with them when they go abroad. In other words, their corporate culture is
informed by the national culture in the original country. Thus some
researchers have sought to explain the transfer of home country practices to
foreign subsidiaries through this lens (e.g. Ngo et al., 1998).
The value of this approach is in recognising that transfer is more than just a
question of competition and rationality. Rather, national cultures differ and these
differences endure. However, it suffers from a number of problems. The key prob-
lem arising from the heavy reliance on a small number of typologies – primarily
Hofstede’s but also to a certain extent that of Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner
(1994) – means these studies are open to the same criticisms as the original works
themselves. In particular, this approach tends to fail to locate cultural values in a
convincing social context. As noted above, dominant values and attitudes in
a society emerge in a particular political, legal and institutional environment
(see also Chapter 6), yet the culturalist approach fails to acknowledge the full force
of these influences. Moreover, while the culturalist approach says something
about how tensions can arise during the process of transfer, it says little about how
political activity is played out within organisations.
The political approachThe third approach, which I term the politicalapproach, is one that looks at the
way that actors in organisations can be willing to engage in the process of
transfer as a way of obtaining legitimacy and to advance their own interests. A
range of actors can seek to protect or advance their own positions by initiating
or engaging in the transfer of practices. For example, those at the HQ may look
to raise their status within the organisation by portraying themselves as key
agents in controlling the transfer of practices. For those in senior positions in
firms producing a component or providing a service to other firms, ensuring
that their operational units are sharing practices with one another may also
assist senior managers in their quest to obtain legitimacy – and consequently
orders – from potential customers since creating an image of a networked
‘transnational’ is likely to be viewed favourably by potential customers. Those
in key managerial positions in the subsidiaries may be keen to engage in shar-
ing practices with their counterparts in order to portray themselves as key con-
tributors to the network. Acting as ‘good corporate citizens’ in this way may be
a way of advancing an individual’s claims for promotion or for a pay rise
(Edwards, 1998). Others who work in the subsidiaries of MNCs, particularly
employees and their representatives, may be willing to go along with transfer-
ring practices if they fear that not to do so would result in their unit being less
likely to receive future investment from the HQ. Of course, as we noted at the
outset, some actors may also seek to block diffusion if they perceive it as chal-
lenging their interests (see Broad, 1994, for a case study of a Japanese trans-
plant in the UK). Hence, diffusion is a contested and political process.
Transfer of Employment Practices Across Borders in MNCs 393