International Human Resource Management-MJ Version

and in terms of organization structure. The vertical axis represents the level of
global integration, and hence of central coordination by headquarters; the hori-
zontal axis represents the extent of national responsiveness or differentiation,
and consequently of the desired influence of subsidiaries in strategic and oper-
ational decisions. For a detailed discussion of the framework we refer to
Prahalad and Doz (1987). The four organizational models presented by Bartlett
and Ghoshal can be positioned on the I–R grid as portraying different levels of
integration and responsiveness.
Although this framework is very convenient to summarize the different
organizational models, there are some additional issues that should be empha-
sized. First, the place of the transnational in the upper right-hand corner does
not mean that it is always high on both integration and responsiveness. The
transnational approach is to decide whether to emphasize integration or
responsiveness for each particular situation. The accent can be different for
each business, function, task or country. Figure 2.5 shows the varying needs for
global integration and national responsiveness in Unilever’s business strategies,
functional strategies and tasks. Second, the aspect of worldwide learning and
innovation, dominant for international companies and also very important for
transnational companies, is not adequately captured in the framework. This is
not surprising because the constructors of the framework did not distinguish
international companies. This makes it difficult to position the international

50 International Human Resource Management

low Responsiveness high

high

Integration

Global Transnational

Multidomestic

International

FIGURE 2.4

The integration–responsiveness framework