Fall 11
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
Resultreport
C o p e n h a g e n B u s i n e s s S c h o o l D e p a r t m e n t o f S t r a t e g i c M a n a g e m e n t a n d G l o b a l i z a t i o n ( S M G ) C o p e n h a g e n U n i v e r s i t y E m p l o y m e n t R e l a t i o n s R e s e a r c h C e n t r e ( F A O S )
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
Contents
2 124
Contents
Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................................................................................9
Abbreviationsandconcepts...................................................................................................................................................11
SummaryinDanish....................................................................................................................................................................12
Chapter1: Introduction............................................................................................................................................................21
Studydesign.............................................................................................................................................................................22
Theresearchpopulation.................................................................................................................................................22
Thequestionnaire.............................................................................................................................................................22
Datacollection....................................................................................................................................................................23
Theresearchteam..................................................................................................................................................................24
Reportstructure.....................................................................................................................................................................25
PART1
Chapter2: ProfileofMultinationalsinDenmark...........................................................................................................27
Basiccharacteristics..............................................................................................................................................................27
Countryoforigin................................................................................................................................................................27
Companysizeandcomposition...................................................................................................................................28
Sector......................................................................................................................................................................................30
Ageandfirstsignificantinvestment..........................................................................................................................31
Indicatorsofstrategyandstructure...............................................................................................................................32
Standardization..................................................................................................................................................................33
TheroleofDanishoperationsinaninternationalcontext..............................................................................34
Summary....................................................................................................................................................................................37
Chapter3: TheHRFunction....................................................................................................................................................39
HRpolicyformationandcoordinationacrossborders..........................................................................................39
HRphilosophyandreversediffusion.............................................................................................................................43
Summary....................................................................................................................................................................................45
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
Contents
3 124
Chapter4: SubsidiaryDiscretion..........................................................................................................................................47
Measuringdiscretion............................................................................................................................................................47
Patternofdiscretion..............................................................................................................................................................47
Summary....................................................................................................................................................................................52
PART2
Chapter5: PayandPerformance..........................................................................................................................................57
Performanceappraisals.......................................................................................................................................................57
Performance‐relatedpaysystems...................................................................................................................................60
Summary....................................................................................................................................................................................63
Chapter6: TrainingandTalentDevelopment.................................................................................................................66
Organizationallearning.......................................................................................................................................................70
Summary....................................................................................................................................................................................73
Chapter7: EmployeeInvolvementandCommunication............................................................................................77
Involvementmechanisms...................................................................................................................................................77
Communicationmechanisms............................................................................................................................................80
Summary....................................................................................................................................................................................83
Chapter8: EmployeeRepresentationandConsultation.............................................................................................85
Employeerepresentation....................................................................................................................................................85
Employeeconsultation.........................................................................................................................................................89
EuropeanWorksCouncil(EWC)......................................................................................................................................91
Summary....................................................................................................................................................................................93
PART3
Chapter9: CompanyPerformance.......................................................................................................................................97
Overallperformance.............................................................................................................................................................97
Product/marketperformance...........................................................................................................................................99
HRperformance...................................................................................................................................................................100
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
Contents
4 124
Summary.................................................................................................................................................................................102
PART4
Chapter10: ConcludingRemarksandSummary.......................................................................................................104
OriginsandcharacteristicsofMNCsinDenmark..................................................................................................104
Denmark–aknowledgeeconomy?.............................................................................................................................104
ThestructureofHRpolicy–systematiconaworldwidebasisoradhoc?.................................................105
ThecontentofHRpolicy:performanceappraisals...............................................................................................105
Subsidiarydiscretion–payandcountry‐of‐originmatters..............................................................................106
Traininganddevelopment–morepopularinforeign‐basedMNCs..............................................................106
Employeeinvolvement–adaptedtolocalcircumstances..................................................................................108
Employeerepresentationandconsultation–aninstitutionallysensitiveissue........................................109
Companyperformance–highself‐evaluations.......................................................................................................111
Theinstitutionalcontext–decisiveforHRpolicies..............................................................................................111
Chapter11: FutureResearch.............................................................................................................................................112
Communication...............................................................................................................................................................114
EmployeeRepresentation...........................................................................................................................................116
Countryoforigin–norelevanceinaDanishcontext?....................................................................................119
Chapter12: AppendixI:TheQuestionnaires..............................................................................................................123
Chapter13: AppendixII:Frequencies............................................................................................................................124
ListofFigures
Figure1‐1:Reportstructure...................................................................................................................................................25
Figure2‐1:Countryoforigin..................................................................................................................................................28
Figure2‐2:Worldwideemployment...................................................................................................................................28
Figure2‐3:NumberofemployeesinDenmark..............................................................................................................29
Figure2‐4:Numberofmanagers/LOGsemployedinDenmark..............................................................................30
Figure2‐5:Companiesbysector(home‐basedMNCs)...............................................................................................31
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
Contents
5 124
Figure2‐6:Companiesbysector(foreign‐basedMNCs)............................................................................................31
Figure2‐7:YearsinDenmark(foreign‐basedMNCs)..................................................................................................32
Figure2‐8:Yearsabroad(home‐basedMNCs)...............................................................................................................32
Figure2‐9:PrimaryactivityworldwideandDenmark...............................................................................................33
Figure2‐10:Standardizationvs.adaptation....................................................................................................................34
Figure2‐11:RoleofDanishoperations.............................................................................................................................35
Figure2‐12:Numberofemployeesbyfunction(home‐basedMNCs)..................................................................36
Figure2‐13:Numberofemployeesbyfunction(foreign‐basedMNCs)..............................................................36
Figure2‐14:R&DinDanishoperations(foreign‐basedMNCs)...............................................................................37
Figure3‐1:PresenceofglobalHRbody.............................................................................................................................39
Figure3‐2:PresenceofinternationalHR‐policybody................................................................................................40
Figure3‐3:AttemptstobringHRmanagerstogether.................................................................................................41
Figure3‐4:MNCsystemizationofcross‐regionHRmanagermeetings...............................................................42
Figure3‐5:MechanismsbringingHRmanagerstogether..........................................................................................43
Figure3‐6:ApproachtoHRphilosophy............................................................................................................................44
Figure3‐7:ReversediffusionofHRpractices.................................................................................................................45
Figure4‐1:Areasofdiscretion(foreign‐based).............................................................................................................48
Figure4‐2:Areasofdiscretion(home‐based)................................................................................................................49
Figure4‐3:Meandiscretionscoresforselectedcountries........................................................................................51
Figure4‐4:LevelofDiscretionandGloballyDecidedHRPolicies..........................................................................52
Figure5‐1:Presenceofappraisalsystems.......................................................................................................................57
Figure5‐2:Usesoftheperformanceappraisalsystem...............................................................................................58
Figure5‐3:Managementperformanceevaluation........................................................................................................59
Figure5‐4:Useof360‐degreefeedback............................................................................................................................60
Figure5‐5:Variablepay(managers)..................................................................................................................................61
Figure5‐6:Variablepay(LOG)..............................................................................................................................................61
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
Contents
6 124
Figure5‐7:VariablepayandHRapproachformanagers..........................................................................................62
Figure5‐8VariablepayandHRapproachforLOG.......................................................................................................62
Figure5‐9:Typesofperformance‐relatedpay...............................................................................................................63
Figure6‐1:Trainingasapercentageofannualemployeecompensation...........................................................66
Figure6‐2:HRapproachandlevelofinvestmentintraining...................................................................................67
Figure6‐3:Successionplanningformanagers...............................................................................................................67
Figure6‐4:Managementdevelopmentprograms.........................................................................................................68
Figure6‐5:Managementdevelopmenttechniques......................................................................................................69
Figure6‐6:Organizationallearning....................................................................................................................................71
Figure6‐7:Techniquesusedtofacilitateinternationalorganizationallearning.............................................73
Figure7‐1:Employeeinvolvement......................................................................................................................................78
Figure7‐2:PatternsofemployeeinvolvementI............................................................................................................79
Figure7‐3:PatternsofemployeeinvolvementII..........................................................................................................79
Figure7‐4:Communicationmechanisms..........................................................................................................................81
Figure7‐5:ProvisionofinformationtotheLOG............................................................................................................82
Figure8‐1:Managementpolicytowardsunionrecognition.....................................................................................86
Figure8‐2:Approachesadoptedbytradeunionrepresentatives..........................................................................86
Figure8‐3Approachtotradeunions..................................................................................................................................87
Figure8‐4:DanishMNCs’tradeunionpolicies...............................................................................................................88
Figure8‐5:Unioninvolvement..............................................................................................................................................89
Figure8‐6:Employeeconsultation......................................................................................................................................90
Figure8‐7Experiencewithmandatoryemployeeconsultationstructures.......................................................91
Figure8‐8:Policyonlocallegalrequirements...............................................................................................................91
Figure8‐9:PresenceofEWCsorsimilarstructures.....................................................................................................92
Figure8‐10:ImpactofEUdirectiveoninformationandconsultation.................................................................93
Figure8‐11:InformationConcerningEWCs....................................................................................................................93
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
Contents
7 124
Figure9‐1:Overallfinancialperformance........................................................................................................................97
Figure9‐2PerformancerelativetocompetitorsI.........................................................................................................99
Figure9‐3:PerformancerelativetocompetitorsII...................................................................................................100
Figure9‐4:HRperformanceI.............................................................................................................................................101
Figure11‐1:Communication:MeetingsbetweenManagementandtheWorkforce–LME/CME..........114
Figure11‐2:TypesofinformationtoLOGsinDK–LME/CME.............................................................................115
Figure11‐3:TypesofinformationtoLOGsintheglobalcompany–LME/CME...........................................115
Figure11‐4:Tradeunionrecognition–LME/CME....................................................................................................116
Figure11‐5:Unilateralorbi‐lateralmanagementdecisions–LME/CME(workorganization).............117
Figure 11‐6: Unilateral or bi‐lateral management decisions – LME/CME (Sub‐contracting and
outsourcing)...............................................................................................................................................................................117
Figure11‐7:Unilateralorbi‐lateralmanagementdecisions–LME/CME(variablepayschemes).......118
Figure11‐8:Unilateralorbi‐lateralmanagementdecisions–LME/CME(in‐worktraining/upgrading
skills).............................................................................................................................................................................................118
Figure11‐9:Unilateralorbi‐lateralmanagementdecisions–LME/CME(directemployeeinvolvement
schemes)......................................................................................................................................................................................119
Figure11‐10:PolicytowardsLocalLegalRequirements........................................................................................120
ListofTables
Table1:Responserates............................................................................................................................................................23
Table2:MNCsoperatinginDenmark–accordingtomarketsystems..............................................................112
Table3:WhenLMEsmeetCMEs.......................................................................................................................................113
ListofTextboxes
Textbox1:Reversediffusion..................................................................................................................................................46
Textbox2:Highdiscretionversuslowdiscretion.........................................................................................................54
Textbox3:HRasastrategyimplementerversusnoHRatall..................................................................................65
Textbox4:HRasastrategyimplementerversusnoHRatall..................................................................................75
Textbox5:Informationascontrol........................................................................................................................................84
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
Acknowledgements
8 124
Textbox6:HRMandOrganizationalPerformance........................................................................................................98
Textbox7:CMEversusLME................................................................................................................................................113
Textbox8:ForeignownershipchangesHRpoliciesandmanagement‐employeerelations....................121
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
Acknowledgements
9 124
Acknowledgements
Thisreportwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithout thesupportofawiderangeoforganizationsand
individuals.
TheDanishCouncilforIndependentResearch/SocialSciences(FSE—ForskningsrådetforErhvervog
Samfund) granted DKK 1.6 million to this project. Without this support, completion of the project
wouldmostlikelyhavebeenimpossible.Weareverythankfulforthisgenerousgrant.
TheCenterforStrategicManagementandGlobalizationatCBSandFAOS–theEmploymentRelations
ResearchCentreprovidedinitialfinancialsupportforthegrantapplicationprocess.Theseedmoney
providedbythesetwoorganizationswasinvaluable.
TheEPMOCprojectwaslaunchedin2005whenourpartnersintheUnitedKingdom,Ireland,Canada
andSpaindesigned theoriginalprojectand thequestionnaire thatwas tobecome theblueprint for
latecomers,includingDenmark.Ourpartnersinthesecountrieshavebeenagreathelpwithregardto
ourmethodologicalquestions,and in thedevelopmentandadjustmentof thequestionnaire tomeet
Danishconditions.Inaddition,whiletheUK,Ireland,CanadaandSpainwerepartofthe“firstwave”of
theEPMOCproject,Denmark/Norway,Mexico,ArgentinaandAustraliaarepartofthe“secondwave”.
We have faced common challenges in trying to adapt our different labor‐market realities to a
somewhat general questionnaire. It has been an enlightening experience to meet with our
counterparts from these countries for two days every year to discuss these issues in an informal,
positiveandhighlyengagingsetting.
Whilethequestionnaireisdesignedtobeapplicableinmanycountriesaroundtheworld, itmustbe
adapted to very different and unique national labor market and HR settings. The Danish and
Norwegianteamshaveworkedinclosecooperationtodevelopthequestionnairesandtocleandatain
ordertodevelopthe finalcommonNordicdataset fortheEPMOCproject. Inthisregard,wewishto
extendaspecialwordofthankstotheNorwegianteammembers:ChristinaRoeSteen,KarenM.Olsen
andPaulGooderhamfromBergenBusinessSchool.
Special recognition goes to Olga Tregaskis of the UK team, and to Patrick Gunnigle and Jonathan
Lavalle of the Irish team, all ofwhom agreed to present theUK and Irish results at aworkshop in
CopenhagenonDecember16,2010.At thesameworkshop,wepresentedthepreliminaryresultsof
theDanishsurvey.Wewould like to thank theworkshop’s45+veryactiveparticipants.Their input
wasinvaluableinthewritingofthereport.WeareespeciallygratefultoCarstenSkovbrofromNmN
Ledelsesrådgivningforthoroughlyreadingthereportandcommentingonouranalysis.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
Acknowledgements
10 124
Regardlessofthenumberofpeopleandorganizationsthatsupportourworkintermsoffinancingand
researchassistance,aprojectlikethisisnotfeasiblewithoutthemostimportantactors–thesubjects
ofourstudy.Averybigthankyougoestothe119HRmanagersinDanishMNCsthattookthetimeto
answerourratherextensivequestionnaireduringaperiodwhentheeconomiccrisiswasknockingon
thedoorsofnearlyeveryenterpriseintheworld.
AveryspecialthankgoestothesevenHRmanagersandCEOswhospentseveralhoursinfollow‐up,
face‐to‐faceinterviews.Thoseinterviewsgivethemanytablesandfiguresomeinterestingnuances–
andservetoremindus,asresearchers,ofthemanydetailswemisswhenwefocussolelyonfigures
andpercentages.Withoutthecommitmentoftherespondentsandtheinterviewees,wewouldhaveno
researchandnoreport–andnoinputsforfurtherresearch.
Finally,itshouldbeemphasizedthatthisreportbynomeansrepresentsthefinalresultsofthesurvey.
Infact,thisreportshouldbeseenasafirststeptowardsmanydeeperanalysesintheyearstocome.
ThisreportisagenerallydescriptiveanalysisofDanishMNCsalone.WhentheDanishandNorwegian
datasets are merged with the international dataset (which includes data from the other seven
countries),wewillhavenewand interestingpossibilities.First, as thedatabasewillbe significantly
bigger,wewillbeabletoexaminemorespecificissueswithouttheriskofhavingtoofewobservations.
Second, we will be able to compare how MNCs from one country behave in two or more foreign
institutional settings – for example, how a US company behaves in terms of HR in the UK, Ireland,
Spain and theNordic countries. Third, itwill be possible to analyze howDanish companies behave
abroadonthebasisofaccountsprovidedbyforeignsubsidiariesratherthanDanishheadquartersand
viceversa.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
Abbreviationsandconcepts
11 124
Abbreviationsandconcepts
HRM Humanresourcemanagement
IR Industrialrelations
EWC EuropeanWorksCouncil
LOG Largestoccupationalgroup
MNC Multinationalcorporation
SME Smallandmedium‐sizedenterprise
Danishoperations AllofanMNC’soperationswithinDenmark
Home‐basedcorporations
Corporations thatarewhollyormajorityownedbyDanish interests,andthathaveat least500employeesworldwideand100ormoreemployeesworkingoutsideofDenmark
Foreign‐basedcorporations
CorporationsoperatinginDenmarkthatarewhollyormajorityownedbynon‐Danishinterests,andthathaveatleast500employeesworldwideandaminimumof100employeesinDenmark
NACErev.2 StatisticalclassificationofeconomicactivitiesintheEuropeanCommunity1
CoordinatedMarket
Economies(CMEs)
Coordinatedmarketeconomiesrelyonformalinstitutionstoregulatethemarket and coordinate the interaction of firms and firm relations withsuppliers,customers,employees,andfinanciers2
LiberalMarket
Economies(LMEs)
In liberalmarket economies, the problemof coordination between firmsand between firms and their financiers, employees, suppliers, andcustomers is solved throughmarket mechanisms. LMEs are freemarketeconomies2
1ec.europa.eu/eurostat
2http://www.jrank.org/business/pages/948/liberal‐market‐economy‐(LME).html
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
SummaryinDanish
12 124
SummaryinDanish
Tilstedeværelsen af multinationale virksomheder (Multinational Companies ‐ MNC’er) har stor
betydning for den danske økonomi. En betydelig – og stadig stigende ‐ andel af den danske
arbejdsstyrke er beskæftiget i multinationale selskaber, og de personalepolitikker, som disse
virksomhederimplementerer,fårderforstadigstørrebetydningfordanskelønmodtagere–ogfordet
danskearbejdsmarked–fordipersonalepolitikkerideoftestorevirksomhederindirektekanpåvirke
samarbejds‐ og forhandlingskulturen. I et internationalt forskningsprojekt ’EmploymentPractices of
MultinationalCompanies inOrganizationalContext’har forskerefraflere landesamletnationaledata
omhandlende human ressource management (HRM) og arbejdsmarkedsrelationerne (Industrial
relations ‐ IR).Dendanskedata‐baseer indsamletvia et omfattendespørgeskema, som i2009blev
sendt ud og besvaret af HR‐ledere i danske og udenlandske MNC’er i Danmark. Den danske
undersøgelseerydermeresuppleretmednogleinterviewmedHR‐ledereiMNC’eriDanmark.Deter
deførsteresultaterafdedanskedelafundersøgelsen,derafrapporteresher.
EtoverblikoverMNC’eriDanmark
Den samlede population af MNC’er i Danmark består af 304 udenlandsk‐ejede MNC’er3 hvoraf 88
MNC’erindgåriprojektetsdatabesvarelse(svarprocent:29%)og113danskejedeMNC’er4hvoraf31
indgåridatabesvarelsen(svarprocent:27%).
Flertallet afMNC’er i dendanskedatabesvarelse er ejet af etmoderselskab i et europæisk land.De
skandinaviske lande dominerer, idet en andel på 46 % af MNC’er i Danmark kommer fra
Skandinaviskelande.UdenforEuropadominererMNC’ermedmoderselskabiUSA;deudgør16%.Alt
ialtkommermereend9udaf10afdeMNC’er,deroperereriDanmark,fradevestligeøkonomiske
systemer.Detbetyder,atstørstedelenafudenlandskeMNC’eriDanmarkerejetafetmoderselskabiet
landmed relativt store lighedermed det økonomiske og til en vis grad (arbejdsmarkeds)kulturelle
system,somvihariDanmark.
DeudenlandskeMNC’er er generelt størremålt på antalmedarbejdere enddedanskejedeMNC’er i
vores undersøgelse, med et gennemsnitligt antal medarbejdere i hele koncernen på 60.000 i de
udenlandske MNC’er mod et gennemsnitligt antal medarbejdere i danskejede MNC’er på mellem
1.000‐4.999medarbejdere.
3Enudenlandskejetvirksomhed,deroperereriDanmark,ogsomharmereend500medarbejderepåverdensplan,hvoraf
minimum100afdemeransatiDanmark.
4 En dansk ejet virksomhed, med mere end 500 medarbejdere på verdensplan og mindst 100 ansatte medarbejdere i
Danmark.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
SummaryinDanish
13 124
Halvdelen af de MNC’er, som indgår i vores databesvarelse, er fremstillingsvirksomheder. Det er
interessant, taget ibetragtningatdendanskeøkonomioftestbeskrivessomenvidensøkonomi.Man
kunneforvente,atetvæsentligtargumentfor,atMNC’ereinvestererogopkøberdanskevirksomheder
kunneværedethøjeniveauforuddannelseogviden.Forennærmereanalyseafdetteresultatkæves
yderligeremerekvalitativeundersøgelser.
HR‐politikkeniMNC’er–systematiskelleradhoc?
Der er forskel på, i hvilken grad virksomhederne har systematiseret deres HR‐politik på tværs af
moderselskabet og de enkelte datterselskaber. To tredjedele af HR‐lederne angiver, at deres
virksomhed har en ’international HR‐enhed’ og at de ’systematisk samler HR‐ledere på tværs af
landegrænser’.DeudenlandskejedeMNC’erbenyttersigihøjeregradafsådannesystematiseredeHR‐
praksisser,ogvi finderydermere,atvirksomhedensstørrelseharbetydningfor, ihvorhøjgradHR‐
praksisserneersystematiseret.DentredjedelafMNC’eriundersøgelsen,somikkeharsystematiseret
deresHR‐politik,risikereratgåglipafvidensdelingpåtværsafderesselskaberideforskelligelande,
ligesomtalentudviklingmedhenblikpåinternrekrutteringtillederpositionerofteermangelfuldeller
ikke‐eksisterende.
Skønt spredningen af HR‐initiativer typisk finder sted top‐bottom – altså fra virksomhedens
hovedkvarter i moderselskabet til datterselskaberne – så er der i undersøgelsens case‐studier
eksempler på, hvordan nogle datterselskabers’ HR‐initiativer er blevet diffunderet op til
hovedkvarteret og siden er blevet implementeret til resten af virksomhed – et fænomen, som i
forskningenkaldesreversediffusion(afHR‐prakssiser).
Datterselskabernesautonomi
Nåretselskabopkøbeselleretdatterselskabetableres,kanderværebetydeligeforskellepå,ihvilket
omfang,moderselskabet tildelerdatterselskabet autonomi vedrørendebeslutninger omøkonomi og
personale.Detengelskebegrebdiscretiondækkerbegrebsmæssigtbedstdengradafselvstændighed
ogbeslutningskompetence,sommoderselskabettildelerdatterselskaberne.
Analysen af data fra undersøgelsen viser et generelt højt niveau af autonomi blandt de undersøgte
virksomheder indenfor områderne kommunikation, medarbejderinvolvering og
medarbejderrepræsentation. Til gengæld er der et lavere niveau af beslutningsautonomi, når det
gælderaflønning.Deterikkesåoverraskende,dadennefaktorharstorbetydningforvirksomhedens
profitogkonkurrenceevne,ogda løneretområde,somklassiskogmesthåndgribeligtkanregulere
bådedemenneskeligeressourcersmotivationogvirksomhedensoverordnedeøkonomi.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
SummaryinDanish
14 124
Virksomhedernes oprindelsesland har betydning for, i hvor høj grad de tildeler datterselskaberne
selvstændighed til at træffe beslutninger indenfor de forskellige HR‐områder. Analysen viser, at
amerikansk ejede virksomheder har en tendens til at tildele datterselskaber i Danmark mindre
autonomi‐sammenlignetmedfxdesvenskejedevirksomheder,hvorHR‐ledereidetdanskeselskab
opleverenrelativthøjgradafselvstændighedibeslutningerne.
HRpraksis
Etformeltevalueringssystem(appraisalandrewardsystems)eretvigtigeredskabindenforHR,hvilket
ogsåafspejlersigiundersøgelsen:75%afMNC’erharetsystem,derevaluererogbelønnerledere,og
68 % har et sådant system for alle andre medarbejdere i virksomheden. Analyserne viser, at
udenlandskejedeMNC’erihøjeregradbenyttersigafdisseredskaberenddedanskeMNC’er.IsærUS‐
baseredevirksomhederbenytterdisseredskaber.
Evalueringernebrugesafmereenden fjerdedelsomet formeltsystemtil at træffebeslutningerom
forflyttelser eller afskedigelser. Samtidig angiver mere end halvdelen af respondenterne, at
systemerne bruges uformelt til at træffe sådanne beslutninger. Dermed er der stor risiko for, at
baggrunden for disse betydningsfulde beslutninger ikke er gennemskuelige formedarbejderne – ej
hellerfordeledere,derevaluerespåensådanbaggrund.
Nårledereskalevalueres,brugervirksomhederneenlangrækkeafredskaber.Detmestanvendteer
individuelle præstationer, tæt fulgt af gruppe‐præstationer, kompetencer samt loyalitet over for
virksomhedensværdier. Sesnærmerepå,omvirksomhedernesnationaleoprindelsespillerenrolle,
ses det, at de svenskeMNC’er i signifikantmindre grad bruger individuelle præstationer og værdi‐
loyalitet som udgangspunkt for leder‐evalueringer. Det antyder, at den skandinaviske tradition for
gruppe‐arbejde og uddelegering af ansvar også slår igennem i mindre individuelt præget
evalueringssystemeridesvensk‐ejedeMNC’er.
’360‐degreefeedback’erenHR‐praksis,sombrugaftotredjedeleafvirksomhederne–ogdetgælder
for både menige medarbejdere og ledere. Lønsystemer med variabel løn bruges af 77 % af
virksomhederne for ledere, mens 60 % bruger sådanne systemer for menige medarbejdere. Til
gengældviseranalysen,atoverskudsdelingogaktieoptionertilmedarbejdereikkeanvendessåoftei
MNC’erne;analysenviser,atdisseredskaberkunerbrugesi20%afvirksomhederneforledereogi
10%foralleandremedarbejdere.
Efteruddannelseogudviklingafmedarbejdere
Efteruddannelseogudviklingafmedarbejderedrejersigom, ihvorhøjgradvirksomhedeninvesterer
ressourceridensmedarbejdere.Omkringhalvdelenafdeadspurgtevirksomhederangiver,at1‐4%af
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
SummaryinDanish
15 124
virksomhedens årlige udgifter til medarbejderne bliver anvendt til efteruddannelse og udvikling af
medarbejdere,mens omkring to ud af fem brugermindre end 1%.Analysen viser, at udenlandske
MNC’er i Danmark har en tendens til at bruge flere ressourcer på efteruddannelse og udvikling
sammenlignet med de danskejede MNC’er – det er således kun udenlandske virksomheder, som
brugermere end4%på efteruddannelse.Virksomheder, sompåandreområderhar en systematisk
HR‐politik–fxdevirksomheder,somharetglobaltHR‐udvalg–investerertypiskogsåmarkantmerei
efteruddannelseogudvikling.
Planerforgenerationsskifteerrelativtudbredt.43%afdedansk‐ejedeMNC’erharsådanneplanerpå
plads i alle eller nogen af deres organisationer, mens tallet er 50 % for de udenlandsk ejede
virksomheder. Selv om der altså ikke er lavet generationsskifteplanerne på godt halvdelen af
virksomhederne,betyderdetikke,atmanikkeeropmærksompåtalentudviklingen.Næsten70%har
etlederudviklingsprogram,somrettersigmodmedarbejderemedlederpotentiale.Denmestudbredte
måde at udvikle ledere er via globale lederudviklingsprogrammer, typisk baseret på evaluering af
præstationeriforholdtiletdefineretsætafglobalelederkompetencer.
Ét er at udvikle den enkelte medarbejder. Noget andet er at sikre, at organisationen også stadig
udvikles, selv hvis individer forsvinder. En lærende organisation sikrer, at den viden som er i
virksomheden forbliverder, selvnårmedarbejderemedsærligviden rejserherfra. Samtidig formår
den lærende organisation at transformere sig selv, så den konstant forbliver konkurrencedygtig.
Omkring 40 % af virksomhederne i undersøgelsen har en formel politik omkring international
organisatorisklæringsomskalsikre,atvidenbliveriorganisationogatorganisationenudviklersig.De
redskaber, som er mest udbredte for at sikre denne læring, er internationale projekter og
arbejdsgrupper (anvendt af 80 % af de adspurgte virksomheder). Også internationale uformelle
netværk og udsendelse af medarbejdere benyttes af mange virksomheder. Internationale
projektgrupperog task forceserredskaber,som60%afvirksomhederneangiversomvigtigst iden
organisatoriske læring. Igen er der også her en klar sammenhæng: De virksomheder, der har en
systematisk HR‐politik på andre områder, er også dem, der typisk arbejder med systematisk
organisatorisklæring.
Medarbejderinvolveringogkommunikation
Medarbejderinvolvering og kommunikation er vigtige elementer af en virksomheds HR‐praksis.
Medarbejderinvolvering kan have betydning for kvaliteten i det produkt eller den service, som
virksomheden leverer,ogsomsådankandetværeenkonkurrencefaktor.Kommunikationkanvære
afgørendeformedarbejdernestilfredshedogkandermedogsåpåvirkeproduktion,serviceogkvalitet.
Et flertal af de undersøgte virksomheder angiver, at deres systemer formedarbejderinvolvering er
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
SummaryinDanish
16 124
forskellige fra den ene enhed til den anden. Det indikerer, at MNC’er tilpasser deres
involveringssystemerogkommunikationsstrategitildetenkeltedatterselskabidetenkelteland
Ideudenlandskejedevirksomhedererdenmestanvendtestrategiforinvolveringafmedarbejderne
’problem‐løsningsgrupper’ og ’grupper der skal stå for kontinuerlige forbedringer i virksomheden’.
Disse grupper bruges i højere grad af udenlandsk ejede virksomheder end af dansk‐ejede
virksomheder, og det kan overraske; man kunne forvente, at sådanne gruppedynamiske
arbejdsorganiseringer var anvendt mere i en dansk sammenhæng, hvor man har relativt lange
traditionerforgruppe‐baseretarbejdsorganiseringer.
Når det gælder kommunikation iMNC’er, bruges en bred vifte af kommunikationsmidler. Detmest
udbredte i forbindelsemedkommunikation tildemenigemedarbejdereermødermellem ledereog
mellemledere, nyhedsbreve eller e‐mails – samt virksomhedens intranet. Analysen viser igen, at de
virksomheder, som har en international HR‐enhed eller virksomheder som anvender andre
systematiskeHR‐praksisser,ogsåitypiskarbejdermestsystematiskmedkommunikation.
Når vi ser på, hvad indholdet i kommunikationen med medarbejderne er, peger HR‐lederne på
følgende ‐ i prioriteret rækkefølge: Virksomhedens finansielle situation; information om
investeringsplaner; og bemandingsplaner (ansættelser og afskedigelser). Det skal dog bemærkes, at
undersøgelsensdataindsamling fandt sted i 2009,midtunderden finansiellekrise.Derfor giverdet
ogsåmening,atmangevirksomhederprioritereratinformereomkringdenfinansiellesituationogat
medarbejdernemåske også efterspørger denne information. Det kan dog undre, at information om
bemandingikkeliggerhøjerepålisten,dadetmåformodesatliggemangemedarbejderepåsindeien
tidmedkrise.
Mankunne forvente, at informationeromvirksomhedens finansielle situationogomansættelserog
afskedigelser i højere grad blev formidlet i dansk‐ejede virksomheder end i udenlandskejede
virksomheder, da der i Danmark er en lang tradition for informationsdeling i samarbejdsudvalg.
Analyserneviserimidlertid,atdetforholdersigmodsat;deudenlandskejedevirksomhedertendereri
højeregradatdeledenformforinformationenddedansk‐ejede.
Medarbejderrepræsentationogkonsultation
Gradenafmedarbejderrepræsentationogkonsultationer traditioneltmegetafhængigafdetenkelte
landsloveogpolitikpåområdet–samtikkemindstarbejdsmarkedssystemet(IndustrialRelations–
IR). I Danmark er der en tradition for stærke fagforeninger og en høj overenskomstdækning,
sammenlignetmedandrelandeiverden,ogidetdanskeIR‐systemspillerarbejdsmarkedetsparter–
arbejdsgiverogfagforeninger‐enstorrolleireguleringenafdetdanskearbejdsmarkedviakollektive
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
SummaryinDanish
17 124
forhandlinger.Medarbejdernesrettighederiforholdtilrepræsentationogkonsultationerstipulereti
Samarbejdsaftalen,oglønmodtagerne–uansetfagforeningsmedlemsskab‐haryderligererettigheder
somerstipuleretiEU‐direktiver,ikkemindstdirektivetomEuropeanWorksCouncils(EWC).
Encentralforskningsinteresseidetteprojektharværetatbelyse,hvorvidtudenlandskejedeMNC’er
har tilpasset sig det danske arbejdsmarked med disse stærke traditioner for samarbejde og
forhandling,elleromdeforsøgeratpåduttedanskemedarbejdereidatterselskaberandretraditioner.
Analysenviser,atfagforeningerneeraccepteretafetstortflertalafdeundersøgtevirksomheder;kun
5 % har svaret, at de ikke går ind for fagforeninger mens hele 53 % tager en tilgang hvor der
samarbejdes med fagforeningerne. Når det gælder danske MNC’er holdninger til fagforeninger i
datterselskaberudenforDanmark,såoverladergodthalvdelendettildatterselskabernesledelseselv
attagebeslutningerrelaterettilfagforeningen–mensentredjedelikkeharnogenpolitikpåområdet.
Denneanalyseindikerer,atsamarbejdetmedfagforeningerihøjgradrelaterersigtildelokaleforhold
–ogderforogsåoverladestildenlokaleledelse,uansetommoderselskabetkommerfraetlandmed
langetraditionerforsamarbejdeogkonsultation–ellerdetmodsatte.
AndredataindikererogsåenrelativtdybrespektforarbejdsmarkedsreguleringeniDanmark.30%af
virksomhederneleveroptildelovmæssigeminimumskravominformationogkonsultation,menhele
54%angiver,atdeoveropfylderkravenei ’nogen’eller ’betydelig’grad.Ogsånårdetgælderemner,
hvor ledelser ikke nødvendigvis skal involvere fagforeningsrepræsentanter, involverer mange dem
alligevel. Det gælder således fleksible lønsystemer og direkte medarbejderinvolvering. Til gengæld
konsulterer størstedelen af virksomhederne ikke fagforeningsrepræsentanter, når det gælder
arbejdsorganisering og outsourcing til andre firmaer (subcontracting). Det kan undre noget, at
fagforeningsrepræsentanter ikke er mere involveret i arbejdets organisering, taget i betragtning at
mange emner i den kollektive overenskomst såvel som samarbejdsaftalerne netop handler om
arbejdets tilrettelæggelse. Outsourcing påvirker indirekte medarbejderne, da de på sigt kan miste
arbejdsopgaver,mendetundrermåskemindre,atderikkekonsulteresomdette,dadetformeltseter
endelafledelsesrettenattræffebeslutningeromdette.
Endelig viser analysen, atmere end fire ud af femMNC’er jævnlig holdermødermellem ledelse og
medarbejderrepræsentantermedhenblikpå informationogkonsultation. I70%afvirksomhederne
dækker disse møder alle medarbejdere – dog har møderne forskellig karakter for de forskellige
grupper.
EuropæiskeSamarbejdsudvalg(ESU)–ellernogettilsvarende‐findesi40%afvirksomhederne,mens
40%ikkehardet.Interessantnokangiver20%afdeadspurgteHR‐ledereikkeatvide,omdereret
sådant udvalg i organisationen, og 60% angiver at fåmeget lidt eller ingen information om ESU’s
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
SummaryinDanish
18 124
aktiviteter. Det indikerer, at medarbejderinformation og konsultation på internationalt plan fylder
relativtlidtienfemtedelafHR‐ledernesprioriteringerog/ellerkompetenceområde.
Virksomhedernespræstationer
IspørgeskemaundersøgelsenblevHR‐ledernebedtomensubjektivevalueringafderesvirksomheds
præstationersammenlignetmedtilsvarendevirksomhederisammebranche.FlertalletafHR‐lederne
rapporterer, at deres virksomhed har præsteret særdeles godt – faktisk angiver 84 % af
respondenterne i de dansk‐ejede MNC’er og 60 % af respondenterne i de udenlandsk ejede
virksomheder, at virksomhedens generelle præstationer er ”outstanding”. Her er produkt‐ og
markedsresultaternehøjstvurderet,efterfulgtafresultaterneindenforHRogdengenerellefinansielle
performance. Blandt de udenlandskeMNC’er viser analysen, at en større andel af amerikanskeHR‐
lederevurdererderesvirksomhedspræstationersomrelativtdårlige,sammenlignetmedandreledere
iudenlandskejedevirksomheder.
Deninstitutionellekontekst–arbejdsmarkedssystemerneogHR‐politikken
Nåretmultinationaltselskaberinvestererielleretablererenvirksomhedietfremmedland,
møderdeofteetarbejdsmarkedssystem,someranderledesenddet,dekender.Hvordeter
muligt at kontrollere en række virksomhedsinterne HR‐forhold – det handler om
ledelsesretten– såerværtlandets traditioner for reguleringaf arbejdsmarkedsforhold idet
storeogheleudenforMNC’enskontrol.Deninstitutionellekontekstskalforståssomdelokale
forhold, hvorunder MNC’erne opererer, inklusive arbejdsmarkedsrelationer,
arbejdsmarkedslovgivning, det kollektive forhandlingssystem og traditioner for samarbejde
mellem ledelseogmedarbejdere.Disse forhold sætternogle rammer fordetmultinationale
selskabs HR‐politikker, og hvis etMNC ønsker at implementere den sammeHR‐praksis på
tværsaflandegrænser,kannogletiltagkommeikonfliktmedlokaleregelsætogtraditioner.
Teoretiskkananalyserafdisse forhold frugtbart tageudgangspunkt iVaritiesofCapitalism‐
tilgangen, hvor lande kan katagoriseres som liberale markedsøkonomier eller som
koordineret markedsøkonomier. En koordineret markedsøkonomi (CME) er karakteriseret
ved, at formelle institutioner regulerer markedet og koordinerer interaktionen mellem
virksomhederne og deres relationer til kunder, ansatte og investorer. I den liberale
markedsøkonomi(LME)koordineresdisserelationergennemdetfriemarked.
Virksomhederbærerietvistomfanget’institutioneltDNA’medsig,nårdeinvestereriandre
lande, forstået således at arbejdsmarkedstraditioner fra MNC’ens hjemland kan præge
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
SummaryinDanish
19 124
moderselskabet HR‐politik. Det betyder, at der kan opstå problemer med at forstå andre
landes arbejdsmarkedstraditioner, nårder investeres i pånye arbejdsmarkeder – fxnår en
MNC fra en liberalmarkedsøkonomimed svage fagforeninger og enminimal regulering af
arbejdsmarkedet skal investere i en virksomhed i en koordineretmarkedsøkonomi. Meget
forenkletkanmuligekombinationerillustreressomnedenfor:
OperatinginLMEs OperatinginCMEs
OriginatingfromLMEs Noconflict Turbulencearea
OriginatingfromCMEs Turbulencearea Noconflict
SomalleredepåpegetkommerlangtstørstedelenafMNC’eriDanmarkfravestligelandemed
økonomiske systemerog til envis gradarbejdsmarkedssystemer,derhar lighedermeddet
danske.DelervidetopiforholdtilLME’erogCME’er–oghvadmankankaldeblandinger–
servi,at30virksomhederharmoderselskaber,derkommerfraLME’er–ogdermederdet30
virksomheder, hvor der kunne være potentiale for konfliktermellemmoderselskabets HR‐
politikogdelokalearbejdsmarkedstraditioneriværtslandetDanmark,somerCME.
Påbaggrundafdenneundersøgelsesdataharvi analyseret, omderpåudvalgteparametre,
hvordersærligtkunne forventes forskelle,kan identificeres forskellemellemvirksomheder
medmoderselskabfraetLMEhhv.etCME:
Når det gælder kommunikation, kan der ikke identificeres forskelle mellem LME‐
virksomhederogCME‐virksomhederiDanmark.
Når det gælder medarbejderrepræsentation kan der konstateres forskelle mellem
LME‐ogCME‐virksomheder,erderhellerikkesignificanteforskelle,fxianderkendelse
af fagforeninger. Faktisk konsulterer hele 84 % af LME‐virksomheder
fagforeningsrepræsentanter,nårderskallavesvariablelønssystemer.
Den foreløbige konklusion er altså, at der ikke er forskelle mellem LME‐virksomheder og
CME‐virksomheder, der opererer i Danmark – og at LME‐virksomheder altså i vid
udstrækningsynesattilpassesigdelokalearbejdsmarkedstraditioneriDanmark.
Viskaldogværeopmærksommepåtoting.Fordetførsteerdenneundersøgelseudelukkende
baseret på lederes syn på spørgsmålene. Kvalitative undersøgelser, hvor også
medarbejdersiden indgår, såvel som case‐studier i denne undersøgelse indikerer, at
udenlandskejerskabpåenrækkeområderfaktiskkanforandrerelationerne.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
SummaryinDanish
20 124
Fordetandeterdata‐materialetsålille,atdetikkeermuligtatkørestatistisketests.Derfor
vil der være en række meget stærkere resultater, når den danske data‐base bliver kørt
sammenmeddata‐basernefradeotteandrelandeideninternationaleundersøgelse,ogdavil
detværemuligtatleveremeresignifikanteresultaterogatgådyberebagomtalleneomLME
versusCME.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
Introduction
21 124
Chapter1: Introduction
Theimportanceofmultinationalcorporations(MNCs)activity intheDanisheconomyisevidentand
such activity plays a crucial role in shaping employment practices in Danish society. Over the last
years,anincreasingnumberofforeignMNCshavediscoveredDenmarkasaprofitablemarketwitha
soundlabormarket.Atthesametime,Danishcompanieshaverapidlyexpandedinternationally.
DespitethisincreaseintheprevalenceofMNCsintheDanisheconomy,thereisnodefinitivepictureof
theways inwhichMNCs inDenmarkorganizeandmanagetheiremployees.Furthermore,ageneral
understandingofhowemploymentpracticesareinfluencedbytheorganizationalformsdevelopedby
international firms as they struggle to respond to the imperatives of globalization is lacking.
Knowledge of how employment practices vary according to key variables, such as organizational
structure, nationality of ownership, sector and size, is patchy at best. Our understanding of the
patternsoftransnationaldiffusionofemploymentpracticeamongMNCswithdifferentorganizational
characteristicsisalsolimited.
In an effort to respond to these gaps in the research, the comparative international project
Employment Practices of Multinational Companies in Organizational Context5 brought leading
internationalresearcherstogetheronnationalteams.Theprojectresultedinarichdatasetusefulfor
testingkeypropositionsconcerningMNCemploymentpracticesintherealmofhumanresource(HR)
andindustrialrelations(IR)management.
This reportpresents thekey findingsof this large‐scale surveyof theemploymentpracticescarried
out in Denmark in both Danish‐ and foreign‐ownedMNCs.We examine four central aspects of the
MNCs’ organization and management in Denmark. First, the strategies, structures and control
mechanisms characterizing the companies are presentedwith the purpose of creating a “profile of
MNCs”operatinginDenmark.Second,weconsidertheroleoftheHRfunctionanditsstructurewithin
MNCs,includingtherelationshipbetweenDanish‐basedoperationsandmanagementatinternational
headquarters. Third, the survey focuseson four substantive areas of employmentpractices, eachof
whichareanalyzedanddescribedinseparatechapters:
Performancemanagementandrewardsystems,
Training,developmentandorganizationallearning,
Employeeinvolvementandcommunication,and
5ThisispartoftheinternationalnetworkINTREPID:“InvestigationofTransnationals'EmploymentPracticesInternationalDatabase”.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
Introduction
22 124
Employeerepresentationandconsultation.
Finally, we highlight some tendencies with regards to corporate performance as evaluated by HR
managers.
Overall, this report seeks to communicate the results of the survey in an easy‐to‐understand,
accessiblemanner.Wehope to increase theunderstandingofHRM inMNCsby characterizing their
HRMpractices,andanalyzinghoworganizationalfactorsaffecttheirstructureandperformance.Aswe
move through each part of the survey, we use descriptions and statistics to accentuate our key
findings.
Studydesign
In this section, we briefly describe the process of gathering data for this project – from the
establishmentofthepopulationofMNCstothedevelopmentofthesurveytooltotheexecutionofthe
survey.
Theresearchpopulation
Indevelopingthepopulation,ouraimwastoconstructtwolists:oneofforeign‐ownedcompaniesand
anotherofDanish‐ownedcompanies.Thefirststepinthisregardwastoformulateourdefinitionofan
MNC.Forthispurpose,weusedthedefinitionsprovidedbytheINTREPIDproject:
Foreign‐ownedMNC:Allwhollyormajority foreign‐owned corporation operating in
Denmark,withat least500employeesworldwideandaminimumof100employees in
Denmark.
Danish‐ownedMNC:AllwhollyormajorityDanish‐ownedcorporations,withat least
500employeesworldwideand100ormoreemployeesworkingoutsideofDenmark.
Thelistswerecreatedusingtwodatabases–AMADEUS(Pan‐European)andCDDirect(Danish)–in
which searches could be undertaken on the basis of the above criteria. The company list produced
fromeachdatabasewascross‐checkedandmissinginformation(suchascountryoforigin,ownership
statusandnumberofemployees)wasgatheredusinganumberofgeneralbusiness‐interestwebsites
andindividualMNCswebsites.
Thequestionnaire
The questionnaire consists of core questions from the international research project as well as
questions specific toDenmarkand the researchgroup’s special interests.Themainadditions to the
core questions focus on employee representation and company performance. The questions on
employee representationwere added because of the tradition of high union involvement and high
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
Introduction
23 124
uniondensityintheNordiccountries.Thequestionsoncompanyperformancewereaddedtoobtain
dataontheeffectivenessofHRfortheperformanceofthecompany.
The surveywasdesignedasaweb‐basedquestionnaireusing software from Inquisite.Twosurveys
were created, one forhome‐basedMNCsandone for foreign‐basedMNCs.Thequestionnaireswere
offered in both Danish and English. The questionnaires are available on the project website:
www.cbs.dk/mnc.
Datacollection
After establishing the studypopulationanddeveloping the survey, thenext stepwas to contact the
companies.Asthequestionnaireinvolvescomplicated,high‐level,HR‐relatedquestions,wecollected
thecontactinformation,name,ande‐mailaddressfortheseniorHRmanager/headofHRinDenmark
for each company/subsidiary. This data collection was undertaken by phone. On the basis of the
contactinformation,apersonalizedinvitationwassentthroughtheInquisitesystem.Eachinvitation
wasfollowedbyareminderemailand,finally,areminderbyphone.
Table2showsthepopulation,thenumberofresponses,andtheresponserateforbothDanish‐owned
andforeign‐ownedcompanies.
Table1:Responserates
Type Foreign‐owned Danish‐owned Total
Population 304 113 417
Responses 88 31 119
Responserate 28.9% 27.4% 28.5%
Foramoredetaileddescriptionof themethodsusedtocollect thedataandtheproblemsthatwere
encounteredduringtheprocess,pleaserefertotheprojectwebsite,www.cbs.dk/MNC,whereyouwill
findvariouspublicationsandmethodpapers.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
Introduction
24 124
Theresearchteam
ThisresearchprojectwascarriedoutthroughacooperativepartnershipbetweentheDepartmentof
Strategic Management and Globalization (SMG, Copenhagen Business School) and FAOS –
EmploymentRelationsResearchCentre(DepartmentofSociology,CopenhagenUniversity).
SMGundertakesresearchintothestrategicbehaviorofcompaniesinanincreasinglyglobalizedworld.
This research is carried out in the intersecting field of two disciplines – strategicmanagement and
internationalbusiness–andbuildsupontheuniquemixofideasfromorganizationaleconomicsand
strategictheorythatthedepartment’sgroupofresearchershascultivatedoverthepastsixyears.
TheprojectmanagerfromSMGis:
DanaMinbaeva,AssociateProfessor,PhD
DepartmentofStrategicManagementandGlobalization(SMG)
CopenhagenBusinessSchool
FAOSundertakes research into industrial relations, employee involvement and employee‐employer
relations. The international dimension of the organization’s research focuses on the importance of
internationalactorsfornationalinstitutionalemploymentsystems.MNCsareimportantactorsinthe
international division of labor, a fact highlighted by the regulation of employment relations on an
internationallevel,notleastintheEU.
TheprojectmanagerfromFAOSis:
SteenE.Navrbjerg,AssociateProfessor,PhD
EmploymentRelationsResearchCentre(FAOS)
CopenhagenUniversity
Other members of the project team are student/research assistants Aja Henderson, Helle Aasen,
KristineSvendsen,LarsChristianLundLarsen,MiaPetring,NaomiRosenthal,andSarahBielfromSMG
atCopenhagenBusinessSchool;andAndersSøbergandAskGrevefromFAOS,CopenhagenUniversity.
LanguageeditingwasdonebyTinaPedersen.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
Introduction
25 124
Reportstructure
Thisreportisstructuredaroundfourmainparts,eachanalyzingordescribinganimportantaspectof
theMNCanditsemploymentpractices(seeFigure1‐1).Part1beginsbyprofilingthemaincontoursof
the MNCs in terms of their countries of origin, sectors, employment levels, history in Denmark,
business strategies and organizational structures (Chapter 2). The nature of the HR function,
including the relationshipbetween theDanish‐basedoperations and the international enterprise, is
thenexamined(Chapter3).InChapter4,theoveralldiscretiongiventothesubsidiariesisdescribed.
Part 2 consists of four chapters (Chapters 5‐8) that examine the four substantive aspects of
employmentpracticeonwhichthesurveyfocuses.Eachchapterprovidesanoverviewofthepractice,
examinesthepractice inrelationtovariouscompany‐specificvariablesandendswithasummaryof
thekeyfindings.InPart3(Chapter9),theperformanceoftheMNCisdescribed.ResultsfromParts1
and2areusedtodevelopapictureofperformance,andtoassociateitwithemploymentpracticesand
company‐specificvariables.Part4(Chapter10‐11)presentstheoverallconclusionsofthestudyand
futureresearch.
Figure1‐1:Reportstructure
• ProfileofMultinationalsinDenmark• TheHRFunction• SubsidiaryDiscretion
Part1(Chapters2‐4)AgeneraloverviewoftheMNC
• PayandPerformance• TrainingandTalentDevelopment• EmployeeInvolvementandCommunication• EmployeeRepresentationandConsultation
Part2(Chapters5‐8)Analysingemploymentpractices
• CompanyPerformancePart3(Chapter9)
InvestigatingMNCperformance
• ConcludingRemarksandSummary• FutureResearch
Part4(Chapter10‐11)Conclusions
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
Introduction
26 124
Part1AgeneraloverviewoftheMNC
ProfileofmultinationalDenmark
TheHRfunction
Levelofdiscretion
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
ProfileofMultinationalsinDenmark
27 124
Chapter2: ProfileofMultinationalsinDenmark
Thischapterprovidesaprofileofthe“typical”MNCinDenmarkbylookingatthethreeaspects.First,
wedescribeanumberoftheMNCs’basiccharacteristics,suchasnationality,sizeandsector.Section2
takesadeeperlookintothestrategiesandstructuresadoptedbyMNCs.Finally,section3addresses
the role that theDanish operations fulfillwithin the international context, e.g.,whether the Danish
sitesperformlowvalue‐addedactivitieswithlittle“strategic”contentorwhethertheyareimportant
partsofMNCswithinternationalresponsibilitiesforproductdevelopmentorR&D.
Basiccharacteristics
Countryoforigin
CountryoforiginisanimportantfactorforMNCsinDenmark,asitcanhaveasignificanteffectonthe
culture, behavior, performance and success of theMNC in Denmark. The distribution of country of
origin is presented in Figure 2‐1.6 The presence of domestic companies in the Danish economy is
evident,with26%of theMNCsoriginating fromDenmark.Throughout thisreport, thesecompanies
are referred to as “home‐based”. The importance of MNCs from the other Nordic countries is
confirmedbythedata,with21%ofallcompaniesinthesurveycomingfromNordicEurope.Thedata
also confirms a substantial presence of European MNCs, which represent 52% of the companies
surveyed.German (10%),UK (6%)andSwiss (7%)MNCs account for the three largestnon‐Nordic,
Europeangroups.US‐ownedcompaniesarealsopresentinsignificantnumbersandaccountfor16%
oftheMNCsparticipatinginthesurvey.
Overall,thedominanceofNordicEuropetogetherwithDenmarkisclear,with47%ofthecompanies
originating fromDenmark,Norway,Sweden,FinlandorIceland.Meanwhile,only6%ofMNCs inthe
surveycomefromtheRestoftheWorldandAsia‐Pacific.
6Thecountriesaregroupedasfollows:theUS,Denmark,NordicEurope(Finland,Sweden,Norway,andIceland),Europe(theUK,France,Germany,Belgium,Switzerland,Spain,Italy,andtheNetherlands),AsiaPacific(Japan,India,andAustralia)andRestoftheWorld(SouthAfricaandOthers).
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
ProfileofMultinationalsinDenmark
28 124
Figure2‐1:Countryoforigin
Companysizeandcomposition
On average, foreign‐based MNCs employ more than 60,000 people worldwide. The Danish‐based
MNCs are substantially smaller, with almost 50% employing between 1,000 and 4,999 people
worldwide(seeFigure2‐2).
Figure2‐2:Worldwideemployment
In terms of national variations, US‐ and German‐owned MNCs are considerably larger than other
foreign‐owned companies, with nine US‐owned companies and four German‐owned companies
16%
26%
21%
31%
3% 3%
Inwhichcountryistheoperationalheadquartersofyourultimatecontrollingcompanylocated?
US DK NordicEurope Europe AsiaPacific RestoftheWorld
Base:Home‐ andforeign‐based(n =119)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
WhatisthetotalnumberofemployeesworldwideincludingDenmarkbyheadcount?
Foreign‐based(n=88)
Home‐based(n=31)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
ProfileofMultinationalsinDenmark
29 124
employingmorethan60,000peopleworldwide.SimilartotheDanish‐ownedMNCs,theNordic‐owned
MNCsmostcommonlyemploybetween1,000and4,900peopleworldwide(seeFigure2‐3).
Foreign‐owned companies employ an average of 100‐499 employees in their Danish subsidiaries,
while home‐based MNCs are generally bigger, employing between 1,000 and 4,999 employees on
average in Denmark. Again, there is some national variation around this mean. German‐owned
subsidiaries in Denmark are the largest, with four companies employing between 1,000 and 4,999
peopleandonecompanyemployingmorethan5,000people.Onlytwoforeign‐ownedMNCsemploy
more than5,000people in theDanish economy, originating from theUKandGermany. In aDanish
context, theseareviewedasrelatively largeenterprises,astheeconomyisdominatedbysmall‐and
medium‐sizedenterprises(SMEs).
Figure2‐3:NumberofemployeesinDenmark
Toobtainmoreinformationonthesizefactor,wealsolookatthecompositionoftheworkforce.We
distinguishbetweenthefollowingtwogroups:
Managers: Employeeswho primarilymanage the organization, a department, a subdivision, a
function,oracomponentof theorganization,andwhosemain tasksconsistof thedirectionand
coordinationofthatunit.Inotherwords,managersincludeemployeesabovethelevelofthefirst‐
linesupervision.
Thelargestoccupationalgroup(LOG):Thelargestnon‐managerialoccupationalgroupamong
theemployeesinthe“headcount”inDenmark.Forexample,theLOGinamanufacturingbusiness
mightbesemi‐skilledoperators,while inan insurancecompany itmightbeunderwriters,claims
handlersorcallcenterstaff.
9%
50%19%
19%
3%
WhatisthetotalnumberofemployeesbyheadcountinDenmark?
Upto99
100‐499
500‐999
1000‐4999
5000+
Base:Home‐ andforeign‐based(n=117)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
ProfileofMultinationalsinDenmark
30 124
31% of the companies represented in the survey have between 10 and 24managers employed in
Denmark.Furthermore,28%ofthecompanieshavebetween100and299LOGemployees(seeFigure
2‐4).
Figure2‐4:Numberofmanagers/LOGsemployedinDenmark
Theresultsalsoshowthattheemployee‐managerratioforDanish‐ownedMNCsis10to1;thatis,on
averagethereis1managerperevery10employees.Inthecaseofforeign‐basedMNCs,theemployee‐
managerratiospansfrom10to1toapproximately20to1;thatis,onaverage,thereis1managerper
10‐20employees.
Sector
Sector data provides information on the industries in which theMNCs are primarily engaged. The
sectordatausedinthisstudyisextractedfromtheNACErev.2code.AsshowninFigure2‐5(home‐
based MNCs) and Figure 2‐6 (foreign‐based MNCs), home‐based companies are significantly more
representedinthemanufacturingsectorthanforeign‐ownedMNCs.7Morethanhalfofthecompanies
inourdatasampleareengagedinmanufacturingandconstruction,whileaboutone‐thirdareengaged
inservicesorretailandwholesale.GiventheDanisheconomy’sstatusasa“knowledgeeconomy”,the
highpercentageofmanufacturingcompaniesissomewhatsurprising.
7Chi‐squaretest:significantatthe5%level.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Approximatelyhowmanymanagers/LOGsarethereinthe[companyname]inDenmark?
Managers(n=117)
LOGs(n=116)
Base:Home‐ andforeign‐based
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
ProfileofMultinationalsinDenmark
31 124
Figure2‐5:Companiesbysector(home‐basedMNCs)
Figure2‐6:Companiesbysector(foreign‐basedMNCs)
Ageandfirstsignificantinvestment
Figure2‐7depictsthenumberofyearsforeign‐ownedMNCshavebeenpresentinDenmark.37%of
foreign‐ownedMNCs have been present inDenmark formore than 25 years,while only 13%have
been in Denmark for less than 5 years. Figure 2‐8 shows the number of years that home‐based
companies have been present in foreign countries, where the trend is similar. 35% have been
operatingonan international level formorethan25years.However,noneof thesecompanieshave
operatedinternationallyforlessthanfiveyears.
Manufacturingand
construction64%
Retailandwholesale13%
Services23%
Companiesbysector
Base:Home‐based(n=31)
Arigicultureandmining
2%
Manufacturingand
construction35%
Retailandwholesale32%
Services31%
Companiesbysector
Base:Foreign‐based(n=87)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
ProfileofMultinationalsinDenmark
32 124
Figure2‐7:YearsinDenmark(foreign‐basedMNCs)
Figure2‐8:Yearsabroad(home‐basedMNCs)
Intermsofthemodesofentryusedbyforeign‐ownedMNCstoenterDenmark,60%enteredthrougha
merger or acquisition, 24% through a Greenfield investment, and 16% through other types of
investments.Othertypesofinvestmentsincludeformationofasubsidiary,ownproductioninexisting
buildings,franchisingandnewestablishments.
Indicatorsofstrategyandstructure
Inthissection,weexaminethreeindicatorsofMNCstrategy:thelevelofdiversification,thedegreeof
standardizationversusthedegreeofdiversification,andtheroleoftheDanishoperationswithinthe
globalcompany.
37%
30%
20%
13%
HowlongagodidtheworldwidecompanyfirstestablishinDenmark?
25yearsandmore
10‐24years
5‐9years
0‐4years
Base: Foreign‐based(n= 80)
35%
55%
10%
Howlongagodid[COMPANY NAME]establishitsfirstforeignoperation?
25yearsormore
10‐24years
5‐9years
Base: Home‐based(n= 29)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
ProfileofMultinationalsinDenmark
33 124
Levelofdiversificationacrosssectors
ThelevelofdiversificationacrosssectorsmeasurestheextenttowhichMNCoperationsarefocused
on a specific activity, or the extent towhich they have awide range of products and services. The
resultsforthisvariableareshowninFigure2‐9.
Figure2‐9:PrimaryactivityworldwideandDenmark
MostMNCoperationsinDenmarkhavemultipleproductsorservices.64%oftherespondentsindicate
thattheDanishoperationsproduceanumberofproductsorservicesbutnosingleoneaccounts for
more than 70% of sales. The multi‐product nature of these companies does not make them
conglomerates,asonly6%oftherespondentsclassifythemselvesasproducingarangeofunrelated
productsandservices.
Theresultsaresimilarforworldwideoperations:companiesproducingarangeofunrelatedproducts
and services account for 12% of the worldwide operations compared to the 6% of the Danish
operations.Furthermore, in the caseofworldwideoperations,63%of companiesofferanumberof
productsorservicesbutnosingleoneaccounts formorethan70%ofsales.This figures is64%for
Danishoperations.
Standardization
A second dimension that is highly relevant in the context of MNCs is the degree of international
standardizationofproductsandservices.ThisdimensioncanprovideinformationonwhetherMNCs
inDenmarkmanagetheiroperationsdifferentlyacrossregions.
16% 15%
64%
6%8%17%
63%
12%
Asingleproductorservicethataccountsformorethan
90%ofsales
Anumberofproductsandservicesbutoneoftheseaccountsforbetween70%
and90%ofsales
Anumberofproductsandservicesbutnosingleoneoftheseaccountsformorethan
70%ofsales
Arangeofunrelatedproductsandservices
Whichofthefollowingstatementsbestdescribes[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark/worldwide?Thecompanyproduces...
Denmark Worldwide
Base: Home‐ andForeign‐based (n=115‐116)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
ProfileofMultinationalsinDenmark
34 124
The data related to this issue point to the importance of regional standardization. Respondents in
more thanone‐thirdof thecompanies (43% foreign‐ownedand31%homed‐basedMNCs)said that
they “adapted todifferent regionsbut standardizedwithin them”,withanother third (34% foreign‐
ownedand48%home‐basedMNCs)sayingthey“standardizedglobally”(seeFigure2‐10).
Figure2‐10:Standardizationvs.adaptation
TheroleofDanishoperationsinaninternationalcontext
ThissectionexaminestheroleoftheDanishoperationswithinforeign‐basedandhome‐basedMNCs.
Inparticular, itaimstoanswerthefollowingquestion:dotheDanishoperationshaveastrategically
importantroleordotheysimplyserveasa“servicehub”fortheDanishmarket?
24%
43%
34%
21%
31%
48%
Adaptedsignificantlytonationalmarkets
Adaptedtodifferentregionsoftheworldbut
standardisedwithinthem
Standardisedglobally
Aretheworldwidecompany'smostimportantproduct,service(orgroupofproducts,servicesorbrands)...?
Foreign‐based(n=80) Home‐based(n=29)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
ProfileofMultinationalsinDenmark
35 124
Figure2‐11:RoleofDanishoperations
One measure of this factor is the extent to which the subsidiary in Denmark has international
responsibilityforoneormoreproducts.Almosthalfoftheforeign‐ownedcompanies(46%)indicate
thatthey“agree”or“stronglyagree”withthispoint.Furthermore,almost59%ofDanish‐ownedMNCs
indicate that they “agree” or “strongly agree” that international responsibility for one or more
productsorservicesresidesoutsideofDenmark.Thisshowsthatasubsidiaryoutsideofthecountry
oforiginholds“internationalmandates”approximately50%ofthetime(seeFigure2‐11).
A secondmeasureof the role of theDanishoperations iswhether they carryoutR&Dand towhat
degree.R&Disastrategicallyimportantfunctionformanycompanies,asit isoftenthe“heart”ofan
enterprise. In terms of the approximate number of employees employed in the R&D function in
Denmark, thedata show that approximately85%ofhome‐basedMNCshave employees in theR&D
function in Denmark, whereas this is the case for only 62% of the foreign‐based MNCs. Graphical
overviewsofthedistributionofdifferentfunctionsareprovidedinFigure2‐12forhome‐basedMNCs
and in Figure 2‐13 for foreign‐based MNCs. The fact that the non‐R&D functions are distributed
equally in both home‐based and foreign‐based companies indicate that R&D is such an important
functionthatfewenterprisesdareto“outsource”ittosubsidiaries.
29%
9%
16%18%
28%
Stronglydisagree Disagree Neitheragreenordisagree
Agree Stronglyagree
ThecompanyinDenmarkhasinternationalresponsibilityforoneormoreproductsorservicesonbehalfoftheworldwidecompany.
Base: Foreign‐based (n=87)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
ProfileofMultinationalsinDenmark
36 124
Figure2‐12:Numberofemployeesbyfunction(home‐basedMNCs)
Figure2‐13:Numberofemployeesbyfunction(foreign‐basedMNCs)
AfinalmeasureoftheroleofDanishsubsidiariesiswhethersignificantR&DisgeneratedintheDanish
operations relative to the companies’worldwideR&D.Overall,24%of the foreign‐basedcompanies
“agree”or“stronglyagree”thatexpertisehasoriginatedfromDenmark.ThiscanbeseeninFigure2‐
14.
7%
25%
19%
32%
7%
10%
Pleaseestimatetheapproximatenumberofemployeesin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmarkineachofthefollowingcore
functions:
R&D(n=27)
Manufacturing(n=26)
Sales&Marketing(n=29)
CustomerService(n=24)
BusinessServices(finance,IT,payrolletc.)(n=29)
Other(n=15)
7%
46%
19%
10%
11%
7%
Pleaseestimatetheapproximatenumberofemployeesin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmarkineachofthefollowingcore
functions:
R&D(n=76)
Manufacturing(n=76)
Sales&Marketing(n=85)
CustomerService(n=79)
BusinessServices(finance,IT,payrolletc.)(n=85)
Other(n=46)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
ProfileofMultinationalsinDenmark
37 124
Figure2‐14:R&DinDanishoperations(foreign‐basedMNCs)
Summary
ThischapterhasdescribedthecompositionandstrategyofatypicalMNCoperatinginDenmark.The
analysisshowsthat:
The majority of the companies are from Europe, especially Nordic Europe, with only 22%
originating from outside Europe. As such, MNCs operating in Denmark tend to come from
countries that are similar toDenmark.Mostprevalent areNordic companies,whichaccount
for 47% of the sample. Of the non‐European countries, US‐based companies dominatewith
16%. Only 6% of the MNCs are based in the “rest of the world”. In other words, a large
proportionofMNCsoperatinginDenmarkcomefromcountrieswithsimilarbusinessmodels.
IndiscussionsofDenmark’splaceintheinternationalvaluechain,theemphasishasbeenon
theknowledgeeconomyasDenmark’sstrongestpoint.However,50%oftheMNCsinDenmark
areinmanufacturing,whichindicatesthatDanishcompaniesarenotnecessarilyatthetopof
the value ladder. Further research is needed to explore why manufacturing in Denmark is
widespreadamongMNCs.
On average, foreign‐based MNCs in Denmark employ more than 60,000 people worldwide.
DanishMNCsaresignificantlysmaller,withDanishMNCemployingbetween1,000and4,999
peopleonaverage.However,thesituationisreversedintheDanishoperations,whereDanish
MNCsarebigger.Ingeneral,home‐basedcompanieshavebeeninternationalformanyyears–
nohome‐basedMNCshasbeeninternationalforlessthanfouryears.
37%
20% 20%
15%
9%
Stronglydisagree
Disagree Neitheragreenordisagree
Agree StronglyAgree
SignificantexpertiseinR&DwithintheworldwidecompanyisgeneratedintheDanishoperation.
Base: Foreign‐based (n=87)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
ProfileofMultinationalsinDenmark
38 124
Arelativelysmallnumberofcompaniesadapttheirmostimportantproductsorservicestothe
nationalmarket.Themajorityofcompaniesinthesampleadapttodifferentregionsofthe
world or standardize globally. Home‐based companies, in particular, have a high degree of
standardization.
In terms of strategic position, the results show that about 50% of the subsidiaries hold
international responsibility forsomeproductsandservices,and24%believe thatsignificant
R&DhasbeenundertakenintheDanishoperations.
Home‐basedMNCstendtofocusononeproduct,whileforeignMNCsarerelativelymorelikely
todiversify.Thiscouldbeconnectedtothehome‐basedMNCs’smallsizerelativeto foreign‐
basedMNCs.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
TheHRFunction
39 124
Chapter3: TheHRFunction
Inthepreviouschapter,wedescribedsomekeyfeaturesoftheMNCsoperatinginDenmarkbylooking
at theirbasic characteristics, aswellas thestrategiesandstructures that theyhaveadopted for the
relationshipbetweenheadquarters(HQ)andsubsidiaries.Inthischapter,weelaborateonanumber
ofimportantaspectsofthehumanresource(HR)function.Inparticular,welookattheorganizationof
theinternationalHRfunctionanditsvariousaspects,suchasthemechanismstheMNChasinplaceto
facilitateacoordinatedapproachtoHRacrossnationalborders,thenatureofHRpolicy‐makingbodies
andtheextenttowhichHRstaffarebroughttogetheracrossborders.
HRmanagerswerealsoaskedabout theproportionofnon‐HRmanagers thatspend themajorityof
timeonHRmatters.Wefindthatnon‐HRmanagersinhome‐basedMNCsspendmoretimeonaverage
(15%)thannon‐HRmanagersinforeign‐basedMNCs.(7%).
The chapter ends with an examination of the respondents’ views on the extent and nature of an
internationalphilosophyonthemanagementofemployees,andabriefsummaryofthefindings.
HRpolicyformationandcoordinationacrossborders
OneaspectoftheinternationalHRfunctionthatprovidesameasureofthedegreeofcontroloverHR
policyacrossbordersiswhetherthereisaninternationalHRpolicy‐makingbody.Respondentswere
askedwhethertheircompanieshaveabodywithintheworldwideMNC,suchasacommitteeofsenior
managersthatdevelopsHRpoliciesthatapplyacrosscountries(seeFigure3‐1).
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
TheHRFunction
40 124
Figure3‐1:PresenceofglobalHRbody
We see that suchbodies arequite common inbothhome‐ and foreign‐based companies, as60%of
home‐basedcompaniesand70%offoreign‐basedcompanieshavesuchaunit inplace.Thisleadsto
anassumptionthatHRis,at least toacertainextent,coordinatedacrossborders.Theprevalenceof
suchunitsvariessomewhatonthebasisofHQnationalityacrossthedifferentregionsbutthisresultis
notstatisticallysignificant(seeFigure3‐2).
Figure3‐2:PresenceofinternationalHR‐policybody
TherespondentswerealsoaskedwhetherDenmarkwasrepresentedonthisbody.Thiscanbeseenas
an indicator that distinguishes Danish operations with a local HR implementer role from Danish
60%
40%
70%
30%
Yes No
Isthereabodywithintheworldwidecompany,suchasacommitteeofseniormanagers,that
developsHRpoliciesthatapplyacrosscountries?
Home‐based(n=30) Foreign‐based(n=87)
72%60% 60%
69%
28%40% 40%
31%
US Denmark Nordic Europe Europe
Isthereabodywithintheworldwidecompany,suchasacommitteeofseniormanagers,thatdevelopsHRpolicies
thatapplyacrosscountries?
No
Yes
Base: Home‐ andforeign‐based(n=117)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
TheHRFunction
41 124
Another important indicator is the degree to which theMNCmakes a systematic attempt to bring
managerstogetheracrosscountries.Thisfactormightserveasanindicatorforsystematicknowledge
sharingandorganizationallearningamongsubsidiaries.However,suchsystemizationcanalsobeused
asawayofcontrollingthelocalHRfunctionsbycreatingsharedvalues.
Figure3‐3:AttemptstobringHRmanagerstogether
Justundertwo‐thirds(65%)oftheforeign‐basedcompaniesandslightlymorethanhalf(58%)ofthe
home‐based companies systematically bring HR managers from different countries together (see
Figure3‐3).ThisprovidesfurthersupportforthenotionthatmanyMNCsaredevelopinganintegrated
approachtoHRpolicymaking.Respondentswereaskedwhetherthisactivitytakesplaceontheglobal
orregionallevel.40%indicatedthattheyassembleHRmanagersontheregionallevel,whereas25%
dosoonthegloballevel.Onceagain,thenationalityandsizevariablesareimportantdeterminants.As
Figure3‐4 shows,Danishcompaniesandcompaniesoriginating fromNordicEuropeare those least
likelytosystematicallybringmanagerstogether,whilecompaniesfromEuropeandtheUSaremost
likelytobringmanagerstogether.
58%
42%
65%
35%
Yes No
AreHRmanagersfromdifferentcountriesbroughttogetherinasystematicway?
Home‐based(n=31)
Foreign‐based(n=88)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
TheHRFunction
42 124
Figure3‐4:MNCsystemizationofcross‐regionHRmanagermeetings
Larger companies, in terms of both global and Danish employment, are more likely to encourage
managerial contact on the global and regional levels. Specifically, 77%of the companies employing
5,000employeesormoreworldwidebringHRmanagerstogetheronbotharegionalandglobalbasis,
whilethecorrespondingfigureforcompanieswithlessthan5,000employeesworldwideisonly41%.
Three of the four companies in our samplewithmore than 5,000 employees inDenmark bringHR
mangers togetheronaglobalandregionalbasis,whileonly62%ofcompanieswith less than5,000
employeesinDenmarkdoso.
Respondentswerealsoaskedaboutthemechanismsusedtofacilitate internationalcontactbetween
HRmanagers–regularmeetings,internationalconferences,taskforcesandvirtualgroups(seeFigure
3‐5) – andhow frequently thosemechanismswereused.The results show that allmechanisms are
widely used in the vast majority of companies, with only 21% of the responding companies not
applying any of the fourmechanisms. Regularmeetings are themost common,while international
conferencesaretheleast,althoughthelatterarestillusedbymorethanhalfofthecompanies.
74%58% 52%
65%
26%42% 48%
35%
US(n=19) Denmark(n=31) NordicEurope(n=25)
Europe(n=37)
AreHRmanagersfromdifferentcountriesbroughttogetherinasystematicway?
No
Yes
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
TheHRFunction
43 124
Figure3‐5:MechanismsbringingHRmanagerstogether
HRphilosophyandreversediffusion
Another way of examining the international dimension HRM activities is to consider the extent to
whichthereisauniformmanagementstyleacrossborders.Respondentswerepresentedwithaseries
of statements related to the company’s philosophy concerning its employeemanagement style and
asked the extent towhich they agreed or disagreedwith each statement on a scale of 1 to 58 (see
Figure 3‐6). The data show that aworldwide philosophy iswidespread in 37% of the home‐based
MNCsandin46%oftheforeign‐basedMNCs.
8InFigure3‐6thosecompaniesanswering:“agree”(4)and“stronglyagree”(5)toeachofthestatementsaredisplayed.
70%
50%
66%59%
74%
61%70%
65%
RegularMeetings InternationalConferences
TaskForces VirtualGroups
DoescontactbetweenHRmanagersindifferentcountriestakeplacethroughthefollowingmechanisms?
Home‐based(n=27‐29) Foreign‐based(n=83‐86)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
TheHRFunction
44 124
Figure3‐6:ApproachtoHRphilosophy
Ingeneral,theanalysisshowsthatonlyaminorityofMNCsengageinreversediffusionofHRpractices
from the subsidiaries to the worldwide organization.When asked whether some of their local HR
practiceshavebeenusedintheMNCworldwide,30%statedthatHRpracticeshadbeentakenupina
fewpartsofthefirm,while60%indicatedthatnoneoftheirHRpracticeswereinuseacrosstheMNC.
Very fewsubsidiaries reported that theirHRpracticeshadbeen implementedglobally.Notably, the
areaof”employeeinvolvementandcommunication”seemstobetheareainwhichlocalHRpractices
aremostoftendiffusedtootherbranchesoftheMNC(seeFigure3‐7).
37%
27% 28%
47% 48%40%
46%
61%
38%
59%
43% 40%
Thereisaworldwideapproachcoveringall
globaloperations
ThereisaregionalapproachcoveringallEuropeanoperations
Thedevelopmentofaspecific
approachislefttointernational
product,serviceorbrandbased
divisions
Thedevelopmentofaspecific
approachislefttonationaloperatingcompanies
Theapproachisreallyamixofthetraditionsofthedifferentnational
operatingcompanies
Traditionsinthecountryoforigin
haveanoverriding
influenceontheapproachtothemanagementofemployees
ApproachtoHRPhilosophy
Home‐based(n=29‐30) Foreign‐based(n=86‐87)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
TheHRFunction
45 124
Figure3‐7:ReversediffusionofHRpractices
Summary
This chapter has described the HR functions of MNCs by looking at HR policy development and
coordination,systematicattemptstobringHRmanagerstogether,andmechanismsfordoingso.We
findthat:
About two‐thirds of MNCs in Denmark have an international HR body and a system for
bringing managers together. These systems are somewhat more common in foreign‐based
MNCsthaninDanish‐basedMNCs,partlyduetothesmallersizeofthelatter.
In about one‐third of the foreign‐based MNCs, a Danish representative is part of the
internationalHRpolicy‐makingbody.
The most common way of bringing managers together is through regular meetings, but
internationalconferences,taskforcesandvirtualgroupsarealsowidelyused.
CompaniesadoptavarietyofapproachestotheirHRphilosophy,rangingfromlocaladaptation
toglobalstandardization.
A decision to not bringHRmanagers together or not introduce an internationalHRbody could
have consequences in terms of missed opportunities to encourage knowledge sharing in HR.
Subsidiariesmighthave ideasorpractices relevant tocertainHRproblems,but these cannotbe
spread throughout theorganization if subsidiaryHRmanagersdonotmeet.However, thereare
someexamplesofanHRinitiativefromasubsidiarybeingimplementedinthewiderorganization
(seeTextbox1).
23%
10%
1%
26%
9%
3%
36%
11%
0%
26%
6%
0%
Yes,infewpartsofthefirm Yes,inmajorbusinesses Yes,takenupglobally
HasthecompanyinDenmarkprovidedanynewpracticesinthefollowingareasthathavebeenimplementedelsewhereintheMNC?
Payandperformancemanagement
Training,developmentandorganisationallearning
Employeeinvolvementandcommunication
Employeerepresentationandconsultation
Base: Foreign‐based(n=86‐87)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
TheHRFunction
46 124
Textbox1:Reversediffusion
“Wewereaplayground”
ADanishsubsidiaryofaGermanMNCwaspartofa
mergerofsubsidiariesintheNordiccountriesover
15 years ago. Of the more than 100,000 people
employed by the MNC worldwide, the Danish
subsidiary only accounts for around 150. It is,
therefore, relatively small in size. The merged
NordicregionbecameaninspirationfortheGerman
HQ, and was followed by formations of other
regions of similar institutional contexts. The result
of the progressive approach taken in the Nordic
subsidiaries was a higher level of discretion.
AccordingtoaDanishHRmanager:
Backthen,wewereallowedtodoalmostanything
we wanted (in the Nordic subsidiaries), as we
wereviewedasthepioneeringregion.
The Nordic subsidiary became a playground for
organizational experimentation, and it therefore
gradually gained the attention of HQ as top
management began to recognize the potential
benefitsof the “Nordicmodel.”Theresultwas that
the organizational innovations initiated in the
Nordiccountrieswerereplicatedglobally.
Given the variety of institutional contexts in
differentnationalcontexts,overtheyearstheMNC
has developed overall strategies with built‐in
compliance rules. These rules make it possible to
adjust the strategy to local conditions and are
inspiredbythesubsidiaries’experiences:
Ontheimplementationlevel,youhavetointerpret
the decisions made on the strategy level. You
mighthaveastrategy,(…)butthenyoumightrun
into some legislation locally that makes it
impossibletoimplementthestrategyinthatform.
Youhavetorelatetothelocallegislation.
While there is strong reverse diffusion from
subsidiariestoHQ,HQalsomaintainsstrictcentral
control ofHR. Every fifth year, theperformanceof
the subsidiary – including HR – is evaluated. The
focusisthedegreetowhichHQ’sgeneralstrategyis
followed. This is amutual learning process, as HQ
needstounderstandthe institutional limitationsto
whichthesubsidiaryissubject:
We can’t say, “Yeah, whatever…We don’t care
whatHQdoes”.Youcan’tdo that. (…)But it isa
learning process because we go back and tell
them that this is not possible in this country or
region,whilethisispossible.(…)Andtheygoback
andchangetheirpolicies.
ThishasledHQtoadoptasofterapproachtoHRin
subsidiaries:
It isbeing softenedupmoreandmore.The top‐
down management that once was is slowly
disappearing.
By reconciling the inherent contradiction between
centralization and decentralization, this German
MNC is able to leverage the tension between local
requests for more discretion and HQ’s desire for
control. Itusessubsidiaries todevelopHRpolicies,
and to find and develop management talent. In
otherwords,HQ’sHRpoliciesarenot set in stone,
but canbeadjusted to the local context, andHR is
diffusedfromsubsidiariestoHQ.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
SubsidiaryDiscretion
47 124
Chapter4: SubsidiaryDiscretion
Chapter 3 touched upon the HR‐related relationship between MNC HQs and subsidiaries, and we
analyzed the level of discretion warded to subsidiaries with regards to HR. In this chapter, we
elaborateontherelationshipbetweenHQandsubsidiariesbylookingmorethoroughlyatsubsidiary
discretionwithregardstoavarietyofissues,includingpayschemes,successionprogramsandunion
recognition.Thelevelofdiscretionisanimportantindicatorofheadquarters’strategywithrespectto
subsidiariesandthewayinwhichtheymanagetheirglobaloperations.ItreflectswhethertheMNCs
focus on the benefits of standardization or give local operations the freedom to adapt to local
challenges.Inaddition,thischapteroffersanoverviewofthelevelsofdiscretionandadiscussionof
thegeneralinfluenceofdiscretioninthesubsidiaries.
Measuringdiscretion
Inthissurvey,“discretion”referstheextenttowhichasubsidiaryhasautonomyoverthemainareas
ofitsemploymentpractices.Thesurveymeasuresdiscretionusing15differentitemswithinthefour
mainareasofHRpolicy:payandperformance,traininganddevelopment,employeeinvolvementand
communication,andtradeunionpolicy.Respondentswereaskedtoevaluatethelevelofdiscretionin
theirorganizationonafive‐pointscalerangingfrom“none”to“fulldiscretion”.
Patternofdiscretion
Summaries of theproportionsof companieswithhigh levels of discretion for the various items are
provided in Figures 4‐1 and 4‐2. Figure 4‐1 illustrates the foreign‐based companies’ perceptions of
their discretion levels. For this purpose, HRmanagerswere asked: “Towhat extent does [COMPANY
NAME] in Denmark have discretion over the determination of the following aspects of pay and
performancepolicy?”Figure4‐2 illustrateshome‐basedcompanies’ self‐perceptionof thediscretion
they give to their subsidiaries. Here, the HR managers were asked: “To what extent do operating
companiesoutsideofDenmarkhavediscretionoverthedeterminationofthefollowingaspectsofpay
andperformancepolicy?”
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
SubsidiaryDiscretion
48 124
Figure4‐1:Areasofdiscretion(foreign‐based)
59%
7%
48%44%
54%48%
73%
62%57%
80%
60%
87% 87%
72% 69%
Towhatextentdoes[COMPANY NAME]inDenmarkhavediscretionoverthedeterminationofthefollowing:
Foreign‐owned
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
SubsidiaryDiscretion
49 124
Figure4‐2:Areasofdiscretion(home‐based)
25%
11%
50%
32%26% 26%
60%56%
52%
77%
54%
81% 78%
60% 63%
TowhatextentdooperatingcompaniesoutsideofDenmarkhavediscretionoverthedeterminationofthefollowingaspects:
Danish‐ownedsubsidiaries
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
SubsidiaryDiscretion
50 124
OnthebasisofFigure4‐1andFigure4‐2,thefollowingconclusionscanbemade:
Overall, the foreign‐ and home‐based MNCs are similar in their level of discretion, with
between60%and80%ofthecompanieshavinghighdiscretionformostofthefactors(with
theexceptionof“payandperformance”).
Bothhome‐basedandforeign‐basedcompanieshavethehighestlevelofdiscretioninrelation
to “provision of information to employees” and “suggestion schemes” (81% and 87%,
respectively).
The lowest degree of discretion for both foreign‐ and home‐based companies is found for
“employeeshareownershipscheme”.
Aclearpatterncanbeseeninthetwofigureswithrespecttopayandperformance,wherethelevelsof
discretionaremuchlowerthanforotheremploymentpractices.Influencesondiscretionforforeign‐
basedcompanies
Thissectiondiscusseshowselectedcompany‐specificcharacteristicsinfluencethelevelofdiscretion.
For thispurpose, anoverall discretion index –basedon the averageof the15 individual items– is
formed.Therelativelysmallnumberofhome‐basedcompaniesmeansthatthefollowingstatisticsare
limitedtoforeign‐basedcompanies.9
First,we lookat the influenceof thecountryoforigin, theageof thesubsidiary,and thesizeof the
Danish operations. For this analysis, Swedish and US companies are compared because Swedish‐
owned companies come from an institutional context similar to Denmark’s, whereas US‐owned
companies come fromadifferent institutional context.Theseare thegroups thatweuse for testing
nationaldifferencesthroughoutthereport,astheyrepresentdifferentinstitutionalsystemsandhavea
substantialamountofrespondentsintheirgroup.
Figure 4‐3provides themean scores for all foreign‐based,US‐based andSwedish‐based companies.
Fromthisfigure,weseethatcompanieswithUS‐basedheadquartershavealowerdegreeofdiscretion
than theirSwedish‐basedcounterparts, and thatSwedish‐ownedsubsidiarieshaveahigheraverage
level of discretion than the sample of all foreign‐based companies. This finding could lead to a
conclusion that US‐based companies prefer a higher level of control over their subsidiaries than
Swedish‐basedcompanies.However,thesedifferencesarenotstatisticallysignificant.
9ThisindexformsareliablescalewithaCronbachalphavalueof0.855.Thisscalehasaminimumof1.47(shouldbemorethan1),amaximumof4.93(shouldbelessthan5)andanaverageof3.6242.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
SubsidiaryDiscretion
51 124
Figure4‐3:Meandiscretionscoresforselectedcountries
The next element is the age of the subsidiary. Older subsidiaries can be expected to have more
flexibilitytomakedecisions,astheyareintegratedintheirinstitutionalcontexttoahigherdegree.It
can also be argued that the MNC might wish for a higher level of control in the initial phase of
subsidiary establishment due to a higher need for support as well as a desire to influence the
subsidiary’scultureinthedirectionoftheMNC’svaluesandprocedures.However,statisticaltestsof
thecorrelationbetweenageanddiscretionshownosignificantresults.
In addition to the “factual” variables of the MNC, other variables might indicate the degree of
discretioninMNCs.Wethereforeexaminethreedifferentaspects:
1. Standardization or adaptation of products: This aspect is tested to determine whether
there is an association between a focus on standardization of products and the level of
discretion.Theresultsshownosignificantassociationbetweenthesevariables.
2. GloballydecidedHRpolicies:Companieswithaglobalmindsetwithregardstocreatingand
deciding upon HR practices might be expected to provide their subsidiaries with less
discretion.Figure4‐4showsthemeanoftheoveralldiscretionindexforcompaniesanswering
“yes”or“no”tothefollowingquestion:“Isthereabodywithintheworldwidecompany,such
as a committee of seniormanagers, that developsHRpolicies that apply across countries?”
ThefigureshowsthatMNCsthatdonothavesuchabodywithintheworldwideMNCprovide
more discretion on average to their subsidiaries than those companies that have a body
withintheworldwideMNC(althoughthistendencyisnotstatisticallysignificant).
3.62 3.723.29
All Sweden US
MeandiscretionscoresforselectedcountriesBase:Foreign‐based(n=44)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
SubsidiaryDiscretion
52 124
Figure4‐4:LevelofDiscretionandGloballyDecidedHRPolicies
3. Worldwideapproach:Therespondentsinthesurveywereaskedabouttheextenttowhich
they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: “There is a worldwide approach
covering all global operations” with the objective of testing whether a general worldwide
approach has an influence on the level of discretion. Thiswasnot the case – no significant
correlationwasfoundbetweenthelevelofdiscretionandaworldwideapproachcoveringall
operations.
Summary
This chapter has briefly discussed subsidiary discretion in home‐based and foreign‐based MNCs.
Discretion isdefinedas theextent towhich thesubsidiaryhasautonomyoverdifferentareasofHR
policy.Theresultsforhome‐basedandforeign‐basedMNCsarepresentedseparately,astheyarenot
comparable.Wefindthat:
The subsidiaries enjoy a high level of discretion with regards to communication, employee
involvementandemployeerepresentation.
With the exception of the Danish‐owned operations of Danish companies, a low level of
discretionisfoundintheareasofpayandperformance.
Country of origin matters for discretion. The analyses indicate a general tendency for US
companiestogrant lessdiscretiontotheirsubsidiariesthanthestudypopulation ingeneral.
SubsidiarieswithaSwedishheadquartersenjoyhigherdiscretionthantheaverage.
WhethertheMNChasstandardizedproductsoraworldwideapproachhasnosignificanteffect
ondiscretion.
The finding that, in general, discretion is lower on pay and performance is not surprising. Pay is a
decisivefactorintherelationsbetweenmanagementandemployees,anditisanimportantmotivator.
Itisalsodecisiveforthecompanyprofits.
3.53
3.82
Yes No
Levelofdiscretion:“Isthereabodywithintheworldwidecompany,suchasacommitteeofseniormanagers,thatdevelopsHRpoliciesthatapplyacrosscountries?”
Base:Foreign‐ based(n=44)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
SubsidiaryDiscretion
53 124
Likewise,employeeshareownershipschemesarealow‐discretionarea.Thiselementisalsocentralto
management’sprerogativeanditisalsoanimportantmotivationalfactorinanycompany.
Asthestudyshows,thelevelofdiscretionawardedto,orobtainedby,subsidiariesvariessignificantly.
In this respect, two case studies reveal the diversity of attitudes toward the centralize‐decentralize
question(seeTextbox2).
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
SubsidiaryDiscretion
54 124
Textbox2:Highdiscretionversuslowdiscretion
“Americahasthelastword”
The Danish subsidiary has no production and no
R&Dactivities – only sales. Over the last 10 years,
thecompany’ssizehasbeenreducedbyhalfandit
no longer has a full‐time HR manager. The
company’s HR policy is dictated by the US
headquarters and implemented via the European
branch’sHRdepartment in Sweden.HRpolicy and
HRmanagersdonotmeetacrossborders.Although
recruitmentintheDanishbranchisuptoeachsub‐
department, it must comply with the rules of the
Swedish HQ. Ultimately, all recruitment occurs
under the supervision of the American HQ. Any
hiring has to be approved by the SwedishHQ and
the Swedish HQ’s HR policy must be approved by
the American HQ. Headcounts are the most
importantfactorforHRintheAmericanHQ:
Once a month, we have to report how many
employeeswehaveandhowmanyworkinghours
theyhave.Twoorthreeyearsago,wehadto lay
off about 10 employees. TheHQ in the US said:
“You have too many employees”. (…) We
contacted the employers’ association but the
unionswerenotinvolved.
The US MNC basically has to approve any HR
decision. The consequences can be dire if such
approvalsarenotobtainedinadvance:
A couple of years ago, the Swedish CEO tried to
introduce a new scale for all of the European
subsidiaries. He was almost fired because he
didn’tget itapprovedby theUSHQ.Youhaveto
be careful – you put your job on the line if you
don’tgetachangeapprovedintheUS.
Accordingly, all HR decisions go through the HR
divisioninSwedenandareapprovedintheUS.HR
policy is decided from the top down, and the
SwedishandUSHQdonotconsultthesubsidiaries:
There is a code of conduct on the Intranet.We
have to read it once a year. By looking at our
users’ profiles, they can checkwhetherwe have
done so. Ifnot, theysendusareminder. (…)You
canread itoryoucanwatchthevideo.Thenyou
havetopassatestafterwards.
TheDanishbranchisnotinvitedtoHRmeetingsin
other countries and, in general, theDanish branch
feelsinferiorintheMNC:
Theyaresofaraway[theUS].Ibelievetheythink:
“Denmark, that’sa smallone–wedon’twant to
wastetimeonthem”.Whenwewritetothem,we
oftenfeeltheydon’treallycare–itdoesn’tmatter
tothem.
ThisAmericanMNCclearlybelieves thebenefitsof
centralization and standardization outweigh the
benefitsoflocaldiscretion.HRpolicyisdetermined
centrally with little or no input from local
subsidiaries, and the MNC seems hostile toward
localinnovation.
“Wedon’treallycooperatewithHQ”
Recognizing the importance of adapting to local
conditions, one German retailer completely
decentralized the company’s HR function. The
freedom provided by this hands‐off approach
means that local HRmanagers are responsible for
identifying and developing training and
development programs, as well as leadership
programs,forthecompany’semployees.TheDanish
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
SubsidiaryDiscretion
55 124
subsidiary is basically independent from the
GermanHQinHRterms:
Idon’treporttotheHRfunctioninGermany.(…)
Wedonot really cooperatewithHQ inGermany
[on HR]. If they have some good ideas, we use
them.Otherwise,wemakeourown strategy,our
ownprioritiesanddoitourway.
ThisdiscretionhasallowedonelocalHRmanagerto
develop an initiative designed to increase female
participation in the labor market. The subsidiary
hasalsoestablishedanacademyforfurthertraining
in Denmark, which is independent of HQ. The
Danish branch aims to be the best in the business
andhasstartedtheacademyforfurthertrainingof
itsemployees. It is institutionalizedand,assuch, is
part of the subsidiary’s headcount – there are
always a certain number of employees involved in
training. These measures were discussed only
between the Danish HR manager and the Danish
CEO, and the GermanHQdid not need to approve
them:
There are no demands from anybody – the only
thingisthatthingshavetoworkout.
HR managers from different subsidiaries do not
meet across countries and there is generally no
cooperation between HR departments in different
countries. This high level of discretion is not a
formulated policy from the German HQ, but is
insteadtheresultofthecorporation’sdevelopment.
TheparentcompanywasestablishedinGermanyin
1960. Greenfield operations were established in
Denmarkin1988.
Casesummary
HRpolicies canbe formed centrally or locally.The
advantage of centrally decided HR policies is that
theycanbeimportantpillarsintheestablishmentof
a common corporate culture and can serve as an
organizational control tooluseful for achieving the
advantagesofglobalscaleandscope.Theadvantage
of decentralized HR policy formation is the
possibilityofadjustingtotheneedsoflocalcultural,
institutional and social environments – including
investmentrelationssystems.Hence,theyaremore
receptivetolocaltrendsandemergingneeds.
Regardless of where HR policies are formed,
anotherimportantissueiswhethertheyareshared
across borders. If a subsidiary establishes a best
practice, it can only be defined as such when
comparedtootherpracticeswithintheMNC,when
thepractice iscommunicated throughout theMNC,
and when the practice is adopted in other MNC
units. In this respect, reverse diffusion allows a
subsidiary to provide inspiration to HQ regarding
an HR policy. In contrast, spillover occurs when a
subsidiary’s HR policies spill over to other
subsidiaries.
Whilethehighlevelofdiscretionincase2ishighly
appreciatedbythesubsidiary’sHRdepartment,itis
alsoobviousthatthereisnoorganizationallearning
in thissetup.HR in theGermanheadquartersdoes
not pick up on ideas and innovations from its
subsidiaries, and HR managers on the subsidiary
leveldonotmeetorshareknowledge.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
SubsidiaryDiscretion
56 124
Part2Analyzingemploymentpractices
Payandperformance
Training,developmentandorganizationallearning
Employeeinvolvementandcommunication
Employeerepresentationandconsultation
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
PayandPerformance
57 124
Chapter5: PayandPerformance
AfterestablishingthegeneralpictureofMNCsoperating inDenmark in thepreviousthreechapters,
we now proceed to explore the specific areas of HR practice in MNCs. This chapter focuses on
subsidiarypayandperformancesystems.Itbeginswithanexaminationoftheperformanceappraisal
system,themethodsarethatused,andhowthosemethodsareemployedfordifferentgroupsofstaff.
Second, we look at various reward systems in the subsidiary and the underlying criteria used for
performanceevaluation.
Throughout the chapter, we analyze the effects of various company‐specific variables on pay and
performancepractices.Inthisrespect,welookatattributesfromChapters2and3,suchasnationality
(home‐basedorforeign‐based),size,sector,standardizationandpresenceofglobalHRpolicies.
Performanceappraisals
Performance appraisal systems are widespread among the companies in the survey. 75% of the
companiesreportthattheyhaveaformalsystemofappraisalformanagers,and68%reportthatthey
haveanappraisalsystemfortheLOG(seeFigure5‐1).Thisindicatesthatthemajorityofcompanies
havedevelopedanofficial,formalappraisalsystemforalargeportionoftheiremployees.
Figure5‐1:Presenceofappraisalsystems
Whenlookingintothisresult,wefindseveralinterestingtendencies:
Country effect: There is a significant difference between home‐based and foreign‐based
companies in their probability of having appraisal systems. Foreign‐based MNCs are more
likelytohaveperformanceappraisalsystemsfortheLOG.10Asimilartendencyisevidentfor
10Chi‐squaretest:significantatthe5%level.
68%
32%
75%
25%
Yes No
Isthereasystemofregular,formalappraisalforeachofthefollowinggroupsofemployeesinthe[COMPANY NAME]
inDenmark?
FoLOG(n=117) ForManagers(n=115)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
PayandPerformance
58 124
managers,althoughthis isnotstatisticallysignificant.US‐ownedcompanieshavethehighest
frequencyofappraisalsystemsforboththeLOGandmanagers.
GlobalHRpolicies:ThoseMNCswithabody responsible for thedevelopmentof globalHR
policiesaresignificantlymorelikelytohaveperformanceappraisalsystemsforboththeLOG
andmanagersthancompanieswithnosuchunit.11
HRmanagersbroughttogetherinasystematicway:Companiesthatbringtheirmanagers
together in a systematic way also have a significantly higher likelihood of having a formal
appraisalsystemforboththeLOGandmanagersthancompaniesthatdonothavesystematic
meetingsofmanagers.12
One interesting aspect of appraisal systems is whether they use the results of the appraisal in
decisions on redundancy or redeployment. Figure 5‐2 shows that most companies use appraisal
resultsaseitherformalorinformalinputintosuchdecisions.Intotal,71%engageinthispracticefor
theLOGand83%doso formanagers.These figures, togetherwith theaboveresults, indicate that
appraisal systems are used to evaluate and regulatemanagersmore often than the LOG.Notably,
48%ofthecompaniesuseappraisalsystemsasan informal inputfordecisionsonredundancyand
re‐deployment(fortheLOGand/ormanagers).
Figure5‐2:Usesoftheperformanceappraisalsystem
When testing for differences in the use of performance appraisal systems in relation to company
characteristics, no significant differences are found in terms of sectors, global HR units,
standardizationorcountriesoforigin.However,wefindthatcompaniesthatbringmanagerstogether
inasystematicwayusetheoutcomesofperformanceappraisals indecisionsaffectingboththeLOG
11Chi‐squaretest:significantatthe5%level.12Chi‐squaretest:significantatthe5%level.
26%
45%
29%31%
52%
17%
Yes,asaformalinputindecisions
Yes,asaninformalinputindecisions
No
Aretheoutcomesofperformanceappraisalusedasinputsindecisionsonredundancyandre‐deployment
inthe[companyname]inDenmark?
ForLOG(n=82) ForManagers(n=84)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
PayandPerformance
59 124
andmanagersmoreoftenthancompaniesthathavenosuchregularmeetings.Overall,however,we
concludethatnospecificfeaturescharacterizecompaniesthatutilizeappraisalstomakedecisionson
redundancyandredeployment.
Another aspect of performance appraisal is found in the criteria that are important for evaluating
managementperformance.Therespondentswereaskedtoassesstheimportanceoffivecriteriaona
scale from not important to very important. As shown in Figure 5‐3, all criteria were found to be
mostly“important”or“veryimportant”inassessingperformance.Individualoutputs,inparticular,are
perceived to be very important, while slightly less importance is attributed to “competences or
personalskills”,“groupoutputtargets”and“behaviorinrelationtocorporatevalues”.
Figure5‐3:Managementperformanceevaluation
Theonlysignificantvariationbetweenthegroups13isfoundwhenlookingatSweden.SwedishMNCs
hasasignificantlylowerperceivedimportanceofindividualquantitativeoutputtargetsandbehavior
in relation to corporate values. The same tendency is true for individual qualitative output targets,
althoughthis isonlyclosetostatisticallysignificant.This is interesting inaScandinaviancontext,as
theNordic countries – especially Sweden–have a long traditionof self‐governing teamwork in the
13Toachieveanacceptablenumberinallgroups,answers1and2weremergedto“notimportant”,3wasrated”ofmediumimportance”,and4and5weremergedto“veryimportant”forthepurposeofthestatisticaltests.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Individualquantitativeoutputtargets(e.g.,financial,numerical)
Individualqualitative
outputtargets(e.g.,
completionofatask)
Groupoutputtargets(e.g.,forsiteor
businessunit)
Competences'orpersonalskills(e.g.,
leadershiporinnovationskills)
Behaviourinrelationtocorporate"values"
ThinkingabouttheMANAGERSin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark,howimportantarethefollowingkindsofperformanceevaluationsonascaleof
1‐5?
5=Veryimportant
4
3
2
1=Notatallimportant
Base:Home‐ andForeign‐based(n=87)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
PayandPerformance
60 124
workplace.ThesedataindicatethatthistraditionisalsoreflectedintheappraisalsystemsofSwedish
MNCs.
We also see that companies that bring HR managers together in a systematic way place more
emphasisonindividualquantitativeoutputtargets.However,nosignificantdifferenceswerefoundfor
othercharacteristics.
Anotherwayof evaluatingperformance isbyusing “multi‐rater reviews”or “360‐degree feedback”.
Thispractice is increasinglypopular inMNCsandhas thebenefitofofferingamoreholisticviewof
individualperformancebyprovidingfeedbackfrompeers,subordinatesandmanagers.Thedatashow
that this practice is widespread: 73% of the respondent companies use 360‐degree feedback to
evaluatetheperformanceofmanagers,and56%usethepracticetoevaluatetheLOG(seeFigure5‐4).
Figure5‐4:Useof360‐degreefeedback
Performance‐relatedpaysystems
After looking at general performance appraisal systems,we now focus on performance‐related pay
systems.First,we investigate theextent towhichvariablepay isused formanagersand theLOG in
MNCs.
73%
56%
ForManagers(n=85)
ForLOGs(n=84)
Isaformalsystemof"360‐degree"feedbackusedinevaluatingtheperformanceofanyofthese
groupsofemployeesin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark?
Base:Home‐ andforeign‐based
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
PayandPerformance
61 124
Figure5‐5:Variablepay(managers)
Figure5‐6:Variablepay(LOG)
Figures5‐5and5‐6showthatvariablepay ismorewidespreadamongmanagers.77%ofmanagers
havesomeelementofvariablepay,whilethecorrespondingfigurefortheLOGis60%.Companiesthat
systematically bring HR managers together tend to have a higher frequency of variable pay for
managers(seeFigure5‐7).
Yes77%
No23%
Is therevariablepayforthemanagersin[COMPANYMANE]inDenmark?
Base:Home‐ andforeign‐based(n=118)
Yes60%
No40%
IstherevariablepayfortheLOGin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark?
Base:Home‐ andforeign‐based(n=116)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
PayandPerformance
62 124
Figure5‐7:VariablepayandHRapproachformanagers
Figure5‐8VariablepayandHRapproachforLOG
Thosecompaniesusingvariablepaywerealsoasked to indicatewhether theyoffered the following
kindsofpaytotheLOGormanagers:
Anapprovedemployee shareownership scheme inwhich the organization establishes a
trustthatacquiressharesonbehalfofemployeesandprovidesemployeeswithpartownership
ofthecompanythroughthoseshares.
Profit sharing, which refers to rewards given to employees over and above their normal
salaries and bonuses. These awards are directly dependent on the levels of profit in the
business.
2931 32
7 812
Yes‐onaglobalbasis Yes‐onaregionalbasis No
Managervariablepayinrelationto"Aremanagersfromdifferentcountriesbroughttogetherinasystematicway?"
Variablepay Novariablepay
Base:Home‐ andforeign‐based(n=91)
23 23 24
1315
18
Yes,onaglobalbasis Yes,onaregionalbasis No
LOGvariablepayinrelationto"Aremanagersfromdifferentcountriesbroughttogetherinasystematicway?"
Variablepay Novariablepay
Base:Home‐ andforeign‐based(n=70)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
PayandPerformance
63 124
Share options, through which employees are given the option of buying company shares,
oftenatareducedrate.
AsshowninFigure5‐9,noneofthesetypesofpayarecommon(averageoccurrenceofaround20%).
Again, these pay‐related elements are slightlymorewidespread amongmanagers than LOGs. Share
optionsaretheformofperformance‐relatedpayofferedmostoftentomanagers,closelyfollowedby
employee shareownership schemes. For theLOGs, themostpopular typeofpay is employee share
ownership, followed by share options. The least common type of performance‐related pay for both
managersandLOGsisprofitsharing.
Figure5‐9:Typesofperformance‐relatedpay
In general, although none of the results are statistically significant, home‐based companies tend to
haveahigherfrequencyofalloftheabovetypesofperformance‐relatedpay.Furthermore,companies
that systematically bringHRmanagers together aremore likely to offer employee shareownership
andshareoptionstotheirmanagers.14
Summary
Thischapterhasexaminedthestructureandextentofperformanceappraisalandrewardsystems.We
haveseenthattheexistenceofappraisalsystemsiswidespread:
14Chi‐squaretest:significantatthe5%level.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ForLOG(n=107)
ForManagers(n=109)
ForLOG(n=102)
ForManagers(n=101)
ForLOG(n=105)
ForManagers(n=107)
EmployeeShareOwnership ProfitSharing ShareOptions
Doesthecompanyofferthefollowingtypesofperformance‐relatedpay?
Yes No Don'tknow
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
PayandPerformance
64 124
75% and 68% of companies have appraisal systems for managers and LOGs, respectively.
Hence,appraisalsystemsareusedalmostasoftentomotivateLOGsastomotivatemanagers.
Assuch,theyareanimportantHRtoolforthemajorityofMNCs.
Overall,foreign‐basedcompaniesinDenmarkaremorelikelytohaveappraisalsystemsforthe
LOGandmanagers,althoughthelatterfindingisnotstatisticallysignificant.
US‐basedcompaniesaremorelikelytohaveappraisalsystemsforboththeLOGandmanagers,
as are companies that develop globalHRpolicies through aworldwidebody and those that
systematicallybringHRmanagerstogether.
A high proportion of companies use appraisals as a basis for decisions on redundancy and
redeployment. However, half of the companies use these results only as informal inputs for
suchdecisions.
Companiesuseawidearrayofcriteriatoassessmanagerialperformance.Themostpopularof
these is individual output, but group output, competences and behavior in relation to
corporate values are also important. Interestingly, MNCs originating from Sweden have a
significantly lower perceived importance of individual quantitative output targets and
behavior in relation to corporate values. The same tendency is evident for individual
qualitativeoutputtargets,althoughthisresultisonlyclosetosignificant.Thisisinterestingin
aScandinaviancontext,asNordiccountries–especiallySweden–haveanextensivetradition
of self‐governing teamwork in the workplace. These data indicate that this tradition is
reflectedintheappraisalsystemsofSwedishMNCs.
“360‐degree feedback” is used in about two‐thirds of companies for bothmanagers and the
LOG.
Payschemeswithvariablepayformanagersareimplementedin77%ofthecompanies,while
60%usesomeformofvariablepayfortheLOG.
Employeeshareownership,profit sharingand shareoptionsarenotverypopular,withonly
about20%ofcompaniesusingtheseperformance‐basedpayoptions formanagersandeven
fewerusing them for theLOG.CompanieswithanHRsystemthatbringsmanagers together
andhome‐basedcompaniesemploythesekindsofincentivestoagreaterdegree.
Global HR policy can be used to implement a certainwagepolicy if the institutional setting
allowsit.However,suchstrategiesmayconflictwithindustrialrelationstraditions,especially
in theDanish context,where there is a long tradition of collective bargaining and relatively
equalpay(seeTextbox3).
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
PayandPerformance
65 124
Textbox3:HRasastrategyimplementerversusnoHRatall
HRasa(wage)strategyimplementer
WhenaDanishsubsidiarywastakenover in1996,
highsubsidiarydiscretionprevailed.However,asa
result of a trend towards consolidation on the
variousmarkets,headquartersbecameincreasingly
controlling.ThistrendhadconsequencesforHR,as
HRprocedureshadtobesimilaracrossborders.
One of the goals of HQ’s policy was to implement
individualizedwages. InDenmark, the focus inthis
respect was on giving more money to units with
individual wage systems. This made a difference,
especiallyamongblue‐collaremployees:
Westrivetoobtainthis[individualwages].When
we had wage negotiations with the blue‐collar
workers, at one plant they accepted individual
regulation. Hence, they got a higher evaluation
percentage. At another plant, the blue‐collar
workers demanded an equalminimumwage for
all.Theygotit,butattheabsoluteminimum.(…)
Thepolicy is individualwages,butthis isnotthe
way that the legislation and agreements work.
Also, it is really difficult to obtain individual
wagesinDenmarkandFinland.
Continuous documentation of HR processes in
different countries has been introduced and HR
managers in the Nordic branches meet monthly.
ThemaingoalistodocumentHRpracticesinorder
to support knowledge sharing and to spread HR
practices:
[Q] So, where is HR in this corporation? Is it
primaryhere?
[A]No,weareeverywhere.
HR is defined centrally and implemented
throughout the organization through
documentation and meetings. HQ defines the
“managementcriteria”,butthelocalunitsarehighly
involvedinfindingmanagementpotential:
Themanagementcriteriaarenotdefinedhere[on
the subsidiary level]. They are defined from the
top, from the Group. But we are launching
initiativesandwearefindinghighpotentials.
Assuch,thelocalbranchesareimplementingHR
strategiesfromaboveandarefindingmanagement
potentialsaccordingtocentrallydefinedcriteria.
FromHQ’spointofview,theglobalHRpolicyis
builtaroundathoroughdocumentationsystem.Itis
alsoviewedasanimportanttoolinotherrespects,
suchastheimplementationofcertainwage
systems.However,thisalsocreatespotentialfor
conflict.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
TrainingandTalentDevelopment
66 124
Chapter6: TrainingandTalentDevelopment
Training expenditure can reflect how companies prioritize investments in human resources and,
indirectly,whethertheyviewinvestmentintheiremployeesascentraltotheaccomplishmentoftheir
goals.Figure6‐1showsinvestmentintrainingasapercentageofthecompanies’annualemployeepay
bill. Over 50% of home‐ and foreign‐based companies spend between 1% and 4% of their annual
compensationexpensesontraining.Noneof thehome‐basedcompanies,butalmost10%of foreign‐
basedcompanies, spendmore than4%on training.Overall, foreign‐basedcompanies tend to invest
moreintraining,althoughthisdifferenceisnotastatisticallysignificant.
Figure6‐1:Trainingasapercentageofannualemployeecompensation
Intermsofotherdifferences,aclearpatternariseswhenlookingattheHRsystem.AsshowninFigure
6‐2, companies with a global HR policy body and a systematic way of bringingmanagers together
invest significantly more in training.15 This might indicate that these companies prioritize HR to a
greaterextent.
15Chi‐squaretestsignificantatthe5%level.
4%
40%
56%
0%1%
35%
55%
9%
0% Upto1% Over1%andlessthan4%
Over4%
Whatpercentageoftheannualemployeecompensationin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmarkwasspentontrainingand
developmentforallemployeesoverthepast12months?
Home‐based(n=25) Foreign‐based(n=75)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
TrainingandTalentDevelopment
67 124
Figure6‐2:HRapproachandlevelofinvestmentintraining
ThenextstepindescribingthetraininganddevelopmentpoliciesofMNCsistolookattheextentof
successionplanningandmanagementdevelopmentprograms.Successionplanningisaprocessused
toidentifyanddevelopmanagementtalentintheorganizationthatwilleventuallysucceedthecurrent
management. The data show that 43% of home‐based companies have succession planning in all
(18%)orsomeoftheiroperations(25%).Forforeign‐basedcompanies,thisfigureisslightlyhigherat
50%(seefigure6‐3).
Figure6‐3:Successionplanningformanagers
No national differences are foundwith regards to succession planning, and the difference between
home‐basedandforeign‐basedMNCsisnotsignificant.However,oneinterestingdifferenceisevident.
29%
71%
56%
44%
0% to 1% Over 1%
HRApproachandLevelofInvestmentinTraining
Systematicwayofbringingmanagerstogether:Yes
Systematicwayofbringingmanagerstogether:No
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Yes,inalloperations
Yes,insomeoperations
No
Thinkingof[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark,isthereaformalsystemofsuccessionplanningforsenior
managers?
Formalsystemforsuccesionplanning,Home‐based(n=28)
Formalsystemforsuccesionplanning,Foreign‐based(n=84)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
TrainingandTalentDevelopment
68 124
Nearlytwo‐thirdsofcompanieswithanHRsystemthatbringsmanagerstogetherinasystematicway
haveasystemforsuccessionplanning,whereasonly21%ofcompanieswithoutthisHRsystemhave
succession planning. No other company characteristics appear to have a significant impact on the
prevalenceofsuccessionplanning.
Another aspect of training policy is the presence ofmanagement development programs. The data
showthatsuchprogramsaremorewidespreadthansuccessionplanningprograms,withalmost70%
ofhome‐andforeign‐basedcompaniesindicatingthattheyhavesuchprogramsinplaceforsomeor
alloperations.
WithregardtotheHRsystem,thesamepatternis foundasforsuccessionplanning.Companiesthat
regularlybringmanagerstogetheraremorelikelytohaveamanagementdevelopmentprogramthan
companiesthatdonot.16ThispatternalsoappliesforcompanieswithaglobalHRpolicybody.Overall,
theseresults indicate thatcompanieswithasystematicHRapproach thatbringsmanagers together
acrossborders anda globalHRpolicybodyplacemoreemphasisondeveloping internal talent and
managers.
Figure6‐4:Managementdevelopmentprograms
Differenttechniquescanbeusedtodevelopmanagementpotential,asshowninFigure6‐5.
16Chi‐squaretestsignificantatthe5%level.
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%
Yes,inalloperations
Yes,insomeoperations
No
Does[companyname]inDenmarkhaveamanagementdevelopmentprogramspecificallyaimedatdeveloping
its"highpotentials"orpersonnelwithsenior‐managementpotential?
Managementdevelopmentprogram,Home‐based(n=29)
Managementdevelopmentprogram,Foreign‐based(n=87)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
TrainingandTalentDevelopment
69 124
Figure6‐5:Managementdevelopmenttechniques
Overall,thedistributionissimilaracrossthevarioustechniques.“Formalglobalmanagementtraining”
and“assessmentofperformanceagainstasetofglobalmanagementcompetencies”arethetwomost
popular techniques, with almost 35% of MNCs using them quite extensively or very extensively.
“Short‐terminternationalassignments”aretheleastpopulartechnique,withover50%indicatinglittle
ornouse.Thisisfollowedby“long‐terminternationalassignments”,with49%indicatinglittleorno
useofthetechnique.
When testing fordifferences in companycharacteristics in relation to theuseof thesemanagement
development techniques, the variables are re‐coded to three groups: “strongly disagree” (1) +
“disagree” (2), “neither agree or disagree” (3), “”agree” (4) + “strongly agree” (5).We find several
tendencies:
“Short‐terminternationalassignments”aremorewidespreadinmanufacturingcompaniesand
incompanieswithanon‐standardizedproductapproach.
“Long‐term international assignments” are usedmore often in companies with a global HR
policybodyandanHRsystemthatbringsmanagerstogether.Furthermore,thistechniqueis
usedmoreincompanieswithanon‐standardizedproductapproach.
32% 31% 25%33%
19%
22%18%
16%11%
27%
22%27%
17% 12%
30%
13% 15%
20% 19%
14%
3% 5%14% 15%
3%
ShorttermInternationalassignments(12monthsor
less)
Longterminternationalassignments(morethan12
months)
Formalglobalmanagementtraining
Assessmentofperformanceagainstasetof
globalmanagementcompetencies
Qualificationsprogram(e.g.
MBA,professionalqualifications)
Howextensivelyareeachofthefollowingtechniquesusedforthedevelopmentofhighpotentialsin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark?
Usedveryextensively
Usedquiteextensively
Someuse
Alittleuse
Notusedatall
Base:Home‐ andforeign‐based(n=117‐118)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
TrainingandTalentDevelopment
70 124
“Formal globalmanagement training” ismorewidespread amongmanufacturing companies,
companieswithglobalHRpoliciesandcompaniesthatsystematicallybringmanagerstogether.
“Assessment of performance against a set of global management competencies” is more
prevalent in companies with a global HR policy body and a systematic way of bringing
managers together. Furthermore, it is more common among companies with a non‐
standardizedproductapproach.
“Qualification programs” are usedmore in companies with a global HR policy body and in
companieswithanHRsystemthatbringsmanagerstogether.
In sum, two elements have a significant influence on the choice of technique used for developing
managers:aglobalHRpolicybodyandanHRsystemthatbringsmanagerstogetherinasystematic
way. If these are present, companies use the techniques more extensively. Furthermore, the
prevalence of some of the techniques is affected by the presence of a non‐standardized product
approachoractivitiesinmanufacturing.
Organizationallearning
In this section, we briefly examine the extent to which the organizations have policies on
organizationallearning,aswellasthetechniquesthatareusedtofacilitateorganizationallearning.A
learningorganizationcanbecharacterizedasonethatfacilitateslearningthroughouttheorganization,
and that transforms itself and its resources in order to remain competitive.Organizational learning
ensuresthatknowledgestaysintheorganizationevenwhenemployeesleavetheorganization,i.e.,the
knowledgeisnotdependentonindividuals.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
TrainingandTalentDevelopment
71 124
Figure6‐6:Organizationallearning
About40%ofbothhome‐basedandforeign‐basedcompanieshaveaformalpolicyfororganizational
learning.58%offoreign‐basedMNCsand61%ofhome‐basedMNCshavenosuchpolicy(seeFigure6‐
6). This means that organizational learning is less common than other development techniques.
However,organizationallearningpoliciesmight,infact,belessexplicitorintegratedintootherparts
ofthetrainingsystem.Intermsofdifferencesincompanycharacteristics,wefindthatcompanieswith
integrated HR systems that bring managers together are more likely to have a formal policy for
organizational learning. The trend is similar for companies with a global HR policy, although this
findingisonlyclosetosignificant.
Another interestingaspect is the techniquescompaniesuse to facilitateorganizational learningwith
regardstomanagersinDenmark.Inthisregard,themostcommontechniqueistheimplementationof
internationalprojectgroupsortaskforces,whichareusedinabout80%ofcompanies.Thisisfollowed
by international informal networks,which are found in slightlymore than 60%of both home‐ and
foreign‐based companies. Expatriate assignments are used more extensively in home‐based
companies (about 70%) than in foreign‐based companies (45%). The least‐used technique is
international secondments17 to other organizations, which is used by approximately 15% of the
companies.
17Secondment:atemporarychangeofjobrolesforemployeeswithinthecompanyoratransfertoanotherorganizationforanagreedperiodoftime.
39%
61%
42%
58%
Yesinallorsomeoperations No
Thinkingof[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark,isthereaformalpolicyonorganizationallearning?
Home‐based(n=31) Foreign‐based(n=83)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
TrainingandTalentDevelopment
72 124
Overall,anumberoftechniquesareusedtofacilitateinternationalorganizationallearning.Intermsof
differencesbetweenMNCswithcertaincharacteristicsandtheprevalenceoforganizationallearning,
thefollowingresultscanbeaccentuated:
“Expatriate assignments” are used more in home‐based companies that have a non‐
standardized product approach and “Expatriate assignments” are also more common in
companieswithanHRsystemformanagers.
“Internationalprojectgroups”aremoreprevalentincompanieswithglobalHRpolicybodies
andHRsystemsformanagers.
InternationalformalcommitteesaremorecommonincompanieswithaglobalHRpolicybody
andasystematicapproachtobringingHRmanagerstogether.
International informal committees are not affected by company characteristics, as size and
sectordonotmakeadifference.
International secondments to other organizations more common among non‐US based
companies, and among companies with a global HR policy body and a systematic way of
bringingmanagerstogether.
Overall,thesepatternssupporttheotherresultspresentedinthischapter.CompanieswithaglobalHR
policybodyandHRsystemsthatbringmanagerstogethermakemoreuseof techniquesto facilitate
organizational learning.To complete thispictureof organizational learning, Figure6‐7 shows those
techniquesrespondentsconsideredtobemostimportantfororganizational learning.Almost60%of
companiesindicatethatinternationalprojectgroupsortaskforcesarethemostimportanttechnique.
Thisisfollowedbyexpatriateassignmentsandinternationalinformalnetworks.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
TrainingandTalentDevelopment
73 124
Figure6‐7:Techniquesusedtofacilitateinternationalorganizationallearning
Summary
This chapter has examined MNC policies and practices with regards to employee training and
development.Wefindthat:
Investments in training are common in MNCs. Almost 50% of MNCs spend 1‐4% of their
annualemployeecompensationexpensesontraininganddevelopment.
Investments ofmore than 4% in training and development are only found in foreign‐based
MNCs.9%offoreign‐basedMNCsspendmorethan4%oftheirannualemployeecompensation
ontraininganddevelopment.
CompanieswithaglobalHRpolicybodyandasystematicwayofbringingmanagerstogether
haveasignificantlyhigherlevelofinvestmentintraininganddevelopment.Lessthan50%of
MNCshaveasystemforsuccessionplanningbutalmost70%haveamanagementdevelopment
program aimed at “high potentials”. In otherwords,more resources are invested in finding
managementpotentialthaninplanningforsuccession.
The most popular ways of developing high‐potential employees are through formal global
managementtrainingandtheassessmentofperformanceagainstasetofglobalmanagement
competencies,techniquesthatareusedquiteextensivelyorveryextensivelybyabout35%of
thecompanies.Overall, theuseof thesetechniques increaseswhentheMNChasaglobalHR
policybodyandasystematicapproachtoHR.
13%
57%
6%
15%
3%6%
WhichoftheseisthemostimportantinternationalorganisationallearningmechanismusedbyMANAGERSwithin[COMPANY NAME]in
Denmark?
Expatriateassignments
Internationalprojectgroupsortaskforces
Internationalformalcommittees
Internationalinformalnetworks
Secondmentstootherorganisationsinternationally
Don'tknow
Base:Home‐ andforeign‐based(n=106)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
TrainingandTalentDevelopment
74 124
Therefore, a clear tendency is that companies with a global HR body, a systematic HR policy of a
system for bringing managers together spend more resources on training and development, on
successionplanningandonfindinghighmanagement‐potentialemployees.
Anotheraspectoftraininganddevelopmentis“organizationallearning”,forwhichwefindthat:
About40%ofthecompanieshaveaformalpolicy.CompanieswithaglobalHRpolicybodyand
systematicHRapproacharemorelikelytohaveaformalpolicy.
International project groups and taskforces are the primary techniques used to facilitate
organizationallearning.Theseareusedbyabout80%ofMNCs.
Internationalinformalnetworksandexpatriateassignmentsarealsowidelyused.
Expatriate assignments are themostwidely used in home‐based companies and companies
with a non‐standardized product approach. International project groups and international
formalcommitteesaremoreprevalentincompanieswithaglobal,systematicapproachtoHR.
Overall,60%ofthecompaniesindicatethatinternationalprojectgroupsandtaskforcesarethe
mostimportanttechniquesusedtofacilitateorganizationallearning.
While international project groups, taskforces and short‐term international assignments are
concrete, hands‐on assignments might very well be part of an organizational learning process.
Therefore, amore qualitative question iswhether such techniques are seen as ad‐hoc solutions
that would have been undertaken regardless of the organization’s desire for organizational
learningorwhethertheyarepartofasystemdirectedtowardsorganizationallearning.
Overall, there is a clear indication that companies that systematically bring managers together
oftenhave a coherent strategy fordevelopingmanagement potential,maintaining thatpotential
andactivelysupportingorganizationallearning.
Even thoughmost MNCs have an HR function at headquarters, some corporations have no HR
policiesorHRmanagersintheirsubsidiaries.Theythereforebasicallydenythemselvesthetools
to keep and develop management talent within the organization. Two case studies serve to
illustrate some of the consequences of not having consistent management potential or
managementdevelopmentsystems(seeTextbox4).
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
TrainingandTalentDevelopment
75 124
Textbox4:HRasastrategyimplementerversusnoHRatall
NoHRfunction
NeitherHQnorsubsidiariesinthissmallMNChave
HRmanagers,oranykindofnationalorglobalHR
support. This is evident to the CEO of a small
subsidiary:
Wedon'thaveanHR‐function.Wearetoosmall.
SoalloftheresponsibilityfortheHRfunctionlies
eitherwithmeormyofficemanager.
Even employee performance appraisals are up to
each branch manager. The subsidiary CEOs
themselves only receive performance appraisals if
theytaketheinitiativethemselves:
My linemanager sits in Holland and, generally
speaking,we try to sit down and have a formal
conversationonceayear.At thatpoint, Ialways
say, “Youneed to formally,oras formallyasyou
can,appraisemyperformance.Istillneedtoknow
whichdirectionIshouldbegoingnextyear”.
HRhasarelativelylowpriorityinthecompanyand
secondment–movingfromonepartofthecompany
to another as part of further training or
developmentofmanagementskills‐isnotcommon:
ThereisanaspectinHRofgettingtheleadership
across the countries to think about how to
leveragethefactthatitisagroupstructureona
global scale.But currently [the company] hasn’t
really invested a lot of value in its people
dimensionofleveragingthatoutofthebusinesses.
For example, there is not a lot ofmovement of
peoplearoundthiscompany.Tomyknow,thishas
happenedjustonce.
Thecompanydoesnotgenerallytransferemployees
fromonesubsidiarytoanother.Allinitiativestodo
thingsdifferentlycomefromthesubsidiariesrather
thanfromHQ:
Whenwehadopenspacesinsales,thefirstthingI
didwastogotomylinemanagementandsay:“Is
there anyone who has English speaking
capabilities and foreign sales capabilities that
couldcometoourmarketandfillthisvacancy?”.I
didthisratherthangotothelocalmarketoutside
the company because, actually, across themuch
biggerbusiness, theremustbe somepeoplewith
goodsalesskillsthatcancomeinanddevelopthe
market ...andmayberelishthenewenvironment,
a younger company and a new country. That is
whatwedidandweneedtodomoreofthesame.
Afocusontalentdevelopment
ADanishsubsidiaryofaGermanMNCwaspartofa
mergerofsubsidiariesintheNordiccountriesover
15yearsago.Although theGermanMNChasmore
than 100,000 employees worldwide, the Danish
subsidiaryonlyaccountsforaround150employees.
Itis,therefore,relativelysmallinsize.Eachnational
branch has to find “high potentials” – employees
withmanagement potential who are to be sent to
HQ for management training. At HQ, the high
potentialsareassessed,butveryfewpass.Forlocal
management, this is a big responsibility, especially
giventhehighrejectionrate.
We are careful about putting candidates on the
list,especiallyiftheyhaveabigego.Ifyouhavea
good sales person and this person goes for the
assessment, is weighed against the other
candidatesand found tobe too “light”, then that
person might be broken.Why not keep a good
salespersonratherthansendhimorherabroad
to be broken?We send some employees, telling
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
TrainingandTalentDevelopment
76 124
them that the bar is reallyhigh atHQ and that
theymightnotmakeit.
Like many other MNCs, this corporation has an
organization‐wide HR policy. Even then, the
implementation of a new policy is challenging, as
eachcountryhasdifferentinstitutionalsetups:
HRwillalwaysbe local–evenwithin theNordic
context therearenuances.When youare onmy
level[HRimplementation],thenthereisafreecar
policy.Evenifyoutrytomakeapolicyonfreecar
use for the worldwide corporation, you will
quickly meet some barriers in the form of tax
legislationontheoperationallevel.(…)Thesame
istrueforwages.
Thatsaid, thesubsidiaryHRconsultantstill feels it
isimportanttohaveacommonoverallHRstrategy
–not least for thebrandingof the company to the
customers.
Summary
With no central or local HR functions, the first
companydenies itself thepossibilityof findingand
developing talent in the corporation. Initiatives to
hold performance appraisals must come from the
employees rather than the managers. Employees
generally stay at the local subsidiary and the
movementofemployeesaroundtheorganizationis
extremelyrareandhappensonlyontheinitiativeof
theemployeesthemselves.Therefore,thecompany
missesoutonanopportunityforknowledgesharing
and a possibility to develop talent within the
organization. Furthermore, there is a risk that
talented managers may choose to leave the
organization.There is littledoubt thatsizematters
here.Even though thecompanywasestablished in
1906,itnowemploysonly660peopleworldwide.
In contrast, the second company has more than
100,000 employees worldwide. Its HR policy is
highlyorganized,andeachsubsidiaryisresponsible
for finding management potentials and sending
them for further training. While local legislation
might demand some adaptation of the global HR
policy, subsidiaries’ HR managers feel the global
policy is crucial –not least for thebrandingof the
corporationanditsservices.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
EmployeeInvolvementandCommunication
77 124
Chapter7: EmployeeInvolvementandCommunication
EmployeeinvolvementandcommunicationisakeyaspectofHR.MNCscanimplementdifferentforms
ofworkorganizationandtechniquesofdirectemployeeinvolvementintheirservicesorproduction,
and involvement can, in turn, become a competitive factor. Communication and information canbe
keystoemployeesatisfactionand,assuch,theycanmakeadifferenceforacompany’soutput,andthe
qualityofitsproductsorservices.
Thischapterbeginswithanexaminationofthetypesofemployee‐involvementpracticesusedbythe
MNCs in our sample, how they are affected by organizational characteristics andwhether they are
standardized across operations. Finally, this chapter reports on the internal communication
mechanisms thatareprimarilyusedby theMNCsand the typesof information thatareprovided to
employees.
Involvementmechanisms
Figure7‐1illustratestheprevalenceofthreedifferentinvolvementmechanisms.Thecompanieswere
asked: “Could you tell me whether you use the following practices in relation to the LOG in your
companyinDenmark?”
The data show that problem solving and continuous‐improvement groups are the employee‐
involvement techniques most commonly used by foreign‐based MNCs (76% of foreign‐based
companies;58%ofhome‐basedcompanies),andthatformallydesignatedteamsarethemostpopular
technique among home‐based MNCs (67% for foreign‐based companies; 71% for home‐based
companies).Teamworkorother involvement inunitsoperatingoutsideDenmark isusedby61%of
theforeign‐basedcompaniesandby60%ofthehome‐basedcompanies.Allmechanismsareusedby
more than half of the companies. Interestingly, appraisal mechanisms (Chapter 4), development
mechanisms(Chapter5)andinvolvementmechanismsareallusedtosimilarextents.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
EmployeeInvolvementandCommunication
78 124
Figure7‐1:Employeeinvolvement
Whentestingtheprevalenceofthesetechniqueswithrespecttocompanycharacteristics,wefindthe
following:
Formallydesignated teams: US‐based companies tend to use formally designated teams less
oftenthanallothercompanies.However,thisresultisnotstatisticallysignificant.
A system for bringingmanagers together correlateswith use of the teamwork involvement
mechanism.18Teamworkorother involvementwithunits operating outsideDenmark is used
significantlymoreby companieswith cross‐nationalHR systems thanby companies thatdo
nothavesuchsystems.
Asamajorityofcompaniesuseinvolvementmechanisms,thenextquestioniswhetherthesesystems
are standardized across operations. Respondents were therefore asked about the degree to which
employee‐involvement practices are similar across the global organization. Almost 75% of the
companies state that their employee involvement practices are somewhat diverse or vary
substantially,while lessthan20%statethattheyhavebroadlysimilarorverysimilarpractices(see
Figure7‐2).
18Chi‐squaretestsignificantatthe5%level.
61% 68% 76%60% 71%
58%
Teamworkorotherinvolvementpracticesinoperatingcompanies
outsideDenmark
Formallydesignatedteams Problem‐solvingorcontinuousimprovementgroups
CouldyoutellmewhetheryouusethefollowingpracticesinrelationtotheLOGin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark?
Foreign‐based(n=88) Home‐based(n=30‐31)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
EmployeeInvolvementandCommunication
79 124
Figure7‐2:PatternsofemployeeinvolvementI
In termsoforganizationaldifferencesand theprevalenceof employee involvementmechanisms,no
significant results are found. We conclude that employee involvement practices are diverse and
independentofourchosenorganizationalvariables.Forcomparison,Figure7‐3,whichdemonstrates
thepatternofemployeeinvolvementinDanishoperations,showsthatalthoughthemajorityofsites
have involvement systems, these systems differ from site to site. This indicates that involvement
systemsare,ingeneral,locallybased.
Figure7‐3:PatternsofemployeeinvolvementII
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Verysimilaracrossalloperations
Broadlysimilarbutwithsomevariations
Similartosomeextentbutwithsubstantial…
Fairlydiverse
Verydiverse
Don'tknow
Wouldyousaythatpracticesinrelationtoemployeeinvolvementintheworldwidecompanyare:
Home‐based(n=30) Foreign‐based(n=87)
18%
51%
20%
11%
38%
46%
13%
4%
Anidenticalorsimilarpatternexistsacrossall
ormostsites
Allormostsiteshaveinvolvementsystems,buttheydifferfromsiteto
site
Somesiteshaveinvolvementsystemswhileothersdonot
Notapplicable(1siteonlyinDenmark)
Whichofthefollowingmostcloselycorrespondstothepatternofemployeeinvolvementin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark?
Foreign‐based(n=80) Home‐based(n=24)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
EmployeeInvolvementandCommunication
80 124
Communicationmechanisms
Theextenttowhichanorganizationcommunicateswithitsemployees,andhowitdoesso,canhavea
significant impact on employee satisfaction and retention. Further, these practices often reflect an
MNC’soverallHRstrategy.
Inthisregard,respondentswereaskedtoindicatewhichcommunicationmechanismswereregularly
usedfortheLOGwithintheDanishoperations.Multipleanswerswereallowed.Figure7‐4illustrates
theprevalenceofeachtechniqueforbothhome‐basedandforeign‐basedcompanies.Theresultsshow
that,withtheexceptionofsuggestionschemes,allmechanismsareusedextensivelyby60%to90%of
thecompanies.Meetingsbetweenseniormanagersand linemanagersandmeetingsbetweensenior
managers and the entire workforce are used in almost every MNC, indicating that face‐to‐face
interaction iswidespread.Newsletters and emails, and company intranets are alsopopularwaysof
communicatingwiththeLOG.Overall,home‐basedcompaniesusethesemechanismsslightlyless,but
thepatternsofhome‐basedandforeign‐basedusagedonotdiffertoagreatextentandnostatistical
difference is foundbetween them.Attitudeoropinion surveysare an exception,with foreign‐based
MNCsbeingmorelikelytousethistechnique(althoughthisresultisonlyclosetosignificant).
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
EmployeeInvolvementandCommunication
81 124
Figure7‐4:Communicationmechanisms
Theeffectoforganizationalcharacteristicsdifferssomewhatbetweenthemechanisms:
Attitudeoropinion surveysareused significantly19more in companies thathavea globalHR
developingbodyandsystematizedmeetingsamongHRmanagers.
Companieswithastandardizedproductapproacharelesslikelytohaveacompanyintranet.
Thenextstepistomovefromtechniquestocontextintermsofthetypesofinformationprovidedto
employees.Therespondentswereaskedtostatewhichtypeofinformationwasregularlyprovidedto
theLOGabouttheworldwideMNCandtheDanishcompany.
Overall, employees are most often informed about the financial position of the company. 94% are
informed about this aspect of the Danish operations, while 83% are informed about the financial
positionoftheglobalcompany.Alittlelessthanhalfofthecompaniesinformtheiremployeesabout
investmentplansfortheDanishbranch,whileone‐thirdcommunicateaboutinvestmentsinrelationto
19Chi‐squaretestsignificantatthe5%level.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Meetingsbetweensenior
managersandthewholeoftheworkforce
Meetingsbetweenlinemanagersorsupervisors
andemployees
Attitudeoropinionsurveys
Suggestionschemes
Systematicuseof
managementchaintocascade
information
Newslettersoremails
Acompanyintranetproviding
informationtoemployees
WhichofthefollowingcommunicationmechanismsareregularlyusedfortheLOGwithin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark?
Foreign‐based(n=83‐87)
Home‐based(n=25‐31)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
EmployeeInvolvementandCommunication
82 124
theworldwidecompany.StaffinginDenmarkisanissuethatemployeesareinformedaboutinhalfof
the MNCs, while just one in four regularly inform their employees about staffing plans for the
worldwideoperation(seeFigure7‐5).
Figure7‐5:ProvisionofinformationtotheLOG
Various interesting tendencies (although only close to being statistically significant) are evident in
relationtothelinkbetweenorganizationalcharacteristicsandthecommunicationofdifferenttypesof
informationtoemployees:
Financial position of the company in Denmark: This type of information is most frequently
provided in manufacturing companies. All manufacturing companies in our data sample
regularlyprovideinformationabouttheirfinancialpositiontoemployees.
Investment plan for the company in Denmark: Manufacturing companies tend to inform
employees about investment plans, as do companies with a non‐standardized product
approach.
StaffingplansforthecompanyinDenmarkaremorecommonlycommunicatedinforeign‐based
companiesthaninhome‐basedcompanies.
Financial position of the worldwide company is more frequently communicated in
manufacturingcompanies.
Investmentplans for theworldwidecompany are communicated to the sameextent inhome‐
andforeign‐basedcompanies.
Staffing plans for theworldwide company are communicatedmore often in companies with
globalHRdevelopingbodiesandsystematicmeetingsofHRmanagers.
94%86%
46%35%
50%
28%
AboutDKcompany Aboutworldwidecompany
WhichofthefollowingtypesofinformationareregularlyprovidedtotheLOGwithin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark?
Financialpositionofthecompany Investmentplanforthecompany
StaffingplansforthecompanyBase:Home‐ andForeign‐based
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
EmployeeInvolvementandCommunication
83 124
Summary
This chapter has examined the employee involvement and communication techniques used by the
MNCs.Itshowsthat:
The most popular techniques for employee involvement among foreign‐owned MNCs are
problem‐solvinggroupsandcontinuousimprovementgroups,whileformallydesignedteams
aremostcommonamonghome‐basedMNCs.
Teamworkor other involvementpractices, and formallydesignated teamsareused inmore
than60%offoreign‐ownedMNCs.
Employeeinvolvementtechniquesareseldomstandardizedworldwideandmostcompaniesstatethat
their employee involvement practices are diverse or vary substantially. This indicates that MNCs
adjust their local communication strategies to a high degree. Alternatively, they may allow local
managerstodeterminethecommunicationstrategies.
Foreign‐basedMNCsemployproblem‐solvinggroupsandcontinuousimprovementgroupstoahigher
extentthanDanish‐basedMNCs.Althoughsuchgroupsmightbeexpectedtobemorewidespreadin
Danish‐basedcompanies,asgroup‐basedworkunitshavealongtraditioninDenmark,thisisnotthe
case. Furthermore, the fact that teamwork or other involvementwith operating companies outside
Denmarkareusedsignificantlymorebycompanieswithcross‐nationalHRsystemsthanbycompanies
that do not use such systems indicates that factors other than traditions related to a certainwork
designareatstake.Furtherresearchisneededinthisregard.
VariouscommunicationmechanismsareusedbythevastmajorityoftheMNCs:
The most common mechanisms used to communicate with the LOG are meetings between
managersandlinemanagers,employeenewsletters,emailsandintranetsites.
Communication mechanisms are used more often in companies with global HR developing
bodiesandsystematicmeetingsamongHRmanagers
Finally,thechapterexaminedthetypesofinformationregularlyprovidedtotheLOGabouttheDanish
andtheworldwideoperations.Wefindthat:
Themostcommontypeofinformationsharedwithemployeesrelatestothefinancialposition
ofthecompany,withinformationoninvestmentplansandstaffingplansinsecondandthird
place,respectively.
Manufacturing companies provide information to employeesmore often than companies in
otherindustries.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
EmployeeInvolvementandCommunication
84 124
Intermsofthecontentofinformation,theresultsshowthatinformationaboutthefinancialpositionof
the company is very common. However, the survey was carried out in 2009 at the height of the
financial crisis. Accordingly both management and employees in any private enterprise could be
expected to have been attentive to the company’s economic development, which could explain the
prevalence of this type of information in our data set. At the same time, however, surprisingly few
companiesshareinformationonstaffingplans.Duringafinancialcrisis,itwouldgenerallybeexpected
thatstaffingplansandinformationonpossiblerestructuringswouldbeofgreatinteresttoemployees.
Whydomanufacturingcompaniesshareinformationoninvestmentplansandthefinancialpositionof
thecompanywithemployees toahigherdegree thanother companies?Onepossibleexplanation is
thatuniondensity ishigheramongblue‐collarworkers inmanufacturingcompanies.Unionstendto
ensurethattheawarenessofemployees’rightstobeinformedandconsultedishigh,whichmayput
pressureonmanagerstosharethisknowledge.
Theamountofinformationoncompanies’financialpositionsandstaffingplansmightbeexpectedto
behigherinDanish‐basedMNCsbecauseofDenmark’slongtraditionofwell‐functioning,cooperative
committees in which such information is typically shared. However, this is not the case. Instead,
foreign‐basedcompaniesseemtosharesuchinformationwithLOGstoagreaterextentthanDanish‐
basedcompanies.
Finally, it is important tonote that information isnot thesameasco‐determination,co‐influenceor
evenconsultation.Whileinformationisnormallyfoundatthebeginningofacontinuumthatextends
toconsultation,co‐influenceand,ultimately,co‐determination, information–andthesurveillanceof
whoisusingit–canalsobeusedbyHRtocontrolemployees(seeTextbox5).
Textbox5:Informationascontrol
One American‐based MNC regularly informs its
employeesaboutmanagementdecisionsandithasa
code of conduct on its intranet. However, this
intranet information system also functions as a
controlmechanism:
There isacodeofconduct– it isonthe intranet.
Wehavetoreaditonceayear.Bylookingatour
users’profile,managementcancheckwhetherwe
have read through it. If not, they send us a
reminder. (…)You can read the codeor you can
watch a video. Then you have to pass a test
afterwards.
HQcancheckuserprofiles,whichindicatewhich
employeesreadinformationontheintranetand
when.However,HQisbasicallynotinterestedin
subsidiaryinput:
A couple of years ago, the Swedish CEO tried to
introduce a new scale for all of the European
subsidiaries. He was almost fired because he
didn’tget itapprovedby theUSHQ.Youhaveto
be careful – you put your job on the line if you
don’tgetachangeapprovedintheUS.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
EmployeeRepresentationandConsultation
85 124
Chapter8: EmployeeRepresentationandConsultation
Inthischapter,weseektoincreasetheunderstandingofemployeerepresentationandconsultationin
MNCs.Traditionally, thisareahasbeenhighlydependentonnationalsystemsof legislation,politics,
industrialrelations(IR)andcollectiveagreements,whichdifferwidelybetweencountries.
DenmarkhasalongtraditionofhighuniondensityandanIRsysteminwhichthesocialpartnersplay
a decisive role in regulating the labormarket through collective bargaining. The level of employee
representation and consultation involvement is stipulated in the Danish Cooperative Agreement
(Samarbejdsaftalen), which is supported by EU directives on consultation and European Works
Councils (EWC).One interestingquestion iswhether foreign‐ownedMNCs tend toadopt theDanish
perspective, especiallywhen they come fromadifferent systemof cooperation and consultation, or
whethertheytrytoimposetheirowntraditionsontheirDanishsubsidiaries.
Thischapterisseparatedintothreesections.Thefirstdescribesthecompanies’approachestounion
representation. The second discusses the nature of employee consultation in MNCs, and the final
sectioninvestigatesthepresenceandinfluenceofEuropeanWorksCouncils.
Employeerepresentation
Denmark is known for its high union density as well as the impact of unions on labor market
regulationsandonbusinessactivities.Forforeign‐basedMNCs,thismightposeachallenge.
Companies were asked: “How would you describe the policy of management towards union
recognitioninDenmark?”.Only5%oftheMNCssurveyedarenotinfavorofunionrecognition,with
therestbeingequallydistributedbetween“infavorof”and“neutraltowards”unionrecognition(see
Figure 8‐1). In terms of the link between organizational differences and company views on union
recognition, no significant results are found. It is surprising that nomajor differences can be seen
betweenhome‐basedandforeign‐basedcompaniesinthisregard,asitmightbeexpectedthathome‐
basedMNCs wouldbemoreusedtounionsand,hence,morelikelytohaveapositiveperceptionof
them.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
EmployeeRepresentationandConsultation
86 124
Figure8‐1:Managementpolicytowardsunionrecognition
Figure8‐2:Approachesadoptedbytradeunionrepresentatives
The companies were also asked about the approach they felt that trade union representatives
generallyadopted.AsshowninFigure8‐2,53%ofmanagersfeelthetradeunionrepresentativeshave
acooperativeapproach,whileonly4%feeltheirapproachisadversarial.
Thisvariableisclearlyaffectedbycompanycharacteristics,withindustryandeconomytypehavinga
stronginfluence.Inparticular,wefindthat:
47%
5%
48%
Howwouldyoudescribethepolicyofmanagementtowardsunionrecognitionwithin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark?
Infavourofunionrecognition Notinfavourofunionrecognition
Neutraltowardsunionrecognition
Base:Home‐ andForeign‐based(n=119)
53%
4%
27%
16%
Thinkingabouttradeunionsinthe[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark,whatapproachdothetradeunionrepresentativesgenerally
adopt?
Acooperativeapproach
Anadversarialapproach
Itdependsontheissue
Don'tKnow…
Base:Home‐ andForeign‐based(n=116)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
EmployeeRepresentationandConsultation
87 124
Marketeconomy:US‐ownedcompanies feel thatunionrepresentativesare lesscooperative
than Swedish‐owned companies (see Figure 8‐3). Swedish‐owned companies come from an
institutionalcontextthatissimilartotheDanishcontext,whereasUS‐ownedcompaniescome
fromadifferentinstitutionalcontext.
Sector: Trade union representatives are considered more cooperative by HR managers in
manufacturingcompaniesthanbyHRmanagersinothersectors.
Figure8‐3Approachtotradeunions
AnotherissueforanalysisisthetradeunionpoliciesfoundintheforeignoperationsofDanish‐based
MNCs.Figure8‐4showsthat17%ofthesecompanieshaveageneralpolicyofbargainingwithtrade
unions.Almostone‐thirdhavenopolicywhatsoever,andabouthalfofthecompaniesleavethepolicy
makingtosubsidiaries,whichareexpectedtoadapttolocalstandards.20Thisisaclearindicationthat
thisfield,inparticular,ishighlycontext‐sensitive,whichmakesitnecessaryforMNCstoprovidelocal
managerswithmorediscretion.
20Unfortunately,thesamplesizeforhome‐basedcompaniesistoosmalltoperformtestsonorganizationalcharacteristics.
26%
11%
37%
71%
0%
29%
Acooperativeapproach Anadversarialapproach Itdependsontheissue
Thinkingabouttradeunionsin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark,whatapproachdothetradeunion
representativesgenerallyadopt?
US‐basedcompanies(n=19) Swedish‐basedcompanies(n=14)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
EmployeeRepresentationandConsultation
88 124
Figure8‐4:DanishMNCs’tradeunionpolicies
Overall, theabovehighlights the fact that tradeunionsarewidelyaccepted.Mostcompanieshavea
neutralorpositiveapproachtoworkingwithunions,andthereisahighdegreeoflocaladaptationto
the local industrial relations system. However, in which areas do the companies include union
representativesindecisionmaking?
Inanefforttoanswerthisquestion,theMNCswereaskedtodescribetheirpoliciesforvariousmatters
related to the LOG. With regard to the variables “work organization” and “sub‐contracting/
outsourcing”, management typically makes decisions on its own. However, 43% of the companies
involve unions or union representatives in the work organization, while 17% involve them when
decisionsaretobemadeonsub‐contractingandoutsourcing.Intermsofpaymentschemes,in‐work
traininganddirectemployee‐involvementschemes,aboutone‐thirdofthecompaniesmakedecisions
ontheirown,one‐thirdmakedecisionsjointlywithunionrepresentativesandone‐thirdconsultunion
representatives (see Figure 8‐5). In these areas, therefore, more than two‐thirds of the companies
involveemployeerepresentatives.
30%
47%
17%
6%
Intermsofthecompany'soperationsoutsideDenmark,whichofthefollowingstatementscomesclosesttocapturing
yourpolicytowardstradeunions?
Thereisnopolicy
Weexpectlocalmanagementtofollowthelocalpracticeintheindustryand/orlocality
Itisgeneralpolicytobargainwithtradeunions,eitherdirectlyorindirectlythroughanemployers'associationDon'tknow
Base:Home‐based (n=30)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
EmployeeRepresentationandConsultation
89 124
Figure8‐5:Unioninvolvement
When testing for the organizational differences, only a few notable results appear.With regards to
“workorganization”,manufacturingcompaniesfrequentlymakedecisionsontheirownandlessoften
in jointcooperationwithunionrepresentatives.This is interesting,asmanufacturingcompaniesare
alsosignificantlymore“cooperative”intheirapproachandaretypicallymoreunionized.
Employeeconsultation
Aswith employee representation, employee consultation can provide an indication of the extent to
whichemployeesareinvolvedindecisionmaking.Figure8‐6showsthat82%ofthecompanieshold
meetings on regular basis with the purpose of consulting their employees. No organizational or
countrycharacteristicsaffectthisvariable.Companiesholdingsuchmeetingswerealsoaskedwhether
those meetings covered all employees or were limited to certain employee groups. Around 75%
answeredthatthemeetingscoveredallgroupsofemployees,althoughinsomecompanies,eachgroup
haddifferentarrangements.Onlyaround20%oftheMNCsstatedthatthemeetingscoveredonlysome
employeegroups.
58%
82%
30% 28% 31%27%
10%
35% 35% 35%
15%8%
35% 36% 34%
Workorganisation Sub‐contractingandoutsourcing
Variablepaymentsschemes
In‐worktraining/upgradingskills
Directemployeeinvolvementschemes
WhichbestdescribesthepolicytowardsworkingwithinrelatingtotheLOGs:
Managementdecidesonitsown
Managementconsultsunionrepresentative
Managementdecidesjointlywithunionrepresentatives
Base:Home‐ andForeign‐based(n=80‐86)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
EmployeeRepresentationandConsultation
90 124
Figure8‐6:Employeeconsultation
21
Thecompanieswerethenaskedwhethertheyhadexperienceinworkingwithmandatoryemployee
consultationstructures.57%confirmedthattheyhadexperiencewithsuchstructures.Asurprisingly
highamountofthecompaniesanswered“don’tknow”,whichindicatesthattheaverageHRmanager
might not be fully aware of the concept (see Figure 8‐7). The data show that companieswith HR‐
developmentbodiesandsystematicwaysofbringingmanagerstogetherhavemoreexperiencewith
thesestructures.
21By“thislevel”itmeansthatforexampleDanishHQcallsinmeetingswithemployeerepresentativesfromalltheunitsinDenmark.
Yes82%
No18%
Areregularmeetingsheldbetweenmanagementandemployeerepresentativesatthislevelinthe[COMPANY
NAME]inDenmarkforthepurposeofinformationprovisionandconsultation?
Base:Home‐ andForeign‐based(n=118)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
EmployeeRepresentationandConsultation
91 124
Figure8‐7Experiencewithmandatoryemployeeconsultationstructures
As this area is somewhat affectedby local legislation, collective agreements or (EU‐)directives, the
companieswerealso askedabout their level of compliancewith legal requirements. In this respect,
54%ofthecompaniesexceedtheminimumlegalrequirements,while30%ofthecompaniesfocuson
minimumcompliance.9%havenopolicyonthisissue(seeFigure8‐8).
Figure8‐8:Policyonlocallegalrequirements
EuropeanWorksCouncil(EWC)
One of themost important regulations on employee consultation and involvement in Europe is the
European Works Council (EWC) requirement. As a part of the European Council Directive of
57%19%
24%
Doestheworldwidecompanyhaveexperienceinoperatingwithmandatoryemployee
consultationstructures?
Yes
No
Don'tknow
Base:Home‐ andForeign‐based(n=118)
9%
30%
39%
15%
7%
Thereisnopolicy
Minimumcompliancewithlegalrequirementsonemployeeinformationandconsultation
Togosomewhatfurtherthanlegalrequirements
Togoconsiderablyfurtherthanlegalrequirements
Don'tknow
Whichofthefollowingstatementscomesclosesttocapturingtheglobalcompany'spolicyonconsultationandinvolvement?
Base: Home‐ andforeign‐based(n=67)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
EmployeeRepresentationandConsultation
92 124
September22,1994,companiesofacertainsize thatareactivebeyondtheirnationalbordersmust
haveanEWC.22
ThecompanieswerethereforeaskedaboutthepresenceofanEWCorsimilarstructurethatcovered
their Danish operations, and whether the companies prompted any changes in employee
representationwithinthelastthreeyears.Thedatashowthatalmost40%ofthecompanieshavean
EWCorasimilarstructure,andslightlymorethan40%donot(seeFigure8‐9).Whenaskedwhether
the EU directive on Information and Consultation prompted any changes in arrangements for
employee representation in Denmark, slightly more than 10% of the respondents answered “yes”.
Again,thepercentageof“don’tknow”’answersishigh,whichindicatesthatthismightnotbeanarea
familiartoHRmanagers.
The results show that organizational characteristics have some impact on the prevalence of EWCs.
Foreign‐basedcompaniesaremorelikelytobecoveredbyanEWCorsimilarstructure.Thismightbe
explainedbythefactthatthesecompaniesaregenerallylargerintermsofthenumberofemployees
(see Chapter 3) and, as such, more likely to be covered by the EWC directive. There is also a
significantlyhigherpercentageof companiescoveredby theEWCamongcompanieswithglobalHR
policydevelopmentunitsandasystematicwayofbringingmanagerstogether.23
Figure8‐9:PresenceofEWCsorsimilarstructures
22Moreinformationonthecouncils,theirpurposeandrelevantprocedurescanbefoundat:http://eur‐lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31994L0045:EN:HTML.
23Chi‐squaretestsignificantatthe5%level.
38%
41%
21%
IsthereaEuropeanWorksCouncil(EWC)orsimilarEuropean‐levelstructurewhichcovers[COMPANY NAME]
inDenmark?
Yes
No
Don'tknow
Base:Home‐ andforeign‐based(n=116)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
EmployeeRepresentationandConsultation
93 124
Figure8‐10:ImpactofEUdirectiveoninformationandconsultation
58%ofrespondentsstatedthattheyreceivedlittleornoinformationabouttheactivityandmeetings
oftheEWC.ThissupportsthesuggestionthatHRmanagersmaynotbeveryfamiliarwiththeconcept
oftheEWC(seeFigure8‐11).
Figure8‐11:InformationConcerningEWCs
Summary
This chapter has outlined results and tendencies with regards to employee representation and
consultationinMNCsoperatinginDenmark.Unionsarerecognizedoracceptedbythevastmajorityof
these MNCs, which is not surprising given the high union density and the country’s tradition of
cooperation.Inaddition,wefindthat:
11%
52%
37%
Overthepastthreeyears,hastheEUDirectiveonInformationandConsultationpromptedanychangesinarrangementsforemployeeconsultationinDenmark?
Yes
No
Don'tknow
Base:Home‐ andforeign‐based(n=115)
29%
13%58%
DoyoureceiveinformationabouttheactivityandmeetingsoftheEWC?
SystematicallyatthetimeofEWCmeetings
Periodically,onan"asnecessary"basis
LittleornoinformationabouttheEWCreceived
Base:Home‐ andforeign‐based(n=84)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
EmployeeRepresentationandConsultation
94 124
Only5%ofMNCsdonotfavorofunionrecognitionand53%adoptacooperativeapproach.
Approximately50%of theDanish‐basedcompanies leavedecisionson tradeunionrelations
outsideofDenmarkuptolocalmanagementandaboutone‐thirdhavenopolicy.Thisindicates
that cooperation with unions is a highly context‐sensitive area that local managers are
consideredbestsuitedtohandle.
Although 30% of companies meet only the minimum legal requirements for employee
information and consultation, 54% exceed the requirements. This indicates a rather deep
respectfortherules.
Thecompaniesconsultorjointlydecidewithunionrepresentativesonissuessuchasvariable
payment schemes, in‐work traininganddirect employee‐involvement schemes inmore than
two‐thirdsoftheMNCs.
The majority of the companies make their own decisions on work organization and sub‐
contractingwithoutconsultingunionrepresentatives.Inthisregard,employeerepresentatives
might be expected to bemore involved inwork organization, asmany aspects of collective
agreements deal affect work organization and as this issue directly affects employees. In
contrast, sub‐contracting affects employees only indirectly and could be considered a
management prerogative (though subcontracting could also have serious consequences for
companyemployees).
Withregardsto“workorganization”,manufacturingcompaniesdecidemoreontheirownthan
incooperationwithunionrepresentatives.Thisisinteresting,asmanufacturingcompaniesare
alsosignificantlymore“cooperative”intheirapproachtounionsandoftenaremoreunionized.
Foremployeeconsultation,thedatashowthatmorethan80%ofthecompaniesholdregular
meetingsbetweenmanagementandemployeerepresentativesforthepurposesofinformation
provisionandconsultation.In70%oftheMNCs,thesemeetingscoverallemployees,although
theremightbedifferentarrangementsforcertainemployeegroups.
With regards to European Works Councils and their impact on employee consultation in
Denmark, almost40%of the companieshaveanEWCor a similarEuropean‐level structure,
while 40% do not. The former figure is surprisingly low given that most companies in the
survey would be expected to meet the baseline criteria for being required to establish a
EuropeanWorksCouncil.24
24 In a European context, of the estimated 2,264 companies covered by the legislation, some 828 (34%) have EWCs inoperation, although the number of active EWCs is higher because some companies have set up more than one(http://www.etuc.org/a/125).IntheDanishcase,aboutone‐thirdofthecompaniescoveredbytheagreementhaveanEWC(639outof1865)(http://coindustri.inforce.dk/sw15703.asp).
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
EmployeeRepresentationandConsultation
95 124
OneinterestingresultisthatmanyHRmanagers(20%)donotknowwhethertheircompany
hasanEWC.Inaddition,almost60%receivelittleornoinformationabouttheactivitiesinthe
EWC.Thisindicatesthatemployeeconsultationontheinternationallevelisnotanimportant
issueforHRmanagers.
Part 3 Companyperformance
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
CompanyPerformance
97 124
Chapter9: CompanyPerformance
Thechapter is separated into three sections, eachcoveringanaspectofperformancemeasures.We
startwitha sectiononMNCs’overallperformance, thencontinuewithasectiononproduct/market
performance,and finishwithadiscussionofHRperformance. Itshouldbenotedthat thissection is
unique to the Danish part of the international survey and has the purpose of evaluating various
subjectiveperformanceindicatorsoftheMNC.
Note that all performance measures represent the subjective evaluations of the individual HR
managers.25Inaddition,wesharetheresultsofseveralstudiesoftheeffectofspecificHRMpractices
onobjectiveperformancemeasures,suchassalesperemployee(seeTextbox6).
Overallperformance
TheHRmanagerswereaskedtoevaluatetheirorganizations’performanceoverthepastthreeyears
relative to the performance of other companies in their sector. Figure 9‐1 clearly shows that HR
managersgenerallybelievetheircompanyperformsbetterthantheircompetitors,withbetween56%
and66%indicatingrelativelystrongperformance.Onlyalimitedpercentageoftherespondentsstate
thattheircompanyperformedpoorly.Giventhefactthatthesurveywascarriedoutattheheightof
theglobalfinancialcrisis,thisresultissurprisinglypositiveforallmeasuresofoverallperformance.
Figure9‐1:Overallfinancialperformance
25 In the questionnaire, all performance measures were measured using a five‐point scale ranging from “poor” to“outstanding”. For statistical purposes, these scores are merged into three groups: poor (1 and 2), average (3) andoutstanding(4and5).
25%
30%
33%
30%
56%
57%
62%
66%
ProfitGeneration
Turnover
Performancerelativetocompetitors
Overallperformance
SubjectivePerformanceEvaluationRelativetoCompetitors
Poor Average Outstanding
Base:Home‐ andforeign‐based(n=116‐117)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
CompanyPerformance
98 124
Textbox6:HRMandOrganizationalPerformance
In a separate study entitled “HRM and
Organizational Performance – Testing the effect of
strategic moderators” (Henderson, 2011), the
relation between High Performance HR practices
andorganizationalperformanceisexaminedforour
data set (foreign‐basedMNCs). The study’s central
hypothesis is thatHRpracticeshavepositiveeffects
onorganizationalperformance (measured in terms
ofsalesperemployee).
Four HRM practices are used to examine the
hypothesis: performance‐based compensation,
training, internal communication, and competence
andperformanceappraisals.
The study finds that “performance‐based
compensation” is the largest contributor to MNC
productivity and that it has a positive effect on
organizationalperformance.Itiscloselyfollowedby
“training”,whichalsomakesapositivecontribution.
“Internal communication” and “competence and
performanceappraisal”,incontrast,arefoundtobe
negativeforMNCproductivity.
The study also examines the effect of strategic
moderators on the strength and direction of the
relationship between HRM and organizational
performance. In particular, the study investigates
whetherahighdegreeofintegrationmoderatesthe
relationship between HRM andMNC performance.
The empirical tests show that performance‐based
compensation is positively moderated by global
integration, so that investments in performance‐
based compensation have a stronger effect on
productivity if global integration is high. This
indicates that global integration is a significant
moderator of the relationship between HRM and
performance.
The overall conclusion of the study is that MNCs
wishing to maximize productivity (organizational
performance) should have a high degree of global
integration and focus their HRM investments on
performance‐basedcompensationandtraining.
Intermsofthelinkbetweenorganizationalcharacteristicsandperspectivesonfinancialperformance,
no trend is evidentwith respect to overall performance.However, for the individual components, a
numberofresultsshouldbenoted:
Turnover:Companiesthatsystematicallybringmanagerstogetheraremorelikelyto indicate
poorperformancethancompaniesthatdonothavesuchregularmeetingsamongmanagers.
Performance relative to competitors: The data show that home‐based companies are more
likelytoindicateoutstandingperformance(84%).Thecorrespondingfigureforforeign‐based
companies is far lower at 60%. This striking result might be a clear sign that companies
operatingintheirownmarketwillusuallyreportbetterperformancethanforeigncompanies.
Figure9‐2illustratesthisdifference.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
CompanyPerformance
99 124
Figure9‐2PerformancerelativetocompetitorsI
Product/marketperformance
Theproduct/marketperformanceindicatorsincludefouritems:customer/clientsatisfaction,market
share, development of new products/services, and quality of products/services. Companies were
askedtoevaluatetheirorganizations’performanceoverthepastthreeyearsrelativetothatofother
companiesintheirsector.
First,we find a high proportion of positive evaluations,with “outstanding” accounting for between
63% and 82%of all responses (see Figure 9‐3). In particular, “quality of products/services” scores
high, with less than 1% of HR managers indicating poor performance. Second, “customer/client
satisfaction”scoreshigh,with71%ofHRmanagersindicatingoutstandingperformance.
0%
16%
84%
5%
35%
60%
Poor Average Outstanding
Howistheperformanceof[COMPANY NAME]inDenmarkrelativetocompetitors?
Home‐based(n=31)
Foreign‐based(n=85)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
CompanyPerformance
100 124
Figure9‐3:PerformancerelativetocompetitorsII
As with overall financial performance, company characteristics appear to have no general impact
acrossthemeasures.However,therearesomenotableresultsforindividualvariables:
Customer/clientsatisfaction:Thisvariableisaffectedbythepresenceofasystemforbringing
managerstogether,whichtendstoleadtoanevaluationof“average”performance.Companies
withoutsuchasystemtendtoevaluatetheirperformanceas“outstanding”.
Marketshare:ThismeasureisaffectedbyUSownership–US‐basedcompaniesindicatepoorer,
moreaverageperformancethannonUS‐basedcompanies.Again,HRmanagersinhome‐based
companies indicateoutstandingperformanceon thismeasure toamuchgreaterextent than
HRmanagersinforeign‐basedcompanies.
HRperformance
This finalsectionfocusesontheperceivedperformanceofHRrelativetothatofothercompanies in
thesamesector.Thesemeasurescover theabilitiesof theMNCstorecruitandretainemployees,as
wellastheirgeneralrelationswithemployees.Theresultsshowasimilarpatternacrossthedifferent
measures, with “outstanding” indicated in 61% to 69% of the cases. All measures show a low
frequencyof“poor”performance(seeFigure9‐4).
17%
29%
23%
26%
82%
64%
63%
71%
Qualityofproducts/services
Developmentofnewproducts/services
Marketshare
Customer/clientsatisfaction
Howwouldyoucompareyourcompany'sperformanceinDenmarkwiththatofyourcompetitorswithrespecttothefollowing(pastthreeyears)?
Poor
Average
Outstanding
Base: Home‐ andForeign‐based(n=115‐117)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
CompanyPerformance
101 124
Figure9‐4:HRperformanceI
Therespondentswerealsoaskedtoassessthejobsatisfactionoftheiremployeesandtheirabilityto
retainessentialemployees(seeFigure9‐5).
Figure9‐5:HRPerformanceII
The evaluation of HR performance is affected by various company and institutional characteristics.
However,nopatterncoversallofthevariables.Ontheindividuallevel,HRmanagersinnon‐US‐based
companies tend to evaluate job satisfaction in their companies higher than managers in US‐based
companies.Inaddition,thepresenceofglobalHRpoliciesleadstoahigherscoreonthisdimension.
26%
32%
28%
26%
69%
61%
69%
69%
Abilitytorecruitessentialemployees
Abilitytoretainessentialemployees
Manager‐employeerelations
Generalemployeerelations
Subjectiveperformanceevaluationrelativetocompetitorsoverthepastthreeyears
Poor
Average
Outstanding
Base: Home‐ andForeign‐based (n=117)
29%
19%
65%
72%
JobsatisfactionofemployeesinDenmark(n=117)
Abilitytoretainessentialemployees(n=118)
SubjectiveevaluationofHRperformance
Poor
Average
Outstanding
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
CompanyPerformance
102 124
Summary
This chapter has summarized HR managers’ subjective evaluations of their companies’ financial
performanceintermsofoverallperformance,product/marketperformanceandHRperformance.The
majority of the HRmanagers report that they believe their companies outperform competitors on
most measures, with “outstanding performance” reported in the vast majority of cases.
Product/marketperformance is ratedhighest,HRperformance isratedsecondandoverall financial
performanceisratedthird.Acrossallvariables,poorperformanceisseldomindicated.
Companycharacteristicsappeartohavenoclearimpactontheperformancescores.However,HR
managersinthehome‐basedcompaniesinoursamplegenerallyreportbetterperformancethanHR
managersintheforeign‐basedcompanies,withHRmanagersinUS‐basedcompaniesreportingthe
lowestscores.Withregardsto“turnover”and“customer/clientsatisfaction”,companiesthathave
systemizedinteractionsofHRmanagersevaluatetheirperformancelower.Finally,HRperformanceis
positivelyaffectedbythepresenceofaglobalHR‐developmentbody.
Part4Conclusion
FutureResearch
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
ConcludingRemarksandSummary
104 124
Chapter10: ConcludingRemarksandSummary
The last nine chapters have reported themain results from the survey of employment practices of
MNCs in Denmark. In this chapter, the results are summed up and areas for future research are
discussed.
OriginsandcharacteristicsofMNCsinDenmark
ThemajorityofMNCsoperatinginDenmarkareheadquarteredinEuropeand47%oftheMNCsinthe
sampleinthissurveyoriginatefromtheScandinaviancountries.OfthecountriesoutsideEurope,US‐
basedcompaniesdominate(16%).The“restoftheworld”isonlyrepresentedby6%ofthecompanies
inourdataset.Inotherwords,anoverwhelmingmajorityofMNCsoperatinginDenmarkcomefrom
countrieswithsimilarculturalandbusinessenvironments.
In terms of size, foreign‐based companies employmore than 60,000 peopleworldwide on average.
DanishMNCsaresignificantlysmaller–withDanishMNCemployingonaveragebetween1,000and
4,999people.Ingeneral,theMNCsoperatinginDenmarkhavebeeninternationalformanyyears.In
fact,allhome‐basedcompanieshavebeeninternationalforatleastfouryears.
A relatively small number of companies adapt their most important products or services to the
nationalmarket(themajorityofcompaniesinoursampleadaptto“differentregionsoftheworld”or
“standardizeglobally”).Home‐basedMNCstendtofocusonasingleproduct,whileforeignMNCsare
relativelymorelikelytodiversify.Thisfindingcouldbeconnectedtotherelativelysmallsizeofhome‐
basedMNCs. In terms of strategic positioning, the results show that about 50%of the subsidiaries
have international responsibility for someproductsandservices,while24%believe that significant
R&DhasbeenundertakenintheDanishoperations.
Denmark–aknowledgeeconomy?
IndiscussionsofDenmark’splaceintheinternationalvaluechain,theemphasishastypicallybeenon
Denmark as a knowledge economy. However, 50% of the MNCs in Denmark are active in
manufacturing, which indicates that Danish companies are not necessarily at the top of the value
ladder.The limitsof thepresentsurveypreventus fromfurtherelaboratingonthis finding,butthis
result supplements qualitative studies showing that MNC takeovers in Denmark often result in a
restructuring(i.e.,downsizing)ofR&Dandsalesactivities,andthemaintenanceofactivitieshandled
by blue‐collar labor (Navrbjerg & Minbaeva, 2009). Further research is needed to explore why
manufacturingisacommoninvestmentareaforMNCsinDenmark.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
ConcludingRemarksandSummary
105 124
ThestructureofHRpolicy–systematiconaworldwidebasisoradhoc?
The systemization ofHR policies amongMNCs varies. HRmanagerswere asked about the kinds of
coordination techniques their companies employed. About two‐thirds of the companies have an
internationalHRbodyandasystemforbringingmanagerstogether.Thesetechniquesaresomewhat
morecommonamongforeign‐basedMNCsthanamongDanish‐basedMNCs,andsizeisanimportant
explanatoryfactor.Themostcommonwayofbringingmanagerstogetheristhroughregularmeetings,
butinternationalconferences,taskforcesandvirtualgroupsarealsowidelyused(morethan50%of
thecompanies).Inaboutone‐thirdoftheforeign‐basedMNCs,aDanishrepresentativeispartofthe
internationalHRbody.
A decision to refrain frombringingHRmanagers together or introducing an internationalHRbody
couldmean that the companywill fail toexploit knowledge‐sharingpossibilities inHR.Subsidiaries
mighthave ideas about andpractices for tackling certainHRproblems, but these cannotbe spread
throughouttheorganizationifHRmanagersfromsubsidiariesdonotmeet.Casestudiesinthisreport
show that some subsidiary HR initiatives have been implemented in their respective worldwide
organizations,aphenomenonknownas”reversediffusion”.
ThecontentofHRpolicy:performanceappraisals
AppraisalandrewardssystemscanbeanimportantHRtool.Thesurveyshowsthatappraisalsystems
arewidespread:75%ofcompanieshaveappraisalsystemsformanagers,while68%haventhemfor
the LOG. Therefore, appraisal systems are used almost as often to motivate LOGs as to motivate
managers.
Overall,foreign‐basedcompaniesaremorelikelytohaveappraisalsystemsfortheLOGsthanDanish‐
based companies. The same is true for appraisal systems formanagers, although this finding is not
statistically significant. In terms of other company characteristics, the analyses show thatUS‐based
companies are more likely to have appraisal systems for both the LOG and managers than other
companies,asarecompaniesthatdevelopglobalHRpoliciesthroughaworldwidebodyandthosethat
systematicallybringHRmanagerstogether.
Morethan25%ofMNCsrelyonappraisalresultsasaformalbasisfordecisionsonredundancyand
redeployment.However,halfofthecompaniesusethemonlyasaninformalinputforsuchdecisions.
This indicates that these important decisions about work life are quite opaque to managers and
employees
Companiesuseawidearrayofcriteriatoassessmanagerialperformance,withthemostpopularbeing
individual output. Groupoutput, competences andbehavior in relation to corporate values are also
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
ConcludingRemarksandSummary
106 124
important. In terms of the characteristics of companies in relation to the various performance
assessment approaches, MNCs originating from Sweden have a significantly lower perceived
importanceofindividualquantitativeoutputtargetsandbehaviorinrelationtocorporatevalues.The
sametendencyisevidentforindividualqualitativeoutputtargets,althoughthisfindingisonlycloseto
significant.ThisisinterestinginaScandinaviancontext,asNordiccountries,especiallySweden,havea
longtraditionofself‐governingteamworkintheworkplace.Thesedataindicatethatthistraditionis
reflectedintheappraisalsystemsofSwedishMNCs.
Evaluation systems along the line of “360‐degree feedback” are used in about two‐thirds of the
companiesforbothmanagersandtheLOGs.Variablepayschemesformanagersareinplacein77%of
thecompanies,while60%usesuchschemesfortheLOG.
Employeeshareownership,profitsharingandshareoptionsarenotverypopularprograms(average
prevalence of 20% formanagers; lower for LOGs (around 10%)) However, companies with an HR
systemthatbringsmanagerstogetherandhome‐basedcompaniesemploythesekindsofincentivesto
ahigherdegree.
Subsidiarydiscretion–payandcountry‐of‐originmatters
Discretion isdefinedas theextent towhich thesubsidiaryhasautonomyoverdifferentareasofHR
policy. In general, the subsidiaries enjoy a high level of discretionwith regards to communication,
employee involvement and employee representation. In one area, however, foreign‐owned
subsidiariesshowabelow‐averagelevelofdiscretion:payandperformance.
Thefact thatdiscretion is lowerwithregardtopayandperformance isnotverysurprising.Pay isa
decisive factor in the relations between management and employees and, because it serves as an
importantmotivator and is also decisive for the profit of the enterprise, it is also a typical area of
conflict. This conflict can be addressed individually (through individual contracts) or collectively
(throughacollectiveagreement),andthetypicalnationalsetupdependsoninstitutionaltraditions.
Ingeneral,countryoforiginmattersfordiscretion.Thedataindicatethatcompaniesoriginatinginthe
USgenerallygrant lessdiscretionto theirsubsidiarieswhencomparedto thepopulation ingeneral.
SubsidiarieswithaSwedishHQenjoyanabove‐averagelevelofdiscretion.
Traininganddevelopment–morepopularinforeign‐basedMNCs
Training expenditure can reflect how companies prioritize investments in human resources and,
indirectly,whethertheyseeinvestmentintheiremployeesascentraltotheaccomplishmentoftheir
goals.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
ConcludingRemarksandSummary
107 124
Investments in training are common in MNCs. Almost 50% spend 1‐4% of their annual employee
compensation expenses on training and development. However, more foreign‐based MNCs spend
morethan4%ontraining–9%offoreign‐basedMNCsspendmorethan4%oftheirannualpaybillon
traininganddevelopment,whilethecorrespondingfigureforDanish‐basedsubsidiariesis0%.
Intermsofcompanycharacteristics,theanalysisshowsthatcompanieswithaglobalHRpolicybody
andasystematicwayofbringingmanagerstogethermakesignificantlymoreinvestmentsintraining
anddevelopment.ThisisagainanindicationthatasystematicHRpolicyinoneareaaffectspoliciesin
otherareas.
Successionplanningisaprocessusedtoidentifyanddevelopmanagementtalentintheorganization
toeventuallysucceedthecurrentmanagement.Thedatashowthatfor43%ofhome‐basedcompanies
have succession planning in place in all or some of their operations. More than 50% have no
successionplanningatall.Forforeign‐basedcompanies,thislatterfigureisslightlylower(49%),while
theamountofforeign‐basedcompanieswithaformalsuccessionplanningsystemisahigher(50%).
The development of talent within an organization can be worthwhile, as the transaction costs
associatedwithbuyingmanagementskillscanbeveryhigh.WhilearelativelyhighnumberofMNCs
do not have a succession plan, they are generally aware of management talent. Almost 70% of
companieshaveamanagementdevelopmentprogramaimedathigh‐potentialemployees.Thesedata
indicatethatmoreresourcesare invested in findingmanagementpotential than inmakingplans for
succession.
Themostpopularwayofdevelopinghigh‐potentialemployeesisthroughformalglobalmanagement
trainingandassessmentsofperformancerelativetoasetofglobalmanagementcompetencies.These
techniquesareusedquiteextensivelyorveryextensivelybyabout35%ofthecompanies.Overall,the
useofthesetechniquesincreaseswhentheMNChasaglobalHRpolicybodyorasystematicapproach
toHR.
Anotheraspectoftraininganddevelopmentis“organizational learning”.Alearningorganizationcan
becharacterizedasonethatfacilitateslearningaswellastransformsitselfanditsresourceswiththe
purpose of remaining competitive. Organizational learning ensures that knowledge stays in the
organization even if employees leave the organization, i.e., the knowledge is not dependent on
individuals. The survey shows that approximately 40% of the companies have a formal policy on
organizationallearning.Again,companieswithaglobalHRpolicybodyandasystematicapproachto
HRaremorelikelytohaveaformalpolicy.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
ConcludingRemarksandSummary
108 124
Internationalprojectgroupsor taskforcesare theprimarymethodsused to facilitateorganizational
learning.Theyareusedinabout80%ofcompanies.Inaddition,internationalinformalnetworksand
expatriate assignments are widely used. Expatriate assignments are most common in home‐based
companies and in companies with a non‐standardized product approach. Overall, 60% of the
companiessurveyedindicatethatinternationalprojectgroupsandtaskforcesarethemostimportant
techniquesused to facilitateorganizational learning.Hands‐onassignmentsmightalsobepartofan
organizationallearningprocess.Amorequalitativequestion,therefore,iswhethersuchtechniquesare
seenasnecessaryad‐hocsolutionsandthatalsomightleadtoorganizationallearning,orwhetherthey
arepartofasystematiclearningsystemdirectedatorganizationallearning.
Overall, there is a clear indication that companies that bring managers together often also have a
coherentstrategyforthedevelopmentofmanagerialpotential,formaintainingthatpotentialandfor
activelyworkingonorganizationallearning.Likewise,companieswithaglobalHRbody,asystematic
HRpolicyora system forbringingmanagers together typicallyusemore resourceson trainingand
development,onsuccessionplanning,andonfindinghigh‐potentialemployees.
Employeeinvolvement–adaptedtolocalcircumstances
EmployeeinvolvementandcommunicationarekeyaspectsofHR.MNCscanimplementdifferentwork
organizations and techniques of direct employee involvement in their services or production, and
employee involvement can serve as a competitive factor in terms of product or service quality.
Communication and information can be important in terms of employee satisfaction and, as such,
mightaffecttheoutputofacompany,andthequalityofitsproductsorservices.
Employee involvement techniquesare seldomstandardizedworldwide–most companies state that
theiremployeeinvolvementpracticesarediverseorvarysubstantially.ThisindicatesthatMNCstend
to adjust their communication strategies locally and/or let local managers determine the
communication strategies. This alsohighlights thenecessity of adjusting the involvementpolicies to
local circumstances, in that MNCs recognize that the same policy may not be relevant for all
subsidiaries.
The most popular technique for employee involvement among the foreign‐owned MNCs is the
establishment of problem‐solving groups and continuous improvement groups. Formal teams are
mostcommonamongthehome‐basedMNCs.However,teamworkorotherinvolvementpracticesand
formallydesignatedteamsareusedinmorethan60%oftheforeign‐ownedMNCs.
Interestingly, foreign‐based MNCs employ problem solving groups and continuous improvement
groups to a higher extent than Danish‐based MNCs. One might expect such groups to be more
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
ConcludingRemarksandSummary
109 124
widespread in Danish based companies, as this type of work organization has a long tradition in
Denmark,butthisisnotthecase.Thefactthatteamworkorotherinvolvementpracticesinoperating
companies outsideDenmark areused significantlymoreby companieswith such cross‐nationalHR
systemsthanbycompaniesthatdonotusesuchsystemindicatesthatotherfactorsthantraditionsfor
acertainworkdesignareatstake.Furtherresearchintothisresultisthereforeneeded.
Various communicationmechanisms are used by the vastmajority of MNCs.When communicating
with LOGs, the most common mechanisms are meetings between managers and line managers,
employee newsletters or emails, and intranet. The communication mechanisms are generally used
more in companies with global HR‐development bodies and those in which HR managers meet
regularly.
The analysis shows that the most common type of information given to an LOG relates to the
company’sfinancialposition,whileinformationoninvestmentplansandstaffingplansareinsecond
andthirdplace,respectively.However,weshouldbearinmindthatthesurveywascarriedoutin2009
at the height of the financial crisis. Accordingly, both management and employees in any private
enterprise could be expected to have been attentive to the economic development of the company,
whichmightexplainthisstudy’sfindingrelatedtothedistributionofinformation.However,itismore
surprising that thererelatively fewcompaniesshare informationonstaffingplans. In themidstofa
financial crisis, onemight expect information on staffing plans and possible restructurings to be of
greatinteresttoemployees.
ThelevelofinformationonfinancesandstaffingplansmightbeexpectedtobehigherinDanish‐based
companies because the country has a long‐standing tradition of well‐functioning cooperative
committees inwhichsuch information is typicallyshared.However, this isnot thecase,as foreign‐
based companies seem to share such informationwith LOGs to a greater extent thanDanish‐based
companies.
Employeerepresentationandconsultation–aninstitutionallysensitiveissue
Employee representation and consultation is traditionally an area highly dependent on national
systemsoflegislation,politics,industrialrelations(IR)andcollectiveagreements,whichdifferwidely
betweencountries.DenmarkhasalongtraditionofhighuniondensityandanIRsysteminwhichthe
socialpartnersplayadecisiverole inregulatingthelabormarketthroughcollectivebargaining.The
levelofemployeerepresentationandconsultationinvolvementisstipulatedintheDanishCooperative
Agreement(Samarbejdsaftalen),andthisisfurthersupportedbyEU‐directivesonconsultationandon
EuropeanWorksCouncils(EWCs).
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
ConcludingRemarksandSummary
110 124
One interesting aspect is whether foreign‐ownedMNCs are likely to adopt the Danish perspective,
especiallywhentheycomefromadifferentsystemforcooperationandconsultation,orwhetherthey
trytoimposetheirowntraditionsonthesubsidiary.Theanalysisshowsthatunionsarerecognizedor
acceptedby thevastmajorityofMNCsoperating inDenmark.Only5%ofMNCsarenot in favorof
unionrecognition.53%adoptacooperativeapproach.
In terms of policies for trade unions outside of Denmark, about half of the companies leave the
decisionuptolocalmanagementandaboutone‐thirdhavenopolicy.Thisindicatesthatcooperation
withunionsisahighlycontext‐sensitiveareathatlocalmanagersareconsideredbestsuitedtohandle.
30%ofMNCsadheretotheminimumlegalrequirementsonemployeeinformationandconsultation,
while 54%of theMNCs go “somewhat” or “considerably” further than the legal requirements. This
mightindicatearatherdeeprespectbyMNCsinDenmarkforlaborrelatedlegislationsandrules.
On issues such as variable payment schemes, in‐work training and direct employee involvement
schemes,companiesconsultordecide jointlywithunionrepresentatives inmorethantwo‐thirdsof
thetime.However,withregardstoworkorganizationandsub‐contracting,themajorityofcompanies
make decisions without consulting union representatives. For work organization, employee
representativesmightbeexpectedtobemoreinvolved,asmanyissuesincollectiveagreementsdeal
with work organization and as this issue directly affects employees. Sub‐contracting, in contrast,
affects employees only indirectly and could be viewed as a management prerogative (although
subcontractingcanhaveseriousconsequencesfortheemploymentatthecompany).
The results also show that more than 80% of the companies hold regular meetings between
managementandemployeerepresentativesforthepurposeofinformationprovisionandconsultation.
In70%ofMNCs,thesemeetingscoverallemployees,althoughtheremaybedifferentarrangements
fordifferentgroups.
WithregardstoEuropeanWorksCouncilsandtheirimpactonemployeeconsultationinDenmark,the
resultsshowthatalmost40%of thecompanieshaveanEWCorasimilarEuropean‐levelstructure,
while40%donot.The former figure issurprisingly low,asmostcompanies in thesurveywouldbe
expectedtomeetthelegalcriteriaunderwhichaEuropeanWorksCouncilisrequired.26
26 Of the estimated 2,264 companies covered by the legislation, some 828 (34%) have EWCs in operation, although thenumberofactiveEWCsishigherbecausesomecompanieshavemorethanone(http://www.etuc.org/a/125).
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
ConcludingRemarksandSummary
111 124
Interestingly, 20% of HR managers do not know if their enterprise has an EWC, and almost 60%
receivedlittleornoinformationabouttheEWCs’activities.Thisindicatesthatemployeeconsultation
onaninternationallevelisnotanimportantissueforHRmanagers.
Companyperformance–highself‐evaluations
The survey asked HR managers about their subjective evaluations of the company’s financial
performance. Questions were asked on the overall performance of the company, product/market
performanceandHRperformance.
Themajorityof theHRmanagers report that their companiesperformverywell,with “outstanding
performance” reported in the vast majority of cases (84% of home‐based managers and 60% of
foreign‐basedmanagers). Product/market performance is ranked highest,whileHR performance is
second and overall financial performance is third. Across the variables, poor performance is only
indicatedinveryfewcases.
HRmanagersinthehome‐basedcompaniesinoursamplegenerallyreportbetterperformancethan
theHRmanagersintheforeign‐basedcompanies,withHRmanagersinUS‐basedcompaniesreporting
thelowestscore.Withregardstotheperformancemeasuresof“turnover”and“customer/client
satisfaction”,thepresenceofasystematicwayofbringingHRmanagerstogetherleadstoalower
evaluationofperformance.Finally,HRperformanceispositivelyaffectedbytheexistenceofaglobal
HRdevelopmentbody.
Theinstitutionalcontext–decisiveforHRpolicies
ManagersofMNCswillencounterdifferentbusinesssystemsastheyinvestinorestablishsubsidiaries
indifferentcountries.WhileabroadrangeofHRpoliciescanbecontrolledwithintheMNCandwhile
manyof those issuesareconsideredpartofmanagement’sprerogative, thecountry’sorganizational
contextis,forthemostpart,beyondtheMNC’scontrol.
“Organizationalcontext”referstothelocalconditionsunderwhichtheMNCoperates,includinglabor
market relations, the labor market legislation, the collective bargaining system, and level of
cooperationbetweenmanagementandemployees.Theseinstitutionalsettingsformaframeworkfor
theHRpolicythatanMNCcanimplementinasubsidiary.Throughoutthisreport,severalreferences
havebeenmadetotheinstitutionalcontextoftheMNCsoperatinginDenmark.Inthenextchapterwe
offersomefutureresearchperspectivesinthisarea.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
FutureResearch
112 124
Chapter11: FutureResearch
CMEsandLMEsinDenmark
Animportant–andwidelydiscussed–approachtotheanalysisoftheinfluenceofinstitutionalcontext
onthecoordinationoftheeconomyistheVarietiesofCapitalism(VoC)approach(seeTextbox7).The
critiqueoftheVoCconceptisoverwhelming,asisthediscussionofwhichcountriesareLMEsorCMEs.
Itisbeyondthescopeofthisreporttogointothisdiscussion.However,inthischapterweindicatethe
possibilitiesforfurtherresearchinthisarea.Incategorizingcountry‐of‐originsinoursample,weuse
Hall and Gingerich (2004). However, we also create a group of “cross‐over” countries in order to
derive“cleaner”archetypaldatatowithwhichtowork.
Withinthesample,wefindamixofforeign‐basedMNCsoriginatedfromLMEsandCMEs.Asdiscussed
inChapter2,theCMEsdominate.Assuch,ourfirstconclusionisthatthemajorityofMNCsoperating
inDenmarkcomefrombusinesssystemssimilartoDanishone.Thisalsomeansthatthepossibilityof
workingin“turbulentareas”betweenMNCs’HRunitsandlocalsubsidiaryHRunitsislimited.Tobe
moreprecise,wewouldonlyexpectsomekindof“turbulence”in30ofthecasesstudiedhere.
Table2:MNCsoperatinginDenmark–accordingtomarketsystems
CoordinatedMarketEconomies(CMEs) Finland(227),Norway(6),Sweden(15),France(5),Germany
(12),Belgium(1),Switzerland(8),Netherlands(2),Japan(2)
LiberalMarketEconomies(LMEs) US(19),India(1), Australia(1),SouthAfrica(1),Israel(1),UK
(7)
Cross‐overEconomies Spain(1),Italy(1),Iceland(2)
Following the arguments of the VoC approach, we should experience some kind of differences in
employmentpracticesbetweenforeignfirmsoperatinginDenmark,depepdingontheirorigin(LMEs
vs.CMEs).Basically,weexpected:
1) MNCsoriginatingfromLMEswillhavea“harder”HRpolicywithloweremployeeinvolvement,
moreindividualizedmanagement‐employeerelationsandalowerlevelofunionrecognition.
2) WheninvestinginsubsidiariesinCMEslikeDenmark,MNCsoriginatingfromLMEswilladhere
to the labor market system in the host country and, as such, there will be no difference
betweentheHRpoliciesinLME‐basedcompaniesandCME‐basedcompanies.
27Numbersinparenthesesindicatethenumberofcompaniesoriginatingfromthecountry.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
FutureResearch
113 124
Textbox7:CMEversusLME
According to the Varieties of Capitalism (VoC)
approach,whichwasintroducedbyHallandSoskise
(2001), the methods firms use to resolve the
coordination problems they face vary across
economic contexts. In liberal market economies
(LMEs), firms solve coordination problems via
“hierarchies ad competitivemarket arrangements”
(Hall and Soskice, 2001: 8). In coordinatedmarket
economies (CMEs), firms depend more on non‐
marketrelationships.
Given these two approaches, what happens when
enterprises from one market system invest in
subsidiaries in another market system? In other
words, what happens if an MNC from an LME
wishestooperateinaCMEorviceversa?Whenan
MNCoriginating fromanLME(e.g., theUK)moves
intoanLMEinstitutionalenvironment(e.g.,theUS),
the situation entails relatively limitedpotential for
conflict. In both countries, theMNCoperates in an
environmentwhere there is a limited tradition for
listeningtoemployeesasacollectiveandemployee
expectations are typically adjusted to this fact.
Hence, clashes are few and limited. The same
applies when an MNC from a CME (e.g., Norway)
comes into contactwith another CME institutional
structure (e.g., Denmark). Actors in northern
Europe expect a relatively high level of employee
empowerment and employment practices often
offer what the employees demand, e.g., a work
design that emphasizes the importance of the
employee.Inbothcases,thedegreeofconvergence
in terms of a common understanding of
management‐employee relations is high and
conflictsarelimited(Hyman,2004).
Table3:WhenLMEsmeetCMEs
Operatingin
LMEsOperatingin
CMEs
OriginatingfromLMEs
NoconflictTurbulence
area
OriginatingfromCMEs
Turbulencearea Noconflict
Thesituationcanbequitedifferent,however,when
an MNC originating from an LME encounters, for
example,anorthernEuropeanIRsystems(atypical
example of a CME), or when an MNC originating
fromaCMEmove intoanLME. In the formercase,
“hard”HRMpolicies(typicalforLMEfirms)tendto
meets an IR system with a tradition of employee
involvement and high union penetration
(Kristensen and Zeitlin, 2005). This creates a
potential for conflict, as described by several
authors analyzing American MNCs operating in
Ireland (see, e.g., Edwards and Ferner, 2002;
Collings et al., 2005; Gunnigle et al., 2005). Less
analyzed are cases where an MNC from a CME
comes into contact with an LME institutional
structure, as would be the case when a northern
EuropeanMNCestablishesanAmericansubsidiary.
This situation does not necessarily lead to conflict
or turbulence, at least not between management
and employees. However, turbulence might arise
between the management of the parent company
and the management of the subsidiary, as the
parent company might enforce “soft” HRM in a
“hard”IRsystem.Theformeris likelytobeanHR‐
approachthat localmanagement isunfamiliarwith
and might even feel is “wrong”.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
FutureResearch
114 124
Usingourdata,wehavetestedthesetwohypothesesandcomparedthefirmsinoursamplealonga
numberofvariousdimensions,rangingfromemployeeinvolvementtoemployeerepresentationand
discretion.Overall, althoughwe findanumberofdifferences inour testsof thesehypotheses,none
werestatisticallysignificant.28Thisisaninterestingfindinginlightofboththeoryandrecentworkin
thearea.Belowwewillelaborateonourfindingsunderthreesub‐headings:communication,employee
representationandcountry‐of‐origin.
Communication
MNCs operating from CMEs would traditionally take all stakeholders into account when making
decisions.Hence,ahigherlevelofinformationontheenterpriselevelwouldbeexpectedincompanies
fromCMEsthaninthosecomingfromLMEs.However,theresultsshowthatthereisnodifferencein
theuseofvarious information‐sharing techniques, suchasmeetingswith theentireworkforce.This
means that the proportion of managers that hold meetings with the entire workforce as a
communicationmechanismincompaniesoriginatingfromCMEcountriesisnotsignificantlydifferent
fromtheproportionofcompaniesoriginatingfromLMEcountries.
Figure11‐1:Communication:MeetingsbetweenManagementandtheWorkforce–LME/CME
For other communications techniques, like meetings between line managers or supervisors and
employees;attitudeandopinionsurveys;suggestionschemes;andsystematicuseofmanagementchains
28Chi‐squaretestsignificantatthe5%level.
81%
19%
83%
17%
Yes No
WhichofthefollowingcommunicationmechanismsareregularlyusedfortheLOGwithin[companyname]in
Denmark?Meetingsbetweenseniormanagersandtheentiretyofthe
workforce
TotalCME TotalLME
Base: Home‐ andForeign‐based (n=81)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
FutureResearch
115 124
to cascade information, the same pattern emerges. There is no significant difference between
companiesoriginatingfromLMEsandCMEs.
In terms of information on more sensitive issues, like the financial position of the company,
investmentplansandstaffingplans,Figures10‐2and10‐3showsimilarresults.
Figure11‐2:TypesofinformationtoLOGsinDK–LME/CME
Figure11‐3:TypesofinformationtoLOGsintheglobalcompany–LME/CME
The expectation that foreign‐based MNCs originated from CMEs share information in general with
employeestoahigherdegreeisnotsupportedbythesedata.
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Financial position of thecompany
Investment plan for thecompany
Staffing plans for thecompany
CME (n = 51‐54) 94% 6% 51% 49% 58% 42%
LME (n = 30) 90% 10% 37% 63% 47% 53%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
WhichofthefollowingtypesofinformationareregularlyprovidedtotheLOGwithin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark?
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Financial position of thecompany
Investment plan for thecompany
Staffing plans for thecompany
CME (n = 46‐50) 88% 12% 41% 59% 36% 64%
LME (n = 30) 77% 23% 23% 77% 17% 83%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
WhichofthefollowingtypesofinformationareregularlyprovidedtotheLOGwithin[COMPANY NAME]intheglobalcompany?
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
FutureResearch
116 124
EmployeeRepresentation
Anevenmoresensitiveissueisemployeerepresentation.Uniondensityandthestrengthofunionsare
oftenconsiderablyhigherinCMEsthaninLMEs.Hence,theexpectationisthatcompaniesoriginating
fromCMEswillbemorelikelytoinvolveunionrepresentativesthancompaniesfromLMEs.Themost
decisivequestionhereisunionrecognition.WhileFigure10‐4showsdifferencesbetweenCMEsand
LMEs,therearetoofewobservationsinourdatasettorunastatisticaltest.
Figure11‐4:Tradeunionrecognition–LME/CME
WithregardtowhetherMNCsinvolveunionsondifferentmattersormakedecisionsontheirown,we
see very little differences between companies from LMEs and CMEs.Due to too few observations,
answersfrom1+2(managementdecidesonitsown)and3+4+5(managementconsultsordecidesjointly
with union representatives) aremerged. As shown in the figures below, though the results are not
statisticalsignificant.
24%
48%
13%
13%
2%
19%
30%
15%
15%
22%
NositesintheDanishoperations
AllsitesintheDanishoperations
MostsitesintheDanishoperations
SomesitesintheDanishoperations
Thecompany'ssingleDanishsite
ThinkingoftheLOGin[COMPANY NAME]inDenmark,aretradeunionsrecognised forthepurposesofcollective
employeerepresentationat?
LME CME
Base: Foreign‐based (n=81)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
FutureResearch
117 124
Figure11‐5:Unilateralorbi‐lateralmanagementdecisions–LME/CME(workorganization)
Figure11‐6:Unilateralorbi‐lateralmanagementdecisions–LME/CME(Sub‐contractingandoutsourcing)
59%
41%
63%
37%
Managementdecidesonitsown Managementconsultsordecidesjointlywithunionrepresentatives
WhichbestdescribesthepolicytowardsworkingwithunionsonthefollowingmattersrelatingtotheLOG:
workorganization
CME(n=39) LME(n=19)
85%
15%
74%
26%
Managementdecidesonitsown Managementconsultsordecidesjointlywithunionrepresentatives
WhichbestdescribesthepolicytowardsworkingwithunionsonthefollowingmattersrelatingtotheLOG:
Sub‐contractingandoutsourcing
CME(n=39) LME(n=19)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
FutureResearch
118 124
Figure11‐7:Unilateralorbi‐lateralmanagementdecisions–LME/CME(variablepayschemes)
Figure11‐8:Unilateralorbi‐lateralmanagementdecisions–LME/CME(in‐worktraining/upgradingskills)
41%
59%
16%
84%
Managementdecidesonitsown Managementconsultsordecidesjointlywithunionrepresentatives
WhichbestdescribesthepolicytowardsworkingwithunionsonthefollowingmattersrelatingtotheLOG:
Variablepaymentschemes
CME(n=39) LME(n=19)
30%
70%
25%
75%
Managementdecidesonitsown Managementconsultsordecidesjointlywithunionrepresentatives
WhichbestdescribesthepolicytowardsworkingwithunionsonthefollowingmattersrelatingtotheLOG:
In‐worktraining/upgradingskills
CME LME
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
FutureResearch
119 124
Figure11‐9:Unilateralorbi‐lateralmanagementdecisions–LME/CME(directemployeeinvolvementschemes)
Althoughnoneoftheresultsarestatisticallysignificant,someoftheresultspointindirectionsthatare
contrarytoexpectations.Forexample,itmightbeexpectedthatvariablepayschemeswouldbemore
unilaterally used in MNCs originating from LMEs. However, the data indicate the opposite: while
management decides on its own in 41%of the CME companies, it does so in only 16%of the LME
companies. Furthermore, 84% of the LME‐based companies consult or decide jointly with union
representatives.
Countryoforigin–norelevanceinaDanishcontext?
Overall, we might conclude that there are no statistically significant differences between MNCs
originating from LMEs and CMEs with regards to their levels and kinds of employee involvement,
communicationandunionrecognition.This isa strong indication thatMNCsadjust theiroverallHR
policiestothelocalDanishconditionstoaveryhighdegreeandthattheDanishbusinessmodelseems
tobeabletoforceMNCstoadheretothegeneralrulesofthegameontheDanishlabormarket.Thisis
alsoconfirmedbythefactthat58%ofthecompanieshaveapolicytogoconsiderablyorsomewhat
furtherthanthelegalrequirementsofthehostcountry.
38%
62%
37%
63%
Managementdecidesonitsown Managementconsultsordecidesjointlywithunionrepresentatives
Whichbestdescribesthepolicytowardsworkingwithunionsonthefollowingmattersrelatingtothe[LOG
NAME]:Directemployeeinvolvementschemes
CME(n=34) LME(n=19)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
FutureResearch
120 124
Figure11‐10:PolicytowardsLocalLegalRequirements
However, this is only the HR managers’ view of the situation. More comprehensive qualitative
analyses,whichencompassviewsfrommanagersandemployeerepresentatives,indicatethatforeign
ownershipchangesHRpoliciesandmanagement‐employeerelations,albeitinthe“softer”areas(see
Textbox8).Thesepartlycontradictorydataindicateaneedformoredetailedresearchonthisissue.
Thecomprehensiveinternationaldatabasecoveringninecountrieswillundoubtedlybeofgreatvalue
for further research, not least because several of the results from the Danish survey are not
statistically significantbecause thereare too fewobservations.Givenabiggerdatabase, researchers
willbeabletorunteststhatmightmakeborder‐lineresultsmoreconcrete.
12%
30%
58%
5%
37%
58%
Thereisnopolicy Minimumcompliancewithlegalrequirements
Togosomewhat/orconsiderablyfurtherthan
legalrequirements
Whichofthefollowingstatementscomesclosesttocapturingthecompany’sglobalpolicy?
CME LME
Base: Home‐ andForeign‐based (n=62)
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
FutureResearch
121 124
Textbox8:ForeignownershipchangesHRpoliciesandmanagement‐employeerelations
In countries with CMEs, Industrial Relations
systems are centered on high trust between the
state,employerandemployeeorganizations,which
has been built and sustained over the years.
However, by employing HQ‐originated work
organization practices, foreign investors might
undermine this trust, questioning the resilience of
the IRsystems.Yet,weknowrelatively littleabout
how a particular company‐wide initiative is
implemented and operationalized in highly
regulated countries. The paper by Navrbjerg and
Minbaeva published in International Journal of
Human Resource Management contributes to this
gapbyanalyzingwhetherandhowachangeinwork
organization practices following a takeover by a
MNCaffectsthelocalIRsysteminCMEs.
The authors analyzed four enterprises located in
Denmarkovera10‐yearperiodtoshedlightonhow
the cooperation at the enterprise level and
consequently,theDanishIRsystem,areaffectedby
the foreign takeovers. The companieswere visited
three times: in1995;2001;and2005.For the first
investigation, the four companies were chosen
becausetheyhadinterestingHRrelationsandwork
organizations (teamwork, just‐in‐time, totalquality
managementetc.)andnot least,HRM,whichatthe
timewasarelativelynewconceptinDenmark.The
purposeoftheinvestigationwastoexplorehowthe
Danish IRsystemmatched thesenewmanagement
concepts.All companieswere industrialplantsand
as such the classical arena for industrial relations.
Moreover, thecompanieswerechosen fromapool
of companies that had presented themselves as
vanguards of HRM issues at conferences, in the
media,etc.Assuch,theywerethoughtofaspossible
benchmarks for the development of HRM in a
Danish context. Another parameter was that
companies were big enough to employ an HRM
manager.
Methodologically speaking, the two later
investigationswere spin‐offs from the first one.At
thetimeofthefirstinvestigation,allfourcompanies
wereDanishowned,andat leasttwoofthemwere
onthevergeofbecomingMNCs,buyingsubsidiaries
in other countries. When the companies were
revisitedin2001,threeofthefourhadbeenbought
byforeignMNCsandthelastoneremainedDanish.
There were some interesting dynamics in the
interplay between the HQ‐originated HR and the
DanishIRsystem.Thispushedtheauthorstorefine
the original goals of the study and focus on the
consequencesofmanagerialinterventionsfollowing
acquisitions (in the form of the imposedHRM) on
the cooperation and IR system locally. All the
companies were revisited in 2005 when the HR
relationswereexpectedtohavestabilizedafterthe
turmoil of the takeovers. The authors kept the
fourthcompanythatdidnotexperiencechanges in
theownershipasacontrolsincethatallowedthem
tomake sure that the observed changes were not
caused by the general development in Danish
economyorchanges inthedynamicsoftheDanish
labormarket.
Theanalysis in1995wasthemostcomprehensive:
15 to 18 interviews were carried out within each
enterprise, with top management, middle
management, union representatives and rank and
file employees.All in all, 73 interviewsweremade
in the four enterprises in 1995. The interviews in
2000 and 2005 were less comprehensive. Then,
three to five interviews with main actors like HR
managersandshopstewardswerecarriedoutin
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
FutureResearch
122 124
each enterprise. In 2000, 14 interviews were
carried out in three enterprises, and in 2005, 16
interviews in four enterprises. In total 103
interviewswereconductedovera10‐yearperiod.
It was found that none of the MNCs studied tried
directlytointerfereinthelocalIR.Toahighdegree,
management seems to accept the Danish written
and unwritten rules of the game. Neither local
management nor employees could point out
situationswheretheMNCHQhadtriedtoquestion
thecollectiveagreementreached.
Still, a number of HQ initiatives that are within
management prerogative indirectly affect relations
between employees and local management. In the
long run, theymay affect the collective bargaining
systemassuch.Inparticular,theresultsshowthata
shift from a stakeholder to shareholder
management style and the increaseddegree ofHQ
control have an effect on the whole co‐operative
atmosphere in each of the companies. To changes
like these, employees first react with increased
absenteeism and consequently turnover. If the
employees' 'voice' is unheard and foreign
management continues tightening up work
organizational practices, employees pull back
flexibility which was previously reached in local
agreements between management and employees'
representatives. That jeopardizes the fine‐tuned
balance achieved between the centralized and
decentralizedagreementsthatareatthecoreofthe
Danish IR. So, by exercising their management
prerogative, the MNC management disturbs the
finely tuned balance between management and
employees to such a degree that it undermines a
long and strong tradition for cooperation, possibly
giving rise to long‐term consequences for national
IRsystems.
Source:Navrbjerg,S.andMinbaeva,D.(2009)HRM
and IR in Multinational Corporations: Uneasy
Bedfellows? International Journal of Human
ResourceManagement,20(8),pp.1720‐1736
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
AppendixI:TheQuestionnaires
123 124
AppendixI:TheQuestionnaires
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 1
SURVEY OF EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES OF MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES OPERATING IN DENMARK
Home-based – English version
SECTION A: INTRODUCTION
Please select a language: English ............ 1 Danish .................. 2 First page:
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES OF MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES Welcome to the survey! The completion of the survey is expected to take about 30-40 minutes. You can stop any time, save your entries and resume the completion of the survey later. You can navigate forward and backward by using the arrows at the top and the bottom of the page. We highly recommend saving the survey after completion of each page. Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in this study.
A1. Can you confirm that the company is wholly or majority Danish-owned? By “majority owned” we
mean at least 50% is owned by a Danish-based company Yes .................. 1 No ........................ 2
IF NO REVERT TO PAGE ASKING FOR CONTACT INFO Page for contact info: To the previous question you replied that your company is not majority Danish owned (that at least 50% is owned by a overseas-based company). If this is correct, please write your name and e-mail below and we will invite you to the survey of overseas-owned firms operating in Denmark. If your company is majority Danish-owned please return to the previous page and correct your response to the previous question. [box name] [box E-mail] If the ownership structure is more complicated please contact us by entering your message and email below. Please click finish to submit your response. [box name] [box e-mail] [box message] Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in this study. A2. What is the name of the ultimate controlling company you work for? ____________________________________________________________ A3. Are you located at? The global HQ of the worldwide company ........... .............. 1
The HQ of the operating units in Denmark ............... ......... 2
Other (please specify) _______________ ............................... 3
[COMPANY NAME]
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 2
A4. What is your job title?
HR/Personnel Director………………………………..…………... 1 HR/Personnel Senior Manager/ Manager……………………….... 2 HR/Personnel Senior Officer……………………………….……... 3 HR/Personnel Officer………...…………………………………… 4 HR/Personnel Executive………………………………………….. 5 HR/Personnel Assistant……………..……………………………. 6 Other (please specify) _______________………………………... 7 A5. For which of the following policy levels do you have any HR responsibilities: Tick all that apply
Global HR policy…………………............... 1 Regional HR policy………......................... 2 HR policy in Denmark……........ 3 Other (please specify) __________…........ 4
A6. How long have you worked for [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? Please write number of years. _________________________ In the rest of the questionnaire when we ask you questions about [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark, we would like you to think of all operation units in Denmark. A7. In how many foreign countries does the company have operating sites? 1 country………………………………….…... ...... 1 2 – 5 countries………...…….………………… ..... 2 6 or more countries…………………………… ..... 3 A8. Does [company name] in Denmark have? 1 site………………………………….…... ............. 1 2 – 5 sites………...…….………………… ............. 2 6 or more sites…………………………… ............. 3 A9. What is the total number of employees worldwide including Denmark by headcount?
Up to 99 employees …………... .......................... 1 100 – 499 employees…………... ......................... 2
500 – 999 employees…………... ......................... 3 1,000 – 4,999 employees………. ........................ 4 5,000 – 29.999 employees………….…... ............ 5 30.000 – 59.999 employees………….…... .......... 6 60.000 +……….………….…... ............................. 7 A10. What is the total number of employees by headcount in the following geographical regions?
Denmark Europe (excluding Denmark) North America Asia-Pacific Rest of the world
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 3
Up to 99 employees …………... .......................... 1 100 – 499 employees…………... ......................... 2
500 – 999 employees…………... ......................... 3 1,000 – 4,999 employees………. ........................ 4 5,000 + employees………….…... ........................ 5
None ... ……….….. .............................. 6 Don’t know ....... … ……….…... ........... 7
A11. Please estimate the approximate number of employees in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark in each
of the following core functions
Number
Research & Development (R&D) .................... _________
Manufacturing Operations ................................ _________
Sales and Marketing ......................................... _________
Customer Service ............................................. _________
Business Services (finance, IT, payroll, etc) .... _________
Other ................................................................. _________ A12. When was the company first established? Please write the year ____________ A13. What year did it establish its first foreign operation? Thinking of the first significant investment outside of Denmark– ignoring minor sales presence. _____________ A14. How many of the top five management positions in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark are filled by
individuals from outside Denmark? 1..... ................ . 1 2 ............ .......... 2 3..... ............... .. 3 4...... ................ 4 5 ...................... 5 None .............. 6
Don’t know ..... 7 A15. To what degree (percentage) has the following changed in the worldwide company in the last 3 years? Can be both positive and negative. Only approximate numbers are necessary.
Number of employees ______________ (%) Sales ______________ (%)
A16. Approximately what percentage of revenues of [COMPANY NAME] comes from sales abroad?
0% ...................................................... 1 1-25% ................................................. 2 26-50% ............................................... 3 51-75% ............................................... 4 76-100% ............................................. 5 Don’t know .......................................... 6
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 4
A17. Is the worldwide company state or partly state owned? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 Don’t Know ....... 3 A18. Is the worldwide company privately owned or are its shares publicly traded? Privately owned ........................... 1 Publicly traded ............... 2
A19. Which of the following statements best describes [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? The company produces…
1 A single product or service that accounts for more than 90% of sales
2 A number of products and services but one of these accounts for between 70% and 90% of sales
3 A number of products and services but no single one of these accounts for more than 70% of sales
4 A range of unrelated products and services
5 Don’t know A20. Which of the following statements best describes the worldwide operations? The worldwide company produces…
1 A single product or service that accounts for more than 90% of sales
2 A number of products and services but one of these accounts for between 70% and 90% of sales
3 A number of products and services but no single one of these accounts for more than 70% of sales
4 A range of unrelated products and services
5 Don’t know A21. Is the worldwide company‟s most important product, service or brand (or group of products,
services or brands)? Help: With „most important‟ we want you to think of the product, service or brand that generates the most revenue.
Adapted significantly to national markets ............................................................... 1 Adapted to different regions of the world but standardised within them ................. 2 Standardised globally ............................................................................................. 3 Don’t know .............................................................................................................. 4 A22. Are any of the components, products and services of [company name] in Denmark produced for operations of the worldwide company based outside Denmark?
Yes – all.......................................... 1 Yes – some but not all..................... 2 No – none....................................... 3 Don’t know...................................... 4
A23. Do other parts of the worldwide company supply components, products or services to [company name] in Denmark?
Yes........................... 1 No........................... 2 Don’t know................ 3
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 5
SECTION B: WORKFORCE COMPOSITION
Throughout the questionnaire the focus will be on your policies and practices in relation to the following two main groups of staff.
B1. Approximately how many managers are there in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?
0 .................................... 1 1 – 9 .............................. 2 10 – 24 .......................... 3 25 – 49 .......................... 4 50 – 99 .......................... 5 100 – 249 ...................... 6 250 – 499 ...................... 7 500 – 749 ..................... 8 750 – 999 ...................... 9 1000 – 2999 .................. 10 3000 – 4999 .................. 11 5000+ ............................ 12 Don’t Know .................... 13
B2. Approximately, how many LOG are there in [company name] in Denmark? Help: This includes staff who work regularly, but excludes occasional staff. By regularly we mean there is a mutual expectation that the employee works on an ongoing basis for your company
0 .................................... 1 1 – 9 .............................. 2 10 – 24 .......................... 3 25 – 49 .......................... 4 50 – 99 .......................... 5 100 – 249 ...................... 6 250 – 499 ...................... 7 500 – 749 ..................... 8 750 – 999 ...................... 9 1000 – 2999 .................. 10 3000 – 4999 .................. 11 5000+ ............................ 12 Don’t Know .................... 13
1. Managers - employees who primarily manage the organisation, or a department, subdivision,
function, or component of the organisation and whose main tasks consist of the direction and coordination of the functioning of the organisation. In other words managers refer to those above the level of first-line supervision.
2. The LOG (largest occupational group) – the largest non-managerial occupational group among
the employees in the ‘headcount’ in Denmark. For example, in a manufacturing business it might be semi-skilled operators, and in an insurance company it might be call centre staff.
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 6
SECTION C. THE HR FUNCTION
C1. What percentage of the managers spends the majority of their time on HR matters in [COMPANY
NAME] in Denmark? ___________ (%) C2. On which of the following issues is information on the operating units in Denmark monitored by
management in a higher organizational level? Help: By "a higher organizatonal level" we mean e.g. senior management in Denmark, international business HQ, European HQ (in Denmark or elsewhere) or global HQ. Please tick all that apply Managerial pay packages…………………………………………………... ............... 1 Management career progression…………………………………………… .............. 1 Overall labour costs………………………………………………………... ................. 1 Numbers employed (headcount)……………………………………………............... 1 Staff turnover………………………………………………………………. .................. 1 Absenteeism………………………………………………………………… ................ 1 Labour productivity………………………………………………………… .................. 1 Workforce composition by diversity (e.g. gender, ethnicity, disability etc. ..................................................................... 1 Employee attitude and satisfaction…………………………………………. .............. 1 None of these ......................................................................................................... 1
Don’t know .............................................................................................................. 1 Other (please specify)____________________ .................................................... 1 C3. On which of the following issues is information on the operating units outside Denmark monitored by management in a higher organizational level? Help: By "a higher organizatonal level" we mean e.g. senior management in Denmark, international business HQ, European HQ (in Denmark or elsewhere) or global HQ.
Please tick all that apply Managerial pay packages…………………………………………………... ............... 1 Management career progression…………………………………………… .............. 1 Overall labour costs………………………………………………………... ................. 1 Numbers employed (headcount)……………………………………………............... 1 Staff turnover………………………………………………………………. .................. 1 Absenteeism………………………………………………………………… ................ 1 Labour productivity………………………………………………………… .................. 1 Workforce composition by diversity (e.g. gender, ethnicity, disability etc. ..................................................................... 1 Employee attitude and satisfaction…………………………………………. .............. 1 None of these ......................................................................................................... 1
Don’t know .............................................................................................................. 1 Other (please specify)____________________ .................................................... 1 C4. Is there a body within the worldwide company, such as a committee of senior managers, that
develops HR policies that apply across countries?
1 Go to C5 2 Go to C6 3 Go to C6
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 7
C5. Is there someone from outside Denmark on this body/committee? Yes ................... 1 No ......................... 2 Don’t know……… 3 C6. Are HR managers from different countries brought together in a systematic way?
Yes – on a global basis 1 Yes – on a regional basis 2 No 3 4 C7. How frequently does contact between HR managers in different countries take place through any
of the following mechanisms:
Weekly Monthly Quarterly Annually Other Ad hoc Never
Regular meetings ........................... ............. 1 .......... 2 .......... 3 ......... 4 ...... 5 .......... 6 ....... 7 International Conferences .............. ............. 1 .......... 2 .......... 3 ......... 4 ...... 5 .......... 6 ....... 7 Task Forces .................................... ............. 1 .......... 2 .......... 3 ......... 4 ...... 5 .......... 6 ....... 7 Virtual Groups e.g. conference calls ............ 1 .......... 2 .......... 2 ......... 4 ...... 5 .......... 6 ....... 7
Now think about your company‟s approach concerning its management of employees. C8. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements. Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly N/A Don’t Disagree agree nor Agree know disagree
There is a worldwide approach covering all global operations………. ................................ 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7
There is a regional approach covering all European operations ...................................... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7
The development of a specific approach is left to international product, service or brand based divisions .................................... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7
The development of a specific approach is left to national operating companies .............. 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7
The approach is really a mix of the traditions of the different national operating companies .... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7
Traditions in the country of origin have an overriding influence on the approach to the management of employees……… ........... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7
C9. Have the operating companies outside Denmark provided any new practices in the following
areas that have been taken up elsewhere in the worldwide company:
No Yes, Yes, Yes, Don’t in a few parts in major taken Know of the firm businesses up globally
Pay and performance management .................. 1 ........... 2 ................. 3 ............. 4 .............. 5
Training, development and
organisational learning ............................. 1 ........... 2 ................. 3 ............. 4 .............. 5
Employee involvement and communication ...... 1 ........... 2 ................. 3 ............. 4 .............. 5
Employee representation and consultation........ 1 ........... 2 ................. 3 ............. 4 .............. 5
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 8
SECTION D. PAY AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
D1. Is there a system of regular formal appraisal for each of the following groups of employees in
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? Yes No Don’t know
For LOG ........................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3 For MANAGERS ............................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
IF NEITHER STAFF GROUP IS CODED „YES‟ GO TO D7
IF ONLY ONE CODED „YES‟ GO TO D2
IF BOTH STAFF GROUPS ARE CODED „YES‟ GO TO D2
D2. Is a „forced distribution‟ applied to the results of appraisals for the following employee groups in
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? Help: By forced distribution we mean a certain % of employees have to be in a particular performance category or rating, e.g. 10% are poor performers, 70% are reasonable performers, and 20% are top performers Please include formal and informal policy.
Yes No Don’t know
For LOG ........................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3 For MANAGERS ............................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
IF NEITHER STAFF GROUP IS CODED „YES‟ GO TO D4
IF ONLY ONE CODED „YES‟ GO TO D3
IF BOTH STAFF GROUPS ARE CODED „YES‟ GO TO D3
D3. What is the top and bottom percentages of this forced distribution for each of the following
employee groups in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? For LOG: ............................................. Top __________% Bottom _______% For MANAGERS: ................................ Top __________% Bottom _______%
Don’t know (For managers Top)............ 1
Don’t know (For managers Bottom) ...... 1
Don’t know (For LOG Top).................... 1
Don’t know (For LOG Bottom)............... 1
D4. Is a formal system of „360-degree‟ feedback used in evaluating performance of any of these groups of employees in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?
Yes No Don’t know
For LOG .............................. 1 ............. 2 ..................... 3 For MANAGERS ................. 1 ............. 2 ..................... 3
D5. Are the outcomes of performance appraisal used as inputs in decisions on redundancy and redeployment in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? Yes, Yes, No N/A Don’t know as a formal input as an informal input in decisions in decisions
For LOG ........................................... 1 ............... ................ 2 ................ 3 ............. 4 .......... 5 For MANAGERS ............................... 1 ............... ................ 2 ................ 3 ............. 4 .......... 5
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 9
D6. Thinking about the MANAGERS in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark, on a scale of 1-5 how important are the following kinds of performance evaluation?
Not at all important Very important Don’t know
Individual quantitative output targets………. ........... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 .... ......... ... 6
(e.g. financial, numerical)
Individual qualitative output targets ………. ............ 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 .... ......... ... 6
(e.g. completion of a task)
Group output targets ………. ................................... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5................. 6
(e.g. for site or business unit)
‘Competences’ or personal skills ………. ............... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5................. 6
(e.g. leadership or innovation skills)
Behaviour in relation to corporate ‘values’ ............ … 1 ........ 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5................. 6
D7. Does [not answered] in Denmark offer employee share ownership, profit sharing or share
options to any employees in each of these groups?
Employee share ownership Profit Sharing Share Options Yes No Don’t Yes No Don’t Yes No Don’t Know Know Know
For LOG Name ............. 1 ....... 2 .......... 3 ................... 1 ...... 2 ...... 3 ............. 1 ....... 2 .... 3
Employee share ownership Profit Sharing Share Options Yes No Don’t Yes No Don’t Yes No Don’t Know Know Know
For managers ................ 1 ....... 2 .......... 3 ................... 1 ...... 2 ...... 3 ............. 1 ....... 2 .... 3
D8. Is there variable pay for the following groups in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? Help: By variable pay we mean merit pay, performance related pay, performance related bonuses or payment by results.
Yes No Don’t Know
For LOG .............................. 1 ................... 2 ................... 3
For MANAGERS .................. 1 ................... 2 ................... 3 IF „YES‟ FOR LOG AT D8, ASK D9, IF „NO‟, GO TO D10
Help: 1. Approved employee share ownership scheme is where the organisation establishes a trust which
acquires shares on behalf of employees and provides employees with part ownership of the company. 2. Profit sharing refers to rewards given to employees in addition to normal salary and bonuses which are
dependent on the levels of profit in the business.
3. Share options is where employees are given the option of buying company shares, often at a reduced rate
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 10
D9. For LOG receiving variable pay in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark, how important are each of the following factors in determining variable pay?
Not at all important Very important Don’t know
Individual performance ………. ...................... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ............... .......... 6
Work group performance
(e.g. team or departmental performance)…… 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ............... .......... 6
Organizational performance
(e.g. site, region, company) ………. .............. 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ............... .......... 6
D10. Using the scale below, to what extent do operating companies outside of Denmark have
discretion over the determination of the following aspects of pay and performance policy? The operating companies outside Denmark have... Use codes 1-5 N/A Don’t know
Relating pay levels in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark
to market comparators (e.g. aiming to be in top quartile .. ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6
Employee share ownership schemes in
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark....................................... ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6
Performance appraisal system:
For managers…………………............................ ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6
For LOG . ........................................... ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6
Variable payments scheme:
For managers…………………............................ ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6
For LOG…… …… .................................... ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6
N/A: There is “no typical” situation: the level of discretion varies widely across different overseas operations
1 2 3 4 5
The operating companies outside Denmark have no discretion (must implement policy set by a higher organisational level such as corporate or regional HQ).
The operating companies outside Denmark have a little discretion.
The operating companies outside Denmark have some discretion (can develop policy within the guidelines/framework set by a higher organisational level).
The operating companies outside Denmark have quite a lot of discretion.
The operating companies outside Denmark have full discretion (can set own policy).
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 11
D11. Using the scale below, to what extent does [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark have discretion over the determination of the following aspects of pay and performance policy?
The operating company in Denmark have... Use codes 1-5 N/A Don’t know
Relating pay levels in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark
to market comparators (e.g. aiming to be in top quartile .. ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6
Employee share ownership schemes in
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark....................................... ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6
Performance appraisal system:
For MANAGERS………………… ....................... ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6
For LOG… ………… ............................. ___________ .............. 7 ............................. 6
Variable payments scheme:
For MANAGERS………………… ....................... ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6
For LOG………… ........................................... ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6
N/A: There is no clear separation between higher levels of management (e.g. international business HQ, European HQ or global HQ) and management of the Danish operations.
1 2 3 4 5
The operating company in Denmark have no discretion (must implement policy set by a higher organizational level such as corporate or regional HQ).
The operating company in Denmark have a little discretion.
The operating company in Denmark have some discretion (can develop policy within the guidelines/ framework set by a higher organisational level).
The operating company in Denmark have quite a lot of discretion.
The operating company in Denmark have full discretion (can set own policy).
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 12
E. TRAINING, DEVELOPMENT AND ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING
E1. What percentage of the annual pay bill in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark was spent on training and development for all employees over the past 12 months?
0% ............................................ 1 Up to 1% .................................. 2 Over 1% and less than 4% ...... 3 Over 4% ................................... 4
Don’t Know………………………5 E2. Thinking of [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark is there a formal system of succession planning for
senior managers?
Yes in all operations................. 1 Go to E3
Yes in some operations ........... 2 Go to E3
No ........................................... 3 Go to E4
Don’t Know .............................. 4 Go to E4 E3. Is this system also used in other parts of the worldwide company? Yes in all operations................. 1 Yes in some operations ........... 2 No ........................................... 3 Don’t Know ............................... 4 E4. Does [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark have a management development programme specifically
aimed at developing its „high potentials‟ or senior management potential?
Yes in all operations................. 1 Go to E5
Yes in some operations ........... 2 Go to E5
No ........................................... 3 Go to E6
Don’t Know ............................... 4 Go to E6 E5. Is this system also used in other parts of the worldwide company? Yes in all operations................. 1 Yes in some operations ........... 2 No ........................................... 3 Don’t Know ............................... 4 E6. How extensively are each of the following techniques used for the development of these
managers in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?
1 2 3 4 5
Not used at all A little use Some use Used quite extensively
Used very extensively
Use codes 1-5 Don’t know N/A
Short term International assignments (12 months or less) ... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7
Long term international assignments (more than 12 months) ____________ ............ 6 ....................... 7
Formal global management training ...................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7
Assessment of performance against a set of global management competencies ......................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7
Qualifications programme (e.g. MBA, professional qualifications) .......................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 13
E7. How many expatriates from the company‟s foreign operations are currently working on long-
term assignments (i.e. more than 12 months) in Denmark? Please include all types of long-term assignments for any purpose.
Type 0 if none. Help: Expatriates in this question refers to employees from operating companies outside Denmark who are currently working on assignment in Denmark.
Number………. 2 _______ Don’t know………. 1 E8. How many expatriates from [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark are currently working on long-term (i.e.
more than 12 months) assignments overseas? Please include all types of long-term assignments for any purpose.
Type 0 if none. Help: Expatriates in this question refers to employees of the company‟s operations in Denmark who are currently on assignment in operations of the worldwide company abroad.
Number………. 2 _______ Don’t know………. 1 E9. To what extent do you agree with each of the following statements for LOG in [COMPANY NAME] in
Denmark: Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree agree nor Agree know disagree
On-the-job learning (experience gained on the job) is more valuable than off-the-job classroom training and development ………. .......... 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6
Investment in training is critical to either
developing or retaining key skills in this company …. 1 ......... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6
E10. To what extent do you agree with each of the following statements for MANAGERS in [COMPANY
NAME] in Denmark:
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree agree nor Agree know disagree
Our company favours internal promotion over
external management recruitment ………. .............. 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6
International experience is a key criterion
for career progression at senior levels. ………. ...... 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6 In this section you will be asked about the mechanisms you use for organisational learning on an international level. By this we mean mechanisms used to create new knowledge involving MANAGERS from different country operations or to transfer knowledge across the international organisation. E11. Thinking of [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark is there a formal policy on organisational learning?
Yes in all operations ........... 1 Go to E12
Yes in some operations ...... 2 Go to E12
No ....................................... 3 Go to E13
Don’t Know ......................... 4 Go to E13
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 14
E12. Is this system also used in other parts of the worldwide company? Yes in all operations................. 1 Yes in some operations ........... 2 No ........................................... 3 Don’t Know ............................... 4 IF ANSWERED “YES” TO E12: E13. To what extent is the organizational learning policy for the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark and the
worldwide company similar? Not at all similar Highly similar Don’t know
....................................................................... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ............... .......... 6
E14. Thinking about managers, do [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark use any of the following to facilitate
international organisational learning?
Yes No Don‟t Know
Expatriate assignments………………………. ....................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
International project groups or task forces ............................................ 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
International formal committees’ ........................................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
International informal networks ............................................................. 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
Secondments to other organisations internationally (e.g. to suppliers, customers, universities, private R&D facilities) ........ 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
[ONLY ASK E15 IF MORE THAN ONE „YES‟ CODED IN E14. OTHERWISE GO TO E16] (E15. Which of these is the most important international organisational learning mechanism used by
MANAGERS within [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?
Expatriate assignments………………………. ....................................... 1
International project groups or task forces ............................................ 2
International formal committees’ ........................................................... 3
International informal networks ............................................................. 4
Secondments to other organisations internationally (e.g. to suppliers, customers, universities, private R&D facilities) ........ 5
Don’t know ............................................................................................ 6
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 15
E16. Using the scale below, to what extent do operating companies outside of Denmark as a whole have discretion over the determination of the following training and development policies? The operating companies outside Denmark have…
Use codes 1-5 Don’t N/A Know
Training and development policy ...................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7
Policy on organisational learning ...................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7
Policy on succession planning for senior managers ........ ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7
N/A: There is no “typical” situation: the level of discretion varies widely across different overseas operations
E17. Using the scale below, to what extent do [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark have discretion over
determining the following training and development policies?
The operating company in Denmark have…
Use codes 1-5 Don’t N/A Know
Training and development policy ...................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7
Policy on organisational learning ...................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7
Policy on succession planning for senior MANAGERS___________.................... 6 ....................... 7
N/A: There is no clear separation between higher levels of management (e.g. international business HQ, European HQ or global HQ) and management of the Danish operations.
1 2 3 4 5
The operating companies outside Denmark have no discretion (must implement policy set by a higher organisational level such as corporate or regional HQ).
The operating companies outside Denmark have a little discretion.
The operating companies outside Denmark have some discretion (can develop policy within the guidelines/framework set by a higher organisational level).
The operating companies outside Denmark have quite a lot of discretion.
The operating companies outside Denmark have full discretion (can set own policy).
1 2 3 4 5
The operating company in Denmark have no discretion (must implement policy set by a higher organizational level such as corporate or regional HQ).
The operating company in Denmark have a little discretion.
The operating company in Denmark have some discretion (can develop policy within the guidelines/ framework set by a higher organisational level).
The operating company in Denmark have quite a lot of discretion.
The operating company in Denmark have full discretion (can set own policy).
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 16
F. EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNICATION
This section is about policies on employee involvement and communication, starting with the involvement of employees in the work process. F1. Could you tell me whether you use the following practices in relation to the LOG in [COMPANY
NAME] in Denmark?
Yes No Don‟t Know
Formally designated teams in which employees have responsibility for organising their work and carrying out a set of tasks ...................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
Groups where employees discuss issues of quality, production or service delivery such as problem-solving or continuous improvement groups………………………. ......................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
F2. Which of the following most closely corresponds to the pattern of employee involvement in
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?
An identical or similar pattern exists across all or most sites ................................................... 1
All or most sites have involvement systems, but they differ from site to site ............................ 2
Some sites have involvement systems while others do not ..................................................... 3
Not applicable (1 site only in Denmark] .................................................................................... 4
Don’t Know ............................................................................................................................. … 5 F3. How important have each of the following been in providing examples of employee involvement that have been taken up in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?
Not drawn Source of very on at all important examples
Specific practices elsewhere in the worldwide
company… ................................................................. . ............. 1 ........... 2 .......... 3 ....... 4 ....... 5
Formal model of good practice codified
elsewhere in worldwide company ........................ ………. ....... 1 ........... 2 .......... 3 ....... 4 ....... 5
Examples drawn from other firms ………. .................. ............. 1 ........... 2 .......... 3 ....... 4 ....... 5 F4. Does [COMPANY NAME] regularly use teamwork or other employee involvement practices in your operating companies outside Denmark? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 Don’t Know ....... 3 F5. Would you say that practices in relation to employee involvement in the worldwide company are: Very similar across all operations .......... .......................... 1 Broadly similar but with some variations .......................... 2 Similar to some extent but with substantial variations ................ 3 Fairly diverse ......... ...................... .......................... 4 Very diverse ........... ...................... .......................... 5
Don’t know ............. ...................... .......................... 6 F6. Does [COMPANY NAME] regularly use project teams or task forces, embracing employees other
than MANAGERS, that function across more than one operating unit in Denmark? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 N/A .................... 3 Don’t Know ..... 4 IF F6 = YES ASK F7; IF NO, N/A OR DK GO TO F9
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 17
F7. Do these groups in Denmark also include employees from outside Denmark? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 NA ..................... 3 Don’t Know ..... 4 IF F7 = YES ASK F8; IF NO GO TO F9 F8. How common is the cross-national structure of these teams?
Very rare Very common
....................................................................... 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 ........... 5 F9. Which of the following communication mechanisms are regularly used for the LOG within
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?
Yes No Don‟t Know
Meetings between senior MANAGERS
and the whole of the work force ..................................................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
Meetings between line MANAGERS or supervisors and employees (sometimes called briefing groups) ................................................................. 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
Attitude or opinion surveys ............................................................................. 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
Suggestion schemes ...................................................................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
Systematic use of management chain to cascade information ...................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
Newsletters or emails ..................................................................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
A company intranet providing information to employees’ ............................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3 F10. Which of the following types of information is regularly provided to the LOG within [COMPANY
NAME] in Denmark?
Yes No Don‟t Know
Financial position of the company………………………. ....................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
Investment plan for the company………………………... ...................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
Staffing plans for the company………………………….. ....................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3 F11. Which of the following types of information is regularly provided to the LOG within [COMPANY
NAME] about the worldwide company?
Yes No Don‟t Know
Financial position of the company………………………. ....................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
Investment plan for the company………………………... ...................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
Staffing plans for the company………………………….. ....................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3 F12. Are there project teams or task forces embracing employees other than MANAGERS that
function across more than one operating unit, used in foreign operations? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 N/A .................... 3 Don’t Know ..... 4
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 18
F13. Using the below scale, to what extent do the operating companies outside of Denmark have
discretion over the determination of the following aspects of employee involvement and communication policy?
The operating companies outside Denmark have… Use codes 1-5 Don’t N/A Know
Involvement of employees in work process, e.g. team work or problem-solving groups ............. ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7
Attitude or opinion surveys ........................................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7
Suggestion schemes ........................................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7
Provision of information to employees ............................. ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7
N/A: There is no “typical” situation: the level of discretion varies widely across different overseas operations F14. Using the scale below, to what extent does [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark have discretion over
the determination of the following aspects of employee involvement and communication policy?
The operating company in Denmark have…
Use codes 1-5 Don’t N/A Know
Involvement of employees in work process, e.g. team work or problem-solving groups ............. ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7
Attitude or opinion surveys ........................................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7
Suggestion schemes ........................................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7
Provision of information to employees ............................. ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7
N/A: There is no clear separation between higher levels of management (e.g. international business HQ, European HQ or global HQ) and management of the Danish operations.
1 2 3 4 5
The operating companies outside Denmark have no discretion (must implement policy set by a higher organisational level such as corporate or regional HQ).
The operating companies outside Denmark have a little discretion.
The operating companies outside Denmark have some discretion (can develop policy within the guidelines/framework set by a higher organisational level).
The operating companies outside Denmark have quite a lot of discretion.
The operating companies outside Denmark have full discretion (can set own policy).
1 2 3 4 5
The operating company in Denmark have no discretion (must implement policy set by a higher organizational level such as corporate or regional HQ).
The operating company in Denmark have a little discretion.
The operating company in Denmark have some discretion (can develop policy within the guidelines/ framework set by a higher organisational level).
The operating company in Denmark have quite a lot of discretion.
The operating company in Denmark have full discretion (can set own policy).
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 19
SECTION G. EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION AND CONSULTATION
The following questions are about employee representation, employee influence and unions. The questions aim to identify possible differences in cooperative culture in the countries in which your company is operating, and to elaborate if different kinds of cooperation influence HR-policies across borders. G1. How would you describe the policy of management towards union recognition within [COMPANY
NAME] in Denmark?
In favour of union recognition ................... 1 Not in favour of union recognition................... 2 Neutral towards union recognition ................... 3
G2. Thinking of the company‟s operations outside Denmark, which of the following statements
comes closest to capturing your policy towards trade unions? There is no policy .............................................................................................. 1 It is general policy not to bargain with trade unions,
either directly or indirectly through an employers’ association .................. 2 We expect local management to follow the local practice in the industry
and/or locality… ......................................................................................... 3 It is general policy to bargain with trade unions,
either directly or indirectly through an employers’ association .................. 4 Don’t Know ........................................................................................................ 5 G3. Thinking of the LOG in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark, are trade unions recognised for the purposes
of collective employee representation at?
No sites in the Danish operations................... 1 All sites in the Danish operations .................. 2 Most sites in the Danish operations................... 3 Some sites in the Danish operations................. 4 The company’s single Danish site ................... 5
ASK G4 IF CODE 2,3, 4 OR 5 AT G3 IF CODE 1 AT G1 GO TO G5 G4. Are there any non-union based structure(s) of collective employee representation used? Tick all that apply Yes, at sites where there is no trade union recognition.................. 1 Yes, at sites where there is also trade union recognition............... 1 No .................................................................................................. 1 G5. Is there collective bargaining with trade unions over pay and major conditions (e.g. working time) at any of the following levels covering all or some of the [LOG NAME] within the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? Tick all that apply, multi-code only allowable for codes 2, 4, and 5
At Danish company level, covering all sites...................................... 1 At the company’s single Danish site.................................................. 1 Covering more than one, but not all Danish sites............................... 1 At individual site level.................................................................................. 1 At industry level, covering more than one employer.................................... 1 There is no collective bargaining over pay.................................................. 1
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 20
G6. Thinking about trade unions in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark, what approach do the trade union
representatives generally adopt? A cooperative approach…………………... ............... 1 An adversarial approach………………….. ............... 2 It depends on the issue……………………................ 3 Don’t Know………………………………. ................... 4 ASK G7 IF CODED 2, 3, 4 OR 5 AT G3 (I.E. UNIONS RECOGNISED AT LEAST AT ONE SITE) G7. Using this rating scale, which best describes the policy towards working with unions on the following matters relating to the LOG:
1 2 2 4 5
Management decides on its
own
… Management consults union representatives
… Management decides jointly
with union representatives
1 2 3 4 5 Don’t know
Work organisation ………. ............................. 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6
Sub-contracting and outsourcing ……. .......... 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6
Variable payments schemes .......................... 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6
In-work training/ upgrading skills ................... 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6
Direct employee involvement schemes ....... 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6
G8. Using the scale below, to what extent do operating companies outside Denmark have discretion over the setting of policy on relations with trade unions? The operating companies outside Denmark have… Use codes 1-5 Don’t N/A Know
Union recognition .. ........................................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7
Scope of union involvement in decision-making .............. ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7
To what extent do operating companies outside
Denmark have discretion over determining
employee consultation policy ........................................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7
N/A: There is no “typical” situation: the level of discretion varies widely across different overseas operations
1 2 3 4 5
The operating companies outside Denmark have no discretion (must implement policy set by a higher organisational level such as corporate or regional HQ).
The operating companies outside Denmark have a little discretion.
The operating companies outside Denmark have some discretion (can develop policy within the guidelines/framework set by a higher organisational level).
The operating companies outside Denmark have quite a lot of discretion.
The operating companies outside Denmark have full discretion (can set own policy).
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 21
G9. Using the scale below, to what extent does the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark have discretion over setting the following elements of policy trade unions? The operating company in Denmark have... Use codes 1-5 Don’t N/A Know
Union recognition .. ........................................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7
Scope of union involvement in decision-making .............. ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7
To what extent do operating companies outside
Denmark have discretion over determining
employee consultation policy ........................................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7
N/A: There is no clear separation between higher levels of management (e.g. international business HQ,
European HQ or global HQ) and management of the Danish operations G10. Are regular meetings held between management and representatives of employees at this level in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark for the purpose of information provision and consultation? Help: By “regular” we mean: more than once a year. By “this level” we mean that for example Danish HQ calls in meetings with employee representatives from all the units in Denmark. Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 Don’t Know ....... 3 ASK G11 IF YES AT G10 [IF NO GO TO G12] G11. Do these meetings cover…? All employees under a single arrangement ............................................................................. 1 All employees, but with different arrangements for different groups ......................................... 2 Some groups of employees under a single arrangement............................................................. 3 Some groups of employees, but with different arrangements for different groups....................... 4 Other ...................................................................... 5 G12. Which of the following statements best describes management‟s relative emphasis in [COMPANY
NAME] in Denmark on mechanisms for communicating and consulting with employees?
Emphasis on direct communication and consultation........................................................... 1 Emphasis on indirect communication and consultation (e.g. through joint consultative committee or company council)........................................... 2 Equivalent emphasis on direct and indirect communication and consultation ........................ 3
G13. Does the worldwide company have experience of operating with mandatory employee consultation structures (e.g. works councils) that are required in some countries overseas? Yes 1 No 2 Don’t Know 3 IF YES ASK G14, IF NO GO TO G15
1 2 3 4 5
The operating company in Denmark have no discretion (must implement policy set by a higher organizational level such as corporate or regional HQ).
The operating company in Denmark have a little discretion.
The operating company in Denmark have some discretion (can develop policy within the guidelines/ framework set by a higher organisational level).
The operating company in Denmark have quite a lot of discretion.
The operating company in Denmark have full discretion (can set own policy).
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 22
G14. Which of the following statements comes closest to capturing the worldwide company‟s policy?
There is no policy……………………………………………………….. 1 Minimum compliance with legal requirements on employee information and consultation..................................... 2 To go somewhat further than legal requirements............................ 3 To go considerably further than legal requirements......................... 4 Don’t know ...................................................................................... 5
G15. Over the past 3 years, has the EU Directive on Information and Consultation prompted any
changes in arrangements for employee consultation in Denmark? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 Don’t Know ....... 3 G16. Is there a European Works Council (EWC) or similar European-level structure which covers
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?
Yes ...... 1 Go to G17 No ........ 2 Go to H1 Don’t Know 3 Go to H1 G17. Which of the following statements best describes the overall nature of the European Works
Council in Denmark?
Management provides minimal information required for compliance, there is little or no dialogue with employee representatives over issues; and no impact on decision outcomes ............................................................................................ 1
Management provides information slightly beyond that required for compliance ................................. 2
Management provides information somewhat beyond that required for compliance; there is a substantive dialogue with employee representatives on a limited range of issues; and a limited impact on decision outcomes ................................................................................... 3
Management provides information considerably beyond that required for compliance ........................ 4
Management provides information far beyond that required for compliance; there is substantive dialogue with employee representatives over a wide range of issues; and an extensive impact on decision outcomes ............................................................................ 5
Don’t Know ............................................................................................................................................ 6 G18. Do you receive information about the activity and meetings of the EWC?
Systematically at the time of EWC meetings......................... 1 Periodically, on an ‘as necessary’ basis ................................. 2 Little or no information about the EWC received..................... 3
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 23
Section H: Company Performance
This is the final section of the questionnaire. H1. How would you compare performance of the [not answered] in Denmark over the past three years with that of other competitors in your sector?
Poor Outstanding
Quality of products/services 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5
Development of new products/services 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5
Profit generation 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5
Turnover 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5
Market share 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5
Ability to recruit essential employees 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5
Ability to retain essential employees 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5
Customer/client satisfaction 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5
Manager-employees relations 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5
General employee relations 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5
H2. Please rate the following series of statements about the role of the operations outside Denmark within the worldwide company. 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree The operations outside Denmark have international responsibility for one or more products or services on behalf of the worldwide company
1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5
Significant expertise in R&D within the worldwide company is generated outside Denmark operations
1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5
H3. How important is/are your overseas subsidiary/subsidiaries to the global performance of the
parent company?
Not at all important ............................. 1 Of little importance ............................. 2 Somewhat important .......................... 3 Important ............................................ 4 Very important .................................... 5 Don’t know .......................................... 6
H4. Has this level of importance changed over the past five years?
Significantly decreased ...................... 1 Slightly decreased .............................. 2 Stayed about the same ...................... 3 Slightly increased ............................... 4 Significantly increased ........................ 5 Don’t know .......................................... 6
Home-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 24
H5. How would you assess…? Poor Outstanding
The job satisfaction of the employees
at [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? 1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5
The ability of [COMPANY NAME] in
Denmark to retain essential employees? 1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5 The overall performance of the
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? 1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5
H6. How is the performance of the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark relative to competitors?
Poor Outstanding
1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5
H7. Please rank the importance of the following factors in influencing decisions on new investments or new mandates for your [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? 1 being the most important factor and 7 the least important factor.
Rank
Labour Availability ................................................................................. ______
Labour costs ......................................................................................... ______
The industrial relations climate ............................................................. ______
Overall operating costs
(NB should be: General infrastructure (e.g. transportation) .................. ______
Overall operating costs ......................................................................... ______
The capacity of the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark to innovate development of goods, services and processes ......................... ______
Financial incentives (including taxes) ................................................... ______
Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in this study. Please let us know if you are interested in … Tick all that apply
1 Receiving a report benchmarking the employment practices of your company relative to the rest of the Danish sample
1 Participating in a seminar where in-depth results of the worldwide survey will be presented by leading researchers within International Human Resource Management.
1 Receiving the full result report Click "Finish" to submit the survey.
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 1
SURVEY OF EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES OF MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES OPERATING IN DENMARK
Foreign-based – English version
SECTION A: INTRODUCTION
Please select a language: English ............ 1 Danish .................. 2 First page:
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES OF MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES Welcome to the survey! The completion of the survey is expected to take about 30-40 minutes. You can stop any time, save your entries and resume the completion of the survey later. You can navigate forward and backward by using the arrows at the top and the bottom of the page. We highly recommend saving the survey after completion of each page. Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in this study.
A1. Can you confirm that the company is wholly or majority foreign-owned? By “majority owned” we
mean at least 50% is owned by a foreign-based company Yes .................. 1 No ........................ 2
IF NO REVERT TO PAGE ASKING FOR CONTACT INFO Page for contact info: To the previous question you replied that your company is not majority Foreign owned (that at least 50% is owned by a Danish-based company). If this is correct, please write your e-mail below and we will invite you to the survey of Danish-owned firms. If your company is Foreign-owned please return to the previous page and correct your response to the previous question. [box name] [box E-mail] If the ownership structure is more complicated please contact us by entering your message and email below. Please click finish to submit your response. [box name] [box e-mail] [box message] Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in this study. A2. What is the name of the Danish operations that you work for? By Danish operations we mean the
operational units of the worldwide company located in Denmark.
________________________________________________
A3. What is the name of the ultimate controlling company you work for? ____________________________________________________________ [COMPANY NAME]
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 2
A4. In which country is the operational head quarters of your ultimate controlling company located? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A5. Are you located at?
The global HQ of the worldwide company............... 1
The HQ of the operating units in Denmark......... …. 2
Other (please specify) _______________..……….. 3 A6. What is your job title?
HR/Personnel Director………………………………..…………... 1 HR/Personnel Senior Manager/ Manager……………………….... 2 HR/Personnel Senior Officer……………………………….……... 3 HR/Personnel Officer………...…………………………………… 4 HR/Personnel Executive………………………………………….. 5 HR/Personnel Assistant……………..……………………………. 6 Other (please specify)…………………………………………... 7
A7. How long have you worked for the COMPANY IN DENMARK ? Please write number of years ___________________________ A8. For which of the following policy levels do you have any HR responsibilities: Tick all that apply Global HR policy…………………............... 1 Regional HR policy……….......................... 1 HR policy in Denmark………...................... 1 Other (please specify) ___________ 1 In the rest of the questionnaire when we ask you questions about [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark, we would like you to think of all operation units in Denmark. A9. In how many foreign countries does the company have operating sites? 1 country………………………………….…... ...... 1 2 – 5 countries………...…….………………… ..... 2 6 or more countries…………………………… ..... 3 A10. Does [company name] in Denmark have? 1 site………………………………….…... ............. 1 2 – 5 sites………...…….………………… ............. 2 6 or more sites…………………………… ............. 3 A11. What is the total number of employees worldwide including Denmark by headcount?
Up to 99 employees …………... .......................... 1 100 – 499 employees…………... ......................... 2
500 – 999 employees…………... ......................... 3 1,000 – 4,999 employees………. ........................ 4 5,000 – 29.999 employees………….…... ............ 5 30.000 – 59.999 employees………….…... .......... 6 60.000 +……….………….…... ............................. 7
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 3
A12. What is the total number of employees by headcount in the following geographical regions? Denmark Europe (excluding Denmark) North America Asia-Pacific Rest of the world
Up to 99 employees …………... .......................... 1 100 – 499 employees…………... ......................... 2
500 – 999 employees…………... ......................... 3 1,000 – 4,999 employees………. ........................ 4 5,000 + employees………….…... ........................ 5
None……………………………………..…….…... . 6
Don’t know …………………………….…... .......... 7
A13. Please estimate the approximate number of employees in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark in each
of the following core functions.
Number
Research & Development (R&D) .......................... _________
Manufacturing Operations ..................................... _________
Sales and Marketing .............................................. _________
Customer Service .................................................. _________
Business Services (finance, IT, payroll, etc).......... _________
Other … ................................................................. _________ A14. When was the worldwide company first established? Please write the year ____________(year) A15. What year did it establish its first foreign operation? Thinking of the first significant investment outside of country of origin – ignoring minor sales presence. _____________ (year)
A16. What year did the worldwide company first establish in Denmark? Thinking of the first significant investment in Denmark - ignoring minor sales presence.
_____________ (year) A17. Was this through…? A Greenfield investment ..... 1 A merger or acquisition ....... 2 Other (please specify) ........ 3 ______________________________ A18. How many of the top five management positions in the [Company Name] in Denmark are filled
by…?
Individuals who previously worked for the company in country of origin? None 1 Don’t know 2
Number 3 _________
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 4
Individuals from other parts of the world-wide company? i.e. outside Denmark but not the country of origin
None 1 Don’t know 2
Number 3 _____________ A19. To what degree (percentage) has the following changed in the worldwide company in the last 3 years? Can be both positive and negative. Only approximate numbers are necessary.
Number of employees _____ (%) Sales _____ (%)
A20. Approximately what percentage of revenues of [COMPANY NAME] comes from sales abroad?
0% ...................................................... 1 1-25% ................................................. 2 26-50% ............................................... 3 51-75% ............................................... 4 76-100% ............................................. 5 Don’t know .......................................... 6
A21. Is the worldwide company state or partly state owned? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 Don’t Know ....... 3 A22. Is the worldwide company privately owned or are its shares publicly traded? Privately owned ........................... 1 Publicly traded ............... 2
A23. Which of the following statements best describes the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? The company produces… A single product or service that accounts for more than 90% of sales …………………………………… 1 A number of products and services but one of these accounts for between 70% and 90% of sales…. 2 A number of products and services but no single one of these accounts for more than 70% of sales.. 3 A range of unrelated products and services………………………………………………………………….. 4 Don’t know………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 5 A24. Which of the following statements best describes the worldwide operations? The worldwide company produces… A single product or service that accounts for more than 90% of sales …………………………………… 1 A number of products and services but one of these accounts for between 70% and 90% of sales…. 2 A number of products and services but no single one of these accounts for more than 70% of sales.. 3 A range of unrelated products and services………………………………………………………………….. 4
5 A25. Is the worldwide company‟s most important product, service or brand (or group of products,
services or brands)...? Help: With „most important‟ we want you to think of the product, service or brand that generates the most revenue.
Adapted significantly to national markets ............................................................... 1 Adapted to different regions of the world but standardised within them ................. 2 Standardised globally ............................................................................................. 3 Don’t know ........................................................................................................ ….. 4
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 5
A26. Are any of the components, products and services of [company name] in Denmark produced for operations of the worldwide company based outside Denmark?
Yes – all.......................................... 1 Yes – some but not all..................... 2 No – none....................................... 3 Don’t know...................................... 4
A27. Do other parts of the worldwide company supply components, products or services to [company name] in Denmark?
Yes........................... 1 No........................... 2 Don’t know................ 3
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 6
SECTION B: WORKFORCE COMPOSITION
Throughout the questionnaire the focus will be on your policies and practices in relation to the following two main groups of staff:
B1. Approximately how many managers are there in the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?
0 .................................... 1 1 – 9 .............................. 2 10 – 24 .......................... 3 25 – 49 .......................... 4 50 – 99 .......................... 5 100 – 249 ...................... 6 250 – 499 ...................... 7 500 – 749 ..................... 8 750 – 999 ...................... 9 1000 – 2999 .................. 10 3000 – 4999 .................. 11 5000+ ............................ 12 Don’t Know .................... 13
B2. Approximately, how many LOG are there in [company name] in Denmark? Help: This includes staff who works regularly, but excludes occasional staff. By regularly we mean there is a mutual expectation that the employee works on an ongoing basis for your company
0 .................................... 1 1 – 9 .............................. 2 10 – 24 .......................... 3 25 – 49 .......................... 4 50 – 99 .......................... 5 100 – 249 ...................... 6 250 – 499 ...................... 7 500 – 749 ..................... 8 750 – 999 ...................... 9 1000 – 2999 .................. 10 3000 – 4999 .................. 11 5000+ ............................ 12 Don’t Know .................... 13
1. Managers – employees who primarily manage the organisation, or a department, subdivision,
function, or component of the organisation and whose main tasks consist of the direction and coordination of the functioning of the organisation. In other words managers refer to those above the level of first-line supervision.
2. The LOG (largest occupational group) – the largest non-managerial occupational group among
the employees in the ‘headcount’ in Denmark. For example, in a manufacturing business it might be semi-skilled operators, and in an insurance company it might be call centre staff.
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 7
SECTION C. THE HR FUNCTION
C1. What percentage of the managers spend the majority of their time on HR matters in [COMPANY
NAME] in Denmark? _____________ % C2. On which of the following issues is information on the operating units in Denmark monitored by
management outside of Denmark? Help: BY “A HIGHER ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL” WE MEAN E.G. SENIOR MANAGEMENT IN DENMARK, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS HQ, EUROPEAN HQ (IN DENMARK OR ELSEWHERE) OR GLOBAL HQ.
Please tick all that apply Managerial pay packages…………………………………………………... ............... 1 Management career progression…………………………………………… .............. 1 Overall labour costs………………………………………………………... ................. 1 Numbers employed (headcount)……………………………………………............... 1 Staff turnover………………………………………………………………. .................. 1 Absenteeism………………………………………………………………… ................ 1 Labour productivity………………………………………………………… .................. 1 Workforce composition by diversity (e.g. gender, ethnicity, disability etc.) ............ 1 Employee attitude and satisfaction…………………………………………. .............. 1 None of these ......................................................................................................... 1
Don’t know .............................................................................................................. 1 Other (please specify) _____________________________ ................................. 1 C3. Is there a body within the worldwide company, such as a committee of senior managers, that
develops HR policies that apply across countries?
1 Go to C4 2 Go to C5 3 Go to C5 C4. Is there someone from Denmark on this body/committee? Yes ................... 1 No ......................... 2 3 C5. Are HR managers from different countries brought together in a systematic way?
Yes – on a global basis 1 Yes – on a regional basis 2 No 3 4 C6. How frequently does contact between HR managers in different countries take place through any
of the following mechanisms:
Weekly Monthly Quarterly Annually Other Ad hoc Never
Regular meetings ................................. ............. 1 .......... 2 .......... 3 ......... 4 ...... 5 .......... 6 ....... 7 International Conferences.................... ............. 1 .......... 2 .......... 3 ......... 4 ...... 5 .......... 6 ....... 7 Task Forces ......................................... ............. 1 .......... 2 .......... 3 ......... 4 ...... 5 .......... 6 ....... 7 Virtual Groups e.g. conference calls .... ............. 1 .......... 2 .......... 2 ......... 4 ...... 5 .......... 6 ....... 7
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 8
Now think about your company‟s approach concerning its management of employees. C7. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements: Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly N/A Don’t Disagree agree nor Agree know disagree
There is a worldwide approach covering all global operations………. ................................ 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7
There is a regional approach covering all European operations ...................................... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7
The development of a specific approach is left to international product, service or brand based divisions .................................... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7
The development of a specific approach is left to national operating companies .............. 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7
The approach is really a mix of the traditions of the different national operating companies .... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7
Traditions in the country of origin have an overriding influence on the approach to the management of employees……… ........... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ...... 6 ... 7
C8. Has [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark provided any new practices in the following areas that have been
taken up elsewhere in the worldwide company: No Yes, in Yes, Yes, Don’t few parts in major taken Know of the firm businesses up globally
Pay and performance management ........................... 1 ...... 2 ................... 3 ............. 4 ............. 5
Training, development and organisational
learning ....................................................................... 1 ...... 2 ................... 3 ............. 4 ............. 5
Employee involvement and communication ............... 1 ...... 2 ................... 3 ............. 4 ............. 5
Employee representation and consultation ................ 1 ...... 2 ................... 3 ............. 4 ............. 5
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 9
SECTION D. PAY AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
D1. Is there a system of regular formal appraisal for each of the following groups of employees in
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? Yes No Don’t know For LOG ..................................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3 For managers ............................................. 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
IF NEITHER STAFF GROUP IS CODED „YES‟ GO TO D7
IF ONLY ONE CODED „YES‟ GO TO D2
IF BOTH STAFF GROUPS ARE CODED „YES‟ GO TO D2
D2. Is a „forced distribution‟ applied to the results of appraisals for the following employee groups in
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? Help: By forced distribution we mean a certain % of employees have to be in a particular performance category or rating, e.g. 10% are poor performers, 70% are reasonable performers, and 20% are top performers Please include formal and informal policy.
Yes No Don’t know For LOG ..................................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3 For managers ............................................. 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
IF NEITHER STAFF GROUP IS CODED „YES‟ GO TO D4
IF ONLY ONE CODED „YES‟ GO TO D3
IF BOTH STAFF GROUPS ARE CODED „YES‟ GO TO D3 D3. What is the top and bottom percentages of this forced distribution for each of the following
employee groups in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? For LOG: ............................................. Top _________% Bottom _______% For managers: ..................................... Top _________% Bottom _______%
Don’t know (For managers Top)............ 1
Don’t know (For managers Bottom) ...... 1
Don’t know (For LOG Top).................... 1
Don’t know (For LOG Bottom)............... 1
D4. Is a formal system of „360-degree‟ feedback used in evaluating performance of any of these groups of employees in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?
[CODE ONE FOR EACH GROUP]
Yes No Don’t know
For LOG ............................................ 1 ............. 2 ..................... 3 For managers .................................... 1 ............. 2 ..................... 3
D5. Are the outcomes of performance appraisal used as inputs in decisions on redundancy and redeployment in the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? Yes, Yes, No N/A Don’t know as a formal input as an informal input in decisions in decisions
For LOG Name .......................................... 1 ............... ................ 2 ................ 3 ............. 4 .......... 5 For managers ............................................. 1 ............... ................ 2 ................ 3 ............. 4 .......... 5
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 10
D6. Thinking about the MANAGERS in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark, on a scale of 1-5 how important
are the following kinds of performance evaluation?
Not at all important Very important Don’t know
Individual quantitative output targets………. ........... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 .... ......... ... 6
(e.g. financial, numerical)
Individual qualitative output targets ………. ............ 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 .... ......... ... 6
(e.g. completion of a task)
Group output targets ………. ................................... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5................. 6
(e.g. for site or business unit)
‘Competences’ or personal skills ………. ................ 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5................. 6
(e.g. leadership or innovation skills)
Behaviour in relation to corporate ‘values’ …. ......... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5................. 6
D7. Does [Company Name] in Denmark offer employee share ownership, profit sharing or share
options to any employees in each of these groups?
Employee share ownership Profit Sharing Share Options Yes No Don’t Yes No Don’t Yes No Don’t Know Know Know
For LOG .................. ……. 1… 2. ............... 3 ................... 1 ...... 2 ........... 3 ............. 1 ....... 2 .... 3
Employee share ownership Profit Sharing Share Options Yes No Don’t Yes No Don’t Yes No Don’t Know Know Know
For managers .............. . 1 ..... 2 .......... 3 ................... 1 ...... 2 ...... 3 ............. 1 ....... 2 .... 3
D8. Is there variable pay for the following groups in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? Help: By variable pay we mean merit pay, performance related pay, performance related bonuses or payment by results.
Yes No Don’t Know
For [LOG Name] ........................... 1 ................... 2 ................... 3
For managers ................................ 1 ................... 2 ................... 3 IF „YES‟ FOR LOG AT D8, ASK D9, IF „NO‟, GO TO D10
Help: 1. Approved employee share ownership scheme is where the organisation establishes a trust which
acquires shares on behalf of employees and provides employees with part ownership of the company. 2. Profit sharing refers to rewards given to employees in addition to normal salary and bonuses which are
dependent on the levels of profit in the business.
3. Share options is where employees are given the option of buying company shares, often at a reduced rate
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 11
D9. For LOG receiving variable pay in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark, how important are each of the
following factors in determining variable pay? Not at all important Very important Don’t know
Individual performance ………. ............................... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ............... .......... 6
Work group performance
(e.g. team or departmental performance)………. .... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ............... .......... 6
Organizational performance
(e.g. site, region, company) ………. ........................ 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ............... .......... 6
D10. To what extent does [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark have discretion over the determination of the following aspects of pay and performance policy? Use codes 1-5 from Aspect of pay and performance policy Use codes 1-5 N/A Don’t know
Relating pay levels in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark
to market comparators (e.g. aiming to be in top quartile .. ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6
Employee share ownership schemes in
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark....................................... ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6
Performance appraisal system:
For MANAGERS………………… ....................... ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6
For LOG . ........................................... ____________ ............. 7 ..............................
Variable payments scheme:
For MANAGERS………………… ....................... ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6
For LOG . ........................................... ____________ ............. 7 ............................. 6
N/A: There is no clear separation between higher levels of management (e.g. international business HQ,
European HQ or global HQ) and management of the Danish operations.
1 2 3 4 5
The [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has no discretion (must implement policy set by a higher organizational level such as corporate or regional HQ).
The [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has a little discretion.
The [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has some discretion (can develop policy within the guidelines/ framework set by a higher organisational level).
The [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has quite a lot of discretion.
The [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has full discretion (can set own policy).
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 12
E. TRAINING, DEVELOPMENT AND ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING
E1. What percentage of the annual pay bill in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark was spent on training and development for all employees over the past 12 months?
0% ............................................ 1 Up to 1% .................................. 2 Over 1% and less than 4% ...... 3 Over 4% ................................... 4
Don’t Know………………………5 E2. Thinking of [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark is there a formal system of succession planning for
senior managers?
Yes in all operations................. 1 Go to E3
Yes in some operations ........... 2 Go to E3
No ........................................... 3 Go to E4
Don’t Know…………………..... 4 Go to E4 E3. Is this system also used in other parts of the worldwide company? Yes in all operations................. 1 Yes in some operations ........... 2 No ........................................... 3 Don’t Know…………………..... 4 E4. Does [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark have a management development programme specifically
aimed at developing its „high potentials‟ or senior management potential?
Yes in all operations................. 1 Go to E5
Yes in some operations ........... 2 Go to E5
No ........................................... 3 Go to E6
Don’t Know ............................... 4 Go to E6 E5. Is this system also used in other parts of the worldwide company? Yes in all operations................. 1 Yes in some operations ........... 2 No ........................................... 3 Don’t Know…………………..... 4 E6. How extensively are each of the following techniques used for the development of these
managers in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?
1 2 3 4 5
Not used at all A little use Some use Used quite extensively
Used very extensively
Technique … Use codes 1-5 Don’t know N/A Enter one code only
Short term International assignments (12 months or less) ... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7
Long term international assignments (more than 12 months) ____________ ............ 6 ....................... 7
Formal global management training ...................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7
Assessment of performance against a set of global management competencies ......................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7
Qualifications programme (e.g. MBA, professional qualifications) .......................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 13
E7. How many expatriates from the company‟s foreign operations are currently working on long-term
assignments (i.e. more than 12 months) in Denmark? Please include all types of long-term assignments for any purpose.
Type 0 if none. Help: Expatriates in this question refers to employees from operating companies outside Denmark who are currently working on assignment in Denmark.
Number………. 2 _______ Don’t know………. 1 E8. How many expatriates from [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark are currently working on long-term (i.e.
more than 12 months) assignments overseas? Please include all types of long-term assignments for any purpose.
Type 0 if none. Help: Expatriates in this question refers to employees of the company‟s operations in Denmark who are currently on assignment in operations of the worldwide company abroad.
Number………. 2 _______ Don’t know………. 1 E9. To what extent do you agree with each of the following statements for LOG in [COMPANY NAME] in
Denmark: Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree agree nor Agree know disagree
On-the-job learning (experience gained on the job) is more valuable than off-the-job classroom training and development ………. .......... 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6
Investment in training is critical to either
developing or retaining key skills in this company …. 1 ......... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6
E10. To what extent do you agree with each of the following statements for MANAGERS in [COMPANY
NAME] in Denmark:
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Don’t Disagree agree nor Agree know disagree
Our company favours internal promotion over
external management recruitment ………. .............. 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6
International experience is a key criterion
for career progression at senior levels. ………. ...... 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 14
In this section you will be asked about the mechanisms you use for organisational learning on an international level. By this we mean mechanisms used to create new knowledge involving MANAGERS from different country operations or to transfer knowledge across the international organisation. E11. Thinking of [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark is there a formal policy on organisational learning?
Yes in all operations ........... 1 Go to E12
Yes in some operations ...... 2 Go to E12
No ....................................... 3 Go to E13
Don’t Know ......................... 4 Go to E13 E12. Is this system also used in other parts of the worldwide company? Yes in all operations .... 1 Yes in some operations ..... 2 No ........ 3 Don’t Know........ 4 E13. To what extent is the organizational learning policy for the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark and the
worldwide company similar? Not at all similar Highly similar Don’t know
....................................................................... 1 ......... 2 .......... 3 .......... 4 ...... 5 ............... .......... 6
E14. Thinking about MANAGERS, do [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark use any of the following to
facilitate international organisational learning?
Yes No Don‟t Know
Expatriate assignments………………………. ....................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
International project groups or task forces ............................................ 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
International formal committees’ ........................................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
International informal networks ............................................................. 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
Secondments to other organisations internationally (e.g. to suppliers, customers, universities, private R&D facilities) ........ 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
[ONLY ASK E15 IF MORE THAN ONE „YES‟ CODED IN E13. OTHERWISE GO TO E15] E15. Which of these is the most important international organisational learning mechanism used by
managers within [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?
Expatriate assignments………………………. ....................................... 1
International project groups or task forces ............................................ 2
International formal committees’ ........................................................... 3
International informal networks ............................................................. 4
Secondments to other organisations internationally (e.g. to suppliers, customers, universities, private R&D facilities) ........ 5
Don’t know ............................................................................................ 6
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 15
E16. Using the scale below, to what extent do [company name] in Denmark have discretion over
determining the following training and development policies?
The operating company in Denmark have…
Use codes 1-5 Don’t Know NA
Training and development policy .......................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7
Policy on organisational learning ........................................... ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7
Policy on succession planning for senior managers ............. ____________ ............. 6 ....................... 7
N/A: There is no clear separation between higher levels of management (e.g. international business HQ, European HQ or global HQ) and management of the Danish operations.
1 2 3 4 5
The [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has no discretion (must implement policy set by a higher organizational level such as corporate or
regional HQ).
The [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has a little
discretion.
The [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has some discretion (can develop policy within the guidelines/ framework set by a higher organisational level).
The [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has quite a lot
of discretion.
The [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has full
discretion (can set own policy).
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 16
F. EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNICATION
This section is about policies on employee involvement and communication, starting with the involvement of employees in the work process. F1. Could you tell me whether you use the following practices in relation to the LOG in [COMPANY
NAME] in Denmark?
Yes No Don‟t Know
Formally designated teams in which employees have
responsibility for organising their work and carrying out a set of tasks 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
Groups where employees discuss issues of quality, production or service delivery such as problem-solving or continuous improvement groups………………………. ......................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
F2. Which of the following most closely corresponds to the pattern of employee involvement in
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?
An identical or similar pattern exists across all or most sites ................................................... 1
All or most sites have involvement systems, but they differ from site to site ............................ 2
Some sites have involvement systems while others do not ..................................................... 3
Not applicable (1 site only in Denmark] .................................................................................... 4
Don’t Know ....................................................................................................................... …..… 5 F3. How important have each of the following been in providing examples of employee involvement that have been taken up in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?
Not drawn Source of v. on at all important examples
Specific practices elsewhere in the worldwide
company…. ................................................................. ............. 1 ........... 2 .......... 3 ....... 4 ....... 5
Formal model of good practice codified
elsewhere in worldwide company ........................ ………. ....... 1 ........... 2 .......... 3 ....... 4 ....... 5
Examples drawn from other firms ………. .................. ............. 1 ........... 2 .......... 3 ....... 4 ....... 5 F4. Does the [COMPANY NAME] regularly use teamwork or other employee involvement practices in your operating companies outside Denmark? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 Don’t Know ....... 3 F5. Would you say that practices in relation to employee involvement in the worldwide company are: Very similar across all operations .......... .......................... 1 Broadly similar but with some variations .......................... 2 Similar to some extent but with substantial variations ................ 3 Fairly diverse ......... ...................... .......................... 4 Very diverse ........... ...................... .......................... 5
Don’t know ............. ...................... .......................... 6 F6. Does [company name] regularly use project teams or task forces, embracing employees other than managers, that function across more than one operating unit in Denmark? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 N/A .................... 3 Don’t Know ..... 4 IF F6 = YES ASK F7; IF NO, N/A OR DK GO TO F9
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 17
F7. Do these groups in Denmark also include employees from outside Denmark? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 N/A .................... 3 Don’t Know ..... 4 IF F7 = YES ASK F8; IF NO GO TO F9 F8. How common is the cross-national structure of these teams?
Very rare Very common
....................................................................... 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 ........... 5 F9. Which of the following communication mechanisms are regularly used for the LOG within
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?
Yes No Don‟t Know
Meetings between senior MANAGERS and the whole of the
work force ....................................................................................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
Meetings between line managers or supervisors and employees (sometimes called briefing groups) ....................................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
Attitude or opinion surveys ............................................................................. 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
Suggestion schemes ...................................................................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
Systematic use of management chain to cascade information ...................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
Newsletters or emails ..................................................................................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
A company intranet providing information to employees’ ............................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3 F10. Which of the following types of information is regularly provided to the LOG within [COMPANY
NAME] in Denmark?
Yes No Don‟t Know
Financial position of the company………………………. ....................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
Investment plan for the company………………………... ...................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
Staffing plans for the company………………………….. ....................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3 F11. Which of the following types of information is regularly provided to the LOG within [COMPANY
NAME] about the worldwide company?
Yes No Don‟t Know
Financial position of the company………………………. ....................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
Investment plan for the company………………………... ...................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3
Staffing plans for the company………………………….. ....................... 1 ............. 2 ............. 3 F12. Are there project teams or task forces embracing employees other than managers that function
across more than one operating unit, used in foreign operations? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 NA ..................... 3 Don’t Know ..... 4
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 18
F13. To what extent does [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark have discretion over the determination of the following aspects of employee involvement and communication policy….? The operating company in Denmark have… Use codes 1-5 Don’t Not Know Applicable
Involvement of employees in work process, e.g. team work or problem-solving groups ................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7
Attitude or opinion surveys ........................................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7
Suggestion schemes . ........................................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7
Provision of information to employees ................................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7
N/A: There is no clear separation between higher levels of management (e.g. international business HQ, European HQ or global HQ) and management of the Danish operations.
1 2 3 4 5
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has no discretion (must implement
policy set by a higher organisational level such as corporate or regional HQ).
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has a little
discretion.
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has some discretion (can develop policy within the
guidelines/framework set by a higher organisational
level).
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has
quite a lot of discretion.
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has full discretion (can set own
policy).
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 19
SECTION G. EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION AND CONSULTATION
The following questions are about employee representation, employee influence and unions. The questions aim to identify possible differences in cooperative culture in the countries in which your company is operating, and to elaborate if different kinds of cooperation influence HR-policies across borders.
G1. How would you describe the policy of management towards union recognition within [COMPANY
NAME] in Denmark? In favour of union recognition ................... 1 Not in favour of union recognition................... 2 Neutral towards union recognition ................... 3 G2. Thinking of the LOG in [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark, are trade unions recognised for the purposes
of collective employee representation at? No sites in the Danish operations................... 1 All sites in the Danish operations.................. 2 Most sites in the Danish operations................... 3 Some sites in the Danish operations................. 4 The company’s single Danish site ................... 5 ASK G3 IF CODED 2,3, 4 OR 5 AT G2, IF CODE 1 AT G2 GO TO G4 G3. Are there any non-union based structure(s) of collective employee representation used? Tick all that apply Yes, at sites where there is no trade union recognition.................. 1 Yes, at sites where there is also trade union recognition............... 1 No .................................................................................................. 1 G4. Is there collective bargaining with trade unions over pay and major conditions (e.g. working time) at any of the following levels covering all or some of the [LOG NAME] within the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? Tick all that apply, multi-code only allowable for codes 2, 4, and 5
At Danish company level, covering all sites.................................................. 1 At the company’s single Danish site .................................................. 1 Covering more than one, but not all Danish sites .................................. 1 At individual site level........................................................................................... 1 At industry level, covering more than one employer............................................ 1 There is no collective bargaining over pay............................................................. 1
G5. Thinking about trade unions in the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark, what approach do the trade
union representatives generally adopt?
A cooperative approach…………………... .......... 1 An adversarial approach………………….. .......... 2 It depends on the issue……………………. ......... 3 Don’t Know………………………………. .............. 4 ASK G6 IF CODED 2, 3, 4 OR 5 AT G2 (I.E. UNIONS RECOGNISED AT LEAST AT ONE SITE)
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 20
G6. Using this rating scale, which best describes the policy towards working with unions on the following matters relating to the [LOG NAME]:
1 2 2 4 5 Management decides on its
own
… Management consults union representatives
… Management decides jointly
with union representatives
1 2 3 4 5 Don’t know
Work organisation ………. ................................ 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6
Sub-contracting and outsourcing……. .............. 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6
Variable payments schemes ............................. 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6
In-work training/ upgrading skills ....................... 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6
Direct employee involvement
schemes .................................................... 1 ........... 2 ........... 3 .......... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6
G7. Using this rating scale, to what extent does the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark have discretion over setting the following elements of policy trade unions?
The operating company in Denmark have… Use codes 1-5 Don’t Not Know Applicable
Union recognition ....... ____________ ............................ 6 .................................... 7
Scope of union involvement in decision-making ................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7
To what extent does [the [COMPANY NAME] outside
Denmark have discretion over determining
employee consultation policy? ................................... ____________ ............. 6 ............................. 7
N/A: There is no clear separation between higher levels of management (e.g. international business HQ, European HQ or global HQ) and management of the Danish operations. G8. Are regular meetings held between management and representatives of employees at this level in the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark for the purpose of information provision and consultation? Help: By “regular” we mean: more than once a year By “this level” we mean that for example Danish HQ calls in meetings with employee representatives from all the units in Denmark Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 Don’t Know ....... 3 ASK G9 IF YES AT G8 [IF NO GO TO G10]
1 2 3 4 5
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has no discretion (must implement
policy set by a higher organisational level such as corporate or regional HQ).
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has a little
discretion.
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has some discretion (can develop policy within the
guidelines/framework set by a higher organisational
level).
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has
quite a lot of discretion.
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark has full discretion (can set own
policy).
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 21
G9. Do these meetings cover… ? All employees under a single arrangement ............................................................................. 1 All employees, but with different arrangements for different groups ......................................... 2 Some groups of employees under a single arrangement............................................................. 3 Some groups of employees, but with different arrangements for different groups....................... 4 Other .................................... ................................. 5 G10. Which of the following statements best describes management‟s relative emphasis in the
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark on mechanisms for communicating and consulting with employees?
Emphasis on direct communication and consultation........................................................... 1 Emphasis on indirect communication and consultation (e.g. through joint consultative committee or company council)........................................... 2 Equivalent emphasis on direct and indirect communication and consultation ........................ 3 G11. Does the worldwide company have experience of operating with mandatory employee consultation structures (e.g. works councils) that are required in some countries overseas? Yes 1 No 2 Don’t Know 3 G12. Which of the following statements comes closest to capturing the worldwide company‟s policy? There is no policy……………………………………………………….. 1
Minimum compliance with legal requirements on employee information and consultation..................................... 2 To go somewhat further than legal requirements............................ 3 To go considerably further than legal requirements......................... 4 Don’t know ...................................................................................... 5
G13. Over the past 3 years, has the EU Directive on Information and Consultation prompted any
changes in arrangements for employee consultation in Denmark? Yes ............. 1 No ............... 2 Don’t Know ....... 3 G14. Is there a European Works Council (EWC) or similar European-level structure which covers
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark?
Yes ...... 1 Go to G19 No ........ 2 Go to H1 Don’t Know 3 Go to H1 G15. Which of the following statements best describes the overall nature of the European Works
Council in Denmark?
Management provides minimal information required for compliance, there is little or no dialogue with employee representatives over issues; and no impact on decision outcomes ................................................................................................... 1
Management provides information slightly beyond that required for compliance ................................ 2
Management provides information somewhat beyond that required for compliance; there is a substantive dialogue with employee representatives on a limited range of issues; and a limited impact on decision outcomes ......................................................................................... 3
Management provides information considerably beyond that required for compliance....................... 4
Management provides information far beyond that required for compliance; there is substantive dialogue with employee representatives over a wide range of issues; and an extensive impact on decision outcomes .................................................................................. 5
Don’t Know ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 22
G16. Do you receive information about the activity and meetings of the EWC?
Systematically at the time of EWC meetings......................... 1 Periodically, on an ‘as necessary’ basis ................................. 2 Little or no information about the EWC received..................... 3
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 23
Section H: Company Performance
This is the final section of the questionnaire. H1. How would you compare performance of the [not answered] in Denmark over the past three years with that of other competitors in your sector?
Poor Outstanding
Quality of products/services 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5
Development of new products/services 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5
Profit generation 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5
Turnover 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5
Market share 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5
Ability to recruit essential employees 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5
Ability to retain essential employees 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5
Customer/client satisfaction 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5
Manager-employees relations 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5
General employee relations 1................ 2............ 3............. 4.............. 5
H2. Please rate the following series of statements about the role of the [company name] in Denmark. 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree
The [company name] in Denmark has international responsibility for one or more products or services on behalf of the worldwide company
1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5
Significant expertise in R&D within the worldwide company is generated in the operations in [company name] in Denmark.
1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5
H3. How important is [company name] in Denmark to the global performance of the parent company?
Not at all important ............................ 1 Of little importance ............................ 2 Somewhat important ......................... 3 Important ........................................... 4 Very important ................................... 5 Don’t know ......................................... 6
H4. Has this level of importance changed over the past five years?
Significantly decreased ...................... 1 Slightly decreased .............................. 2 Stayed about the same ...................... 3 Slightly increased ............................... 4 Significantly increased ........................ 5 Don’t know .......................................... 6
Foreign-based questionnaire – Denmark
Page 24
H5. How would you assess? Poor Outstanding The job satisfaction of the employees
at [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? 1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5
The ability of [COMPANY NAME] in
Denmark to retain essential employees? 1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5 The overall performance of
[COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? 1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5
H6. How is the performance of [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark relative to competitors?
Poor Outstanding
1................ 2.................... 3.................... 4..................... 5
H7. Please rank the importance of the following factors in influencing decisions on new investments or new mandates for your [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark? 1 being the most important factor and 7 the least important factor.
Rank
Labour Availability ........................................................................................... ______
Labour costs ................................................................................................... ______
The industrial relations climate ....................................................................... ______
General infrastructure (e.g. transportation) .................................................... ______
Overall operating costs ................................................................................... ______
The capacity of the [COMPANY NAME] in Denmark to innovate in the development of goods, services and processes ................................... ______
Financial incentives (including taxes) ............................................................. ______
Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in this study. Please let us know if you are interested in … Tick all that apply 1 Receiving a report benchmarking the employment practices of your company relative to the rest of the Danish sample 1 Participating in a seminar where in-depth results of the worldwide survey will be presented by leading researchers within International Human Resource Management.
1 Receiving the full result report Click "Finish" to submit the survey.
EmploymentPracticesofMultinationalCompanies
AppendixII:Frequencies
124 124
AppendixII:Frequencies
Home‐based MNCsHere we include the total number of foreign‐based companies responded to our survey (31).
Count Percent Please select a language:
English 2 6,45 Danish 29 93,55
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Can you confirm that the company is wholly or majority Danish‐owned? By "majority owned" we mean at least 5+% is owned by a Danish‐based company.
Yes 31 100,00Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Are you located at? (Not Answered) 1 3,23
The global HQ of the worldwide company 25 80,65 The HQ of the opera ng units in Denmark 5 16,13
Total Responses 31 100,00 % What is your job tle?
(Not Answered) 2 6,45 HR/Personnel Director 15 48,39
HR/Personnel Senior MANAGER/ MANAGER 6 19,35 HR/Personnel Officer 2 6,45
HR/Personnel Execu ve 2 6,45 Other 4 12,90
Total Responses 31 100,00 % For which of the following policy levels do you have any HR responsibili es Tick all that apply
(Not Answered) 1 2,63 Global HR policy 18 47,37
Regional HR policy 3 7,89 HR policy in Denmark 14 36,84
Other 2 5,26Total Responses 38 100,00 %
In how many foreign countries does the company have opera ng sites? 1 country 1 3,23
2 ‐ 5 countries 7 22,58 6 or more countries 23 74,19
Total Responses 31 100,00 % Does [NAME] in Denmark have?
(Not Answered) 3 9,68 1 site 8 25,81
2 ‐ 5 sites 9 29,03 6 or more sites 11 35,48
Total Responses 31 100,00 %What is the total number of employees worldwide including Denmark by headcount?
(Not Answered) 3 9,68 500‐999 5 16,13
1000‐4999 13 41,94 5000‐29.999 10 32,26
Total Responses 31 100,00 % Denmark
Up to 99 1 3,23 100‐499 7 22,58 500‐999 9 29,03
1000‐4999 12 38,71 5000+ 2 6,45
Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Europe (excluding Denmark) (Not Answered) 1 3,23
100‐499 13 41,94 500‐999 5 16,13
1000‐4999 11 35,48 5000+ 1 3,23
Total Responses 31 100,00 % North America
(Not Answered) 5 16,13 Up to 99 4 12,90 100‐499 7 22,58 500‐999 3 9,68
1000‐4999 2 6,45 None 9 29,03
Dont know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Asia‐Pacific (Not Answered) 4 12,90
Up to 99 7 22,58 100‐499 6 19,35 500‐999 5 16,13
1000‐4999 3 9,68 None 5 16,13
Dont know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Rest of the world (Not Answered) 7 22,58
Up to 99 2 6,45 100‐499 10 32,26 500‐999 1 3,23
1000‐4999 2 6,45 None 7 22,58
Dont know 2 6,45Total Responses 31 100,00 %
How many of the top five management posi ons in [NAME] in Denmark are filled by individuals from outside Denmark?
(Not Answered) 1 3,23 1 3 9,68 2 5 16,13 3 1 3,23
None 21 67,74Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Which of the following statements best describes [NAME] in Denmark? The company produces… (Not Answered) 1 3,23
A single product or service that accounts for more than 90% of sales 3 9,68A number of products and services but one of these accounts for between 70% and 90% of sales 3 9,68A number of products and services but no single one of these 21 67,74accounts for more than 70% of sales
A range of unrelated products and services 2 6,45 Don't know 1 3,23
Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Which of the following statements best describes the worldwide opera ons? The worldwide company produces…
(Not Answered) 1 3,23A single product or service that accounts for more than 90%of sales 2 6,45A number of products and services but one of these accounts for between 70% and 90% of sales 5 16,13A number of products and services but no single one of these accounts for more than 70% of sales 19 61,29
A range of unrelated products and services 2 6,45 Don't know 2 6,45
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Is the worldwide company's most important product, service or brand(or group of products, services or brands)?
(Not Answered) 1 3,23 Adapted significantly to na onal markets 6 19,35
Adapted to different regions of the world but standardisedwithin them 9 29,03 Standardised globally 14 45,16
Don't know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Are any of the components, products and services of [NAME] in Denmark produced for opera on of the worldwide company based outside Denmark?
(Not Answered) 1 3,23 Yes ‐ all 2 6,45
Yes ‐ some but not all 24 77,42 No ‐ none 3 9,68
Don't know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Do other parts of the worldwide company supply components, products or services to [NAME] in Denmark? (Not Answered) 1 3,23
Yes 23 74,19 No 7 22,58
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Approximately what percentage of revenues of [NAME] comes fromsales abroad?
(Not Answered) 4 12,90 1‐25% 3 9,68 26‐50% 3 9,68 51‐75% 7 22,58 76‐100% 11 35,48
Don't know 3 9,68Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Is the worldwide company state or partly state owned? (Not Answered) 1 3,23
Yes 1 3,23 No 29 93,55
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Is the worldwide company privately owned or are its shares publicly traded?
(Not Answered) 1 3,23 Privately owned 19 61,29
Publicly traded 11 35,48Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Approximately, how many MANAGERS are there in [NAME] in Denmark? 1 – 9 2 6,45
10 – 24 6 19,35 25 – 49 4 12,90 50 – 99 4 12,90
100 – 249 10 32,26 250 – 499 3 9,68
1,000 – 2999 2 6,45
Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Approximately, how many LOG are there in [NAME] in Denmark? (Not Answered) 1 3,23
1 ‐ 9 1 3,23 10 ‐ 24 1 3,23 25 ‐ 49 1 3,23
100 ‐ 249 5 16,13 250 ‐ 499 3 9,68 500 ‐ 749 4 12,90 750 ‐ 999 3 9,68
1,000 ‐ 2999 10 32,26 5,000+ 1 3,23
Don't Know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
On which of the following issues is informa on on the opera ng units in Denmark monitored by managment in a higher organizational level? Please tick all that apply
Managerial pay packages 28 14,74 Management career progression 24 12,63
Overall labour costs 26 13,68 Numbers employed (headcount) 27 14,21
Staff turnover 18 9,47 Absenteeism 20 10,53
Labour produc vity 14 7,37 Workforce composi on by diversity (e.g. gender, ethnicity,disability etc.) 10 5,26
Employee a tude and sa sfac on 22 11,58 Don't know 1 0,53
Total Responses 190 100,00 %On which of the following issues is informa on on the opera ng units outside Denmark monitored by managment in a higher organizational level? Please tick all that apply
Managerial pay packages 26 16,99 Management career progression 22 14,38
Overall labour costs 24 15,69 Numbers employed (headcount) 23 15,03
Staff turnover 13 8,50 Absenteeism 9 5,88
Labour produc vity 10 6,54Workforce composi on by diversity (e.g. gender, ethnicity,disability etc.) 6 3,92
Employee a tude and sa sfac on 17 11,11 None of these 1 0,65
Don't know 1 0,65 Other 1 0,65
Total Responses 153 100,00 %Is there a body within the worldwide company, such as a commi ee of senior managers, that develops HR policies that apply across countries?
(Not Answered) 1 3,23 Yes 18 58,06 No 12 38,71
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Is there someone from outside Denmark on this body/commi ee?
(Not Answered) 15 48,39 Yes 13 41,94 No 3 9,68
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Are HR managers from different countries brought together in a systema c way?
Yes ‐ on a global basis 15 48,39 Yes ‐ on a regional basis 3 9,68
No 13 41,94Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Regular mee ngs (Not Answered) 4 12,90
Weekly 1 3,23 Monthly 6 19,35 Quarterly 5 16,13
Annually 3 9,68 Other 1 3,23 Ad hoc 3 9,68
Never 8 25,81Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Interna onal Conferences (Not Answered) 3 9,68
Annually 7 22,58 Other 3 9,68 Ad hoc 4 12,90
Never 14 45,16Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Task Forces (Not Answered) 2 6,45
Weekly 2 6,45 Monthly 1 3,23 Quarterly 3 9,68
Annually 1 3,23 Other 1 3,23 Ad hoc 11 35,48
Never 10 32,26Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Virtual Groups e.g. conference calls (Not Answered) 2 6,45
Weekly 2 6,45 Monthly 4 12,90 Quarterly 5 16,13
Other 1 3,23 Ad hoc 5 16,13
Never 12 38,71Total Responses 31 100,00 %
There is a worldwide approach covering all global opera ons (Not Answered) 1 3,23
1 6 19,35 2 5 16,13 3 3 9,68 4 4 12,90 5 7 22,58
N/A 3 9,68 Don't know 2 6,45
Total Responses 31 100,00 %There is a regional approach covering all European opera ons
(Not Answered) 1 3,23 1 4 12,90 2 4 12,90 3 8 25,81 4 4 12,90 5 4 12,90
N/A 5 16,13 Don't know 1 3,23
Total Responses 31 100,00 %
The development of a specific approach is le to interna onal product, service or brand based divisions (Not Answered) 2 6,45
1 7 22,58 2 3 9,68 3 7 22,58 4 3 9,68 5 5 16,13
N/A 3 9,68 Don't know 1 3,23
Total Responses 31 100,00 %The development of a specific approach is le to na onal opera ng companies
(Not Answered) 1 3,23 1 5 16,13 2 3 9,68 3 6 19,35 4 9 29,03 5 5 16,13
N/A 1 3,23 Don't know 1 3,23
Total Responses 31 100,00 % The approach is really a mix of the tradi ons of the different na onal opera ng companies
(Not Answered) 2 6,45 1 5 16,13 2 2 6,45 3 5 16,13 4 11 35,48 5 3 9,68
N/A 2 6,45 Don't know 1 3,23
Total Responses 31 100,00 % Tradi ons in the country of origin have an overriding influence on the approach to the management of employees
(Not Answered) 1 3,23 1 3 9,68 2 6 19,35 3 6 19,35 4 7 22,58 5 5 16,13
N/A 1 3,23 Don't know 2 6,45
Total Responses 31 100,00 % Pay and performance management
(Not Answered) 2 6,45 No 14 45,16
Yes, in few parts of the firm 7 22,58 Yes, in major businesses 2 6,45
Yes, taken up globally 2 6,45 Don't know 4 12,90
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Training, development and organisa onal learning
(Not Answered) 1 3,23 No 19 61,29
Yes, in few parts of the firm 7 22,58 Yes, taken up globally 2 6,45
Don't know 2 6,45Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Employee involvement and communica on (Not Answered) 2 6,45
No 15 48,39Yes, in few parts of the firm 8 25,81
Yes, in major businesses 1 3,23 Yes, taken up globally 3 9,68
Don't know 2 6,45Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Employee representa on and consulta on (Not Answered) 3 9,68
No 18 58,06Yes, in few parts of the firm 2 6,45
Yes, in major businesses 2 6,45 Yes, taken up globally 3 9,68
Don't know 3 9,68Total Responses 31 100,00 %
For LOG Yes 15 48,39 No 15 48,39
Don't know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
For MANAGERS (Not Answered) 1 3,23
Yes 19 61,29 No 11 35,48
Total Responses 31 100,00 % For LOG
(Not Answered) 12 38,71 Yes 6 19,35 No 9 29,03
Don't know 4 12,90Total Responses 31 100,00 %
For MANAGERS (Not Answered) 14 45,16
Yes 6 19,35 No 7 22,58
Don't know 4 12,90Total Responses 31 100,00 %
For LOG Don't know
(Not Answered) 27 77,14 Top 4 11,43
Bo om 4 11,43Total Responses 35 100,00 %
For MANAGERS Don't know
(Not Answered) 28 82,35 Top 3 8,82
Bo om 3 8,82Total Responses 34 100,00 %
For LOG (Not Answered) 12 38,71
Yes, as a formal input in decisions 4 12,90 Yes, as an informal input in decisions 11 35,48
No 4 12,90Total Responses 31 100,00 %
For MANAGERS (Not Answered) 11 35,48
Yes, as a formal input in decisions 6 19,35 Yes, as an informal input in decisions 12 38,71
No 2 6,45Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Individual quan ta ve output targets (e.g. financial, numerical) (Not Answered) 11 35,48
1 1 3,23 3 2 6,45 4 7 22,58 5 10 32,26
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Individual qualita ve output targets (e.g. comple on of a task)
(Not Answered) 11 35,48 3 2 6,45 4 11 35,48 5 7 22,58
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Group output targets (e.g. for site or business unit)
(Not Answered) 11 35,48 1 1 3,23 2 3 9,68 3 3 9,68 4 4 12,90 5 9 29,03
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Competences' or personal skills (e.g. leadership or innova on skills)
(Not Answered) 12 38,71 1 2 6,45 2 1 3,23 3 4 12,90 4 10 32,26 5 2 6,45
Total Responses 31 100,00 % Behaviour in rela on to corporate 'values'
(Not Answered) 11 35,48 1 1 3,23 2 1 3,23 3 5 16,13 4 8 25,81 5 5 16,13
Total Responses 31 100,00 % For LOG
(Not Answered) 11 35,48 Yes 8 25,81 No 12 38,71
Total Responses 31 100,00 % For MANAGERS
(Not Answered) 11 35,48 Yes 12 38,71 No 8 25,81
Total Responses 31 100,00 % For LOG
Employee share ownership (Not Answered) 5 16,13
Yes 8 25,81 No 18 58,06
Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Profit Sharing (Not Answered) 6 19,35
Yes 3 9,68 No 21 67,74
Don't know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Share Op ons (Not Answered) 5 16,13
Yes 6 19,35 No 19 61,29
Don't know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
For MANAGERSEmployee share ownership
(Not Answered) 5 16,13 Yes 8 25,81 No 17 54,84
Don't know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Profit Sharing (Not Answered) 6 19,35
Yes 7 22,58 No 15 48,39
Don't know 3 9,68Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Share Op ons (Not Answered) 4 12,90
Yes 9 29,03 No 16 51,61
Don't know 2 6,45Total Responses 31 100,00 %
For LOG Yes 15 48,39 No 16 51,61
Total Responses 31 100,00 % For MANAGERS
Yes 25 80,65 No 6 19,35
Total Responses 31 100,00 % Individual performance
(Not Answered) 16 51,61 1 2 6,45 4 4 12,90 5 9 29,03
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Work group performance (e.g. team or departmental performance)
(Not Answered) 16 51,61 1 2 6,45 2 1 3,23 3 2 6,45 4 3 9,68 5 7 22,58
Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Organiza onal performance (e.g. site, region, company) (Not Answered) 16 51,61
1 2 6,45 2 3 9,68 3 1 3,23 4 4 12,90 5 5 16,13
Total Responses 31 100,00 % Rela ng pay levels in [NAME] in Denmark to market comparators (e.g. aiming to be in top quar le)
(Not Answered) 2 6,45 ... no discre on 8 25,81
... a li le discre on 2 6,45 ... some discre on 5 16,13
... quite a lot of discre on 3 9,68 ... full discre on 2 6,45
Don't know 5 16,13 N/A 4 12,90
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Employee share ownership schemes in [NAME] in Denmark
(Not Answered) 2 6,45 ... no discre on 12 38,71
... a li le discre on 2 6,45 ... some discre on 2 6,45
... quite a lot of discre on 1 3,23 ... full discre on 1 3,23
Don't know 7 22,58 N/A 4 12,90
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Performance appraisal system: For MANAGERS
(Not Answered) 1 3,23 ... no discre on 8 25,81
... a li le discre on 2 6,45 ... some discre on 6 19,35
... full discre on 4 12,90 Don't know 5 16,13
N/A 5 16,13Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Variable payments scheme: For MANAGERS (Not Answered) 2 6,45 ... no discre on 5 16,13
... a li le discre on 1 3,23 ... some discre on 7 22,58
... quite a lot of discre on 3 9,68 ... full discre on 3 9,68
Don't know 5 16,13 N/A 5 16,13
Total Responses 31 100,00 % Performance appraisal system: For LOG
(Not Answered) 2 6,45 ... no discre on 7 22,58
... a li le discre on 2 6,45 ... some discre on 5 16,13
... quite a lot of discre on 1 3,23 ... full discre on 4 12,90
Don't know 6 19,35 N/A 4 12,90
Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Variable payments scheme: For LOG (Not Answered) 1 3,23 ... no discre on 7 22,58
... a li le discre on 2 6,45 ... some discre on 5 16,13
... quite a lot of discre on 1 3,23 ... full discre on 4 12,90
Don't know 6 19,35 N/A 5 16,13
Total Responses 31 100,00 % Rela ng pay levels in [NAME] in Denmark to market comparators(e.g. aiming to be in top quar le)
... no discre on 1 3,23 ... a li le discre on 1 3,23
... some discre on 3 9,68 ... quite a lot of discre on 9 29,03
... full discre on 13 41,94 Don't know 3 9,68
N/A 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Employee share ownership schemes in [NAME] in Denmark (Not Answered) 2 6,45 ... no discre on 7 22,58
... a li le discre on 1 3,23 ... some discre on 1 3,23
... quite a lot of discre on 2 6,45 ... full discre on 9 29,03
Don't know 3 9,68 N/A 6 19,35
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Performance appraisal system: For MANAGERS
... no discre on 2 6,45 ... some discre on 2 6,45
... quite a lot of discre on 7 22,58 ... full discre on 15 48,39
Don't know 2 6,45 N/A 3 9,68
Total Responses 31 100,00 % Variable payments scheme: For MANAGERS
... no discre on 1 3,23 ... a li le discre on 1 3,23
... some discre on 3 9,68 ... quite a lot of discre on 8 25,81
... full discre on 12 38,71 Don't know 2 6,45
N/A 4 12,90Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Performance appraisal system: For LOG ... no discre on 3 9,68
... some discre on 2 6,45 ... quite a lot of discre on 6 19,35
... full discre on 14 45,16 Don't know 2 6,45
N/A 4 12,90Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Variable payments scheme: For LOG ... no discre on 4 12,90
... a li le discre on 1 3,23 ... some discre on 3 9,68
... quite a lot of discre on 5 16,13 ... full discre on 10 32,26
Don't know 2 6,45 N/A 6 19,35
Total Responses 31 100,00 %What percentage of the annual pay bill in [NAME] in Denmark was spent on training and development for all employees over the past 12 months?
(Not Answered) 2 6,45 0% 1 3,23
Up to 1% 10 32,26 Over 1% and less than 4% 14 45,16
Don't Know 4 12,90Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Thinking of [NAME] in Denmark is there a formal system of succession planning for senior managers? Yes in all opera ons 5 16,13
Yes in some opera ons 7 22,58 No 16 51,61
Don't Know 3 9,68Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Is this system also used in other parts of the worldwide company? (Not Answered) 19 61,29
Yes in all opera ons 3 9,68 Yes in some opera ons 8 25,81
Don't Know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Does [NAME] in Denmark have a management development programme specifically aimed at developing its high potentials' or senior management potential?
Yes in all opera ons 12 38,71 Yes in some opera ons 8 25,81
No 9 29,03 Don't Know 2 6,45
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Is this system also used in other parts of the worldwide company?
(Not Answered) 12 38,71 Yes in all opera ons 7 22,58
Yes in some opera ons 10 32,26 No 2 6,45
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Short term Interna onal assignments (12 months or less)
(Not Answered) 1 3,23 1 6 19,35 2 7 22,58 3 9 29,03 4 5 16,13 5 2 6,45
Don't know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Long term interna onal assignments (more than 12 months) (Not Answered) 1 3,23
1 6 19,35 2 6 19,35 3 8 25,81 4 8 25,81 5 1 3,23
Don't know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Formal global management training 1 9 29,03 2 6 19,35 3 2 6,45 4 6 19,35 5 5 16,13
Don't know 1 3,23 N/A 2 6,45
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Assessment of performance against a set of global management competencies
1 12 38,71 2 4 12,90 3 3 9,68 4 3 9,68 5 5 16,13
Don't know 1 3,23 N/A 3 9,68
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Qualifica ons programme (e.g. MBA, professional qualifica ons)
1 3 9,68 2 11 35,48 3 9 29,03 4 5 16,13 5 2 6,45
Don't know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
How many expatriates from the company's foreign opera ons are currently working on longterm assignments (i.e. more than 12 months) in Denmark? Please include all types of long‐term assignments for any purpose. Type 0 if none
(Not Answered) 4 12,90 Don't know 6 19,35
Number 21 67,74Total Responses 31 100,00 %
How many expatriates from [NAME] in Denmark are currently working on long‐term overseas? (i.e. more than 12 months) assignmentsPlease include all types of long‐term assignments for any purpose. Type 0 if none.
(Not Answered) 7 22,58 Don't know 5 16,13
Number 19 61,29Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Thinking of [NAME] in Denmark is there a formal policy on organisa onal learning? Yes in all opera ons 6 19,35
Yes in some opera ons 6 19,35 No 19 61,29
Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Is this system also used in other parts of the worldwide company? (Not Answered) 19 61,29
Yes in all opera ons 5 16,13 Yes in some opera ons 6 19,35
No 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Our company favours internal promo on over external management recruitment 1 1 3,23 2 1 3,23 3 7 22,58 4 16 51,61 5 6 19,35
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Interna onal experience is a key criterion for career progression at senior levels
1 2 6,45 2 6 19,35 3 9 29,03 4 8 25,81 5 6 19,35
Total Responses 31 100,00 % On‐the‐job learning (experience gained on the job) is more valuable than off‐the‐job classroom training
and development 1 1 3,23 3 8 25,81 4 11 35,48 5 10 32,26
Don't know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Investment in training is cri cal to either developing or retaining key skills in this company 1 1 3,23 2 1 3,23 3 4 12,90 4 14 45,16 5 11 35,48
Total Responses 31 100,00 % To what extent is the organiza onal learning policy for [NAME] in Denmark and the worldwide company
similar? 1 = Not at all similar … 5 = Highly similar (Not Answered) 6 19,35
1 1 3,23 2 1 3,23 3 2 6,45 4 5 16,13 5 4 12,90
Don't Know 12 38,71Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Expatriate assignments Yes 22 70,97 No 9 29,03
Total Responses 31 100,00 % Interna onal project groups or task forces
Yes 25 80,65 No 5 16,13
Don't Know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Interna onal formal commi ees Yes 11 35,48 No 16 51,61
Don't Know 4 12,90
Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Interna onal informal networks Yes 21 67,74 No 9 29,03
Don't Know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Secondments to other organisations internationally(e.g. to suppliers, customers, universities, private R&D facilities)
(Not Answered) 2 6,45 Yes 4 12,90 No 22 70,97
Don't Know 3 9,68Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Which of these is the most important interna onal organisa onal learning mechanism used by MANAGERS within [NAME] in Denmark?
(Not Answered) 3 9,68 Expatriate assignments 7 22,58
Interna onal project groups or task forces 17 54,84 Interna onal formal commi ees 1 3,23
Secondments to other organisa ons interna onally (e.g. tosuppliers, custom 1 3,23 Don't know 2 6,45
Total Responses 31 100,00 % Training and development policy
(Not Answered) 2 6,45 ... no discre on 1 3,23
... a li le discre on 3 9,68 ... some discre on 6 19,35
... quite a lot of discre on 9 29,03 ... full discre on 6 19,35
Don't know 1 3,23 N/A 3 9,68
Total Responses 31 100,00 % Training and development policy Policy on organisa onal learning
(Not Answered) 2 6,45 ... no discre on 2 6,45
... a li le discre on 5 16,13 ... some discre on 4 12,90
... quite a lot of discre on 7 22,58 ... full discre on 7 22,58
Don't know 1 3,23 N/A 3 9,68
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Policy on succession planning for senior managers
(Not Answered) 2 6,45 ... no discre on 2 6,45
... a li le discre on 4 12,90 ... some discre on 4 12,90
... quite a lot of discre on 5 16,13 ... full discre on 6 19,35
Don't know 3 9,68 N/A 5 16,13
Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Training and development policy (Not Answered) 1 3,23
... a li le discre on 2 6,45 ... some discre on 5 16,13
... quite a lot of discre on 9 29,03 ... full discre on 13 41,94
N/A 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Policy on organisa onal learning (Not Answered) 1 3,23 ... no discre on 1 3,23
... a li le discre on 3 9,68 ... some discre on 3 9,68
... quite a lot of discre on 9 29,03 ... full discre on 13 41,94
N/A 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Policy on succession planning for senior MANAGERS (Not Answered) 1 3,23 ... no discre on 1 3,23
... a li le discre on 2 6,45 ... some discre on 5 16,13
... quite a lot of discre on 8 25,81 ... full discre on 11 35,48
Don't know 1 3,23 N/A 2 6,45
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Formally designated teams in which employees have responsibility for organising their work and carrying out a set of tasks
Yes 22 70,97 No 7 22,58
Don’t Know 2 6,45Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Groups where employees discuss issues of quality, produc on or service delivery such as problem‐solving or continuous improvement groups
Yes 18 58,06 No 8 25,81
Don’t Know 5 16,13Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Which of the following most closely corresponds to the pa ern of employee involvement in [NAME] in Denmark?
An iden cal or similar pa ern exists across all or most sites 9 29,03All or most sites have involvement systems, but they differfrom site to site 11 35,48Some sites have involvement systems while others do not 3 9,68
Not applicable (1 site only in Denmark) 1 3,23 Don't Know 7 22,58
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Specific prac ces elsewhere in the worldwide company
(Not Answered) 4 12,90 1 11 35,48 2 5 16,13 3 5 16,13 4 5 16,13 5 1 3,23
Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Formal model of good prac ce codified elsewhere in worldwide company (Not Answered) 4 12,90
1 11 35,48 2 6 19,35 3 7 22,58 4 2 6,45 5 1 3,23
Total Responses 31 100,00 % Examples drawn from other firms
(Not Answered) 3 9,68 1 8 25,81 2 6 19,35 3 11 35,48 4 2 6,45 5 1 3,23
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Does [NAME] regularly use teamwork or other employee involvement prac ces in your opera ng companiesoutside Denmark?
(Not Answered) 1 3,23 Yes 18 58,06 No 7 22,58
Don't Know 5 16,13Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Would you say that prac ces in rela on to employee involvement inthe worldwide company are: (Not Answered) 1 3,23
Very similar across all opera ons 2 6,45 Broadly similar but with some varia ons 6 19,35
Similar to some extent but with substan al varia ons 7 22,58 Fairly diverse 11 35,48
Very diverse 2 6,45 Don't Know 2 6,45
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Does [NAME] regularly use project teams or task forces, embracing employees other than MANAGERS, that function across more than one operating unit in Denmark?
Yes 22 70,97 No 3 9,68 N/A 2 6,45
Don't Know 4 12,90Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Do these groups in Denmark also include employees from outsideDenmark? (Not Answered) 10 32,26
Yes 16 51,61 No 2 6,45 N/A 1 3,23
Don't Know 2 6,45Total Responses 31 100,00 %
How common is the cross‐na onal structure of these teams?1=Very rare ... 5=Very common (Not Answered) 16 51,61
2 3 9,68 3 5 16,13 4 4 12,90 5 3 9,68
Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Are there project teams or task forces embracing employees other than MANAGERS that func on across more than one operating unit, used in foreign operations?
(Not Answered) 1 3,23 Yes 14 45,16 No 7 22,58 N/A 2 6,45
Don't Know 7 22,58Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Mee ngs between senior MANAGERS and the whole of the workforce (Not Answered) 1 3,23
Yes 23 74,19 No 6 19,35
Don't know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Mee ngs between line MANAGERS or supervisors and employees (some mes called briefing groups) (Not Answered) 1 3,23
Yes 27 87,10 No 3 9,68
Total Responses 31 100,00 % A tude or opinion surveys
Yes 20 64,52 No 11 35,48
Total Responses 31 100,00 % Sugges on schemes
(Not Answered) 3 9,68 Yes 13 41,94 No 14 45,16
Don't know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Systema c use of management chain to cascade informa on (Not Answered) 2 6,45
Yes 20 64,52 No 5 16,13
Don't know 4 12,90Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Newsle ers or emails Yes 28 90,32 No 3 9,68
Total Responses 31 100,00 %A company intranet providing informa on to employees'
Yes 26 83,87 No 4 12,90
Don't know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Financial posi on of the company Yes 30 96,77 No 1 3,23
Total Responses 31 100,00 % Investment plan for the company
Yes 12 38,71 No 16 51,61
Don't know 3 9,68Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Staffing plans for the company Yes 11 35,48 No 19 61,29
Don't know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Financial posi on of the company (Not Answered) 2 6,45
Yes 27 87,10 No 2 6,45
Total Responses 31 100,00 % Investment plan for the company
(Not Answered) 2 6,45 Yes 8 25,81 No 17 54,84
Don't know 4 12,90Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Staffing plans for the company (Not Answered) 2 6,45
Yes 6 19,35 No 20 64,52
Don't know 3 9,68Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Involvement of employees in work process, e.g. team work or problem‐solving groups (Not Answered) 1 3,23 ... no discre on 3 9,68
... a li le discre on 1 3,23 ... some discre on 2 6,45
... quite a lot of discre on 4 12,90 ... full discre on 16 51,61
Don't know 1 3,23 N/A 3 9,68
Total Responses 31 100,00 % A tude or opinion surveys
(Not Answered) 2 6,45 ... no discre on 5 16,13
... a li le discre on 6 19,35 ... some discre on 1 3,23
... quite a lot of discre on 4 12,90 ... full discre on 10 32,26
Don't know 1 3,23 N/A 2 6,45
Total Responses 31 100,00 % Sugges on schemes
(Not Answered) 1 3,23 ... no discre on 2 6,45
... a li le discre on 2 6,45 ... some discre on 1 3,23
... quite a lot of discre on 3 9,68 ... full discre on 18 58,06
Don't know 2 6,45 N/A 2 6,45
Total Responses 31 100,00 % Provision of informa on to employees
(Not Answered) 1 3,23 ... no discre on 3 9,68
... a li le discre on 1 3,23 ... some discre on 2 6,45
... quite a lot of discre on 6 19,35 ... full discre on 15 48,39
Don't know 1 3,23 N/A 2 6,45
Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Involvement of employees in work process, e.g. team work orproblem‐solving groups ... no discre on 3 9,68
... a li le discre on 2 6,45 ... some discre on 2 6,45
... quite a lot of discre on 6 19,35 ... full discre on 17 54,84
N/A 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
A tude or opinion surveys ... no discre on 4 12,90
... a li le discre on 7 22,58 ... quite a lot of discre on 4 12,90
... full discre on 13 41,94 N/A 3 9,68
Total Responses 31 100,00 % Sugges on schemes
(Not Answered) 1 3,23 ... no discre on 1 3,23
... a li le discre on 4 12,90 ... quite a lot of discre on 4 12,90
... full discre on 17 54,84 Don't know 1 3,23
N/A 3 9,68Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Provision of informa on to employees (Not Answered) 1 3,23 ... no discre on 2 6,45
... a li le discre on 2 6,45 ... some discre on 2 6,45
... quite a lot of discre on 5 16,13 ... full discre on 17 54,84
N/A 2 6,45Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Thinking of the LOG in [NAME] in Denmark, are trade unions recognised for the purposes of collec veemployee representationat?
No sites in the Danish opera ons 4 12,90 All sites in the Danish opera ons 18 58,06
Most sites in the Danish opera ons 1 3,23 Some sites in the Danish opera ons 3 9,68
The company's single Danish site 5 16,13Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Are there any non‐union based structure(s) of collec ve employeerepresenta on used Tick all that apply (Not Answered) 8 25,00
Yes, at sites where there is no trade union recogni on 1 3,13Yes, at sites where there is also trade union recogni on 11 34,38
No 12 37,50Total Responses 32 100,00 %
How would you describe the policy of management towards union recogni on within [NAME] in Denmark? In favour of union recogni on 16 51,61
Not in favour of union recogni on 2 6,45 Neutral towards union recogni on 13 41,94
Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Thinking of the company's opera ons outside Denmark, which of the following statements comes closest tocapturing you policy towards trade unions?
(Not Answered) 1 3,23 There is no policy 9 29,03
We expect local management to follow the local prac ce inthe industry and 14 45,16It is general policy to bargain with trade unions, eitherdirectly or indirectly t 5 16,13
Don't Know 2 6,45Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Is there collec ve bargaining with trade unions over pay and major condi ons (e.g. working me) at any of the following levels covering all or some of the LOG within [NAME] in Denmark? Tick all that apply
(Not Answered) 2 6,06 At Danish company level, covering all sites 8 24,24
At the company's single Danish site 2 6,06Covering more than one, but not all Danish sites 4 12,12
At individual site level 4 12,12At industry level, covering more than one employer 1 3,03
There is no collec ve bargaining over pay 12 36,36Total Responses 33 100,00 %
Thinking about trade unions in [NAME] in Denmark, what approach do the trade union representa ves generally adopt?
A coopera ve approach 18 58,06 It depends on the issue 10 32,26
Don't Know… 3 9,68Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Work organisa on (Not Answered) 4 12,90
1 7 22,58 2 5 16,13 3 7 22,58 4 3 9,68 5 2 6,45
Don't know 3 9,68Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Sub‐contrac ng and outsourcing (Not Answered) 4 12,90
1 12 38,71 2 7 22,58 3 2 6,45 4 1 3,23
Don't know 5 16,13Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Variable payments schemes (Not Answered) 4 12,90
1 3 9,68 2 4 12,90 3 8 25,81 4 2 6,45 5 7 22,58
Don't know 3 9,68Total Responses 31 100,00 %
In‐work training/ upgrading skills (Not Answered) 5 16,13
1 3 9,68 2 3 9,68 3 9 29,03 4 6 19,35 5 3 9,68
Don't know 2 6,45
Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Direct employee involvement schemes (Not Answered) 4 12,90
1 4 12,90 2 1 3,23 3 11 35,48 4 5 16,13 5 2 6,45
Don't know 4 12,90Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Union recogni on (Not Answered) 2 6,45 ... no discre on 3 9,68
... a li le discre on 2 6,45 ... some discre on 5 16,13
... quite a lot of discre on 2 6,45 ... full discre on 13 41,94
Don't know 2 6,45 N/A 2 6,45
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Scope of union involvement in decision‐making
(Not Answered) 2 6,45 ... no discre on 3 9,68
... a li le discre on 2 6,45 ... some discre on 4 12,90
... quite a lot of discre on 4 12,90 ... full discre on 11 35,48
Don't know 2 6,45 N/A 3 9,68
Total Responses 31 100,00 % To what extent do opera ng companies outside Denmark have discre on over determining employee
consultation policy? (Not Answered) 2 6,45 ... no discre on 2 6,45
... a li le discre on 4 12,90 ... some discre on 4 12,90
... quite a lot of discre on 4 12,90 ... full discre on 11 35,48
Don't know 2 6,45 N/A 2 6,45
Total Responses 31 100,00 % Union recogni on (Not Answered) 1 3,23 ... no discre on 2 6,45
... a li le discre on 1 3,23 ... some discre on 3 9,68
... quite a lot of discre on 3 9,68 ... full discre on 18 58,06
Don't know 1 3,23 N/A 2 6,45
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Scope of union involvement in decision‐making
(Not Answered) 1 3,23 ... no discre on 2 6,45
... a li le discre on 1 3,23 ... some discre on 3 9,68
... quite a lot of discre on 3 9,68 ... full discre on 18 58,06
Don't know 1 3,23
N/A 2 6,45Total Responses 31 100,00 %
To what extent do opera ng companies outside Denmark have discre on over determining employeeconsultation policy?
(Not Answered) 2 6,45 ... no discre on 1 3,23
... a li le discre on 3 9,68 ... some discre on 3 9,68
... quite a lot of discre on 5 16,13 ... full discre on 14 45,16
Don't know 1 3,23 N/A 2 6,45
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Do you receive informa on about the ac vity and mee ngs of theEWC?
(Not Answered) 27 87,10 Systema cally at the me of EWC mee ngs 2 6,45
Li le or no informa on about the EWC received 2 6,45Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Which of the following statements best describes the overall nature of the European Works Council in Denmark?
(Not Answered) 26 83,87Management provides informa on somewhat beyond thatrequired for com 2 6,45Management provides informa on considerably beyond thatrequired for co 2 6,45Management provides informa on far beyond that requiredfor compliance 1 3,23
Total Responses 31 100,00 % Is there a European Works Council (EWC) or similar European‐level structure which covers [NAME] in
Denmark? (Not Answered) 2 6,45
Yes 5 16,13 No 18 58,06
Don't know 6 19,35Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Over the past 3 years, has the EU Direc ve on Informa on and Consulta on prompted any changes in arrangements for employee consultation in Denmark?
(Not Answered) 2 6,45 Yes 3 9,68 No 13 41,94
Don't know 13 41,94Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Does the worldwide company have experience of opera ng with mandatory employee consulta on structures (e.g. works councils) that are required in some countries overseas?
(Not Answered) 1 3,23 Yes 15 48,39 No 10 32,26
Don't know 5 16,13Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Do these mee ngs cover...? (Not Answered) 7 22,58
All employees under a single arrangement 12 38,71All employees, but with different arrangements for differentgroups 9 29,03Some groups of employees under a single arrangement 2 6,45
Other 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Which of the following statements best describes management's rela ve emphasis in [NAME] in Denmark on mechanisms for communicating and consulting with employees?
Emphasis on direct communica on and consulta on 18 58,06Emphasis on indirect communica on and consulta on (e.g.through joint co 4 12,90Equivalent emphasis on direct and indirect communica onand consulta on 9 29,03
Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Which of the following statements comes closest to capturing the worldwide company's policy? (Not Answered) 16 51,61
There is no policy 3 9,68Minimum compliance with legal requirements on employeeinforma on and 5 16,13To go somewhat further than legal requirements 5 16,13To go considerably further than legal requirements 2 6,45
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Are regular mee ngs held between management and representa ves of employees at this level in [NAME] in Denmark for the purpose of information provision and consultation?
Yes 24 77,42 No 6 19,35
Don't know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Quality of products/services (Not Answered) 1 3,23
‐ 5 16,13 ‐ 14 45,16
Outstanding 11 35,48Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Development of new products/services (Not Answered) 1 3,23
Poor 1 3,23 ‐ 1 3,23 ‐ 4 12,90 ‐ 14 45,16
Outstanding 10 32,26Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Profit genera on (Not Answered) 1 3,23
‐ 5 16,13 ‐ 7 22,58 ‐ 6 19,35
Outstanding 12 38,71Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Turnover (Not Answered) 1 3,23
‐ 1 3,23 ‐ 8 25,81 ‐ 12 38,71
Outstanding 9 29,03Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Market share (Not Answered) 1 3,23
‐ 1 3,23 ‐ 5 16,13 ‐ 15 48,39
Outstanding 9 29,03Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Ability to recruit essen al employees (Not Answered) 1 3,23
‐ 2 6,45 ‐ 6 19,35 ‐ 16 51,61
Outstanding 6 19,35Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Ability to retain essen al employees (Not Answered) 1 3,23
‐ 1 3,23 ‐ 9 29,03 ‐ 14 45,16
Outstanding 6 19,35Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Customer/client sa sfac on (Not Answered) 1 3,23
‐ 1 3,23 ‐ 5 16,13 ‐ 20 64,52
Outstanding 4 12,90Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Manager‐employees rela ons (Not Answered) 1 3,23
‐ 1 3,23 ‐ 6 19,35 ‐ 19 61,29
Outstanding 4 12,90Total Responses 31 100,00 %
General employee rela ons (Not Answered) 1 3,23
Poor 1 3,23 ‐ 1 3,23 ‐ 6 19,35 ‐ 18 58,06
Outstanding 4 12,90Total Responses 31 100,00 %
The job sa sfac on of the employees at [NAME] in Denmark? ‐ 1 3,23 ‐ 6 19,35 ‐ 19 61,29
Outstanding 5 16,13Total Responses 31 100,00 %
The ability of [NAME] in Denmark to retain essen al employees? ‐ 2 6,45 ‐ 5 16,13 ‐ 20 64,52
Outstanding 4 12,90Total Responses 31 100,00 %
The overall performance of the [NAME] in Denmark ‐ 9 29,03 ‐ 18 58,06
Outstanding 4 12,90Total Responses 31 100,00 %
The opera ons outside Denmark have interna onal responsibility for one or more products or services company on behalf of the worldwide
(Not Answered) 2 6,45 1 5 16,13 2 1 3,23 3 6 19,35 4 10 32,26 5 7 22,58
Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Significant exper se in R&D within the worldwide company is generated outside Denmark opera ons (Not Answered) 3 9,68
1 7 22,58 2 5 16,13 3 10 32,26 4 5 16,13 5 1 3,23
Total Responses 31 100,00 % How important is/are your overseas subsidiary/subsidiaries to the global performance of the parent
(Not Answered) 2 6,45 3 4 12,90 4 7 22,58 5 18 58,06
Total Responses 31 100,00 %Has this level of importance changed over the past five years? 1=Significantly decreased, 2=Slightly decreased, 3=Stayed about the same, 4=Slightly increased, 5=Significantly increased
(Not Answered) 2 6,45 2 2 6,45 3 6 19,35 4 10 32,26 5 10 32,26
Don't know 1 3,23Total Responses 31 100,00 %
How is the performance of the [NAME] in Denmark rela ve to compe tors? ‐ 5 16,13 ‐ 18 58,06
Outstanding 8 25,81Total Responses 31 100,00 %
Please let us know if you are interested in … Tick all that apply (Not Answered) 5 8,06
Receiving a report benchmarking the employment prac cesof your compan 24 38,71Par cipa ng in a seminar where in‐depth results of theworldwide survey w 14 22,58
Receiving the full result report 19 30,65Total Responses 62 100,00 %
Foreign‐based MNCsHere we include the total number of foreign‐based companies responded to our survey (88). However, 2 number of responses were deleted from the sample used in the report and follow up anaylysis as they were incomplete or insufficient.
Count Percent Please select a language:
English 3 3,33 Danish 87 96,67
Total Responses 90 100,00 %Can you confirm that the company is wholly or majority foreign‐owned? By "majority owned" we mean atleast 50% is owned by a foreign‐based company.
Yes 90 100,00Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Are you located at? The global HQ of the worldwide company 2 2,22 The HQ of the opera ng units in Denmark 74 82,22
Other (Please specify) 14 15,56Total Responses 90 100,00 %
What is your job tle? (Not Answered) 4 4,44
HR/Personnel Director 32 35,56 HR/Personnel Senior Manager/Manager 38 42,22
HR/Personnel Officer 2 2,22 HR/Personnel Assistant 4 4,44
Other 10 11,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
For which of the following policy levels do you have any HR responsibili es Tick all that apply Global HR policy 8 7,02
Regional HR policy 31 27,19 HR policy in Denmark 67 58,77
Other 8 7,02Total Responses 114 100,00 %
Count PercentIn how many foreign countries does the company have opera ng sites?
(Not Answered) 2 2,22 1 country 3 3,33
2 ‐ 5 countries 13 14,44 6 or more countries 72 80,00
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Does [NAME] in Denmark have?
(Not Answered) 1 1,11 1 site 21 23,33
2 ‐ 5 sites 45 50,00 6 or more sites 23 25,56
Total Responses 90 100,00 %What is the total number of employees worldwide including Denmark by headcount?
(Not Answered) 7 7,78 100‐499 1 1,11 500‐999 6 6,67
1000‐4999 16 17,78 5000‐29.999 19 21,11
30.000‐59.999 18 20,00 60.000+ 23 25,56
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Denmark
(Not Answered) 2 2,22 Up to 99 9 10,00 100‐499 51 56,67 500‐999 15 16,67
1000‐4999 10 11,11 5000+ 2 2,22
Dont know 1 1,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Europe (excluding Denmark) (Not Answered) 2 2,22
Up to 99 3 3,33 100‐499 6 6,67 500‐999 4 4,44
1000‐4999 17 18,89 5000+ 42 46,67
Dont know 16 17,78Total Responses 90 100,00 %
North America (Not Answered) 11 12,22
Up to 99 7 7,78 100‐499 7 7,78 500‐999 1 1,11
1000‐4999 5 5,56 5000+ 23 25,56
None 15 16,67 Dont know 21 23,33
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Asia‐Pacific
(Not Answered) 13 14,44 Up to 99 5 5,56 100‐499 3 3,33 500‐999 6 6,67
1000‐4999 6 6,67 5000+ 24 26,67
None 10 11,11 Dont know 23 25,56
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Rest of the world
(Not Answered) 12 13,33 Up to 99 4 4,44 100‐499 5 5,56 500‐999 2 2,22
1000‐4999 9 10,00 5000+ 23 25,56
None 10 11,11 Dont know 25 27,78
Total Responses 90 100,00 %Individuals who previously worked for the company in country oforigin?
(Not Answered) 6 6,67 None 51 56,67
Don't know 5 5,56 Number 28 31,11
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Was this through...? (Not Answered) 5 5,56
A greenfield investment 21 23,33 A merger or acquisi on 51 56,67
Other (please specify) 13 14,44Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Individuals from other parts of the worldwide company? i.e. outside Denmark but not the country of origin. (Not Answered) 4 4,44
None 55 61,11 Don't know 9 10,00
Number 22 24,44
Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Which of the following statements best describes [NAME] inDenmark? The company produces… (Not Answered) 1 1,11
A single product or service that accounts for more than 90%of sales 16 17,78A number of products and services but one of theseaccounts for between 7 14 15,56A number of products and services but no single one ofthese accounts for m 53 58,89
A range of unrelated products and services 6 6,67Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Which of the following statements best describes the worldwide opera ons? The worldwide company produces…
(Not Answered) 2 2,22A single product or service that accounts for more than 90%of sales 7 7,78A number of products and services but one of theseaccounts for between 7 14 15,56A number of products and services but no single one ofthese accounts for m 54 60,00
A range of unrelated products and services 13 14,44Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Is the worldwide company's most important product, service or brand (or group of products, services or brands)? (Not Answered) 2 2,22
Adapted significantly to na onal markets 19 21,11Adapted to different regions of the world but standardisedwithin them 34 37,78
Standardised globally 27 30,00 Don't know 8 8,89
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Are any of the components, products and services of [NAME] in Denmark produced for opera on of the
worldwide company based outside Denmark? (Not Answered) 2 2,22
Yes ‐ all 6 6,67 Yes ‐ some but not all 45 50,00
No ‐ none 31 34,44 Don't know 6 6,67
Total Responses 90 100,00 %Do other parts of the worldwide company supply components, products or services to [NAME] in Denmark?
(Not Answered) 3 3,33 Yes 57 63,33 No 27 30,00
Don't know 3 3,33Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Approximately what percentage of revenues of [NAME] comes from sales abroad? (Not Answered) 7 7,78
0% 7 7,78 1‐25% 10 11,11 26‐50% 7 7,78 51‐75% 15 16,67 76‐100% 22 24,44
Don't know 22 24,44Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Is the worldwide company state or partly state owned? (Not Answered) 1 1,11
Yes 4 4,44 No 84 93,33
Don't know 1 1,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Is the worldwide company privately owned or are its shares publicly traded? (Not Answered) 3 3,33 Privately owned 28 31,11
Publicly traded 59 65,56Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Approximately, how many MANAGERS are there in [NAME] inDenmark? (Not Answered) 3 3,33
0 2 2,22 1 – 9 16 17,78
10 – 24 30 33,33 25 – 49 16 17,78 50 – 99 11 12,22
100 – 249 9 10,00 250 – 499 1 1,11
Don’t Know 2 2,22Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Approximately, how many LOG are there in [NAME] in Denmark? (Not Answered) 3 3,33
0 2 2,22 1 ‐ 9 2 2,22
25 ‐ 49 5 5,56 50 ‐ 99 13 14,44
100 ‐ 249 27 30,00 250 ‐ 499 16 17,78 500 ‐ 749 8 8,89 750 ‐ 999 4 4,44
1,000 ‐ 2999 4 4,44 3,000 ‐ 4,999 2 2,22
5,000+ 1 1,11 Don't Know 3 3,33
Total Responses 90 100,00 % On which of the following issues is informa on on the opera ng units in Denmark monitored by
management outside of Denmark? Please tick all that apply (Not Answered) 1 0,21
Managerial pay packages 74 15,61 Management career progression 64 13,50
Overall labour costs 65 13,71 Numbers employed (headcount) 74 15,61
Staff turnover 46 9,70 Absenteeism 30 6,33
Labour produc vity 41 8,65Workforce composi on by diversity (e.g. gender, ethnicity,disability etc.) 25 5,27
Employee a tude and sa sfac on 48 10,13 None of these 3 0,63
Don't know 1 0,21 Other 2 0,42
Total Responses 474 100,00 %Is there a body within the worldwide company, such as a commi ee of senior managers, that develops HRpolicies that apply across countries?
(Not Answered) 2 2,22 Yes 61 67,78 No 26 28,89
Don't know 1 1,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Is there someone from Denmark on this body/commi ee? (Not Answered) 31 34,44
Yes 22 24,44 No 36 40,00
Don't know 1 1,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Are HR managers from different countries brought together in asystema c way? (Not Answered) 1 1,11
Yes ‐ on a global basis 21 23,33 Yes ‐ on a regional basis 36 40,00
No 32 35,56Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Regular mee ngs (Not Answered) 3 3,33
Weekly 5 5,56 Monthly 10 11,11 Quarterly 19 21,11
Annually 13 14,44 Other 5 5,56 Ad hoc 13 14,44
Never 22 24,44Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Interna onal Conferences (Not Answered) 6 6,67
Quarterly 2 2,22 Annually 23 25,56
Other 7 7,78 Ad hoc 20 22,22
Never 32 35,56Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Task Forces (Not Answered) 5 5,56
Weekly 3 3,33 Monthly 7 7,78 Quarterly 9 10,00
Annually 1 1,11 Other 3 3,33 Ad hoc 37 41,11
Never 25 27,78Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Virtual Groups e.g. conference calls (Not Answered) 3 3,33
Weekly 5 5,56 Monthly 24 26,67 Quarterly 7 7,78
Annually 1 1,11 Other 1 1,11 Ad hoc 19 21,11
Never 30 33,33Total Responses 90 100,00 %
There is a worldwide approach covering all global opera ons (Not Answered) 2 2,22
1 10 11,11 2 14 15,56 3 13 14,44 4 25 27,78 5 16 17,78
N/A 3 3,33 Don't know 7 7,78
Total Responses 90 100,00 %
There is a regional approach covering all European opera ons (Not Answered) 2 2,22
1 3 3,33 2 13 14,44 3 10 11,11 4 27 30,00 5 26 28,89
N/A 2 2,22 Don't know 7 7,78
Total Responses 90 100,00 % The development of a specific approach is le to interna onal product, service or brand based divisions
(Not Answered) 3 3,33 1 10 11,11 2 14 15,56 3 20 22,22 4 24 26,67 5 9 10,00
N/A 4 4,44 Don't know 6 6,67
Total Responses 90 100,00 %The development of a specific approach is le to na onal opera ng companies
(Not Answered) 2 2,22 1 5 5,56 2 9 10,00 3 18 20,00 4 38 42,22 5 13 14,44
N/A 2 2,22 Don't know 3 3,33
Total Responses 90 100,00 % The approach is really a mix of the tradi ons of the different na onal opera ng companies
(Not Answered) 2 2,22 1 11 12,22 2 18 20,00 3 13 14,44 4 30 33,33 5 7 7,78
N/A 4 4,44 Don't know 5 5,56
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Tradi ons in the country of origin have an overriding influence on the approach to the management of
employees (Not Answered) 3 3,33
1 8 8,89 2 19 21,11 3 20 22,22 4 18 20,00 5 17 18,89
N/A 2 2,22 Don't know 3 3,33
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Pay and performance management
(Not Answered) 2 2,22 No 53 58,89
Yes, in few parts of the firm 20 22,22 Yes, in major businesses 9 10,00
Yes, taken up globally 1 1,11 Don't know 5 5,56
Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Training, development and organisa onal learning (Not Answered) 2 2,22
No 48 53,33Yes, in few parts of the firm 24 26,67
Yes, in major businesses 8 8,89 Yes, taken up globally 3 3,33
Don't know 5 5,56Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Employee involvement and communica on (Not Answered) 2 2,22
No 43 47,78Yes, in few parts of the firm 31 34,44
Yes, in major businesses 10 11,11 Don't know 4 4,44
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Employee representa on and consulta on
(Not Answered) 3 3,33 No 52 57,78
Yes, in few parts of the firm 23 25,56 Yes, in major businesses 5 5,56
Don't know 7 7,78Total Responses 90 100,00 %
For LOG (Not Answered) 1 1,11
Yes 65 72,22 No 23 25,56
Don't know 1 1,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
For MANAGERS (Not Answered) 3 3,33
Yes 68 75,56 No 18 20,00
Don't know 1 1,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
For LOG (Not Answered) 19 21,11
Yes 15 16,67 No 46 51,11
Don't know 10 11,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
For MANAGERS (Not Answered) 19 21,11
Yes 18 20,00 No 43 47,78
Don't know 10 11,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
For LOG Don't know
(Not Answered) 83 87,37 Top 6 6,32
Bo om 6 6,32Total Responses 95 100,00 %
For MANAGERS Don't know
(Not Answered) 82 85,42 Top 7 7,29
Bo om 7 7,29Total Responses 96 100,00 %
For LOG (Not Answered) 23 25,56
Yes, as a formal input in decisions 17 18,89 Yes, as an informal input in decisions 27 30,00
No 20 22,22 N/A 2 2,22
Don't know 1 1,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
For MANAGERS (Not Answered) 22 24,44
Yes, as a formal input in decisions 20 22,22 Yes, as an informal input in decisions 33 36,67
No 12 13,33 N/A 2 2,22
Don't know 1 1,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Individual quan ta ve output targets (e.g. financial, numerical) (Not Answered) 22 24,44
1 1 1,11 2 5 5,56 3 3 3,33 4 23 25,56 5 36 40,00
Total Responses 90 100,00 %Individual qualita ve output targets (e.g. comple on of a task)
(Not Answered) 22 24,44 1 1 1,11 2 3 3,33 3 7 7,78 4 29 32,22 5 28 31,11
Total Responses 90 100,00 %Group output targets (e.g. for site or business unit)
(Not Answered) 22 24,44 1 1 1,11 2 4 4,44 3 10 11,11 4 18 20,00 5 34 37,78
Don't know 1 1,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Competences' or personal skills (e.g. leadership or innova on skills) (Not Answered) 23 25,56
2 4 4,44 3 20 22,22 4 26 28,89 5 17 18,89
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Behaviour in rela on to corporate 'values'
(Not Answered) 22 24,44 1 1 1,11 2 4 4,44 3 13 14,44 4 18 20,00 5 32 35,56
Total Responses 90 100,00 %
For LOG (Not Answered) 23 25,56
Yes 40 44,44 No 25 27,78
Don't know 2 2,22Total Responses 90 100,00 %
For MANAGERS (Not Answered) 22 24,44
Yes 51 56,67 No 15 16,67
Don't know 2 2,22Total Responses 90 100,00 %
For LOGEmployee share ownership
(Not Answered) 8 8,89 Yes 9 10,00 No 72 80,00
Don't know 1 1,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Profit Sharing (Not Answered) 13 14,44
Yes 6 6,67 No 69 76,67
Don't know 2 2,22Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Share Op ons (Not Answered) 11 12,22
Yes 9 10,00 No 67 74,44
Don't know 3 3,33Total Responses 90 100,00 %
For MANAGERSEmployee share ownership
(Not Answered) 6 6,67 Yes 18 20,00 No 63 70,00
Don't know 3 3,33Total Responses 90 100,00 %
For MANAGERS Profit Sharing
(Not Answered) 14 15,56 Yes 10 11,11 No 62 68,89
Don't know 4 4,44Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Share Op ons (Not Answered) 10 11,11
Yes 22 24,44 No 53 58,89
Don't know 5 5,56Total Responses 90 100,00 %
For LOG (Not Answered) 3 3,33
Yes 56 62,22 No 30 33,33
Don't Know 1 1,11
Total Responses 90 100,00 %
For MANAGERS (Not Answered) 2 2,22
Yes 67 74,44 No 21 23,33
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Individual performance
(Not Answered) 34 37,78 1 4 4,44 2 3 3,33 3 6 6,67 4 15 16,67 5 28 31,11
Total Responses 90 100,00 %Work group performance (e.g. team or departmental performance)
(Not Answered) 35 38,89 1 4 4,44 2 7 7,78 3 12 13,33 4 14 15,56 5 16 17,78
Don't know 2 2,22Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Organiza onal performance (e.g. site, region, company) (Not Answered) 34 37,78
1 3 3,33 2 10 11,11 3 11 12,22 4 14 15,56 5 16 17,78
Don't know 2 2,22Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Rela ng pay levels in [NAME] in Denmark to market comparators (e.g. aiming to be in top quar le) (Not Answered) 2 2,22 ... no discre on 10 11,11
... a li le discre on 7 7,78 ... some discre on 18 20,00
... quite a lot of discre on 28 31,11 ... full discre on 20 22,22
Don't know 2 2,22 N/A 3 3,33
Total Responses 90 100,00 %Employee share ownership schemes in [NAME] in Denmark
(Not Answered) 2 2,22 ... no discre on 54 60,00
... a li le discre on 12 13,33 ... some discre on 3 3,33
... quite a lot of discre on 3 3,33 ... full discre on 2 2,22
Don't know 4 4,44 N/A 10 11,11
Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Performance appraisal system: For MANAGERS (Not Answered) 2 2,22 ... no discre on 15 16,67
... a li le discre on 11 12,22 ... some discre on 17 18,89
... quite a lot of discre on 23 25,56 ... full discre on 16 17,78
Don't know 3 3,33 N/A 3 3,33
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Variable payments scheme: For MANAGERS
(Not Answered) 2 2,22 ... no discre on 17 18,89
... a li le discre on 7 7,78 ... some discre on 22 24,44
... quite a lot of discre on 22 24,44 ... full discre on 14 15,56
Don't know 2 2,22 N/A 4 4,44
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Performance appraisal system: For LOG
(Not Answered) 2 2,22 ... no discre on 14 15,56
... a li le discre on 8 8,89 ... some discre on 16 17,78
... quite a lot of discre on 21 23,33 ... full discre on 23 25,56
Don't know 2 2,22 N/A 4 4,44
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Variable payments scheme: For LOG
(Not Answered) 4 4,44 ... no discre on 10 11,11
... a li le discre on 8 8,89 ... some discre on 23 25,56
... quite a lot of discre on 21 23,33 ... full discre on 18 20,00
Don't know 2 2,22 N/A 4 4,44
Total Responses 90 100,00 %What percentage of the annual pay bill in [NAME] in Denmark was spent on training and development for all employees over the past 12 months?
(Not Answered) 6 6,67 0% 1 1,11
Up to 1% 27 30,00 Over 1% and less than 4% 41 45,56
Over 4% 7 7,78 Don't Know 8 8,89
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Thinking of [NAME] in Denmark is there a formal system of succession planning for senior managers?
(Not Answered) 3 3,33 Yes in all opera ons 17 18,89
Yes in some opera ons 25 27,78 No 43 47,78
Don't Know 2 2,22Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Is this system also used in other parts of the worldwide company? (Not Answered) 48 53,33
Yes in all opera ons 13 14,44 Yes in some opera ons 16 17,78
No 6 6,67 Don't Know 7 7,78
Total Responses 90 100,00 %Does [NAME] in Denmark have a management development programme specifically aimed at developing its high potentials' or senior management potential?
(Not Answered) 2 2,22 Yes in all opera ons 34 37,78
Yes in some opera ons 26 28,89 No 28 31,11
Total Responses 90 100,00 %Is this system also used in other parts of the worldwide company?
(Not Answered) 30 33,33 Yes in all opera ons 23 25,56
Yes in some opera ons 22 24,44 No 11 12,22
Don't Know 4 4,44Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Short term Interna onal assignments (12 months or less) (Not Answered) 3 3,33
1 30 33,33 2 20 22,22 3 17 18,89 4 10 11,11 5 2 2,22
Don't know 2 2,22 N/A 6 6,67
Total Responses 90 100,00 %Long term interna onal assignments (more than 12 months)
(Not Answered) 3 3,33 1 30 33,33 2 15 16,67 3 23 25,56 4 9 10,00 5 5 5,56
Don't know 1 1,11 N/A 4 4,44
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Formal global management training
(Not Answered) 3 3,33 1 21 23,33 2 13 14,44 3 18 20,00 4 18 20,00 5 12 13,33
Don't know 3 3,33 N/A 2 2,22
Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Assessment of performance against a set of global management competencies (Not Answered) 3 3,33
1 27 30,00 2 9 10,00 3 11 12,22 4 19 21,11 5 13 14,44
Don't know 2 2,22 N/A 6 6,67
Total Responses 90 100,00 %Qualifica ons programme (e.g. MBA, professional qualifica ons)
(Not Answered) 3 3,33 1 20 22,22 2 20 22,22 3 26 28,89 4 12 13,33 5 2 2,22
Don't know 3 3,33 N/A 4 4,44
Total Responses 90 100,00 % How many expatriates from the company's foreign opera ons are currently working on long‐term
assignments (i.e. more than 12 months) in Denmark? Please include all types of long‐term assignments for any purpose. Type 0 if none
(Not Answered) 16 17,78 Don't know 7 7,78
Number 67 74,44Total Responses 90 100,00 %
How many expatriates from [NAME] in Denmark are currently working on long‐term (i.e. more than 12 months) assignment overseas? Please include all types of long‐term assigments for any pupose. Type 0 if none
(Not Answered) 19 21,11 Don't know 8 8,89
Number 63 70,00Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Thinking of [NAME] in Denmark is there a formal policy on organisa onal learning? (Not Answered) 2 2,22
Yes in all opera ons 13 14,44 Yes in some opera ons 22 24,44
No 50 55,56 Don't Know 3 3,33
Total Responses 90 100,00 %Is this system also used in other parts of the worldwide company?
(Not Answered) 56 62,22 Yes in all opera ons 7 7,78
Yes in some opera ons 17 18,89 No 8 8,89
Don't Know 2 2,22Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Our company favours internal promo on over external management recruitment (Not Answered) 1 1,11
1 3 3,33 2 4 4,44 3 35 38,89 4 29 32,22 5 17 18,89
Don't know 1 1,11
Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Interna onal experience is a key criterion for career progression at senior levels (Not Answered) 1 1,11
1 8 8,89 2 22 24,44 3 23 25,56 4 21 23,33 5 14 15,56
Don't know 1 1,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
On‐the‐job learning (experience gained on the job) is more valuable than off‐the‐job classroom training and development
(Not Answered) 2 2,22 2 3 3,33 3 21 23,33 4 39 43,33 5 23 25,56
Don't know 2 2,22Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Investment in training is cri cal to either developing or retaining key skills in this company (Not Answered) 2 2,22
2 1 1,11 3 4 4,44 4 42 46,67 5 40 44,44
Don't know 1 1,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
To what extent is the organiza onal learning policy for [NAME] in Denmark and the worldwide company similar? 1 = Not at all similar.. 5 = Highly silimar
(Not Answered) 9 10,00 1 13 14,44 2 6 6,67 3 10 11,11 4 17 18,89 5 7 7,78
Don't Know 28 31,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Expatriate assignments (Not Answered) 4 4,44
Yes 40 44,44 No 45 50,00
Don't Know 1 1,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Interna onal project groups or task forces (Not Answered) 2 2,22
Yes 70 77,78 No 18 20,00
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Interna onal formal commi ees
(Not Answered) 3 3,33 Yes 41 45,56 No 40 44,44
Don't Know 6 6,67Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Interna onal informal networks (Not Answered) 2 2,22
Yes 55 61,11
No 26 28,89 Don't Know 7 7,78
Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Secondments to other organisa ons interna onally (e.g. tosuppliers, customers, universi es, private R&Dfacilities)
(Not Answered) 4 4,44 Yes 13 14,44 No 63 70,00
Don't Know 10 11,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Which of these is the most important interna onal organisa onal learning mechanism used by managers within [NAME] in Denmark?
(Not Answered) 12 13,33 Expatriate assignments 7 7,78
Interna onal project groups or task forces 44 48,89 Interna onal formal commi ees 5 5,56 Interna onal informal networks 16 17,78
Secondments to other organisa ons interna onally (e.g. tosuppliers, custom 2 2,22 Don't know 4 4,44
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Training and development policy
(Not Answered) 4 4,44 ... no discre on 2 2,22
... a li le discre on 6 6,67 ... some discre on 15 16,67
... quite a lot of discre on 31 34,44 ... full discre on 32 35,56
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Policy on organisa onal learning
(Not Answered) 5 5,56 ... no discre on 3 3,33
... a li le discre on 7 7,78 ... some discre on 21 23,33
... quite a lot of discre on 30 33,33 ... full discre on 22 24,44
N/A 2 2,22Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Policy on succession planning for senior managers (Not Answered) 4 4,44 ... no discre on 5 5,56
... a li le discre on 6 6,67 ... some discre on 22 24,44
... quite a lot of discre on 28 31,11 ... full discre on 21 23,33
Don't know 3 3,33 N/A 1 1,11
Total Responses 90 100,00 %Formally designated teams in which employees have responsibilityfor organising their work and carrying outa set of tasks
(Not Answered) 1 1,11 Yes 60 66,67 No 26 28,89
Don’t Know 3 3,33Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Groups where employees discuss issues of quality, produc on or service delivery such as problem‐solving orcontinuous improvement groups
(Not Answered) 1 1,11 Yes 67 74,44 No 18 20,00
Don’t Know 4 4,44Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Which of the following most closely corresponds to the pa ern of employee involvement in [NAME] in Denmark?
(Not Answered) 2 2,22An iden cal or similar pa ern exists across all or most sites 14 15,56All or most sites have involvement systems, but they differfrom site to site 41 45,56Some sites have involvement systems while others do not 16 17,78
Not applicable (1 site only in Denmark) 9 10,00 Don't Know 8 8,89
Total Responses 90 100,00 %Specific prac ces elsewhere in the worldwide company
(Not Answered) 4 4,44 1 15 16,67 2 19 21,11 3 27 30,00 4 20 22,22 5 5 5,56
Total Responses 90 100,00 %Formal model of good prac ce codified elsewhere in worldwidecompany
(Not Answered) 5 5,56 1 13 14,44 2 19 21,11 3 33 36,67 4 16 17,78 5 4 4,44
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Examples drawn from other firms
(Not Answered) 4 4,44 1 10 11,11 2 20 22,22 3 33 36,67 4 19 21,11 5 4 4,44
Total Responses 90 100,00 %Does [NAME] regularly use teamwork or other employee involvement prac ces in your opera ng companies outside Denmark?
(Not Answered) 1 1,11 Yes 54 60,00 No 16 17,78
Don't Know 19 21,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Would you say that prac ces in rela on to employee involvement inthe worldwide company are: (Not Answered) 2 2,22
Very similar across all opera ons 4 4,44 Broadly similar but with some varia ons 10 11,11
Similar to some extent but with substan al varia ons 30 33,33 Fairly diverse 28 31,11
Very diverse 12 13,33 Don't Know 4 4,44
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Does [NAME] regularly use project teams or task forces, embracing employees other than managers, that
function across more than one operating unit in Denmark? (Not Answered) 2 2,22
Yes 65 72,22 No 11 12,22 N/A 9 10,00
Don't Know 3 3,33
Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Do these groups in Denmark also include employees from outside Denmark? (Not Answered) 26 28,89
Yes 49 54,44 No 13 14,44 N/A 2 2,22
Total Responses 90 100,00 % How common is the cross‐na onal structure of these teams? 1=Very rare ... 5=Very common
(Not Answered) 42 46,67 1 5 5,56 2 7 7,78 3 12 13,33 4 19 21,11 5 5 5,56
Total Responses 90 100,00 %Are there project teams or task forces embracing employees other than managers that func on across more than one operating unit, used in foreign operations?
(Not Answered) 1 1,11 Yes 39 43,33 No 18 20,00 N/A 9 10,00
Don't Know 23 25,56Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Mee ngs between senior MANAGERS and the whole of the workforce (Not Answered) 2 2,22
Yes 70 77,78 No 16 17,78
Don't know 2 2,22Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Mee ngs between line MANAGERS or supervisors and employees (some mes called briefing groups) (Not Answered) 1 1,11
Yes 81 90,00 No 7 7,78
Don't know 1 1,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
A tude or opinion surveys (Not Answered) 1 1,11
Yes 70 77,78 No 17 18,89
Don't know 2 2,22Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Sugges on schemes (Not Answered) 4 4,44
Yes 52 57,78 No 33 36,67
Don't know 1 1,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Systema c use of management chain to cascade informa on (Not Answered) 1 1,11
Yes 64 71,11 No 20 22,22
Don't know 5 5,56Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Newsle ers or emails (Not Answered) 1 1,11
Yes 83 92,22 No 5 5,56
Don't know 1 1,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
A company intranet providing informa on to employees' (Not Answered) 1 1,11
Yes 75 83,33 No 13 14,44
Don't know 1 1,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Financial posi on of the company (Not Answered) 2 2,22
Yes 82 91,11 No 6 6,67
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Investment plan for the company
(Not Answered) 1 1,11 Yes 41 45,56 No 45 50,00
Don't know 3 3,33Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Staffing plans for the company (Not Answered) 1 1,11
Yes 48 53,33 No 40 44,44
Don't know 1 1,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Financial posi on of the company (Not Answered) 2 2,22
Yes 70 77,78 No 13 14,44
Don't know 5 5,56Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Investment plan for the company (Not Answered) 2 2,22
Yes 29 32,22 No 50 55,56
Don't know 9 10,00Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Staffing plans for the company (Not Answered) 1 1,11
Yes 24 26,67 No 56 62,22
Don't know 9 10,00Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Involvement of employees in work process, e.g. team work orproblem‐solving groups (Not Answered) 2 2,22 ... no discre on 3 3,33
... a li le discre on 4 4,44 ... some discre on 11 12,22
... quite a lot of discre on 24 26,67 ... full discre on 46 51,11
Total Responses 90 100,00 % A tude or opinion surveys
(Not Answered) 2 2,22 ... no discre on 10 11,11
... a li le discre on 9 10,00 ... some discre on 16 17,78
... quite a lot of discre on 21 23,33 ... full discre on 31 34,44
N/A 1 1,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Sugges on schemes (Not Answered) 3 3,33 ... no discre on 4 4,44
... some discre on 6 6,67 ... quite a lot of discre on 13 14,44
... full discre on 53 58,89 N/A 11 12,22
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Provision of informa on to employees
(Not Answered) 3 3,33 ... no discre on 3 3,33
... a li le discre on 3 3,33 ... some discre on 5 5,56
... quite a lot of discre on 32 35,56 ... full discre on 44 48,89
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Thinking of the LOG in [NAME] in Denmark, are trade unions recognised for the purposes of collec ve
employee representationat? (Not Answered) 4 4,44
No sites in the Danish opera ons 18 20,00 All sites in the Danish opera ons 38 42,22
Most sites in the Danish opera ons 11 12,22 Some sites in the Danish opera ons 11 12,22
The company's single Danish site 8 8,89Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Are there any non‐union based structure(s) of collec ve employee representa on used Tick all that apply (Not Answered) 24 25,53
Yes, at sites where there is no trade union recogni on 13 13,83Yes, at sites where there is also trade union recogni on 21 22,34
No 36 38,30Total Responses 94 100,00 %
How would you describe the policy of management towards unionrecogni on within [NAME] in Denmark? (Not Answered) 1 1,11
In favour of union recogni on 41 45,56 Not in favour of union recogni on 4 4,44 Neutral towards union recogni on 44 48,89
Total Responses 90 100,00 %Is there collec ve bargaining with trade unions over pay and major condi ons (e.g. working me) at any of the following levels covering all or some of the LOG within [NAME] in Denmark?Tick all that apply, multi‐code only allowable for codes 2,…
(Not Answered) 3 3,19 At Danish company level, covering all sites 14 14,89
At the company's single Danish site 8 8,51Covering more than one, but not all Danish sites 18 19,15
At individual site level 15 15,96At industry level, covering more than one employer 6 6,38
There is no collec ve bargaining over pay 30 31,91Total Responses 94 100,00 %
Thinking about trade unions in [NAME] in Denmark, what approach do the trade union representa vesgenerally adopt?
(Not Answered) 4 4,44 A coopera ve approach 44 48,89 An adversarial approach 4 4,44
It depends on the issue 22 24,44 Don't Know… 16 17,78
Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Work organisa on (Not Answered) 23 25,56
1 19 21,11 2 19 21,11 3 17 18,89 4 3 3,33 5 5 5,56
Don't know 4 4,44Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Sub‐contrac ng and outsourcing (Not Answered) 23 25,56
1 37 41,11 2 14 15,56 3 6 6,67 4 3 3,33 5 3 3,33
Don't know 4 4,44Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Variable payments schemes (Not Answered) 22 24,44
1 12 13,33 2 7 7,78 3 22 24,44 4 13 14,44 5 9 10,00
Don't know 5 5,56Total Responses 90 100,00 %
In‐work training/ upgrading skills (Not Answered) 22 24,44
1 9 10,00 2 11 12,22 3 22 24,44 4 19 21,11 5 4 4,44
Don't know 3 3,33Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Direct employee involvement schemes (Not Answered) 24 26,67
1 10 11,11 2 11 12,22 3 17 18,89 4 12 13,33 5 8 8,89
Don't know 8 8,89Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Union recogni on (Not Answered) 2 2,22 ... no discre on 5 5,56
... a li le discre on 2 2,22 ... some discre on 4 4,44
... quite a lot of discre on 11 12,22 ... full discre on 48 53,33
Don't know 13 14,44 N/A 5 5,56
Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Scope of union involvement in decision‐making (Not Answered) 2 2,22 ... no discre on 5 5,56
... a li le discre on 2 2,22 ... some discre on 8 8,89
... quite a lot of discre on 13 14,44 ... full discre on 44 48,89
Don't know 10 11,11 N/A 6 6,67
Total Responses 90 100,00 % To what extent do opera ng companies outside Denmark have discre on over determining employee
consultation policy? (Not Answered) 2 2,22 ... no discre on 7 7,78
... a li le discre on 5 5,56 ... some discre on 13 14,44
... quite a lot of discre on 10 11,11 ... full discre on 17 18,89
Don't know 23 25,56 N/A 13 14,44
Total Responses 90 100,00 %Do you receive informa on about the ac vity and mee ngs of theEWC?
(Not Answered) 9 10,00 Systema cally at the me of EWC mee ngs 23 25,56
Periodically, on an 'as necessary' basis 11 12,22Li le or no informa on about the EWC received 47 52,22
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Which of the following statements best describes the overall nature of the European Works Council in
Denmark? (Not Answered) 51 56,67
Management provides minimal informa on required forcompliance, there 3 3,33Management provides informa on slightly beyond thatrequired for complia 4 4,44Management provides informa on somewhat beyond thatrequired for com 15 16,67Management provides informa on considerably beyond thatrequired for co 4 4,44Management provides informa on far beyond that requiredfor compliance 3 3,33
Don't Know 10 11,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Is there a European Works Council (EWC) or similar European‐level structure which covers [NAME] inDenmark?
(Not Answered) 2 2,22 Yes 39 43,33 No 31 34,44
Don't know 18 20,00Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Over the past 3 years, has the EU Direc ve on Informa on and Consulta on prompted any changes in arrangements for employee consultation in Denmark?
(Not Answered) 3 3,33 Yes 10 11,11 No 47 52,22
Don't know 30 33,33Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Does the worldwide company have experience of opera ng with mandatory employee consulta on structures (e.g. work counsils) that are required in some countries overseas?
(Not Answered) 1 1,11 Yes 53 58,89 No 13 14,44
Don't know 23 25,56Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Do these mee ngs cover...? (Not Answered) 20 22,22
All employees under a single arrangement 33 36,67All employees, but with different arrangements for differentgroups 17 18,89Some groups of employees under a single arrangement 13 14,44Some groups of employees, but with different arrangementsfor different gr 6 6,67
Other 1 1,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Which of the following statements best describes management'srela ve emphasis in [NAME] in Denmark on mechnanisms for communicating and consulting with employees?
(Not Answered) 4 4,44Emphasis on direct communica on and consulta on 35 38,89Emphasis on indirect communica on and consulta on (e.g.through joint co 18 20,00Equivalent emphasis on direct and indirect communica onand consulta on 33 36,67
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Which of the following statements comes closest to capturing the worldwide company's policy?
(Not Answered) 37 41,11 There is no policy 3 3,33
Minimum compliance with legal requirements on employeeinforma on and 16 17,78To go somewhat further than legal requirements 21 23,33To go considerably further than legal requirements 8 8,89
Don't know 5 5,56Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Are regular mee ngs held between management and representa ves of employees at this level in [NAME] in Denmark for the purpose of informa on provision and consulta on?
(Not Answered) 2 2,22 Yes 70 77,78 No 15 16,67
Don't know 3 3,33Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Quality of products/services (Not Answered) 2 2,22
Poor 1 1,11 ‐ 15 16,67 ‐ 52 57,78
Outstanding 20 22,22Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Development of new products/services (Not Answered) 4 4,44
‐ 6 6,67 ‐ 29 32,22 ‐ 40 44,44
Outstanding 11 12,22Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Profit genera on (Not Answered) 3 3,33
Poor 7 7,78 ‐ 11 12,22 ‐ 22 24,44 ‐ 31 34,44
Outstanding 16 17,78Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Turnover (Not Answered) 3 3,33
Poor 1 1,11 ‐ 13 14,44
‐ 28 31,11 ‐ 32 35,56
Outstanding 13 14,44Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Market share (Not Answered) 4 4,44
Poor 2 2,22 ‐ 14 15,56 ‐ 22 24,44 ‐ 36 40,00
Outstanding 12 13,33Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Ability to recruit essen al employees (Not Answered) 2 2,22
‐ 3 3,33 ‐ 25 27,78 ‐ 47 52,22
Outstanding 13 14,44Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Ability to retain essen al employees (Not Answered) 2 2,22
Poor 1 1,11 ‐ 6 6,67 ‐ 29 32,22 ‐ 38 42,22
Outstanding 14 15,56Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Customer/client sa sfac on (Not Answered) 3 3,33
‐ 3 3,33 ‐ 26 28,89 ‐ 52 57,78
Outstanding 6 6,67Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Manager ‐ employees rela ons (Not Answered) 2 2,22
‐ 2 2,22 ‐ 28 31,11 ‐ 51 56,67
Outstanding 7 7,78Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Manager ‐ employees rela ons General employee rela ons
(Not Answered) 2 2,22 ‐ 3 3,33 ‐ 26 28,89 ‐ 51 56,67
Outstanding 8 8,89Total Responses 90 100,00 %
The job sa sfac on of the employees at [NAME] in Denmark? (Not Answered) 3 3,33
‐ 6 6,67 ‐ 28 31,11 ‐ 46 51,11
Outstanding 7 7,78Total Responses 90 100,00 %
The ability of [NAME] in Denmark to retain essen al employees? (Not Answered) 2 2,22
‐ 8 8,89 ‐ 18 20,00
‐ 46 51,11 Outstanding 16 17,78
Total Responses 90 100,00 %
The overall performance of the [NAME] in Denmark (Not Answered) 3 3,33
Poor 2 2,22 ‐ 3 3,33 ‐ 31 34,44 ‐ 43 47,78
Outstanding 8 8,89Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Do [NAME] in Denmark have interna onal responsibility for one or more products or services on behalf of the worldwide company
(Not Answered) 2 2,22 1 25 27,78 2 8 8,89 3 14 15,56 4 16 17,78 5 25 27,78
Total Responses 90 100,00 % Significant exper se in R&D within the worldwide company is generated in [NAME] in Denmark
(Not Answered) 2 2,22 1 32 35,56 2 17 18,89 3 17 18,89 4 13 14,44 5 9 10,00
Total Responses 90 100,00 % How important is [NAME] in Denmark to the global performance of the parent company? 1=Not at all
important, 2 = Of little importance, 3 = somewhat important, 4 = important, 5 = very important (Not Answered) 2 2,22
1 11 12,22 2 29 32,22 3 14 15,56 4 19 21,11 5 14 15,56
Don't know 1 1,11Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Has this level of importance changed over the past five years? 1=Significantly decreased, 2=Slightly decreased,3 = stayed about the same, 4 = slightly increased, 5 = significantly increased
(Not Answered) 2 2,22 1 1 1,11 2 11 12,22 3 35 38,89 4 20 22,22 5 16 17,78
Don't know 5 5,56Total Responses 90 100,00 %
How is the performance of the [NAME] in Denmark rela ve to compe tors? (Not Answered) 4 4,44
Poor 1 1,11 ‐ 3 3,33 ‐ 31 34,44 ‐ 42 46,67
Outstanding 9 10,00Total Responses 90 100,00 %
Please let us know if you are interested in … Tick all that apply (Not Answered) 14 7,69
Receiving a report benchmarking the employment prac cesof your compan 67 36,81
Par cipa ng in a seminar where in‐depth results of theworldwide survey w 38 20,88 Receiving the full result report 63 34,62
Total Responses 182 100,00 %