INTERNATIONAL HRM INSIGHTS FOR NAVIGATING THE COVID-19

PANDEMIC: IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Professor Paula Caligiuri

D’Amore-McKim School of Business, Northeastern University
312C Hayden Hall, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02124 USA
T: (+1) 732-735-9559 E: p.caligiuri@northeastern.edu

Professor Helen De Cieri

Monash Business School, Monash University
900 Dandenong Road, Caulfield East Victoria 3145 AUSTRALIA
T: (+61) 3 9903 2013 E: helen.decieri@monash.edu

Professor Dana Minbaeva (corresponding author)

Copenhagen Business School
Kilevej 14, Copenhagen, 2000 Denmark
T: (+45) 41852282 E: dm.si@cbs.dk

Professor Alain Verbeke

Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4 CANADA
T: (+1) 403-220-8633 E: alain.verbeke@haskayne.ucalgary.ca
And Henley Business School, University of Reading, Reading (UK)
And Solvay Business School, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels (Belgium)

Dr Angelika Zimmermann
School of Business and Economics, Loughborough University
Ashby Road, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, United Kingdom
T: (+44) 1509228845 E: a.zimmermann@lboro.ac.uk

1
 ABSTRACT

We show the relevance of extant international business (IB) research, and more specifically

work on international human resources management (IHRM), to address COVID-19

pandemic challenges. Decision-makers in multinational enterprises (MNEs) have undertaken

various types of actions to alleviate the impacts of the pandemic. In most cases these actions

relate in some way to managing distance and to rethinking boundaries, whether at the macro-

or firm-levels. Managing distance and rethinking boundaries have been the primary focus of

much IB research since the IB field was established as a legitimate area of academic inquiry.

The pandemic has led to increased cross-border distance problems (e.g., as the result of travel

bans and reduced international mobility), and often also to new intra-firm distancing

challenges imposed upon previously co-located employees. Prior IHRM research has

highlighted the difficulties presented by distance, in terms of employee selection, training,

support, health and safety, as well as leadership and virtual collaboration. Much of this

thinking is applicable to solve pandemic-related distance challenges. The present, extreme

cases of requisite physical distancing need not imply equivalent increases in psychological

distance, and also offer firms some insight into the unanticipated benefits of a virtual

workforce – a type of workforce that, quite possibly, will influence the ‘new normal’ of the

post-COVID world. Extant IHRM research does offer actionable insight for today, but

outstanding knowledge gaps remain. Looking ahead, we offer three domains for future IHRM

research: managing under uncertainty, facilitating international and even global work, and

redefining organizational performance.

2
 INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 altered every person’s reality overnight. Individuals, cities, economies, countries,

and continents have experienced the shock of lockdown and the fear of unknowing. Managers

have had to make many decisions in a very short period of time—decisions about who should

stay at work and who should go home; how and where people could be moved into digital

space; and what the priorities are and how those priorities can best be communicated to

employees. In 2019, Ernst & Young surveyed 500 board members and chief executive

officers (CEOs) globally and found that only 20% of the executives surveyed believed their

companies were prepared to respond to a large adverse risk (EY, 2020). A few short months

later, the COVID-19 pandemic crisis arrived and proved that their concerns were well

founded. Concerns related to global supply chain vulnerabilities and financial resilience have

come to the fore during the COVID-19 pandemic, along with significant strategic human

talent concerns. BCG has called the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic a “people-based crisis.”

We agree.

The Economist noted that just as the financial crisis in 2007-2009 highlighted the

role of talented Chief Financial Officers (CFOs), the COVID-19 pandemic is highlighting the

role of Chief Human Resource Officers (CHROs). They wrote:

“When the financial crisis rocked the business world in 2007-09, boardrooms
turned to corporate finance chiefs. A good CFO could save a company; a bad one might
bury it. The covid-19 pandemic presents a different challenge—and highlights the role
of another corporate function, often unfairly dismissed as soft. Never before have more
firms needed a hard-headed HR boss.
The duties of chief people officers, as human-resources heads are sometimes
called, look critical right now. They must keep employees healthy; maintain their
morale; oversee a vast remote-working experiment; and, as firms retrench, consider
whether, when and how to lay workers off. Their in-trays are bulging.” (The
Economist, March 24th, 2020).

The COVID-19 pandemic has pushed a massive number of employees, who were

already facing stress from the health risk itself, to working from home. Compounding this

3
stressor, many managers are now leading remote teams for the first time. This sudden change

has exacerbated the challenges of collaborating and leading from a distance, challenges we in

the field of international business (IB) understand well, but that have remained largely

unaddressed in management practice. In 2018, RW3 surveyed 1,620 employees from 90

countries regarding their experiences working on ‘global virtual teams’ in multinational

enterprises (MNEs). While most of the respondents identified their work on global virtual

teams as important for job success, only 22% received training on how best to work in their

geographically distributed teams, 90% of which had two or more cultures represented. The

picture is not much better at the leadership level. Among the virtual team leaders, only 15%

described themselves as “very effective” with less than 20% receiving training on how to lead

from a distance (RW3, 2018).

The field of IB has long accounted for the challenges associated with significant

global threats and issues concerning geographical distance. From the lens of IB generally,

and international human resource management (IHRM) specifically, we can recast the issues

emerging from the current COVID-19 pandemic in terms of the existing academic knowledge

base. By holding up this theoretical mirror, we can more clearly see the issues and offer

insights to MNE managers facing challenges in leading their people through this crisis. In this

Editorial, we will distil the knowledge and experience IB scholars, and more specifically

IHRM, have accumulated over recent decades to offer some key learnings on managing

people from a distance. Our accumulated body of knowledge in IHRM has helped us

understand the challenges people face when placed in a wide range of MNE work

arrangements, such as expatriate assignments, virtual international work, global project

teams, and frequent international travel (Shaffer, Kraimer, Chen & Bolino, 2012). This

academic knowledge is particularly useful for human resource managers today, as they face

new challenges and difficult decisions during this pandemic.

4
 The purpose of this Editorial is not to conduct a comprehensive review of the

literature; rather, the goal is to select a few key themes and opportunities for ‘quick wins’ that

could be immediately applied in MNE managerial practice. At the end of this Editorial, we go

back to the academic literature and offer suggestions for future research in IHRM. These

suggestions represent the topics where practice would be better served from a deeper

knowledge base. Thus, our suggestions for future research in IHRM relate to the broader gaps

in the IB literature that, if filled, could help answering the next ‘big questions’ in IB

(Buckley, Doh, & Benischke, 2017).

HANDLING THE COVID-19 CRISIS

Insights from IHRM’s Selection, Training, and Employee Support Literature

The field of IHRM has long understood that when employees are in novel or

uncertain contexts, they experience stress (Anderzén & Arnetz, 1999; Richards, 1996; Stahl

& Caligiuri, 2005). To respond to such stress, employees leverage their dispositional traits

and coping responses (Shaffer, Harrison, Gregersen, Black, & Ferzandi, 2006; Stahl &

Caligiuri, 2005). Stress affects employees’ ability to empathize with others, consider

plausible alternatives, remain open-minded, engage in cognitively challenging tasks, and

expand one’s experiences to learn and grow. As the literature suggests, when individuals

encounter periods of stress and anxiety, they have a tendency to seek out and find comfort in

the familiar, the people, places, and even food that are the most predictable; this is the reason

there are expatriate communities, demographic faultlines, and comfort food in every culture

around the world.

The COVID-19 pandemic has produced tremendous novelty and uncertainty which

is affecting the mental health of many people around the world (World Health Organization,

2020). Even as the health risks of the pandemic begin to wane in some countries and the

probability of a vaccine appears high, the novel ways of working remotely and the fears

5
around the global recession will continue to produce a state of uncertainty. In their stress-

induced, cognitively reduced state, employees will have a particularly difficult time working

effectively in different countries and with people from different cultures, especially in

instances of high unfamiliarity. There is not enough bandwidth, so to speak, for even greater

novelty and more uncertainty. Based on knowledge from the IHRM literature, a number of

selection, training, and support practices can positively mitigate the concerns at hand.

Selection. IHRM has taught us that some people are naturally better than others at

managing stress and uncertainty, enabling them to make better decisions and work more

effectively across countries and cultures (Shaffer et al., 2006). Employees with a higher

tolerance of ambiguity are less likely to experience the negative effects of stress caused by

working in a context with greater uncertainty (Frone, 1990). Employees with resilience not

only bounce back after stressful situations but also find positive meaning from them (Tugade

& Fredrickson, 2004). Likewise, employees with natural curiosity can adapt better to novel

situations, thrive in situations of anxiety and uncertainty, and be more creative and open-

minded (Hagtvedt, Dossinger, Harrison, & Huang, 2019; Kashdan, Sherman, Yarbro, &

Funder, 2013).

During this period of global stress and uncertainty, organizations (and especially

MNEs) should select for these three critical, cultural agility competencies: tolerance for

ambiguity, resilience, and curiosity for all employees working multiculturally. Employees

working, even virtually, with clients, vendors, or colleagues from different cultures will now,

more than ever, need these competencies to be effective. Selection is key. Companies can

also use this time to better assess their bench strength for culturally agile talent in order to

understand who will be most effective in situations of growing novelty and uncertainty.

Training. Research suggests that a state of anxiety fosters a natural desire for

affiliation (Sarnoff & Zimbardo, 1961; Schachter, 1959), especially amongst those who are

6
living the same anxiety-inducing experience (Gump & Kulik, 1997; Schachter, 1959). For

global teams in MNEs that have existing familiarity, the COVID-19 pandemic offers an ideal

time to foster cross-cultural team cohesion and to validate expectations of reliability since the

health-related stress is present everywhere in the world. Training to support relationship

formation would be well-received at this time when every team member, irrespective of

country, is experiencing a similar stressor. The shared stress, anxiety, and frustrations can

create ties that further bind already collegial global teams. This shared experience has the

potential to enhance cohesion going forward.

For the many team members who have not yet received cross-cultural training on

relationship formation across borders, any lessons learned through training, (if offered today)

would land on fertile soil, because team members already have a shared “enemy” in COVID-

19. This cross-cultural training in MNEs would help reduce ambiguity for cross-cultural

differences by offering skill-building on how to collaborate across cultures; how to actively

seek similarities with colleagues from different cultures; how to use technology inclusively;

how to set team-level ground rules for communication and work-flow, and the like. This

training could also help colleagues from different cultures become mindful of situations

where they might be rushing to judgement because of their “reduced bandwidth” state. It

could also teach them how to add respectful questioning into cross-cultural work groups to

thwart the negative aspects of stereotypes.

Just as the shared stressful experience among colleagues can facilitate their

emotional bonding, there are other HRM practices that would land well if offered in this

current COVID-19 climate. For example, employees’ need for professional growth is likely

to strengthen many employees’ desire to receive additional training. The psychology

literature offers substantial evidence that one of our fundamental human motivators is the

need for competence (Deci, Olafsen, & Ryan, 2017). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the

7
lack of professional stimulation while working from home is fostering more self-directed

knowledge-seeking to satisfy the need to learn, grow, and demonstrate competence. For

example, LinkedIn Learning courses have seen a threefold increase in usage since the start of

stay-at-home orders (Forbes, 2020). With a growing interest in self-directed learning,

companies should actively harness this time to invest in the skill development of employees.

At a time when employees’ desire to learn, grow, and demonstrate competence is heightened,

companies that offer access to, or reimburse, employees’ online training achieve a clear win-

win; they increase talent capability and, concurrently, foster employee motivation.

Support. In IHRM, we understand how an individual’s comfort or fit within a given

environment can affect their success, and also that organizational support can positively

affect adjustment in a novel environment (Takeuchi, Wang, Marinova, & Yao, 2009). Those

who work on global cross-national teams in MNEs face health risks due to requirements to

operate across time zones, with flexible schedules, and expectations of availability around the

clock (Lirio, 2017). In the ambiguity of both global work and current COVID-19 pandemic,

the issues for which support is needed will vary depending on the person’s work-life issues,

but organizational support remains critical (Kraimer, Wayne, & Jaworski, 2001; Shaffer,

Harrison, & Gilley, 1999). Companies should offer support practices to help mitigate stress

such as webinars on resilience, tutorials on mindfulness (De Cieri, Shea, Cooper, and

Oldenburg, 2019), employee assistance programs, and virtual counseling services. These

stress-mitigating offerings would be particularly helpful for employees who engage in virtual

work at the international level, as they face additional stress.

The world is experiencing a collective state of stress, but the global economy will

not pause for employees requiring time to be ready to come out of their comfort zone to work

again in different countries and with people from different cultures. More than ever, human

8
resources managers in MNEs need to foster cohesion during this time of uncertainty by using

the above selection, training, and support practices.

Insights from IHRM’s Management of Health and Safety

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought health and safety issues to center stage and

has placed a spotlight on the role of the HRM function in managing the health and safety of

the international workforce. While management researchers already know well that

employees’ health and safety are linked to the demands (such as a heavy workload) and

resources (such as a supportive manager) at work, the international HRM field offers specific

learnings about managing health and safety for a spatially dispersed and mobile workforce. In

IHRM, we understand the challenges of protecting employees, and their families, from injury

and illness across national boundaries and in different work arrangements (Gannon &

Paraskevas, 2019; Shaffer et al., 2012). Research in IHRM, alongside scholarship in fields

such as health and psychology, has shown that globally mobile employees face specific job

demands that can affect their health and safety (Anderzén & Arnetz, 1999; Druckman,

Harber, Liu, & Quigley, 2014). Frequent travel, high workloads, long work hours, and job

pressure lead to negative health consequences (Bader, 2015) and also negatively affect

psychological well-being and family relationships (Jensen & Knudsen, 2017). We also know,

however, that globally mobile work can be stimulating and rewarding in many positive ways

(Ren, Yunlu, Shaffer, & Fodchuck, 2015).

During the pandemic, life has changed a lot for many who were international

business travelers and globally mobile employees in MNEs; their current “grounding” may

mean they are experiencing a sense of loss. Their frequent travel, hotel accommodation, and

business dinners have been replaced by stay-at-home restrictions and virtual meetings. The

stress caused by the demands of virtual global work is real; many employees are experiencing

9
long work hours to accommodate time zones and performance challenges in less than ideal

remote working conditions. These tangible work challenges all occur with the backdrop of

job insecurity and future economic uncertainty. The changed work conditions during the

pandemic present new challenges for employees’ health and safety.

Communication and support for health and safety. IHRM activities such as

international family relocations provide a knowledge base that is of particular value in the

pandemic because IHRM is more likely than other functional areas in the MNE or domestic

HRM to deal with the interface between employees’ professional and private lives

(Mayerhofer, Müller, & Schmidt, 2010). We know that understanding work-related demands

and resources is important for all managers, and particularly for HR professionals, to support

and maintain employees’ health and safety. Clear and consistent communication from

managers and HR about health risks and available health resources is important. Research on

managing expatriate assignments in MNEs shows that communication and support from

managers is an important buffer against job stress experienced by employees (Kraimer,

Bolino, & Mead, 2016; Stroppa & Spiess, 2011). This knowledge can be applied to the

pandemic situation of working from home. For some people, social isolation as well as

uncertainty about their health, job, and future will have a negative impact on their mental

health. Any stigma linked to mental health might prevent some employees from seeking help,

and MNE senior managers should therefore communicate with empathy, encourage wellness

resources, and offer practical support for employees’ health and safety.

Flexible work arrangements. Many managers will be familiar with flexible work

arrangements (FWAs) that formalize where, when, and how employees do their work (Chen

& Fulmer, 2018). FWAs, such as flexible scheduling of work and working from home, have

been shown to deliver positive benefits for employees’ health (e.g., Anderson, Kaplan &

Vega, 2015). IHRM has unique insights into FWAs; for example, people working in global

10
teams are accustomed to working from home and outside standard business hours. IHRM

research has highlighted the importance of practices such as FWAs that help MNE employees

to maintain their health and wellbeing to cope with the demands of working across

geographical and temporal boundaries (Adamovic, 2018).

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many MNEs have been forced to rely on one

type of FWA: employees working from home. This is a new challenge for many, including

IHRM scholars and practitioners. A survey conducted with 800 global HR executives in

March 2020 found that 88% of organizations had either encouraged or required employees to

work from home during the COVID-19 crisis (Gartner, 2020). Because this shift has been

involuntary, continues over a lengthy period, and requires entire households to be house-

bound, there is more potential for employees to experience increased work hours, as well as

increased work-life conflict. For employees who were globally mobile, and now find

themselves working from home during the pandemic, the shift is particularly significant and

borders between work and family may require re-negotiation and re-organization.

There are several specific ways by which managers and HR can help their employees to

work from home in a safe and healthy manner. There are many simple and cost-effective

ways to encourage healthy lifestyle habits. For example, encouraging healthy work practices

such as working within regular hours and taking regular work-breaks will help employees to

switch off from work (Adamovic, 2018; Chen & Fulmer, 2018). Communicating clearly and

managing work expectations will help employees to maintain their family responsibilities.

The pandemic offers an opportunity for managers to explore how to implement flexible work

arrangements that can enhance the health and safety of employees well into the future,

particularly that of globally mobile employees.

Over a decade ago, Collings, Scullion and Morley (2007) identified health and safety

as an important area of IHRM practice and pointed out the implications of employee ill-

11
health for organizational performance as well as for the employee and their family. Applying

the insights from IHRM to the pandemic situation, managers should give priority to

protecting and managing employee health and safety now and in the future. Overall, our goal

for employees is not only to protect and manage their health and safety but to enhance

positive outcomes such as thriving and engagement with their work.

Insights from International Leadership in MNEs

During this pandemic, leaders in MNEs have needed to make swift decisions with

far-reaching consequences, communicate effectively to diverse stakeholders, manage

resources judiciously, integrate organizational and local demands, and inspire expectations of

reliability via authenticity. The competencies needed for leadership during the COVID-19

pandemic in general are mirroring the competencies of effective leaders in MNEs because the

uncertainty, ambiguity, and importance of context are present in both leadership situations.

Those MNE leaders who succeed in situations of novelty typically command three

cultural-agility related responses that they can leverage like tools in a toolbox (Caligiuri,

2012; Caligiuri & Tarique, 2016). First, they have the skills to adapt to the demands of the

context when needed, relying on those familiar with the local context to influence key

decisions. Second, they know how to integrate diverse perspectives and demands; even when

the demands are conflicting, they can work to find an integrated solution. Third, they know

when to provide direction, even if it is not welcome or popular. A leader’s ability to read the

demands of the situation and respond, as needed, using the appropriate response out of the

three alternatives above, are proving to be especially relevant during the pandemic.

Adaptation. Whether leaders in MNEs adapt to the demands of a situation by

wearing a face mask in public during the COVID-19 pandemic, or follow to the tee other

local public health recommendations affecting organizational functioning, they are

12
acknowledging that they understand, appreciate, and are willing to abide by the norms of the

situation. In some situations (but not all) adapting to the norms of the context will enable

leaders to persuade, instill confidence, and influence those whose value system fosters certain

behavioral expectations.

Integration. In some circumstances, adaptation is the wrong approach and MNE

leaders need to integrate multiple, sometimes conflicting, perspectives to create a course of

action. Leaders in MNEs do this when they integrate the cultures represented on their

geographically distributed teams. During the COVID-19 crisis we are observing highly

effective leaders use the same approach, balancing health demands to protect employees with

urgent, firm-level requirements for economic performance.

Direction. In other situations, neither adaptation nor integration is the correct

approach. In some cases, a leader will need to decide and “stick by it” - even when the

decision is unwelcome or unpopular. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw this when

business leaders quickly shifted operations, and made difficult decisions to close facilities,

lay-off workers, or alter supply chains. In the international leadership context, we see this

response used frequently in decisions involving safety standards, codes of conduct, quality

standards, fiscal controls, corporate values, and codes of ethics.

During this COVID-19 crisis, we can observe a number of highly effective leaders,

setting clear direction, and using their transparency and authenticity to effectively

communicate the chosen course of action. These leaders are also acknowledging and

communicating the trade-offs necessary to create plans that are responsive to public health

concerns and economic imperatives. The ability to use effectively each of the three above

responses is a hallmark of good leadership in complex MNEs. The leaders able to navigate

the tensions among these three possible responses during the pandemic will likely also be the

best MNE leaders going forward.

13
Insights from the Literature on Virtual International Collaboration

More suddenly and widely than ever experienced before, the COVID-19 crisis has

moved collaborative work into the virtual sphere. Large sections of society now find

themselves relying exclusively on virtual communication media to complete collaborative

tasks. IHRM research teaches us a lot on how managers should support virtual collaborations

to facilitate success during the current crisis and beyond. We do not know how long this

virtual set-up, spanning the entire world will need to last, but now is a good time for

managers to learn from mistakes or at least imperfections in this realm, and to strengthen the

quality of virtual work for the future.

The current crisis sheds light on challenges of virtual collaboration that confirm

long-standing research insights. For those who had not built strong working relationships

before the crisis, working and managing at a distance and through virtual communication

media has made it hard to maintain (and even more so to build) strong social ties and

networks (Hansen & Lovas, 2004), realistic expectations of reliability (Gibson & Gibbs,

2006) and a team identity (Maznevski, Davison, & Jonsen, 2006), thus impeding a common

understanding of norms, goals and tasks as well as effective communication and knowledge

sharing (Cramton, 2001; Fulk, Monge, & Hollingshead, 2005). Research on global teams tells

us that these challenges are amplified when working internationally in MNEs, where

boundaries must be crossed between countries, regions, cultures, institutional contexts, firms,

and firm units (see Zimmermann, 2011).

As we know from research in IHRM and other disciplines, virtual work also has

potential benefits. It can, for example, attenuate the effects of obvious cultural differences in

demeanors, reduce misunderstandings due to verbal language struggles and accents, create

electronic trails that document decision making processes, and save on meeting time.

14
Moreover, geographic distance is not always a measure of psychological distance, as virtual

team members who communicate frequently and share a professional or personal identity can

even feel closer to each other than people collaborating face-to-face (O’Leary, Wilson, &

Metiu, 2014).

In the current crisis, managers have an exceptional opportunity to learn, or refine

means of mitigating the challenges and realizing the potential of virtual working, which may

not have been obvious before, in spite of much past work advocating the benefits of the

virtual workplace (Illegems & Verbeke, 2003; Verbeke, Schulz, Greidanus, & Hambley,

2008). One prerequisite is to match the type of information and communications technology

(ICT) with the focal task (Malhotra & Majchrzak, 2014). For example, asynchronous virtual

communication can be most efficient for information gathering whilst regular face-to-face

meetings (or in the current situation videoconferences) should be reserved for tasks such as

problem solving and comprehensive decision-making that requires synchronous interactions

(Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000).

Managers can further support effective virtual working through each stage of the

human resource management process (Zimmermann, 2018). The requirement of working

over distances should be included in job advertisement and assessment centers, not just for

managers but also for technical staff, to attract and select employees who regard this as part

of their professional identity (Zimmermann & Ravishankar, 2011). After recruitment, skills

of virtual collaboration can be developed through formal training that covers ICT as well as

intercultural knowledge and experiential exercises (Li, Mobley, & Kelly, 2013; Sit, Mak, &

Heill, 2017). As mentioned, cross-cultural training is important for those who work virtually

across countries, supporting cross-cultural relationship formation and teamworking skills. On

the job, new recruits can early on be given the opportunity to work on virtual teams and visit

remote offices to develop an awareness of different cultural and organizational contexts that

15
may cause misunderstandings in the virtual collaboration. Rotational assignments and short-

term projects abroad serve to enhance the collaboration in global virtual teams by allowing

members to develop a better shared understanding of their tasks, goals, and social norms, and

to build stronger social ties and a shared team identity (Zimmermann, 2018). For this

purpose, the organizational design must allow for the movement of staff in all geographic

directions.

Research on virtual collaboration also suggests what measures managers can take to

alleviate obstacles to virtual work; to create a more positive work experience for employees;

and to increase employees’ motivation to make good on their commitments in the team and

the firm. First, managers can facilitate perceived proximity, by allowing employees to

communicate frequently and share personal information with remote colleagues, including

social media, to help identify personal similarities and to develop stronger relationships

(O’Leary et al., 2014). Shared understanding, in turn, must be supported by defining strong

shared goals, a clear communication structure, interaction rules, and team member roles (e.g.

Earley & Peterson, 2004). To give virtual working skills the attention they deserve, managers

should also include employees’ effort in virtual communication and teamwork as criteria for

employee performance appraisals. The process of virtual working, not just its outcomes,

should thus become relevant for rewards and promotion.

Research on MNE headquarters-subsidiary settings alerts us to additional challenges

in managing virtual collaborations. In MNEs, employees at headquarters and subsidiaries

often compete for interesting tasks and career prospects. Rather than prioritizing

headquarters’ employees, senior MNE managers need to create a ‘combined career pyramid’

which balances the career aspirations of headquarters and subsidiary employees. This will

help not only to motivate and commit employees at different locations, but also to break

down collaboration barriers. For example, in offshoring settings, distributing widely the more

16
attractive tasks and career paths across sites may help alleviate headquarters employees’ fears

of contributing to the ‘offshoring’ of their own jobs. The wide distribution of attractive tasks

and career paths will make them more willing to provide support to offshore colleagues,

which can in turn reinforce offshore employees’ work motivation and affective and

continuance commitment (Zimmermann & Ravishankar, 2016). Importantly, HR and general

managers in the different MNE sites need to work together rather than in silos, so to co-

design career paths and achieve better virtual collaboration.

In sum, research on virtual collaborations can teach managers much on how to handle

the challenges and reap the benefits of collaborating at a distance, which the COVID-19 crisis

has brought to the fore. To cope with virtual collaboration on a large-scale during this crisis,

managers must develop and reward employees’ virtual collaboration skills, foster perceived

proximity, and design ICT, work goals, and the communication structure in a way to foster

collaboration. If managers now use the opportunity to take on these insights, they can build

their firm’s capability of virtual working for the future. In the long run, virtual collaboration

skills will become a more important part of employees’ professional identity. In an

international setting, this also implies that managers in different MNE subsidiaries will need

to collaborate to design career paths that balance the aspirations of employees at different

sites and foster their motivation to work with each other.

Insights from Global Talent Management

The COVID-19 crisis has stretched organizational resources and has accentuated key

organizational capabilities. The crisis has exposed ‘holes’ in supposed core competencies,

both at the individual and collective levels, but it has also revealed new talents. In our

conversations with managersi we consistently heard the message of some surprising

performances, emerging stars, or someone who really showed their new side. These stars are

17
not the usual, more gregarious, employees, but those who tend to be more reserved. This,

more introverted group of employees now feels comfortable suggesting new ideas and

proposals in the format of virtual meetings (see the benefits of virtual collaboration described

in the previous section). The crisis had pushed MNEs to reconsider the key question as to

whether they have the right people in the right places. Extant research on Global Talent

Management (GTM) has become particularly salient in answering this question. In GTM we

have long been arguing the necessity of establishing a differentiated HR architecture for

managing talent globally (Minbaeva & Collings, 2013), starting with two key decisions

around strategic positions and talent pool.

Strategic positions. The key point of departure is the focus on strategic positions

(Becker & Huselid, 2006), especially those organizational roles that can have an above-

average impact (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2007). As Minbaeva and Collings (2013) explain,

such positions: (1) relate to company strategy and have a direct impact on the effectiveness of

strategy implementation; (2) exhibit high variability in the quality of the work completed by

the various people occupying these positions; and (3) require unique, firm-specific know-

how, tacit knowledge and industry experience that cannot be easily found in the external

labor market (see also Evans, Pucik, & Björkman, 2011).

Becker et al. (2009: 51) further explain that the process of identifying strategic

positions begins with “the development of a clear statement of the firm’s strategic choice

(how will we compete?) as well as the firm’s strategic capabilities (what must we do

exceptionally well to win?).” The answers to these questions will be different after the crisis

for each MNE. Hence, what are considered strategic positions must be re-evaluated. In doing

so, managers may still be guided by the second and third elements listed above (high

variability in performance and unique, firm-specific know how), but the first element may

need to be reconsidered. In defining strategic positions, now and in the post-Corona crisis, the

18
emphasis needs to shift from a static and reactive strategy implementation role towards a

more agile understanding of positions that have a direct impact on how fast the company can

change its direction and adapt to new situations.

Notably, the strategic positions will seldom be at the top of the MNE hierarchy.

According to Mark Huselid: “the sorting and selection process used to choose senior

executives is very extensive. Each step of this process is based on a variance-reduction

system in which poor performers are sorted out or developed into good performers. However,

at the bottom and middle of the organization, such variability can still exist.”ii Again, the

COVID-19 crisis revealed some unexpected and surprisingly key, pivotal positions.

Talent pool. In GTM, the next step entails the creation of a pool of high-potential

talents who can occupy the strategically important positions (see for example Björkman,

Ehrnrooth, Mäkelä, Smale, & Sumelius, 2013; Collings, Mellahi, & Cascio, 2019). Usually,

nomination decisions are made by representatives of MNE subsidiaries or sub-units, and

based on a combination of data on individuals’ competencies, past performance, and

development potential (Fernandez-Araoz, Roscoe & Aramaki, 2017). In the future, the

evaluation of potential should also include cultural agility competences as highlighted above:

tolerance for ambiguity, resilience, and curiosity.

In the context of the current crisis, the talent pool is changing, expanding and being

reconfigured. Handling the crisis has become an overnight stretch assignment and employees’

response to this stretch assignment has changed many MNEs’ perceptions of their talent pool.

With the additional information on how well employees handled the crisis, variance across

strategic positions has increased.iii The current situation will test all previous decisions

regarding the leadership pipeline and talent management such that, on the other side of the

crisis, the high-potential pool may well consist of a different group of employees.

19
 Prior research has shown the potential correlation between personalities and

nominations to the talent pool. For example, Caligiuri (2006) has explained how different

personality traits (e.g., extroversion) may be favored in global settings. Mellahi and Collings

(2010) have argued that social and geographical distances may lead talented employees in

foreign MNE subsidiaries to be in “blind spots” because they are less visible. In contrast,

talent located at the headquarters may be more visible to –and more valued by– key decision

makers in the MNE. The virtual reality imposed by COVID-19 has had a levelling effect.

Introverts have been given an equal chance to participate in the virtual interactions and

discussions. Everyone, regardless of location, has had equal access to decision-makers in

virtual meetings, and has had an equal opportunity to contribute. The work reality fostered by

the COVID-19 pandemic has helped to supersede structural, geographic, and social barriers

that previously limited talent management decisions.

In sum, the insights from GTM are especially relevant for companies during the

crisis period, and they will be even more relevant in the next stage – the Restartiv. The crisis

has redefined not just where we work but has altered the work we do and how we do itv. To

succeed in the next ‘new normal’, MNE senior managers will need to revisit the prevailing

definition of talent and their understanding how economic value is created.

IMPLICATIONS FOR IHRM RESEARCH: LOOKING BEYOND THE PANDEMIC

In the first part of this Editorial, we have drawn attention to several key insights

from IHRM scholarship that provide the foundation for understanding, interpreting, and

addressing COVID-19 related workplace challenges. The insights we have outlined could

serve to guide senior MNE managers in HRM and beyond as they address novel, people-

related challenges in their organizations. However, the pandemic has also highlighted some

20
gaps in our research: answers to questions we wish we had in the academic literature but, to

date, do not.

This section of our Editorial turns to recommendations for future IHRM scholarship

in the post-pandemic reality. We think that novel and multidisciplinary research will be

needed to address the context, processes, and outcomes of work post-pandemic. Below we

focus especially on suggestions for research on: (1) how to manage with global uncertainty;

(2) how to facilitate global work; and (3) how to redefine organizational performance.

Managing with Global Uncertainty

The concept of volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environments

has been recognized for some time (Schoemaker, Heaton, & Teece, 2018; Van Tulder,

Verbeke, & Jankowska, 2019), yet the health and economic crises resulting from COVID-19

have given the concept further significance. The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed

extraordinary vulnerabilities arising from widespread global uncertainty. Uncertainty is no

longer the context experienced by just senior MNE leaders involved in managing complex

global supply chains, volatile financial markets, and unpredictable geopolitical relationships.

Rather, uncertainty has become the context for numerous MNE employees who are working

from home for the first time, experiencing job instability and financial insecurity, and

worrying about their and their loved ones’ health and safety.

The context, as we know in IHRM, sets an important boundary condition in

understanding the efficacy of our theories (e.g., Brewster, Mayrhofer & Smale, 2016; Cooke,

2018; Cooke, Wood, Wang, & Veen, 2020) and this context of uncertainty, which has been

exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, cannot be ignored. Our view is that IHRM should

explore new avenues of managing global uncertainty and that it can thereby contribute to

answering some of the ‘big questions’ in IB (Buckley et al., 2017). While the context of

21
uncertainty has created opportunities for many streams of IB research, we would like to focus

on three key ones: leadership and talent management, collaborating under stress, and

managing health and safety.

Leadership and Talent Management. The United States War College was the first

institution to coin the term VUCA. For decades, military institutions globally have been

developing leaders who could lead through a VUCA reality. Partnering with scholars from

the military, future research in IB could advance how leadership styles and behaviors might

need to vary during situations of high uncertainty, and how specific interventions might lead

to vastly improved outcomes (Adler, Bliese, McGurk, Hoge, & Castro, 2009). This could be

especially important when the high uncertainty context creates an emotional fear response, as

we saw with some employees who were forced to work without adequate protective

equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic If employees are sensing true fear, a leader’s

role would be to help employees process the context, allowing the rational response to

supplant the emotional response. Universally effective leadership skills might be in play

during fear-inducing situations. However, given that both Geert Hofstede and the GLOBE

study identified “uncertainty avoidance” as a primary cultural difference, culturally bound

leadership styles might be warranted for situations of high uncertainty and fear. Future

research should examine this further.

In the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, members on a global team might be

experiencing the same tangible level of uncertainty but might have vastly different reactions.

Just as uncertainty might be experienced differently across cultures, so might the responses to

fear, stress, and anxiety. Thus, future research should examine whether global leaders are

able to identify (and respond effectively) across cultures. For example, the same leadership

communication to address employees’ uncertainty might have differentially effective

responses, depending on their cross-cultural context. IB scholars could partner with scholars

22
in neuroscience to understand differences in cross-cultural emotional responses and how to

recognize and address these in an international business context.

The ever-growing global uncertainty shapes assumptions beyond talent

management, especially with respect to the choice of selection and performance criteria for

an MNE’s talent pool. Despite recent advances in recognizing the importance of context

(Vaiman, Sparrow, Schuler & Collings, 2018), the GTM research assumes that what makes

talent a talent is universal across cultures and homogeneous for all MNE units. Contrary to

this, Morris, Snell, & Björkman (2017) identified four types of human capital underlying the

talent portfolio of MNEs and explained that different configurations of the talent portfolio

tend to be emphasized in different contexts. Future research should examine whether

different configurations of the talent portfolio should be emphasized in the context of global

uncertainty, and whether different types of human capital could contribute differently to

organizational resilience (see next section). In addition, as Minbaeva (2016) points out, what

constitutes ‘talent’ in the fluid context of emerging economies and developing countries

differs significantly from the definition of ‘talent’ in the (comparatively) stable environment

of developed economies. Following the traditions of extreme context research (Hällgren,

Rouleau & de Rond, 2018), GTM research needs to revisit its assumption that internal MNE

talent systems function in a globally uniform way, using a single, standardized understanding

of what good performance and high potential entail.

Collaborating under stress. The COVID-19 pandemic is a globally shared stress-

producing experience which can, according to social psychology, foster a natural desire to

connect with others (Gump & Kulik, 1997; Sarnoff & Zimbardo, 1961; Schachter, 1959).

Future research should examine whether collaborating through the COVID-19 pandemic has

strengthened relationships among colleagues from different cultures or, had the opposite

effect, by creating a greater emotional distance because the ability to support one another was

23
limited to virtual interactions filtered through diverse cultural lenses. Delineating the

circumstances under which fear facilitates cohesion (or division) among culturally diverse

colleagues would be important for generating interventions.

IHRM has long understood that certain competencies affect success when working

under stress in different countries and with people from different cultures (Shaffer et al.,

2006). Future research should examine the extent to which this new way of collaborating

under stress in a context of uncertainty will require additional competencies. In addition to

competencies, future research should examine whether employees’ experiences have better

prepared them to succeed during the COVID-19 pandemic. It might be the case that

employees who have lived and worked abroad would be better able to collaborate effectively

in a high-uncertainty environment.

Health and safety. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that managing employees’

health and safety is a key challenge for IHRM, and this is an important component of the

grand challenge faced by MNEs in understanding how to deal with social responsibility

(Buckley et al., 2017). However, IHRM scholars (and practitioners) are unlikely to command

the entire reservoir of requisite knowledge to investigate all the mental, physiological, and

even physical problems that employees may experience during and after the pandemic. As for

other complex challenges, our understanding of health and safety issues would benefit greatly

from multidisciplinary collaboration, particularly with scholars in fields such as health. For

example, we could apply health-based knowledge about the long-term health consequences of

risk exposure, to investigate the long-term consequences of travel bans and stay at home

orders on employees’ mental health. IHRM scholars must also broaden their scope of

attention. To date, IHRM scholars have largely focused on a narrow range of sub-clinical

aspects of psychological well-being and adjustment. Yet, the extreme situation of the

pandemic challenges us to support managers who are dealing with health matters that include

24
serious outcomes among employees, including depression, substance abuse, or suicidal

ideation, which are already well understood by health scholars. Future research should also

give more attention to the positive aspects of global work. While most IHRM research has

focused on global work as a context with negative consequences for health and safety, future

research could investigate antecedents in global work that lead to positive outcomes such as

thriving and resilience (Ren et al., 2015).

Facilitating Global Work

The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified new ways that global work can be

accomplished, encouraging us to rethink how MNEs use global teams and virtual

collaboration and international assignments.

Global teams and virtual collaboration. For IHRM, the COVID-19 pandemic has

highlighted the importance of how employees can work effectively across borders while

remaining at home. The focus on global teams has become particularly salient. With

employees sharing the same global stressor, future studies should examine whether their

experience of getting through it together has fostered greater cohesion and, if so, whether

those MNEs that have spent time to train their employees on cross-cultural virtual

collaboration now have global teams with greater expectations of reliability among the

members. Working from home has exposed employees’ full selves as conference calls are

bringing colleagues into each other’s homes, possibly seeing each other’s pets, children, and

home décor. Future studies should examine whether the COVID-19 pandemic has fostered

greater global virtual team cohesion by providing visible evidence of each other’s true selves.

The crisis also offers a new opportunity to look at the fundamentals of virtual

collaboration. IHRM researchers could use the current situation of large-scale virtual working

as an ‘extreme case scenario’ to examine the extent to which virtual collaboration can be

25
effective. They could ask whether the methods that we have derived from virtual

collaborations amongst managers or technical experts (e.g., information systems engineers)

suffice for achieving effective work in the types of collaborations that were previously not

virtual, for example among administration staff inside the MNE.

Future research should thus use the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic to

study those who are working from home for the first time. This group would uniquely enable

us to examine the cross-national, generational, functional, etc. differences in predicting

employees’ preferences for working from home in the future, post-pandemic. For example,

are relationship-oriented or collectivist cultures more likely to want to return to the

workplace? IHRM researchers can also use the extreme case scenario to study the pitfalls

and levers of large-scale virtual conferences that have now been held for the first time. Whilst

this type of research may bring to the surface new psychological and practical barriers to

virtual collaboration, which set its boundaries, it also promises to show how virtual

collaboration can be expanded both in scale and scope - to different types of work and forms

of collaboration.

So far, insights into virtual collaboration have been gained in different academic

disciplines that have largely operated as silos. Besides IHRM and IB, important findings on

international or global virtual collaboration stem from the areas of information systems (IS) -

which has studied dispersed IS collaborations for a long time - organizational studies, and

strategic management. The last two areas have highlighted the role of the organizational and

strategic contexts respectively. IHRM researchers, therefore, need to draw on insights from

these disciplines to achieve a better understanding of virtual collaboration and practices in

order to optimally support these.

International assignments. With countries’ borders closed for fear of the COVID-

19 virus spreading further, the idea of an upward trajectory of international assignments

26
seems highly unlikely. Assuming that fewer employees will be sent abroad to live and work

in the context of international assignments, future research will need to investigate alternative

control MNE mechanisms for subsidiaries, alternatives for developing future global leaders,

and alternatives for addressing skill shortages in host countries. For example, could

technology-driven control mechanisms successfully replace an expatriate leader sent from

headquarters to oversee operations? Could domestic-based experiences in culturally diverse

settings also foster cultural agility competencies the way a high-quality international

assignment would? Could skills be taught to host country nationals through virtually means,

so as to prepare them for anticipated skill shortages in host countries? With fewer expatriates

living abroad, those who are sent abroad will need to achieve greater success faster than

previous generations of expatriates did because the stakes, so to speak, will be higher. Speed

of adjustment for those expatriates who are still going abroad will be of utmost importance.

The expatriate literature has evolved to understand cross-cultural adjustment as an

idiosyncratic person-environment relationship based on how people uniquely experience

living abroad (Haslberger, Brewster, & Hippler, 2013; Hippler, Caligiuri & Johnson, 2014).

Various facets of the host country environment -- when compared to the home country -- are

individually determined for their influence on an individual’s level of adjustment. For some,

the change might be better or worse – or having no real effect. Future research should mirror

the approach in the expatriate adjustment literature to determine who is best able to adjust to

the various facets of this novel work environment and to what extent the support practices

offered have fostered employee adjustment to various facets of work-life during these

uncertain times. For example, some employees might have adjusted well to working from

home – even preferred it. Others might adjust to working from home only after employer

support practices were implemented, such as regular team meetings or training on how to

work virtually. The experience of working from home during the pandemic could open new

27
opportunities for IHRM research to examine flexible work arrangements for expatriates.

While the IHRM literature has begun to examine flexible work arrangements in the context of

global teams (Adamovic, 2018), there has been little attention to date to the FWAs used in

other types of international work.

Rethinking how MNEs use global teams and virtual collaboration and international

assignments, could constitute important elements in a reconfiguration of the IHRM function.

There is an opportunity for IHRM research to collect relevant and useful evidence to facilitate

global work in the future, by examining the role of the IHRM function during and after the

crisis. Even large organizations with sophisticated pre-pandemic IHRM policies are likely to

be re-writing the rules. For example, as travel restrictions ease, employers and individuals

will make decisions about whether, when, and where they feel safe to travel. IHRM

scholarship can offer an evidence-base for global mobility policies that will help employees

to adjust to new ways of working in teams and the inevitable stress and uncertainty of post-

pandemic travel.

Redefining Performance

In 2015, Minbaeva and De Cieri wrote about the need for IHRM scholars to rethink

their key dependent variable – organizational performance. They referred to enterprise

resilience - the ability of an enterprise to respond or “bounce back” from shock events (e.g.,

Branzei & Abdelnour, 2010; De Cieri & Dowling, 2012) - as an important outcome variable

for IHRM in the context of large-scale disasters. The COVID-19 crisis adds to the long list of

shock events in the 21st century that have included terrorism, corporate scandals, the global

financial crisis that began in 2007, natural disasters (e.g., the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004;

the Icelandic volcano eruption in 2010), and environmental disasters (e.g., the BP/Deepwater

Horizon oil rig explosion off the US’s Gulf Coast) (Minbaeva & De Cieri, 2015). The global

28
pandemic once again stresses the importance of understanding the role of IHRM in building

enterprise resilience.

The crisis also brings home the point that sustainability, and more specifically

organizations’ contributions to the United Nation’s sustainable development goals (SDGs),

should become a dependent variable in IHRM research. The UN’s 17 SDGs, adopted as a

non-binding agreement in 2015 by 193 countries, are relevant not only to governments but

also to all stakeholders in employment relationships (Fowler & Biekart, 2017; Sachs, 2015;

UN General Assembly, 2015). These goals are part of the ‘big picture’ of global

development, with environmental, humanitarian and economic implications. HRM scholars

have been criticized for being slow to respond to these goals (Alzola, 2018).

As is the case with other environmental disasters today, the COVID-19 crisis has

been directly linked to the unsustainable ways in which humans treat the world’s ecosystem

(The Guardian, 2020; WWF, 2020). When seen through this (albeit debatable) lens, the

COVID-19 crisis should alert us to the need to rethink our working practices to help address

environmental sustainability. Unintentionally, IHRM research may in the past have

contributed to environmentally unsustainable working practices, e.g., by promoting frequent

international travel in instances where such travel could have been easily avoided and

replaced by more environment-friendly modes of professional interaction. The current crisis

now provides an opportunity for IHRM researchers to guide MNEs towards contributing to

achieving the SDGs. They could do this especially by examining how virtual working can be

optimized to reduce the extent of commuting and travel. In addition to examining the

sustainability of global HR policy and practice, future research could address the SDGs with

respect to global health and safety, e.g., by examining how global mobility practices integrate

health and safety matters. Specific areas where the IHRM function could demonstrate its

relevance might include management of risk exposure in MNE subsidiary locations and travel

29
destinations, anticipative management of emergencies such as medical evacuations, and the

reduction of work-related injuries and illnesses.

In the above exposé, we have outlined how IHRM researchers should use the current

extreme scenario of virtual working to scrutinize the boundaries of effective virtual

collaboration and find means to support it at a broader scale (without compromising on

organizational effectiveness or employees’ mental health). During the ’lockdown’, people

have experienced improvements in air quality, noise levels and congestion, and have at the

same time tested and practiced their virtual collaboration skills. Through this, many of us

may have become more open to the idea of reducing unnecessary travel, which at a larger

scale contributes to reducing the environmental destruction that has fed into the crisis itself.

Even if unexpected barriers to virtual working surface, IHRM researchers may be more

inclined than before to search for new avenues to capitalize on virtual working and to foster

sustainable management practices in this realm.

Recognizing that much of the IHRM literature has focused on high-status

professional employees, future research should give attention to the MNE’s entire workforce

and beyond in the context of its CSR strategy, to address the needs of individuals for whom

the pandemic has exacerbated conditions of insecurity, disempowerment and vulnerability.

This is particularly important given that the SDGs highlight the eradication of extreme

poverty and hunger, and reduction of inequality, which are issues that will be exacerbated as

we enter a likely post-pandemic global recession. IB needs to better understand the role of

globalization from the perspective of job creation and job loss globally. Buckley et al. (2017)

have identified the potential for IB scholars to collaborate with scholars in disciplines such as

health economics and epidemiology to address grand challenges such as the impact of

“poverty and child mortality, on local employees and subsidiaries” (p.1055). We suggest that

30
IHRM scholars have both a responsibility to join these conversations and an opportunity to

contribute their insights about people in the global workforce.

Table 1 presents a summary of our suggestions for future IHRM scholarship,

informed by our extant knowledge base, our direct learnings from responses to the pandemic

and new questions raised by the pandemic as we enter into the post-pandemic ‘next normal’.

[Table 1 goes about here]

CONCLUSION

Buckley et al. (2017) have pointed out that a “narrow scope of research has

potentially hindered IB scholars from studying more impactful research questions” (p.1048).

The same can be said of IHRM. Despite the intrinsic multi-disciplinary nature of the topics

in which IHRM scholars are interested, there has been little cross-pollination of ideas and

knowledge across disciplines (Andersson et al., 2019). The experience of the COVID-19

crisis has showed again that useful knowledge of IHRM, which could inform and support

management practice, remains dispersed and fragmented. There are many reasons for this, yet

we cannot answer the ‘big questions’ unless we share knowledge and collaborate in

multidisciplinary research.

This Editorial has hopefully demonstrated that the most useful knowledge for

management practice is derived from IHRM research with the following features:

multidisciplinary in nature, multi-stakeholder oriented, multilevel, and methodologically

pluralist. This is what the future of IHRM should look like, for it to perform a valuable role

in IB scholarship (Buckley et al., 2017). The COVID-19 crisis, as a global shock, illustrates

once again that IHRM researchers have an opportunity –but also the shared responsibility– to

make a difference. They can do so by providing inspired responses, grounded in state-of-the-

art scholarly work, to the grand challenges of our time.

31
 REFERENCES

Adamovic, M. 2018. An employee-focused human resource management perspective for the

management of global virtual teams. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 29: 2159-2187.
Adler, A. B., Bliese, P. D., McGurk, D., Hoge, C. W., & Castro, C. A. 2009. Battlemind
debriefing and battlemind training as early interventions with soldiers returning from
Iraq: Randomization by platoon. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(5):
928-940.
Alzola, M. 2018. Decent work: The moral status of labor in human resource management.
Journal of Business Ethics, 147: 835-853.
Anderson, A. J., Kaplan, S. A., & Vega, R. P. 2015. The impact of telework on emotional
experience: When, and for whom, does telework improve daily affective well-being?
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24: 882-897.
Andersson, U., Brewster, C., Minbaeva, D., Narula, R. & Wood, G. (2019). The IB/ IHRM
interface: Exploring the potential of intersectional theorizing. Journal of World
Business, 54(5): 100998.
Anderzén, I., & Arnetz, B. B. 1997. Psychophysiological reactions during the first year of a
foreign assignment: Results of a controlled longitudinal study. Work & Stress, 11(4):
304-318.
Bader, B. 2015. The power of support in high-risk countries: Compensation and social
support as antecedents of expatriate work attitudes. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 26(13): 1712-1736.
Becker, B.E., & Huselid, M. A. 2006. Strategic human resource management: Where do we
go from here? Journal of Management, 32: 898-925.
Becker, B., Huselid, M., & Beatty, R. 2009. The differentiated workforce: transforming
talent into strategic impact. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Björkman, I., Ehrnrooth, M., Mäkelä, K., Smale, A., & Sumelius, J. 2013. Talent or not?
Employee reactions to talent identification. Human Resource Management, 52(2): 195–
214.
Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. 2007. Beyond HR: The new science of human capital.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Branzei, O., & Abdelnour, S. 2010. Another day, another dollar: Enterprise resilience under
terrorism in developing countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 41: 804–
825.
Brewster, C., Mayrhofer, W., & Smale, A. 2016. Crossing the streams: HRM in multinational
enterprises and comparative HRM. Human Resource Management Review, 26: 285-297.
Buckley, P. J., Doh, J. P., & Benischke, M. H. 2017. Towards a renaissance in international
business research? Big questions, grand challenges, and the future of IB scholarship.
Journal of International Business Studies, 48: 1045-1064.
Caligiuri, P. 2006. Developing global leaders. Human Resource Management Review, 16:
219-228.
Caligiuri, P. 2012. Cultural agility: Building a pipeline of globally successful professionals.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishing.

32
Caligiuri, P., & Tarique, I. 2016. Cultural agility and international assignees’ effectiveness in
cross-cultural interactions. International Journal of Training and Development, 20(4):
280-289.
Chen, Y., & Fulmer, I. S. 2018. Fine-tuning what we know about employees’ experience with
flexible work arrangements and their job attitudes. Human Resource Management, 57:
381-395.
Collings, D. G., Mellahi, K., & Cascio, W. F. 2019. Global talent management and
performance in multinational enterprises: A multilevel perspective. Journal of
Management, 45(2): 540–566.
Collings, D. G., Scullion, H., & Morley, M. J. 2007. Changing patterns of global staffing in
the multinational enterprise: Challenges to the conventional expatriate assignment and
emerging alternatives. Journal of World Business, 42: 198-213.
Cooke, F. L. 2018. Concepts, contexts, and mindsets: Putting human resource management
research in perspective. Human Resource Management Journal, 93: 184-201.
Cooke, F. L., Wood, G., Wang, M., & Veen, A. 2020. How far has international HRM
travelled? A systematic review of literature on multinational corporations (2000-
2014). Human Resource Management Review, 29: 59-75.
Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed
collaboration. Organization Science, 12: 346-371.
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. 2017. Self-determination theory in work
organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology
and Organizational Behavior, 4: 19–43. 
De Cieri, H., & Dowling, P. J. 2012. Strategic human resource management in multinational
enterprises: Developments and directions. In G. Stahl, I. Björkman and S. Morris
(Eds.) Handbook of international HRM research (2nd edn): 13-35. Cheltenham UK:
Edward Elgar.
De Cieri, H., Shea, T., Cooper, B., Oldenburg, B. 2019. Effects of work-related stressors and
mindfulness on mental and physical health among Australian nurses and healthcare
workers. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 51(5): 580-589.
Druckman, M., Harber, P., Liu, Y., & Quigley, R. L. 2014. Assessing the risk of work-related
international travel. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 56(11):
1161-1166.
Earley, C., & Peterson, R. S. 2004. The elusive cultural chameleon: Cultural intelligence as a
new approach to intercultural training for the global manager. Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 3(1): 100-115.
Evans, P., Pucik, V., & Björkman, I. 2011. The global challenge (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
EY. April 20, 2020. Global board risk survey, EY.
https://www.ey.com/en_us/news/2020/04/nearly-80-percent-of-board-members-felt-
unprepared-for-a-major-risk-event-like-covid-19-ey-survey. Accessed May 15 2020.
Fernandez-Araoz, C., Roscoe, A., & Aramaki, K. 2017. Turning potential into success: The
missing link in leadership development. Harvard Business Review, 95(6):
Forbes. May 7, 2020. Pandemic spike in AI learning – and what it means for schools.
Forbes.com. Accessed May 15 2020.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanderark/2020/05/07/pandemic-spike-in-ai-
learning--and-what-it-means-for-schools/#771cf7df5079
Fowler, A., & Biekart, K. 2017. Multi-stakeholder initiatives for sustainable development
goals: The importance of interlocutors. Public Administration and Development, 37:
81-93.

33
Frone, M. 1990. Intolerance of ambiguity as a moderator of the occupational role stress—
strain relationship: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11(4): 309-
320.
Fulk, J., Monge, P. & Hollingshead, A. B. 2005. Knowledge resource sharing in dispersed
multinational teams: Three theoretical lenses. In D. L. Shapiro, M. A. Von Glinow,
and J. L. Cheng (Eds.), Managing multinational teams: Global perspectives: 155-188.
Oxford: Elsevier/JAI Press.
Gannon, J., & Paraskevas, A. 2019. In the line of fire: Managing expatriates in hostile
environments. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(11):
1737-1768.
Gartner. 2020. Gartner HR survey reveals 88% of organizations have encouraged or required
employees to work from home due to coronavirus.
https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2020-03-19-gartner-hr-survey-
reveals-88--of-organizations-have-e. Accessed May 15 2020.
Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. 2006. Unpacking the concept of virtuality: the effects of
geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national
diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51: 451-495.
Gump, B. B., & Kulik, J. A. 1997. Stress, affiliation, and emotional contagion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72: 305-319.
Hagtvedt, L. P., Dossinger, K., Harrison, S., & Huang, L. 2019. Curiosity made the cat more
creative: Specific curiosity as a driver of creativity. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 150: 1-13.
Hällgren, M., Rouleau, L., & de Rond, M. 2018. A matter of life or death: How extreme
context research matters for management and organization studies. Academy of
Management Annals, 12: 111–153.
Hansen, M. T., & Lovas, B. 2004. How do multinational companies leverage technological
competencies? Moving from single to interdependent explanations. Strategic
Management Journal, 25 (8/9): 801-822.
Haslberger, A., Brewster, C., & Hippler, T. 2013. The dimensions of expatriate adjustment.
Human Resource Management, 52(3): 333-351.
Hippler, T., Caligiuri, P. M., & Johnson, J. E., 2014. Revisiting the construct of expatriate
adjustment. International Studies of Management and Organization, 44(3): 8-24.
Illegems, V., & Verbeke, A. 2003. Moving towards the virtual workplace: Managerial and
societal perspectives on telework. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar.
Jensen, M. T., & Knudsen, K. 2017. A two-wave cross-lagged study of business travel,
work–family conflict, emotional exhaustion, and psychological health complaints.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(1): 30-41.
Kashdan, T., Sherman, R., Yarbro, J., & Funder, D. 2013. How are curious people viewed
and how do they behave in social situations? From the perspectives of self, friends,
parents, and unacquainted observers. Journal of Personality, 81(2): 142-154.
Kraimer, M., Bolino, M., & Mead, B. 2016. Themes in expatriate and repatriate research over
four decades: What do we know and what do we still need to learn? Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3: 1.1-1.27.
Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., & Jaworski, R. A. 2001. Sources of support and expatriate
performance: The mediating role of expatriate adjustment. Personnel Psychology,
54(1): 71–99.
Li, M., Mobley, W.H., Kelly, A. 2013. When do global leaders learn best to develop cultural
intelligence? An investigation of the moderating role of experiential learning style.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 12: 32-50.

34
Lirio, P. 2017. Global boundary work tactics: Managing work and family transitions in a 24–
7 global context. Community, Work & Family, 20: 72-91.
Malhotra, A., & Majchrzak, A. 2014. Enhancing performance of geographically distributed
teams through targeted use of information and communication technologies. Human
Relations, 67(4): 389-411.
Mayerhofer, H., Müller, B., & Schmidt, A. 2010. Implications of flexpatriates' lifestyles on
HRM practices. Management Revue, 21(2): 155-173.
Mayrhofer, W., Sparrow, P.R. & Zimmermann, A. 2008. Modern forms of international
working. In M. Dickmann, C. Brewster and P. R. Sparrow (Eds.), International
human resource management: A European perspective: 219–239. London: Routledge.
Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. 2000. Bridging space over time: global virtual team
dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11: 473-492.
Maznevski, M. L., Davison, S. C., & Jonsen, K. 2006. Global virtual team dynamics and
effectiveness. In G. K. Stahl and I. Björkman (Eds.), Handbook of research in
international human resource management: 354-384. Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar.
Mellahi, K., & Collings, D. G. 2010. The barriers to effective global talent management: The
example of corporate élites in MNEs. Journal of World Business, 45(2): 143-149.
Minbaeva, D. 2016. Contextualizing the individual in international management research:
Black boxes, comfort zones and a future research agenda. European Journal of
International Management, 10(1): 95-104.
Minbaeva, D., & Collings, D. G. 2013. Seven myths of global talent management. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(9): 1762-1776.
Minbaeva, D., & De Cieri, H. 2015. Strategy and IHRM. In D. G. Collings, G. Wood & P.
Caligiuri (Eds.) The Routledge companion to international human resource
management: 13-28. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Morris, S., Snell, S., & Björkman, I. 2016. An architectural framework for global talent
management. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(6): 723-747.
O’Leary, M.B., Wilson, J.M., & Metiu, A. 2014. Beyond being there: The symbolic role of
communication and identification in perceptions of proximity to geographically
dispersed colleagues, MIS Quarterly, 38(4): 1219-1243.
Ren, H., Yunlu, D. G., Shaffer, M. A., & Fodchuck, K. M. 2015. Expatriate success and
thriving: The influence of job deprivation and emotional stability. Journal of World
Business, 50: 69-78.
Richards, D. 1996. Strangers in a strange land: Expatriate paranoia and the dynamics of
exclusion. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(2): 553-571.
RW3. 2018. 2018 trends in high-performing global virtual teams. New York, NY: RW3.
Sachs, J.D. 2015. Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of International
Business Ethics, 8(2): 53-62.
Sarnoff, I., & Zimbardo, P. G. 1961. Anxiety, fear, and social affiliation. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62: 356-363.
Schachter, S. 1959. The psychology of affiliation: Experimental studies of the sources of
gregariousness. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Schoemaker, P. J. H., Heaton, S., & Teece, D. 2018. Innovation, dynamic capabilities, and
leadership, California Management Review, 61: 15-42.
Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., & Gilley, K. M., 1999. Dimensions, determinants, and
differences in the expatriate adjustment process. Journal of International Business
Studies, 30: 557-581.

35
Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., Gregersen, H., Black, J. S., & Ferzandi, L. A., 2006. You can
take it with you: Individual differences and expatriate effectiveness. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91(1): 109-125.
Shaffer, M. A., Kraimer, M., Chen, Y.-P., & Bolino, M. 2012. Choices, challenges, and
career consequences of global work experiences: A review and future agenda.
Journal of Management, 38: 1282-1327.
Sit, A., Mak, A. S., Heill, J. T. 2017. Does cross-cultural training in tertiary education
enhance cross-cultural adjustment? A systematic review. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 57: 1-18.
Stahl, G., & Caligiuri, P. M. 2005. The relationship between expatriate coping strategies and
expatriate adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4): 603-616.
Stroppa, C., & Spiess, E. 2011. International assignments: The role of social support and
personal initiative. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(2): 234-245.
Takeuchi, R., Wang, M., Marinova, S. V., & Yao, X. 2009. Role of domain-specific facets of
perceived organizational support during expatriation and implications for
performance. Organization Science, 20(3): 621–634.
Thomas, D., Campbell, P., & Hancock, A. 2020. Companies from Ford to Unilever send staff
to work from home. The Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/1d54d08a-
6555-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5. Accessed March 13 2020.
The Guardian. 2020. Coronavirus: 'Nature is sending us a message’, says UN environment
chief. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/25/coronavirus-nature-is-
sending-us-a-message-says-un-environment-chief#maincontent. Accessed May 11th,
2020.
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. 2004. Resilient individuals use positive emotions to
bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 86(2): 320-333.
UN General Assembly. 2015. Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. New York, NY: United Nations.
Vaiman, V., Sparrow, P., Schuler, R., & Collings, D. G. (Eds.) 2018. Macro talent
management. A global perspective on managing talent in developed markets. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Van Tulder, R., Verbeke, A. & Jankowska, B. 2019. International business in a VUCA
world: The changing role of states and firms. Emerald Publishing Limited.
Verbeke, A., Schulz, R., Greidanus, N., & Hambley, L. 2008. Growing the virtual
workplace: The integrative value proposition for telework. Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
World Health Organization. 2020. Physical and mental health key to resilience during
COVID-19 pandemic. http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-
emergencies/coronavirus-covid-19/statements/statement-physical-and-mental-health-
key-to-resilience-during-covid-19-pandemic. Accessed May 15 2020.
WWF. 2020. To prevent the next pandemic, we must transform our relationship with nature.
https://medium.com/@WWF/to-prevent-the-next-pandemic-we-must-transform-our-
relationship-with-nature-c42ce9dffc62. Accessed May 15 2020.
Zimmermann, A. 2011. Interpersonal relationships in transnational, virtual teams—towards a
configurational perspective. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1):
59–78.
Zimmermann, A. 2018. Managing virtual talent. In D. G. Collings, H. Scullion, & P. M.
Caligiuri (Eds.), Global talent management: 210-228. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

36
Zimmermann, A., & Ravishankar, M. N. 2011. Collaborative IT offshoring relationships and
professional role identities: Reflections from a field study. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 78(3): 351-360.
Zimmermann, A., & Ravishankar, M. N. 2016. A systems perspective on offshoring strategy
and motivational drivers amongst onshore and offshore employees. Journal of World
Business, 51(4): 548-567.

37
Table 1. Recommendations for Future IHRM Research
How to manage under global uncertainty How to facilitate global work How to redefine performance
(context) (process) (outcomes)
During pandemic What role does communication and support from How have international work arrangements changed What matters most at the time of a pandemic, and
MNE managers (or lack thereof) play in in the way during the pandemic? how can IHRM contribute to it?
employees cope with the demands of work during
the pandemic? Has the shared experience of the crisis affected Which bundles/configurations of IHRM practices
cohesion in global teams, and has virtual team have enabled effective organizational adaptation and
Which bundles/configurations of IHRM policies and training made a difference? prioritization, and which ones have caused
practices are associated with safety and health organizational failure to respond?
outcomes, both positive and negative, during the To what extent have the support practices offered,
pandemic? fostered employee adjustment to various facets of How can MNEs recognize and reward leaders who
work-life during these uncertain times? are able to foster a spirit of shared humanity during
Are there culturally nuanced approaches to assuage the pandemic?
employees’ fears during the pandemic? Which management interventions will be most
effective during the pandemic for improving health What can MNEs do within their communities during
What can MNEs do to communicate difficult outcomes for employees? the pandemic to address growing challenges around
decisions during the pandemic, to help employees food insecurity, mental wellness, and health
better manage expectations and feelings of education?
uncertainty about the future?
General (in the ‘new How is the reality of growing uncertainty reflected Will global work arrangements in the ‘new normal’ What should be the key performance indicators of
normal’) in selecting, developing and retaining global talent revert to pre-pandemic patterns or new ones? the IHRM function?
and international employees?
What are the boundaries to virtual working: Do we How can IHRM help MNEs to build organizational
How do leadership styles and behaviors need to vary need new methods to scale-up virtual collaboration resilience?
across cultures under high uncertainty? in its different forms?
What is the future role of IHRM in corporate social
Under which circumstances does fear facilitate Are there any cross-national, generational, responsibility?
cohesion or division among culturally diverse functional, etc. differences in employees’
colleagues? preferences for working from home? How can IHRM help MNEs contribute to SDGs,
including health and safety, and mitigate unintended
To what extent do new ways of collaborating under Are there alternative control mechanisms for effects of current practices, such as high-volume
uncertainty-induced stress require additional subsidiaries; alternatives for developing future MNE global mobility and commuting, on the ecosystem?
competencies, and how can these be developed? leaders; and alternatives for addressing skills
What are the long-term consequences of the shortages in MNE host countries? How can IHRM contribute to addressing the ‘grand
COVID-19 pandemic for the mental health of Which IHRM practices are associated with the challenges’ and ‘big questions’ of IB?
employees? thriving and higher resilience of globally mobile
employees?
How do global threats change the way we manage
the global workforce? What are the associations between flexible work and
organizational outcomes?

38
39
 i
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/8928700/
ii
Professor Mark Huselid (D’Amore-McKim School of Business, Northeastern University, USA).
Presentation at the mini-conference on “Human Capital Analytics”, Copenhagen Business School, October 2016
iii
As one senior executive explained: “Some 5s become 9s, but other 5s failed to 3s” (the company is using
the performance scale ranging from 1 (min) to 10 (max)).
iv
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/the-restart?
cid=other-eml-alt-mip-mck&hlkid=17bde39d07df446db8ee005b1edb0404&hctky=9992611&hdpid=d7377876-06d5-
4721-83eb-57e9fccaebf4
v
https://hbr.org/2020/04/how-the-coronavirus-crisis-is-redefining-jobs