New Perspectives on Human Resource Management in a Global Context | Journal of World Business

This article by Rosalie L. Tung discusses the changes and challenges in international human resource management (IHRM) policies and practices due to globalization, migration, and the worldwide war for talent. The paper presents new perspectives on IHRM as they relate to research on multicultural teams and brain circulation.

New perspectiveson human resourcemanagementin a global context
Rosalie L. Tung
BeedieSchoolof Business,SimonFraserUniversity,8888 UniversityDrive,Burnaby,B.C.,CanadaV5A 1S6
1. Introduction
Sincethe publicationof my 1981article,‘‘Selectionand training
of personnelfor overseasassignments’’,in the ColumbiaJournal of
World Business(now known as the Journal of World Business,JWB
in short),most countriesaround the world have embarkedon the
inexorablepath toward globalizationor regionalization.1 A major
consequence of globalization is global mobility where the
movement of people across international boundaries, whether
temporaryor permanent,has becomea common phenomenon.
To commemoratethe 50th anniversaryof the JWB, this paper
will first present a brief overview of how HRM in the context of
global mobility has changedsince 1981,albeit some aspectshave
evolvedmore slowly than others.The paperwill then examinethe
changes and challenges in the international human resource
managementcontext, particularly in light of the global war for
talent and brain circulation, that render the need for fresh
perspectivesto better understandthe evolving phenomenonof
HRM policies and practices.Finally, the paper will elaborateon
thesenew perspectivesin terms of their implicationsfor research
and practice.
2. Overview – From MNC-sponsored expatriation to global war
for talent
My 1981 paper(Tung,1981) is generallyrecognizedas the first
systematicattemptto understandthe reasonsfor expatriatefailure
among U.S. multinationals(Dowling, Festing,& Engle, 2013). My
study of U.S. multinationals was followed by a succession of
studies on European,Japaneseand Australian multinationals to
compare and contrast selection policies and training programs
from major source countries of expatriation(Tung, 1982, 1984).
Through a critical analysis of studies published on the subject,
Harzing(1995)tracedhow my 1981publicationhasinspiredmany
subsequentstudies of expatriatefailure and ways for remedying
the situation. These subsequentstudies (see, for example,Black,
Gregersen,& Mendenhall, 1992; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985;
Torbiorn, 1982), in turn, spawned an exponential growth in
intereston differentaspectsof expatriateassignments– selection,
training, compensation,performanceappraisal,etc. – to catapult
the subjectto becomeone of the most widely researchedtopics in
the field of internationalhuman resourcemanagement.
In the threedecadessincemy 1981article,we havelearneda lot
aboutthe experienceof expatriatesfrom countries,both developed
and emergingmarkets,including but not limited to the following:
The reduced incidence of American expatriate failure abroad
Journal of World Business51 (2016) 142–152
A R T I C L E I N F O
Articlehistory:
Availableonline 31 October2015
A B S T R A C T
In the past three decadesor so, globalization/regionalization,migration and reverse migration (also
referred to as ‘‘brain circulation’’),the ascendancyof emergingmarkets,the demand for people with a
global mindset, and the worldwide war for talent have brought about fundamental changes to the
nature,magnitude,and raisond’etrefor human resourcemanagement(HRM) in a global context.These
changesrequire us to adopt new lenses to fully understand the dynamics that impact international
human resourcemanagement(IHRM) policies and practices.This paper presentsnew perspectiveson
IHRM as they relate to research on multicultural teams under the three dimensions of diversity
(separation,variety, and disparity) posited by Harrison and Klein (2007), and brain circulation in the
contextof movementof peoplesacrosscountries.Theseperspectivesgo toward the traditional approach
of studying expatriates,whether company-sponsoredor self-initiatedassignments.The paperdiscusses
how these new perspectivescan set the agendafor future researchon IHRM.
Crown Copyright ß 2015 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
E-mail address:[e-mail].
1 Some researchers, such as the late Alan Rugman, have asserted that
regionalizationis a more accuratecharacterizationof developmentsin most parts
of the world. In this paper, I will not go into the debateof globalization versus
regionalization.Rather,the assertionhere is that most countriesin the world are
engagedwith other countries,whether on a regional or global basis.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of World Business
j ou r n a lh o mep a g e :w w w . e l se v i e r. c om / l oc a t e / j w b
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2015.10.004
1090-9516/CrownCopyright ß 2015 Published by ElsevierInc. All rights reserved.

where Tung (1998) attributedthis decline to their transformation
from ‘‘neophytes’’ to ‘‘cosmopolitans’’; the challenges they
continue to encounter (McNulty, 2012; Ren, Yunlu, Shaffer, &
Fodchuk, 2015; Takeuchi, Wang, & Marinova, 2005; Takeuchi,
2010); correlates of adjustment (Caligiuri, 2000; Earley & Ang,
2003);the emergenceof self-initiatedand short-termassignments
as distinguished from those that are company/MNC sponsored
(Andersen,Bergdolt,Margenfeld,& Dickmann,2014; Biemann &
Andersen, 2010; Cerdin & Selmer, 2014; Collings, Scullion, &
Morley, 2007; Stahl, Miller, & Tung, 2002; Suutari & Brewster,
2000); the deploymentand experienceof women in international
assignments(Caligiuri & Tung,1999; Tung,2004);the interactions
betweenhost country nationalsand expatriates(Levy et al., 2014;
Mahajan & Toh, 2014; Takeuchi, 2010; Toh & DeNisi, 2007);
repatriation (Lazarova & Caligiuri, 2001); and reasons for the
continued use of expatriates despite their higher costs and
localization requirements by host governments (Collings &
Mellahi, 2009; Harzing, 2001; Reiche,Kraimer, & Harzing, 2011;
Tarique& Schuler,2010).The Caligiuri and Bonachepaperin this SI
traces the evolution of the ‘‘strategicdeploymentof expatriates’’
over time, including changesin typesof overseasassignmentsand
profile of expatriatesthat contribute to a blurring of the lines
betweenexpatriatesand global professionals,a point that will be
addressedfurther in this paper.
This fascinationwith the topic of expatriateassignmentscan be
attributed, in part at least, to the inexorable path toward
globalizationor regionalizationthat I alludedto earlier.In addition,
there is growing recognition among practitioners,policy makers
and researchersthat human capital is pivotal to a firm/nation’s
international competitiveness.In my 1984 book, Key to Japan’s
EconomicGrowth:HumanPower,I hypothesizedthat humancapital
is pivotal to the then Japaneseeconomicmiracle.Similarly,human
power is the driving force behind South Korea’s remarkable
transformationfrom the devastationafter the KoreanWar (1950–
1953) to its current status as the 15th largest economy in the
world, on the basis of nominal GDP. Nonaka (1991, p. 98) has
distinguishedbetweentwo typesof knowledge:explicit and tacit.
Explicit knowledgeis ‘‘formaland systematic. . . and can be easily
communicatedand shared,in productspecificationsor a scientific
formula or a computer program’’.Tacit knowledge,on the other
hand, resides in people, results from experience,and represents
‘‘informal,hard-to-pin-down skills captured in the term ‘know-
how’’’ (Nonaka,1991, p. 98). In the pre-global mobility era, with
the exception of emigration primarily from developing to
industrialized countries in search of better living conditions and
career opportunities, human talent (particularly those from
industrialized countries) typically remains in a given country.
With the increasingwillingness of people, including those from
industrialized countries, to relocate abroad, whether on a
temporaryor permanentbasis,there is a growing war for talent,
a term coined by McKinsey (Chambers,Foulon, Handfield-Jones,
Hankin, & Michaels, 1998).
The looming war for talent has receivedattentionat all levels –
it was the focus of the 2006 World EconomicForum held at Davos,
Switzerland.The governmentsof fast-growingemergingmarkets,
such as China and India, have developedinitiatives and policies to
attracttalent from aroundthe world, particularlyamongmembers
of their respectivediasporaswho haveattainedprofessional/career
successin their adoptive countries to return to their countries
of origin (Cooke, Saini, & Wang, 2014; Tung & Larazova,2006).
Companieshave to contendwith this challengeby devisingways
and meansto attracttalent,and more importantly,to retain them.
Talent poaching and acqui-hiring [i.e., ‘‘acquisition of small
companiesto gain accessto their employees’’(Chatterji & Patro,
2014, p. 395)] have become commonplace among businesses.
An outstanding example of the challenges and opportunities
associatedwith the war for talent is that of Dr. Kai-Fu Lee, a
Taiwan-born, U.S.-educatedspeech recognition expert who first
worked for Microsoft. When Google hired him from Microsoft, a
bitter legal battle ensued over what intrinsic knowledge Dr. Lee
could use at Google. Shortly after the legal dust had settled
between the two technicalgiants,Dr. Lee left to start up his own
China-basedcompany,Innovation Works (Tung, 2014a).
In 2014, the JWB devoted an entire Special Issue on talent
management(Ariss, Cascio,& Paauwe,2014).Cascio& Boudreau’s
essay content analyzed publications in JWB over a 50-year
timeframeand noted the surgein researchon talent management
after 2009.Given the broaderfocus of talent management,similar
to Khilji, Tarique,and Schuler(2015),Cascio& Boudreaucalled for
a multidisciplinary approach (i.e., beyond HR per se) to better
understandthe phenomenon.Khilji et al. (2015) emphasizedthe
needto adopta macroperspectivethat includesan examinationof
governmentpolicies,diasporasand brain circulation.Theseissues
are addressedfurther in this paper.
In a 2013 annual survey of CEOs from around the world,
PricewaterhouseCoopers(Dealingwith disruption,2013) on what
worries them most, 58%of the respondentsexpressedconcerns
about talent deficit. Similarly, in a 2013 survey by Ernst & Young
and Oxford Analytica (BusinessPulse,2013) of companiesacross
industriesin 21 countries,the respondentsidentified the shortage
of talentas amongthe top ten risks confrontingtheir organizations.
Collectively,these findings highlight the significanceand magni-
tude of the problem.
2.1. War for talent
The reasonsfor the escalatingwar on talent are several-fold,
including the overall aging of the workforce, the ascendancyof
emergingmarketsaccompaniedby a substantialupgradingin the
educational levels and technical skills of their indigenous
populations, and the general reduction in immigration and
emigrationto the barriersof movementof peopleacrosscountries.
Johnston(1991)has attributedthesethree factorsto the emerging
phenomenonof ‘‘globalworkforce2000’’:one, an agingworkforce
in the industrializedWest; two, the rising educationallevels and
technical skills in emergingmarkets; and, three, the lowering of
immigration and emigration barriers to people flow. Each of the
first two factors is discussedbelow:
2.1.1.Overallagingof the workforce
Statistics by the UN Population Division (2009) and Hayutin
(2007) revealed that most developed countries and many
emerging markets have to contend with the graying of their
population. For example, approximately 20–35 percent of the
populationsin Canada,Australia,New Zealand,Europe,Japan and
the Republic of Korea will be 65 and over by 2030. Europe and
Japan have the oldest population while Africa has the youngest.
Fertility is already below-replacementrate (i.e., under 2.1 births
per woman) in most advancedeconomies.East Asia (including
China, the most populous nation in the world), Canada,Europe,
Russia,Australia,and New Zealandhave fertility rates of 1.2–2. A
notableexceptionamongthe BRIC countriesis India which enjoys
a demographicdividend, namely one third of its population is
15 years of age or younger(Tung, 2009).Chand and Tung (2014)
havediscussedthe impactof agingon businessesaroundthe world.
2.1.2.Ascendancyof emergingmarkets
O’Neill (2001)of GoldmanSachscoinedthe term BRICto referto
the rise of Brazil, Russia, India and China. Goldman Sachs
subsequentlyprojected that by 2050, the combined economies
of the BRIC countrieswill surpassthat of the G6 countries(Wilson
& Purushothaman,2003). According to statisticscompiled by TD
R.L.Tung/ Journal of World Business51 (2016)142–152 143

http://daneshyari.com/article/1002102