transferring hr concepts and practices within multi-national corporations in romania: the management...

European Management Journal (2012) 30, 588– 602

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate /emj

Transferring HR concepts and practices within multi-national corporations in Romania: The managementexperience

Kevin Dalton *, Janet Druker

Westminster Business School, 5 Marylebone Rd., London, NW1 5LS, United Kingdom

0263-2373/$ - see front mattedoi:10.1016/j.emj.2011.12.00

* Corresponding author. Tel.E-mail address: kgdaltonb@

r ª 2013

/fax: +4dalton8

KEYWORDSInternational HRM;MNEs;Country of origin;Host country effect;National culture;�Transferability� of HRM

Summary This article reports the results of an investigation into the transfer of HR con-cepts and practices in MNEs within Romania. Using qualitative research approaches thearticle analyses patterns in the implementation of international HRM. It focuses particu-larly on cultural factors in exploring how HR is interpreted, applied, adapted, ignored orresisted in the Romanian context. We consider the point of balance between �country oforigin� and expatriate influences as against the impact of �host country� practices rooted innational culture. The paper concludes with the observation that whilst HR values are beingtransferred through the medium of MNEs, the legacy of history still carries significantweight, shaping and sometimes undermining MNE initiatives. Whilst the study focuseson the context of a single country, there is suggestive evidence that the issues of HR trans-fer considered here may be echoed in other post-Communist cultures struggling with thechallenges of managerial modernisation.ª 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Aims of the research

The global economic landscape has altered fundamentallysince the early debates on international HRM were initiateda quarter of a century ago. The pace of economic develop-ment in China, in India and East Asia, the recession and eco-nomic instability in the developed economies and the shiftin FDI toward the EU accession countries all pose a new con-text to understanding international patterns of HR practice.This paper is part of a wider research project that examinesHRM as one element in the larger process of modernisationin Romania. How far are the tenets of international HRM

2 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

4 1689853523.6.fsnet.co.uk (K. Dalton).

taking root in Romania? To what extent and how do multina-tional enterprises (MNEs) reconcile a global strategic per-spective on HRM with local management traditions inRomania? How do country of origin and host country culturesshape the concept and practice of HRM within MNE subsidi-aries in a post-Communist society?

This research is funded by the British Academy. The focusis on Romania as one of the largest countries in Eastern Eur-ope, now a member of the EU, which has followed a hardroad from Communism to a functioning market economy.The management aspects of this modernisation projectare under-reported in the literature and internationallypublished research on HRM in Romania is scarce. Althoughthe context of this article is specific to a single country,cross-cultural issues in the transmission and adaptation of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2011.12.003

mailto:[email protected]




Transferring HR concepts and practices within multi-national corporations in Romania: The management experience 589

concepts of HRM are raised which have resonances else-where, both for other post-Communist countries and thosewith an authoritarian tradition now developing their ownmanagement practices. The study also has implications forwider debates on comparative HRM, of particular relevanceto multi-nationals.

The paper is structured on the following lines. Firstly,we review the literature on HRM and its internationalinfluence, including the role of MNEs and the debate about�country of origin� influences in counterpoint to the reten-tion of �host country� practices. Secondly, we briefly re-view the legacy of the past as it impacts on HRM inRomania. Then we go onto explain the methodologies usedin research for this paper and present research findings.Later we report on the transferability of HRM in termsof parent–subsidiary relationships. This is followed by adiscussion of national/host culture as a medium of influ-ence. The paper concludes that whilst there is evidenceof �country of origin� impact on MNE HR practice, thelegacy of Communism and traditional culture is stillsignificant-filtering the reception and acceptance of MNEmanagement initiatives.

International HRM and the influence of MNEs

HRM had its genesis in the USA under growing pressure tomeet competition in global markets from the early 1980sonwards. American ideologies of HRM based on liberalisedmarkets and individual performance management wereadapted to the different socio-legal traditions of other Wes-tern countries. MNEs acted as key conduits for the transmis-sion of international principles of HRM (Pudelko & Harzing,2007; Boxall & Purcell, 2003).

Yet the history of international HRM over the last25 years is one of contested values – both about what isbeing done and what should be done to foster corporateperformance through corporate strategy and HRM. Whilstthe HR label is widely used, post-modern and social con-structionist critiques have challenged its meaning and itsclaims of universal relevance (Noon, 1992). Historicallythe term has been associated with fundamental change,with a challenge to the Taylorist–Fordist model of labourmanagement and with the creation of a new ideology ofmanagement, based on culture as well as on effectiveleadership and communication (Storey, 1995; 2007).

Based on his early research into HRM in the UK, John Sto-rey developed a model that serves to facilitate our discus-sion here since (unlike some) it is not prescriptive but wasdeveloped through empirical research and analysis in anera of significant change. Storey points to the importanceof the following factors within HRM:

(i) Beliefs and assumptions – emphasizing the impor-tance of the human resources and of employeecommitment.

(ii) The strategic role of HR with the involvement ofsenior management – HR as a component of businessstrategy.

(iii) The critical role of managers – with line managersclosely involved in HR delivery and greater attentionto the management of managers themselves.

(iv) Key levers inmanagement– the importance ofmanagingculture; effective recruitment, selection, employeereward and development and communication with jobsdesigned to facilitate employee engagement (Storey,2007, p. 9).

For the countries of central and Eastern Europe, many ofthem now subject to the laws of the European Union (EU)but with a relatively recent exposure to the market, thisraises the question of whether there is evidence of conver-gence in national regulation and in management practices.The view that there is �convergence� in practice (Pudelko& Harzing, 2007) has been countered by critics who pointto the continuing differences encompassed in distinctive�varieties of capitalism� (Nolke & Vliegenthart, 2009; Whit-ley, 1999). An alternative perspective, also countering theconvergence thesis is founded in the view that cultural dif-ferences preclude convergence in a real sense, and that thesame practices will be defined differently according to localculture and understanding (e.g., Hofstede, 1991).

The role of MNEs is an important one since, as manyresearchers have noted, their global scope and the diversityof specific locations of operation offer the potential tocross-fertilise ideas and management practice (Schuler,Dowling, & De Cieri, 1993; Ferner, Quintanilla, & Varul,2001; Pudelko & Harzing, 2007; Schuler & Tarique, 2007).Through the transmission of learning between inter-unitlinkages, senior MNE managers seek a balance between hostcountry differentiation and global integration. Whilst MNE�smay have human resource strategies and policies in place in-tended to foster international integration they will, ofnecessity, have to adapt in lesser or greater measure to lo-cal product and labour markets and to the political/legal,economic and socio-cultural framework of the locations inwhich they operate (Schuler et al., 1993). The deploymentof expatriate managers and the balance in influence to beachieved between staff from home and host countries andfrom other parts of the world is a critical question andSchuler et al. (1993) suggest that a preference for parentcountry nationals (PCNs) is initially to be expected, withresource constraints encouraging subsequent use of homecountry or third country nationals (HCNs, TCNs). A moveaway from use of home country expatriates is likely to beaccompanied by more emphasis on development and accul-turation of local managers. HR philosophies, policies andpractices are components within the diverse and complexinterplay between global and regional headquarters andhost country units within and across national boundaries.

Firstly, within this debate, there are questions about theinfluence of the �home� country, or �country of origin�, of theMNE. To what extent, following Perlmutter�s early model(1969), can the company be regarded as �ethnocentric� inits approach – retaining and exporting the management pol-icies and practices that characterise its home base? In par-allel with this question, given the widespread influence ofHRM in the developed countries which provide the homebase for most MNEs, to what extent does the MNE becomethe transmission belt for HR �good practice� (Pudelko &Harzing, 2007)? If the MNE is to facilitate organisationallearning, then knowledge must be shared within the organi-sation and across national boundaries, so the role of leaderswithin the organisation and the transmission of knowledge

590 K. Dalton, J. Druker

between business units becomes especially significant(Schuler et al., 1993).

The influence of the country of origin is acknowledged byscholars contrasting MNEs from the UK and Germany (Ferneret al., 2001) with the former being characterised by a neo-liberal Anglo-Saxon model, whilst the latter is often seen asoffering a distinctive contrast to that model, having,(amongst other features) a �long-termist� perspective, highlydeveloped vocational education and training and notions of�social partnership�.

The second part of this debate is concerned, con-versely, with the extent to which MNEs adapt or succumbto country of operation practices (Ngo et al., 1998; ArzuWasti, 1998; Pudelko & Harzing, 2007). For example, thestudies by Ferner et al. (2001) and Arzu Wasti (1998)acknowledge the importance and the contextual variabilityof the particular locations of operation and this point issignificant for the research that we report below. Withinthe European Union (EU) this question must also be consid-ered against a background of economic and political inte-gration and the emergence of the �Euro-company� whichhas the potential to move beyond the confines of nationalorigins toward more developed transnational approaches toHRM. Yet even within the EU, the legacy of politics andpower relations remains significant (Sisson, 2005) and is atheme in this research.

In this paper we explore the emergent models of HRM inRomania during turbulent, transitional times. What is thebalance between country of origin standardization and lo-cal adaptation in MNEs in Romania? What beliefs andassumptions are deployed in management practice? Howis HR strategy shaped and operationalized? How far are linemanagers engaged in the process of change – and to whatextent has the delivery of key HR levers been adjusted toculture? Does HRM, perhaps the �softest� of managementdisciplines, show local differences in relation to contextualfactors and contingent variables (legal, economic, politicaland social etc.) (Budhwar & Sparrow, 2002)?

An issue for all researchers in this field is the extent towhich the rhetoric of the international model matchesoperational practice. Even with Anglo American influence,HRM in any locale may seem to be context-specific. This isa particularly interesting question in the context of coun-tries within the CEE which have come under pressure toembrace American style �neo-liberalism� within employ-ment relations as in much else (Meardi, 2002) yet still bearthe deep imprint of 50 years of Communism. How does thischequered cultural legacy impact on current HR practice?

The complex concept of culture is a strand of our inquiry(e.g., Hofstede, 1991). Rather than assessing national Roma-nian management culture in terms of external comparativemeasures, we have tried to study Romania in its own terms.We have tried to immerse ourselves in organisational experi-ence and demonstrate its diversity but also surface some con-tinuities within international HRM as they seem to cross cutorganisational settings. This is in line with anthropological,�social constructionist� or emic models of culture (French,2008) which define it as a process by which discourses aroundideologies and practice create, reinforce and challenge �ta-ken for granted� worlds of meaning always in flux, alwaysemergent (Bate, 1994; Geertz, 1973; Van Maanen, 1983).For this to have resonance some discussion of history and

politics is inevitably required and this is the focus of the sec-tion that follows.

Romania: cultural, political and economiclegacies

Romania has a long history of authoritarian government byunaccountable and often �predatory elites� (Gallagher,2005; Glenny, 2000). Largely detached from Western Euro-pean intellectual, cultural and economic trends, Romanialacks a robust democratic tradition, strength in civil soci-ety or a liberal market (Roper, 2004). Fifty years of Com-munist rule compounded traditional relationships ofhierarchy and patronage. The �sultanistic� regime of Cea-usescu had many characteristics of a totalitarian systemin which the Leviathan state exercised detailed controlover all aspects of peoples� lives and terror was a routineinstrument of policy (Roper, 2004; Ionescu, 2011).

The psychological legacy of Communism still runs deep inRomania. In the face of repression, intimidation and indoc-trination it is not surprising that the response of Romanianswas fear, submission and conformity and a reluctance totake decisions or any initiative which might draw attentionto themselves (Gallagher, 2005). The transition to a demo-cratic capitalist model which requires more proactivebehaviours is constrained by the drag of the past (Ionescu,2011).

The old authoritarianism is still strong. Hierarchical andconservative �mentalities� continue, it is argued, even ifthey find new expression behind pseudo-democratic fa-cades, and acquiescence, fear of authority and mistrustwithin the public realm remain despite the upheavalsRomania has experienced since the revolution of 1990(Agh, 1998). Arguably change does not yet amount to polit-ical transformation. Debate remains �managed� by powerfuloligarchies, the legal system is politicised, levels of popu-lar participation in the policy process remain low and pub-lic life is based on �connections� between interlockingelites (Gallagher, 2005; Ionescu, 2011; Phinnemore, 2006).

Economically, the dictatorship of Ceausescu be-queathed an over-centralised, planned economy, lop-sidedin its bias to heavy industry and dependent on trade withRussia and the developing world. Post-communist macro-economic management has oscillated between a �ThirdWay� gradualism and �Neo-Liberal� shock treatment(Dimanescu, 2004; Phinnemore, 2006). Commentators sug-gest that while the ambition to integrate with Westerneconomic structures may well be authentic, economic�modernisation� may still be superficial, intended mainlyto impress investors, EU officials and international donorsof Romania�s commitment to reform because any real driveto thoroughgoing reform would threaten vested interestswith power behind the scenes (i.e. ex-Nomenklatura in in-ter-locking oligarchies, see Gallagher, 2009).

Turning to the more specific themes of labour andemployment relations, the liberalisation of the economyhas brought in train widespread downsizing and re-structur-ing, the end of egalitarian pay structures and the cult of �jobentitlement� in the over-manned structures of Communism(Kelemen, 1999). High unemployment, �flexibility� strate-gies, the shift from collectivised to individualised


employment contracts and the reluctance of the new waveof small businesses to give recognition to unions have re-duced the bargaining power of organised labour (Morley,Heraty, & Michailova, 2009). On the other hand the emer-gence of �tripartism� and the regulation of the labour pro-cess through collective agreements and social protectionlegislation (the Labour Code provides legally under-writtensecurity rights), now buttressed by EU and ILO directives,emphasise �social partnership� principles against de-regula-tory orthodoxy.

For the multi-nationals, our focus here, Romania prom-ises the advantages of skilled but cheap labour and the po-tential for technological innovation, yet the low level of FDIand the number of multi-nationals remains low (Nolke &Vliegenthart, 2009). A hybrid economy of regulation andmarketization, flexibility and control sends mixed messagesto international capital. Martin (2002) describes economieslike Romania as �managerial capitalism� in which two tiers:one internationally owned and integrated in global capital-ism, another oriented to local managerial elites, co-existand jostle for dominance.

Romania: the HRM and management context

A scan of the international literature suggests that there isstill little published research on HRM in the CEE region, incontrast with the extensive coverage of Western Europeand despite the enormous changes which have convulsedthese societies since 1990. Then when we turn to studiesof HRM in Romania we are looking just at a footnote. Herewe briefly consider some comparative studies of HRM inCEE which describe cross cutting themes in HR which applyto all countries of the region (Hetrick, 2002; Jankowicz,1998; Karoliny, Frakas, & Poor, 2009; Morley et al., 2009;Zupan & Kase, 2005), as well as specific research onRomania.

In view of the chaotic economic conditions in Romania inrecent times and the emphasis on financial survival it is notsurprising that technological, financial, and structural mod-ernisation have taken priority over people issues (Kelemen,1999). The nature of Romanian business, with its myriadsmall businesses, militates against a strong HR presence.Constanin (2006) in his survey suggests that only 20% of allRomanian organisations have a dedicated HR function orcan afford to buy in HR consultancy.

Even within larger scale, Romanian-run enterprises it ap-pears that HRM is often in the shadows. In many organisa-tions it is subsumed within other functions, it is practisedas a lower level administrative process (recruiting, staffing,welfare, training etc.) and its value as a catalyst for organ-isational development and learning is overlooked (Amaria,2008). The lack of trained HR talent means that people withinadequate education and experience, often from othermanagement disciplines, are appointed and the overall levelof HR sophistication and professional skill may be low byWestern standards (Morley et al., 2009) The low status ofHR departments is not helped by perceptions that HR is �wo-men�s work� and �for part timers�.

In corporate Romania, it seems that HRM has a long wayto go before it is accepted as part of the top managementteam, in a strategic partnership and recognised as

contributing centrally to the organisation�s competitiveadvantage (Amaria, 2008). In most Romanian organisations,as elsewhere in CEE, it seems that HR issues are largelydealt with by middle managers in the line. Even in theminority of organisations where the HR department is largeenough to allow some division of labour, the special exper-tise and people consciousness of HR practitioners is oftenoverlooked or even belittled. Line mangers with a largelytechnical orientation (historically Romanian managers havean engineering background), continue to dominate decisionmaking on key HR issues, such as pay, benefits and employeerelations and guard their prerogative to involve the HRMfunction, on a discretionary basis, usually as a service pro-vider (Constanin, 2006). A particular irony, reported in theliterature (Morley et al., 2009) is for top management toproclaim the importance of HRM as a rhetoric, while givinglittle attention to human values at work or recognising thespecial contribution of HR to management decision making(Grigoruta, 2006).

Some of these themes can be traced to the organisationof Personnel administration under Communism. As in otherCEE countries, HRM, as known in the West, did not exist inCommunist Romania. Personnel was an administrative partof the centralised planning and control system designedon the Soviet model (Morley et al., 2009). Pieper (1992)explains that under Communism the elements we wouldassociate with HRM were fragmented between depart-ments-labour planning, wages, welfare, training and, mostimportantly, the cadre department. It was the cadredepartment, always run by a senior Communist and oftena member of the Interior Ministry (Securitate), which wasresponsible for monitoring the workforce for loyalty andideological indoctrination on behalf of the Communistparty. HRM was a key instrument of Party policy in the work-place (Pieper, 1992; Edwards & Lawrence, 2000; Koubek &Brewster, 1995).

Apart from this ideological role, Personnel was primarilyof administrative support to the Works Director and linemanagement -where all the real power was invested. Per-sonnel was concerned largely with managing people as a�mass� not as individuals. Motivation, job enrichment andthe humanisation of work were dismissed as �bourgeois psy-chology�. The �Leninist organisation of work� (i.e., ScientificManagement) in which the individual was fitted to the needsof the system formed the dominant logic (Grigoruta, 2006).There was no performance appraisal because it con-tradicted socialist egalitarianism; productivity was subordi-nated to full employment and collective bargaining had nopart in the system because conflicting interests could notexist where social classes had been abolished (Koubek &Brewster, 1995). Scientific and transparent recruitmentwere secondary to political criteria and cronyism (Galla-gher, 2005). Although differentiated pay was part of com-pensation, bonuses were more likely to be awarded ongrounds of loyalty and for periodic �storming� to meet thequotas of the Plan, than for individual or group performance(Maruyama, 1993).

This is the management context in which multi-nationalsoperating in Romania, among other CEE countries, seek todevelop a new HR environment. If the management ofpeople was the key to the old command structure, so, it is


argued, enlightened HRM may prove to be the key to effec-tive management in a liberalised market economy.

But however strong their corporate cultures and cosmo-politan their outlook, MNEs are never sealed from the na-tional context in which they do business. For example, inresearch on transfer processes, Mia and Suutari (2004) foundthat the adoption of Finnish HR practices by Estoniansubsidiaries was mediated by existing culture. The same is-sues of transplantation were found by Gill and Wong (1998)studying Japanese HR practices in Singapore (suggestingthat it may be �strong cultures�, not �Communism�, which isthe decisive factor here). Hetrick (2002) combines consider-ations of cultural context and the HR corporate strategies ofmulti-national to explain patterns of transfer to subsidiar-ies. In a rare study of multi-nationals in Romania, Prodanand Clipa (2009) suggest that where HR practices clash withcore cultural values they do not transfer (e.g., performanceappraisal and transparent selection may grate againstRomanian values of patronage). Our research builds onthese fragmentary studies, looking at themes which maybe of relevance to MNEs in all CEE countries.

Methodology

This research was inspired by a management developmentprogramme run by the researchers with a Romanian insti-tute of management. Later, a British Academy grant al-lowed us to pursue research into our growing interest inthe meaning of HRM in Romania. Using �snow ball� samplingwe have moved from an original small nucleus to wider cir-cles of respondents proposed by our contacts. Given theinsular nature of Romanian society based on networks,being recommended by insiders� may be the only way of get-ting close to the organisational behaviour we wanted toexamine. Certainly survey methods using �Survey Monkey�produced poor results. It has been suggested that Roma-nians are deterred from putting data in the public realmby the memories of recent �totalitarianism� and quantitativesurvey techniques show a poor fit with the culture.

The table below (Figure 1) gives details of the organisa-tions andmanagers who participated in the research. In addi-tion, valuable contextual information and generic insightswere offered by expatriates with Romanian experience (3interviews) representatives of the British–Romanian Cham-ber of Commerce (1 interview), journalists (1 interview), dip-lomats (1 interview), lawyers (1 interview), managementconsultants (2 interviews), British Council officials (2 inter-views), European Bank for Reconstruction and Developmentrepresentative (1 interview), Romanian and British academ-ics (5 interviews), voluntary sector representatives (1 inter-view) and TV producers (1 interview) (i.e. 19 additionalinterviews in total). They helped enormously as �soundingboards� for emerging ideas and sources of contacts in widen-ing our circles of informants.

As the table shows (Figure 1) the number of managersinterviewed varied between organisations. In all cases we at-tempted to talk to the head of local operations but werebound by their hospitality in the access we were given toother staff. Overall, we would have liked to plumbmore dee-ply in the host organisations in order to triangulate and pen-etrate beyond �presentational data� (Van Maanen, 1983).

That said, every effort was made to look for disconfirmingevidence and to remain critically sceptical of �idealisations�in storied accounts and �post hoc� rationalisations.

In all 55 interviews were conducted, each of about onehour/ hour and a half in length. Interviews were semi-struc-turedwith a core of common questions threading between allrespondents but with flexibility to pursue issues particular totheir �life worlds� and give them a chance to define their ownexperiences in their own words. The core themes consistentbetween interviews were: philosophies of leadership, man-agement culture, the role and status of HRM, peoplemanage-ment strategies, the experience of implementing HRpractices. At all times an attempt was made to probe forexamples to understand how our respondents made senseof their situation and how they deconstructed the �big words�of management ideology.

This is a social constructionist study. We were concernedto capture the meanings people give to experience throughan interpretive process rather than collecting �facts� anddescribing the frequency of behaviour using the quantitativemethods of positivism. Qualitative methods represent, ofcourse, a well established philosophy of social research(see Silverman, 1985; Van Maanen, 1983; Easterby Smith,Thorpe, & Lowe, 1992, etc.) and appropriate to our re-search objectives. We have attempted to provide a rich, vi-vid picture of our respondents� lived experience throughinterpretive commentary on their discourses.

Our study involved elements of both deduction and induc-tion. We were concerned to examine the relevance of keydimensions of international HRM (as exemplified by the Sto-rey model, a descriptive schema of contemporary HR trends)to local definitions of experience, especially participant tes-timony that suggested cultural issues in �transfer�. To this ex-tent, because the research was led by �a priori� propositionsto be examined in a particular setting, the research wasdeductive, using an interpretive methodology.

However, building our analytical framework of catego-ries of home and host country culture (section ‘‘the trans-ferability of HRM’’) involved processes of both deductionand induction. The framework emerged from an iterativeprocess of comparing and contrasting insights from the liter-ature on culture, history and management in CEE withrecurring themes in the accounts of experience offered byour research participants. Every effort was made to avoid�forcing� the data to conform to preconceptions which mayhave formed from our reading. However, this is not to saythat we were �naıve inductivists� relying on the researchfield to define our meanings by itself. In practice we setabout our empirical work with some orienting ideas andassumptions derived from the literature which sensitisedus to some themes rather than others, but we were flexiblein changing understandings as we collected data and re-flected on it.

Our interpretive categories of culture emerged from asubtle interplay between historical knowledge, contextualunderstanding of Romania, HR concepts and the field datathe categories chosen seemed to us to offer a good fit inexplaining the complex patterns between research loca-tions. To us they seemed to have validity in terms of ourprior knowledge of �legacy� and authenticity in capturingthe reported experiences of our participants.

Figure 1 Details of MNEs participating in the research.


In deriving the categories effort was given to looking atcontrary and conforming evidence, tracking backwardsand forwards, looking for relationships between existingideas in the literature and particular instances of activityin our field notes and always open to new insights fromthe empirical data. We recognise that other classificationsmight also provide useful ways of seeing. However we do be-lieve that the categories which have emerged are more sen-sitive to local cultural experience than the �internationaldimensions� of standardised cross-cultural typologies (Hofst-ede, Trompenaars etc.) based on positivist thinking.

Fieldwork findings

The organisations in this category comprise the local subsidi-aries of multi-national companies, privatised companies nowunder foreign ownership, joint ventures and foreign compa-nies with a few overseas operations. In this section we reporton the similarities and the differences which permeated theapproach to HR at the time of our research, using Storey�sfourfold model (2007:9) as a framework of internationaldimensions in HRM:

• Strategic qualities-integration of HR management withcorporate business strategy.

• Beliefs and assumptions.• The critical role of line managers as transformativeleaders and drivers of HR policies.

• Professional levers of HRM to build commitment (e.g.,direct communications; performance management;transparent selection etc.).

Strategic qualities

In our sample, some of our organisations are �greenfield�developments; others have been established through acqui-sition. �Exportive� companies are more likely to be hierar-chical and implement HR systems from HO than thosewhich are �adaptive� or �integrative� (Taylor, Beechler, &Napier, 1996).The literature tells us that these factorscan influence the meaning and practice of HRM and theextent to which it has a strategic role, issues we discusslater.

While all the organisations in our sample have movedaway from �Personnel� as the �establishment and cadre� func-tion under Communism (see above) they are differentlypositioned along a scale of professional HR development.Here the relationship between the parent and subsidiaryseems crucial. In Clingfit and Securicare, HRM still appearsto be playing the role of Personnel Manager as �technicaladvisor� (Ulrich�s, 1997: �Administrative Expert�). The focusis on supporting the business, dealing with operational is-sues, �fire fighting�, establishing and maintaining proce-dures, advising line management, providing a professionalservice. In other cases, where companies are moving to be-come truly �trans-national�, such as TobaCo and Brewerlite,HRM is being re-defined as a strategic function, contributingto the business as a whole, pro-active, future-oriented andconcerned to act as a change agent (e.g., Ulrich�s 1997:�Change Agent�). In the most progressive of these Western-owned organisations, HRM is moving from providing aservice to the key decision makers to acting as a � StrategicBusiness Partner� (Ulrich, 1997) involved in creatively


helping managers to recognise the value and plan the use ofthe human asset for best effect.

If there is some variation among these MNEs in how theyconceive the HR function and its profile in business terms,all see themselves as pioneers in the use of HRM. In all casestop managers running Romanian operations are either Wes-tern expatriates or locals with Western Business School edu-cation and global experience. They all articulate the viewthat people management is central to the change process,embracing HR values as the key to cultural change and de-fine themselves as architects of corporate culture (Jans-sens, 1994).

At least at the level of rhetoric, all senior managers claimto be replacing bureaucracy with learning-led, flexible,decentralised organisations based on teamwork, participa-tive management and performance. This, after all, is thedominant discourse of international corporate managementof the early millennium which claims to be building a newmanagement culture of empowerment , �responsible auton-omy� (Friedman, 1977) �flexible form� (Birkinshaw & Hag-strom, 2002) releasing �high commitment� (Lawler, 1986;Walton, 1985) and �high performance� (Ashton & Sung,2002; Holbeche, 2005). So, what strategies have top manag-ers been following to realise these transformational HRgoals?

Beliefs and assumptions

Because most of these companies are acquisitions of previ-ously state- owned enterprises, there has usually been aneed to reduce bureaucracy, improve accountability, re-duce costs, shed staff and streamline process. These com-panies have made significant changes in working practices,procedures, manning levels and deployment of staff. Evenon greenfield sites where the company has inherited lessbaggage from the past, there is still residual cultural con-servatism which has required proactive management.

Change has involved both stick and carrot. So at Steel-co, HR tools such as competency profiles and assessmentcentres have been used to attack an entrenched traditionalmanagement, gauge the capabilities of existing manage-ment stock and discard those who are unsympathetic tothe new order. But these �Hard HRM� initiatives have beencombined with soft �development� interventions. So, Steel-co has implemented a radical programme of re-definingthe �management� role as a �leadership� function. A newsystem of �manufacturing cells� encourages first line man-agers to act as facilitators of small production planningand quality management groups. At Brewerlite this processhad been taken further. New systems of production andperformance management (PM) are being used to helpteams take ownership of their work. They are decentralis-ing control over quality management, budgets, work set-ting and performance evaluation to the lowest practicallevels.

This touches another common theme of the HR agenda inthese organisations- the development of a performance cul-ture �which links performance to results� (Brewerlite) and�encourages continuous improvement in quality and pro-ductivity� (ExpressAir). All of the companies appear to haveimplemented quite sophisticated PMS, with company

objectives cascaded down to teams and individuals; teambased reviews and performance indicators. At Brewerlitethere is a system of joint target setting between levels,negotiated team goals and performance �champions� respon-sible for facilitating the management process. At Expressairperformance has been interwoven with competency and ap-praisal systems as a vehicle for reinforcing signals about thetype of management behaviour which is wanted as well asidentifying staff with potential through succession planning.An expat manager:

�Here, Performance Management is seen as the keyto changing management behaviours. . . We�re trying toget people into a way of thinking that links performanceto results and results to rewards. We hope that manag-ers will set the example and other staff will start tofollow. . .�

In line with the �high performance� HR paradigm (Holb-eche, 2005), these organisations are seeking to develop acoherent framework of HR policies, practices and proce-dures. All are concerned to have explicit procedures onrecruitment, selection, redundancy, training, flexible work-ing and so on. Most have also set up joint regulation machin-ery, formalised staff surveys, communications machineryand� introduced periodic 360 degree reviews. The drive toinstitutionalise HRM seems to reflect the priority given bytop management to professional HR practice as a vehiclefor transformational change.

As we will discuss later, it is the convergence betweenthese companies of different national origins in their ap-proach to HR which is most apparent, however there aresome ideological differences. For example, whilst Americancompanies such as Steelco attempt to bypass the unionswith participative machinery and direct communication,German, Austrian and Swiss companies (e.g., Expressair,Securicare) seem more prepared to recognise organised la-bour and negotiate collective agreements. By the same to-ken, while management in some companies (especiallyGerman) seem reconciled to the Labour Code as an expres-sion of employee rights, others see it as a restriction on�management prerogative� and �flexibility� and try to findways to circumvent it.

As the top managers tell it, HRM policies and practiceshave served as a vital instrument for diffusing Western ideasabout strategic management, a control mechanism for inte-grating global policy with local practice and a conduit forconveying new cultural values (Hetrick, 2002). However,the question arises, despite the zeal of Westernising manag-ers in pushing HR models of change has local managementculture been transformed?

Although the old Communist fiefdoms have been de-stroyed along with the �Mafia-like webs of dependency andarbitrarymanagement� (SteelCo), heroic cultural values suchas �we want pioneering teams, inventive and risk oriented�(ExpressAir); and �we are looking for engaged, thinking andinspirational leadership at all levels� (SoftDrink) remain lar-gely aspirational. The impact of HRM has been chequered andit seems likely that there is some dissonance between areforming discourse of participation and empowerment andtraditional management values embedded in local culturalexperience. For most organisations this is a period of transi-tion. A Romanian manager at �Big Bank�:


�We have made progress, the new systems from Austriahave improved our professionalism in managing peoplebut HR is still a surface thing. . . we haven�t fully assim-ilated the new practices even if we do now know whatwe should be doing!�

Critical role of managers

All of the organisations whose managers were intervieweddeclare that they are pursuing an explicit leadership devel-opment agenda. All the companies in the survey claim to beheavily involved in building the skill profiles of their Roma-nian managers. Top managers say that they want managerswho � can motivate and inspire their teams for change�(Securicare) and �can push forward and overcome obstacleswithout always referring up for help� (TobaCo) Expat man-agers claim they are deliberately modelling the behaviourthey want to see from their line reports. Here is the VicePresident at TobaCo:

�People are always trying to cover themselves. Theyavoid putting things in writing. They try to hide behindgroup decisions so that personal responsibility isn�t pin-ned on them. They look to me to make things safe forthem. I got so sick of this, people wanting direction, thatI gave up the big table where we have meetings, me atthe head and asked each of my direct reports in turnwhat they would do on the big issues ahead of us beforegiving my own opinion. This caused a lot of discomfortbut it did show who were the �yes men� and who hadsome independent �spark�. . .�

All the companies in our sample see learning and develop-ment as a driving force for organisational development andan important vehicle for embedding cultural change. Teamleader development and training for flexibility andmulti-skil-ling are seen as particular priorities for disseminating HR val-ues. Most have HR planning systems to identify behaviour andskill gaps; competency frameworks and development needsassessment through the PM system. HRD is increasingly mov-ing to tailored interventions (personal development plans,rotation, stretch projects, mentoring etc.) which value expe-riential learning, well established in the West (Conger,1992), but not yet in Romania.

Yet, as top multi-national managers see it, the develop-ment of a more participative and engaged style among theirRomanian �direct reports� is an uphill task. While higher levelRomanian managers might hold their own anywhere it isallegedly at themiddle and lower levels where �there is a lackof modern leadership and the kickback happens� (as oneexpatriate described it). These managers are seen by theirWestern counterparts as having mindsets which are hierar-chical and conservative and are reluctant to take responsibil-ity. They are accustomed to looking up for directionwhen thedecisions are their�s to take. The Vice President at TobaCo:

�My Romanian managers are quite capable of havingideas . . .but they want you to counter-sign everythingthey do and make it safe . . .they don�t want to committhemselves to a figure or to be held responsible for adecision, you are always pushing things back . . .overcom-ing their fear of being empowered�

From the perspective of Westerners, Romanian managersoften seem reluctant to show initiative, take ownership fora project or to stand out. They could seem reluctant to par-ticipate in discussions, to express themselves openly or con-tribute ideas, especially if the outcome was in doubt ortheir position might seem like dissent. Westerners talk oftimidity, excessive deference to authority and lack of confi-dence. An �expat� manager at Publis:

�There is fear of giving bad news and being punished.Even where the manager may appear to be comfortablewith the new informality in the office and using firstnames with the boss, if anything goes wrong it�s backto �Mr. Director, Sir��.

�People are frightened of seeming not to know things,revealing ignorance or not expressing themselves wellso they hide behind their computers and send endlesse-mails�

This reserve and caution is also seen to apply to lateralrelationships between departments and between colleaguesin a multi-disciplinary team. �Expats� talk of the problems ofbuilding a teamwork culture based on informality and trustwhen people seem to want formality, like putting thingsthrough channels, hiding behind procedures and avoidingblame at all costs. An �expat� at Securicare:

�There is a lot of mistrust – not just managers andstaff . . . staff mistrust each other . . .this makes buildingteams very difficult�

As we explain later, these resistances may ultimately be�cultural�, the psychological consequences of an authoritar-ian (even totalitarian) past in which everyone felt watchedand feared denunciation. But some of this seems rootedmore particularly in traditional Romanian definitions ofthe role of the manager and scepticism about the workabil-ity of �democratised� management which we might even calla counter-ideology.

Some Romanian managers oppose the new model of lead-ership on principle. It is seen as offering a construct of lead-ing which is alien and illegitimate in the Romanian context.They argue that the manager in Romania has always been afigure of authority with a large span of executive control.Managers expect themselves and are expected by the workcommunity �to have answers to problems�. Teams are tradi-tionally not so much vehicles for decision making as plat-forms for the manager to demonstrate personal leadership.Within this framework of meaning, consulting with col-leagues is seen as undermining the �gravitas� of the manager,might be interpreted as �weakness� and certainly runs counterto the cultural expectation that the manager gives clear per-sonal direction.

It is not just unreconstructed authoritarians who looksceptically on the new liberalised management. Romanianmanagers of all ages and backgrounds voice scepticism that�participative management� is a form of legitimation of con-trol strategies that concentrate rather than share authority(Barker, 1993). In these terms, the �passivity� which �expats�attribute to their Romanian counterparts might also be de-fined as �playing safe �whilst assessing the true commitmentof expatriates to this style over the longer term. A Roma-nian manager at SteelCo:


�Two years ago it was all: �involve your staff, teams,value peoples� commitment�. Now, with recession, it�scost cutting, controls and more prescription from thetop. Democracy in management is not for all seasons,it seems�.

Some Romanian managers accuse their Western counter-parts of either using �participation� as an excuse for delegat-ing difficult decisions and dispersing blame when things gowrong or of hypocrisy in mouthing insincere platitudes. ARomanian manager at ExpressAir:

�Expats say �engagement� but they don�t create the condi-tions for this. Where is the mentoring, preparing peoplefor new roles, changing the reward systems and climatefor new behaviours? It�s �press button� management� andwe question the sincerity behind the words.

Some Romanian managers go as far as to say that �partic-ipation� is a mystificatory ideology that ironically has reso-nances of Communism.

�I lived for decades under one ideology which was heroicand humanitarian in rhetoric but was about cynical con-trol in reality. I sometimes think that �participation� andHR is not so different. The words of the expats are notalways reflected in their deeds�.

Something of the subtle paradox involved in cross cul-tural transfer of management ideas is revealed in a storytold by one of the Romanian managers at Brewerlite. Appar-ently, when the company was taken over, an HR-led coach-ing system was set up in which it was planned that Westernengineers would pair up with their Romanian equivalents todevelop their management skills. However, the coacheswere selected by the parent company for their technicalcompetence not their people skills and they received no cul-tural sensitisation. As a result the Brewerlite coaches de-fined their role as �experts� bringing �best practice�. Theyignored the Romanians� experience and cast them in the roleof inadequately trained learners with a lot to learn. Feelingde-skilled, resentful and angry (especially as the pro-gramme had been launched under an �empowerment� label)the Romanians reacted by working closely to instructionsand not showing any initiative or independence of judge-ment. Effectively they regressed to the �getting by� stylewhich they had practised under Communism where the pre-vailing management culture had been similarly hierarchicaland controlling. They reverted to a default mode �passivedisengagement� script which seemed to them the onlyappropriate response to the �arrogance� of the Western man-agers, thereby (unwittingly) fulfilling the Western stereo-type of Romanians. Perhaps it is not surprising that after ayear this showcase HR programme was seen as a majorembarrassment by HO and withdrawn.

Key levers

If Western companies have experienced resistance in intro-ducing HR-led concepts of humanised leadership, the intro-duction of HR techniques, although presented by theiradvocates as universally applicable and culture-neutral,has also been problematic.

On the upside, our respondents report that the effect ofa �take over� by multi-nationals is usually to bring in a moreorderly process of regulating the human aspects of employ-ment, e.g., improved procedural justice, explicit stan-dards, clear criteria. However, there is usually a gapbetween official rhetoric and the situation on the ground.For example, managers at Steelco and Brewerlite reportthat recruitment procedures which had been completelyoverhauled to make them impartial and competency-leddid not squeeze patronage out of the system. Powerful lo-cal managers apparently still find opportunities to recruitcronies and justify the selection retrospectively for the re-cord (Publis). Performance management systems becomecompromised by �favouritism� (Steelco).

�Far too often HO just announces a new system andexpects that it will work here. There�s too much �onesize fits all� when we need critical thinking and selectiveadaptation. Take performance appraisal, managers inRomania have always used patronage to reward theirsupporters. Our PM system soon became a vehicle forhigher managers to reward the team leaders, who werenot doing very well, with some higher payments.�

HR tools regularly used in the West can founder in Roma-nia. For example, 360 degree appraisal is often perceived asan alien and intrusive because it is seen to insult manage-ment dignity and undermine its authority (Steelco). �Man-agement by Objectives� is ignored or given only cursoryattention allegedly because of negative associations withCommunist command and control (AquaCo).

From the testimony it seems that there is often a dis-juncture between the �espoused ideas� of HRM and �ideasin practice� (Argyris, 1999) as HR concepts become inter-preted through the filters of the �host culture�

The transferability of HRM

We turn now to the question of the portability of HR ideasand practices.

A contextual analysis which aspired to any comprehen-siveness would involve consideration of numerous factorsinter alia: organisational size, economic sector, businessenvironment, patterns of ownership, institutions of labourrelations, law, education, politics and so on (see Budhwar& Sparrow, 2002; Brewster and Hegewisch, 2005; French,2008, for quite exhaustive lists of contextual factors whichcorrelate to HR behaviour). Here we focus just on aspectsof �host and home cultures� (or, if you prefer, �corporateand national cultures�), which seem to act as mediatinginfluences explaining HR transferability.

Home culture influences

Country of origin and models of HRMAlthough MNEs may be seeking �best practice� principles ofmanaging which transcend national borders, Ferner et al.(2001) and others (Janssens, 1994) argue that nationalityof ownership remains an important influence on MNE behav-iour, i.e., MNEs continue to mirror the business and nationalculture of their country of origin in overseas operations.


The research provides some evidence of this proposition.In terms of cultural diversity, our sample divides on an axisbetween Anglo-American (and one South African in a jointventure) and �Germanic� (also Austrian and Swiss) parentcompanies. In both types we find some evidence of �countryof origin� effects. True to type, the Anglo-American MNEsemphasise individualistic modes of HRM, flexibility, perfor-mance management, employee relations which seek toavoid unionism and the other elements of the internationalHR script we considered in section two. However, in the�German� companies: Expressair, Bigbank and to some ex-tent, Securicare, we find the familiar elements of the liberalmodel tempered by the influence of German business cul-ture (e.g., collaborative, �stakeholder�, institutionalised).

As Hang-Yue (1998) suggests, MNEs from some countriesrepresent cultural values which make it easier to adapt HRpolicies to local conditions than firms from other culturalcontexts. Germanic preference for centralised procedural-ism and structural solutions may find a more comfortablefit with the �high uncertainty avoidance� and �collectivism�of the local Romanian management culture than withAnglo-American �individualism� (Hofstede, 1991). That said,�country of origin� effects can be exaggerated, global HRstrategies are driven by the impersonal forces of interna-tional capitalism. It is also deterministic to assume HR strat-egies from national origins and while we can say that our�Germanic� companies shared some distinctive featureswhich seem ethno-centrically derived, there were alsoimportant differences between them (e.g., Expressair allowsconsiderable local discretion for a German MNE). Moreover,it is the convergence on the Anglo-American led internationalHR model, as a dominant , imitative model, which is mostapparent, even if these principles are given a �German twist�in local subsidiaries (Ferner et al., 2001). Pudelko andHarzing (2007) suggest that �isomorphism� is now a prevailingforce convincing some US MNEs to reverse their policies oflocalisation and emphasise standardisation around uniform�best practice� (which conveniently presumes the AmericanHR �consensus�). Whether this is the logic, it is certainly thecase that in our survey , a number of US companies have re-cently drawn back delegated powers in HRM (Steelco andBrewerlite), although this may be a tactical response torecession rather than ideological re-positioning.

Levels of globalisation and parent/subsidiaryrelationshipsThe research found that MNEs vary in their level of globali-sation. There are many models in the literature to representthe stages of internationalisation and the implications forHRM, e.g., Milliman and Von Glinow (1991) speak of 4 stagesof multi-national development with corresponding modes ofHRM commitment leading to a judicious balance of integra-tion and differentiation. Taylor et al. (1996) talk of adap-tive, exportive and integrative phases on an ascendingscale towards strategic HRM. Our companies are at differentpoints on the spectrum. However, in all of our MNE subsidi-aries local HR works within a framework of guidance fromHO on issues such as recruitment, performance manage-ment, reward and management development. The scopefor local discretion in interpreting, adapting or ignoring cen-tral HR policy varies considerably between companies (seeFigure 1).

This can be partly explained by the globalising strategy ofHO. Parent companies try to mould the cultures of theirsubsidiaries in terms of the balance which is needed betweeninnovation and flexibility and standardisation and strategicdirection at each stage in the cycle of corporate develop-ment. The point that the organisation has reached on a scalebetween setting up overseas and building a truly transna-tional organisation will shape the degree of local autonomywhich will be granted the local operations, in HRM as in otheraspects of management. So in our sample, Clingfit, recentlyestablished as part of a �multi-domestic� development (Bart-lett & Ghoshal, 1991), is tightly controlled by HO procedures.However, Tobacco, which may be on the way to becoming atruly transnational organisation, has considerable freedomto develop its own HR practices and culture, with HO actingless as a policeman to ensure consistency with central poli-cies, more as a catalyst helping local teams develop theirown �best fit� solutions.

Of course, the relative influence of the parent companyand the local subsidiary on HR culture is a dynamic relation-ship and constantly shifting. So, for example, at Brewerlite,there is a �loose–tight� relationship on HR. The parent com-pany controls global systems such as job classification, per-formance, management development, talent managementand succession but the local units can control HR processeswhich are seen as requiring sensitivity to local Romanian cul-ture and the country�s legislation, which the company cannotoverride. The elasticity in the framework can also change asthe business environment becomes either more or lessfavourable (Hetrick, 2002). So, for example, Steelco enjoysconsiderable autonomy to develop its own HR systems butwith the recession some delegated powers and freedomshave been withdrawn and concentrated at HO.

The company�s �entry mode� may also have an effect onthe transferability of parent company culture and HR prac-tices. It is noticeable that companies in the sample withdirective, home country HR policies also tend to be �green-field� operations. It appears that transferring corporate val-ues and company culture is easier on a greenfield site thanthrough acquisition. Employees can be selected on the basisof certain criteria which reflect corporate values, they arenot inherited as on a brownfield location (Hetrick, 2002). In-deed, Hardy (1998) suggests in a survey of foreign invest-ment in Poland, another ex-Communist country, that thegreenfield model was deliberately chosen to circumvent cul-tural legacies and institutional rigidities which might com-promise parent strategies. We might expect these to bethe most propitious circumstances for international con-cepts of HRM to become culturally embedded.

Expatriate managers as culture buildersThe role of the expatriate as a transmitter of corporateculture is crucial in shaping HR culture within the subsidi-ary. In all the MNEs the expatriate managers are importantas agents of control ensuring that HO directions and poli-cies are implemented (Hetrick, 2002). However, they areimportant too in more informal ways, disseminating under-standing of HO corporate culture, acting as role modelsgiving a lead in knowledge and expertise, transferringlearning across national boundaries and building stronglocal cultures (Schuler et al., 1993).


As we have seen in our survey, all the top expatriate man-agers say they were attempting to fashion a new �high com-mitment� and high performance culture using the tools ofHRM. However, despite the similarities the expatriates seemto perform different functions in different places. Using Perl-mutter�s (1969) famous typology of MNE staffing, we can dis-tinguish ethnocentric companies where managers arenationals of the parent company (PCNs) and implement theculture of HO as standardised procedures from regio-centricor polycentric firms where expatriates operate more as localcatalysts for change mediating practices between the levels(Schuler et al., 1993). To a degree there may be some na-tional differentiation here with German expatriates (and toa lesser extent Americans), acting as transmitters of HO cul-ture through standardised HR policies in contrast to the Brit-ish concerned to customise HO policies and grant a measureof local autonomy. Certainly the �mindsets� of expatriates –their interpretation of their role and their perception of theirrole in relation to HO (e.g., guardian of HO culture; �rolemodel� or facilitator of �best fit� etc.) – seems to be crucialin determining how home country culture is melded with hostcountry culture. The degree of flexibility allowed to subsidi-aries in implementing HR policy may also crucially depend onthe advocacy of expatriates in justifying local variation andthe trust which the parent has in their capabilities.

Host culture influences

Although,aswesuggestabove,eachMNEwill have itsowncor-porate culture, it is argued here that there are some underly-ing themes andwidely permeatingmeanings of culture (muchlike Schein�s �basic assumptions� 1985) which cut across thisdiversity, representing shared constructs about managing inRomania. Ultimately this external cultural context reflectsnational experience – the historical, social, political legacy–which runsdeep. It is this national culture, the residual formof a �totalising� Communism superimposed on an earlierauthoritarian tradition (Gallagher, 2005), that currently de-fines the prospects and sets the limits to the transfer of inter-national �good practice� in HRM. As we have demonstrated inour empirical work, when HR practices contradict core cul-tural values, HR is ignored, resisted or becomes a facade be-hind which traditional behaviour persists.

In the spirit of the interpretive paradigm of culture (dis-cussed above –Geertz, 1973), we attempt here to surfacesome of these values of national culture which go deep ininfluencing behaviour.

Authority, centralisation and hierarchy

As we have seen, time and again in the fieldwork, attentionis drawn to the centralised direction, �high power distance�and concentration of power in the hands of the enterprisemanager (Catana & Catana, 1999). This may explain the ar-rested development of HRM as a profession. It is also foundin the reluctance of senior managers to operate throughteams and cynicism towards the �humanisation� of workwhich has as its corollary the passivity of much of the work-force (Diaconescu, 2010). These themes are captured in aquotation by a Romanian manager:

�Managers are authoritarian here. They want theirauthority to be seen and they want respect for the sta-tus they hold, that can make them seem very aloof. . .�

Bureaucracy, formality and control

Given the �Leviathan� command systems of Communism it isnot surprising that the principle of �control� is still verystrong ( Gallagher, 2005). Formalised management basedon rules and putting things through channels typically com-bine with Taylorist organisation of work processes to createrigid and mechanical patterns of working (Aioanei, 2006;Amaria, 2008). The dominant organisational culture seemsadministrative with �process� taking precedence over initia-tive, innovation or flexibility. A Romanian managementconsultant:

�The psychological hold of �old Romania� is stillstrong. . ..Appearances are all important here, smallbosses are always concerned to look good with higherbosses, which usually mean having everything in order�.

Cronyism, patronage and personalised management

A strong thread lacing between the organisations is theclaim that informal connections and networks determinehow structures and systems operate in practice (Diaconescu,2010). Nepotism and having �friends in high places�, perhapsreflecting a �collectivist� society and the importance of clanloyalties (Hofstede, 1991; Grigoruta, 2006), is said to per-vade all parts of the work process. HR systems (perfor-mance, appraisal, recruitment, development) are oftenbrokered through patron-client relations (Diaconescu,2010; Randall & Theobald, 1998). A familiar �typification�voiced by a Western observer:

�Patronage is everywhere. It is the backcloth to every-thing. People get rewards because they are on goodterms with the manager. The HR systems don�t changethat�

Trust, fear and mutuality

A consistent theme at work is the alleged mistrust ofauthority and colleagues. Many talk of �blame cultures�which focus more on conformity than taking initiative, of�witch hunts� and �scapegoating� for mistakes. An atmo-sphere of secrecy, suspicion and reserve (Lewis, 2007) lin-gers on as the historical aftermath of repression andtotalitarian control. Fear of denunciation by colleagues isstill very strong even if the consequences are no longeras severe as under Communism. A culture of mistrust issaid to fracture workgroups into mutually antagonistic cli-ques bound together by higher level patronage (Kenney,2006). The edgy, jumpy atmosphere which these condi-tions seem to engender do not form fertile conditions forthe values of Westernised HRM-teambuilding, open, trust-ing relations and social integration- to easily take root(Dimanescu, 2004). A young Romanian manager:


�Informal connections are used for exchanging secretinformation-gossiping, creating alliances to defeat oth-ers, usually another team. Being part of a strong cliqueis essential for organisational survival�

Leadership: conservatism and politicisation

A recurring theme raised by respondents is that many of theolder senior Romanian managers are ex-Nomenklatura whoare not trained in management , are not committed to mod-ern management approaches or capable to using them (Mar-tin, 2002). Even where this is not the case, many voices areraised about the alleged �conservatism� of managers, theirtendency to define management in operational terms, theirlack of strategic orientation or interest in creating condi-tions for experimentation and change. A �political� modelof leading-networking, using leverage with political elites,building local alliances, fixing, brokering and bartering-arguably a legacy of managing in a planned economy, seemsfar more in evidence than Western models of humanised,transformative leadership (Aioanei, 2006; Czeh, 2010).Respondents are keen to insist that this leadership oftencontinues despite �take over� by a multi-national and theintroduction of a new leadership culture from outside. Anexpatriate commenting on his experience of Romanian busi-ness leadership:

�Romanian managers and businessmen expect to do busi-ness by ringing their patrons. They trade on networksand favours to get cheap credit, a good interpretationof the law, privileged consideration in a tender bid orhelp from the inspectorate in leaning on a business rival�

Conclusion

This paper has examined the transfer of Westernised HRideas to Romania through the medium of MNEs. We have fo-cused particularly on culture as the dominant variable,among other contextual factors, which explains the patternby which HR ideas from the West are filtered as they aretransplanted from one context to another.

While our analysis is concerned with HRM in a specific lo-cale and we do not have comparative empirical data, theremay be aspects of the Romanian experience which offer les-sons for the development of HRM in CEE and, more generally,in post-Communist/authoritarian/transitional societies, ofconceptual and practical interest to both the internationalHR community and MNE expatriate managers.

Turning first to the influence of home country culture onHR transfer, in our study the degree of �ethnocentrism�seemed to vary considerably between MNEs by national ori-gins, corporate culture, HO and periphery relationships, le-vel of MNE development and mode of entry to the Romanianmarket. In terms of the debate on HR universalism, therewas some evidence of convergence on the neo-liberal HRmodel even where other national model of managing em-ployee relations were in play (e.g., the Austro-German�institutional� tradition). However, there was no sense thatthis was a deterministic expression of an irresistible interna-tional capitalism. In most cases hybrid HR models seemedmost in evidence (liberalism combined with regulatory

atterns) and where American values and practices were ap-plied uncritically they could be resented as �cultural imperi-alism� and quietly resisted or ignored, as we report in thetext. There may be themes here that apply to other CEEcountries.

Our research leads us to suggest some other generalobservations. Whilst structural drivers do shape cross-cul-tural HR transfer and the �varieties of capitalism� argumenthas some force, agency is also important in explaining�embeddedness� in particular organisations. There may bea tendency for �convergence� to be correlated with the pres-ence of powerful local managers who are home countrynationals, but this is not inevitable. Local country managers(HCNs, TCNs) may also use their pivotal positions with skilland diplomacy to influence local practices. Indeed, the ac-tual form which HRM takes within any subsidiary may actu-ally be a �negotiated order� between actors at differentlevels with varied power bases, ideologies and agendasinterpreting the most suitable point of balance betweeninternational principles of HRM and local relevance. Thishas implications for managers attempting to implementHRM in foreign settings which go well beyond Romania.

Moving to considerations of host country culture, theevidence from our case studies appears to demonstratethe observation that where the values implicit in interna-tional HR models are consistent with host national cul-ture there is a good chance of transfer. However,where there is a clash between encoded values withinthe HR project and the assumptions of national culturethen these practices do not transfer or only do so in adistorted form.

As the most value-led sphere of management, HRM argu-ably reflects its cultural origins. The dominant internationalHR model had its origins in the USA and arguably embodiesWestern assumptions of liberal freedoms and rights, plural-ism and a developed civil society, accountability throughdemocracy and a market economy which may not be com-patible with the core values of national cultures which havefollowed a different historical path (e.g., with no �Enlight-enment� tradition; weak civil society; fledgling democracy;poor rule of law; underdeveloped market institutionsetc.). Of course, it is possible to overplay this argument.Not only is it contentious to posit a �democratic� West withan �authoritarian� East, it is questionable if the declaratoryvalues of international HRM (e.g., empowerment, engage-ment, flexibility, participation etc.) are widely practisedeven within the West.

Even so, there is sufficient evidence from our ethno-graphic data of tension between the modernising values ofHRM and traditional local culture (flexibility vs neo-pater-nalism; participative vs directive management; transpar-ency vs cronyism etc.) to suggest that historical forces areimportant in transfer. Where the cultural diversity betweenHR ideology and historical cultural values are too great it isonly the outward forms of HRM or its rhetoric, as a fig leaf of�modernity�, which are absorbed. In these conditions, HRpractices (e.g., 360 degree appraisal; team managementetc.) are really �labels� or �slogans� which belie the activitiescarried out in their name.

These are widely permeating challenges for internationalHRM in many parts of the world. Whether the psychologicallegacy left behind by Communism creates a particularly


resistant block to globalising HR is an intriguing point whichwe cannot resolve without more comparative empirical re-search in other post-Communist countries. It may well bethat despite the totalising tendencies of Communism, inreality this politico-managerial system took very differentforms in various places as it was interpreted in terms of lo-cal traditions. Perhaps, it is these deeper assumptions of na-tional culture, the residue of historical experience on whichCommunism was superimposed, that form the most impor-tant cultural influences on HR in any particular setting. In-deed, to unravel the relative influence of core historicalexperiences on HR practices within CEE would form an inter-esting study of practical interest to international managers.

In the same way, HR modernisers might wish to considerrelative levels of development in selecting HR models andtechniques for cross cultural transfer. As the Romanian casemay argue, where management ideas current in an ad-vanced post-industrial society (US, UK , Germany) aregrafted onto one at an earlier stage of development (i.e.,Romania and many other CEE countries are transitionalsocieties with large agrarian sectors and few large scalecommercial enterprises) then we might expect issues of�fit� and critical adaptation.

As this last point suggests, the paper raises importantissues for MNE managers charged with building an HR func-tion in contexts where HRM is underdeveloped as a philos-ophy and practice and there are strong psychologicallegacies which continue to have an impact. The thrust ofthis paper is that MNE managers, and especially expatri-ates, should be aware of the limitations of globalised HRmodels in countries where the local context is very cultur-ally different from the home country. This requires manag-ers who resist the role of �missionaries of best practice�and eschew an ideology of management as value-neutral�science� in favour of locally evolved solutions which blendthe best of East and West, global thinking and localexperience.

For this to happen managers must take culture and his-tory seriously. This means broadening consciousness be-yond positivistic cross-cultural typologies based onimputed �international dimensions of culture� (Hofstede,Trompenaars etc.) and the cursory consideration of his-tory as �path dependency� (i.e., corporate variables whichcan be put into one dimensional �environmental scanning�models for strategic HR development). Instead, managersare urged to adopt a construction of culture which isfluid, discursive and emergent, politically and historicallyinformed, as an organising logic for their own organisa-tional research on the interface between corporate andnational culture (not unlike this paper). With this sensitiv-ity managers may be better placed to facilitate criticaldiscourses and experimentation – between Westernersas experts on technique and locals as experts on culture– which may lead to new custom-designed forms ofHRM. Although this transfer model will not deliver quickresults it may offer the best chance of developing rele-vant HRM which has local ownership. How this debate ismanaged may hold lessons for people management inmany transitional countries, including those withauthoritarian and Communist legacies, not least that mostpowerful of countries whose choices will shape the nextworld order-China.

Acknowledgements

In addition to the many research participants who spokeopenly to us, we thank Professors Tom Gallagher, Doinaand Alex Catana, Marian Nastase, Robin Theobald, also DanaDiaconescu and Mihaela Ionescu who read earlier drafts ofthe article and strengthened it with their comments. Thanksalso to Liz Kennedy who contributed to earlier work on theproject.

References

Agh, A. (1998). Emerging democracies in East Central Europe: across cultural perspective. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Aioanei, I. (2006). Leadership in Romania. Journal of OrganisationalChange Management, 19(6), 705–712.

Amaria, O. (2008). Workplace development in a post-communistculture, ISTR eighth international conference, University ofBarcelona, July 9–12, 2008.

Argyris, C. (1999). On organisational learning. Oxford: Blackwell.Arzu Wasti, S. (1998). Cultural barriers in the transferability of

Japanese and American human resources practices to developingcountries: The Turkish case. International Journal of HumanResource Management, 9(4), 608–631.

Ashton, D., & Sung, J. (2002). Supporting workplace learning forhigh performance working. Geneva: ILO.

Barker, J. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control inself -managed teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3),408–437.

Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1991). Managing Across Borders. Boston:Harvard Business Press.

Bate, P. (1994). Strategies for cultural change. Oxford: Butter-worth-Heinemann.

Birkinshaw, J., & Hagstrom, P. (2002). The flexible firm. Oxford:University Press.

Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. (2003). Strategy and human resourcemanagement. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Brewster, C., & Hegewisch, A. (2004). Human Resource Manage-ment in Europe. Oxford: Elsevier.

Budhwar, P., & Sparrow, R. (2002). An integrative framework forunderstanding cross-national HR practice. Human ResourceManagement Review, 12, 377–403.

Catana, A., & Catana, D. (1999). Romanian cultural background andits relevance for cross cultural management. Journal of EastEuropean Management Studies, 3, 253–257.

Conger, J. (1992). Learning to lead: The art of transformingmanagers into leaders. California: Jossey Bass.

Constanin, T. (2006). Romanian managers and human resourcemanagement. Journal of Organisational Change, 19(6),115–125.

Czeh, M. (2010). Management learning and development in Centraland Eastern Europe: The case of Romanian small business.Journal of Transnational Management Development, 7(4),55–71.

Diaconescu, D. (2010). Patterns of national culture and manage-ment in Romania; Unpublished MA Dissertation.

Dimanescu, D. (Ed.). (2004). Romania redux: A view from Harvard.Humanitas: Bucharest.

Easterby Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Lowe, A. (1992). Managementresearch: An introduction. London: Sage.

Edwards, V., & Lawrence, P. (2000). Management in EasternEurope. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Ferner, A., Quintanilla, J., & Varul, M. (2001). Country-of-origineffects, host-country effects, and the management of HR inmultinationals: German companies in Britain and Spain. Journalof World Business, 36(2), 107–127.


French, R. (2008). Cross cultural management. London: CIPD.Friedman, A. (1977). Responsible autonomy versus direct control

over the labour process. Capital and Class, 1, 35–55.Gallagher, T. (2005). Theft of a nation. London: Hurst and Co.Gallagher, T. (2009). Romania and the European Union. Manches-

ter: Manchester University Press.Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of culture. New York: Basic

Books.Gill, R., & Wong, A. (1998). The cross-cultural transfer of manage-

ment practices: The case of Japanese human resource manage-ment practices in Singapore. The International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, 9(1), 116–135.

Glenny, M. (2000). The Balkans. London: Granta.Grigoruta, M. (2006). Change in Romanian organisations: A man-

agement culture approach. Journal of Organisational ChangeManagement, 19(6), 747–752.

Hang-Yue, N. (1998). Human resource practices and firm perfor-mance of multi-national corporations: Influences of countryorigin. The International Journal of HRM, 9(4), 632–652.

Hardy, J. (1998). The impact of FDI on the wroclaw regionaleconomy, Polish–British Scientific Conference, ConferencePaper, University of Bailystok, October 2–3.

Hetrick, S. (2002). Transferring HR ideas and practices: Globalisa-tion and convergence in Poland. Human Resource DevelopmentInternational, 5(3), 333–351.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organisations: the software ofthe mind. New York: McGraw Hill.

Holbeche, L. (2005). High performance organisations. London:Wiley.

Ionescu, M. (2011). The impact of cultural legacies onmanaging teams in Romania, MA Dissertation in Course ofPreparation.

Jankowicz, A. (1998). Issues in human resource management inCentral Europe. Personnel Review, 27(3), 169–176.

Janssens, M. (1994). Evaluating international managers� perfor-mance: Parent company standards as a control mechanism.International Journal of HRM, 5(4), 853–873.

Karoliny, Z., Frakas, F., & Poor, J. (2009). In focus: Hungarian andCentral Eastern European characteristics of HRM – An interna-tional comparative survey. Journal of East European Manage-ment Studies, 10(1), 9–47.

Kelemen, M. (1999). The myth of re-structuring, competentmanagers and the transition to a market economy: A Romaniantale. British Journal of Management, 10, 199–208.

Kenney, P. (2006). The burdens of freedom. London: Zed Books.Koubek, J., & Brewster, C. (1995). Human resource management in

turbulent times: HRM in the Czech Republic. InternationalJournal of Human Resource Management, 6, 2.

Lawler, E. (1986). High involvement management. California:Jossey Bass.

Lewis, R. (2007). When cultures collide: Leading across cultures.New York: Nicholas Brealey.

Martin, R. (2002). Politicised managerial capitalism: Enterprisestructures in post-socialist Central and Eastern Europe. Journalof Management Studies, 39(6), 823–839.

Maruyama, M. (1993). Management reform in Eastern and CentralEurope: Use of pre-communist cultures. Dartmouth: Aldershot.

Meardi, G. (2002). The trojan horse for the Americanisation ofEurope? Polish industrial relations towards the EU. EuropeanJournal of Industrial Relations, 8, 77–99.

Mia, E., & Suutari, V. (2004). HRM in foreign affiliates: A multiplecase study among Estonian affiliates of Finnish companies.Journal of East European Management Studies, 4, 345–366.

Milliman, J., & Von Glinow, M. (1991). Organisational life cycles andstrategic international human resource management in multi-national companies: Implications for congruence theory. Acad-emy of Management Review, 16(2), 316–339.

Morley, M., Heraty, N., & Michailova, S. (2009). Managing humanresources in Central and Eastern Europe. London: Routledge.

Ngo, H., Turban, D., Lau, C., & Lui, S. (1998). Human Resourcespractices and firm performance of multinational corporations:Influences of country origin. The International Journal of HumanResources Management, 9(4), 632–652.

Nolke, A., & Vliegenthart, A. (2009). Enlarging the varieties ofcapitalism: The emergence of dependent market economies inEast Central Europe. World Politics, 61(4), 670–702.

Noon, M. (1992). HRM: A map, a model or theory? In P. Blyton & P.Turnbull (Eds.), Reassessing human resource management.Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Perlmutter, H. (1969). The torturous evolution of the multi-nationalcorporation. Columbia Journal of World Business, 4, 9–18.

Phinnemore, D. (2006). The EU and Romania: Accession and beyond.London: The Federal Trust.

Pieper, R. (1992). Socialist HRM: An analysis of HRM theory andpractice in the former socialist countries of Eastern Europe. TheInternational Executive, 34(6), 499–516.

Prodan, A., & Clipa, C. (2009). Transfer of Romanian HRM practicesin multi-national companies. MIBES Transactions, 3(1), 91–99.

Pudelko, M., & Harzing, A. (2007). Country-of-origin localization, ordominance effect? An empirical investigation of HRM practices inforeign subsidiaries. Human Resource Management, 46(4),535–559.

Randall, V., & Theobald, R. (1998). Political change and underde-velopment. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Roper, S. (2004). Romania: The unfinished revolution. London:Routledge.

Schuler, R., Dowling, P., & De Cieri, H. (1993). An integrativeframework of strategic international human resource manage-ment. The International Journal of Human Resource Manage-ment, 4(4), 717–764.

Schuler, R. S., & Tarique, I. (2007). International human resourcemanagement: A thematic update and suggestions for futureresearch. International Journal of Human Resource Manage-ment, 18, 717–744.

Silverman, D. (1985). Qualitative methodology and sociology.Aldershot: Gower.

Sisson, K. (2005) Personnel Management and European Integration:a Case of Indelible Imprint in: Bach, S. (2005) Managing HumanResources, chapter 2. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Storey, J. (1995). Human resource management: A critical text.London: Routledge.

Taylor, S., Beechler, S., & Napier, N. (1996). Towards an integrativemodel of strategic human resource management. Academy ofManagement Review, 21(4), 959–985.

Ulrich, D. (1997). Human resource champions: The next agenda foradding value and delivering results. Boston: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

Van Maanen, J. (1983). Qualitative methodology. London: Sage.Walton, R. (1985). From control to commitment in the workplace.

Harvard Business Review, 63(2), 76–84.Whitley, R. (1999). Divergent capitalisms: The Social structuring

and change of business systems. Oxford: OUP.Zupan, N., & Kase, R. (2005). Strategic HRM in European transition

economies: Building a conceptual model on the case of Slovenia.The International Journal of Human Resource Management,16(1), 882–906.


KEVIN DALTON is a Senior Lecturer in Man-agement/ Leadership Development andOrganisational Analysis at Westminster Busi-ness School. He has served as Director of theSeychelles Institute of Management and theNHS Executive in Scotland as an OD consul-tant and held a series of research appoint-ments. His research interests are in the fieldsof management culture, organisationalstorytelling and sense making in leadership.

JANET DRUKER is a Visiting Professorattached to the Human Resource Manage-ment Department at Westminster BusinessSchool. She is also Emeritus Professor ofCanterbury Christ Church University whereshe was Senior Pro-Vice Chancellor between2005 and 2010. Her research interests are inthe field of work and employment, particu-larly resourcing and reward issues.

transferring hr concepts and practices within multi-national corporations in romania: the management...

Documents