Vorwort der Herausgeber | 6 |
Preface | 7 |
Foreword | 8 |
Preface | 10 |
Brief Contents | 11 |
Contents | 13 |
List of Figures | 18 |
List of Tables | 20 |
1. Introduction | 21 |
1.1 Context | 21 |
1.2 Goals of the Study | 22 |
1.3 Outline of the Study | 23 |
2. Central Concepts | 25 |
2.1 Multinational Network Corporations | 25 |
2.1.1 General Characteristics of Multinational Corporations | 25 |
2.1.2 Towards a Network Model of Multinational Corporations | 26 |
2.1.3 Characteristics of Multinational Network Corporations | 30 |
2.2 Subsidiary Roles in Multinational Network Corporations | 33 |
2.2.1 The Subsidiary Role Concept in the International Business Literature | 33 |
2.2.2 Subsidiary Role Typologies | 36 |
2.2.3 Approach to Subsidiary Roles in the Present Study | 40 |
2.2.3.1 Selection of Subsidiary Role Typologies | 40 |
2.2.3.2 Differentiation of Subsidiary Roles According to Bartlett and Ghoshal | 42 |
2.2.3.3 Differentiation of Subsidiary Roles According to Gupta and Govindarajan | 45 |
2.3 Perception Gaps Concerning Subsidiary Roles | 47 |
2.3.1 Attributes of Perception Gaps | 47 |
2.3.1.1 The Subjective Nature of Perception | 47 |
2.3.1.2 Perception Gaps vs. Perception Errors | 48 |
2.3.2 Perception Gaps in the International Business Literature | 50 |
2.3.2.1 Approaches to Perception Gaps | 50 |
2.3.2.2 Contributions on Perception Gaps Concerning Subsidiary Roles | 52 |
2.3.2.3 Overview of the Research Field | 57 |
2.3.3 Approach to Perception Gaps in the Present Study | 58 |
2.4 Headquarters-Subsidiary Confli | 59 |
2.4.1 General Conflict Literature | 59 |
2.4.2 Headquarters-Subsidiary Conflict in the International Business Literature | 63 |
2.4.3 Approach to Headquarters-Subsidiary Conflict in the Present Study | 66 |
2.4.3.1 Overview | 66 |
2.4.3.2 Conflict Issues | 67 |
2.5 Summary and Conclusions | 72 |
3. Conceptual Framework | 74 |
3.1 Open System Approach According to Katz and Kahn | 74 |
3.1.1 Selecting a Conceptual Approach for the Present Study | 74 |
3.1.1.1 Categories of Organizational Theories | 74 |
3.1.1.2 System Theoretical Approaches to Organizations | 78 |
3.1.2 Overview of the Open System Approach | 80 |
3.1.2.1 Point of Departure | 80 |
3.1.2.2 Characteristics of Open Systems | 81 |
3.1.2.3 Social Organizations as Open Systems | 84 |
3.1.3 Role Theoretical Framework | 87 |
3.1.3.1 Overview of Role Theory | 87 |
3.1.3.2 Role Theoretical Framework Within the Open System Approach | 90 |
3.1.4 Conflict Model | 94 |
3.2 Multinational Network Corporations as Open Systems | 97 |
3.2.1 Applicability of the Open System Approach | 97 |
3.2.1.1 Parallels Between Network Perspectives and the Open System Approach | 97 |
3.2.1.2 Specific Demands of Multinational Network Corporations | 99 |
3.2.1.3 Dealing with the Duality of Individuals and Organizational Units | 103 |
3.2.2 Subsidiary Roles from a Role Theoretical Perspective | 105 |
3.2.3 Headquarters-Subsidiary Conflict from an Open SystemPerspective | 109 |
3.3 Research Framework | 113 |
3.3.1 Overview | 113 |
3.3.2 Likelihood of Perception Gaps | 114 |
3.3.2.1 Perception Gaps Concerning the Subsidiary’s Overall Role | 114 |
3.3.2.2 Perception Gaps Concerning the Importance of the Subsidiary’s Market | 116 |
3.3.2.3 Perception Gaps Concerning the Subsidiary’s Capabilities | 117 |
3.3.2.4 Perception Gaps Concerning Knowledge Flows | 117 |
3.3.2.5 Summary | 119 |
3.3.3 Consequences of Perception Gaps | 119 |
3.3.3.1 Conflict as General Consequence Proposed by the Conceptual Framework | 119 |
3.3.3.2 Perception Gaps Concerning the Importance of the Subsidiary’s Market | 121 |
3.3.3.3 Perception Gaps Concerning the Subsidiary’s Capabilities | 124 |
3.3.3.4 Perception Gaps Concerning Knowledge Inflow | 126 |
3.3.3.5 Perception Gaps Concerning Knowledge Outflow | 128 |
3.3.4 Summary | 130 |
4. Empirical Study | 131 |
4.1 Research Design | 131 |
4.1.1 Rationale for a Case Study Approach | 131 |
4.1.2 Overview of the Case Study Design | 133 |
4.1.2.1 Unit of Analysis | 133 |
4.1.2.2 Case Selection | 134 |
4.1.2.3 Types of Data | 136 |
4.1.3 Operationalization of the Conceptual Framework | 137 |
4.2 Data Collection | 138 |
4.2.1 Questionnaire | 138 |
4.2.1.1 Goals | 138 |
4.2.1.2 Procedure | 139 |
4.2.1.3 Operationalization of the Subsidiary Role Dimensions | 140 |
4.2.1.4 Operationalization of Headquarters-Subsidiary Conflict | 144 |
4.2.2 Interviews | 149 |
4.2.2.1 Goals | 149 |
4.2.2.2 Procedure | 150 |
4.2.2.3 Interview Guideline | 151 |
4.2.3 Respondents | 153 |
4.3 Data Analysis | 155 |
4.3.1 Questionnaire | 155 |
4.3.1.1 Overview | 155 |
4.3.1.2 Subsidiary Role Dimensions | 155 |
4.3.1.3 Headquarters-Subsidiary Conflict | 156 |
4.3.2 Interviews | 157 |
4.3.2.1 Overview | 157 |
4.3.2.2 The Code List | 159 |
4.3.2.3 From Individual Codes to Patterns | 161 |
4.4 Scientific Quality Criteria | 162 |
4.4.1 Overview | 162 |
4.4.2 Objectivity | 162 |
4.4.3 Reliability | 163 |
4.4.4 Validity | 164 |
5. Empirical Findings | 167 |
5.1 Introduction | 167 |
5.1.1 The Two Companies | 167 |
5.1.1.1 Company A, the Strategic Business Unit Autocomp and Autocomp’s Subsidiaries | 167 |
5.1.1.2 Company B, the Division Construc and Construc’s Subsidiaries | 169 |
5.1.2 Comments on the Subsidiary Role Dimensions | 170 |
5.1.3 Identifying Perception Gaps | 172 |
5.1.3.1 Perception Gaps vs. Artefacts | 172 |
5.1.3.2 Individual Differences | 173 |
5.1.3.3 Role Behaviour vs. Role Expectations | 173 |
5.1.4 Chapter Overview | 174 |
5.2 The Cases | 175 |
5.2.1 Overview | 175 |
5.2.2 Hungary | 176 |
5.2.2.1 Perceptions of the Role Dimensions | 176 |
5.2.2.2 Implications for the Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationship130 | 181 |
5.2.2.3 Interpretation According to the Conceptual Framework | 182 |
5.2.3 Poland | 185 |
5.2.3.1 Perceptions of the Role Dimensions | 185 |
5.2.3.2 Implications for the Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationship | 188 |
5.2.3.3 Interpretation According to the Conceptual Framework | 188 |
5.2.4 Turkey | 189 |
5.2.4.1 Perceptions of the Role Dimensions | 189 |
5.2.4.2 Implications for the Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationship | 195 |
5.2.4.3 Interpretation According to the Conceptual Framework | 197 |
5.2.5 Mexico | 202 |
5.2.5.1 Perceptions of the Role Dimensions | 202 |
5.2.5.2 Implications for the Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationship | 208 |
5.2.5.3 Interpretation According to the Conceptual Framework | 208 |
5.2.6 China | 209 |
5.2.6.1 Perceptions of the Role Dimensions | 209 |
5.2.6.2 Implications for the Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationship | 214 |
5.2.6.3 Interpretation According to the Conceptual Framework | 215 |
5.2.7 USA | 217 |
5.2.7.1 Perceptions of the Role Dimensions | 217 |
5.2.7.2 Implications for the Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationship | 221 |
5.3 Perception Gaps Concerning the Subsidiary’s Role | 223 |
5.3.1 Subsidiary Role Dimensions in the Present Study | 223 |
5.3.1.1 Overview | 223 |
5.3.1.2 Conceptual and Empirical Review of the Individual Dimensions | 224 |
5.3.1.3 Critical Reflection on the Proposed Subsidiary Role Concept | 232 |
5.3.2 Perception Gaps in the Present Study | 234 |
5.3.2.1 Overview | 234 |
5.3.2.2 Conceptual Structure of the Identified Perception Gaps | 235 |
5.3.2.3 Critical Review of Perception Gaps | 238 |
5.4 Implications of Perception Gaps for the Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationship | 239 |
5.4.1 The Empirical Findings in the Context of the InternationalBusiness Literature | 239 |
5.4.1.1 Overview | 239 |
5.4.1.2 Importance of the Subsidiary’s Market | 239 |
5.4.1.3 Product Scope | 240 |
5.4.1.4 Subsidiary’s Capabilities | 241 |
5.4.1.5 Knowledge Inflow to the Subsidiary | 241 |
5.4.1.6 Knowledge Outflow from the Subsidiary | 242 |
5.4.1.7 Subsidiary’s Autonomy and Involvement in Value Chain Activities | 243 |
5.4.1.8 Conclusion | 244 |
5.4.2 Fit of the Conceptual Framework in the Light of the Empirical Findings | 244 |
5.4.2.1 Overview | 244 |
5.4.2.2 Conflict as Implication of Perception Gaps | 245 |
5.4.2.3 Role Related Conflict and Further Implications | 247 |
5.4.2.4 Critical Review of the Conceptual Framework | 254 |
5.4.2.5 Extension of the Conceptual Framework | 255 |
5.4.2.6 Conclusion | 258 |
6. Discussion | 260 |
6.1 Limitations of the Present Study | 260 |
6.1.1 Scope of the Study | 260 |
6.1.2 Conceptual Issues | 261 |
6.1.3 Methodological Issues | 263 |
6.2 Implications for the International Business Literature | 265 |
6.2.1 Knowledge about Subsidiary Roles | 265 |
6.2.2 Conceptual Contribution | 266 |
6.2.3 Methodological Implications | 268 |
6.3 Avenues for Future Research | 270 |
6.3.1 Research on Perception Gaps Concerning the Subsidiary’s Role | 270 |
6.3.2 Theoretical Consolidation | 272 |
6.3.3 Methodological Approaches | 272 |
6.4 Managerial Implications | 273 |
6.5 Summary | 276 |
Appendix | 277 |
Appendix A Questionnaire Results on Disagreement and Interference | 277 |
Appendix B Final Code List | 283 |
References | 286 |