Search results

This paper claims that global corporations should rethink the concept of cultural control, which relies on an implicit culture, corporate culture, for the control of local managersș thoughts and behavior. Instead, based on hybridizations of corporate and local management cultures created through personal socialization conducted by Swedish and American corporations in local offices in Thailand and Mexico, the paper offers a perspective for cultural control that views and understands cultures in terms of change and hybridizations.

The purpose of the study is to develop a deeper understanding of the construct “integration within the HRM subsystem”. The study attempts to shed light on the conceptual perspective, the characteristics of this construct as well as the meaning and the mechanisms of internal integration within a HRM subsystem.

The procedure involves three main steps: first data reduction followed by data display and conclusion drawing/verification. Semi‐structured, face‐to‐face interviews with 21 vice‐president HRM managers and senior managers were conducted. The average time of the interviews was 60 minutes.

The findings revealed a model composed of HRM infrastructure (HRM cooperative policy, integrative core competence, and integrative technological infrastructure), internal communication process (formal and informal) and integrating process (consistency of HRM practices at the subsystem and individual levels). The first two categories are related with the dependent category‐integrating process.

HRM subsystems should develop their integrative technological infrastructure so that they can have a wide‐ranging view about their activities. Also, informal mechanisms may enhance the integrating process, as well as the formal mechanisms. Thus, managers should support and encourage the informal climate, and facilitate especially on informal communication.

The findings suggest a new approach for analyzing the integration process within an organizational HR sub‐system. On the one hand, the continuity of integration demonstrates how each category may contribute to the integration process on a high level. On the other, the low level of each category illustrates the opposite side of integration.

Maureen L. Ambrose is a professor of management in the College of Business at the University of Central Florida. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Dr. Ambrose's research interests include organizational justice, employee deviance, and ethics. Her work has appeared in the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Administrative Sciences Quarterly, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. She is a Fellow of the Academy of Management and of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. She served as an associate editor for the Academy of Management Journal and as co-editor of a special issue on organizational justice for Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. She has served on editorial boards for the Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.