Dynamics of Central Control and Subsidiary Autonomy in the Management of Human Resources: Case-Study Evidence from US MNCs in the UK

By A. Ferner, P. Almond, I. Clark, T. Colling, T. Edwards, Len Holden, Michael Muller-Camen. 2004

258 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Unraveling Home and Host Country Effects: An Investigation of the HR Policies of an American Multinational in Four European Countries (2005, unknown): “…nature of U.S. country of origin effects on employment relations, research has repeatedly shown that U.S.-owned MNCs are more likely than those from other countries to have relatively centralized and formalized systems of human resource and industrial relations management (Ferner et al. 2004).”
Human resource management in US subsidiaries in Europe and Australia: centralisation or autonomy? (2008, background): “…suggests that local management may draw on their relationship with the union and their claimed understanding of that relationship as a political resource in persuading the parent company of the inadvisability of imposing centrally determined HRM policies (Ferner et al., 2004: 382; Hamill, 1984).”
International HRM: national business systems, organizational politics and the international division of labour in MNCs (2005, background): “For instance, recent research has demonstrated that many US MNCs adopt international policies in the area of diversity, such as targets for women in management posts or a requirement that each subsidiary have a diversity council (Ferner et al., 2004: 373–8).”