1. Why do you think InnovationCo used the specific standardization and knowledge networking approach in IHRM? What other options did it have? 

2. What are the advantages and disadvantages associated with their IHRM? 

3. Considering a worldwide operating organization that you know well: how does its approach to international HRM differ? 

4. What are the possible effects on global careers for managers in InnovationCo? What would international HR careers look like? 

This case presents a more unusual configuration in that the degree of IHRM integration is not as high as the company was striving for. The ‘prize’ for allowing creativity and innovation was non-standardisation. For instance, the head office wanted to roll out German-style dual vocational training to its subsidiaries and advocated the advantages of this in the various European and global HR meetings. However, some local subsidiaries, amongst those in the UK, decided against it. The reasons for the UK decision were that it wanted more flexibility in its training approaches and that it felt that the costs involved were too high. As Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989) advocated, instead of tight control the company tried to coordinate its operations through the development and sharing of a strong culture. For this, it felt it needed to rebalance its culture away from a German centre. It worked with INSEAD to explore the high importance of foreign subsidiaries in courses that were attended by its senior managers, always at a ratio of at least as many non-Germans to Germans.