Reference number 233

SPINNING THE GLOBAL COMPETENCY CUBE:

TOWARD A TRANSNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCE DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM

by

Allen D. Engle, Sr.

Eastern Kentucky University

215 Combs Classroom Building

521 Lancaster Avenue

Richmond, KY 40475-3102

USA

(859) 622-6549

(859) 622-2359 FAX

allen.engle@eku.edu

and

Mark E. Mendenhall

University of Tennessee, Chattanooga

615 McCallie Avenue

Chattanooga, TN 37403

USA

(423) 755-4406

(423) 755-2329

Mark-Mendenhall@utc.edu

Introduction

The conceptualization of global strategies by multinational corporations based upon empirical, albeit often anecdotal, evidence has developed dramatically in the past thirty years (Adler, 1997; Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1997; Perlmutter, 1969). The implication of these global strategic models for international human resource (IHR) processes and practices is no less dramatic (Black, et al., 1999; Engle & Stedham, 1999; Dowling, Welch & Schuler, 1999).

Global Strategies and Transnational Firms

A number of global strategic development models are available and each may have a number of variations (see Dowling, Welch & Schuler, 1999, chapter 2). For purposes of discussion, we will focus on the four-part model of globalization presented by Nancy Adler (1997). In this model, the globalization process begins with an "international" strategy. Firms sell and produce abroad a product or service that is only marginally adapted from a standardized domestic good or service. The firm values the home country way as the best way and its members develop a sense of "ethnocentrism." These newly-global firms convert their domestic organizational designs to global geographic structures, a move that allows them to take advantage of the distribution and marketing efficiencies inherent in this structure (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1995).

As more competitors enter the international market and the market matures, unique product capabilities wane and strategists must customize product/service delivery to each of the international markets. In this second phase, the "multidomestic" strategy results in an emphasis on local production, marketing and services providing customized products in an increasing number of self-contained national or regional markets. This adaptation to local needs, wants and conditions develops a local best way and a cultural sense of "polycentrism" (Adler & Ghadar, 1992). Organizations applying this strategy tend to restructure operations into global product groups, a structure based on product competitiveness unique to local conditions (Egelhoff, 1988).

In the "multinational" stage of international development products and services become saturated in international markets, the technological innovation that drove operations overseas dwindles, prices drop and cost containment becomes a key to success. Reductions in cost, through rationalization of operations to sites where the factor costs of activities are minimized create a culture of global "cost-centrism" (Adler & Ghadar, 1992). Organizations applying this strategy tend to continue using global product group structures with reductions in operations focusing on regionally low cost factor locations.

Finally, the "transnational" strategy is characterized by a combination of minimal global costs and significant customization of products and services to meet the demands of a wide range of increasingly sophisticated customer groups around the world. Research and development costs grow and manufacturing and distribution are based on balancing costs and differentiation to local markets - so called "mass customization" (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1995). This balance between the cost control of the multinational strategy and the local customization of the multidomestic strategy is not primarily accomplished by structural control. Rather, control is achieved by a "geocentric" culture, a strong international culture characterized by integrated cadres of flexible global managers. Together, these managers hold a set of globally-balanced values and perspectives that create the socialized "mind matrix" that allows the transnational strategy to function (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1993). Since this "mind matrix" depends entirely on these global managers, careful selection, in-depth career development activities and experiences and flexible and equitable compensation practices become essential to the success of the firm (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 2000: 518).

Transnational Strategies and a New Role for IHR

Given the differing attributes associated with each strategy, the human resource practices and processes associated with each are expected to be different. The greatest difference seems to exist between multinational and transnational strategies.

The implications of this strategic shift toward transnational strategies for IHR are fourfold. First, human resource practices and processes supplant organizational design as the primary of organizational control B the "mind matrix" as opposed to reliance on global functional or geographic product division structures or global matrix structures (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1994; Engle & Stedham, 1999). This is a specific instance of a general shift from bureaucratic control to a socialized clan control (Ouchi, 1981).

IHR Processes as Integration

More specifically, the IHR function now hold a primary operational responsibility for managing the radical and discontinuous changes in organizational design, technologies and culture that result from the shift to a transnational strategy. The requirements associated with implementing this strategy are a major departure from the status quo. We should expect significant individual and sub unit resistance to such radical changes. Consequently, incorporating tactics for systematically overcoming such forms of resistance is an essential part of IHR's new role (Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1997; Zell, 1997).

Balancing Cultural, Functional and Product Interests

Second, the main focus of these newly-critical IHR processes relates to balancing the interests of cultural, functional and product perspectives throughout the global firm. This balance is achieved by planning the recruitment and selection, training and development and compensation of individuals and cadres of employees capable of personally and collectively balancing these three interests and perspectives (Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1997).

The balanced, integrated generalization of critical cultural, functional and product competencies will likely be a significant departure from the specialized, vertically and horizontally differentiated parochialism that characterizes many large global firms (Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1997; Lawrence & Lorsh, 1967).

Although an extensive discussion of the psychological-structural aspect of organizational design is outside the limits of this paper, a few observations are in order. Organizational design may be seen as the source of a parochial, specialized mentality Salazncik & Pfeffer, 1978). Conversely, professionally trained specialists may be seen as creators of highly differentiated and bureaucratic designs (Miner, 1977, 1980). In either case a strong nexus exists between control via specialization of design and individual career specialization. In order to overcome individual and group resistance to change we must look to the psychological and sociological origins of such resistance.

On the individual level, employees have often been rewarded in their careers by increasing their knowledge and capabilities in increasingly specialized areas of work. Their sense of work competency in these narrow but deep areas is high. Such employees naturally gravitate to personal efforts that build upon existing capabilities and avoid efforts in areas of work in which they may have little experience or may have experienced setbacks. Personal feelings of self-efficacy contribute to career decisions that build upon existing task success and avoid tasks that are not related to previous success (Bandura, 1986; Brockner, 1988).

On the group level, the term sub unit orientation is used to describe an unintended consequence of work specialization (Bennis, 1969; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). Social subgroups, often the offshoot of functional, product or cultural proximity, obtain resources and political power at the firm due to their ability to provide critical information and reduce uncertainty. These specialized silos reinforce subunit goals and values, sometimes at the expense of overarching organizational goals and values.

These individual and organizational dynamics may be seen to create resistance to efforts to open up the organization by balancing product, functional and cultural perspectives in all significant organizational decision making processes. Any IHR system must explicitly deal to this dynamic tension.

At the same time, the differences between increasingly specified job as unit of analysis and the more fluid and mutable person - and person's competencies - as the unit of analysis should not be overestimated or endanger a necessarily fundamental change in approach. According to Sanchez & Levine, " the primary difference between traditional job analysis and competency modeling lies in the level of analysis" such that "competencies are broader sets of human attributes than the narrowly defined knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) of the past" (1999, p. 57).

IHR and Reduced Cycle Times

Third, global activities are characterized by their complexity and the turbulence of environmental changes. IHR processes must operated at dramatically reduced cycle times in order to take advantage of the potential flexibility and responsiveness of the transnational strategy (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 2000: chapter 6; Tichy, 1993). A human resource process cycle begins with the awareness that a basic HR process B such as a base salary plan or a first-line supervisory training program B needs to be significantly modified. The cycle ends when the finished new program or system is in place, communicated and operating.

IHR and Global Diversity/Equivalence

Finally, the IHR system must communicate and reinforce the egalitarian value of cultural/spatial, functional and product line diversity within the transnational firm. A geocentric culture can flourish only when decision makers balance, accommodate and value the different cultures, geographic locations, functional perspectives and diverse product line characteristics that make up the firm (Fulkerson & Tucker, 1999; Trompenaars, 1994). This constant, conscious balancing and the inclusive incorporation of these diverse elements can only be accomplished hire by hire, assignment by assignment and promotion by promotion B in short, it must be planned, executed and assessed (Black, et al., 1999).

As seen above the transnational strategy results in a new and often radically different set of "performance characteristics" for attendant IHR systems. IHR systems must now contribute to strategically central, timely, balanced, acultural and above all flexible decision making by geographically and culturally diverse units.

IHR and Global Decision Support Systems

Although far too little is known abut global information systems (IS), in a review of existing literature Peppard (1999) presents two themes that may be emerging. First, IS strategy must match global business strategy (Earl & Feeny, 1995). Second, global organization designs set the tone for the tactics of providing IS support (Egelhoff, 1991). The four elements of global strategies, global design, global business drivers, and IS strategies must be seen as an interdependent network. Global business drivers are defined as factors that allow the firm to be locally flexible, provide global integrative effectiveness, effectiveness in global resource acquisition B managing risk and otherwise synergistically combining global assets, and leveraging knowledge from one functional or geographic area throughout the firm (Peppard, 1999). "[I]t is critical to understand the business and organizational context before attempting to address IS/IT issues." (Peppard, 1999, p. 82).

Applying these concerns to the specific instance of IHR systems for the transnational strategy, the IS system must have the five qualities. They are accessibility, timeliness, a balanced vision of the cultural, functional and product dimensions of HR decisions, an acultural quality that minimizes biases for or against individual cultures, and flexibility of purpose.

The purpose of the proposed IHR decision support system that will follow is to create a system that frames decisions related to recruitment and selection, training and development, compensation and HR planning in a manner consonant to the five qualities or performance requirements outlined above. Given these qualities, what information will be the focus of the decision database?

IHR Decisions Focused on Global Competencies

A significant element of reconceptualizing transnational IHR relates to moving away from job to competency as the focus of analysis. In multinational firms the dominance of structure as the primary device to implement strategy on the micro level is paralleled by the dominance of job-centered IHR processes on the micro level. The success of a multinational firm depends on the ability to create a strategy-structure-job fit. Human resource strategies in the multinational firm play the not-so strategic role of ensuring that jobs happen (Stedham & Engle, 1999).

The shift from a job to a competency focus may be explained by viewing competencies as inputs, job characteristics as contextual process and performance as output. Based on the "job/person dichotomy" persons are placed (input) into job contexts (processes) and stable performance outputs are expected to result from this combination (Perlman, 1980). Traditionally, most IHR processes operate at the job level of analysis, and yet this job focus is simply an historical compromise between person and performance. Technological innovation and the complexity of global environmental uncertainty bring this compromise into question (Lawler, 2000; Sanchez & Levine, 1999). Many IHR issues may be more effectively assessed at higher levels of analysis (occupation or cadre) or lower (position or person) levels of analysis (Perlman, 1980; Sanchez & Levine, 1999; Wallace, 1983). If the context (process) of work is stable and relatively uniform, then a job is an acceptable proxy for performance. When contexts become unstable, then the job is not longer an acceptable proxy for performance.

Multinational firms, for instance, tend to use "technical competence" as the primary criterion for expatriate assignments (Black et al., 1999). It is assumed that if a manager performs well in New York, the manager will also perform well in Tokyo because the work processes are expected to be the same. It is further implicitly assumed that the job in Tokyo is imbedded in the same social, cultural and work context as the job in New York. This is obviously not the case; however corporate headquarters usually do not rework the job description (or work process) to fit the Japanese context. The expatriate winds up having to make that adjustment incrementally and informally on his/her own. Thus, the job process does change in an international assignment, but not formally, and out of view of corporate headquarters.

Additionally, corporate headquarters' staff is unaware that any job process changes have been made at all, since their focus is on the expatriate's job performance (output). When the expatriate returns to the U.S., the social memory and learning about culturally-specific job processes leaves with the outgoing expatriate and his/her replacement must undergo the same self-generated job process adjustments as were made by his/her predecessor.

To avoid this inefficiency, we should refocus attention on competencies (input) and performance experiences (output). This competency/experience focus is robust enough to address the instabilities and complexities of transnational work contexts (Lawler, 2000). Past performance becomes what we will call "experience". These experiences may or may not of themselves create enduring or stable personal competencies. It we can specify the cultural context of these experiences, they will make better proxies for performance that would job processes in the transnational firm.

A basic contention of proponents of the "mind matrix" is the need to balance the three dimensions of culture, function and products so that no single dimension dominates at the expense of the other two dimensions (Doz & Prahalad, 1986). In the language of organizational design, structures must articulate along those areas of variation existing within the firm. The greater the range of geographic markets served, functions provided or products produced the greater the need to create differentiated units. Subsequently there is a greater need to create more effective integrative mechanisms across these three areas to coordinate and share results (Evans & Doz, 1993; Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1997; Lawrence & Lorsh, 1967).

Combining the three dimensions of cultural, functional and product experience along the lines of breadth (horizontal range of experience within each dimension) and depth (vertical extensiveness of experience within each dimension) results in a three-dimensional "Global Competency Cube" (see figure 1).

Insert Figure 1 about here

This cube graphically represents a three dimensional space that captures the location of all salient global competencies and comprises an IHR measurement schema. This schema can be used to map, individually and for the firm in aggregate, the mind matrix. A primary advantage of this model is that it assists managers in focusing on identifying and, perhaps most critically, balancing strategically linked competencies. Also, this model is intended to provide a cultural frame, common vocabulary and referencing blueprint in order to mobilize and coordinate the global cadre (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1993).

The exact nature of the competencies required along cultural, functional and product dimensions will vary from firm to firm according to strategic intent. The firm-specific coordinates within breadth and depth associated with the three dimensions can be specified during strategic decision sessions.

This global competency space creates the parameters upon which a decision support system may be created. The global competency cube is envisioned as an "Oracle"-based decision support system consisting of a tripart (cultural, functional and product) database containing information on the work assignments, experiences, and certifications required to identify the cultural, functional and product related capabilities of each employee. How are these capabilities to be recalled and used to help make IHR decisions?

A Proximity Model of IHR Competencies

The proposed system is based upon the degree of match between the competency mix (that combination of cultural, functional and product experiences) required by a given assignment and the competency mix of the individual employees whose personal experiences are mapped onto the system. For example, a decision-maker would be asked to respond to a series of prompts and/or drop down boxes in order to describe a potential assignment in terms of the cultural, functional and product breadth and depth required for that assignment. The decision-maker would then describe the level of match, or proximity of fit between the desired dimensional coordinates and the coordinates of employees captured in the competency database. Based on these competency coordinates the system would search the database for employees whose experiences come closest to meeting the desired competency mix given the level of proximity required and queue selected individuals by overall level of match for review for the decision-maker.

At the same time the decision-maker would also describe the characteristics of the compensation package available for the assignment. The compensation model applied is based upon Milkovich & Bloom's (1998) three-part compensation construct. In this model international compensation is comprised of "core" elements common to all employees globally - ensuring a standardized and "basic level of service and benefits"; "crafted" or "customized" elements that vary by business unit or geographic region and "choice" elements that allow an individual employee to select compensation elements in a flexible, personalized manner (Milkovich & Bloom, 1998, p. 22).

The technical hardware and software capabilities required for the system B issues related to interfaces with the basic "Oracle" system, data base storage and warehousing for access, etc. B at the "back end" of the system are not the focus of the present discussion (Krakovsky, 1997). We will now turn to the "front end" of the proposed system B the interface between the IHR decision-maker and the IHRDSS (see Figure 2).

Insert Figure 2 about here.

Transnational DSS Icons, Characteristics and Capabilities

The icon presented in Figure 2 would be presented to the decision-maker after they query the system and run a search for the proximity match. The top, horizontal bar of the triangle represents the level of cultural competency match. The left side of the triangle, sloping from left to right, represents the level of functional competency match, and the right side of the triangle, sloping from right to left, represents the product competency match.

Match results are color coded such that a green bar represents a high level of match between the query requirement characteristic and the employee experiences. An orange bar represents a moderate level of match and a red bar represents a low level of match. What makes up a high, medium and low level of match depends on the proximity of the fit input into the query process by the decision-maker. These three bars of the triangle portion of the icon comprise the potential contributions the focal individual could bring to the assignment (March & Simon, 1958).

The three horizontal bars below the triangle represent an employee's present compensation package as compared to the compensation package associated with the proposed assignment. Again, based on Milkovich & Bloom's model, the top horizontal bar of this lower element represents the "choice" component of the employee's pay. The center horizontal bar represents the "customized" component of the employee's pay and the bottom horizontal bar represents the "core" component of the employee's pay.

Once again these three bars are also color coded such that gray (lead) represents a comparison between the value of the employee's existing pay for that component and the proposed value. With a lead result the proposed value is likely to be seen by the employee as significantly less attractive than the existing component value. Silver represents a proposed value likely to be seen as approximately equivalent to the existing value. Gold represents a proposed value likely to be seen by the focal employee as significantly more attractive than the existing component of pay. Once again, decision-makers querying the system may pre-select proximity levels between existing pay components and the pay components of the proposed assignment.

This second section of the icon captures the inducements, as they are most likely to be seen by the focal employee, associated with the assignment (March & Simon, 1958). In one icon both inducements and contributions are available in one flexible, compact and readily visualizable system.

Decision-makers querying the system would be able to estimate at a glance the degree of match between the focal employee and the assignment. The information system is designed to queue potential assignees by level of match in inducements, contributions or both.

A Review of the Characteristics of the Transnational DSS

The proposed system contains three characteristics worthy of note. First, as an icon-based system the process is more accessible to employees from a variety of cultural backgrounds. Speed and comprehension in training and cultural accessibility will be enhanced by applying color-coded "universals" such as green-yellow-red as well as gold-silver and lead. At the same time, by using three general levels of association and allowing participants to set proximity levels the system is designed to be flexible enough to become the basis of ongoing conversations, negotiations and shared meaning among employees B the mutual adjustment required by a flexible transnational strategy. The system's purpose is not so much to calculate "the answer" but rather to make more explicit the need to balance those complex aspects of a transnational IHR process.

Second, the proposed system more or less forces the viewer to consciously take into account the need to balance cultural, functional and product competencies when considering such IHR activities as recruitment, selection, training or development (Black, et al., 1999). At the same time the icon is designed so as to provide a package of information on both the degree of match in contributions and inducements. Earlier we presented the many and varied sources of resistance both generally to wide spread organizational change and particularly to career generalization B as opposed to specialization. A case specific sense of the role compensation may play in overcoming resistance to change is a useful attribute of the system. This second form of balancing is therefore a balance between the contributions required to pursue the transnational strategy and the inducements available to influence employees towards those contributions.

These inducements may be seen to provide an opportunity to assess and overcome resistance - to grease the skids if you will. The analogy is to a "sprung floor" in gymnastics or ballet, a floor designed to take the load of the rapid movements of the dancer and provide a cushion to enhance the power and flexibility of athletic performance.

Finally, a real time, user-friendly decision support network of this kind can significantly speed up IHR decision process thereby dramatically reducing IHR cycle times. A worldwide, shared network focused on shared meanings and balancing global competencies on a number of levels is the ultimate goal.

In their book "The Individualized Corporation" (1997) Ghoshal and Bartlett present a series of case studies representing successful global firms. They use terms like "institutionalized entrepreneurship," "beyond strategic plans to organizational learning," " the company as a university," "developing horizontal information flows," and creating a trust-based culture by transparency and openness, fairness and equity and shared organizational values to describe these kinds of firms (Part 2, From Organization Man to Individualized Corporation, pp. 37-137).

Top level executives are described as constantly pushing for "stretch," "building organizational flexibility" through structured multidimensionality of operations (pp. 119-126); and "creating dynamic disequilibrium" B emphasizing "constant turmoil, disturbance and self questioning" (p. 132). Top executives must combine the two forces of constant self renewal B continuous rationalization combined with continuous revitalization (p. 134).

The imagery presented by Ghoshal and Bartlett is one of a firm in a constant state of flux and yet moving toward a purposeful set of goals. The transnational DSS has the potential to open individuals and groups in the firm to their ability to stretch and change. The imagery of the transnational DSS icon is that of a spinning top (the contributions required) riding on a sprung, flexible floor of inducements that responsively "gives" to facilitate the individual, group and organizational changes necessitated by this flux.

Transnational DSS Applications B Decisions About What?

Up to this point we have discussed applications of the model in general terms such as "decisions," particularly alluding to assignment selection decisions. This system has the potential to be applied to all major IHR processes. On the macro or strategic level, the assessment and planning for firm, SBU, divisional or regional activities may be analyzed by inventorying and aggregating existing competencies and experiences. These collective capabilities may then be compared to strategic requirements to determine the gap between existing unit capabilities and the capabilities required to meet strategic goals (i.e. sales growth, geographic penetrations, functional reductions or product line enhancements). This form of IHR planning application would reinforce the need to balance and align cultural, functional and product capabilities at the firm level.

Also on the macro level, decisions related to joint ventures and merger and acquisitions may be assessed using this framework. We may assess the potential of how complementary the mix of competencies may be between two or more firms. In this way decisions to acquire or be acquired are viewed according to the marginal effect on cultural and product capabilities in the merged firm. The more short-term balance sheet effects of merger and acquisition and joint ventures on firms provide an incomplete picture. The explicit addition of information of the enhancement of global competencies can now be addressed in a more systematic manner (Harrigan, 1984; Lorange & Probst, 1987).

Third, this model can provide a framework to assist strategic decisions related to movement into and out of selected markets, functions and product lines. These three competency dimensions were chosen partially due to their strategic relevance. Scenarios may be designed so teams of strategists at all levels can assess the firm's existing IHR competencies as they will most likely impact successful entry into new markets, functions and product lines. These strategists may also assess the new IHR competencies that must be developed to implement strategy in these new arenas. This more complete and direct link between corporate and IHR strategy will assist firms going into new complex and incompletely understood environments (Peppard, 1999).

On the micro level, unit managers can assess existing competency mixes within the firm and recruit and select individuals and teams for assignment. These individuals and teams would be determined to have the combination of cultural, functional and product line experiences that best match the requirements of the assignment. Transnational DSSs may facilitate the assembly of and access to worker assignments as well as performance management assessment.

Training and development needs may also be more completely assessed using this system. Culturally relevant experiences may be compared to likely future organizational assignments in a three-dimensional needs analysis. The Supervisors of employees that have adequate competencies along functional or product dimensions may be unaware of the cultural gaps in individual experiences and hence those competencies related to doing business in a certain culture. Individual imbalances in the three competencies may be more quickly uncovered, communicated and redressed by training or assignments that build competencies in deficient areas (Tichy, 1993). Supervisors will not have to naively estimate the level of candidate capabilities for global assignments B a practice with potentially devastating results for employees and firms alike (Black, et al., 1999).

The transnational decision support system provides both a framework and template to assist the operating level "entrepreneurs," senior management "developers" and top level "leaders" in developing and maintaining those new and radically different management roles required by the "individualized" transnational firm (Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1997, pp. 218-241).

Managerial development may be enhanced by allowing senior management "developers" to more thoroughly and accurately track the cultural, functional and product acumen of operating level "entrepreneurs." The developers would then be able to provide the line entrepreneurs with more timely assignments, mentoring interventions and orchestrate those task experiences required to build global sensibility and develop senior level replacements for the future (Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1997).

Top level "leaders" may look to this system as they identify and challenge unbalanced, unidimensional biases while at the same time visualizing new cultural, functional and product goals. By publicly referencing and applying the values embedded in the transnational approach, these visionary leaders can "build a context of cooperation and trust" and grow the "mind matrix" of social control (Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1997, p. 222).

Conclusions

The conceptual framework of the global competency cube and the transnational DSS as outlined is not an automatic pilot that mechanically assesses and determines required IHR processes for the transnational firm. Rather it should be considered a shared "artifact" of a transnational culture (Schein, 1985). As such its role is to evoke and remind members of those shared values and assumptions - related to balancing competencies, striving to achieve "overarching purposes" and tapping more completely into the human potential B so essential in order to efficiently combine local responsiveness with a global perspective (Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1997, p. 222).

To reach full potential transnational firms must move beyond differences due to cultural, geographic, technological and functional specialization. A transnational decision support system can be a significant step towards a "transnational patois" B the shared lingua franca of IS that bridges global business strategy, global business drivers and global business models via a customized global information strategy (Peppard, 1999).

References

Adler, N. J. 1977. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 3^rd Ed. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing .

Adler, N. J. & Ghadar, F. 1992. International Strategy From the Perspective of People

and Culture: The North American Context. In H.W. Lane & J. J. DiStefano (Eds.),

International Management Behavior (pp. 217-244). Boston , Mass.: PWS-Kent

Publishing Co.

Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bartlett, C. A.. & Ghoshal, S. 1993. Matrix Management: Not a Structure, a Frame of Mind. In V. Pucik, N.M. Tichy & C. K. Barnett (Eds.), Globalizing Management (pp. 107-118). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bartlett, C. A. & Ghoshal, S. 1994. Changing the Role of Top Management: Beyond Strategy to Purpose. Harvard Business Review, 72, (November-December), 79-88.

Bartlett, C. A. & Ghoshal, S. 1995. Changing the Role of Top Management (part 3): Beyond Systems to People. Harvard Business Review, 73, (May-June), 132-143.

Bartlett, C. A. & Ghoshal, S. 2000. Transnational Management: Text, Cases and Readings in Cross-border Management, 3^rd Ed. Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill Publishers.

Bennis, W. 1969. Organization Development: Its Nature, Origins and Prospects. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Black, J. S., Gregersen, H. B., Mendenhall, M. E. & Stroh, L. K. 1999. Globalizing People Through International Assignments. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Brockner, J. 1988. Self Esteem at Work: Research, Ttheory and Practice. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

Dowling, P. J., Welch, D. E., & Schuler, R. S. 1999. International Human Resource Management, 3^rd Ed. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing.

Doz, Y. & Pradalad, C. K. 1986. Controlled Variety: A Challenge for Human Resource Management in the MNC. Human Resource Management, 25, (1), 55-71.

Earl, M.J. & Feeny, D. F. 1995. Information Systems in Global Business: Evidence from European Multinationals. In H. Thomas, D. O'Neal & J. Kelly, (Eds.), Strategic Renaissance and Business Transformation (pp. 183-210): Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Egelhoff, W. E. 1988. Strategy and Structure in Multinational Corporations: A Revision of the Stepford and Wells Model. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 1-14.

Egelhoff, W. E. 1991. Information processing theory and the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 3^rd Quarter, 341-368.

Engle, A. D. & Stedham, Y. 1999. Multinational and Transnational Strategies: Implications for Human Resource Planning. College of Business and Technology, Business Working Paper Series, 10/28/99, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, Kentucky, USA.

Evans, P. A. L. & Doz, Y. 1993. Dualities: A Paradigm for Human Resource and Organizational Development in Complex Organizations. In V. Pucik, N. M. Tichy, & C. K. Barnett (Eds.), Globalizing Management (pp. 85-106). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Fulkerson, J. R. & Tucker, M. F. 1999. Diversity: Lessons from Global Human Resource Practices. In A. I. Kraut & A. K. Korman (Eds.), Evolving Practices in Human Resource Management (pp. 249-271). San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Ghoshal, S. & Bartlett, C. A. 1997. The Individualized Corporation. New York: Harper Business Publishers.

Harrigan, K. R. 1984. Joint Ventures and Global Strategies. Columbia Journal of World Business, 19, (2), 7-13.

Krakovsky, M. 1997. Understanding the Oracle Server. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Publishers.

Lawler, E. E. III 2000. Rewarding Excellence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Lawrence, P. R. & Lorsch, J. W. 1967. Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1-47.

Lorange, P. & Probst, G. J. B. 1987. Joint Ventures as Self-organizing Systems: A Key to Successful Joint Venture Design and Implementation. Columbia Journal of World Business, 22, (2), 71-78.

March, J. G. & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Milkovich, G. T. & Bloom, M. 1998. Rethinking International Compensation. Compensation and Benefits Review, 30, (1), 15-23.

Milkovich, G. T. & Newman, J. M. 1999. Compensation, 6^th ed. Boston, Mass.: Irwin/McGraw-Hill Publishers.

Miner, J. B. 1977. Motivation to Manage: A Ten Year Update on the "Studies in Management Education" Research. Atlanta, Ga.: Organizational Measurement Systems Press.

Miner, J. B. 1980. The role of Managerial and Professional Motivation in the Career Success of Management Professors. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 487-508.

Ouchi, W. G. 1981. Theory Z. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Corp.

Peppard, J. 1999. Information Management in the Global Enterprise: An Organising Framework. European Journal of Information Systems, 8, 77-94.

Perlman, P. 1980. Job Families: A Review and Discussion of Their Implications for Personnel Selection. Psychological Bulletin, 87, (1), 1-28.

Perlmutter, H. 1969. The Tortuous Evolution of the Multinational Corporation. Columbia Journal of World Business, 12, 9-18.

Salancik, G. R. & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitudes and Task Design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.

Sanchez, J. I. & Levine, E. L. 1999. Is Job Analysis Dead, Misunderstood or Both? In A. I. Kraut & A. K. Korman (Eds.), Evolving Practices in Human Resource Management (pp. 43-68). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Schein, E. H. 1985. Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, Ca.: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Stedham, Y. & Engle, A. D. 1999. Multinational and Transnational Strategies: Implications for Human Resource Management. Paper presented at the 8^th Biannual Research Symposium of the Human Resource Planning Society, Ithaca, New York.

Tichy, N. M. 1993. Global Development. In V. Pucik, N. M. Tichy, & C. K. Barnett (Eds.), Globalizing Management (pp. 206-224). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Trompennars, F. 1994. Riding the Waves of Culture. Burr Ridge, Ill.: Irwin Professional Publishing.

Wallace, M. J., Jr. 1983. Methodology, Research Practice and Progress in Personnel and Industrial Relations. Academy of Management Review, 8, 6-13.

Zell, D. 1997. Changing by Design: Organizational Innovation at Hewlett-Packard. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Zingheim, P., Ledford, G. E., Jr. & Schuster, J. R. 1996. Competencies and Competency Models: Does One Size Fit All? ACA Journal, 5, (1), 56-65.

Figure 1

The Global Competency Cube

Figure 2

Transnational Decision Support System Icon