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.

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.

Taken together, these three chapters cover three important building blocks in the effective management of headquarters–subsidiary relations: corporate structure, executive attention, and resource allocation. A common theme across the three chapters is their focus on system flexibility and how this can be achieved for the MNE. Specifically, their research suggests that through the use of matrix structures coupled with conflict resolution training for managers, promoting subsidiary initiatives and profile building to capture headquarters attention, and allocating resources with limited committedness to foreign operations would enable the MNE to better scan and respond to a fast-changing external environment. This system flexibility is particularly important for MNEs that adopt the differentiated network model, which among other things, requires subsidiaries to share knowledge and resources in the formulation and implementation of company-wide response actions as demanded by the circumstance.

Today’s MNCs need to adopt smart ways of organizing to tap into the potential of their complex internal and external relationships. This requires MNCs to identify the relevant relationships and to develop appropriate relational skills and capabilities. Hence this chapter addresses two key questions: what kind of relational structures and qualities are conducive to value creation, and how can MNCs best develop and utilize their complex relationships?

The chapter reviews the main developments in the area of MNC organizing to date. Subsequently three examples of novel on-going research into MNC relationships are presented. Finally avenues for future research and links to related areas in international business research are discussed.

The relational perspective on the MNC is well-established. Past research, however, has mostly taken the view of the headquarters-subsidiary dyad without fully conceptualizing the multiplicity of relationships and interdependencies of individuals, groups, and units in the MNC. This chapter uncovers the relational skills required to improve MNC value creation abilities by influencing and leveraging connections among disparate units and individuals to tap their expertise and creative potential. This includes insights into abilities for managing and balancing multiple networks, abilities for mobilizing relevant network actors when driving bottom-up processes, and abilities for facilitating connections and collaboration among different actors.

This chapter advances the understanding and practice of multinational organizing. It presents novel ways to systematically address the complexities and interdependencies of relational effects on the ability of MNCs to create value.

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.

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 aim of the chapter is to evaluate the concept of corporate parenting styles, identify missing elements in the theoretical constructs, and develop new theoretical constructs.

The chapter provides a summary of the existing literature on corporate parenting styles and uncovers the missing elements in the theoretical constructs. New theoretical constructs fill the gaps.

The chapter presents a new typology of corporate parenting style by combining corporate parents’ processes of adding value to and extracting value from subsidiaries. The five-type typology of corporate styles outlines the different levels of value addition and value extraction and various degrees of reciprocity in both processes. This chapter determines the most important factors that affect the selection of corporate parenting style. It postulates that the multinational corporation should exhibit different parenting styles toward its subsidiaries simultaneously and should be ready to amend its parenting styles to reflect changes in a subsidiary’s strategy and its motives for corporate ownership.

A new agenda for empirical studies oriented toward variability of parenting styles is proposed. Empirical tests of our propositions are needed. I encourage researchers to extend our research by considering the regional (supra-national), industry, and individual levels of analyses.

The chapter provides a more realistic view of corporate parenting styles than that found in the previous literature and outlines promising directions for further theoretical and empirical research.