This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 09 October 2014, At: 22:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The International Journal of HumanResource ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

Negotiating, accepting and resistingHRM: a Chinese case studySteve McKenna a , Julia Richardson b , Parbudyal Singh a & JuanJuan Xu aa School of Human Resource Management, York University ,Toronto, Ontario, Canadab School of Administrative Studies, York University , Toronto,Ontario, CanadaPublished online: 04 May 2010.

To cite this article: Steve McKenna , Julia Richardson , Parbudyal Singh & Juan Juan Xu (2010)Negotiating, accepting and resisting HRM: a Chinese case study, The International Journal of HumanResource Management, 21:6, 851-872, DOI: 10.1080/09585191003729333

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585191003729333

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Negotiating, accepting and resisting HRM: a Chinese case study

Steve McKennaa*, Julia Richardsonb, Parbudyal Singha and Juan Juan Xua

aSchool of Human Resource Management, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; bSchool ofAdministrative Studies, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

There is considerable scholarly and practitioner debate about the extent to which NorthAmerican-styled human resource management (HRM) practices are transferable acrossinternational boundaries. The current trend is for scholars to use largely managerialisttheoretical frameworks to explain the transference of putative ‘best practices’ from onecontext to another, or use culturalist/institutionalist explanations as to why practicescannot be transferred. While useful, these explanations are largely apolitical anduncritical, ignoring the theoretical and conceptual assumptions and origins of therespective practices. Drawing on a case-study approach to examine the adoption of andresistance towards North American HRM practices in a Chinese computermanufacturing firm, this paper suggests that whereas some HRM practices wereaccepted, others were resisted, largely because of their impact on end-users’ workinglives. The paper investigates the case through the lenses of the system, society anddominance effects framework and shows the continuing relevance of the concept ofcontrol in interpreting how ideas about HRM are negotiated into practice, rather simplytransferred or rejected.

Keywords: control, resistance and negotiation; human resource management andChina; system, society and dominance effects framework

Introduction

This paper explores the transferability of human resource management (HRM) practices

and their respective cultural and theoretical assumptions from one national context to

another. In doing so it adds to the fairly well-established literature about the international

transferability of North American HRM practices (Brewster, Mayerhofer and Morley

2000; Drost, Frayne, Lowe and Geringer 2002; Geringer, Frayne and Milliman 2002;

Huo, Huang and Napier 2002; Lowe, Milliman, De Ceieri and Dowling 2002; Von

Glinow, Drost and Teagarden 2002; Bamber, Landsbury and Wailes 2004; Parry,

Dickman and Morley 2008; Baddar Al-Husan, Brennan and James 2009) and Japanese

employment practices (for a summary, see Elger and Smith 2005) as well as more recent

debates about how management practices from developed countries permeate developing

economies (Zhang and Edwards 2007). Although there is currently an extensive body of

literature that addresses the transference of ‘western’ HRM practices into the Chinese

context (Warner 1993, 1997; Gamble 2003, 2006a, 2006b), its primary focus has been on

the need for ‘western’ firms to adapt to the distinctive institutional environment in China.

Yet, recent work by Gamble (2006a, p. 342) argues that while ‘some adaptation to local

conditions might be necessary, best practice management translates remarkably well

across cultures’. Furthermore, he suggests that ‘much of the mystique and mythology

ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online

q 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09585191003729333

http://www.informaworld.com

*Corresponding author. Email: smckenna@yorku.ca

The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

Vol. 21, No. 6, May 2010, 851–872

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4

surrounding the complexity of dealing with human resources in China is exaggerated’

(Gamble 2006a, p. 342).

Contemporary debates about the transferability of ‘Western’ HRM practices are

characterised by three main themes. First, presupposing a set of practices that can be

identified as ‘HRM’, they explore whether such practices can be transferred from North

America to other national contexts. Second, located within a managerialist and rationalist

framework, HRM is understood as an objective enterprise with the sole aim of augmenting

individual and organisational performance (Enteman 1993). Third, they focus primarily on

contextual influences and their impact on the adoption of HRM practices. In this regard,

the debate is essentially apolitical and uncritical, ignoring the social and socially

constructed nature of HRM and in particular the political issues of control and power

(Watson 2004; Legge 2005; McKenna, Singh and Richardson 2008). Thus, for example,

while Gamble (2006a) gives voice to Chinese employees working for UK and other firms

operating in China, he focuses primarily on the transference of practices without

considering the possibility that they might function as ‘mechanisms of control’ (Delbridge

and Ezzamel 2005, p. 608), and that they are an outcome of workplace negotiation over

both power and control.

It has been suggested that research exploring Chinese HRM practices should seek to

‘understand the parameters of emergent HRM practices in China’ (Gamble 2006a, p. 342)

in privately owned Chinese enterprises. Answering this call and focusing on a Chinese

business organisation (Compco)1 as a case study, this paper moves towards a more critical

understanding of HRM practices in China. More specifically, it contends that when we

consider the transferability of HRM practices it is not only the ‘practices’ themselves that

are important but also the underlying meanings, assumptions and ideas that permeate those

practices. Our central argument is that contemporary North American HRM practices are

characterised by managerialism and its concomitant focus on control, efficiency and

performativity. Consequently, these themes will be the central focus of this paper. Thus,

for example, because managerialist approaches to HRM are characterised by the need to

control an increasingly globalised workforce through standardisation and management of

the way work is done, and because ‘a central feature of organization is control’ (Delbridge

and Ezzamel 2005, p. 603), we will consider issues of workplace control in the context of

the Compco case study as they derive from our empirical data. Our specific aim here is to

construct a more critically and politically nuanced understanding of the international

transferability of North American HRM practices and to apply that understanding to a

Chinese case study. The specific theoretical objective of the paper, therefore, is to offer an

alternative to universalistic (UT), institutional (IT) and social network theories (SNT)

which have dominated much of the contemporary international HRM literature. The paper

will also combine the insights of the system, society and dominance (SSD) effects’

framework (Elger and Smith 2005) with contemporary debates about control in

organisations.

The move towards a more critical perspective (Alvesson and Deetz 2000) of the

international transferability of HRM practices contributes a much-needed layer of

complexity to the hitherto apolitical analysis which has dominated HRM research and

practice more generally. In particular, it problematises the conceptual origin and objectives

of ‘bundles’ of HRM practices. Viewed through the lens of the SSD framework, it also

considers how a dominant discourse of HRM practice might evolve and how that discourse

and its attendant practices permeate a workplace regardless of national context. We also

explore managerial and employee responses to such practices.

S. McKenna et al.852

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4

The paper begins by signalling the importance of contemporary conceptions of control

in the globalised workplace. Indeed, their importance will be a central theme in our

analysis of HRM at Compco (China). Universalistic theory, institutional theory and social

network theory will then be introduced as the dominant managerialist lenses through

which the adoption of and resistance towards North American HRM practices at Compco

are currently understood. The SSD framework will then be introduced as a way of

understanding the processes ‘that underpin and condition the specific institutional patterns

and organizational practices’ (Elger and Smith 2005, p. 68) that occur in any given

organisational and workplace context. Our primary focus here will be how the adopted

ideas and practices at Compco were essentially North American in origin and that the

diffusion of ‘new’ HRM ideas at Compco occurred through ‘international (North

American) firms, consultancy channels, and international (North American) management

education’ (Elger and Smith 2005, p. 68). To that extent the paper supports Elger and

Smith’s (2005, p. 68) contention that this diffusion ‘serves to de-link the sources of ideas

from national contexts’, and that the delinking ‘stresses the universal efficiency gains that

all organizations will receive from the adoption of new “best practices”’. It will also

provide a more critical understanding of the events that took place at Compco. The paper

concludes with a discussion of the continuing relevance of conceptions of control in global

workplaces and their contribution to our understanding of control as an essential feature of

HRM practice in the globalised economy.

Theoretical overview

Control

Labour Process Theory (LPT) commences from the assumption that managerial control is

a necessary precursor to achieving organisational efficiency and employee performance.

Drawing on a Marxist framework, Braverman (1974) contends that Tayloristic work

designs and processes exploit and alienate workers in capitalist organisations. His central

argument here was that workers are forced into ‘servitude’ through control mechanisms,

such as deskilling and routinisation of work and that because deskilled labour is cheap, it

lowers the costs of production and provides further advantage to the employer. However,

this ‘process’ has a distinctly negative impact on the employee whose work becomes

increasingly unchallenging and unfulfilling. Other scholars have developed these

arguments further (Smith and Thompson 1998; Thompson and Smith 2001). Friedman

(1977), for example, noted that while there may be some autonomy and participative

processes in a given workplace, it is implemented in a manner that utilises labour under

very tightly controlled conditions.

Control of employees within organisations continues to be a subject of vigorous

debate. Sewell (2005, p. 686), for example, asks how we can account for the persistence of

managerial control ‘where we work more with our heads than our hands’. In answering

this question, he argues that Labour Process Theory (LPT) is ‘not completely exhausted as

a source of intellectual inspiration’. A central problem of LPT, according to Sewell (2005)

however, is the indeterminacy of labour: the gap between what an employee actually does

and what they are capable of doing, where management control would focus primarily on

how that gap can be reduced. Thus, ideas about HRM and HRM practices and how they are

introduced would specifically seek to reduce this gap in order to ensure that employees

fulfil their capacity to work. However, Smith and Thompson (1998) argue that LPT still

provides a relevant lens through which to understand contemporary capitalism, including

alternative control mechanisms such as management initiatives like quality circles,

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 853

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4

de-layering, self-managed work teams and total quality management systems (TQM),

where existing hierarchies and supervision constrain attempts to delegate power and

increase employee involvement. Many of these ‘new’ management techniques allow for

‘self-policing or mutual control’ aided by panopticons ‘that allow management to have an

omnipresent eye on the shop or office floor’ (Smith and Thompson 1998, p. 557).

Empirical results also suggest that these practices may intensify working life

(McCann, Morris and Hassard 2008).

Delbridge (2009) argues that it is important to appreciate the extensive range of

theories and approaches that now constitute the Labour Process debate. Thus, for example,

Delbridge and Ezzamel (2005) point to the importance of post-structuralist approaches,

particularly the work of Foucault (1995, 2002). They also identify a number of important

contributions to the debate about control from post-structuralist perspectives. First, they

identify the importance of the context within which control is constructed as different

actors with distinctive ‘personal cognitions and interests’ (2005, p. 608) engage each other

discursively. Second, they identify how post-structuralist approaches highlight

‘mechanisms of control and their potentially significant implications for individuals,

organizations and society’ (2005, p. 608). Moreover, drawing on Foucault (1995, 2002),

Barratt (2002) and Townley (1993, 1994) have argued that HRM practices are concerned

with control, discipline, measurement and surveillance that reflect the dominant discourse

of performativity and evaluation. From this perspective, rather than being neutral,

rationalistic attempts to create efficiency, HRM practices can be understood as attempts to

control not only what an employee does, but also how they should ‘be’. Third, they suggest

that power is relational and not resident in a sovereign authority. Instead, they argue, it is

best understood as ‘a network of relations, in which actors engage their knowledge and

interests to negotiate their positions’ (Delbridge and Ezzamel 2005, p. 608). Furthermore,

they argue that power ‘is also both disciplinary and enabling, rather than fundamentally

and inescapably oppressive’ (Delbridge and Ezzamel 2005, p. 608). In a context where

new North American HRM ideas and practices are being introduced, while those who are

subject to them may feel enabled, they are simultaneously more subject to managerial

control. Fourth, post-structuralist approaches enable an appreciation of how strategies of

resistance relate to how subjects seek to establish or reaffirm ‘their own identities’. New

ideas and practices about HRM are, therefore, ways to (re)create the identities of

employees; to nudge them into a different type of being as well as to get them to do things

differently (Delbridge and Ezzamel 2005).

Universalistic, institutional and social network theories

In recent years, scholars have used a comparatively broad range of theoretical

frameworks and insights, some borrowed from broader social science and management

literatures, to study HRM phenomena. While a number of these theories might be applied

to this particular case study, we critically evaluate three – universalistic, institutional,

and social network theories. These theories are most pertinent here because they have

dominated explanations of the transference of North American HRM practices to

countries outside North America (Shenkar and von Glinow 1994; Fenton-O’Creevy,

Gooderham and Nordhaug 2008; Li, Lam, Sun and Liu 2008; Trevino, Thomas and

Cullen 2008). In addition we introduce the system, society and dominance (SSD) effects’

framework which seems to us to offer a more nuanced approach to understanding how, in

this case, HRM ideas and practices are transferred across national boundaries (Elger and

Smith 2005).

S. McKenna et al.854

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Universalistic theory (UT) posits that certain HRM ‘best practices’ are transferable

across different contexts and that because such practices will support similar employee

and firm performance outcomes (see, for example, Dewar and Werbel 1979; Delaney,

Lewin and Ichinowski 1989; Becker and Huselid 1998; Bjorkman, Fey and Park 2007) it is

the organisation’s responsibility to identify and adopt them (Delery and Doty 1996).

Scholars adhering to this perspective also contend that applying ‘bundles’ of HRM (best)

practices provides further competitive advantage (MacDuffie 1995; Morris, Snell and

Wright 2006), with the implication that they are contextually transferable. Pfeffer (1994),

for example, has advocated that implementing 16 management practices – such as

incentive pay, employment security, and promotion from within – will result in a positive

impact on employee productivity and firm profitability. Advocating for ‘best practices’ has

encouraged scholarly interest in the putative connection between HRM and firm

performance (Huselid 1995; MacDuffie 1995). Indeed, some scholars and practitioners

view such practices as universally applicable precisely because of their ability to transcend

national, organisational and institutional contexts.

While institutional theory (IT) gained popularity with the publication of Meyer and

Rowan’s (1977), and Zucker’s (1977) seminal articles, it is characterised by substantial

variations (Scott 1987, 1995). Indeed it may be inappropriate to speak of one overarching

theory as such. Nevertheless, a careful analysis of studies emanating from this paradigm

suggests several key themes. One central theme is that organisational structures,

programmes, and practices gain legitimacy according to the extent to which they become

embedded in an institutional context. Meyer and Rowan (1977, p. 342), for example, state

that ‘institutionalism involves the processes by which social processes, obligations, or

actualities come to take on a rule-like status in social thought and action’. Yet, accepting

the phenomenological assertion that organisations are socially constructed, other

dimensions of institutional theory suggest that organisations are more agentic in nature.

They propose that managers take purposive action in order to conform to societal

demands, thus relocating the focus from the internalisation of ‘taken-for-granteds,’ to

external, often superficial, conformity to specific authoritative rules, regardless of the

cognitive dynamics underlying such isomorphism (Scott 1987).

Institutional theory also posits that organisations incorporate institutionalised societal

practices and procedures – mostly myth and ceremony – specifically in order to increase

their legitimacy and survival prospects and that this incorporation is independent of the

immediate economic efficacy of the acquired practices and procedures (Meyer and Rowan

1977). DiMaggio and Powell (1991, p. 67) identify three forces through which what they

refer to as the ‘drive to homogeneity’ occurs: (1) coercive isomorphism, stemming from

political influence and the ‘problem of legitimacy’; (2) mimetic isomorphism resulting

from standard responses to uncertainty; and (3) normative isomorphism, which they

contend is associated with professionalisation. A specific aim of institutional theory,

therefore, is to explore how these forces stimulate the adoption of some practices and/or act

as barriers to the adoption of others (DiMaggio and Powell 1991; Barley and Tolbert 1997).

For example, in order for businesses to operate they must conform to their respective

contextual norms of business practice and activity. They may be coerced into adopting

certain practices or copy practices that appear to be working well elsewhere. They may also

be subject to isomorphic pressures, because although they must conform to contextual laws

they are influenced by localised customs and practices, and may introduce further ‘best’

practices by copying others (Chow 2004; Bjorkman 2006; Bjorkman et al. 2007).

Social network theory (SNT) contends that because people are social beings who

interact and network, we must shift the focus away from atomistic and deterministic

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 855

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4

explanations of organisational phenomena towards a more interactional and dynamic

discourse. Thus, while the universalistic and institutional perspectives tend towards

determinism, SNT addresses actors’ evolving interdependency, where organisational and

human behaviours reflect ‘structural constraints on activity, rather than in terms of inner

forces within units’ (Wellman 1988, p. 20). As Bjorkman and Kock (1995) posit, the social

network comprises individuals who are linked through social interactions; information and

business exchanges also take place in these social relations. Social relationships may thus

have an impact on formal business relationships and, in addition to individuals, may include

other actors such as government officials and professional organisations. The central thesis

of SNT, therefore, is that knowledge and business practices can be transmitted through

interpersonal ties and social contacts between actors in the relationship. Personal networks

tend to be transitive; that is, two actors who are connected to a third party form mutual

relationships over time. These relationships generally allow for the transference of ideas

and practices.

SNT, then, investigates the dynamics of relationships, networks and connections that

create the social capital of actors and associations between them and between

organisations and parts of organisations (Granovetter 1974; Coleman 1988; Burt 2004;

Inkpen and Tsang 2005). It also emphasises how, rather than formal processes and

bureaucratic structures, organisations and organisational actors use informal processes and

organic systems to understand management practices and implement those that seem to

work elsewhere. The specific value of SNT in the context of this particular paper is that it

contributes to our understanding of how HRM practitioners develop organisational

visibility and relevance. It also addresses the connectivity between networks of HRM

practitioners and practitioner ‘communities’ and how certain HRM practices become

perceived as ‘best’ and hence worth transferring across international boundaries.

The system, society and dominance effects framework (SSD) offers an important

synthesis of the universalistic, institutional and social network approaches, and can be

applied to an understanding of how HRM ideas and practices become embedded in

different contexts. ‘System effects’ refer to the underlying political and economic

dynamics that characterise a particular society. For instance, systemic features of a

capitalist society include property rights, profit driven production processes, and

governance systems that emphasise owner and non-owners. State socialism, on the other

hand, is characterised by the pivotal role of the state in terms of ownership and control, and

constraints on managerial autonomy (Elger and Smith 2005). While these systemic

characteristics are institutionally mediated, they are largely similar across national

contexts. Thus, the systemic aspect of the SSD framework implies that certain business

ideas and practices can be detached ‘from historical development and political economy’

and can lead to a ‘process of convergence’ (Elger and Smith 2005, p. 57). It can, therefore,

be argued that certain practices are ‘best’ because they reside in the system itself, which

has universal relevance. Thus, certain North American HRM ideas and practices might be

seen as having innate qualities that can be applied in any context. The ‘system of HRM’

ideas and practices that originated in North America becomes a system to be followed

because the global capitalist system produces ‘generic features’ that ‘assumes a

standardized or standardizing workplace in which . . . managerial discourse aim at creating

common methodologies regardless of the sector or country in which the firm is operating’

(Elger and Smith 2005, p. 61).

The effects of the society element of the SSD framework build on institutional

approaches to an understanding of how work and organisations are managed. That is,

organisations are understood to be influenced by specific institutional frameworks that

S. McKenna et al.856

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4

exist within their sphere of operations. These institutional arrangements include

educational systems, employment and labour law, trade unions, and the division of labour

in workplaces. Thus, business policies and practices evolve a specific character after being

filtered through or mediated by the existing institutional configurations. As Elger and

Smith (2005, pp. 63–64) note, the effect of the society element of the SSD framework

indicates that ‘there is no “best way” of managing work and employment relations, but

rather a variety of “functionally equivalent” ways of organizing social and economic

institutions’. However, they also note that ‘international firms are dynamic forces that

challenge settled national institutions’. This is of relevance to Compco, the case study at

the centre of this paper, because it had historic and very close ties to several major North

American corporations in the information technology sector. Indeed, the influence of these

connections was critical in the acceptance of and commitment to North American HRM

ideas and practices among Compco HRM practitioners.

The dominance effect is the important third strand of the SSD framework. Elger and

Smith (2005, p. 66) describe this effect as the ‘tendency for one society to take the lead in

evolving work organization and business practices considered more efficient than those

operating within other countries’. This effect leads to dominance where conceptions of

what constitutes ‘best practice’ influence ideas and practices in other societies. Focusing

specifically on Compco, the case at the centre of this study, it is important to note that

‘international companies play a key role’ because they ‘operate across several regions and

societies’, which ‘opens up the possibility that they will act as key agencies in carrying

ostensibly superior practices’ across the globe (Elger and Smith 2005, p. 66). Thus,

Compco’s historic connections with several major North American IT firms, and the

acceptance by Compco HR practitioners of the superiority of HRM practices that emanated

from both North America and the respective firms with whom they had links, were

important in the diffusion of this ‘system of HRM’. This influence is also noted by Royle

(2006) in his study of the Italian fast-food service sector and the impact of MacDonald’s

practices on Italian firms. Thus, for example, he notes that ‘within certain sectors one

powerful MNC could have a dominance effect strongly influencing employment or

production practices of other firms across national borders’ (Royle 2006, p. 758).

We turn now to Compco, the case study at the centre of this paper, commencing with a

brief outline of its business operations and a discussion of the methodological approach to

data collection and analysis.

Compco: a Chinese case study

Based in Beijing, Compco is the largest manufacturer of personal computers in China with

a domestic market share of 30% and a workforce of approximately 19,000. A non-state

owned firm with shares owned by employees, foreign corporations and the Chinese

Academy of Sciences (CAS), it has complete autonomy over management and operations.

Capital for growth is raised from banks and the stock exchange. In 2003, the CEO of

Compco announced the introduction of new HRM systems as part of its strategic business

goal, including globalisation through the acquisition of the PC division of a major

international corporation.

Data collection

Gaining access to Compco was facilitated by a human resource manager who acted as

‘gatekeeper’ (Lee 1993), that is, selecting and co-ordinating interviewees and providing

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 857

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4

relevant internal documents detailing the history and strategic objectives of the firm.

These documents offered background on the firm but are not used in analysis for this

paper. The final sample comprised 29 senior managers, middle managers and

professionals. While it is methodologically problematic for interviewees to be chosen

in this way, the nature of the research context, particularly the firm’s discomfort with

academic research more generally, must be acknowledged. We were, however, able to

have some input into the selection process by suggesting criteria for selection, i.e.,

identifying specific managerial roles and ranks. We were also provided with detailed

rationales as to why each interviewee had been selected. As a further note, despite our

initial concerns that interviewees might have been chosen to give a positive evaluation of

the respective HRM practices, they were often quite critical of both the firm and the

implementation of the respective practices.

The aim of the study was to gain an in-depth understanding of interviewees’

experiences of the new HRM ideas and practices introduced into the firm, thus

semi-structured interviews were used. The line of questioning, however, was also tailored

to interviewees’ respective professional expertise, experience and background and

responsibilities within the firm. The specific aim in this regard, was to explore the

perceptions of those who were implementing the policies and those who were

experiencing and observing their implementation from their own particular locale in the

firm. HR managers and specialists, for example, were asked about their perceptions of how

HRM practices were implemented and the impact on recruitment and selection,

performance appraisal and reward systems. Managers and specialists outside of HRM

were asked about their perceptions of the implementation and impact of those

practices on their professional activities and performance/responsibilities in the firm.

The Vice-President Human Resources (VPHR) was also interviewed to provide further

context regarding strategic business and human resource issues. She also provided

information regarding Compco’s decision to introduce North American HR practices and

the implications of that decision.

Data analysis

Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and then manually analysed using

template analysis (King 2004). The key themes for analysis focused on reasons given for

the introduction of North American ideas about HRM by HR managers and professionals

and the sources of those ideas; how ideas about HRM translated into specific practices at

Compco and levels of acceptance and resistance among employees and managers to the

introduction of those practices.

All interviews were conducted in Chinese, translated by one of the authors and this

translation was verified by a university professor in Beijing. The quotes used in the paper

are, therefore, translations from the original Chinese. All names have been changed in

order to retain the confidentiality and anonymity of interviewees.

Findings

Rationale for incorporating North American conceptions of HRM

The findings suggested that the transfer of HRM ideas to Compco began in the early 1990s

with its rapid expansion in the domestic market. HR practitioners at Compco indicated that

the new (i.e., North American) HRM ideas and techniques were necessary because local

practices were considered ineffective in helping the firm to achieve its goal to be globally

S. McKenna et al.858

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4

competitive through increased productivity and performance. A key theme in this respect

was the implicit assumption among the majority of HR practitioners that a set of HRM

practices existed that would ensure or at least contribute towards the firm’s ability to

compete globally. Tong Chen, a recruitment specialist, emphasised the importance of

‘modern’ HR practices in developing a competitive culture for the firm, and argued that

differences in values between the Chinese system and those reflected in the ‘new’ HRM

ideas and practices were not insurmountable.

Many HR professionals at other companies argue with me that using modern US ways tomanage Chinese people would be a waste of time because those theories cannot override thedominant Chinese value system. I agree with them that Chinese ways conflict with modernHRM philosophies in many aspects. But I will tell you that organisational culture is importantto be competitive and here we have changed culture with modern HRM techniques. We havedone it!

This comment supports Gamble’s assertion (Gamble 2003, p. 384) that culture as

reflected in values ‘should not be considered as a static monolith but as a shifting and

changeable repertoire with diverse strands’.

The accounts of HR practitioners also suggested a widespread perception that it is their

responsibility to locate those practices and implement them accordingly. The VPHR, for

example, alluded to the changing institutional environment in China that facilitated

opportunities for and, indeed, demanded change in the firm’s HRM practices. However,

she was also keenly aware of the barriers to such change which she described as a ‘lack of

available sources of HRM know-how in all the industries, as well as the persistence of

the old mindset’. As a consequence, she felt that ‘many enterprises chose to continue with

the old way’. Her comments suggested the emergence of a ‘contested space’ reflecting

societal and institutional change in China more generally as it adjusts to a more inter-

national market-oriented economy. Elger and Smith (2005, p. 65) note that this is the

context in which firms ‘seek to borrow and transfer organizational practices from firms and

countries that come to be regarded as models of “best practice”’. Her account also

suggested that a lack of indigenous HRM theory and practice encouraged Compco

to implement North American HRM ideas. Indeed, she argued that it had little choice but to

look outside of China for ideas about new HRM practices: ‘many of our domestic

competitors who did not update their management system, sooner or later encountered

vital managerial problems and some of them disappeared from the market as a result’.

Other interviewees reflected similar sentiments as indicated below:

In terms of managing compensation and performance we had to look to modern US practicesfor help because ideas in China were still behind. (Jianjin Liu, performance management andcompensation manager)

Benefit systems in China are only slowly changing, we had to follow the lead of Americancompanies to develop modern practices. (Lan Song, employee compensation and benefitspecialist)

The accounts of these managers offer some insight into how politico-economic changes

in Chinese society were creating a perceived ‘space’ for bundles of ‘modern’ (i.e., North

American) HRM practices to be introduced at Compco. Conversely, incumbent or

indigenous practices were perceived as being somehow redundant and non-modern as

Compco sought to engage with and compete in a more global market. It is particularly

interesting to note here how HR professionals considered the North American ideas as

‘modern’ juxtaposing them with Chinese ideas as being more ‘traditional’ or ‘non-modern’.

This reflects Elger and Smith’s (2005, p. 66) assertion that the dominance effect concerns

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 859

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4

‘uneven capabilities, which encourages the processes of diffusion and dominance by some

and learning and borrowing by others’. The accounts of these managers also suggested that,

as Compco sought to engage with the global marketplace, changes in the institutional

environment and norms required what they believed were more ‘modern’ forms of control

over employees and the workplace. North American HRM practices were understood to

offer such control mechanisms. Thus, for example, Yang Zhang, a performance

management specialist noted: ‘it is important to have practices that control what is done at

workplace’.

Empirical studies in HRM have supported perceptions about the need for control

noted above (Braun and Warner 2002; Chow 2004). A key theme has been that

employers must develop more control and efficiency through work intensification,

particularly as globalisation demands higher productivity and quality control. While

Frenkel and Peetz (1998) contend that employers in China prefer ‘moderate’ trade unions

because they are more malleable, they ignore the role that ‘bundles’ of HRM practices

and the ideas that underpin them might play in providing opportunities to meet

control/efficiency requirements. HR practitioners who took part in this study suggested

that North American ideas about HRM practice can be used very differently at Compco

to shape the way work is done and how it is managed. Theoretically this means shaping

work through a set of disciplinary techniques that can be used with ‘the enduring

sediments of previous practice selectively structured into the rules of organizational

control’ (Clegg 1998, p. 39). This finding suggests that North American HR practices are

being introduced at Compco specifically in order to facilitate control and efficiency

outcomes. However, in order for this to be achieved, the respective practices have to be

firmly embedded in order to both define the ‘ideal’ employee and to implement new

norms of HRM. It also suggests a need to redefine and embed which HRM practices are

‘legitimate’ and which are not (Sewell 2005).

Searching for alternative conceptions of HRM

Despite widespread agreement that introducing new HRM practices would allow Compco

to be more competitive in the global economy, there was some concern that because such

practices and know-how were not available in China, HR practitioners at Compco had to

develop a network from which they could acquire the requisite knowledge. The VPHR

identified three potential sources. First, the multinational corporations (MNCs) with which

Compco had previously collaborated. Thus, for example, acquisition of the manufacturing

division of a major American MNC in 2005 was, according to the VPHR, a major source

of new ideas. She also described how the top management team at Compco had benefited

from collaborations with other MNCs.

First, while we learned HRM techniques from HP and IBM, we also learned from themother things such as the financial systems. This helped us ensure the consistencybetween those HRM techniques and the whole operational system of the company. Second,by learning HRM know-how from the same industry we were confident about thecompatibility of the HRM techniques with the industrial environment. And third, HP and IBMwere willing to provide help because their business in China partly relied on the successof Compco.

This finding reflects the pull of imitation (mimetic isomorphism) in a context of

uncertainty and the legitimacy given to practices used by industry leaders (normative

isomorphism). We also observe how bundles of practices were seen as important for

building competitiveness and the possibility that such practices might be promoted

S. McKenna et al.860

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4

through a network of connected firms and individuals. This finding also supports the

importance of the dominance effect (Elger and Smith 2005; Royle 2006).

A second potential source for new conceptions of HRM was consulting companies,

especially American consultants with offices in China:

We keep long-term relationships with several large consulting firms, for example, the famousAmerican consulting firm Gallup . . . Since we stopped distributing HP and IBM products inthe mid-1990s, we have relied more and more on consulting firms for HRM ideas andtechniques. (VPHR)

Relationships and networks are emphasised again here as important for ensuring

familiarity with current ‘best practices’. Two other HR professionals at Compco also

recognised this influence: ‘cognitive testing software from American consultants has been

important in changing our recruitment systems’ (Lin Ma the staffing manager),

‘information on HR consultant websites influences things we do’ (Tong Chen, recruitment

specialist). The findings also suggested a third major source of ideas about HRM: business

journals and books. Indeed, interviewees reported paying close attention to North

American journals and ‘best-selling’ management books for ideas about HRM. Thus, for

example, all mid-level and above managers had a subscription to Harvard Business

Review which was paid for by Compco.

Taken together, these findings suggest that HR practitioners at Compco used networks

to introduce ‘modern’ HRM practices. To that extent they reflect key themes in the impact

of the dominance effect on the actions of HR practitioners at Compco, who saw North

American practices as important in the context of the need to be globally competitive. This

finding also echoes Elger and Smith’s (2005, p. 65) suggestion that ‘the diffusion of new

production and employment ideas through international firms, consultancy channels, and

internationalised management education, serves to de-link the sources of ideas from

national contexts through the process of diffusion’. However, these new discourses about

HRM ideas and practices would have to be woven into the specific discourses, practices

and social relations that already existed at Compco. During this process the concomitant

implications and possibilities for resistance to such changes merit attention. The dynamics

of potential clashes between existing ideas of how to manage the workplace and work and

North American HR practices, are particularly worthy of attention because the latter must

contest space with incumbent conceptions and discourses about people management that

reflect other ideas about work organisation and workforce control.

Contested terrain at Compco: creating the globalised Chinese employee

Transferring North American HRM to Compco

The findings suggested that transferring North American conceptions of HRM to Compco

has been incremental, meeting both acceptance and resistance. Jan Jun Liu, the manager of

performance management and employee compensation explained:

When we first translated modern HRM techniques into policies and implemented them in thecompany, most employees didn’t pay attention to them at all. People still continued with theirold way. In China the behaviours of the employees used to be regulated by the attitude of theirboss, rather than policies or rules, because people believe that maintaining a good relationshipwith the boss will bring them good career opportunities.

Liu also identified ‘nepotism’ as a source of resistance to implementation of the new

HRM policies and practices. The VPHR provided a specific example of such nepotism,

describing how, in the past, ‘relatives and acquaintances of higher levels were often hired

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 861

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4

without interviews’. Indeed, several HR practitioners described how promotion was often

based on familial and other ‘close’ relationships rather than performance. They also

explicitly juxtaposed this approach with ‘objective’ criteria which they felt characterised

the new approaches. Wenbin Zhu, a recruitment specialist, argued that ‘it was important to

standardise the way selection is done to make it more rational’.

Overall, as might be expected, the HR practitioners at Compco assumed a positive

relationship between bundles of HRM ‘best practices’ and firm and individual

performance. Not surprisingly, therefore, they were keen to copy and implement those

practices at Compco. They also viewed some of the existent practices as deficient and

likely to undermine the firm’s performance and its short- and long-term success. A staffing

manager, for example, said that managers’ subjectivity in the hiring and reward process

was long regarded as a problem at Compco by HR practitioners. Indeed, dissatisfaction

with existent practices permeated HR managers’ desire to introduce and implement North

American practices which they felt would allow for more control of the way work was

done by depersonalising workplace relationships and maximising efficiency and

productivity. There was also a widespread belief that control, efficiency, and a focus on

performance cannot be enhanced through diffuse personal management practices. Instead,

the majority of HR interviewees believed that such objectives require classification and

ordering. Several interviewees, such as Jianjun Liu, an HR manager responsible for

performance management, felt that ‘modern’ North American HRM techniques support

such a system regardless of the firm context: ‘modern practices need to be put in place and

workers need to see how much better they are than the old ways for organising work

better’. Ironically, however, while a ‘traditional’ institutional set of arrangements for

control based on personal relationship management is diametrically opposed to the current

control orientation of HR managers at Compco, other ‘contemporary’ types of

relationship-based management are not. Mandatory initiatives were introduced to flatten

the firm’s hierarchy, such as addressing each other by name rather than title and name.

On the whole, this initiative was well-received as suggested by Yin Zheng, a hardware

engineer, below:

This is really good. At Compco I don’t feel nervous when talking to my manager. By callinghis name directly, I feel actually we are just colleagues working together for the company atdifferent positions with different responsibilities. I now feel able to share things with himabout work, my performance and attitudes.

This reaction echoes Gamble’s (2006a, p. 341) findings in a study of a UK

multinational operating in China: ‘Unintentionally the firm had done something radical in

the host-country context, the ordinary and mundane became extraordinary and innovative.

The transfer of its flat hierarchy and consultative mechanisms to a country accustomed to

entrenched hierarchies increased the degree of divergence from local norms.’ Yet a firm’s

attempts to personalise the workplace can also be viewed as a sophisticated form of control

over the workplace and the way work is done (Thompson and McHugh 2002). Thus, for

example, Townley (1993) cautions that the personalisation of workplace relationships

creates a ‘confessional’ which may be used as a form of control where management exerts

power over more intimate areas of employees’ personal and interpersonal relations.

Indeed, not all interviewees who took part in this study embraced the ‘new’ form of

working relationships. They preferred more formal relationships with their respective

managers in order to maintain what was seen as the requisite professional distance.

Moreover, while some preferred the new approach, others felt that the ‘old’ paternalistic

approach was still important. Thus, for example, Jie Tang, an inside sales specialist felt

S. McKenna et al.862

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4

that ‘managers now seem to listen better’. Yet, she also acknowledged that ‘managers have

to do things differently too because the CEO wants it’. In this regard, we observe how

HRM systems and processes, and the requirements to operate within them, made manager-

employee relationships more transparent as a whole as well as more controllable. This

theme of maintaining control by reducing the ‘distance’ between managers and employees

reflects the political processes that characterised the introduction of North American HRM

practices at Compco. The extent to which such processes are likely to permeate other

contexts might be explored in further critically oriented work. The specific value of such

exploration is that it would offer a further critique of Gamble’s contention that (2006a,

p. 342) ‘whilst some adaptation to local conditions might be necessary, best practice

management translates remarkably well across cultures’.

As a final note here, while HR managers were keen to personalise the Compco

workplace in a way defined and controlled by HRM systems, they continued to introduce

policies that reduced other types of personal ties. For example, a policy was introduced

which prevented managers and other employees with responsibility for recruitment and

selection from hiring family members. Moreover, family members who were hired before

the policy was introduced were either moved to another department or asked to leave the

company. In this regard we observe how personalisation of workplace relations was

defined and controlled by HR practitioners. We also observe how they legitimised a new

set of power relations thus providing examples of ‘how such mechanisms, even in their

most mundane and frequently invisible forms, function as disciplinary techniques’

(Delbridge and Ezzamel 2005, p. 608).

Recruitment and selection at Compco

Regardless of whether they are used in practice, there is some acceptance in the mainly

North American academic literature that valid and reliable methods can and should be

used in the recruitment and selection process (Gatewood and Feild 2001). The findings of

this study suggest that Compco has used job analysis forms and specific job-related

criteria for a number of years. The main objective in this respect was to differentiate

applicants according to their educational background, work experience, work-related

knowledge and skills and interpersonal skills. During the selection process, for example,

HR practitioners described widespread use of panel interviewing and cognitive testing.

They also assumed responsibility for designing interview questions and felt that their

efforts had been fairly well received by their counterparts in HRM and other departments.

Overall the findings suggest that these perceptions were correct where they were, indeed,

seen as successfully introducing North American HRM practices to Compco. They

connected this success to their professional networks, which they said enabled them to

institutionalise the required conceptions of HRM. Again, connections with American

consulting firms and taking ideas from American academic and practitioner literature

were understood as important in this process.

The contest for control over employees, and most notably for characterisations of what

constitutes the ‘ideal employee’, permeated the accounts of HR managers who took part

in this study. A key theme in this regard was that managers in other parts of the business

(i.e., outside HRM) have an important influence on organisational and individual

performance and that they may have alternative ideas about how to manage people. These

‘alternative ideas’ were seen by HR professionals at Compco as somehow ‘out of sync’

with the new HRM initiatives and therefore had to be changed or made more malleable to

reflect the spirit of current initiatives. One HR recruitment specialist, for example,

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 863

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4

complained that some (non-HR) managers ‘show their feelings too much’, and that they

allow those feelings to influence hiring decisions. Initiatives to address this problem had

met with only limited success:

We have tried to give some training courses to those panel members. However, it has beenvery difficult to change their behaviours. These department managers always favoursubordinates whose personalities are compatible with their own. Those work-related elementsare always much less considered.

While Lin Ma, a staffing manager, suggested that current hiring processes had

improved significantly, there was a strong sense that manager ‘subjectivity’ was a

longstanding challenge, which needed to be overcome in order to enhance overall

recruitment and selection processes. She described how, for example, in the past, cognitive

tests were given after, rather than before, panel interviews. Her rationale for the change

connects directly to the perception that North American interviewing practices are ‘best’:

Our cognitive test software was bought from an American consulting firm, and we have to paya fixed amount of testing fee for every testee, to that firm. In the past, for the purpose of savingmoney, we only let candidates who had already passed the interviews to participate in thecognitive test. However, this created a huge problem: once the managers had alreadyinterviewed the candidates in the first round they often didn’t wait for the result of cognitivetests for their decision. They had already made up their minds according to their subjectivelikes or dislikes of the candidates. Thus we decided to use cognitive tests before the interview.This way, managers do not have a chance at all to neglect the test result. The cost of the testingfee is higher than before but we believe that it can be justified by the lower turnover costs,although we have not tracked this as yet.

Comments from two HR practitioners indicated that they drew directly on their

respective networks to structure and institutionalise a new discourse for recruitment and

selection. Yet, they also wanted to introduce further new practices that are underpinned by

conceptions of the ‘best’ type of employee to challenge present ideas. Two things are

worth noting here. First, many of the proposed conceptions of the ‘best’ type of employee

are firmly embedded in North American approaches to cognitive testing. For example,

they were keen to recruit those whose test results had reflected strong levels of

organisational commitment, being a team-player, and being enterprising etc. Second, there

was widespread and uncritical acceptance of the relevance and utility of North American

cognitive testing models. Indeed, interviewees believed that subjectivity could and should

be removed from the recruitment process entirely. This desire for standardisation clearly

indicates a strong allegiance to a ‘rational’ approach to managing the workplace. Instead

of having line managers select staff whose ‘personalities are compatible with their own’,

HR practitioners at Compco sought conformity to a more generalised norm which, as

Tong Chen a recruitment specialist noted, ‘would help bring the whole business together’.

The dominant effect of North American approaches to HRM is clear. Yet, here it is also

clear that HR practitioners are seeking to develop greater control over the processes

involved in shaping the workforce by taking control away from line managers through the

use of American ideas and practices,. The current dominance of HR practitioners at

Compco facilitates this opportunity to shape power relations in their favour through the

creation of a ‘new’ HRM knowledge and discourse.

Performance appraisal at Compco

During the past 5 years, HR managers at Compco introduced a performance appraisal

system that assesses employees on two major criteria. First, whether they have met

S. McKenna et al.864

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4

objectives set with their supervisors at the beginning of the business quarter. Second, how

well they have developed their competencies and skills. However, several HR

practitioners suggested that one of the major challenges in this initiative has been

establishing ‘measurable’ criteria with line managers. Several non-HRM interviewees

described how HR managers have adopted behavioural competencies and skills wholesale

from the checklists of American companies with whom they collaborate and/or interact,

e.g. initiative-taking, creativity and teamwork. However, they indicated that there had

been no explicit attempt to adjust or adapt those competencies to the Chinese business

and social context. The complaint here was that HR practitioners had accepted a priori and

assumed the superiority of North American HR practices. There was also widespread

awareness that the introduction of such practices had been framed in terms of ‘old’ versus

‘new’ or ‘modern’.

Given the widespread acceptance of Management-By-Objectives (MBO) and

competency frameworks as exemplars of ‘best practice’ (McConkie 1979; Levinson

2003) in North American management and practitioner literature, it is perhaps

unsurprising that the HRM practitioners who took part in this study wanted to imitate

and institutionalise them. In addition to their putative contribution to organisational and

individual performance, however, these performance appraisal mechanisms provide

increased control over employees as suggested by Lin Ma, a staffing manager: ‘systems of

performance management give better opportunity to control and organise the workforce’.

More specifically, they define and determine exactly what staff at Compco are required,

not only to ‘do’, but also to ‘be’ – thus shaping a new employee identity (Du Gay 1994;

Collinson 2003).

The findings of the study also suggested, however, that introduction of these new

performance appraisal criteria was met with some resistance. The resistance emerged, in

part, from difficulties managers faced in clearly establishing ‘measurable’ criteria. Indeed,

this is something that HR scholars have identified as one of the more challenging

dimensions of implementing such systems (Cropanzano and Folger 1998). Yang Zhang, a

performance management specialist, expressed frustration at the inability or unwillingness

of sales employees to provide ‘concrete’ targets/figures to quantify their performance:

Employees of the sales department often set their goals as ‘increasing sales’, or ‘looking formore distributors’. When I require them to provide concrete figures for increases in sales ordistributors they are reluctant to do so.

Reflecting further conceptions of North American ‘best practice’ HR managers had

also introduced regular feedback sessions between managers and subordinates. Yet, 14 of

the 16 non-managerial employees who took part in this study said they seldom expressed

their ‘true thoughts’ to their managers. One interviewee, for example, felt that the process

was not effective and, although she complied with the policy, she did so as a ‘face-saving’

device. Others suggested feedback interviews were not effective: ‘most of the time I sit

nodding . . . I don’t think that he (the line manager) will really listen to me’ (Yajun Xiao,

senior accountant); ‘I don’t want to offend my manager’ (Xin Wang, accountant);

‘My opinion will not change my appraisal results’ (Qi Guo, customer relations specialist);

‘It’s stupid to argue with the manager’ (Musheng Yao, marketing operations specialist).

Five of the six managers who took part in the study felt that while the feedback

conversations were helpful in principle, subordinates rarely gave their ‘true thoughts’.

Thus, inasmuch as managers might agree with the initiative in theory they felt that it

wasn’t effective in practice. Indeed, some felt that it impeded attainment of performance

objectives: ‘work has to be done, sometimes there might be too much talking’. Another

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 865

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4

manager specifically stated that he was ‘too busy to communicate with his subordinates’.

Interestingly, this statement substantiates the perception of many of the non-managerial

employees who said that managers were too busy to be interested in employees’

ideas/opinions.

The majority of managerial and non-managerial employees outside HRM also felt that

the behavioural competencies that had been introduced were irrelevant to performance

appraisal and to work performance more generally. One manager, for example,

complained that ‘Nobody knows what they mean or what they can do’. Of the 16

non-managerial employees 12 interviewed felt the same way. One employee, for example

described how ‘everybody ignores them’. The other four non-managerial employees had

no idea that they existed. This finding suggests that even while processes are implemented

individual ‘resistance’ plays an important part in their ultimate efficacy. Thus the

comment that ‘everybody ignores them’ suggests that expectations of a form of behaviour

co-exist alongside an actual form of behaviour even when the two are diametrically

opposed. HR at Compco has introduced very specific behavioural competencies as part of

a performance appraisal mechanism. Yet, according to these interviewees, employees

either ignore them or are unaware that they exist, which suggests that attempts to gain

control of their behaviour may fail and be resisted or ignored. From an institutional

perspective, this finding suggests that the practices introduced at Compco do not ‘fit’; that

societal effects outweigh the potential for practices to be transferred. However, such

initiatives are resisted/ignored because employees perceive little benefit in their adoption.

Competency frameworks are interpreted by employees ‘from unique configurations of

experiences, norms and expectations’ (Gamble 2006a, p. 341) specific to their institutional

context. The reaction of employees is sometimes to ignore and resist them based on the

interpretation they give to their utility and value.

While resistance to the practices described above might reflect their lack of synergy

with business (and specifically HR) practices at Compco, we acknowledge that similar

forms of resistance occur in other business contexts. In this case, however, the findings

suggested that resistance to the appraisal techniques was rooted in perceptions of the

realities of the Compco workplace in particular and China more generally. We observe

especially, how attempts by HR practitioners to implement ideas about feedback and

behavioural competencies were thwarted by employees’ perceptions of the realities of

their workplace. Thus employees may resist the introduction of such practices even while

HRM practitioners believe that those practices will contribute to increased performance.

Indeed, ‘alternative’ perceptions might ultimately determine the extent to which the

respective mechanisms will fulfil the expected function. As discussions of control

suggest, managerial techniques to organise, control and make the firm more efficient are

not merely imposed and accepted by the workforce. They are subject to resistance,

negotiation, and in some cases are simply ignored. The adaptation and acceptance of

‘best practice’ management is not only about firms honing and refining their ‘managerial

skills and technical expertise’ (Gamble 2006a, p. 342), it is also about the willingness of

employees to assess its relevance to their organisational lives and self-interest and to

accept or reject them.

Compensation and rewards at Compco

Compensation at Compco comprised two parts: base pay and performance-based pay. Base

pay was determined by position, seniority and education level. Performance-based pay was

based on individual (merit pay) and collective performance. Non-HR interviewees were

S. McKenna et al.866

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4

keenly aware that individual performance assessment was strictly linked to performance

appraisal. Similarly, collective performance was based on monthly net profit created by a

department or group. The extent to which individual and collective performance influences

pay varied according to managerial level and function. Collective performance became

increasingly important at more senior management levels. The merit pay of sales staff was

more individually-based than for administration, manufacturing and research staff. Among

sales staff this was generally considered positive. Jie Tang, a member of the sales staff,

noted that ‘I feel what I get paid is now more to do with my performance, not my manager’s

thoughts’.

Much of the current North American scholarly and practitioner literature suggests that

HRM practices should be closely connected to performance enhancement (Paauwe and

Boselie 2005). ‘Performance’ is also widely understood as an essential dimension of

bundles of ‘best’ HR practices, including compensation and reward systems. In this

context, competitive advantage can be achieved through rewards driven by performance.

The findings of this study suggest that HR practitioners at Compco have internalised this

idea as a ‘best practice’ as suggested by Jianjun Liu, the HR manager for employee

compensation:

At Compco the merit pay policies are flexible and are often adjusted according to the changingneeds of business. For example, last year, in order to realise the goal of lowering cost, thecalculation of merit pay for the sales department changed from a sales income-based model toa sales profit-based model.

However, as indicated in the above quote, some HR managers at Compco were

using merit-based pay for cost-control as much as for performance management. It also

offered opportunities to enhance control of work by intensifying work and removing

decision-making power from line managers regarding employee rewards, as suggested by

the VPHR, below:

The purpose of this change is to ensure that employee compensation would not be allocatedsubjectively by the department general managers. This change hasn’t encountered anyresistance from the general managers because the CEO implemented it in person. At the sametime we can get better control over costs and over the employees by centralising these matterswithin the HR function and taking some of the power away from line managers.

This finding indicates the importance and deliberate use of North American

compensation and performance management practices for the purposes of workplace and

employee control. The desire to reduce line managers’ control over the distribution of

rewards is particularly significant. At the same time, however, from a non-managerial

employee’s perspective, line-managers’ inability to challenge this new initiative was a

good thing. Some believed that performance-related pay did away with the need to

maintain good relationships with their line managers as a means of securing rewards. One

production employee, for example, felt that the ‘new’ system encouraged more fairness

and objectivity: ‘the better you do, the more you gain – this is good because rather than

making good relationships with my manager, now I can concentrate on how to do my job

better’. Yet, even while some employees felt less of a need to maintain ‘productive’

relationships with their line-managers, the relationships were still seen as important.

Jianxin Gu, a customer service representative, acknowledged that while ‘compensation is

decided by my performance now . . . as long as you are in China, to keep good

relationships with your manager is crucial, although sometimes its impact is unseen’. This

finding suggests that while ‘official’ structures and processes impact on individual

behaviour, underlying and unofficial norms and expectations continue to be important.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 867

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4

In particular, we observe how social structures and processes operate as ‘lived outlines of

experiences’ (Denzin 1989) but that an individual’s interpretations of a particular context

still play a major part in their subsequent behaviour. What is also important is that adapting

North American conceptions and practices of HRM to a Chinese environment is not

simply a matter of HR practitioners adapting them to suit a new context. Adaptation results

from negotiation and resistance, but often more precisely through the interpretation of the

operation of the practices by employees themselves. In the context of compensation at

Compco ‘all organizational participants are locked into networks of power/knowledge

relations’, and these ‘power relations change over time via the interaction of knowledge

and power, and how claims to knowledge are constituted and contested’ (Delbridge and

Ezzamel 2005, pp. 608–609).

Discussion

From the perspective of the system, society and dominance effects framework, the

implementation of North American HRM practices at Compco can be seen as an attempt

by certain actors (HR practitioners) to transfer a system or ‘bundles’ of ‘best’ HRM ideas

and practices to Compco. Their assumption was that for Compco to be competitive in the

global business environment, it was necessary to introduce ‘modern’ North American

practices. HR practitioners at Compco also assumed that such ideas and practices were

transferable across national boundaries (and most notably to China) as ‘best practices’, and

were dominant in that they ‘circulate as “best practices” or global standards that are

emulated by other societies’ (Elger and Smith 2005, p. 66). In this regard, the data from

this study indicate the extent to which HR practitioners at Compco were committed to the

certainty of globally standardised HRM ‘best practice’, even down to the direct transfer of

American cognitive testing software.

From a more critical perspective, however, the introduction of ‘modern’ HRM

practices can be understood as an opportunity to gain increasing control over line

managers, other employees and their behaviour. Thus, we contend that the system HR

practitioners were introducing was also concerned with exchanging one ‘outmoded’

form of control for another: one deemed more appropriate for centralising power and

control around new power relations and new mechanisms of control. Developing this

idea further, we also contend that many approaches to the transfer of HRM ideas and

practices under-emphasise the significance of how HR practices are negotiated into a

particular form in specific contexts. For example, the reason why Chinese employees

might view new HR practices positively is because they themselves help to shape the

way they operate at the local level based on their interpretation of their value. If they do

not like them, they can and do resist and/or ignore them (e.g., as with competency

frameworks at Compco). Employees respond to the implementation of new ideas and

practices actively. Furthermore, not all employees are positively or negatively affected

by changes all of the time. At Compco, it was an objective of HR practitioners to

change the dynamic of power relations; to take away the power from line managers over

non-managerial employees and subject non-managerial employees to a different

dynamic of power.

Critical approaches to management imply the need for scepticism about the purposes

of the global transferability of HR ideas and practices. Moreover, rather than focusing on

whether practices can be transferred, the barriers to transfer, or how they are transferred, a

key theme in a critical approach is how work is designed and people are managed to

achieve the control necessary within organisational, economic and societal contexts

S. McKenna et al.868

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4

(Delbridge 2009). Drawing on a case study of a Chinese owned business, and adopting a

critical approach, this paper has suggested the need to understand the meaning, in terms of

organisational and work control, that such ideas and practices carry. In particular, we have

examined how ideas about HRM are transferred and adopted through the use of the

system, society and dominance effects framework (Elger and Smith 2005). Furthermore,

we have contended that HR practitioners at Compco were important agents in the process

of introducing these ‘new’ ideas and practices.

We have also contended that employees at Compco did not passively accept new

ideas and practices about the way they should be managed. Instead, they engaged in

‘internal conversations’ (Archer 2000) about the relevance and utility for them of the new

ideas and practices. Whether and how the ideas and practices became accepted and/or

resisted was a consequence of the power relations between individual employ-

ees/managers. Non-managerial employees behaved towards the ideas and practices in

accordance with their perceived value. To some extent it was the line managers who were

the main object of HR practitioners’ attention. For HR practitioners, re-orienting the

relationship of power between non-managerial and managerial employees was important.

Reducing the power of line-managers to operate informally in the management of their

staff was to be replaced with centralised HRM systems that enabled greater control,

discipline, surveillance and measurement (Townley 1993, 1994).

Given the findings reported here, we might wonder why, if the introduction of North

American HR ideas and practices at Compco was intended to increase control of work and

behaviour, the majority of employees accepted them. Gamble (2006a) argues that this

could be because what is considered ordinary and mundane in the UK, is considered

extraordinary and innovative in a Chinese context. Alternatively, it might be because the

practices transferred are indeed ‘best’ (Gamble 2006a, p. 342). We suggest, however, that

new ideas and practices were accepted when they were seen as having relevance and value

to employees. Our data suggest that employees at Compco were aware of the need to adapt

both the new practices and to retain or at least keep in mind facets of the existing system.

How newly introduced practices played out in the day to day reality at Compco was subject

to interpretation and negotiation around their utility, relevance and value. The outcome of

these ‘discursive engagements’ depended on how they were ‘mediated by personal

cognitions and interests’ (Delbridge and Ezzamel 2005, p. 608).

Gamble (2006a, p. 340) suggests that there is ‘the potential to transfer relatively

unmodified Western practices’ to other contexts. We contend, however, that once such

practices enter another context, employees respond to them by reshaping and interpreting

them within their current milieu. The outcome is often, but not always, one that employees

are comfortable with. Thus, this paper has suggested that the introduction of North

American HRM ideas and practices at Compco reflect a dynamic of power relations and a

composite process of coercion, negotiation, resistance and interpretation. HRM outcomes

are, therefore, not simply a matter of transferring ‘best’ HR practices copied blindly into a

Chinese context. Nor is resistance to these practices evidence of a societal effect. Instead,

HRM outcomes are best understood as part of an inevitable process which occurs when

management seek greater control over the way work is done and the way the employee

should ‘be’.

As Gamble (2006a, p. 339) suggests, there are ‘risks in reading too much from

micro-contexts, of overburdening the facts with a theoretical weight it cannot bear’.

However, a critical perspective on the transfer of HRM ideas and practices rooted in

case studies of micro-contexts, such as that described here, can act as an important

counter-balance to largely uncritical and apolitical culturalist and managerialist

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 869

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4

approaches to the topic. In doing so they offer an alternative ontological position on the

matter of the transfer of HRM ideas and practices which opens up a further contribution to

debates around globalisation and global management practices.

Note

1. Compco is a pseudonym.

References

Alvesson, M., and Deetz, S. (2000), Doing Critical Management Research, London: Sage.Archer, M.S. (2000), Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Baddar Al-Husan, F.Z., Brennan, R., and James, P. (2009), ‘Transferring Western HRM Practices to

Developing Countries: The Case of a Privatized Utility in Jordan,’ Personnel Review, 38, 2,104–123.

Bamber, G.J., Lansbury, R.D., and Wailes, N. (2004), International and Comparative EmploymentRelations, London: Sage.

Barley, S.R., and Tolbert, P.S. (1997), ‘Institutionalization and Structuration: Studying the Linksbetween Action and Institution,’ Organization Studies, 18, 1, 93–117.

Barratt, E. (2002), ‘Foucault, Foucauldianism and Human Resource Management,’ PersonnelReview, 31, 2, 189–204.

Becker, B., and Huselid, M. (1998), ‘High Performance Work Systems and Firm Performance:A Synthesis of Research and Managerial Implications,’ Research in Personnel and HumanResources Management, 16, 53–101.

Bjorkman, I. (2006), ‘International Human Resource Management Research and InstitutionalTheory,’ in Handbook of Research in International Human Resource Management, eds.I. Bjorkman and G. Stahl, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 463–474.

Bjorkman, I., Fey, C.F., and Park, H.J. (2007), ‘Institutional Theory and MNC Subsidiary HRMPractices: Evidence from a Three-country Study,’ Journal of International Business Studies,38, 3, 430–446.

Bjorkman, I., and Kock, S. (1995), ‘Social Relationships and Business Networking: The Case ofWestern Companies in China,’ International Business Review, 4, 4, 519–535.

Braun, W.H., and Warner, M. (2002), ‘Strategic Human Resource Management in WesternMultinationals in China: The Differentiation of Practices across Different Ownership Forms,’Personnel Review, 31, 5/6, 553–579.

Braverman, H. (1974), Labor and Monopoly Capital, London: Monthly Review Press.Brewster, C., Mayerhofer, W., and Morley, M. (2000), New Challenges for European Human

Resource Management, Basingstoke: Macmillan.Burt, R.S. (2004), ‘Structural Holes and Good Ideas,’ American Journal of Sociology, 110, 2, 349–399.Chow, I.H. (2004), ‘The Impact of Institutional Context on Human Resource Management in Three

Chinese Societies,’ Employee Relations, 26, 6, 626–642.Clegg, S. (1998), ‘Foucault, Power and Organizations,’ in Foucault, Management and Organization

Theory, eds. A. McKinlay and K. Starkey, London: Sage, pp. 29–48.Coleman, J. (1988), ‘Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital,’ American Journal of

Sociology, 94, 3, S95–S120.Collinson, D.L. (2003), ‘Identities and Insecurities: Selves at Work,’ Organization, 10, 3, 527–547.Cropanzano, R., and Folger, R. (1998), Organisational Justice and Human Resource Management,

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Delaney, J., Lewin, D., and Ichniowski, C. (1989), Human Resource Policies and Practices in

American Firms, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Delbridge, R. (2009), ‘Critical Perspectives on Organizational Control: Reflections and Prospects,’

in Control in Organizations, eds. S.B. Sitkin, L.B. Cardinal and K. Bijlsma-Frankema,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming.

Delbridge, R., and Ezzamel, M. (2005), ‘The Strength of Difference: Contemporary Conceptions ofControl,’ Organization, 12, 5, 603–618.

Delery, J., and Doty, H. (1996), ‘Modes of Theorizing in Strategic Human Resource Management:Tests of Universalistic, Contingency and Configurational Performance Predictions,’ Academy ofManagement Journal, 39, 4, 802–835.

S. McKenna et al.870

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Denzin, N.K. (1989), Interpretive Interactionism, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Dewar, R., and Werbel, J. (1979), ‘Universalistic and Contingency Predictions of Employee

Satisfaction and Conflict,’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 426–448.DiMaggio, P.J., and Powell, W.W. (1991), ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and

Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields,’ in The New Institutionalism in OrganizationalAnalysis, eds. W.W. Powell and P.J. DiMaggio, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 63–82.

Drost, E.A., Frayne, C.A., Lowe, K.B., and Geringer, J.M. (2002), ‘Benchmarking Training andDevelopment Practices: A Multi-country Comparative Analysis,’ Human Resource Manage-ment, 41, 1, 67–86.

Du Gay, P. (1994), ‘Making up Managers: Bureaucracy, Enterprise and the Liberal Art ofSeparation,’ British Journal of Sociology, 45, 4, 655–674.

Elger, T., and Smith, C. (2005), Assembling Work: Remaking Factory Regimes in JapaneseMultinationals in Britain, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Enteman, W.F. (1993), Managerialism: The Emergence of a New Ideology, Madison, WI: Universityof Wisconsin Press.

Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Gooderham, P., and Nordhaug, O. (2008), ‘Human Resource Management inUS Subsidiaries in Europe and Australia: Centralization or Autonomy,’ Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 39, 1, 151–166.

Foucault, M. (1995), Discipline and Punish, New York: Vintage Books.Foucault, M. (2002), The Archaeology of Knowledge, London: Routledge.Frenkel, S.J., and Peetz, D. (1998), ‘Globalization and Industrial Relations in East Asia: A Three-

Country Comparison,’ Industrial Relations, 37, 3, 282–310.Friedman, A. (1977), Industry and Labour, London: Macmillan.Gamble, J. (2003), ‘Transferring Human Resource Practices from the United Kingdom to China:

The Limits and Potential for Convergence,’ International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 14, 3, 369–387.

Gamble, J. (2006a), ‘Introducing Western-style HRM Practices to China: Shopfloor Perceptions in aBritish Multinational,’ Journal of World Business, 41, 3, 328–343.

Gamble, J. (2006b), ‘Multinational Retailers in China: Proliferating “McJobs” of Developing Skills,’Journal of Management Studies, 43, 7, 1463–1490.

Gatewood, R.E., and Feild, H.S. (2001), Human Resource Selection, Mason, OH: SouthWestern.Geringer, J.M., Frayne, C.A., and Milliman, J.F. (2002), ‘In search of “Best Practices”

in International Human Resource Management: Research Design and Methodology,’Human Resource Management, 41, 1, 5–30.

Granovetter, M. (1974), Getting a Job: A Study in Contacts and Careers, New York: John Wiley andSons.

Huo, Y.P., Huang, H.J., and Napier, N.K. (2002), ‘Divergence or Convergence: A Cross-nationalComparison of Personnel Selection Practices,’ Human Resource Management, 41, 1, 31–44.

Huselid, M. (1995), ‘The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity,and Corporate Financial Performance,’ Academy of Management Journal, 38, 3, 635–672.

Inkpen, A.C., and Tsang, E.W.K. (2005), ‘Social Capital, Networks, and Knowledge Transfer,’Academy of Management Review, 30, 1, 146–165.

King, N. (2004), ‘Using Templates in the Thematic Analysis of Text,’ in Essential Guide toQualitative Methods in Organizational Research, eds. C. Cassell and G. Symon, London: Sage,pp. 256–270.

Lee, R.M. (1993), Doing Research on Sensitive Topics, London: Sage.Legge, K. (2005), Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities, Basingstoke: Palgrave.Levinson, H. (2003), ‘Management by Whose Objectives,’ Harvard Business Review, 81, 1,

107–116.Li, J., Lam, K., Sun, J., and Liu, S. (2008), ‘Strategic Human Resource Management,

Institutionalization, and Employment Modes: An Empirical Study in China,’ StrategicManagement Journal, 29, 3, 337–342.

Lowe, K.B., Milliman, J., De Cieri, H., and Dowling, P.J. (2002), ‘International CompensationPractices: A Ten-country Comparative Analysis,’ Human Resource Management, 41, 1, 45–66.

MacDuffie, J. (1995), ‘Human Resources Bundles and Manufacturing Performance,’ Industrial andLabor Relations Review, 48, 1, 197–221.

McCann, L., Morris, J., and Hassard, J. (2008), ‘Normalized Intensity: The New Labour Process ofMiddle Management,’ Journal of Management Studies, 45, 2, 343–371.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 871

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4

McConkie, M. (1979), ‘A Clarification of the Goal Setting and Appraisal Processes in MBO,’Academy of Management Review, 4, 1, 29–40.

McKenna, S., Singh, P., and Richardson, J. (2008), ‘The Drunkard’s Search: Looking for “HRM” inall the Wrong Places,’ Management International Review, 48, 1, 115–135.

Meyer, J., and Rowan, B. (1977), ‘Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth andCeremony,’ American Journal of Sociology, 83, 2, 340–363.

Morris, S.S., Snell, S.A., and Wright, P.M. (2006), ‘A Resource-based View of International HumanResources: Toward a Framework of Integrative and Creative Capabilities,’ in Handbook ofResearch in International Human Resource Management, eds. I. Bjorkman and G. Stahl,Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 433–448.

Paauwe, J., and Boselie, P. (2005), ‘“Best Practices . . . in Spite of Performance” Just a Matter ofImitation?,’ International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 6, 987–1003.

Parry, E., Dickmann, M., and Morley, M. (2008), ‘North American MNCs and their HR Policies inLiberal and Coordinated Market Economies,’ International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 19, 11, 2024–2040.

Pfeffer, J. (1994), Competitive Advantage through People: Unleashing the Power of the Work Force,Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Royle, T. (2006), ‘The Dominance Effect? Multinational Corporations in the Italian Quick-foodService Sector,’ British Journal of Industrial Relations, 44, 4, 757–779.

Scott, W.R. (1987), ‘The Adolescence of Institutional Theory,’ Administrative Science Quarterly,32, 4, 493–511.

Scott, W.R. (1995), Institutions and Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Sewell, G. (2005), ‘Nice Work? Rethinking Managerial Control in an Era of Knowledge Work,’

Organization, 12, 5, 685–704.Shenkar, O., and von Glinow, M.A. (1994), ‘Paradoxes of Organizational Theory and Research:

Using the Case of China to Illustrate National Contingency,’ Management Science, 40, 1,56–71.

Smith, C., and Thompson, P. (1998), ‘Re-evaluating the Labour Process Debate,’ Economic andIndustrial Democracy, 19, 551–577.

Thompson, P., and McHugh, D. (2002), Work Organizations: A Critical Introduction, Basingstoke:Macmillan Press.

Thompson, P., and Smith, C. (2001), ‘Follow the Redbrick Road: Reflections on Pathways in and outof the Labour Process Debate,’ International Studies of Management and Organization, 30, 4,40–67.

Townley, B. (1993), ‘Foucault, Power/Knowledge and its Relevance for Human ResourceManagement,’ Academy of Management Review, 18, 3, 518–545.

Townley, B. (1994), Reframing Human Resource Management: Power, Ethics and the Subject atWork, London: Sage.

Trevino, L., Thomas, D., and Cullen, J. (2008), ‘The Three Pillars of Institutional Theory and FDI inLatin America: An Institutionalization Process,’ International Business Review, 17, 1, 118–133.

Von Glinow, M.A., Drost, E.A., and Teagarden, M.B. (2002), ‘Converging on IHRM Best Practices:Lessons Learned from a Globally Distributed Consortium on Theory and Practice,’Human Resource Management, 41, 1, 123–140.

Warner, M. (1993), ‘Human Resources Management “With Chinese Characteristics”,’International Journal of Human Resource Management, 4, 1, 45–65.

Warner, M. (1997), ‘China’s HRM in Transition: Towards Relative Convergence?’ Asia PacificBusiness Review, 3, 4, 19–33.

Watson, T.J. (2004), ‘HRM and Critical Social Science Analysis,’ Journal of Management Studies,41, 3, 447–467.

Wellman, B. (1988), ‘Structural Analysis: From Method and Metaphor to Theory and Substance,’in Social Structures: A Network Approach, eds. B. Wellman and S.D. Berkowitz, New York:Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–61.

Zhang, M., and Edwards, C. (2007), ‘Diffusing “Best Practice” in Chinese Multinationals:The Motivation, Facilitation and Limitations,’ International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 18, 12, 2147–2165.

Zucker, L. (1977), ‘The Role of Institutionalization in Cultural Persistence,’ American SociologicalReview, 42, 5, 726–743.

S. McKenna et al.872

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

2:58

09

Oct

ober

201

4