The Cranet International Research Network on Human ResourceManagement in retrospect and prospect

Emma Parry a,⁎, Eleni Stavrou-Costea b, Michael J. Morley c

a Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, UKb School of Economics and Management, University of Cyprus, Cyprusc Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Ireland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

This overarching paper introduces the Cranet Network and the contributions to the SpecialIssue. It highlights the diverse contributions of this Research Network since its foundation,including theoretical, empirical, pedagogical and practice based contributions and outlines howthese have been achieved. Each of the subsequent six papers constituting this special issue ofHuman Resource Management Review are then introduced.

© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Research networkHuman resource managementTheoreticalEmpiricalPractice

1. Introduction

Charting the landscape of human resource management in different socio-cultural contexts and diverse geographic territoriesis a challenging social science research and an endeavour paved with many potential pitfalls. Nonetheless it is the task that ahandful of researchers set themselves when they gathered at Cranfield School of Management in the UK to found the CranetNetwork on International Comparative Human Resource Management Research some 21 years ago. As the 21st birthday hasconnotations of “maturation” and “a coming of age” inmany contexts, it therefore seems an appropriate point in time to take stock,reflect on what has been achieved by this network of scholars and examine the likely trajectory for the future.The Network set itself the core task of analyzing developments in the area of human resource management in public and

private organizations with more than 200 employees (100 for organizations in the smaller countries) in a national, cross-nationaland quasi-longitudinal way in order to extend the range of internationally comparable evidence about particular policies andpractices in the field. Recognition of the existence of institutionalised regulatory differences as the bedrock for many humanresource policy and practice differences across countries was at the heart of the establishment of the Network. The thinking herewas, and perhaps to a certain extent remains, rather simple. Those involved at the outset came together to conduct comparativeempirical studies on human resource management policy and practice in their respective countries, assuming that HRM practiceswere viewed and operationalized differently in the different countries. While obvious market and institutional forces forconvergence existed, not least the European Union itself as a project dedicated to large scale institutional harmonization whichprovided the backdrop to the context in which the founders of the Network were operating, it was clear that obvious differencesexisted in the way human resource management was conceptualised, institutionalised and practiced (Brewster, Mayrhofer, &Morley, 2004; Morley, 2004). This reality of basic differences between countries, juxtaposed with the academic value ofempirically verifying the core architecture of human resource management in a comparative way in each of the countries, becamethe wellspring for this research Network and for the 21 years of research collaboration, empirical investigation and academicoutput which we seek to celebrate in this Special Issue of Human Resource Management Review.

Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 1–4

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: emma.parry@cranfield.ac.uk (E. Parry), eleni1@ucy.ac.cy (E. Stavrou-Costea), michael.morley@ul.ie (M.J. Morley).

1053-4822/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.006

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /humres

The Special Issue consists of a mix of papers which document the history of this research Network, its modus operandi, and itsability to provide a means by which some of the promise and the possibility of international, comparative and cross-culturalresearch may be realized. Our intention is to share with the international academic community our ideas on the merit of thisapproach to conducting human resource management research across territories. From our perspective, a research network suchas ours provides, over time, a dynamic, informed arena for debating the appropriate lenses through which the phenomenon ofinterest, human resource management, may be best observed and offers a dynamic platform for contextualized research andinterpretation in order that we might eschew our ethnocentric tendencies. Above all, it generates a stable architecture throughwhich cross-cultural data may be gathered, interrogated, interpreted and eventually shared with academics, practitioners andpolicy makers.The Cranet Survey, which is core to the data gathering exercise in each member country, is now the largest and most

representative independent survey of HRM policies and practices in the world. It includes data from over 40 countries andcontinues to grow. Six major survey rounds have been conducted since 1990. Overall, as a result of the successive waves of datagathering almost 50,000 responses now constitute our database which lies at the heart of the Network. It would however bemisleading to reduce the significance of the Network to a simple international platform for data gathering. The Network as anentity makes a contribution on several fronts and facilitates an engagement and understanding between a diverse range ofparticipants.

2. A Holography of the Cranet Network: theoretical, empirical and practice contributions

The technique of Holography in physics allows light which has been diffracted by an object to be recorded and rebuilt as animage that changes as the viewing platform of the observer changes. Without over stretching the analogy, Cranet can beundoubtedly viewed in many different ways and, depending on which viewing platform one is occupying, the anatomy andcontribution of the Network can be assessed differently. In this introductory paper, designed to set the scene for the substantivecontributions in this Special Issue, wewant to suggest that, with the benefit of some 21 years of collaboration behind us and a bodyof published output spanning the highly descriptive to the more theoretically informed and analytical, the Network may, inretrospect, be viewed as a means of advancing our understanding and enhancing our ability to conduct international research on anumber of fronts.First, from a theoretical perspective, Cranet provides a platform for explicating different approaches to understanding human

resourcemanagement across territories. Second, from amethodological perspective, it speaks to the issue of contextualization andits importance in advancing research in different socio-cultural contexts. This has been a particularly important strength of theNetwork. A hugely diverse range of countries, from advanced economies to emerging ones, many of the latter ones rarely featuringin the English language literature here-to-fore, have been landscaped in terms of human resource management by this Network,and have been provided with a platform through which they can communicate to the international scientific community thenature of legitimate practice in their respective countries. Third, from an educational perspective, our work through the networkhas had an impact on pedagogy and curriculum designwith the generation of knowledgewhich has beenwidely incorporated intohuman resource curricula internationally. Fourth, it provides practical implications for managers bridging the academic-practicedivide, something which is important in an applied field.

3. Theoretical contribution: the explication of different approaches to understanding HRM

The question of how best to understand human resource management across territories, or indeed for that matter any othersocially derived, institutionally embedded phenomena characterised by internal (ethno) as well as external (global) influencesacross, is theoretically important and has been a central part of the discourse in the Network. From our perspective, how we thinkabout this and give expression to it in our researchmodels when engaging in international collaboration and research is especiallyimportant in human resource management because we view it as an institutionalised, embedded phenomenon with obviousdifferences in what are considered to be legitimate practices in different societies. In terms of thinking about how we can beststudy human resourcemanagement in different contexts, Morley (2007) and Lazarova,Morley, & Tyson (2008) in an earlier CranetNetwork Special Issue published in the International Journal of Human Resource Management call attention to three distinctiveroute trajectories (International, Comparative and Cross-Cultural) which offer particular explanatory power when seeking tounderstand human resource management across territories. Explicating these distinctive, yet interrelated, trajectories and givingexpression to them, has been an important part of the Cranet effort and may be observed in the body of research output producedfrom the Network. Here the idea of ‘trajectory’ is drawn upon in order to denote the existence of a “distinctive line of enquiry” andit is argued that this distinctiveness may be observed both in terms of differing points of departure in the original research effortand consequently unique developmental paths for the major themes investigated.Thus, it is suggested that International HRM can be conceptualised as a field of enquiry dedicated to charting the anatomy of

HRM in theMNC and the unearthing of the HRM strategies, systems and practices pursued in the context of internationalisation. Inthis trajectory, it is recognised that the ever-increasing complexity and uncertainty in which MNCs operate creates a unique set oforganisational, coordination and managerial issues for the managers of these MNCs. Central among these is the management ofemployees on a global scale. The overlapping Comparative HRM trajectory shows a preference for exploring the context, systemsand content, and national patterns of HRM as a result of the distinctive developmental paths of different countries and theirsubsequently idiosyncratic institutional and economic regimes. The third trajectory, here labelled as cross-cultural HRM, may be

2 E. Parry et al. / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 1–4

conceived as a research tradition dedicated to explicating tenets of national culture as the dominant paradigm for conditioningwhat is acceptable organisational practice in that socio-cultural context. In this genre, significant explanatory power is accorded totenets of societal culture in accounting for similarities and differences in the conceptualisation of, and in the practice of, HRM.Against the backdrop of these distinct trajectories, several theoretical themes emerge which have been actively pursued by

Cranet researchers in their efforts to add to the body of work on aspects of international, comparative and cross-cultural HRM,originally in the European context, but more laterally much further beyond. Worthy of particular mention in this regard are thefollowing key theoretical issues:

1. The advancement of a European perspective on HRM and a serious engagement of the debate on the appropriateness of USnotions of HRM for adoption and institutionalisation into European practice as set out in the Network's 1992 volume TheEuropean Human Resource Management Guide published by Academic Press.

2. The promulgation of a discourse on the appropriate paradigm for understanding HRM in the international arena which hasproven theoretically significant for Cranet researchers and which has been set down in the Network's 2000 volume NewChallenges for European Human Resource Management published by Macmillan.

3. The globalisation debate and an exposition on patterns of convergence or ongoing and enduring divergence evident frominternational, comparative and cross-cultural lines of enquiry has also proven to be a significant cross cutting theme within theNetwork's research, and is beginning to emerge as an empirically testable proposition arising from the longitudinal nature ofthe Cranet Network. This globalisation debate and its consequences for convergence has been the core argument explored inthe Network's 2004 Volume Human Resource Management in Europe: Evidence of convergence published by Heinemann.

4. Empirical contribution: contextualisation and the landscaping of human resource management practices indiverse territories

Beyond these theoretical platforms, The Cranet Network has landscaped the nature of human resource policy and practice, notonly in countries already widely studied, but also in a range of countries which have historically not been studied at all or notdocumented in the English language literature and have done so in an evidence-based way. In the historical round this might yetprove to be its strongest legacy. The Network includes the majority of European countries, smaller and larger, including those thatwere previously part of the Eastern block— Russia, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania, therefore allowingcomparison of these countries based upon their different histories and institutional settings. However, despite being originally setup to investigate “European human resource management”, Cranet is now far from a European project, but also includes membersfrom Japan, the Philippines, India, Taiwan, USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. At the time of writing, theNetwork is in the process of expanding into China, the Middle East and South America. Cranet therefore not only provides a raresource of data about human resource management in these regions, but is unique in its ability to provide comparable data from allfive continents. The Network represents a rare opportunity for collaboration among institutions in these distinct countries, toexamine how human resource management has developed across very different environments.The rich comparative data that Cranet provides has led to the successful publishing of a significant number of academic papers

in the most prestigious national and international journals and the regular participation of Cranet members in major academicconferences such as the American Academy of Management and International Human Resource Management.

5. Pedagogical contribution: human resource curriculum design and new insights for the classroom

It is the aim of any academic research to produce output that can be translated and taken into the classroom. This is no less trueof Cranet. A number of books have emerged as a result of the work of this Network, which are used in the classroom at both theundergraduate and the graduate levels. Information from Cranet has helped diversify knowledge and practice related to humanresource management teaching beyond the traditional US based textbook. At the same time, such information has served as auseful comparison between how HRM is practiced in the US and how it is practiced elsewhere.In addition, many of us use findings from the survey as a basis for our human resource management curricula, to supplement

existing information or in some cases as a foundation for entirely new programmes. For example, at its simplest level, students useCranet data as the basis for exercises in which they develop human resource management strategies for multinationalcorporations from their country developing a subsidiary in another or for local corporations not yet having professionalized theirHRM practices. Further, Cranet data are often used as the backbone of exploring case studies on how national culture, businesssystems and institutional frameworks can influence human resource management policies and practices. In fact, a number ofMaster's theses and Ph.D. dissertations have become possible as a result of Cranet data.Overall, the on-going rounds of Cranet enrich our teaching and help us educators remain updated of HRM practice around the

world. The information proved through the survey is invaluable for both curriculum design and new insights for the classroom.

6. Contribution to HRM practice: bridging the academic-practice divide

Practice and theory are seldom integrated in systematic and productive ways. Through Cranet, we have managed to bridge theacademic-practice divide in various ways. The results of our quasi-longitudinal survey provide HRM practitioners and policy

3E. Parry et al. / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 1–4

makers with highly valid and reliable information of how things are, and provide them with guidance of how things should belocally and internationally.For instance, many of us draw from the Cranet research to work with the local HRM professionals in helping them review and

improve their staffing or training procedures, adopt HRM policies and evaluate their compensation practices. In addition, weparticipate, even organize, practitioner conferences within the auspices of Cranet. Just few examples include a conference entitled“HR-Between Performance and Employees” in Helsinki, Finland (2006), a workshop entitled “The Art of Human CapitalManagement” in Vienna, Austria (2007) and a conference on “Global Insights in People Management” in Nicosia, Cyprus (2008).Furthermore, we prepare a practitioner report every time we have a new round of the Cranet survey. In fact, we have two types ofreports: one type entails the local reports prepared by and for each country and the other type entails one integrated intentionalreport. Both of these types of reports are used widely in HRM practice.As demands in HRM practice increase, the need for bridging theory and practice becomes increasingly eminent. Thus, having

up-to-date information to share with the greater HRM community (both in the business and the wider governmental arenas) isinvaluable.

7. The contributions in this special issue

Given this brief introduction about what Cranet is, in this Special Issue we aim to celebrate the 21st birthday of Cranet bypresenting a mix of papers which document its history, its way of being, and its ability to make a reality the study of international,comparative and cross-cultural HRM research and practice. Our intention is to share with the readers the merit of and lessonslearned from this approach to conducting human resource management research across territories.Starting off in this issue, Brewster, Mayrhofer and Reichel explain the history and development of the Cranet Network. This

paper takes a relational perspective and examines life-cycle dynamics and coordination and control mechanisms to investigate indetail the growth and maintenance of the Network in order to draw lessons for the development of other similar researchnetworks. Steinmetz, Schwens, Wehner and Kabst go on to discuss the conceptual and methodological nuances of comparativeresearch itself, providing a clear description of how the Cranet surveyworks and some important implications for comparative andinternational research in general. Gooderham and Nordhaug provide a detailed review of past academic papers that have beenpublished based upon Cranet, allowing us to understand the utility of Cranet data. In particular, Gooderham and Nordhaug analysepast Cranet publications in order to draw conclusions about the role of human resource management within organizations, therelationship of human resource management with organisational performance and the impact of context in human resourcemanagement. Then, Dewettinck and Remue continue with the third of these themes by highlighting the importance of Cranet incontextualising HRM research, demonstrating the need for scholars to understand the contextual sensitivities of HRM practiceswhen embarking into comparative studies. Mayrhofer, Brewster, Morley and Ledolter follow by using Cranet data to discuss thepeculiarities of the convergence versus divergence debate trying to determine which might have more explanatory power incomparative studies. And finally, connected to the aforementioned debates, the work of Brookes, Croucher, Fenton-O'Creevy andGooderham involves an attempt to further embed a European versus a USmodel of HRM. They employ the Kogut and Singh (1988)composite index of cultural distance and Hall and Gingerich's (2004) index of institutional distance simultaneously, to assess therelative and joint significance of both cultural and institutional factors in shaping the HRMpractices that private-sector firms adoptin different national contexts. More specifically, they compare the extent to which the two indices explain the incidence ofcalculative HRM across private-sector firms in 14 countries. Both indices are designed to measure distance from the USA.These papers present only a small sample, yet each provides a unique view, of how Cranet research has evolved and how it has

contributed to theory and practice in the field of HRM as it has been evolving over the past 21 years. We hope that you enjoyreading through these papers and that you take something valuable and interesting from each. If you want to explore moreresearch conducted by the Network or youwish to contact either the co-ordinators or the country teams, we encourage you to visitour website at www.cranet.org.

References

Brewster, C., Mayrhofer, W., & Morley, M. (Eds.). (2004). Human Resource Management in Europe: Evidence of convergence? Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Hall, P., & Gingerich, D. (2004). Varieties of capitalism and institutional complementarities in the Macroeconomy: An empirical assessment. Berlin Journal of

Sociology, 1, 5−32.Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988, Fall). The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 411−432.Lazarova, M., Morley, M. & Tyson, S. (Guest Eds), (2008), “International comparative studies in Human Resource Management and Performance: The Cranet Data”,

International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19, No. 11, pp. 1995-2131.Morley, M. (Guest Ed.), (2004), “Contemporary Debates in EuropeanHuman ResourceManagement”,Human ResourceManagement Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 353–498.Morley, M. (2007). Of infants and adolescents: Progress and pessimism in the development trajectory of International Human Resource Management. Keynote

Address to the 9th Conference on International Human Resource Management, Tallinn: June 12th–15th.

4 E. Parry et al. / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 1–4