Subsidiary autonomy and performance in Japanese multinationals in Europe

International Business Review

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 504-515

  Kawai, Norifumi ^a   Strange, Roger ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Environmental uncertainty; Europe; Expatriate involvement; Firm performance; Japanese multinationals; Subsidiary autonomy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84897575972     PISSN: 09695931     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2013.08.012     Document Type: Article

References (94)

1. Aiken L., West S. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions 1991, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
2. Ambos T.C., Birkinshaw J. Headquarters' attention and its effect on subsidiary performance. Management International Review 2010, 50:449-469.
3. Ambos T.C., Andersson U., Birkinshaw J. What are the consequences of initiative-taking in multinational subsidiaries?. Journal of International Business Studies 2010, 41:1099-1118.
4. Ambos B., Asakawa K., Ambos T.C. A dynamic perspective on subsidiary autonomy. Global Strategy Journal 2011, 1:301-316.
5. Andersen T.J. Integrating decentralized strategy making and strategic planning processes in dynamic environments. Journal of Management Studies 2004, 41(8):1271-1299.
6. Andersen T.J. Integrating the strategy formation process: An international perspective. European Management Journal 2004, 22(3):263-272.
7. Andersen T.J. The performance effect of computer-mediated communication and decentralized strategic decision making. Journal of Business Research 2005, 58:1059L 1067.
8. Anderson E., Gatignon H. Modes of foreign entry: A transaction cost analysis and propositions. Journal of International Business Studies 1986, 11:1-26.
9. Andersson U., Forsgren M. Subsidiary embeddedness and control in the multinational corporation. International Business Review 1996, 5(5):487-505.
10. Andersson U., Forsgren M., Pedersen T. Subsidiary performance in multinational corporations: The importance of technology embeddedness. International Business Review 2001, 10(1):3-23.
11. Andersson U., Forsgren M., Holm U. The strategic impact of external networks subsidiary performance and competence development in the multinational corporation. Strategic Management Journal 2002, 23:979-996.
12. Armstrong J.S., Overton T.S. Estimating non-response bias in mail survey. Journal of Marketing Research 1977, 14:396-402.
13. Asakawa K. Evolving headquarters-ubsidiaries dynamics in international R&D: The case of Japanese multinationals. R&D Management 2001, 31(1):1-14.
14. Atuahene-Gima K., Li H., De Luca L.M. The contingent value of marketing strategy innovativeness for product development performance in Chinese new technology ventures. Industrial Marketing Management 2006, 35:359-372.
15. Bartlett C.A., Ghoshal S. Managing across borders: The transnational solution 1989, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
16. Baum J.R., Wally S. Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal 2003, 24:1107-1129.
17. Belderbos R.A., Heijltjes M.G. The determinants of expatriate staffing by Japanese multinationals in Asia: Control learning and vertical business groups. Journal of International Business Studies 2005, 36:341-354.
18. Birkinshaw J., Morrison A.J. Configurations of strategy and structure in subsidiaries of multi-national corporations. Journal of International Business Studies 1995, 26:729-754.
19. Birkinshaw J., Hood N., Jonsson S. Building firm-specific advantages in multinational corporations: The role of subsidiary initiative. Strategic Management Journal 1998, 19:221-241.
20. Birkinshaw J., Holm U., Thilenius P., Arvidsson N. Consequences of perception gaps in the headquarters-subsidiary relationship. International Business Review 2000, 9:321-344.
21. Björkman I., Barner-Rasmussen W., Li L. Managing knowledge transfer in MNCs: The impact of headquarters control mechanisms. Journal of International Business Studies 2004, 35:443-455.
22. Bouquet C., Birkinshaw J. Weight versus voice: How foreign subsidiaries gain attention from corporate headquarters. Academy of Management Journal 2008, 51(3):577-601.
23. Boyacigiller N. The role of expatriates in the management of interdependence complexity and risk in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies 1990, 21:357-381.
24. Brooke M.Z. Centralization and autonomy: A study in organization behaviour 1984, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, London and New York.
25. Chang M.H., Harrington J.E. Centralization vs decentralization in a multi-unit organization: A computational model of a retail chain as a multi-agent adaptive system. Management Science 2000, 46(11):1427-1440.
26. Chang S., Rosenzweig P. The choice of entry mode in sequential foreign direct investment. Strategic Management Journal 2001, 22:747-776.
27. Chang S.J., van Witteloostuijn A., Eden L. From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies 2010, 41(2):178-184.
28. Chen C.C., Choi J., Chi S.C. Making justice sense of local-expatriate compensation disparity: Mitigation by local referents, ideological explanations, and interpersonal sensitivity in China-foreign joint ventures. Academy of Management Journal 2002, 45(4):807-817.
29. Ciabuschi F., Martín M.O., Ståhl B. Headquarters' influence on knowledge transfer performance. Management International Review 2010, 50:471-491.
30. Ciabuschi F., Dellestrand H., Martín O.M. Internal embeddedness headquarters involvement, and innovation importance in multinational enterprises. Journal of Management Studies 2011, 48(7):1612-1639.
31. Claver-Cortés E., Pertusa-Ortega E.M., Molina-Azorín J.F. Characteristics of organizational structure relating to hybrid competitive strategy: Implications for performance. Journal of Business Research 2012, 65(7):993-1002.
32. Dawson S., Dickinson D. Conducting international mail surveys: The effect of incentives on response rates with an industry population. Journal of International Business Studies 1988, 19(3):491-496.
33. Demirbag M., Tatoglu E., Glaister K. Factors influencing perceptions of performance: The case of Western FDI in an emerging market. International Business Review 2007, 16(3):310-336.
34. Dutton J.E., Dukerich J.E., Harquail C.V. Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly 1994, 39:239-263.
35. Eisenhardt K. Control: Organizational and economic approaches. Management Science 1985, 31:134-149.
36. Eisenhardt K. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review 1989, 14:57-74.
37. Ensley M.D., Pearce C.L., Hmieleski K.M. The moderating effect of environmental dynamism on the relationship between entrepreneur leadership behavior and new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing 2006, 21:243-263.
38. Evans J., Mavondo F. Psychic distance and organizational performance: An empirical examination of international retailing operations. Journal of International Business Studies 2002, 33(3):515-532.
39. Fang Y., Jiang G.F., Makino S., Beamish P.W. Multinational firm knowledge, use of expatriates, and foreign subsidiary performance. Journal of Management Studies 2010, 47(1):27-54.
40. Gamble J. Introducing Western-style HRM practices to China: Shop-floor perceptions in a British multinational. Journal of World Business 2006, 41(4):328-343.
41. Gammelgaard J., McDonald F., Stephan A., Tüselmann H., Dörrenbächer C., Stephan A. Subsidiary role and skilled labour effects in small developed countries. Management International Review 2009, 49:27-42.
42. Gammelgaard J., McDonald F., Stephan A., Tüselmann H., Dörrenbächer C. The impact of increases in subsidiary autonomy and network relationships on performance. International Business Review 2012, 21:1158-1172.
43. Goll I., Rasheed A. The moderating effect of environmental munificence and dynamism on the relationship between discretionary social responsibility and firm performance. Journal of Business Ethics 2004, 49(1):41-54.
44. Gomes-Casseres B. Ownership structures of foreign subsidiaries: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 1989, 11(1):1-25.
45. Gomez C., Werner S. The effect of institutional and strategic forces on management style in subsidiaries of U.S. MNCs in Mexico. Journal of Business Research 2004, 57:1135-1144.
46. Gulati R., Nohria N., Zaheer A. Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal 2000, 21(3):203-215.
47. Gupta A.K., Govindarajan V. Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review 1991, 16(4):768-792.
48. Harzing A.W. Response rates in international mail surveys: Results of a 22-country study. International Business Review 1997, 6(6):641-665.
49. Holtbrügge D. Configuration and co-ordination of value activities in German multinational corporations. European Management Journal 2005, 23(5):564-575.
50. Jensen M., Meckling W. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 1976, 3:305-360.
51. Johnston S., Menguc B. Subsidiary size and the level of subsidiary autonomy in multinational corporations: A quadratic model investigation of Australian subsidiaries. Journal of International Business Studies 2007, 38(5):787-801.
52. Kemery E.R., Dunlap W.P. Partialling factor scores does not control method variance: A reply to Podsakoff and Todor. Journal of Management 1986, 12:525-544.
53. Keupp M.M., Palmié M., Gassmann O. Achieving subsidiary integration in international innovation by managerial tools. Management International Review 2011, 51:213-239.
54. Kim Y., Gray S. The impact of entry mode choice on foreign affiliate performance: The case of foreign MNEs in South Korea. Management International Review 2008, 48(2):165-188.
55. Kim W.C., Mauborgne R.A. Procedural justice, attitudes and subsidiary top management compliance with multinationals' corporate strategic decisions. Academy of Management Journal 1993, 36:502-526.
56. Kogut B., Singh H. The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies 1988, 19(3):411-432.
57. Lepak D.P., Takeuchi R., Snell S.A. Employment flexibility and firm performance: Examining the interaction effects of employment mode, environmental dynamism, and technological intensity. Journal of Management 2003, 29(5):681-703.
58. Lind E.A., Tyler T.R. The social psychology of procedural justice 1988, Plenum, New York.
59. Lovett S.R., Pérez-Nordtvedt L., Rasheed A.A. Parental control: A study of U.S. subsidiaries in Mexico. International Business Review 2009, 18(5):481-493.
60. Luo Y. Market-seeking MNEs in an emerging market: How parent-subsidiary links shape overseas success. Journal of International Business Studies 2003, 34(3):290-309.
61. Luo Y., Peng M. Learning to compete in a transition economy: Experience environment and performance. Journal of International Business Studies 1999, 30(2):269-296.
62. Madhok A. How much does ownership really matter? Equity and trust relations in joint venture relationships. Journal of International Business Studies 2005, 37:4-11.
63. McDonald F., Tüselmann J., Voronkova S., Dimitratos P. The strategic development of foreign-owned subsidiaries and direct employment in host locations in the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2005, 23:867-882.
64. McDonald F., Warhurst S., Allen M. Autonomy, embeddedness, and the performance of foreign owned subsidiaries. Multinational Business Review 2008, 16(3):73-92.
65. McKelvey R.D., Zavoina W. A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1975, 4:103-120.
66. Mirchandani D.A., Lederer A.L. The impact of autonomy on information systems planning effectiveness. Omega 2008, 36:789-807.
67. Morosini P., Shane S., Singh H. National cultural distance and cross-border acquisition performance. Journal of International Business Studies 1998, 29(1):137-158.
68. Mudambi R., Navarra P. Is knowledge power? Knowledge flows, subsidiary power and rent-seeking within MNCs. Journal of International Business Studies 2004, 35(5):385-406.
69. Myers R. Classical and modern regression with applications 1990, Duxbury Press, Boston, MA.
70. Nell P.C., Andersson U. The complexity of the business network context and its effect on subsidiary relational (over-) embeddedness. International Business Review 2012, 21:1087-1098.
71. Newburry W., Zeira Y., Yeheskel O. Autonomy and effectiveness of equity international joint ventures (IJVs) in China. International Business Review 2003, 12:395-419.
72. Nohria N., Ghoshal S. Differentiated fit and shared values: Alternatives for managing headquarter-subsidiary relations. Strategic Management Journal 1994, 15(6):491-502.
73. Nunnally J. Psychometric theory 1978, McGraw-Hill, New York. 2nd ed.
74. O'Donnell W.S. Managing foreign subsidiaries: Agents of headquarters or and interdependent network?. Strategic Management Journal 2000, 21:525-548.
75. Ouchi W.G. A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science 1979, 25:833-848.
76. Paik Y., Parboteeah K.P., Shim W. The relationship between perceived compensation, organizational commitment and job satisfaction: The case of Mexican workers in the Korean maquiladoras. International Journal of Human Resource Management 2007, 18(10):1768-1781.
77. Pangarkar N., Lim H. Performance of foreign direct investment from Singapore. International Business Review 2003, 12:601-624.
78. Plourde Y., Parker S., Schaan J. Expatriation and its effect on headquarters' attention in the multinational enterprise. Strategic Management Journal 2013, 10.1002/smj.2125.
79. Podsakoff P.M., Organ D.W. Self-reports in organization research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management 1986, 12(4):531-544.
80. Podsakoff P.M., Todor W.D. Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and group processes and productivity. Journal of Management 1985, 11:55-73.
81. Poppo L., Zenger T. Do formal contracts and relational government function as substitutes or complements?. Strategic Management Journal 2002, 23:707-725.
82. Roth K., Nigh D. The effectiveness of headquarters-ubsidiaries relationships: The role of coordination control and conflict. Journal of Business Research 1992, 25:277-301.
83. Roth K., O'Donnell S. Foreign subsidiary compensation strategy: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal 1996, 39:678-703.
84. Ruekert R.W., Walker O.C., Roering K.J. The organization of marketing activities: A contingency theory of structure and performance. Journal of Marketing 1985, 49:13-25.
85. Selmer J. Adjustment of business expatriates in Greater China: A strategic perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management 2006, 17(12):1995-2008.
86. Slangen A.H.L., Hennart J.-F. Do multinationals really prefer to enter culturally distant countries through greenfields rather than through acquisitions? The role of parent experience and subsidiary autonomy. Journal of International Business Studies 2008, 39:472-490.
87. Song M., Droge C., Hanvanich S., Calantone R. Marketing and technology resource complementarity: And analysis of their interaction effect in two environmental contexts. Strategic Management Journal 2005, 26:259-276.
88. Taggart J., Hood N. Determinants of autonomy in multinational corporation subsidiaries. European Management Journal 1999, 17(2):226-236.
89. Tan D., Mahoney J.T. Why a multinational firm chooses expatriates: Integrating resource-based, agency and transaction costs perspectives. Journal of Management Studies 2006, 43(3):457-484.
90. Toyo Keizai Kaigai Shinshutsu KigyÔ SÔran: Kuni Betsu Hen 2009, Toyo Keizai Shinpousha, Tokyo.
91. Tran Y., Mahnke V., Ambos B. The effect of quantity quality and timing of headquarters-initiated knowledge flows on subsidiary performance. Management International Review 2010, 50:493-511.
92. Venaik S., Midgley D.F., Devinney T.M. Dual paths to performance: The impact of global pressures on MNC subsidiary conduct and performance. Journal of International Business Studies 2005, 36(6):655-675.
93. Williams C., van Triest S. The impact of corporate and national cultures on decentralization in multinational corporations. International Business Review 2009, 18:156-167.
94. Young S., Tavares A.T. Centralization and autonomy: Back to the future. International Business Review 2004, 13:215-237.