Search results

What we know is that the concept of cultural distance is frequently used, hotly debated and for many intuitively appealing. Suffering from a series of illusionary properties, it is argued to have outlived its usefulness. What we need to know is how to conceptualize the complexity of culture as a multi-dimensional, multi-level concept, taking context into account to measure quality rather than quantity (or distance). It is our ambition to do justice to the idea that cultural diversity not only leads to friction or problem creation, but also to enrichment and to generation of solutions. We discuss cultural conceptualizations and suggest cultural profiling and cultural positioning as alternative ways of comparing and contrasting critical cultural differences.

Our study explores the performance implications of deviations in managers’ perceptions of “cultural distance” – one of the most important concepts in International Business research – when expanding into foreign markets. Despite much research on “cultural distance,” few researchers have paid attention to the effect of deviations in managers’ perceptions of cultural distance on firm performance. This is important since managers formulate strategies for responding to the environment based on their perceptions of the firm’s environment. These perceptions, however, do not always coincide with actual environmental characteristics. Therefore, formulating strategies based on inaccurate data may result in erroneous forecasts, missed opportunities and, ultimately, business failure. We explore this empirically by comparing managers’ perceptions of cultural distance to export markets of Swedish SMEs to cultural distance measures based on secondary data and relate deviations of perceptions to the performance of these SMEs. Our results show that the larger the deviations of managers’ perceptions of cultural differences from “actual differences” as expressed in Hofstede scores on cultural dimensions, the lower the performance expressed in firms’ sales. The implications of the study are discussed.

Purpose – We examine the fundamental assumptions and features of the Uppsala model of internationalization and argue that we need to look beyond this model for studying internationalization processes in the multinational corporations (MNCs) of today. The purpose of our paper is to identify gaps and neglected issues regarding MNCs' internationalization processes that demand further theoretical and empirical study.

Methodology – Our approach is conceptual: based on the most cited model on internationalization, the Uppsala model, we approach the complex internationalization processes that continuously go on in modern MNCs. We use related bodies of literature, on MNC structure and strategy, headquarters–subsidiary relationships, MNC subsidiary strategy and development, and opportunity seeking and entrepreneurship, to fill in the gaps and develop the emerging research themes.

Findings – We identify the following three issues that need further investigation: the opportunity recognition process preceding internationalization processes in MNCs, the internationalization of multiple products within the confines of the growing MNC, and the internationalization of foreign MNC units.

Research limitations – In this paper, we open up new research fields, but do not offer empirical studies to inform us about these relevant issues. Future research should study these issues empirically, preferably through case study methodologies and/or with longitudinal designs.

Originality – The contribution of our paper is its identification of three research issues in relation to internationalization processes of modern MNCs, which we argue are neglected by contemporary research.

We examine how subsidiaries of multinational companies communicate with headquarters about business opportunities they perceive in their local environment. Our aim is to provide in-depth insights into how communication is used to attract the attention of headquarters.

We study four communication processes of opportunities recognised by subsidiary managers in four different units within the same multinational corporation.

We find that communication is influenced by the subsidiaries’ perception of their relationship with headquarters. Importantly, we find that subsidiaries in emerging countries show different communication patterns than those in advanced markets. Our results further point out that multinationals from advanced countries face the challenge to respond to the increased salience of opportunities from emerging economies, while at the same time still working within existing communication patterns and structures that are not adapted to this new situation.

Our study presents communication processes within multinationals beyond the frequency of communication, including a variety of aspects of communication. Doing so, we are able to point out that open communication is not achieved with all subsidiaries, and what is worse, seems most of all to be challenged for subsidiaries in emerging markets, risking promising business opportunities in these markets.