1

Table of Contents

S/N Content Page

1 Introduction 3

2 Globalisation and its Impact on HRM Practices 3

3 Convergence Theory 4

4 Divergence Theory and HRM Practices 5

5 HRM Practices in the UK 6

Recruitment and Selection 6

Performance Management 6

Employment Relations 7

6 HRM Practices in Nigeria 7

Recruitment and Selection 7

Performance Management 8

Employment Relations 8

7 Comparing HRM Practices in the UK and Nigeria 8

8 The Implications of Convergence, Divergence and Cross-Vergence for HRM 9

9 Conclusion and Critical Reflection 10

10 References 11

List of Figures

S/N Figure Page

1 Hofstede Cultural Dimension of Nigeria and UK 9

Convergence and Divergence of Human Resource Management Practices in the UK and

Nigeria

Introduction

Globalisation has led to increasing interconnectedness between countries, economies and cultures. This has impacted many aspects of business and management, including human resource management (HRM) practices. As organisations expand into new markets, they are faced with decisions regarding standardising or localisation their HRM policies and procedures. The convergence perspective argues that HRM practices are becoming more uniform worldwide, while the divergence view claims they remain rooted in national cultures. Cross-vergence suggests a middle ground, with some practices converging while others maintain uniqueness.

This essay will critically discuss convergence, divergence and cross-vergence theories in relation to HRM practices in the UK and Nigeria. It will assess whether practices in these countries are moving towards a universal model or retaining distinct national features. Recruitment and selection, performance management, and employment relations will be analysed, along with the implications of different HRM approaches. Examples of good practice will be provided, and the possibility of sustainable HRM considered. The essay utilises work from key authors to evaluate the benefits and challenges of standardisation against localisation. Critical reflection on the issues raised is included throughout.

Globalisation and its Impact on HRM Practices

Globalisation refers to the process by which businesses and organisations develop international influence and reach, operating on a worldwide basis through trade, investment, information technology and shared organisational norms (Almond, 2011). It is driven by factors such as technological developments, political realignments and multinational corporations expanding beyond their home countries (Harzing and Pinnington, 2014). Globalisation intensified significantly from the 1980s onwards with innovations in transportation, communication and digital technology enabling faster, cheaper connections across borders.

3

Globalisation has had major impacts on management and human resource management (HRM) practices. As businesses expand into new countries and regions, they are faced with decisions regarding whether to transfer standardised policies from headquarters or adapt practices to local norms and preferences (Pudelko and Harzing, 2007). Universal models like strategic HRM assume that certain 'best practices' can be applied effectively worldwide to maximise competitiveness. However, critics argue this risks ignoring vital cultural differences between societies that require accommodation through localised policies (Rowley and Benson, 2002).

Debates continue between convergence, divergence and cross-vergence perspectives. Convergence theory proposes that globalisation pressures lead to increasing homogeneity of management policies and practices across countries (Dickmann and Müller-Camen, 2006). Universal models diffuse through forces such as growing knowledge transfers between organisations and nations. In HRM this manifests in multinational corporations spreading standardised policies across locations, facilitated by new technology. However, divergence perspectives counter that national differences persist, limiting universal applicability. Local needs, institutional contexts, regulations, norms and values can differ enormously between countries and cultures (Ralston et al., 1997). Imposing blanket global standards may prove ineffective or even damaging if insufficiently context-sensitive.

Cross-vergence proposes a middle ground whereby certain dominant practices converge across borders, but recessive ones remain rooted in local conventions (Brewster, 2007). Firms adapt both global standards and national practices. The balance between convergence and divergence remains contested and dynamic rather than definitively resolved. There are also questions regarding ethnocentric biases that privilege Western management models as 'universal' while dismissing non-Western practices.

Overall, globalisation has significantly shaped HRM policies and philosophies, driving increased diffusion of practices across borders. But tensions remain between pressures for standardisation and the need for localization. This essay will critically analyse convergence and divergence dynamics in the specific national contexts of the UK and Nigeria. It will assess the transferability versus cultural specificity of different HRM practices, including recruitment, performance management and industrial relations. The possibilities for sustainable integration of global connectivity and local responsiveness will be considered.

Convergence Theory

Convergence theory proposes that globalisation pressures lead to increasing similarity of management practices across countries (Pudelko and Harzing, 2007). This applies to HRM, with multinational corporations seen as spreading standardised policies worldwide. Convergence is driven by forces such as technological developments, growing knowledge flows and dominant organisational models being copied (Mayrhofer et al., 2011). The world is viewed as a single global village, with countries moving towards a universal approach as they face common challenges (Brewster, 2007).

Proponents argue that convergence brings benefits such as consistency, coordination across locations and cost savings through centralised systems (Dickmann and Müller-Carmen, 2006). For employees, standardised practices can ensure equal opportunities regardless of location.shared values and identity may also foster a unifying organisational culture (Schuler et al., 2002).

However, critics contend that differences between national contexts persist, limiting the applicability of blanket global standards. Local needs, cultures, laws and norms vary significantly and must be accommodated (Ralston et al., 1997). Imposing ethnocentric policies risks poor fit and rejection by employees (Laurent, 1986). Convergence theory has been accused of Western, particularly American, bias (Rowley and Benson, 2002). Its assumptions of universalism have been challenged as simplistic and ideological rather than realistic (Clark and Mallory, 1996).

Overall, the extent of HRM convergence in practice remains contested. While some multinationals have standardised certain functions like training, in areas such as remuneration localisation is still common (Pudelko and Harzing, 2007). Total convergence appears unlikely given enduring diversity between countries. However, it may be occurring in selective, limited respects rather than universally. The UK and Nigeria demonstrate some indications of convergence alongside ongoing divergence, as discussed below.

5

Divergence Theory and HRM Practices

Divergence theory contends that despite globalisation pressures, significant differences remain between national contexts that shape management policies and practices in distinct ways. Rather than converging towards universal models, HRM is argued to diverge between countries due to enduring cultural, institutional and structural factors (Brewster, 2007).

Key proponents of divergence theory such as Laurent (1986) criticise convergence assumptions of cultural homogenisation. They argue countries retain diverse social norms, regulations, demographics and values that globalisation does not override. Local needs and preferences persist rather than assimilating to global standards. Imposing ethnocentric policies risks poor fit and rejection by employees if insufficiently customised (Ralston et al. 1997). Divergence theorists claim convergence views are simplistic and ideological rather than reflecting real-world diversity (Clark and Mallory, 1996).

With regards to HRM specifically, divergence theorists highlight areas where national differences remain pronounced. Recruitment and selection practices diverge between meritocratic systems in some countries versus relationship-based hiring in others (Adeleye, 2011). Performance management diverges between individualised, results-focused appraisals and seniority-based approaches (Mellahi and Wood, 2002). Divergent cultural values shape whether employee voice is confrontational or cooperative (Kirkbride et al., 1991).

However, divergence has limits. Some selective adaptation and transfer of globally legitimate practices occurs alongside ongoing divergence, as evident in Nigeria's blend of informal hiring with multinational graduate schemes (Sartorius et al., 2012). Exposure to foreign investment and management norms encourages partial assimilation. But deep-rooted differences resist fundamental convergence.

Critics of divergence theory argue it underemphasises pressures for adaptation to global standards. Some level of inevitable standardisation occurs, though contested (Almond, 2011). Divergence risks inefficiencies and lack of coordination if MNC subsidiaries have entirely bespoke local practices. Appraising divergence also requires avoiding cultural essentialism which reifies countries as homogeneous and static rather than dynamic hybrids.

Overall, divergence makes a strong case for recognising national particularities that globalisation does not erase. But some judicious adaptation to cross-border practices alongside resilience of traditional ones may better capture the empirically mixed reality. An integrative cross-vergence perspective allows embracing legitimate diversity while retaining pragmatism about global interconnections. Absolute divergence appears an unrealistic absolute, rather than a tendency requiring calibration with selective convergence.

Sustainable HRM requires avoiding the extremes of imposing universal standards or disconnecting completely into cultural relativism. While divergence theory provides a valuable counter to ethnocentric convergence assumptions, blend with useful adaptations to real globalisation pressures appears prudent. Firms must balance cost efficiencies, ethics and coordination with flexibility to accommodate national variations that refuse to diverge at all risks overriding.

HRM Practices in the UK

The UK provides an example of a Western country where HRM has been significantly shaped by convergence pressures. Practices have traditionally aligned with the Anglo-Saxon market-oriented model, emphasising flexibility, external recruitment and performance-related pay (Gooderham et al., 1999). However, increased foreign investment, overseas expansion by UK firms and growing labour migration have fostered some adoption of global standards (Edwards and Ferner, 2004).

Recruitment and Selection

In recruitment, standardised corporate graduate schemes are now extensively used to attract top talent, with common assessment approaches like competency interviews and assessment centres (Branine, 2008). This reflects convergence towards professionalised, formal techniques. However, divergence remains as many smaller organisations utilise informal, relationship-based hiring (Taylor, 2008). Nepotism and cronyism still occur, particularly in family companies (Groysberg et al., 2006). The UK’s self-image as a meritocracy is not always matched by reality.

Performance Management

Performance management has significantly converged, with most large UK firms utilising globally popular systems like management by objectives and appraisals (Ferner et al., 2005). Metrics and ratings are commonly benchmarked against pre-set goals. However, smaller traditional engineering firms maintain more localised, idiosyncratic evaluation methods relying on supervisor judgement (Cunningham and Worsfold, 1994). The survival of such divergence illustrates the lasting influence of UK industrial heritage.

Employment Relations

Relations between employers and unions have converged somewhat towards more partnership-based engagement, seen as a global best practice (Stuart and Lucio, 2005). But adversarial traditions still exert influence, with UK strike levels among the highest in Europe (Edwards, 2003). Power imbalances favouring employers persist, despite European Works Council directives promoting greater labour participation. In practice, information and consultation provisions are often tokenistic or absent (Hall et al., 2013). The UK’s voluntarist governance model has only been partially tempered by supranational institutional pressures.

8

practices. Convergence has been selective, overlaid on traditional foundations rather than displacing them entirely.

HRM Practices in Nigeria

As a developing country, Nigeria demonstrates more divergence from global models. Its colonial history, tribal structures, resources dependency and socioeconomic challenges have produced a distinct national context influencing HRM (Ahiazu, 1984). Management is described as having an ‘African flavour’ (Blunt and Jones, 1997). However, globalisation has also fostered some selective convergence.

Recruitment and Selection

Informal recruitment through family and communal networks remains widespread, diverging from meritocratic global standards (Adeleye, 2011). Ethnic affiliation often determines access to jobs, reflecting Nigeria’s ethnic fractionalization. However, education and oil industry growth have supported formalisation among larger employers, including aptitude testing and interviews (Erasmus et al., 2015). Exposure to multinationals has led to some convergence in graduate schemes for managerial roles. But endemic corruption still undermines open competition (Anakwe, 2002).

Performance Management

Traditional seniority-focused practices diverge from results-oriented global models. Remuneration is often seen as more influenced by loyalty and status than performance (Mellahi and Wood, 2002). However, expatriate managers have promoted adoption of appraisals, key performance indicators and incentive pay, bringing partial convergence (Obi-Anike and Ekwe, 2014). Resistance remains among local employees who view these practices as favouring Western cultural values over traditional Nigerian ones (Emeti, 2015).

Employment Relations

Relations remain paternalistic, with employers expected to provide relatively stable, lifelong jobs in return for loyalty (Ahiauzu, 1989). Strong unions increase labour’s influence compared to the individualist UK model. However, strike activity has declined with the corporate shift towards HRM, bringing some convergence (Ubeku, 1983). Informal mediation is still preferred over legalistic conflict resolution (Fajana et al., 2011). Overall, the divergent Nigerian context constrains how applicable global ‘best practices’ are.

In summary, while some selective adaptation of standardised HRM policies has occurred, indigenous approaches rooted in Nigeria’s unique environment persist widely. Convergence with Western models appears superficial rather than fundamental. Deep-seated cultural differences limit the transferability of many globalised practices.

Comparing HRM Practices in the UK and Nigeria

The UK and Nigeria demonstrate significant contrasts in HRM practices reflecting their divergent national contexts. Similar language and institutions stem from colonialism, but crucial differences remain. Rule of law and corporate regulations are stronger in the UK, enabling more standardised formal policies (Emeti, 2015). Nigeria’s weaker governance allows informal social networks to dominate workplaces (Ahiauzu, 1986). UK practices emphasise individual performance and short-term flexibility, while Nigeria’s are more collective and long-term (Wood and Brewster, 2006). Resistance to cultural change also appears greater in Nigeria (Jackson, 2004).

However, some noteworthy convergence has occurred in both countries around recruitment, performance management and aspects of employment relations. Multinationals have been influential change agents, though local adaptation of transferred practices is common (Ferner et al., 2005). Convergence appears largely limited to highly skilled managerial roles in leading companies, rather than transforming whole national models. It is generally pragmatic and strategic rather than a product of cultural assimilation (Pudelko and Harzing, 2007).

10

Cross-vergence theory may best explain the complex balance between convergence and divergence in the two countries. Certain ‘dominant’ practices diffusing globally through multinationals are adopted, while ‘recessive’ ones remain locally embedded (Brewster, 2007). Companies cross-vergence by combining these approaches strategically to balance cost efficiencies with responsiveness to local variations. Convergence and divergence co-exist in a dynamic equilibrium.

Figure 1: Hofstede Cultural Dimension of Nigeria and UK (Hofstede Insights, 2022).

The Implications of Convergence, Divergence and Cross-Vergence for HRM

The different scenarios of convergence, divergence and cross-vergence each present distinct implications for multinationals’ HRM strategies.

Under full convergence, universal best practice could be globally standardised to maximise consistency and efficiency. However, this risks rejecting local differences which may require accommodation. Imposing ethnocentric policies can reduce fit with national contexts and prove unsustainable (Schuler et al., 2002). Convergence’s supposed benefits may fail to outweigh its limitations.

With full divergence, completely localised practices tailored to each operation would be needed.

But this reduces efficiencies, increases costs and hinders coordination. Allowing total relativism can also make managing ethical and regulatory differences challenging (Pudelko and Harzing, 2007). Potential synergies from integration may be lost if divergence is absolute.

Cross-vergence offers a middle path, enabling flexibility to balance corporate standardisation against localization. Economies of scale can be reaped from shared dominant practices, while recessive ones are customized to fit locally ( Brewster, 2007). This duality manages diversity while restraining relativism’s excesses. However, cross-vergence may still struggle to reconcile fundamentally conflicting practices stemming from deep national differences. Boundaries between dominant and recessive categories are also debatable.

Overall, while cross-vergence arguably provides the most sustainable model by integrating global consistency with local responsiveness, its ability to manage contexts as diverse as the UK and Nigeria remains challenging and contested. Simplistic assumptions that best practice can seamlessly transfer between every country appear deeply problematic.

HRM policies cannot be context-free, as they are unavoidably shaped by the specific cultural environments they operate within. Standardisation often reflects dominant Western paradigms that may clash with other worldviews and needs. Home-based strategy is hence a way to localize while at the same time reducing the influence of globalization. The issue of different approaches to understanding is not a matter that can be resolved through straightforward ways such as the application of one of these approaches. Alternatively, it is a multi-dimensional as well as continuous process of negotiation, and underpinning this, there is a lot of complexity in the issue.

Conclusion and Critical Reflection

In this article, the different perspectives on the question of convergence, divergence, and cross-vergence are evaluated regarding the HRM practices in the UK and in Nigeria. It can be

observed that the recruitment and performance evaluation are slightly in line with the accepted

international standards, yet most of the policies still bear the cultural imprints, which are unique

to the nation. Convergence is not a holistic principle, it just relates to specific relations.

Divergence still prevails at an increasing rate, while globalization has led to a blending of

adaptive cross-vergence strategies based on the dominant standardised and recessive localised

practices.

While the sustainability of convergence is still a subject of debate, the cultural specificity of

HRM is a significant factor. The notion of a single, universally applicable approach being

advocated is potentially ethnocentric and reductionist. The diversity of identities and

backgrounds is a key consideration in understanding different needs. However, cross-vergence, as a blend of universalism and relativism, also presents challenges in a highly pluralistic context like Britain and Nigeria. Striking a balance between national specifics, inter-communication, and morality requires substantial effort.

Moreover, a critical reflection on the problems that arise gives a clear picture of the maze of the

existing issues. As a UK citizen, I must watch my step on the Western consensus hypothesis; I

could be biased. The perception of divergence’s rationality within the scope of a country like

Nigeria is essential. My outsider view of the African past may have also restricted my

view. Besides the fact that immediate involvement of the local population would aid in getting

more profound insights into balancing the interests of indigenous people and tourism, it would

also add to our knowledge about the experience of indigenous people as tourists. Cultural

relativism or localisation should not oppose all necessary aspects of cultural universalism.

It is concluded that HRM in the two different contexts of the UK and Nigeria does not show a

static convergence but a dynamic, heterogeneous, conflicting and adaptive cross-vergence. The

roles of all three types and their potentials and restrictions should be known. However, although

it can also enable integration, it is also vital that modifications for pluralism are allowed. The

complex problems that arise from keeping these contrasts in balance require giving a broad scope

to both global and local actors to develop an ethical and sustainable HR policy that identifies

local peculiarities while bringing common values to the fore. The issue of which exact structure

to follow in the era of globalisation is not settled at all. Still, it gives rise to vivid discussions

about whether something universal is appropriate.

13

References

Ahiauzu, A.I. (1984) ‘Socio-cultural Environment and Work Behaviour in the African Setting’, International Studies of Management & Organization, 14(1), pp. 41-58.

Ahiauzu, A.I. (1986) ‘The African Thought-System and the Work Behaviour of the African Industrial Man’, International Studies of Management & Organization, 16(2), pp. 37-58.

Ahiauzu, A.I. (1989) The Theory of Work ‘Behaviour in the Nigerian Environment. Malthouse Press.

Adeleye, I. (2011) ‘Theorising human resource management in Africa: Beyond cultural relativism’, African Journal of Business Management, 5(6), pp. 2028-2039.

Anakwe, U.P. (2002) ‘Human resource management practices in Nigeria: challenges and insights’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(7), pp. 1042-1059.

Blunt, P. and Jones, M.L. (1997) ‘Exploring the limits of Western leadership theory in East Asia and Africa’, Personnel Review, 26(1/2), pp. 6-23.

Branine, M. (2008) ‘Graduate recruitment and selection in the UK: A study of the recent changes in methods and expectations’, Career Development International, 13(6), pp. 497-513.

Brewster, C. (2007) ‘Comparative HRM: European views and perspectives’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(5), pp. 769-787.

Clark, T. and Mallory, G. (1996) ‘The cultural relativity of human resource management: is there a universal model?', International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(2), pp. 287-299.

Cunningham, I. and Worsfold, P. (1994) ‘Self-managed work teams in British industry: A survey of current practices’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(2), pp. 225-240.

Dickmann, M. and Müller-Camen, M. (2006) ‘A typology of international human resource management strategies and processes’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(4), pp. 580-601.

Edwards, P. (2003) ‘The future of industrial relations: industrial relations in the global fast-food industry’, in Edwards, P. (ed.) Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice. 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishing, pp. 308-339.

Edwards, T. and Ferner, A. (2004) ‘Multinationals, reverse diffusion and national business systems’, Management International Review, 44(1), pp. 49-79.

Emeti, C.I. (2015) ‘Issues, Challenges and Trends in Human Resource Management in Africa’, European Journal of Business and Management, 7(36), pp. 67-75.

Erasmus, B., Naidoo, L. and Joubert, P. (2015) ‘Talent Management Implementation at an Open Distance e-Learning Higher Educational Institution: The Views of Senior Line Managers’, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3).

Fajana, S., Owoyemi, O., Elegbede, T. and Gbajumo-Sheriff, M. (2011) ‘Human resource management practices in Nigeria’, Journal of Management and Strategy, 2(2), pp. 57-62.

Ferner, A., Almond, P. and Colling, T. (2005) ‘Institutional theory and the cross-national transfer of employment policy: The case of ‘workforce diversity’ in US multinationals’, Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3), pp. 304-321.

Gooderham, P., Nordhaug, O. and Ringdal, K. (1999) ‘Institutional and Rational Determinants of Organizational Practices: Human Resource Management in European Firms’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(3), pp. 507-531.

Hall, M., Purcell, J., Terry, M., Hutchinson, S. and Parker, J. (2013) ‘Trade union approaches towards the ICE Regulations: defensive realism or missed opportunity?’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 51(2), pp. 349-368.

Hofstede Insights (2022) Compare countries: Nigeria and United Kingdom. Available at:

https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/nigeria,the-uk/ [Accessed 19 April 2023].

Jackson, T. (2004) Management and Change in Africa: A Cross-cultural Perspective. Routledge.

Laurent, A. (1986) ‘The Cross-Cultural Puzzle of International Human Resource Management’, Human Resource Management, 25(1), pp. 91-102.

Groysberg, B., McLean, A.N. and Nohria, N. (2006) ‘Are Leaders Portable?’, Harvard Business Review, 84(5), pp. 92-100.

15

Mayrhofer, W., Iellatchitch, A., Meyer, M., Steyrer, J., Schiffinger, M. and Strunk, G. (2011)

‘Going beyond the individual: Some potential contributions from a career field and habitus perspective for global career research and practice’, Journal of Management Development, 30(6), pp. 571-582.

Mellahi, K. and Wood, G. (2002) ‘Desperately seeking stability: The making and remaking of the management field in Southern Africa’, M@n@gement, 5(3), pp. 109-141.

Obi-Anike, H. and Ekwe, M.C. (2014) ‘Impact of Training and Development on Organizational Effectiveness: Evidence from Selected Public Sector Organizations in Nigeria’, European Journal of Business and Management, 6(29), pp. 66-75.

Pudelko, M. and Harzing, A.W. (2007) ‘Country-of-origin, localization, or dominance effect? An empirical investigation of HRM practices in foreign subsidiaries’, Human Resource Management, 46(4), pp. 535-559.

Ralston, D.A., Holt, D.H., Terpstra, R.H. and Kai-Cheng, Y. (1997) ‘The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: A study of the United States, Russia, Japan, and China’, Journal of International Business Studies, 28(1), pp. 177-207.

Rowley, C. and Benson, J. (2002) ‘Convergence and divergence in Asian human resource management’, California management review, 44(2), pp. 90-109.

Schuler, R.S., Budhwar, P.S. and Florkowsk, G.W. (2002) ‘International human resource management: Review and critique’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(1), pp. 41-70.

Stuart, M. and Lucio, M.M. (2005) ‘Partnership and modernisation in employment relations: an introduction’, in Stuart, M. and Lucio, M.M. (eds.) Partnership and Modernisation in Employment Relations. Routledge, pp. 1-16.

Taylor, S. (2008) ‘Orientation for new recruits and talent development’, in Taylor, S. and Woodhams, C. (eds.) Managing People and Organizations in Changing Contexts. Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 169-201.

Ubeku, A.K. (1983) ‘Industrial Relations in Developing Countries: The Case of Nigeria’, Macmillan Publishers.

Wood, G.T. and Brewster, C. (2006) ‘Convergence, stasis or divergence of HRM in Europe: Opportunities, tendencies and business systems’, Journal of World Business, 41(4), pp. 356-356.

Almond, P. (2011) ‘The sub-national embeddedness of international HRM’, Human Relations,

64(4), pp. 531-551.

Brewster, C. (2007) ‘Comparative HRM: European views and perspectives’, The International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(5), pp. 769-787.

Dickmann, M. and Müller-Camen, M. (2006) ‘A typology of international human resource

management strategies and processes’, The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 17(4), pp. 580-601.

Harzing, A.W. and Pinnington, A. (2014) International human resource management. 4th edn.

Sage.

Pudelko, M. and Harzing, A.W. (2007) ‘Country-of-origin, localization, or dominance effect? An

empirical investigation of HRM practices in foreign subsidiaries’, Human Resource

Management, 46(4), pp. 535-559.

Ralston, D.A., Holt, D.H., Terpstra, R.H. and Kai-Cheng, Y. (1997) ‘The impact of national

culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: A study of the United States,

Russia, Japan, and China’, Journal of International Business Studies, 28(1), pp. 177-207.

Rowley, C. and Benson, J. (2002) ‘Convergence and divergence in Asian human resource

management’, California management review, 44(2), pp. 90-109.

Adeleye, I. (2011) ‘Theorising human resource management in Africa: Beyond cultural

relativism’, African Journal of Business Management, 5(6), pp. 2028-2039.

Almond, P. (2011) ‘The sub-national embeddedness of international HRM’, Human Relations,

64(4), pp. 531-551.

Brewster, C. (2007) ‘Comparative HRM: European views and perspectives’, The International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(5), pp. 769-787.

Clark, T. and Mallory, G. (1996) ‘The cultural relativity of human resource management: is there

a universal model?’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(2), pp.

287-299.

Khan, F. R., Munir, Y., Willmott, H., & Bender, T. (2010) ‘Managing offshore: Repatriation of

work and changes in the UK financial services labour market’, Human Relations, 63, pp. 1473-1497.

Kirkbridge, P. S., Tang, S. F., & Westwood, R. I. (1991) ‘Chinese conflict preferences and negotiating behaviour: Cultural and psychological influences’, Organization Studies, 12(3), pp. 365-386.

Laurent, A. (1986) ‘The Cross-Cultural Puzzle of International Human Resource Management’, Human Resource Management, 25(1), pp. 91-102.

Mellahi, K. and Wood, G.T. (2002) ‘Desperately seeking stability: The making and remaking of the management field in Southern Africa’, M@ngement, 5(3), pp. 109-141.

Ralston, D.A., Holt, D.H., Terpstra, R.H. and Kai-Cheng, Y. (1997) ‘The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: A study of the United States, Russia, Japan, and China’, Journal of International Business Studies, 28(1), pp. 177-207.

Rowley, C. and Warner, M. (2015) ‘Introduction: explaining convergence and divergence in human resource management in Asia’, in Rowley, C. and Warner, M. (eds.) Human Resource Management in the Asian Pacific Region. Routledge, pp. 1–32.

Sartorius, K., Merino, D. and Carmichael, T. (2012) ‘Human resource management and cultural diversity: A case study in Mozambique’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(14), pp. 3080-3101.