Perception Gaps between Headquarters and Subsidiary Managers - Differing Perspectives on Subsidiary Roles and their Implications

Vorwort der Herausgeber

Preface

Foreword

Preface

Brief Contents

Contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

1. Introduction

1.1 Context

1.2 Goals of the Study

1.3 Outline of the Study

2. Central Concepts

2.1 Multinational Network Corporations

2.1.1 General Characteristics of Multinational Corporations

2.1.2 Towards a Network Model of Multinational Corporations

2.1.3 Characteristics of Multinational Network Corporations

2.2 Subsidiary Roles in Multinational Network Corporations

2.2.1 The Subsidiary Role Concept in the International Business Literature

2.2.2 Subsidiary Role Typologies

2.2.3 Approach to Subsidiary Roles in the Present Study

2.2.3.1 Selection of Subsidiary Role Typologies

2.2.3.2 Differentiation of Subsidiary Roles According to Bartlett and Ghoshal

2.2.3.3 Differentiation of Subsidiary Roles According to Gupta and Govindarajan

2.3 Perception Gaps Concerning Subsidiary Roles

2.3.1 Attributes of Perception Gaps

2.3.1.1 The Subjective Nature of Perception

2.3.1.2 Perception Gaps vs. Perception Errors

2.3.2 Perception Gaps in the International Business Literature

2.3.2.1 Approaches to Perception Gaps

2.3.2.2 Contributions on Perception Gaps Concerning Subsidiary Roles

2.3.2.3 Overview of the Research Field

2.3.3 Approach to Perception Gaps in the Present Study

2.4 Headquarters-Subsidiary Confli

2.4.1 General Conflict Literature

2.4.2 Headquarters-Subsidiary Conflict in the International Business Literature

2.4.3 Approach to Headquarters-Subsidiary Conflict in the Present Study

2.4.3.1 Overview

2.4.3.2 Conflict Issues

2.5 Summary and Conclusions

3. Conceptual Framework

3.1 Open System Approach According to Katz and Kahn

3.1.1 Selecting a Conceptual Approach for the Present Study

3.1.1.1 Categories of Organizational Theories

3.1.1.2 System Theoretical Approaches to Organizations

3.1.2 Overview of the Open System Approach

3.1.2.1 Point of Departure

3.1.2.2 Characteristics of Open Systems

3.1.2.3 Social Organizations as Open Systems

3.1.3 Role Theoretical Framework

3.1.3.1 Overview of Role Theory

3.1.3.2 Role Theoretical Framework Within the Open System Approach

3.1.4 Conflict Model

3.2 Multinational Network Corporations as Open Systems

3.2.1 Applicability of the Open System Approach

3.2.1.1 Parallels Between Network Perspectives and the Open System Approach

3.2.1.2 Specific Demands of Multinational Network Corporations

3.2.1.3 Dealing with the Duality of Individuals and Organizational Units

3.2.2 Subsidiary Roles from a Role Theoretical Perspective

3.2.3 Headquarters-Subsidiary Conflict from an Open SystemPerspective

3.3 Research Framework

3.3.1 Overview

3.3.2 Likelihood of Perception Gaps

3.3.2.1 Perception Gaps Concerning the Subsidiary’s Overall Role

3.3.2.2 Perception Gaps Concerning the Importance of the Subsidiary’s Market

3.3.2.3 Perception Gaps Concerning the Subsidiary’s Capabilities

3.3.2.4 Perception Gaps Concerning Knowledge Flows

3.3.2.5 Summary

3.3.3 Consequences of Perception Gaps

3.3.3.1 Conflict as General Consequence Proposed by the Conceptual Framework

3.3.3.2 Perception Gaps Concerning the Importance of the Subsidiary’s Market

3.3.3.3 Perception Gaps Concerning the Subsidiary’s Capabilities

3.3.3.4 Perception Gaps Concerning Knowledge Inflow

3.3.3.5 Perception Gaps Concerning Knowledge Outflow

3.3.4 Summary

4. Empirical Study

4.1 Research Design

4.1.1 Rationale for a Case Study Approach

4.1.2 Overview of the Case Study Design

4.1.2.1 Unit of Analysis

4.1.2.2 Case Selection

4.1.2.3 Types of Data

4.1.3 Operationalization of the Conceptual Framework

4.2 Data Collection

4.2.1 Questionnaire

4.2.1.1 Goals

4.2.1.2 Procedure

4.2.1.3 Operationalization of the Subsidiary Role Dimensions

4.2.1.4 Operationalization of Headquarters-Subsidiary Conflict

4.2.2 Interviews

4.2.2.1 Goals

4.2.2.2 Procedure

4.2.2.3 Interview Guideline

4.2.3 Respondents

4.3 Data Analysis

4.3.1 Questionnaire

4.3.1.1 Overview

4.3.1.2 Subsidiary Role Dimensions

4.3.1.3 Headquarters-Subsidiary Conflict

4.3.2 Interviews

4.3.2.1 Overview

4.3.2.2 The Code List

4.3.2.3 From Individual Codes to Patterns

4.4 Scientific Quality Criteria

4.4.1 Overview

4.4.2 Objectivity

4.4.3 Reliability

4.4.4 Validity

5. Empirical Findings

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 The Two Companies

5.1.1.1 Company A, the Strategic Business Unit Autocomp and Autocomp’s Subsidiaries

5.1.1.2 Company B, the Division Construc and Construc’s Subsidiaries

5.1.2 Comments on the Subsidiary Role Dimensions

5.1.3 Identifying Perception Gaps

5.1.3.1 Perception Gaps vs. Artefacts

5.1.3.2 Individual Differences

5.1.3.3 Role Behaviour vs. Role Expectations

5.1.4 Chapter Overview

5.2 The Cases

5.2.1 Overview

5.2.2 Hungary

5.2.2.1 Perceptions of the Role Dimensions

5.2.2.2 Implications for the Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationship130

5.2.2.3 Interpretation According to the Conceptual Framework

5.2.3 Poland

5.2.3.1 Perceptions of the Role Dimensions

5.2.3.2 Implications for the Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationship

5.2.3.3 Interpretation According to the Conceptual Framework

5.2.4 Turkey

5.2.4.1 Perceptions of the Role Dimensions

5.2.4.2 Implications for the Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationship

5.2.4.3 Interpretation According to the Conceptual Framework

5.2.5 Mexico

5.2.5.1 Perceptions of the Role Dimensions

5.2.5.2 Implications for the Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationship

5.2.5.3 Interpretation According to the Conceptual Framework

5.2.6 China

5.2.6.1 Perceptions of the Role Dimensions

5.2.6.2 Implications for the Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationship

5.2.6.3 Interpretation According to the Conceptual Framework

5.2.7 USA

5.2.7.1 Perceptions of the Role Dimensions

5.2.7.2 Implications for the Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationship

5.3 Perception Gaps Concerning the Subsidiary’s Role

5.3.1 Subsidiary Role Dimensions in the Present Study

5.3.1.1 Overview

5.3.1.2 Conceptual and Empirical Review of the Individual Dimensions

5.3.1.3 Critical Reflection on the Proposed Subsidiary Role Concept

5.3.2 Perception Gaps in the Present Study

5.3.2.1 Overview

5.3.2.2 Conceptual Structure of the Identified Perception Gaps

5.3.2.3 Critical Review of Perception Gaps

5.4 Implications of Perception Gaps for the Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationship

5.4.1 The Empirical Findings in the Context of the InternationalBusiness Literature

5.4.1.1 Overview

5.4.1.2 Importance of the Subsidiary’s Market

5.4.1.3 Product Scope

5.4.1.4 Subsidiary’s Capabilities

5.4.1.5 Knowledge Inflow to the Subsidiary

5.4.1.6 Knowledge Outflow from the Subsidiary

5.4.1.7 Subsidiary’s Autonomy and Involvement in Value Chain Activities

5.4.1.8 Conclusion

5.4.2 Fit of the Conceptual Framework in the Light of the Empirical Findings

5.4.2.1 Overview

5.4.2.2 Conflict as Implication of Perception Gaps

5.4.2.3 Role Related Conflict and Further Implications

5.4.2.4 Critical Review of the Conceptual Framework

5.4.2.5 Extension of the Conceptual Framework

5.4.2.6 Conclusion

6. Discussion

6.1 Limitations of the Present Study

6.1.1 Scope of the Study

6.1.2 Conceptual Issues

6.1.3 Methodological Issues

6.2 Implications for the International Business Literature

6.2.1 Knowledge about Subsidiary Roles

6.2.2 Conceptual Contribution

6.2.3 Methodological Implications

6.3 Avenues for Future Research

6.3.1 Research on Perception Gaps Concerning the Subsidiary’s Role

6.3.2 Theoretical Consolidation

6.3.3 Methodological Approaches

6.4 Managerial Implications

6.5 Summary

Appendix

Appendix A Questionnaire Results on Disagreement and Interference

Appendix B Final Code List

References