Search results

Despite the increasing use of the agency perspective in studies of headquarters-subsidiaries relations in the multinational corporation (MNC), opponents fundamentally question its utility. In an attempt to contribute to this debate, we evaluate prior studies and develop considerations for future research. Our review of extant studies of headquarters-subsidiaries relations that make (explicit) use of the agency perspective reveals two significant shortcomings. First, we identify a need to validate the underlying assumptions when using the agency perspective in studies of headquarters-subsidiaries relations. Second, we detect a need to better account for the complex nature of headquarters-subsidiary relations in the MNC. A focus on these two areas can improve the use of the agency perspective and, ultimately, help resolve the contentious debate over the utility of the agency perspective.

As markets become increasingly competitive, it is important for multinational corporations to generate value. Both headquarters and subsidiaries are responsible for contributing to value generation, albeit they may do so in different ways. This builds on the notion from the literature that it is possible to discern two separate concepts that relate to the generation of value, namely, value creation and value added. These concepts are often used interchangeably, without a clear distinction what they de facto reflect or what the underlying mechanisms of value creation and value added are.

Based on a set of assumptions regarding headquarters–subsidiary relations conceptual arguments related to value generation are developed.

Teasing out the differences between the concepts becomes important as it leads to a fuller understanding of what a headquarters do in different situations and of what a headquarters–subsidiary relationship entails for value generation.

In this chapter, it is argued that value-adding activities tend to be conducted by a headquarters, but are dependent on varying knowledge situations of headquarters, while the value creation process tends to take place at the subsidiary level.

As multinational corporations are becoming larger and more complex, it becomes increasingly difficult to balance between the need for overall standardization in the multinational corporation (MNC) and the need for local responsiveness. In order to allow subsidiaries to react on challenges and opportunities within their local markets, they should be granted with a certain level of decision-making autonomy. However, this freedom can facilitate a misalignment of activities among the headquarters and its subsidiaries.

This study suggests that subsidiaries should be granted with the autonomy to pursue own activities. There should, however, be limits to their independence, which should be aligned through a dialogue between the headquarters and the subsidiary. This study finds a positive correlation between strategic and operational autonomy and subsidiary performance when these are combined with a strong intra-organizational network relationship. Furthermore, the study argues that within operational autonomy it is important to distinguish between everyday activities that do not need approval from headquarters, and activities that should be decided in collaboration between the headquarters and the subsidiary. Subsidiaries that are operating in technological complex markets should be granted with the autonomy to take advantage of inter-organizational network relationships in order to exploit local knowledge and capabilities. However, this poses the risk of the subsidiaries losing connectivity to the MNC. In order to reduce this risk, the headquarters should combine such initiatives with a strong collaboration with its subsidiaries.

By establishing a strong intra-organizational network relationship, autonomy can have a positive effect on subsidiary performance.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the scope for action of local human resource managers, who are employed in foreign subsidiaries of multinational companies (MNCs), for implementing training activities. These managers are situated in relationships to headquarters and the local environment. Related to this is the question whether MNCs contribute to the local skill base by implementing training activities or whether they exploit the existing skill formation system.

This study focusses on German subsidiaries of MNCs with headquarters in the USA and the UK, France, China and Japan. The study is based on 107 expert interviews with subsidiary managers and representatives of local stakeholder organisations, such as educational organisations, chambers, economic promotion agencies and governmental bodies in Germany.

The study reveals that headquarters introduce general schemes for training. In addition to these MNC-internal trainings, local managers use their information advantage over headquarters to implement dual training activities.

The training activities of subsidiaries are dependent on the institutional settings of the host country.

Albeit dual training activities are laborious and tie the local managers down for the medium and long term, the future need of the subsidiary for adequately skilled workforce prompts local managers’ engagement in implementing dual training activities.

Subsidiaries contribute to the local skill base and do not act in a free-rider position, at least in the German variety of capitalism.

The study deepens insights on distanced relations within and how subsidiaries generate scope for action by using this kind of relationships.

We demonstrate the role of regulatory fit and moral emotions, that is, contempt and anger, in influencing conflict resolution between the headquarters and subsidiary boundary spanners. We develop a theoretical framework, which integrates literature on international business and headquarters-subsidiary relationships with regulatory focus, moral emotions, and conflict resolution. The chapter outlines the relationships between the regulatory focus of a headquarters’ boundary spanner, and his or her manner of engagement, conflict sensitivity, violation of code, moral emotions, and the way conflicts are resolved. The theoretical framework developed here provides a starting point for future research on bargaining processes between boundary spanners of a multinational corporation (MNC). This chapter is the first one to discuss regulatory focus, and moral emotions, in the contexts of a MNC headquarters-subsidiary relationship.

The chapter examines how distance, integration mechanisms, and atmosphere influence the level of organizing costs and subsidiary initiatives in headquarter–subsidiary relationships. Survey data were collected at the subsidiary level in one major Norwegian multinational company. Empirical analyses were based on regression and partial correlation analyses. Organizing costs are driven by distance to headquarters as well as the integration mechanisms and the atmosphere that exists in subsidiary–headquarter relationships. Another important insight gained by this study is that integration mechanisms influence subsidiary initiatives.

The purpose of this paper is to further the understanding of how the regulatory foci of the multinational enterprises (MNE) headquarters and the subsidiary lead to internal legitimacy crises. This paper discusses how pragmatic and moral legitimacy crises affect relational social capital.

The paper is conceptual.

This paper highlights the importance of internal legitimacy as well as the motivational orientations of headquarters and subsidiaries for the functioning of MNEs. Internal legitimacy management is crucial for building relational social capital. This study proposes that legitimacy crises are particularly likely to occur in cases of goal incongruence between headquarters and subsidiaries. This study postulates that organizations with a promotion-oriented institutional logic are concerned by the absence of pragmatic legitimacy processes. In contrast, given their aim of protecting the status quo, prevention-oriented institutional logic MNEs are concerned about the absence of moral legitimacy.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to explore the relationship between regulatory focus, internal legitimacy and relational social capital.

The purpose of this paper is to understand the impact of network relationship strength and subsidiary initiatives on the headquarters value added and performance in foreign-owned subsidiaries.

This study is based on survey data collected from foreign-owned subsidiaries located in Thailand. The authors use symmetric structured equation modelling partial least squared (SEM-PLS) and asymmetric fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) techniques to analyse the data.

The authors found that intra-organisational relationship strength is one of the key determinants for high headquarter value added. They also found that headquarter value added plays a crucial role in explaining subsidiary performance. The role of subsidiary initiatives seem overall less pronounced than initially thought.

The originality of this study lies in the conceptual framework based on networks and subsidiary initiatives. This is one of the few studies that empirically tests headquarters value-added determinants in subsidiaries located in an emerging market. Furthermore, the authors use SEM-PLS and fsQCA to look beyond more commonly tested symmetric associations.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that multilateral knowledge transfer emerges from two lines of thinking in the international business (IB) literature – the exploitation of multinationality and the contributory role of subsidiaries – and links three levels of analysis – headquarters, knowledge-creating subsidiaries and host-country environments.

Multilateral knowledge transfer, both vertical and horizontal, is considered in this paper as a cross-level phenomenon that emerges as a result of beneficial interdependencies between headquarters, knowledge-creating subsidiaries and their host-country environments. The paper also discusses the concept of embeddedness, which both lines of thinking draw upon, and argues that the multinational enterprise (MNE) headquarters can actually moderate both internal and external embeddedness through global strategy and organizational design.

By putting forward an integrative cross-level interdependency framework that incorporates insights from the R&D internationalization literature and the subsidiary evolution literature, this paper delineates multilateral knowledge transfer as an MNE strategy to systematically transform and integrate knowledge created at the subsidiary-level for the global competitive advantage at the MNE group-level.

Such a perspective reemphasizes the multi-level nature of IB studies and provides new opportunities for theoretical and empirical development as did the internalization theory which has theorized the conventional headquarters-to-subsidiaries knowledge transfer more than 40 years ago.

This study examined the relationship between the headquarters and the foreign subsidiaries of multinational corporations (MNCs). Hypotheses concerning the strategies pursued by each MNC, intergroup conflict, conflict management styles, integrating mechanisms, and the effectiveness of the headquarters‐subsidiary relationship are developed and tested. There were no significant differences in the intergroup conflict experienced by subsidiaries pursuing different international strategies. However, effectiveness of the headquarters‐subsidiary relationship was negatively related to intergroup conflict. The use of the avoiding style of conflict management was negatively related to the effectiveness of the headquarters‐subsidiary relationship, as hypothesized. For MNCs pursuing global integration strategies, the use of personal integrating mechanisms and integrating conflict management styles were negatively related to intergroup conflict. For MNCs pursuing local responsiveness strategies, the use of bureaucratic integrating mechanisms and dominating conflict management styles were not negatively related to inter‐group conflict. This ran counter to expectations. MNCs pursuing multi‐focal strategies did not fit neatly into either strategy camp—global integration or local responsiveness.