Work–life management tensions in multinational enterprises (MNEs)

Abstract

Global work–life initiatives present unique challenges for HR departments in multinational enterprises (MNEs) because of the complexity of implementing policies that require sensitivity to local issues such as cultural traditions and legislation. A tension-centered approach to analyzing these complexities, not utilized in previous research on the topic, is applied here. Three generic sources of tensions are developed: strategic/policy versus operational considerations, centralization versus decentralization and contextual/institutional versus organizational demands. Earlier research yields four potential responses to tensions: opposition, spatial separation, temporal separation and synthesis, with a fifth option added for no recognition of tension. The framework is applied to global work–life initiatives using data from 27 qualitative interviews with regional and global HR managers employed by 13 MNEs. There is evidence supporting the prevalence of each of the three generic sources of and five responses to tension, and of overlap across categories and responses. For managers, the analysis provides useful insights for constructing global work–life initiatives that are effective and responsive to local conditions. For researchers, the tensions approach yields a relevant tool for analyzing global work–life initiatives. For both, the findings suggest it is important to guard against biases related to Western notions of progress.

Keywords:

• diversity
• global HR
• MNEs
• qualitative research
• work–life management

Acknowledgments

I gratefully acknowledge funding provided by the Society of Human Resource Management Foundation and the Australian Centre for Research in Employment and Work. I thank Helen De Cieri for her contributions to an earlier stage of this project. I am grateful to the editor, anonymous reviewers and Robert Drago for their guidance and advice on this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. The categories were informed by tensions’ theory, and a lengthier list (with six mainly but not entirely overlapping categories) was developed from prior research to generate the interview instrument.

2. This research is specifically related to IHRM. For simplicity, the term ‘global HR’ is used instead.

3. Note that the questions were written prior to the development of Figure 1; fortunately, the fit is relatively clean.