Convergence and Divergence of HRM Practices in the UK and Nigeria

Download PDF

/ 18

100%

Document text

Table of Contents

S/N Content Page

1 Introduction................................................... 3

2 Globalisation.................................................. 3

3 Convergence Theories......................................... 4

4 Divergence Theories............................................ 5

5 HRM Practices in the UK....................................... 7

6 HRM Practices in Nigeria...................................... 8

7 Comparing HRM Practices in the UK and Nigeria................ 9

8 Implications for Convergence, Divergence and Cross-Vergence.......... 10

9 Conclusion........................................................ 11

10 Critical Reflection............................................ 11

11 References...................................................... 12

List of Figures

S/N Figure Page

1 Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory........................ 6

2 Hofstede Cultural Dimension of Nigeria and UK.................. 9

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

Nigeria

Introduction

Globalization implies growing interdependence between countries due to trade and investment liberalization, technological innovations, and the widespread dissemination of knowledge (Brewster et al., 2016). It is a reality now that they hold worldwide subsidiaries, which increase labour mobility and make companies across borders adopt organizational practices (Edwards & Kuruvilla, 2005). Over the years, the dynamics of this phenomenon have led to debates regarding the effects on human resource management (HRM) approaches, where it is claimed that there is an overall convergence towards a universal model or continued divergence between countries (Myloni et al., 2004).

Convergence theorists claim that globalisation spreads best practices throughout national institutions and cultural values. This, in turn, results in isomorphism (Brewster et al., 2016). On the contrary, the divergence theorists argue that ongoing national institutional and cultural constraints keep diversity alive. This article will critically evaluate these positions by comparing the HRM practices of a liberal market economy in the UK with the emerging African context associated with Nigeria. It will assess each country's convergence and divergence trends, determine the stimuli, review the best practices, consider the consequences, and give recommendations for sustainable HRM. The paper employs academic sources to develop a comprehensive critical essay focusing on the converging and diverging theories and how they work with the specific cases of national samples.

Globalisation

Globalisation is more an outcome of expanded political, technological and economic interactions between nations and organizations in diverse countries (Schuler et al., 2002). Trade liberalization through trade bodies like WTO, which has considerably increased trade and promoted global commerce by removing barriers, is an important driver (Brewster et al., 2016). The free

movement of capital has allowed multinational corporations (MNCs) to open their subsidiaries worldwide after using foreign direct investment in those countries, with rules liberalization and regional integration facilitating this (Dowling et al., 2013). Innovation in transportation, communication, and the digital networks industry have greatly facilitated global sourcing, production sharing, and alternative types of long-distance cooperation (Schuler & Tarique, 2007).

These achievements have brought about economic integration and interdependence between countries at the level of national economies and have significantly increased the mobility of capital, goods, services, information, and labour (Dowling et al., 2013). The media and entertainment industry, along with global travel channels, have also facilitated cultural fusion and the dissemination of lifestyles, values, and ideas worldwide. The heightened linkages have enabled organizations to collaborate and exchange information at a global level (Schultz et al., 2002). Firms can now operate their central functions, such as Research & Development or accounting, while production may be distributed through the Global Value Chain (Brewster et al., 2006). In essence, globalization has had a profound and far-reaching impact on the way business is conducted across the globe, underscoring the global relevance and importance of HRM practices.

The central question of this discussion is whether globalization leads to a management convergence towards similar models that apply to all countries or divergence for different nations (Gooderham et al., 2006). In the context of HRM, convergence would be characterized by companies locally and worldwide adopting advanced practices that then become global norms (Mayrhofer et al., 2011). Divergence, on the other hand, emphasizes the persistence of national institutional and cultural elements, which ultimately contributes to the continuity of diversity instead of uniformity (Brewster, 2007). This essay, with a clear and focused purpose, will critically analyze the approaches of convergence and divergence. The case studies, which will be considered within their national-specific context, will provide the necessary depth and breadth to our analysis, ensuring the clarity and direction of our research.

Convergence Theories

Convergence theorists argue globalization promotes diffusion of best practice HRM worldwide,

overriding national differences and leading to convergence (Mayrhofer et al., 2011).

Convergence assumes that superior HRM practices exist which boost performance, and these can

be transferred between countries (Gooderham et al., 2006). Globalization enables practices to

diffuse internationally through MNCs and global professional services networks (DiMaggio &

Powell, 1983). Knowledge transfer is also facilitated by new technologies and spread of business

education promoting universal management concepts (Pudelko & Harzing, 2007).

Convergence is driven by competitive pressures for efficiency, leading firms to emulate

successful organizations (Mayrhofer et al., 2011). MNC headquarters transfer practices globally

aiming to achieve integration, coordination and control across diverse operations (Edwards &

Kuruvilla, 2005). Consultants, business schools and HRM professionals spread ideas like talent

management worldwide (Pudelko & Harzing, 2007). Faced with similar challenges like skills

shortages, firms benchmark against global peers adopting widely legitimized innovations

(Gooderham et al., 2006).

Convergence theorists highlight trends towards global standardization of performance

management, recruitment, shared services, and outsourcing (Schuler & Tarique, 2007). Other

examples include spread of talent management, engagement, pay-for-performance and high-

commitment work practices across countries (Farndale et al., 2010). Firms increasingly

integrate HRM strategy and practices worldwide (Brewster et al., 2016). Surveys show trends

towards

shared policies on remuneration, appraisal and training across countries (Mayrhofer et al., 2011).

Another driver is cultural value change, as rising incomes and education lead to gradual shifts

towards individualism, self-expression and egalitarianism (Inglehart & Welzel, 2009). Exposure

to global media, brands and lifestyles fosters shared values and preferences, particularly among

young urban professionals (Gamble, 2010). Shared cultural values facilitates transfer of practices

based on norms like employee empowerment.

Overall, convergence theorists view globalization as an integrating force which disseminates

superior practices internationally leading to adoption of similar HRM company-wide and across

countries (Gooderham et al., 2006). Isomorphism results as MNCs, talent flows and

professionalization transfer practices globally leading to within-country convergence, between

country convergence and overall convergence towards a universal best practice model (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).

However, critics argue empirical evidence shows ongoing diversity, with convergence limited to selective practices (Brewster et al., 2016). Identified trends may reflect temporary fashions which get superseded rather than sustained convergence (Dowling et al., 2013). They point to continued national institutional and cultural differences which constrain universalism. Next, divergence perspectives are discussed.

Divergence Theories

In contrast to convergence, divergence theorists argue national differences in institutions, business systems and cultural values lead to ongoing cross-national diversity in HRM rather than uniformity (Brewster, 2007). Institutions such as regulations, trade unions, and education and training systems embed firms in varied national environments which shape HRM (Gooderham et al., 2006). Legal, financial and governance systems differ, creating divergent approaches to labour relations and pay (Hall & Soskice, 2001).

Educational systems vary in the extent they provide firm-specific versus general skills. This affects in-house training versus external labour markets (Farndale et al., 2010). Union structures differ, influencing collective bargaining and employee voice mechanisms (Gooderham et al., 2006). Institutional frameworks create complementarities with firm HRM systems, making radical change difficult (Hall & Soskice, 2001). For example, extensive welfare benefits support flexible labour markets and fluid employer-employee relationships (Dowling et al., 2013). Attemping to import practices which lack institutional support faces inertia.

National culture also diverges between individualism versus collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance and masculinity which shape preferred approaches (Newman & Nollen, 1996). Localising practices to fit country cultures is needed to generate employee engagement and productivity (Hofstede, 1980). Adopting practices like empowerment or job rotation risks failure if incompatible with national cultural traits like high power distance or uncertainty avoidance (Schuler et al., 2002).

Most management theories and practices were developed in the US and Western Europe based on cultural traits in those nations, limiting transferability to other cultures (Hofstede, 1980). For example, high individualism underpins empowerment and pay-for-performance which may not translate to collectivist cultures (Newman & Nollen, 1996). Practices must be adapted to align with local cultural values.

MNCs face choices regarding transferring home practices abroad or adapting to host environments (Edwards & Kuruvilla, 2005). Divergence theorists argue localization is needed so HRM fits local institutional and cultural contexts (Rupidara & McGraw, 2011). Firms which fail to adapt practices to embed them in the local environment risk resistance and underperformance (Bae et al., 1998). This view is supported by evidence that diversity between countries in HRM practices persists despite globalization (Brewster, 2007).

National differences remain in labour relations, training systems, wage setting and employee representation (Mayrhofer et al., 2011). Ongoing diversity rather than convergence reflects path dependency, whereby existing institutional and cultural configurations shape firm responses to globalization pressures (Kostova & Roth, 2002). Countries exhibit divergence in contextual variables and adaptations of practices to fit local configurations. Radical change towards universalism faces constraints of embeddedness.

Critics argue divergence theorists overstate persistence of diversity and neglect potential for institutional and cultural change, including hybridization of local and foreign practices (Brewster et al., 2016). Next, HRM practices in the UK and Nigeria are examined, before analyzing convergence, divergence and hybridization dynamics.

Power Distance Index (PDI)

Indulgence vs. Restraint

(IND)

Individualism vs. Collectivism

(IDV)

Long-term Orientation vs. Short-term Orientation (LTO)

Masculinity vs. Femininity (MAS)

Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)

Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory

Figure 1: Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory (Hofstede, 1980).

HRM Practices in the UK

The UK represents a liberal market economy and Anglo-Saxon business system characterized by flexible, deregulated labour markets, general skills development, decentralized employee relations and market-based pay (Hall & Soskice, 2001). Key institutions shaping UK HRM include light-touch labour regulation, industry-based vocational training, and enterprise-level pay bargaining (Gooderham et al., 2006). Unions have declining membership concentrated in the public sector (Klikauer, 2013). The Financial Reporting Council promotes a stakeholder model of governance (Aguilera et al., 2006).

Culturally, the UK scores low on power distance and uncertainty avoidance, and high on individualism and masculinity (Hofstede Insights, 2022). This culture combines strong individual rights and self-determination with achievement orientation. However, class barriers persist with expectations of hierarchy in some organizations. The relatively pluralist culture shapes an employee relations climate of consultation and communication rather than direct participation.

These institutions and cultural values shape ‘soft’ aspects of UK HRM emphasizing voluntarism

and employer-employee interdependence rather than confrontation or legal regulation (Gooderham et al., 2006). Trade unions act more cooperatively as social partners than adversarial bargaining agents. Employers emphasize direct communication, feedback and participation initiatives to retain autonomy while enhancing commitment and engagement.

Training emphasizes on-the-job development and skills certification more than classroom education, fitting the flexible labour market model (Keep & Mayhew, 2010). Remuneration emphasizes variable performance-related pay above sector-based wage setting (Brewster et al., 2016). Recruitment and careers are driven by labour market mobility between firms rather than internal job ladders.

This liberal HRM model has facilitated flexibility, innovation and adaptation seen as strengths of the UK economy (Crouch, 2016). Areas of convergence with US models include talent management, employee engagement, decentralized pay setting and variable compensation (Gospel & Pendleton, 2014). High labour mobility reduces firms’ emphasis on long-term development.

However, divergences remain between UK and US practices, particularly around employee representation (Edwards et al., 2007). Information and consultation regulations grant employees voice rights exceeding US norms of employer unilateralism. Recent legislation also introduces mandatory gender pay gap reporting to address equity issues. Firms combine high autonomy in people management with social partnership approaches where unions retain presence, reflecting institutions of labour regulation and collective representation (Dundon & Rafferty, 2018).

Overall the UK HRM approach balances flexibility, autonomy and market coordination with social protection and representation rights (Brewster et al., 2016). It diverges from more deregulated US models but has undergone liberalisation compared to continental Western European countries. Variations exist between sectors with higher collectivism in manufacturing and public services compared to individualisation in private services (Gospel & Pendleton, 2014). Financialisation has strengthened cost and shareholder value focus but within the pluralist context (Thompson, 2013). This “harder soft” HRM approach retains distinct national-

institutional characteristics while integrating some global trends and best practices (Gooderham et al., 2015).

HRM Practices in Nigeria

Nigeria represents a rapidly developing African economy but with institutional and cultural contexts distinct from Western countries. Nigeria exhibits power distance, collectivism and uncertainty avoidance in contrast to the individualism of Western cultures (Hofstede Insights, 2022). This is reflected in more hierarchical and authoritarian management styles. Status display is important in the high power distance culture. The colonial legacy and ethnic diversity of over 250 groups contributes to uncertainties in social relations (Horwitz, 2014).

While Nigeria transitioned to democracy in 1999, state institutions remain underdeveloped and ineffective in many regions, contributing to reliance on personal relationships and social networks (Wood & Frynas, 2006). The business environment is characterized as relationship-based capitalism, with informal personal connections shaping approaches more than rule of law (Horwitz, 2014).

Labour regulations are relatively weak with limited union presence and disputed rights (Ezuma & Nebo, 2010). Poverty and inadequate education systems contribute to skills shortages, apart from some sectors like banking and oil. These factors plus high power distance contribute to paternalistic and loyalty-based HRM rather than individual empowerment and voice (Ahiazu, 1986). Status differentials reinforce reliance on top-down communications and orders. Rewards aim to reinforce loyalty through extensive benefits rather than performance-based pay or career development.

However, some convergence has occurred as MNCs transfer Western practices like performance management and bonuses (Ezuma & Nebo, 2010). But these tend to be adapted to local cultural expectations around hierarchy and harmony. For example, pay and promotions may reflect family ties, ethnic affiliations and personal connections as much as performance and qualifications (Horwitz, 2014). Frequent tensions between ethnic groups shape localized diversity management approaches.

Overall, Nigerian HRM reflects domestic institutional and cultural logics more than Western practices. Convergence appears limited to surface adoption of certain techniques like appraisal, which are then implemented to align with local traditions of loyalty, harmony and status (Ahiazu, 1986). The divergence reflects underlying institutions of relationship-based governance and high power distance cultural values. Next, the two countries are directly compared.

Comparing HRM Practices in the UK and Nigeria

The UK and Nigeria demonstrate significant divergence in national institutions, business environments and cultural values which shape contrasting HRM systems in each country. The UK's liberal market model combines autonomous but socially responsible employers with individualist, egalitarian and low uncertainty avoidance cultural values (Gooderham et al., 2006). This shapes an HRM approach emphasizing voluntary collectivism, self-managed teamwork and high labour market mobility.

In contrast, Nigeria's relationship-based business environment, high power distance culture and weaker formal institutions create HRM practices built around paternalism, status hierarchies and personalized loyalty (Wood & Frynas, 2006). Convergence appears limited to selective adoption of techniques like appraisal which are then adapted to local cultural logics.

There are some surface parallels in practices like performance management and incentive pay, reflecting limited diffusion of Western management approaches in Nigeria (Ezuma & Nebo, 2010). However, significant divergence remains between the two countries in labour relations, training and development, diversity management, and communication styles.

These reflect the ongoing influence of national institutions and cultural values in shaping locally embedded HRM systems, as predicted by divergence theory (Brewster, 2007). The UK's voluntarist employment relations system reflects negotiated norms between autonomous employers and politically incorporated unions. Nigeria's paternalistic system copies imported practices superficially but retains power hierarchies between superiors and subordinates.

The countries also differ in skill development with the UK emphasizing flexible skills and labour mobility compared to Nigeria’s scarce formal training. Diversity management in Nigeria is shaped by ethnic pluralism rather than UK notions of equal opportunities (Mordi et al., 2013). Underlying institutions of labour regulation, training systems, interest intermediation, ethnic relations and cultural values continue to diverge between the countries constraining convergence.

Each country’s HRM practices retain nationally distinctive configurations reflecting complementarities between policies and wider institutions. The UK approach coheres with deregulated labour markets and individualist culture, while Nigerian practices fit relational business systems and hierarchies. Convergence is limited as institutional embeddedness and path dependencies sustain divergence rather than universalism in HRM.

Nigeria

in comparison with the below

PDI 80 40

IDV 30 69

MAS 60 62

UAI 55 46

LTO 16 29

Nigeria

Figure 2: Hofstede Cultural Dimension of Nigeria and UK (Hofstede Insights, 2022).

Implications for Convergence, Divergence and Cross-Vergence

The analysis indicates significant ongoing divergence between UK and Nigerian HRM reflecting

contrasting institutions and cultures, suggesting claims of universal convergence are exaggerated (Pudelko & Harzing, 2007). Convergence appears limited to selective adoption of fashionable

practices like performance management.

There is visible cross-cultural transmission and

adaptation of some practices like incentives and talent management by cross-vergence dynamics

(Ralston et al., 1997). The internationalisation process of HRM generates national HRM configurations which can maintain some degree of homogeneity but are also characterized by a

high degree of endogeneity. The rising environmental issues highlighted by the study are the

shift of MNCs to a global system that functions with local responsiveness. Convergence ensures

standardization, but it is balanced with divergence and later cross-vergence within the EU, which

calls for integration and adaptation. Integrated architectures along localized practices should

optimize the coordination and fit (Kim et al., 2003). Sustainable HRM is characterized by two

types of convergence: socially embedded practices that diverge and local adaptations of

beneficial innovations like talent development, which are cross-vergence sources (Gamble,

2010). The security of social protections and representation systems should also be given serious

attention.

Countries like the UK and Nigeria offer examples of national configurations that bring

divergence and selective cultural hybridization into mind. As a result, HR managers must be familiar with the local institutional and cultural environment in which they operate. Some firms

have to find a balance between the universal principles and contextual adaptations and the cross-

vergence made necessary between locally and globally connected systems.

Conclusion

This illustration of the UK and Nigeria displays the evolution of the two countries' HR models due to the varying institutions and cultures. But convergence and cross-fertilization have also

been seen as probably distinct practices that have been borrowed but then reworked. This means

that not all convergence can be attained in total, but there is also a possibility for a blend that

satisfies world and local standards. OptimizingOptimizingthe dynamics of these integrated

systems seems to be a prerequisite for sustainable HRM that can balance systems of integrated

solutions, localized services and practices within national environments, and transfer of

beneficial innovations. By comparing countries, one can realize that social surroundings are the

key factors determining the convergence and divergence of HRM in countries. Subsequent

research would be helpful for the progress of cross-vergence methods, which are used to

reconcile the global best practice with the variety of local realities.

Critical Reflection

This essay analyses the arguments of convergence and divergence in HRM using academic theories and national examples. The UK and Nigeria are pretty different contexts, which showed the emergence of the forces sustaining divergence and the possibility of cross-vergence between the global and local models. Through a deep immersion into the literature on national business systems, institutional complementarities, path dependence and cultural dimensions, not only was I able to stretch my critical thinking relating theory to evidence, but it also helped me to approach the subject from a different perspective and understand it by the eyes of society. I gained cognitive skills in the concepts of embeddedness and isomorphism. During that time, I studied various real-world cases that increased my contextual understanding of the role of the environment in organizational practices. Researching divergent national models helped me think logically and develop both my conceptual knowledge and critical thinking skills. By carrying out an elaborate comparative analysis, I could hone academic frameworks, which is now helpful in applying the concepts to real issues, thus advancing my skill level. This triggered some thinking regarding the culture transfer practices. I gained a lot of knowledge from the exercise that will help me to work as well as possible in applied research and practice informed by theory. Studying academic debates and considering examples from different countries enabled me to develop skills in critical analysis, which are vital for research and practice. This essay was a significant learning asset for developing critical analytical and reflective skills through active scholarship engaged in meaningful conversations.

References

Aguilera, R.V., Williams, C.A., Conley, J.M. and Rupp, D.E. (2006). Corporate governance and

social responsibility: a comparative analysis of the UK and the US. Corporate

Governance: an international review, 14(3), pp.147-158.

Ahiazu, A. (1986). The African thought-system and the work behavior of the African industrial

man. International Studies of Management & Organization, 16(2), pp.37-58.

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

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

Brewster, C., Mayrhofer, W. and Cooke, F.L. (2016). Convergence, divergence and diffusion of

HRM in emerging markets. In Larsen, H.H. and Mayrhofer, W. (Eds.), Handbook of

Research on Comparative Human Resource Management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Publishing.

Brewster, C., Wood, G., Van Ommeren, J. and Brookes, M. (2015). The determinants of HR

size. Human Resource Management, 54(1), pp.45-61.

Crouch, C. (2016). The knowledge corrupters: Hidden consequences of the financial takeover of

public life. John Wiley & Sons.

DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and

collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2),

pp.147-160.

Dowling, P.J. and Engle, A. (2013). International Human Resource Management. Andover: Cengage Learning.

Dundon, T. and Rafferty, A. (2018). The (potential) demise of HRM? Human Resource Management Journal, 28(3), pp.377-391.

Edwards, T. and Kuruvilla, S. (2005). International HRM: national business systems, organizational politics and the international division of labour in MNCs. The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(1), pp.1-21.

Farndale, E., Scullion, H. and Sparrow, P. (2010). The role of the corporate HR function in

global talent management. Journal of World Business, 45(2), pp.161-168.

Gamble, J. (2010). Transferring organizational practices and the dynamics of hybridization:

Japanese retail multinationals in China. Journal of Management Studies, 47(4), pp.705-

732.

Gooderham, P., Nordhaug, O. and Ringdal, K. (2006). National embeddedness and calculative human resource management in US subsidiaries in Europe and Australia. Human Relations, 59(11), pp.1491-1513.

Gooderham, P.N., Brewster, C. and Mayrhofer, W. (2015). Handbook of Research on Comparative Human Resource Management. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Gospel, H. and Pendleton, A. (2014). Financialization, new investment funds, and labour. In Gospel, H., Pendleton, A. and Vitols, S. (Eds.) Financialization, New Investment Funds, and Labour. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-52.

Hall, P.A. and Soskice, D.W. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hofstede Insights (2022). Country comparison. [online] Hofstede Insights. Available at: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/ [Accessed 28 February 2023].

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Horwitz, F.M. (2014). An analysis of skills development in a transitional economy: The case of the South African labour market. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(11), pp.1535-1554.

Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2009). How development leads to democracy: What we know about modernization. Foreign Affairs, pp.33-48.

Keep, E. and Mayhew, K. (2010). Moving beyond skills as a social and economic panacea. Work, Employment and Society, 24(3), pp.565-577.

Kim, S., Wright, P.M. and Su, Z. (2020). Human resource management and organizational effectiveness: a macro approach. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(10), p.1116.

Klikauer, T. (2013). Trade unions in Germany: fighting negligence and fighting for survival. Journal of Industrial Relations, 55(5), pp.665-679.

Mayrhofer, W., Brewster, C., Morley, M.J. and Ledolter, J. (2011). Hearing a different drummer? Convergence of human resource management in Europe—A longitudinal analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 21(1), pp.50-67.

Mordi, C., Mmieh, F. and Ojo, S. (2013). An exploratory study of managers’ perspective of work-life balance in Nigeria: A case analysis of the Nigerian banking sector. Thunderbird International Business Review, 55(1), pp.55-75.

Myloni, B., Harzing, A.W. and Mirza, H. (2004). Host country specific factors and the transfer of human resource management practices in multinational companies. International Journal of Manpower, 25(6), pp.518-534.

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., Egri, C.P., Stewart, S., Terpstra, R.H. and Kaicheng, Y. (1999). Doing business in the 21st century with the new generation of Chinese managers: A study of generational shifts in work values in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(2), pp.415-428.

Schuler, R.S. and Tarique, I. (2007). International human resource management: A North American perspective, a thematic update and suggestions for future research. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(5), pp.717-744.

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

Thompson, P. (2013). Financialization and the workplace: extending and applying the disconnected capitalism thesis. Work, Employment and Society, 27(3), pp.472-488.

Wood, G. and Frynas, J.G. (2006). The institutional basis of economic failure: Anatomy of the segmented business system. Socio-Economic Review, 4(2), pp.239-277.