View - InderScience

466 A. Reichel, J. Brandl and W. Mayrhofer
4 Methodology
4.1 Sample
For the analysis, we use data from 1508 companies located in 17 countries worldwide.
Our propositions are explicitly concerned with the organisation, but although our study
focuses on the company level, its nested structure has to be taken into account because of
its complex variability (see below). Besides, it is likely that not only variables on the
company but also on the country-level influence the status of the HR department
(Brandl et al., 2008b). Thus, we introduce country-level control variables.
Data at the company level have been generated within Cranet, a research network
dedicated to analysing developments in HRM in public and private sector organisations
with more than 200 employees in a national, cross-national and quasi-longitudinal way
since 1989 (see Brewster et al., 2004). For the current analysis, survey data of 1508
private sector companies from 17 countries is used. In creating the sample, we aimed at
covering a certain geographical range plus a variety in traditions of equal opportunity.
Thus, the final choice of countries covers Southern-, Northern-, Eastern- and Central
Europe plus Australia and the USA. The year of introduction of women’s suffrage as a
very basic form of equal opportunity ranges from 1902 in parts of Australia and 1906 in
Finland up to 1971 in Switzerland (Ramirez et al., 1997). The national samples are
largely representative of the company population; response rates range from 5% in the
Czech Republic and France to 79% in Bulgaria. All respondents are HR directors, i.e. the
most senior person in the HR department.
Two of the three measures used on the country level are aggregated from the
representative country samples. For country-level data on enabling social policy
practices, the analysis uses part of a scale and the corresponding country values
published by Mandel and Semyonov (2006).
4.2 Variables
4.2.1 Status of the HR department
The dependent variable is measured at the company level. It includes both potential
(‘formal’) and enacted (‘informal’) forms of strategic influence (Galang and Ferris,
1997). Therewith we follow Provan’s (1980) concept of power differentiating between
potential power as the capacity to exert influence (e.g. formal authority, membership in
key decision-making groups) and enacted power as the actual use of this power by
allocating resources (e.g. responsibility for pivotal activities). Formal influence is
measured as representation of the HR director on board (‘1’ = yes, ‘0’ = no) and informal
influence as the degree of involvement in strategy formulation (‘3’ = from outset,
‘2’ = through consultation, ‘1’ = on integration, ‘0’ = not consulted). A composite
measure with both items equally weighted ranges from 0 to 2. During the history of
HRM the group to which personnel practitioners have to look for acceptance and
legitimacy most critically and frequently is their own management (Antony and Crichton,
1969). The ‘history of personnel specialists … is the history of a struggle for status to
become full members of the management team’ (Antony and Crichton, 1969, p.165).
Thus, status and authority depend on becoming part of management (Watson, 1977,
p.123).