Institutional determinants of e-HRM diffusion success
Abstract
Purpose: – Drawing on institutional theory and existing international business practice transfer and e-HRM models this paper develops an e-HRM diffusion model to ascertain the institutional factors that determine the successful diffusion of e-HRM practices in multinational corporations (MNC). The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach: – The research is based on the analysis of 25 semi-structured interviews with 15 key stakeholders in the German and Irish subsidiaries of a single US-based MNC as well as two interviews with a senior manager in one of its main competitors. Findings: – The findings suggest that the successful transfer of e-HRM is mediated by an interchange of various institutional-level factors (external, relational, organizational and individual) within the corporation and its subsidiaries. Successful implementation of e-HRM is synonymous with the successful integration and institutionalization of e-HRM practices in the subsidiaries. Research limitations/implications: – As this analysis is founded upon a single case study, it is difficult to make assumptions concerning the broad population of all MNC and their subsidiaries. Further research may be required to test the model and the findings presented in this paper. Practical implications: – The findings and the model presented in this paper demonstrate the impact of the institutional context and of key success factors of technology implementation on e-HRM diffusion success. These findings may be of particular relevance to organizations and practitioners who are embarking on an e-HRM installation in an international context. Originality/value: – This paper enriches the e-HRM and international management debate by identifying the key institutional factors impacting the diffusion of e-HRM practices in the subsidiaries of an MNC. In addition, the model put forward in the paper shows how these factors interact and how successful e-HRM diffusion can be characterized.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Prior literature concerning technology-driven HRM considers adoption as a single point event, yet adoption is only a part of the assimilation process.
“Moreover, prior literature concerning technology-driven HRM (i.e., HRIS, e-HRM) considers adoption as a single point event (see, e.g., Bondarouk et al., 2017a; Burbach & Royle, 2014; Troshani, Jerram & Hill, 2014), yet adoption is only a part of the assimilation process.”
From AI-augmented HRM: Antecedents, assimilation and multilevel consequences (2023) · cites this paper as Burbach & Royle, 2014
Prior literature focusing on technology-driven HRM has considered TOP factors for understanding adoption, which reinforces the importance of TOP framework in identifying the antecedents of HRM (AI) assimilation in an organisation.
“Prior literature focusing on technology-driven HRM (i.e., e-HRM, HRIS) has considered TOP factors for understanding adoption (see, e.g., Bondarouk et al., 2017a; Burbach & Royle, 2014; Strohmeier & Kabst, 2009; Troshani et al., 2014), which reinforces the importance of TOP framework in identifying the antecedents of HRM (AI) assimilation in an organisation.”
From AI-augmented HRM: Antecedents, assimilation and multilevel consequences (2023) · cites this paper as Burbach & Royle, 2014
Cites
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600 · Cited by 4,760 · see citing works
The Challenge of Innovation Implementation
Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259164 · Cited by 2,113 · see citing works
The adoption and diffusion of human resources information systems in Singapore
Teo, T. S. H., Lim, G. S., & Fedric, S. A. (2007) · Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources · doi:10.1177/1038411107075402 · Cited by 153 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AI-augmented HRM: Antecedents, assimilation and multilevel consequences
Prikshat, V., Malik, A., & Budhwar, P. (2023) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100860 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
- Authors
- Burbach, R., & Royle, T.
- Affiliations
- Dublin Institute of Technology (IE)
- University of Bradford (GB)
- Venue
- Employee Relations
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2014-05-27
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 354-375
- ISSN
- 0142-5455 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2021849701
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 3.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Employee Relations (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employer Branding and e-HRM
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Human Resource and Talent Management
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Global and Cross-Cultural Management
- Keywords
- e-HRM, diffusion of innovations, institutional theory, multinational corporations, subsidiaries, practice transfer, institutionalization, technology implementation, relational factors, organizational factors, international human resource management
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review