See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/247835529

When international management meets diversity management: The case of

IKEA

Article  in  European Journal of International Management · June 2010

DOI: 10.1504/EJIM.2010.033609

CITATIONS READS

3 3,756

3 authors:

Morten Rask Steffen Korsgaard

Aarhus University University of Southern Denmark
70 PUBLICATIONS   491 CITATIONS    46 PUBLICATIONS   942 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jakob Lauring
Aarhus University
148 PUBLICATIONS   2,518 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Multicultural Business Teams View project

Expatriate Academics in Greater China View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Morten Rask on 18 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

396 European J. International Management, Vol. 4, No. 4, 2010

When international management meets

diversity management: the case of IKEA

Morten Rask*, Steffen Korsgaard and

Jakob Lauring
Department of Management,
Aarhus School of Business,
Aarhus University,
Haslegaardsvej 10-12,
DK-8210 Aarhus V, Denmark
Email: mr@morten-rask.dk
Email: stk@asb.dk
Email: jala@asb.dk
*Corresponding author
Abstract: This paper discusses the managerial and theoretical implications of
utilising diversity management as a means of keeping alive the key values in
the corporate culture, when the organisation becomes larger and more diverse.
This is especially important in relation to recruitment, in which diversity
management is increasingly recognised as a relevant way of managing
human differences. We perform a content analysis of 44 IKEA recruitment
websites as an empirical vehicle for understanding the embedded barriers,
and the opportunities for combining diversity management and international
management. We conclude that, through the use of diversity management
principles, IKEA succeeds in manoeuvring in the paradox of the simultaneous
need for a strong corporate culture and local adaptation. Thus, the paper
contributes to the understanding of the use of diversity management principles
in international management practices.
Keywords: international management; globalisation; recruitment; human
resource management; diversity management; IKEA.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Rask, M., Korsgaard, S.
and Lauring, J. (2010) ‘When international management meets diversity
management: the case of IKEA’, European J. International Management,
Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.396–416.
Biographical notes: Morten Rask is an Associate Professor at the Department
of Management, Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University, Denmark. He
holds an MSc in International Business Economics from Aalborg University in
Denmark. His research focuses on the global dimension of management,
marketing, purchasing and supply management, e-markets, e-commerce and
m-commerce. He has contributed to Electronic Markets, European Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management, First Monday, Marketing Intelligence &
Planning and Management and Business Economics (in Danish).
Steffen Korsgaard is a Doctoral Research student at the Department of
Management, Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University, Denmark. He
holds a master’s degree in Philosophy from Aarhus University in Denmark.
His doctoral work focuses on entrepreneurial opportunities, using social
constructionist and post-structuralist methodologies. He has published in
Management and Business Economics (in Danish).

Copyright © 2010 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 When international management meets diversity management 397

Jakob Lauring is an Associate Professor at Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus

University. He holds a master’s degree in Anthropology from Aarhus University
in Denmark. In recent years he has been working with intercultural interaction
in culturally diverse organisations. He particularly focuses on diversity
management. He has published his work in journals such as International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Corporate Communication: An
International Journal, Journal of Intercultural Communication and Euro Asia
Journal of Management.

1 Introduction

The Harvard Business School Professor Christopher A. Bartlett states that “The great
challenge of any organisation as it becomes larger and more diverse is how to keep the
core founding values alive” (cited in Capell et al., 2005). This is a major challenge for
international management when dealing with the most globalised firms, which are
exposed to an increased global awareness and interdependence (Guillen, 2001). For many
years these firms have been in the globalisation phase, in which focus is on synergy
between the different parts of the organisation (Douglas and Craig, 1989). They try to
follow a pure global strategy (Yip, 1989) with fully standardised offerings and uniform
marketing worldwide (Hollensen, 2007b), and the competitive moves are integrated across
countries (Rugman, 2000). When trying to maintain coherence within the organisation, the
organisational culture becomes important, especially in relation to recruitment. In this
area, diversity management is increasingly recognised as a relevant way of managing
differences between individuals (Agocs and Burr, 1996; Egan and Bedick, 2003; Nishii
and Özbilgin, 2007). Diversity management researchers mainly argue that the integration
of different individuals with different backgrounds and competencies can lead to a
competitive advantage (Distefano and Maznevski, 2000; Bassett-Jones, 2005). Furthermore,
diversity can be used in branding the organisation and in attracting talented employees of
different ethnicities, genders, etc. (Cox and Blake, 1991; Thomas and Ely, 1996). This is
all the more poignant when discussing international firms, as they are by definition
confronted with diversity in terms of customer base, recruitment base and collaborators.
Diversity management has thus increasingly been made relevant to international
management as a potential solution to the problems stated in the first paragraph
(Dunavant and Heiss, 2005; Ferner et al., 2005). Unfortunately, while it has been argued
that the management of cultural diversity can yield knowledge creation, innovation and
improved performance (Bassett-Jones, 2005), many attempts to create and develop
programmes for managing diversity internationally have failed (Egan and Bedick, 2003).
Nishii and Özbilgin (2007) argue that this is mainly the result of a lack of legitimacy and
relevance within policies created in one country and exported to another (cf. Agocs and
Burr, 1996; Wentling and Palma-Rivas, 2000). Others argue that the greatest problem is
that most multinational corporations tend not to involve their foreign operations in
diversity programmes at all (Dunavant and Heiss, 2005). Nonetheless, there is a great
scarcity of studies on diversity management principles in an international management
context (Ferner et al., 2005; Sippola and Smale, 2007). This paper contributes to
knowledge on using diversity management principles in an international management
context. The novelty of the paper is the conception of the inherent paradox in diversity
398 M. Rask, S. Korsgaard and J. Lauring

management as a constructive opportunity for international firms. The paper is guided

by the research question: What are the embedded barriers and the opportunities of
combining diversity management and international management?
We use IKEA as an empirical vehicle to illustrate the dynamics of two contradictory
uses of diversity management in an international management context. We argue that
differences are treated both as negotiable and non-negotiable. This paradox can be found
in the theoretical foundation of diversity management as well. As such, the paradox is a
necessary condition for the existence of diversity management theory and practice –
while also being contradictory. The interaction between negotiability and non-negotiability
allows IKEA to promote a strong corporate culture, and this culture is negotiated in the
local context simultaneously. As an implication of this, a strong corporate culture must
be seen as input rather than output in the process of keeping core founding values alive in
international firms.
The paper provides an essential discussion of the use of diversity management principles
in an international business context. This can be of interest to academic scholars working
with international business as well as international business practitioners and policy makers
engaged with diversity or cross-cultural issues.

2 Literature review

IKEA, the global business of retail home furniture and homeware, is often used as a
prime example of a firm that has experienced a rapid process of internationalisation
(Hollensen, 2007b). In October 2007, IKEA controlled 265 stores in 36 countries. The
IKEA Group itself owns 235 stores in 24 countries. The other 30 stores are owned and
run by franchises outside the IKEA Group in 15 countries (IKEA, 2007b). The IKEA
concept and the IKEA trademark are owned by Inter IKEA Systems B.V. in the
Netherlands. Inter IKEA Systems B.V. is the franchiser for all IKEA stores, both within
and outside the IKEA Group (IKEA, 2007a), which means that there is a franchising
contract authored centrally as IKEA controls all business processes in all stores in all
countries (Hollensen, 2007b).
In IKEA one can experience a firm that is similar on a global scale and multifarious
in the local setting. On the one hand, for many years IKEA has been in the phase of
globalisation, in which there is particular focus on synergy between the different parts of
the organisation (Douglas and Craig, 1989). The HQ called IKEA International was
moved from Sweden to Denmark in 1975 and has since 2001 been located in the
Netherlands. IKEA has been able to follow an almost purely global strategy (Yip, 1989)
since IKEA has a significant market share on 5–10% of the total furnishing market in
each of the target countries (Björk, 1998; Capell et al., 2005; Hollensen, 2007b), the
furniture products are fully standardised in each country, while some of the homeware
products can be adapted (Solomon, 1991; Prime, 1999; Woods, 2001; Hollensen, 2007b),
marketing is uniform worldwide (Hollensen, 2007b) and the competitive moves are
integrated across countries (Rugman, 2000). The IKEA corporation has managed to do
that with a diversified country market strategy with a keen focus on one segment
(Ayal and Zif, 1979), namely the low to middle income young family (Prime, 1999;
Kling and Goteman, 2003; Hollensen, 2007b).
 When international management meets diversity management 399

Branding, together with organisational culture, is also important for the recruitment
process in IKEA (Kling and Goteman, 2003). IKEA’s brand awareness has a significantly
higher value than the size of the firm and the sales volume (Kling and Goteman, 2003;
Capell et al., 2005; Hollensen, 2007b).
On the other hand, IKEA does not sell furniture and homeware only. According to a
number of authors, the firm sells Scandinavian lifestyle (Prime, 1999; Kling and Goteman,
2003; Capell et al., 2005; Hollensen, 2007b). The globalisation phase is often understood
as going hand-in-hand with a geocentric managing mindset. However, while IKEA is
known as a multicultural organisation (Jackson, 2002), it has had a strong almost
ethnocentric (Perlmutter, 1969) Swedish corporate culture (Jackson, 2002; Kling and
Goteman, 2003) following a home-based internationalisation strategy (Rugman, 2000).
Every time IKEA has struggled because of accelerated internationalisation, new cultural
management policies have been implemented (Björk, 1998); and the latest addition is
diversity management.
IKEA is recognised as a global leader in the furniture industry compared to the many
local competitors (Capell et al., 2005; Hollensen, 2007b). That is, if we understand
globalisation as a process leading to greater interdependence and mutual awareness
among economic, political and social units in the world, and among actors in general
(Guillen, 2001). As such, globalisation means that big global players like IKEA are
exposed to an increased global awareness and interdependence, which is recognised as it
promotes the reasons for considering itself as a future employer. This can be viewed on
their global website under the title ‘Why work at IKEA?’. IKEA explains the background
for their diversity management practice: “We encourage an environment where people
of different views, ages, nationalities, gender, and ethnic backgrounds feel welcome.
We believe that a diverse workforce will improve business results, strengthen our
competitiveness and make IKEA a better place to work” (IKEA, 2006). This reflects the
high importance and big effort that IKEA puts into recruitment (Björk, 1998; Kling and
Goteman, 2003) and how they relate this to the management of human differences as part
of the globalisation strategy.

3 The globalisation management practice in IKEA

In the late 1960s IKEA expanded their business to the neighbouring Scandinavian countries,
Norway and Denmark. When the growth started to stagnate in the 1970s, the focus was
on expanding to the German-speaking European countries. Surprisingly, the conservative
country Switzerland was a success for IKEA, even though they simply moved the
Swedish concept to the new market (Björk, 1998). According to Anders Dahlvig, CEO of
IKEA, this laid the ground for IKEA’s international growth: “After that, we basically
copied the concept worldwide from the 1970s until today. So the fundamental success
criteria are fairly old. Although we have continuously adapted and improved them,
basically they have been the same all the time” (Kling and Goteman, 2003). Where IKEA
has been extremely successful in implementing the standardised concept with a low
national responsiveness on the product offerings (Rugman, 2000; Hollensen, 2007a),
IKEA recognised early on that the organisational culture needed to be more adaptive. In
relation to IKEA’s expansion to Switzerland, Germany and Austria, Ingvar Kamrad, the
founder of IKEA, had some doubts: “You can ask yourself, is it right of us to come in
with our style and way of socialising and not adapt to their culture…but we would not
destroy their culture – we would create togetherness. And in general it worked out well”
400 M. Rask, S. Korsgaard and J. Lauring

(Björk, 1998). However, after the heavy international expansion in the 1970s, the first
cultural revolution took place in IKEA. The background was the cost efficiency which
got out of control and the plan called ‘Kraft 80’ (Swedish for ‘Power 80’) included
internal search, self-criticism and focus on the power of decision making. These elements
became tools for getting IKEA back to its heritage, and to regain its vitality, creativity,
and flexibility. As a result of this process, IKEA became conscious about the value of its
corporate culture. The culture became a management tool for motivating and ensuring
that the people in the big organisation would stick together. Since then IKEA has
launched corporate culture campaigns every five years to keep the culture alive. Today
the management of IKEA often points out that IKEA has two legs, the business
concept and the corporate culture (Björk, 1998; Nattrass and Altomare, 1999; Kling and
Goteman, 2003). This explains the notion that the ideal manager was seen as a Swede
who knows the country in question. Anders Moberg, who was the CEO of IKEA until
1999, advised those foreign co-workers who wanted to climb up the corporate ladder to
learn Swedish: “They will have a different understanding of the culture, atmosphere and
attitude”. In this line of thought it has often been stated that while the corporate language
of the IKEA Group is English, the language of the corporate culture is Swedish (Björk,
1998). However, there have been critics of the Swedish male-dominated management
culture in IKEA. Concurrently with the geographic expansion of IKEA, the differences
between the official global and the local IKEA corporate culture has widened and forced
IKEA to increase the focus on maintaining one corporate culture (Björk, 1998).
Where simplicity describes the business concept, cost deficiency and togetherness
describe the corporate culture. The last keyword is respect (Solomon, 1991; Björk, 1998;
Grol and Schoch, 1998; Prime, 1999; Capell et al., 2005; Zachary, 2005; Capell, 2006;
The Economist, 2007). Respect is important in order to decrease the relatively ethnocentric
management in IKEA and to focus on diversity management as a management tool.

4 Diversity management in IKEA

Diversity management as a concept is an American-inspired management tool developed

in the early 1980s (Ivancevich and Gilbert, 2000; Kirton and Greene, 2005). To begin
with, the concept was related to affirmative action and equal opportunity with regards to
weaker minorities on the labour market (Liff and Wajcman, 1996; Gilbert et al., 1999;
Squires, 2008). But since then it has developed increasingly, and has come to include an
argument of business opportunities in managing human difference (Kelly and Dobbin,
1998; Konrad, 2003). Here, the focus is on the combination of competencies that can be
achieved through diversity management. This is believed to lead to competitive advantages
within areas such as market intelligence or internationalisation of the organisation
(Hambrick et al., 1996; Adler, 1997). Furthermore, it has been argued that synergies from
diverse knowledge resources can create better decision making and more creativity and
innovation in the business procedures (Paulus, 2000; Page, 2007). It is argued that by
making constructive use of a number of employees with different knowledge bases,
competitive advantages can be acquired (Leung et al., 2000; Miller et al., 2000; Page,
2007). Diverse groups, if managed correctly, should be more resourceful compared to
more homogeneous groups (Distefano and Maznevski, 2000). In other words, the
different perspectives are believed to foster creativity through constructive conflicts of
perspectives (Fiedler, 1966; Millikin and Martins, 1996; Simons et al., 1999; Richard and
Shelor, 2002).
 When international management meets diversity management 401

Additionally, the need for adjusting product and marketing to different local preferences
calls for the use of a culturally and ethnically diverse workforce. Some academics argue
that culture has a significant effect on consumer behaviour (Cox and Blake, 1991). Many
consumer-product companies have used market segmentation based on ethnic, gender or
other demographic differences, and have also frequently created dedicated marketing
positions for each segment. The argument is that companies need a more demographically
diverse workforce to gain access to these differentiated market segments. Employees
with, for example, multilingual skills will be able to better understand and interact with
customers and gain legitimacy (Thomas and Ely, 1996).
Finally, cultural and ethnic diversity in organisations is often argued to be a competitive
advantage in conducting business across national borders (Lane and Beamish, 1990).
Since multicultural organisations consist of different individuals with different world
views and different linguistic skills, the organisation is more likely to find a common
ground through the interaction with different organisations in different countries (Fujimoto
and Hartel, 2000). In addition to this, culturally diverse organisations are more likely to
see opportunities in internationalisation (Davidson, 1980; Erramilli, 1991), select the
right personnel for overseas stationing and develop international social networks (Stanley
and Ingram, 1990). This way, diversity can be used in branding the organisation and for
attracting talented employees of different races, nationalities and genders, etc. (Cox and
Blake, 1991; Thomas and Ely, 1996).
This perspective can also be seen in corporate statements made by IKEA: “We see
the diversity issue as a matter of creating a more challenging business atmosphere and of
course expanding the recruitment base – including everyone and not just Swedish men. It
also gives us a diverse workforce with a lot of positive business possibilities” (Kling and
Goteman, 2003). IKEA understands diversity management in the following way (Fajtová,
2007): “Diversity at IKEA is when people from different backgrounds feel comfortable
and confident, when they can apply their perspectives and approaches at work, and when
they are included in all levels and functions in the organisation”.
IKEA argues that human diversity handled by a global HRM policy must be context
dependent, especially because of the increased heterogeneity within the customer base
and the potential recruitment population in their target markets, in which the characteristics
of these markets differ from country to country: “As a global player it is very important
for IKEA to be aware of what the world looks like today, and how it will change in the
future. The only common thing for all of us is that we are different. If we accept and
understand this fact we can start to use this diversity for the best of ourselves and for
IKEA” (Fajtová, 2007). And as Anders Dahlvig argues: “I don’t think Swedes are fit to
be managers at IKEA because of them being Swedes. However, it has been the strategy
in the past, which was abandoned about five years ago, and maybe some people still
think that way…Today we have a different situation…There are plenty of transfers
between countries today” (Kling and Goteman, 2003).
Even this short summary of the IKEA version of diversity management demonstrates
a somewhat paradoxical state of affairs. On the one hand IKEA seeks to embrace and
respect the fundamental differences of individuals, while on the other hand IKEA also
seeks a strong unified corporate culture. This triggers the question: If and how all
individuals with differences in background, such as race, gender, physical abilities,
ethnicities, sexual orientations and age, can subscribe to the shared corporate values of
IKEA and find it a good place to work?
402 M. Rask, S. Korsgaard and J. Lauring

By using as its point of departure the above-mentioned challenges of globalisation,

this paper discusses the meeting of international management and diversity management.
This theme has formed the centre of the research presented in this paper. To understand
the above-mentioned paradox and explore this question, it is crucial that we take a closer
look at the diversity management practice(s) of IKEA.

5 Methodology and data

In the following we will investigate the practice of diversity management in IKEA

in order to understand if and how diversity management is possible within a global
organisation which is dominated by a non-negotiable standardised corporate culture by
utilising the key values as simplicity, cost efficiency, togetherness and respect as the
negotiable factors in the local setting.
The primary data are collected from IKEA’s home pages that were re-launched
during the summer of 2007 (Datamonitor, 2007). We had specific focus on the recruitment
marketing pages in the different countries.
The data can be found in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 groups the countries in which the
IKEA Group owns the stores. Table 2 is the group of countries in which the stores are
owned by franchisees. In all countries, we have analysed the ‘IKEA Values’ web page
that has been promoted to potential job seekers. In countries with more than one native
language, we have analysed editions in relation to IKEA statements.
Table 1 Diversity management in countries owned by the IKEA Group

Non-negotiable
Country differences Negotiable differences URL
Australia Work hard, be A corporate culture based on http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_
yourself shared values AU/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
Togetherness
Cost-Consciousness
Respect
Simplicity
Austria Arbeite hart, sei Unsere Unternehmenskultur http://www.ikea.com/ms/de_
du selbst basiert auf geteilten Werten AT/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
Gemeinsamkeit
Kostenbewusstsein
Respektvoller Umgang
Miteinander
Einfachheit
Offenheit
Belgium – Travaillez dur, Une culture d’entreprise basée http://www.ikea.com/ms/fr_
French soyez vous-même sur des valeurs partagées. BE/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
Camaraderie
Conscience Des Coûts
Respect
Simplicité
Belgium – Werk hard, wees Een bedrijfscultuur op basis van http://www.ikea.com/ms/nl_
Dutch jezelf gemeenschappelijke waarden BE/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
Samenhorigheid
Kostenbesef
Respect
Eenvoud
 When international management meets diversity management 403

Table 1 Diversity management in countries owned by the IKEA Group (continued)

Non-negotiable
Country differences Negotiable differences URL
Canada – Work hard, be A corporate culture based on http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_
English yourself shared values CA/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
Togetherness
Cost-Consciousness
Respect
Simplicity
Canada – Travaillez dur, Une culture d’entreprise fondée http://www.ikea.com/ms/fr_
French soyez vous-même sur des valeurs communes CA/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
Appartenance
Conscience Des Coûts
Respect
Simplicité
China – Work hard, be A corporate culture based on http://www.ikea.com/ms/zh_
Chinese use yourself shared values CN/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
English about Togetherness index.html
values Cost-Consciousness
Respect
Simplicity
Czech Pracujte tvrdě, Podniková kultura založená na http://www.ikea.com/ms/cs_
Republic buďte sami sebou společně sdílených hodnotách CZ/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
Soudržnost
Uvědomování Si Nákladů
Respekt, Úcta
Jednoduchost
Denmark Arbejd hårdt og Virksomhedskultur, der bygger http://www.ikea.com/ms/da_
vær dig selv på fælles værdier DK/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
Samvær
Omkostningsbevidsthed
Respekt
Enkelhed
Åbenhed
Finland Työskentele Yhteisten arvojen yrityskulttuuri http://www.ikea.com/ms/fi_
ahkerasti ja ole Yhteenkuuluvuus FI/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
oma itsesi Kustannustietoisuus
Kunnioitus
Yksinkertaisuus
France Travaillez dur, Une culture d’entreprise fondée http://www.ikea.com/ms/fr_
soyez vous-même sur des valeurs communes FR/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
Appartenance
Conscience Des Coûts
Respect
Simplicité
Germany Gut arbeiten, sich Eine Firmenkultur, die auf http://www.ikea.com/ms/de_
treu bleiben gemeinsamen Werten aufbaut DE/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
Gemeinschaft
Kostenbewusstsein
Respekt
Einfachheit
404 M. Rask, S. Korsgaard and J. Lauring

Table 1 Diversity management in countries owned by the IKEA Group (continued)

Non-negotiable
Country differences Negotiable differences URL
Hungary Dolgozz A Közös Értékeken Alapuló http://www.ikea.com/ms/hu_
keményen és légy Vállalati Kultúra HU/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
önmagad
Italy Impegnati e sii te Una cultura aziendale basata su http://www.ikea.com/ms/it_
stesso valori condivisi IT/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
Solidarietà
Attenzione Ai Costi
Rispetto
Semplicità
Japan – Work hard, be A corporate culture based on http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_
English yourself shared values JP/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/in
Togetherness dex.html
Cost-Consciousness
Respect
Simplicity
Japan – Seems to be http://www.ikea.com/ms/ja_
Japanese similar to the JP/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/in
English version dex.html
Netherlands Werk hard, wees Een bedrijfscultuur die op http://www.ikea.com/ms/nl_
jezelf gedeelde waarden rust NL/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
Saamhorigheid
Kostenbewustzijn
Respect
Eenvoud
Norway Arbeid hardt, vær En forretningskultur basert på http://www.ikea.com/ms/no_
deg selv felles verdier NO/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
Fellesskap
Kostnadsbevissthet
Respekt
Enkelhet
Poland Bądź pracowity, Kultura korporacyjna oparta na http://www.ikea.com/ms/pl_
bądź sobą wspólnych wartościach PL/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
Poczucie Wspólnoty
Wydajność
Szacunek
Prostota
Portugal Trabalhe muito, Uma cultura corporativa http://www.ikea.com/ms/pt_
seja você mesmo baseada em valores partilhados PT/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
Espírito De Equipa
Consciência De Custos
Humildade
Simplicidade
Orientação Para O Cliente
Russia Работай с Корпоративная культура http://www.ikea.com/ms/ru_
максимальной основывается на RU/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
отдачей, будь определенных ценностях
самим собой Единство
Осознание Расходов
Ответственность
Простота
 When international management meets diversity management 405

Table 1 Diversity management in countries owned by the IKEA Group (continued)

Non-negotiable
Country differences Negotiable differences URL
Slovakia Tvrdo pracujte, Firemná kultúra založená na http://www.ikea.com/ms/sk_
buďte sám sebo spoločných hodnotách SK/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
Súdržnosť
Šetrnosť
Úcta
Jednoduchosť
Spain Esfuérzate en el Una cultura Englishÿive basada http://www.ikea.com/ms/es_
trabajo, sé tú en los valores compartidos ES/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
mismo Unión
Consciencia De Costes
Respeto
Sencillez
Sweden Arbeta hårt och En företagskultur baserad på http://www.ikea.com/ms/sv_
var dig själv delade värderingar SE/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
Tillhörighet
Kostnadsmedvetenhet
Respekt
Enkelhet
Switzerland – Travaille dur, sois Une culture d’entreprise basée http://www.ikea.com/ms/fr_
French toi-même sur des valeurs partagées CH/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
Camaraderie
Conscience Des Coûts
Respect
Simplicité
Switzerland – Arbeite hart, Eine Firmenkultur, die auf http://www.ikea.com/ms/de_
German sei du selbst gemeinsamen Werten aufbaut CH/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
Gemeinschaft
Kostenbewusstsein
Respekt
Einfachheit
Switzerland – Lavorare sodo, Una cultura Englishÿive basata http://www.ikea.com/ms/it_
Italian essere te stesso su valori condivisi. CH/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
Solidarietà
Consapevolezza Dei Costi
Rispetto
Semplicità
UK Work hard, A corporate culture based on http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_
be yourself shared values GB/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
Togetherness
Cost-Consciousness
Respect
Simplicity
USA Work hard, A corporate culture based on http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_
be yourself shared values US/jobs/join_us/ikea_values/
Togetherness
Cost-Consciousness
Respect
Simplicity
USA – No recruitment http://www.enamoratemasdet
Spanish page uhogar.com/
406 M. Rask, S. Korsgaard and J. Lauring

Table 2 Diversity management in countries run by franchisees outside the IKEA Group

Non-negotiable
Country differences Negotiable differences URL
Cyprus No recruitment page http://www.ikea.
com.cy
Greece No recruitment page http://www.ikea.
gr/content/index.
asp
Hong Kong – Not available page http://www.ikea.
Chinese com.hk/chi/job/
job.asp
Hong Kong – IKEA has a unique company http://www.ikea.
English culture com.hk/job/job.
We have strong values and asp
standards that are special to
us – values that create a sense
of belonging.
We offer an environment
where everyone is part of the
team – there are no barriers
between management and
co-workers and we believe
in leadership by example.
Iceland No recruitment page http://www.
ikea.is/
Israel Not possible to interpret http://www.
ikea.co.il/
Kuwait Work hard, be yourself A corporate culture based http://www.
on shared values ikea.com.kw/
Togetherness Jobatikea.html
Cost-Consciousness
Respect
Simplicity
Malaysia The IKEA Human Resource Idea Ikea has a unique company http://www.
Growing with IKEA culture. We have strong ikea.com.my/
values and standards that jobs/jobs.asp
At the same time, everyone is are special to us – values that
encouraged to use their initiative – create a sense of belonging.
to question and to try new
ways. Every co-worker is an
important individual to IKEA.
This is why we are committed
to individual training needs that
allow our people to grow in both
their personal and professional
capacities.
Romania No recruitment pages http://www.
ikea.ro
Saudi Arabia No recruitment information http://www.ikea.
com.sa/English/
 When international management meets diversity management 407

Table 2 Diversity management in countries run by franchisees outside the IKEA Group
(continued)

Non-negotiable
Country differences Negotiable differences URL
Singapore Calling All Singaporeans. IKEA has a unique company http://www.
We need more of you. culture ikea.com.sg/
Growing with IKEA jobs/jobs.asp

To give people the opportunity

to grow, both as individuals and
professionally, so that together
we can commit to creating a
better everyday life for ourselves
and our customers. Enthusiasm,
a constant desire for renewal,
willingness to accept and delegate
responsibility, humility and
willpower, simplicity leadership
by example and daring to be
different are some of our values
that create a greater sense of
belonging and togetherness.
Every co-worker is an important
individual to Ikea. This is why we
are committed to individual
training needs that allow our
people to grow in both their
personal and professional
capacities.
Taiwan – Seems to be similar to the English http://www.ikea.
Chinese version com.tw/chi/job/
job.asp
Taiwan – IKEA has a unique company http://www.
English culture ikea.com.tw/
We have strong values and job/job.asp
standards that are special to
us – values that create a sense
of belonging.
Turkey Togetherness and enthusiasm http://www.ikea.
open and honest com.tr/eng/caree
communication modesty rparent_kurumsa
To assume responsibility and ldeger.aspx
take action
Cost awareness
Concentration and plainness
Leadership through being a
model
United Arab Recruitment is done by an http://www.
Emirates external firm ikeadubai.com/
408 M. Rask, S. Korsgaard and J. Lauring

6 Findings

The discussion of the findings will consist of two rounds of interpretation. In the first
round we will consider the general differences between the countries, and in the second
round we will discuss the tension between statements emphasising individual differences
and strong corporate culture.
When we compare the different countries, ownership stands out as a determining
force. Table 1 documents that almost all countries in which IKEA owns stores have
similar statements in both categories. So the statement in Swedish ‘Arbeta hart och var
dig själv’ translates directly into ‘Work hard, be yourself’ in English as well as similar
statements in other languages. Where all have statements about the core values as
‘togetherness, cost-consciousness, respect and simplicity’, some countries like Austria
and Denmark have an extra statement about openness. Also the URLs are almost similar
in that they refer to identical web designs and identical pictures, showing a young woman
and a young man both of Scandinavian origin (see Figure 1). It seems to be the case that
this recruitment marketing material is controlled and purposely produced centrally in the
IKEA headquarters. Table 2 considers the websites from IKEA franchisees outside the
IKEA Group. These are generally of a more adaptive character and differ from one
another. First, a group of countries (Cyprus, Greece, Iceland, Romania and Saudi Arabia)
do not market job opportunities at IKEA, and in the United Arab Emirates a link on the
web page brings you to an external recruitment agent. Secondly, with the group of countries
that have recruitment marketing material on their website, the explanation of IKEA’s
values is more detailed and is somewhat adapted to the culture of the country in question.
This is the case in Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and Turkey. For example,
in Malaysia “The IKEA Human Resource Idea is Growing with IKEA. At the same time,
everyone is encouraged to use their initiative – to question and to try new ways. Every
co-worker is an important individual to IKEA. This is why we are committed to
individual training needs that allow our people to grow in both their personal and
professional capacities. IKEA has a unique company culture. We have strong values and
standards that are special to us – values that create a sense of belonging”. However,
Kuwait stands out in the sense that the statements are similar to the countries in which
IKEA owns the stores. These are ‘Work hard, be yourself’ and ‘A corporate culture
based on shared values: togetherness, cost-consciousness, respect, simplicity’. These
findings illustrate that the type of ownership makes a difference in the sense that full
ownership tends to give a more standardised diversity management policy compared to a
more adaptive one, when the ownerships are shared, such as in franchising. This is
especially clear with a third group of countries. Southeast Asian countries (Hong Kong,
Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan) have their own unique statements, and this could also
illustrate that countries that are relatively more different from the Swedish origin are
more careful with regards to explaining the corporate culture. This is in line with earlier
findings, which suggest that the power of the IKEA culture decreases concurrently with
an increase of distance from Sweden (Björk, 1998).
The second round of the analysis considers all the countries in which IKEA owns
stores. Here, all the web pages had similar statements about individual differences and
corporate culture as explained in the beginning of this section. The findings support the
speculation made in the introduction: that the diversity management practice of IKEA is
paradoxical in simultaneously emphasising both a strong corporate culture and respect
for individual differences. The investigation, however, allows us to go into depth with the
nature of the paradox.
 When international management meets diversity management 409

Figure 1 IKEA values are presented at most web pages (see online version for colours)

Firstly, the statement about individual differences indicates that when working in IKEA
you can be ‘yourself and be true to yourself’. The specific characteristics that set you
apart from the other employees are not seen as problematic and you will not be forced to
change them. That is, as long as you work hard. The combination of ‘work hard’ and ‘be
yourself’ seems to indicate that the acceptance of the self is conditioned on the self as
hard working.
Secondly, the statements emphasising a strong corporate culture indicate that IKEA
has only one corporate culture, as the statement describes it in the singular. There is thus
a tension and a paradox between respecting individual differences and at the same time
enforcing what IKEA describes as a general set of shared values. This is also reflected in
statements made by Anders Dahlvig when asked to characterise leadership at IKEA: “It
has to reflect our values, the IKEA culture, and there is a connection between the values
and the image the person gives. So if you live the values, you also reflect the culture
image. Within those values it is also important for all leaders to develop their own style.
410 M. Rask, S. Korsgaard and J. Lauring

We don’t try to move them into a specific type of leadership. The framework is our core
values, and we allow a lot of freedom depending on who you are and what your specific
skills are” (Kling and Goteman, 2003). This quote illustrates the linking of general shared
values with individual differences. Hence, the diversity management of IKEA deploys
different uses of the concept of difference, which serve different strategic purposes. On
the one hand, individual differences are respected as non-negotiable. For example, if you
are a black woman with a given ethnic background, with the consequent values and
characteristics, this is respected by IKEA and even leveraged. This can be illustrated by
the following statement by IKEA: “As a global player it is very important for IKEA to be
aware of what the world looks like today, and how it will change in the future. The only
common thing for all of us is that we are different. If we accept and understand this fact
we can start to use this diversity for the best of ourselves and for IKEA” (Fajtová, 2007).
On the other hand, the individual differences should be aligned with the shared corporate
values of IKEA, as described above by Anders Dahlvig.
IKEA’s diversity management practice thus embodies a paradox or contradiction in
that differences are treated as both negotiable and non-negotiable. This contradiction is
not some coincidental error on the part of IKEA. The contradiction is a necessary
condition for the diversity management practice. There must be non-negotiable differences
of gender, ethnicity, etc. in order for it to make sense to speak of diversity. At the same
time, these differences must be negotiable in order for it to make sense to create a coherent
and strong corporate culture.
Criticising a contradictory practice such as the above would be well-known academic
practice. We will suggest instead that the acceptance of the paradox, whether explicitly or
implicitly, opens up a field of possibilities, one of which is the practice displayed on
IKEA’s web pages.
Following this, it is natural to discuss whether the paradox is particular to diversity
management in IKEA, or if it is embedded in the theoretical foundation of diversity
management practices more broadly.

7 Discussion

Does the theory of diversity management incorporate the paradox described above? One
way of finding out is to revisit a seminal paper in the field. Roosevelt Thomas Jr.’s
(1990) ‘From affirmative action to affirming diversity’ is one such paper. This paper is
pivotal in the establishment of diversity management as a field and, as such, it incorporates
many of the central arguments of the field (Kelly and Dobbin, 1998; Ivancevich and
Gilbert, 2000; Litvin, 2002). Among these arguments is the notion that differences are a
fact of organisational life, and even more so as society at large is becoming increasingly
diverse (cf. Cox and Blake, 1991; Thomas and Ely, 1996; Harrison and Klein, 2007). The
task at hand then is to manage these differences in the best possible way. In fact, certain
differences in ethnicity and gender can be turned to an advantage (Distefano and
Maznevski, 2000; Page, 2007). Managing differences has become ‘a question of business
survival’ (Roosevelt Thomas Jr., 1990, p.108). The reason is that different people have
different competences and talents, and if the management is focused only on white males,
it will not tap into the talent of minorities.
 When international management meets diversity management 411

According to Roosevelt Thomas Jr., this potential advantage of differences can be

triggered by two mechanisms. The first mechanism relates to the increasingly diverse
consumer group. Minorities may be an increasingly interesting customer group and, for
instance, the recruiting of minorities as middle managers may increase the organisation’s
ability to reach out to these particular customers (Roosevelt Thomas Jr., 1990, p.111).
Consequently, the differences within the organisation become an advantage as they correlate
to the differences in the customer base. However, this only works if the minorities so to
speak bring their ethnicity and/or gender into the organisation (cf. Thomas and Ely, 1996).
The second mechanism relates to an alleged underperformance on the part of the
minorities. If an organisation can be created where differences are somehow sidestepped
and a new all inclusive ‘we’ can be created, minorities can perform on the same level as
adult white males (who constitute the mainstream). This only works if the differences in
ethnicity and gender can be ‘sidestepped’ (Roosevelt Thomas Jr., 1990).
The two mechanisms mentioned above are both found in the IKEA case. The similarity
also extends to the two strategic deployments of the term difference. In Thomas Jr.’s
paper, differences are either crucial and non-negotiable or they are to be negotiated and
sidestepped, depending on the given argument. In the first mechanism, minority individuals
neither can nor should restrict or limit their difference from the mainstream (cf. Flood
and Romm, 1995). It is imperative that they maintain the ethnic and/or gender characteristics.
In the second, however, the differences must and can be sidestepped in order to create
a new ‘we’. The two different strategies can be termed negotiable and non-negotiable
differences, respectively. Table 3 gives a few examples of how the two strategies are
deployed in statements and arguments in Roosevelt Thomas Jr.’s paper.
Table 3 Negotiable and non-negotiable differences in diversity management

Negotiable differences Non-negotiable differences

“What we must do is to create an environment
where no one is advantaged or disadvantaged,
an environment where ‘we’ is everyone”
(p.109)
“…the organisation’s leaders must work all
the harder to define belonging in terms of
values and a sense of purpose that transcend
the interests, desires, and preferences of any
one group” (p.116)
In Thomas’ examples of organisational crisis,
where everybody suddenly pull together as a
group to save the organisation, the strategy
of relativising differences is also deployed
(e.g. p.114).
“First, if ever it was possible to melt down
Scotsmen and Dutchmen and Frenchmen
into an indistinguishable broth, you can’t
do the same with blacks, Asians and women.
Their differences don’t melt so easily” (p.112)
“…the uncomfortable realities of differences”
(p.114)
“Senior management at another corporation
saw the growing importance of minorities in
their customer base and decided they needed
minority participation in their managerial
ranks” (p.111)

There is thus a twofold use of the concept of difference in both the IKEA case and
Thomas Jr.’s paper, and somehow the various uses contradict themselves and their own
assumptions (Johnson, 2004). This could be ascribed to an error made by the author.
Thus, the two strategic deployments of difference are at one and the same time necessary
for the establishment of the field – and they are contradictory; diversity management is
inherently contradictory. To recapitulate, on the one hand, the relevance and legitimacy
rest on non-negotiable differences. On the other hand, diversity management is only
possible if in some way these differences can be negotiated and sidestepped.
412 M. Rask, S. Korsgaard and J. Lauring

We might now be tempted to discard diversity management altogether, as it builds on

a contradiction. Another more constructive approach would be to explore the problem in
light of the ambiguity of the term difference. The reading of Roosevelt Thomas Jr.
demonstrates that differences may at one and the same time be produced and be productive.
Think of the phrase ‘make a difference’. On the one hand it makes a difference whether
you are of European or Arab descent. This difference is given and non-negotiable. That is
why ethnicity is a problem in the first place, but it also is the reason why it is an
advantage to mirror the diversity of your customer base internally within the organisation.
Differences are thus productive in the sense that they bring about certain states of affairs.
We find this notion in the non-negotiable understanding of differences. On the other hand
differences are produced. New differences can be produced, as the contextual distinction
between the ‘we’ of the organisation against the ‘them’ of the outside world. But by
implication, when new differences are produced others are renegotiated. The process of
producing a new ‘we’ within the organisation necessarily affects the ‘older’ difference of
ethnicity and gender.
The non-negotiable understanding of differences thus emphasises the productive
aspect of differences, while ignoring that difference itself is produced. Differences are
produced in specific localised settings. The fact that in some cases some differences are
perceived as natural, perhaps due to some biological logic, is simply a misunderstanding.
As the examples given by Roosevelt Thomas Jr. clearly indicate, specific local circumstances
(a crisis situation in an organisation) are quite capable of renegotiating even the most
‘natural’ differences. Thus, the ambiguity of difference and the two contradictory
deployments of strategic uses of difference open a field of possibilities.

8 Conclusion and implications

Contrary to the mainstream literature in the field, our study shows that the perception of
difference in diversity management is paradoxical. However, the paradox, as shown in
the IKEA case, opens a field of possible actions. One of these is that to some extent, and
at least with regards to the practice of web pages, it is possible to combine the respect
of individual differences with a strong corporate culture. However, the case and the
subsequent analysis also show that the process of creating and maintaining coherence
across an international business is not necessarily as straightforward as it would seem
when looking at the shared values of IKEA. The individual differences which employees
bring into the organisation are necessarily negotiated and not fixed as such. Accordingly,
the same must necessarily be the case with the differences imposed by the shared values
of IKEA. They are always under negotiation. This means that the shared values are
continuously renegotiated in the local setting. Thus, the values are ‘imagined’ as shared,
but are not necessarily the same across national contexts (cf. Anderson, 1990). Therefore,
a strong corporate culture is not only the output or effect of the process of creating
cohesion in an international firm. Instead, it may serve as input to the values of IKEA as
well as to local processes of negotiating the individual differences of employees.
This research has shown that a thoughtful and reflective diversity management
practice in IKEA can handle the ambiguity of differences. The implications are that
managers of global firms need to recognise and handle the embedded paradox in diversity
management as a management tool for handling the process of internationalisation within
the firm. When utilising diversity management the globalisation myth stating that everything
 When international management meets diversity management 413

is the same can be both rejected and maintained at the same time. Accordingly, the
diversity paradox needs to be taken into consideration when managers of international
businesses try to create cohesion across local sections of the company. General values are
always a necessary fiction of a community depending on the situation and negotiated in
the local context. Furthermore, in order for there to be sameness across local contexts, the
values will be different.
Since this is an exploratory study, concrete guidelines for practitioners may be
somewhat premature. Nonetheless, it could be argued that in order to take advantage of
the opportunities embedded in the diversity paradox, the first step would be to increase
awareness of the issues. To prepare international managers and policy makers to deal
constructively with the diversity paradox, training sessions of international diversity
management could be provided on a general scale. Furthermore, the headquarter of
international corporations could audit the different diversity initiatives in order to align
them strategically with overall and local policies.
There are clear limitations to this study. This is a pioneering but explorative
investigation of the paradox of using diversity principles in an international business
context. We have used only one company for our case. Hence, the findings of this study
may not be generalisable to all international corporations. Furthermore, it is not clear to
what extent the IKEA policies are typical for the average international diversity policies
and therefore some caution should be applied when generalising the results of this study
to other corporations. Nonetheless, the study has illustrated how the diversity paradox
can function in an international business context.
Several issues related to this conclusion call for more research. Firstly, researchers
could survey diversity management principles in other international corporations in
order to generalise the findings further. Secondly, we have not analysed the different
(and similar) images on the web pages, which could produce a stronger and more
nuanced analysis. This explorative study could have been accompanied by case studies of
how the corporate culture and values are negotiated in the national franchises.
Particularly in countries such as China and Japan, in which one would expect the national
culture to be very different from the Swedish. Such an approach would be based on
interviews with central actors such as manager from the IKEA headquarters and local
co-workers. Furthermore, cross-national surveys would be useful for exploring the
negotiations of differences in different cultural settings.

References
Adler, N.J. (1997) International Dimensions of Organisational Behaviour, South Western
Publishing, Cincinnati.
Agocs, C. and Burr, C. (1996) ‘Employment equity, affirmative action and diversity management:
assessing the differences’, The International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 17, Nos. 4–5,
pp.30–45.
Anderson, B. (1990) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism,
Verso, London.
Ayal, I. and Zif, J. (1979) ‘Market expansion strategies in multinational marketing’, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 43, No. 2.
Bassett-Jones, N. (2005) ‘The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation’,
Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.169–176.
Björk, S. (1998) IKEA – Ingvar Kamprad og Hans Imperium, Børsen, København.
414 M. Rask, S. Korsgaard and J. Lauring

Capell, K., Sains, A., Lindblad, C., Palmer, A.T., Bush, J., Roberts, D. and Hall, K. (2005)
‘Ikea – how the Swedish retailer became a global cult brand’, BusinessWeek.
Capell, K. (2006) ‘Ikea's new plan for Japan’, BusinessWeek.
Cox, T.H. and Blake, S. (1991) ‘Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizational
competitiveness’, The Executive, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.45–58.
Datamonitor (2007) IKEA Group – Company Profile, New York.
Davidson, W. (1980) ‘The location of foreign direct investment activity: country characteristics
and experience effects’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.9–22.
Distefano, J.J. and Maznevski, M.L. (2000) ‘Creating value with diverse teams in global
management’, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.45–63.
Douglas, S.P. and Craig, C.S. (1989) ‘Evolution of global marketing strategy: scale, scope and
synergy’, Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.47–59.
Dunavant, B.M. and Heiss, B. (2005) Global Diversity 2005, Diversity Best Practices,
Washington, DC.
The Economist (2007) ‘No country is an island’, The Economist.
Egan, M. and Bedick, M. (2003) ‘Workforce diversity initiatives of US multinational corporations
in Europe’, Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 45, No. 6, pp.701–727.
Erramilli, M. (1991) ‘The experience factor in foreign market entry behaviour of service firms’,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.479–501.
Fajtová, E. (2007) ‘Why Diversity? A global experience’, Proceedings of the Conference on
Diversity Management & Inclusion: European Solutions to Common Problems, Human
Resources Development Interface, Prague, The Czech Republic.
Ferner, A., Almond, P. and Colling, T. (2005) ‘Institutional theory and the cross-national transfer
of employment policy: the case of “workforce diversity” in US multinationals’, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.304–321.
Fiedler, F.E. (1966) ‘The effect of leadership and cultural heterogeneity on group performance:
a test of the contingency model’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2,
pp.237–264.
Flood, R.L. and Romm, N.R.A. (1995) ‘Diversity management: theory in action’, Systems Practice,
Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.469–482.
Fujimoto, Y. and Hartel, C.E. (2000) ‘Openness to dissimilarity moderates the consequences of
diversity in well-managed groups’, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 38, No. 3,
pp.46–61.
Gilbert, J.A., Stead, B.A. and Ivancevich, J.M. (1999) ‘Diversity management: a new
organizational paradigm’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.61–76.
Grol, P. and Schoch, C. (1998) ‘IKEA: managing cultural diversity’, in Oddou, G.R. and
Mendenhall, M.A. (Eds): Cases in International Organizational Behavior, Blackwell
Publishers, Malden, MA.
Guillen, M.F. (2001) ‘Is globalization civilizing, destructive or feeble? A critique of five key
debates in the social science literature’, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 27, pp.235–260.
Hambrick, D.C., Cho, T.S. and Chen, C.C. (1996) ‘The influence of top management team
heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 4,
pp.659–684.
Harrison, D.A. and Klein, K.J. (2007) ‘What’s the differences? Diversity constructs as separation,
variety, or disparity in organizations’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 4.
Hollensen, S. (2007a) Global Marketing – A decision-oriented approach, 4th ed., Financial Times
Press, Essex, England.
Hollensen, S. (2007b) ‘IKEA: expanding through franchising to the South American market? –
Case Study III.1’, Global Marketing – A decision-oriented approach, 4 ed., Financial Times
Press, Essex, England.
 When international management meets diversity management 415

IKEA (2006) Why Work at IKEA?, Vol. 2007, Inter IKEA Systems B.V.
IKEA (2007a) Facts and Figures, IKEA Group 2007, Corporate PR, IKEA Services AB.
IKEA (2007b) IKEA Group Stores, Vol. 2007, Inter IKEA Systems B.V.
Ivancevich, J.M. and Gilbert, D.J.A. (2000) ‘Diversity management: time for a new approach’,
Public Personnel Management, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.75–93.
Jackson, T. (2002) International HRM: A Cross-Cultural Approach, Sage, London.
Johnson, B. (2004) ‘Translator’s introduction’, in Derrida, J. (Ed.): Dissemination: vii-xxxv,
Continuum Books, London.
Kelly, E. and Dobbin, F. (1998) ‘How affirmative action became diversity management: employer
response to antidiscrimination law, 1961 to 1996’, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 41,
No. 7, pp.960–984.
Kirton, G. and Greene, A-M. (2005) The Dynamics of Managing Diversity: A Critical Approach,
Elsevier, London.
Kling, K. and Goteman, I. (2003) ‘IKEA CEO Anders Dahlvig on international growth and IKEA's
unique corporate culture and brand identity’, The Academy of Management Executive,
Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.31–37.
Konrad, A.M. (2003) ‘Defining the domain of workplace diversity scholarship’, Group
Organization Management, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.4–16.
Lane, H.W. and Beamish, P.W. (1990) ‘Cross-cultural cooperative behaviour in joint ventures in
LDCs’, Management International Review, Vol. 30, pp.87–102.
Leung, K., Steven, K. and Su, M.W. (2000). Justice in the Culturally Diverse Workplace:
Problems of Over-Emphasis and Under-Emphasis of Cultural Differences, Stanford
University, Palo Alto, CA.
Liff, S. and Wajcman, J. (1996) ‘“Sameness” and “difference” revisited: which way forward for
equal opportunity initiatives?’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp.79–94.
Litvin, D.R. (2002) ‘The business case for diversity and the iron cage’, in Czarniawka, B. and
Hopfl, H. (Eds): Casting the Other: The production and Maintenance of Inequalities in Work
Organizations, Routledge, London, pp.20–39.
Miller, M., Fields, R., Kumar, A. and Ortiz, R. (2000) ‘Leadership and organizational vision in
managing a multiethnic and multicultural project team’, Journal of Management in
Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp.18–23.
Millikin, F.J. and Martins, L.L. (1996) ‘Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple
effects of diversity in organizational groups’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21,
No. 2, pp.402–433.
Nattrass, B. and Altomare, M. (1999) ‘Ikea: “Nothing Is Impossible”’, Journal of Business
Administration and Policy Analysis.
Nishii, L. and Özbilgin, M. (2007) ‘Global diversity management: towards a conceptual
framework’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 18, No. 11,
pp.1883–1894.
Page, S.E. (2007) ‘Making the difference: applying a logic of diversity’, Academy of Management
Perspectives, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.6–21.
Paulus, P.B. (2000) ‘Groups, teams, and creativity: the creative potential of idea generating
groups’, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 49, pp.237–262.
Perlmutter, H.V. (1969) ‘The tortuous evolution of the multinational corporation’, Columbia
Journal of World Business, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.9–18.
Prime, N. (1999) ‘IKEA: international development’, in Dupuis, M. and Dawson, J. (Eds):
European Cases in Retailing, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp.33–48.
Richard, O.C. and Shelor, M. (2002) ‘Linking top management team heterogeneity to firm
performance: juxtaposing two mid-range theories’, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp.958–974.
 416 M. Rask, S. Korsgaard and J. Lauring

Roosevelt Thomas Jr., R. (1990) ‘From affirmative action to affirming diversity’, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 68, No. 2, pp.107–117.
Rugman, A.M. (2000) ‘The myth of global strategy’, European Retail Digest, No. 28, pp.4–10.
Simons, T., Pelled, L.H. and Smith, K.A. (1999) ‘Making use of difference: diversity, debate, and
decision comprehensiveness in top management teams’, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 42, pp.662–673.
Sippola, A. and Smale, A. (2007) ‘The global integration of diversity management: a longitudinal
case study’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 18, No. 11,
pp.1895–1916.
Solomon, B. (1991) ‘A Swedish company corners the business: worldwide’, Management Review,
Vol. 80, No. 4, pp.10–14.
Squires, J. (2008) ‘Intersecting inequalities: reflecting on the subjects and objects of equality’,
The Political Quarterly, Vol. 79, No. 1, pp.53–61.
Stanley, J. and Ingram, D. (1990) The Relationship Between International Trade and Linguistic
Competence, 138. Canberra, Report to the Department of Employment.
Thomas, D.A. and Ely, R.J. (1996) ‘Making difference matter: a new paradigm for managing
diversity’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74, No. 5, pp.79–90.
Wentling, R.M. and Palma-Rivas, N. (2000) ‘Current status of diversity initiatives in selected
multinational corporations’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 1,
pp.35–60.
Woods, M. (2001) International Business, Palgrave, Basingstoke.
Yip, G.S. (1989) ‘Global strategy: in a world of nations?’ Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31,
No. 1, pp.29–42.
Zachary, L.J. (2005) Creating a Mentoring Culture: The Organization’s Guide, 1st ed.,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

View publication stats