Search results

Kostova, Roth and Dacin called in 2008 for the advancement of a theoretical conception of the multinational corporation (MNC) that takes into account both power relationships among actors and the structure of its internal institutional field. While micro-political scholars of MNCs have started to answer the former part of the call regarding power, the second part has not been thoroughly addressed yet. Furthermore, the agentic aspects typical of power games and the structural aspects characterizing institutional fields have not been fully combined in a multi-level perspective of MNCs so far. Leaning on Bourdieu, we suggest an answer to the pending call. We theorize the MNC as a playing field of power emerging around the issue of finding a meta-rate of conversion of the actors’ capitals constituted in national fields. We conceive such issue field in a dynamic state due to the constant entry and exit of new players (e.g. through mergers, acquisitions or divestitures). This results in the need to continuously test the validity of exchange rates. The role of the metainstitutional field level of the MNC as a global category is also discussed.

Previous research has been relatively insensitive to the potential combined effects that the shared industry background and country of origin might play in the development of MNCs. This is although there are various external constituents that pose distinctive demands especially on such groups of MNCs. The 15-year period of internationalization of three major Finnish paper companies examined in this study represents MNC development as a collective endeavor in which individual companies are especially influenced both by each other and by their joint external constituents. These influences materialize in analogous timing and patterns of internationalization across individual companies. In its entirety, the study thus suggests that the development of MNCs which operate in the same line of industry and originate from the same country can be considered an outcome of a mutual process that involves interaction both with each other and their shared external constituents. This also means that MNCs then are not only competitors, but simultaneously also a source of mutual support in their ever-continuing evolution.

Despite its central role in the influence process, power has largely been overlooked by scholars seeking to understand global leaders' influence over their constituents. As a consequence, we currently have limited understanding of the varieties of power that global leaders hold, how power is exercised in global contexts, and what impact exercising power has in global organizations. The intended purpose of this chapter is to mobilize research on this important topic through systematic review. The review is organized around the following guiding questions: (i) how is power defined in global leadership research? (ii) what power bases do global leaders possess? (iii) how do global leaders exercise power? (iv) what factors influence global leaders' exercise of power? and (v) what are the outcomes of global leaders' exercise of power? Based on a synthesis of extant insights, this chapter develops a foundation for future research on power in global leadership by mapping critical knowledge gaps and outlining paths for further inquiry.

In this introduction, the authors outline some critical reflections on the sociology of knowledge within management and organization theory. Based on a review of various works that form a sociology of organizational knowledge, the authors identify three approaches that have become particularly prominent ways by which scholars explore how knowledge about organizations and management is produced: First, reflective and opinion essays that organization studies scholars offer on the basis of what can be learned from personal experience; second, descriptive craft-guides that are based on more-or-less comprehensive surveys on doing research; third, papers based on systematic research that are built upon rigorous collection and analysis of data about the production of knowledge. Whereas in the studies of organizing the authors prioritize the third approach, that is knowledge produced based on systematic empirical research, in examining our own work the authors tend to privilege the other two types, reflective articles and surveys. In what follows the authors highlight this gap, offer some explanations thereof, and call for a better appreciation of all three ways to offer rich understandings of organizations, work and management as well as a fruitful sociology of knowledge in our field.

The multilingual MNC provides a promising territory for enhancing the dialogue between organization theory and International Business. We draw parallels between research on the multinational corporation and that on the multilingual corporation. Our review shows that the changing conceptualizations of the MNC toward a network model have carved space for language-sensitive research in International Business. We scrutinize this stream of research from the viewpoint of three organization theory lenses: the role of language in organizational design and architecture, in identity building and culture, and in organizational political systems, and comment on future research.

The East India Company can lay claim to being the world’s first company whose operations involved systematic organization of multiple countries. It was a pioneer and innovator: it was one of the first companies to offer limited liability to its shareholders; it laid the foundations of the British empire; it spawned Company Man; it developed its own ‘university’. It was a trader, merchant, mercenary, military force and civil administrator; a pioneer bureaucracy as well as being a lean operation. Using an analytic lens drawn from contemporary discussion on MNCs the article reviews the role of the East India Company over its life and draws parallels with contemporary MNCs.

We argue for major re-orientation when applying a neo-institutional perspective within the domain of international business (IB), and in research on the multinational corporation (MNC), in particular. On the one hand, we suggest re-conceptualizing MNCs as globally oriented organizations that nonetheless remain firmly anchored in local cultural settings. On the other hand, it seems crucial for institutionalist IB literature to engage more thoroughly with the core underlying assumptions, theoretical constructs, and recent extensions of neo-institutional theory. We present an overview and systematic evaluation of the current state of institutional approaches toward the MNC, and contrast it with research foci that will emerge from a phenomenological-institutional analysis.

This chapter addresses the concern that much theory building in organization and management (OM) research suffers from de-contextualization. The authors argue that de-contextualization comes in two main forms: reductionism and grand theory. Whereas reductionism tends to downplay context in favor of individual behavior, grand theory looks at context only in highly abstract ahistorical terms. Such de-contextualization is problematic for at least two reasons. First, the boundary conditions of theories remain unexplored in ways that threaten scientific validity. Second, de-contextualization limits the potential of OM theory to fully understand the role of organizations in society and thereby address societal grand challenges. These claims are exemplified through critical reviews of four fields in OM research – gender, employee voice, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and institutional logics – and counterpoints that may help to overcome de-contextualized research are presented.