A resource based view of talent management. In. P. Sparrow,
H. Scullion and I. Tarique (Eds), Strategic talent management: Contemporary issues
in international context: 87-116. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Boxall, P. 1998. Achieving competitive advantage through human resource strategy: Towards
a dynamic theory of industry dynamics. Human Resource Management Review. 8:
265-288.
Brandes, U. 2001. A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. Journal of Mathematical
Sociology, 25: 163-177.
Burton-Jones, A., & Spender, J. C. 2011. The Oxford handbook of human capital. Oxford,
Oxford University Press.
Call, M.L., Nyberg, A.J., & Thatcher, S.M.B. 2015. Stargazing: An integrative conceptual
review, theoretical reconciliation, and extension for star employee research. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 100: 623-640.
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 40
Campbell, B.A., Ganco, M., Franco, A.M. and Agarwal, R., 2012. Who leaves, where to, and
why worry? Employee mobility, entrepreneurship and effects on source firm
performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 65-87.
Cappelli, P. 2008. Talent on demand: Managing talent in an uncertain age. Boston, MA,
Harvard Business School Press.
Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2008). Research in industrial and organizational psychology
from 1963 to 2007: changes, choices, and trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93:
1062-1081.
Cascio, W. F., & Boudreau, J. W. 2011. Utility of selection systems: Supply-chain analysis
applied to staffing decisions. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of I/O Psychology: Vol. 2,
421-444. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.
Cascio, W. F., & Boudreau, J. W. 2012. Short introduction to human resource strategy.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cascio, W.F., & Boudreau, J.W. 2014. HR strategy: Optimizing risks, optimizing rewards.
Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 1: 77-97.
Cascio, W. F., & Boudreau, J. W. 2016. The search for global competence: From
international HR to talent management. Journal of World Business, 51: 103-114.
Cascio, W. F., Boudreau, J. W., & Church, A. H. (2017). Talent management and succession
planning through a risk-optimization lens: Maximizing talent readiness for an
uncertain future. In C. Cooper and P. Sparrow (Eds.), A research agenda for human
resource management – HR strategy, structure, and architecture: 55-77. London:
Edward Elgar Publishers.
Chung, C.C., Park, H.Y., Lee, J.Y., & Kim, Y. 2015. Human capital in multinational
enterprises: Does strategic alignment matter? Journal of International Business
Studies, 46: 806-829.
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 41
Collings, D.G. 2014. Integrating global mobility and global talent management: exploring the
challenges and strategic opportunities. Journal of World Business, 49: 253–261.
Collings, D.G., McDonnell, A., Gunnigle, P., & Lavelle, J. 2010. Swimming against the tide:
Outward staffing flows from multinational subsidiaries. Human Resource
Management, 49: 575-98.
Collings, D.G., & Mellahi, K. 2009. Strategic talent management: A review and research
agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19: 304-313.
Crook, T.R., Todd, S.Y., Combs, J.G., Woehr, D.J. & Ketchen, D.J. Jr. 2011. Does human
capital matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between human capital and firm
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 443-456.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M.S. 2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.
Journal of Management, 31: 874-900.
Cui, A. S., Griffith, D. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. 2005. The influence of competitive intensity and
market dynamism on knowledge management capabilities of multinational
corporation subsidiaries. Journal of International Marketing, 13: 32-53.
Delery, J.E. and Doty, D.H., 1996. Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource
management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance
predictions. Academy of management Journal, 39: 802-835.
Delery, J.E., & Gupta, N. 2016. Human resource management practices and organizational
effectiveness: internal fit matters, Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People
and Performance, 3: 139-163.
Delery, J.E., & Roumpi, D. 2017. Strategic human resource management, human capital and
competitive advantage: is the field going in circles? Human Resource Management
Journal, 27: 1-21.
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 42
Delery, J. E. & Shaw, J. 2001. The strategic management of people in work organizations:
review, synthesis, and extension. Research in Personnel and Human Resource
Management. 20: 165-197. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Dokko, G. & Jiang,W. 2017. Management talent across organizations: The portability of
individual performance. In D.G. Collings, K. Mellahi & W.F. Cascio (Eds.) Oxford
handbook of talent management: 115-133. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Dries, N., Forrier, A., de Vos, A., & Pepermans, R. 2014. Self-perceived employability,
organization-rated potential, and the psychological contract. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 29: 565-581.
Evans, P., Pucik, V., & Barsoux, J.L., 2002. The global challenge: Frameworks for
international human resource management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A., 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic
Management Journal, 21: 1105-1121.
Farndale, E., Scullion, H., & Sparrow, P. 2010. The role of the corporate HR function in
global talent management. Journal of World Business, 45: 161-168.
Feldman, M.S. 2000. Organizational routines as a source of continuous change.
Organizational Science, 11: 611-629.
Feldman, M.S. & Pentland, B.T., 2003. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source
of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 94-118.
Feldman, M.S., Pentland, B.T., D’Adderio, L., & Lazaric, N., 2016. Beyond Routines as
Things: Introduction to the Special Issue on Routine Dynamics. Organization
Science, 27: 505-513.
Ferner, A., Almond, P., & Colling, T. 2005. Institutional theory and the cross-national
transfer of employment policy: The case of ‘workforce diversity’ in US
multinationals. Journal of International Business Studies, 36: 304–321.
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 43
Galunic, D.C., & Weeks, J.R. 2002. Intra-organizational ecology. In J. Baum (Ed.) A
companion to organizations. Oxford, Blackwell.
Gelens, J., Hofmans, J., Dries, N., & Pepermans, R. 2014. Talent management and
organisational justice: employee reactions to high potential identification. Human
Resource Management Journal, 24: 159–175.
Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. 1990. The multinational corporation as an inter-organizational
network. Academy of Management Review, 15: 603-626.
Ghoshal, S., & Nohria, N. 1989. Internal differentiation within multinational
corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 10: 323-337.
Griffith, D.A. & Harvey, M.G. 2001. A resource perspective of global dynamic capabilities.
Journal of International Business Studies. 32: 597-606.
Groysberg, B., & Connolly, K. 2015. The 3 things CEOs worry about the most. Retrieved on
Aug. 2, 2016 from https://hbr.org/2015/03/the-3-things-ceos-worry-about-the-most.
Groysberg, B., & Lee, L. E. 2008. The effect of colleague quality on top performance: The
case of security analysts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29: 1123-1144.
Groysberg, B., Polzer, J.T. & Elfenbein, H.A., 2011. Too many cooks spoil the broth: How
high-status individuals decrease group effectiveness. Organization Science, 22: 722-
737.
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. 2002. Cultivating a global mindset. The Academy of
Management Executive, 16: 116-126.
Harzing, A. W. 2000. An empirical analysis and extension of the Bartlett and Ghoshal
typology of multinational companies. Journal of International Business Studies, 31:
101-120.
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 44
Helfat, C.E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M.A., Singh, H., Teece, D.J., & Winter,
S.G. 2007. Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations.
Malden, MA, Blackwell.
Hewett, K., Roth, M. S., & Roth, K. 2003. Conditions influencing headquarters and foreign
subsidiary roles in marketing activities and their effects on performance. Journal of
International Business Studies, 34: 567-585.
Huselid, M.A., 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 38: 635-672.
Huselid, M.A. & Becker, B.E., 2011. Bridging micro and macro domains: Workforce
differentiation and strategic human resource management. Journal of Management,
37: 421-428
Jiang, K., Lepak, D.P., Han, K., Hong, Y., Kim, A., & Winkler, A.L. 2012. Clarifying the
construct of human resource systems: Relating human resource management to
employee performance. Human Resource Management Review, 22: 73-85.
Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of
Management Review, 31: 386-408.
Johns, G. 2017. Reflections on the 2016 decade award: Incorporating context in
organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 42: 577-595.
Kathuria, R., Joshi, M.P. & Porth, S.J., 2007. Organizational alignment and performance:
past, present and future. Management Decision, 45: 503-517.
Kim, K.Y., Pathak, S., & Werner, S. 2015. When do international human capital enhancing
practices benefit the bottom line? An ability, motivation, and opportunity perspective.
Journal of International Business Studies, 46: 784-805.
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 45
Koh, H.C., & Goh, C.T. 1995. An analysis of factors affecting turnover intentions of nonmanagerial clerical staff: A Singapore study. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 6: 103-25.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Klein, K.J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in
organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K.J. Klein, &
S.W.J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations:
Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 3–90. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kostova, T., Marano, V., & Tallman, S. 2016. Headquarters-subsidiary relationships in
MNCs: Fifty years of evolving research. Journal of World Business, 51: 176-184.
Kostova, T., Nell, P.C., & Hoenen, A.K. 2016. Understanding agency problems in
headquarters-subsidiary relationships in multinational corporations: A contextualized
model. Journal of Management, doi: 10.1177/014920631664383.
Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2002. Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of
multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of
Management Journal, 45: 215-233.
Lazarova, MB., Peretz, H., & Fried, Y. 2016. Locals know best? Subsidiary HR autonomy
and subsidiary performance. Journal of World Business, 52: 83-96.
Leong, S. M., & Tan, C. T. 1993. Managing across borders: An empirical test of the Bartlett
and Ghoshal [1989] organizational typology. Journal of International Business
Studies, 24: 449-464.
Lepak, D.P., Jiang, K., Han, K., Castellano, W.G. & Hu, J. 2012. Strategic HRM moving
forward: what can we learn from micro perspectives? International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 27: 231-258.
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 46
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. 1999. The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of
human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review, 24: 31-
48.
Levy, O., Beechler, S., Taylor, S., & Boyacigiller, N. A. 2007. What we talk about when we
talk about ‘global mindset’: Managerial cognition in multinational corporations.
Journal of International Business Studies, 38: 231-258.
Linden, G., & Teece, D. 2014. Managing expert talent. In. P. Sparrow, H. Scullion and I.
Tarique (Eds.) Strategic Talent Management: Contemporary Issues in International
Context: 87-116. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Likert, R. 1961. The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill Co.
Luo, Y., & Park, S. H. 2001. Strategic alignment and performance of market-seeking MNCs
in China. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 141-155.
Mäkelä, K., Björkman, I., & Ehrnrooth, M. 2010. How do MNEs establish their talent pools?
Influences on individuals’ likelihood of being labeled as talent. Journal of World
Business, 45: 134-142.
Mariolis, P., & Jones, M. H. 1982. Centrality in corporate interlock networks: Reliability and
stability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 571-585.
Mellahi, K., & Collings, D. G. 2010. The barriers to effective global talent management: The
example of corporate elites in MNEs. Journal of World Business, 45: 143-149.
Mercer. 2016. Future-proofing HR: Bridging the gap between employers and employees.
London, Mercer.
Molloy, J. C., & Barney, J. B. 2015. Who captures the value created with human capital? A
market-based view. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 29: 309-325.
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 47
Molloy, J.C., Ployhart, R.E., & Wright, P.M. 2011. The myth of “the” micro-macro divide:
Bridging system-level and disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Management, 37: 581-
609.
Najafi-Tavani, Z., Giroud, A., & Andersson, U. 2014. The interplay of networking activities
and internal knowledge actions for subsidiary influence within MNCs. Journal of
World Business, 49: 122-131.
Nelson, R. E. (1989). The strength of strong ties: Social networks and intergroup conflict in
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 377-401.
Newburry, W. 2001. MNC interdependence and local embeddedness: Influences on
perceptions of career benefits from global integration. Journal of International
Business Studies, 32: 497-507.
Newman, M. E. 2005. A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks. Social
Networks, 27: 39-54.
Nishii, L.H., Lepak, D.P., & Schneider, B. 2008. Employee attributions of the “why” of HR
practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer
satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61: 503-545.
Nyberg, A.J., Moliterno, T.P., Hale Jr, D. and Lepak, D.P., 2014. Resource-based
perspectives on unit-level human capital: A review and integration. Journal of
Management, 40: 316-346.
Nyberg, A., & Wright, P.M. 2015. 50 years of human capital research: Assessing what we
know, exploring where we go. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29: 287-295.
O’Boyle, E.H., & Kroska, S. 2017. Star employees in D.G. Collings, K. Mellahi & W.F.
Cascio (Eds.) Oxford Handbook of Talent Management: 43-65. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 48
O’Donnell, S.W., 2000. Managing foreign subsidiaries: agents of headquarters, or an
interdependent network? Strategic Management Journal, 21: 525-548.
Parmigiani, A., & Howard-Grenville, J. 2011. Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities
and practice perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 5: 413-453.
Pentland, B.T. 1995. Grammatical models of organizational processes. Organization Science.
6: 541-556.
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. 2003. The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic
social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28: 89-106.
Pfeffer, J. 1994. Competitive advantage through people. California Management Review, 36:
9-28.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The external control of organisations. New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
Ployhart, R.E. and Cregun, O.R. 2017. Human capital resource complementarities. In D. G.
Collings, K. Mellahi, and W.F. Cascio (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Talent
Management 134-149. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ployhart, R.E., & Moliterno, T.P., 2011. Emergence of the human capital resource: A
multilevel model. Academy of Management Review, 36: 127-150.
Ployhart, R.E., Nyberg, A.J., Reily, G., & Maltarich, M.A. 2014. Human capital is dead:
Long live human capital resources. Journal of Management, 40: 371-398.
Powell, T.C. 1992. Organizational alignment as competitive advantage. Strategic
Management Journal. 13:119-134.
PwC. 2017. 2017 CEO Pulse Survey. London: PwC.
Reade, C. 2001. Dual identification in multinational corporations: Local managers and their
psychological attachment to the subsidiary versus the global organization.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12: 405-424.
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 49
Reiche, B.S. 2007. The effect of international staffing practices on subsidiary staff retention
in multinational corporations. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 18: 523-536.
Roth, K. 1992. Implementing international strategy at the business unit level: The role of
managerial decision-making characteristics. Journal of Management, 18: 769-789.
Roth, K., & O’Donnell, S. 1996. Foreign subsidiary compensation strategy: An agency theory
perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 678-703.
Rowley, T. J. 1997. Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder
influences. Academy of Management Review, 22: 887-910.
Salvato, C., & Rerup, C. 2011. Beyond collective entities: Multilevel research on
organizational routines and capabilities. Journal of Management, 37: 468-490.
Schmidt, J.A., Pohler, D. And Willness, C.R. 2017. Strategic HR system differentiation
between jobs: Effects on firm performance and employee outcomes. Human Resource
Management. doi. 10.1002/hrm.21836.
Schuler, R. S., Dowling, P. J., & De Cieri, H. 1993. An integrative framework of strategic
international human resource management. Journal of Management, 19: 419-459.
Schuler, R. S., Jackson, S. E., & Tarique, I. 2011. Global talent management and global talent
challenges: Strategic opportunities for IHRM. Journal of World Business, 46: 506-
516.
Scullion, H., & Collings, D.G. (Eds.) 2006. Global talent management. London, Routledge.
Scullion, H., Collings, D.G. & Caligiuri, P. 2010. Global talent management. Journal of
World Business, 45: 105-8.
Scullion, H., & Starkey, K. 2000. In search of the changing role of the corporate human
resource function in the international firm. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 11: 1061-1081.
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 50
Smale, A., Björkman, I., Ehrnrooth, M., John, S., Mäkelä, K., & Sumelius, J., 2015. Dual
values-based organizational identification in MNC subsidiaries: A multilevel study.
Journal of International Business Studies, 46: 761-783.
Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches.
Academy of Management Review, 20: 571-610.
Szulanski, G. & Jensen, R.J., 2006. Presumptive adaptation and the effectiveness of
knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 27: 937-957.
Takeuchi, R., Lepak, D.P., Wang, H., & Takeuchi, K. 2007. An empirical examination of the
mechanisms mediating between high-performance works systems and the
performance of Japanese organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology. 92: 1069-
1083.
Tan, D., & Mahoney, J. T. 2006. Why a multinational firm chooses expatriates: Integrating
resource‐ based, agency and transaction costs perspectives. Journal of Management
Studies, 43: 457-484.
Tarique, I., & Schuler, R. S. 2010. Global talent management: Literature review, integrative
framework, and suggestions for further research. Journal of World Business, 45: 122-
133.
Taylor, S., Beechler, S., & Napier, N. 1996. Toward an integrative model of strategic
international human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 21:
959-985.
Taylor, S., 2006. Emerging motivations for global HRM integration. In Multinationals,
institutions and the construction of transnational practices. Basingstoke, Palgrave.
Teece, D.J., 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and micro-foundations of
(sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 1319-1350.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
GTE Management and Performance in MNEs 51
Strategic Management Journal, 18: 509-533.
Thompson, J.D. 1967. Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory.
New York, McGraw Hill.
Turner, S.F. 2014. The temporal dimension of routines and their outcomes: Exploring the
roles of time in the capabilities and practice perspective. In A.J. Shipp & Y. Fried
(Eds.), Time and work: How time impacts groups, organizations and methodological
choices. East Sussex, Psychology Press.
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm
networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 464-476.
Tung, R. L. 2016. New perspectives on human resource management in a global context.
Journal of World Business, 51: 142-152.
Vaiman, V., Scullion, H., & Collings, D.G. 2012. Talent management decision making.
Management Decision, 50: 925-941.
Vora, D., & Kostova, T. 2007. A model of dual organizational identification in the context of
the multinational enterprise. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28: 327-350.
Wright, P.M., & Boswell, W.R. 2002. Desegregating HRM: A review and synthesis of micro
and macro human resource management research. Journal of Management, 28: 247-
276.
Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. 2011. Exploring human capital: putting ‘human’ back into
strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Journal, 21:
93-104.
Zou, S., & Tamer Cavusgil, S. 1996. Global strategy: a review and an integrated conceptual
framework. European Journal of Marketing, 30: 52-69.
View publication stats