Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T22:32:39.355Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Conflicts in headquarters–subsidiary relationships: headquarters-driven charter losses in foreign subsidiaries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2011

Christoph Dörrenbächer
Affiliation:
Berlin School of Economics and Law
Jens Gammelgaard
Affiliation:
Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Christoph Dörrenbächer
Affiliation:
Berlin School of Economics and Law
Mike Geppert
Affiliation:
University of Surrey
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Headquarters and subsidiaries are the two generic organizational units that form multinational corporations (MNCs). Their specific relationship is of central importance, as conflicts in these relationships threaten the effectiveness, or even the operations, of MNCs. Reasons for conflicts in headquarters–subsidiary relationships are manifold. They range from differing perceptions of business opportunities (see e.g. Schmid and Daniel in this volume) to the introduction of corporate-wide standards (see e.g. Fenton-O'Creevy et al. in this volume). In particular, conflict potential can be linked to headquarters-driven charter losses, i.e. an active move by headquarters to withdraw a charter from a particular subsidiary.

Headquarters-driven charter losses in subsidiaries are typically an outcome of headquarters redefining the strategic mission of the MNC. One example is the implementation of a rationalization strategy, in which some production plants are to be closed and production capacities are reallocated to other subsidiaries. Another occurs when a subsidiary loses its charter because the parent company downgrades the importance of the host country market. These charter reallocations are likely to increase competition among subsidiaries and, for the “losers,” a conflicting relationship with the parent company is likely to arise (e.g. Blazejewski 2009; Dörrenbächer and Becker-Ritterspach 2009). However, little is known about what causes conflicting interests in charter losses between headquarters and subsidiaries to turn into an open conflict, nor is much known about the role of headquarters' and subsidiaries' agency.

This chapter addresses this research gap using the case of a German MNC in the telecommunications equipment industry (Siemens).

Type
Chapter
Information
Politics and Power in the Multinational Corporation
The Role of Institutions, Interests and Identities
, pp. 231 - 254
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Asakawa, K. 2001. “Evolving headquarters–subsidiary dynamics in international R&D: the case of Japanese multinationals,” R&D Management 31: 1–14Google Scholar
Astley, W. G. and Zajac, E. J. 1991. “Intraorganizational power and organizational design: reconciling rational and coalitional models of organization,” Organization Science 2: 399–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacharach, S. and Lawler, E. J. 1984. Power and Politics in Organizations. The Social Psychology of Conflict, Coalitions and Bargaining. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
Baliga, B. R., and Jäger, A. M. 1984. “Multinational corporations: control systems and delegation issues,” Journal of International Business Studies 15: 25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, C. and Ghoshal, S. 1986. “Tap your subsidiaries for global reach,” Harvard Business Review 64: 88–94Google Scholar
Becker-Ritterspach, F. 2006. “The social constitution of knowledge integration in MNEs: a theoretical framework,” Journal of International Management 12: 358–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benito, G. R. G. 2005. “Divestment and international business strategy,” Journal of Economic Geography 5: 235–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkinshaw, J. 2001. “Strategies for managing internal competition,” California Management Review 44: 21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkinshaw, J. and Hood, N. 1997. “An empirical study of development processes in foreign-owned subsidiaries in Canada and Scotland,” Management International Review 37: 339–64Google Scholar
Birkinshaw, J. and Hood, N. 1998. “Introduction and overview” in Birkinshaw, and Hood, (eds.) Multinational Corporate Evolution and Subsidiary Development. Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkinshaw, J. and Lingblad, M. 2005. “Intrafirm competition and charter evolution in the multibusiness firm,” Organization Science 16: 674–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkinshaw, J. and Morrison, A. J. 1995. “Configurations of strategy and structure in subsidiaries of multinational corporations,” Journal of International Business Studies 26: 729–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blazejewski, S. 2009. “Actors' interests and local contexts in intrafirm conflict: the 2004 GM/Opel crisis,” Competition & Change 13: 229–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blazejewski, S. 2010. “When truth is the daughter of time: longitudinal case studies in international business research” in Piekkari, and Welch, (eds.) Rethinking the Case Study in International Business and Management Research: Towards Greater Pluralism. Cheltenham: Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
Bluhm, K. and Dörrenbächer, C. 2003. “Systematischer Modelltransfer oder emergenter Wandel? Standortentwicklung und Arbeitspolitik des Siemenskonzerns in Mittel- und Osteuropa” in Dörrenbächer, (ed.) Modelltransfer in Multinationalen Unternehmen. Strategien und Probleme Grenzüberschreitender Konzernintegration. Berlin: Edition Sigma, pp. 77–112Google Scholar
Bouquet, C. and Birkinshaw, J. 2008. “Managing power in the multinational corporation: how low-power actors gain influence,” Journal of Management 34: 477–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantwell, J. and Mudambi, R. 2005. “MNE competence-creating subsidiary mandate,” Strategic Management Journal 26: 1109–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerrato, D. 2006. “The multinational enterprise as an internal market system,” International Business Review 15: 253–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. and Geppert, M. 2006. “Socio-political processes in international management in post-socialist contexts: knowledge, learning and transnational institution building,” Journal of International Management 12: 340–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. and Geppert, M. 2011. “Subsidiary integration as identity construction and institution building: a political sensemaking approach,” Journal of Management Studies (in print)Google Scholar
Crookell, H. and Morrison, A. 1990. “Subsidiary strategy in a free trade environment,” Business Quarterly 55: 33–9Google Scholar
Delany, E. 1998. “Strategic development of multinational subsidiaries in Ireland” in Birkinshaw, and Hood, (eds.) Multinational Corporate Evolution and Subsidiary Development. Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 239–67Google Scholar
Dörrenbächer, C. and Becker-Ritterspach, F. 2009. “Introducing socio-political perspectives on intra-firm competition, production relocation and outsourcing,” Competition and Change 13: 193–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörrenbächer, C. and Gammelgaard, J. 2006. “Subsidiary role development: the effect of micro-political headquarters–subsidiary negotiations on the product, market and value-added scope of foreign owned subsidiaries,” Journal of International Management 12: 266–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörrenbächer, C. and Gammelgaard, J. 2010. “Multinational corporations, inter-organizational networks and subsidiary charter removals,” Journal of World Business 44: 206–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörrenbächer, C. and Geppert, M. 2009. “A micro-political perspective on subsidiary initiative-taking: evidence from German-owned subsidiaries in France,” European Management Journal 27: 100–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doz, Y. and Prahalad, C. K. 1981. “Headquarters influence and strategic control in MNCs,” Sloan Management Review 23: 15–29Google Scholar
Egelhoff, W. G., Gorman, L. and McCormick, S. 1998. “Using technology as a path to subsidiary development” in Birkinshaw, and Hood, (eds.) Multinational Corporate Evolution and Subsidiary Development. Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 213–38Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1991. “Better stories and better constructs: the case for rigor and comparative logic,” Academy of Management Review 16: 620–27Google Scholar
Forsgren, M., Holm, U. and Johanson, J. 2005. Managing the Embedded Multinational: A Business Network View. Cheltenham: Edward ElgarCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galunic, D. C. and K. M. Eisenhardt 1996. “The evolution of intracorporate domains: divisional charter losses in high-technology multidivisonal corporations,” Organization Science 7: 255–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gammelgaard, J. 2008. “Subsidiary influence and its impact on role development: three cases from the coatings industry in China” in Worm, (ed.) China: Business Opportunities in a Globalizing Economy. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press, pp. 91–112Google Scholar
Gammelgaard, J. 2009. “Issue selling and bargaining power in intrafirm competition: the differentiating impact of the subsidiary management composition,” Competition and Change 13: 214–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gates, S. and Egelhoff, W. 1986. “Centralization in headquarters–subsidiary relations,” Journal of International Business Studies 17: 71–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett, C. 1990. “The multinational corporation as an interorganizational network,” The Academy of Management Review 15: 603–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbert, M. and Ruigrok, W. 2010. “The ‘What’ and ‘How’ of case study rigor, three strategies based on published work,” Organizational Research Methods 13(4): 710–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W. and Wicki, B. 2008. “What passes as a rigorous case study?,” Strategic Management Journal 29: 1465–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedlund, G. 1986. “The hypermodern MNC – a heterarchy?,” Human Resource Management 25: 9–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, U., and Pedersen, T. (eds.) 2000. The Emergence and Impact of MNC Centres of Excellence – A Subsidiary Perspective. Basingstoke: Macmillan
Holm, U., Malmberg, A., and Sölvell, O. (2003). Subsidiary impact on host country economies: The case of foreign-owned subsidiaries attracting investment into Sweden. Journal of Economic Geography, 3(4): 389–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, N., Young, S. and Lal, D. 1994. “Strategic evolution within Japanese manufacturing plants in Europe: UK evidence,” International Business Review 3: 97–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. H. A. and Medcof, J. W. 2007. “Motivating proactive subsidiary innovation: agent-based theory and socialization models in global R&D,” Journal of International Management 13: 472–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, S. 2005. Headquarters and Subsidiaries in Multinational Corporations. Strategies, Tasks and Coordination. Basingstoke: Palgave MacmillanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, L. and Rössing, S. 2005. “Managing conflict of interests between headquarters and their subsidiaries regarding technology transfer to emerging markets – a framework,” Journal of World Business 40: 235–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, W. C. and R. Mauborgne 1993. “Procedural justice theory and the multinational corporation” in Ghoshal, and Westney, (eds.) Organization Theory and the Multinational Corporation. New York: St. Martin's Press, pp. 237–55Google Scholar
Kim, B., Prescott, J. E. and Kim, S. M. 2005. “Differentiated governance of foreign subsidiaries in transnational corporations: an agency theory perspective,” Journal of International Management 11: 43–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kostova, T. and Zaheer, S. 1999. “Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: the case of the multinational enterprise,” Academy of Management Review 24: 64–81Google Scholar
Kristensen, P. H. and J. Zeitlin 2005. Local Players in Global Games: The Strategic Constitution of A Multinational Corporation. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Ling, Y., Floyd, S. W. and Baldrigge, D. C. 2005. “Toward a model of issue-selling by subsidiary managers in multinational organizations,” Journal of International Business Studies 36: 637–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, Y. 2005. “Toward coopetition within a multinational enterprise: a perspective from foreign subsidiaries,” Journal of World Business 40: 71–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luostarinen, R. and Marschan-Piekkari, R. 2001. “Strategic evolution of foreign-owned subsidiaries in a host country: a conceptual framework” in Taggart, Berry and McDermott, (eds.) Multinationals in a New Area. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 180–93Google Scholar
Mir, R. and Sharpe, D. R. 2009. “The multinational firm as an instrument of exploitation and domination” in Collinson, and Morgan, (eds.) Images of the Multinational Firm. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 247–66Google Scholar
Mirow, M. 1996. “Kooperations- und Akquisitionsstrategie in Osteuropa am Beispiel der Elektroindustrie,” Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung 10: 934–46Google Scholar
Morgan, G. and Kristensen, P. H. 2006. “The contested space of multinationals: varieties of institutionalism, varieties of capitalism,” Human Relations 59: 1467–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudambi, R. and Navarra, P. 2004. “Is knowledge power? Knowledge flows, subsidiary power and rent-seeking within MNCs,” Journal of International Business Studies 35: 385–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, J. 1998. “Restructuring of the telecommunications sector in the west and the east and the role of science and technology,” Final Summary Paper (mimeo). Berlin
Neumann, L., Tóth, A. and Berkó, L. 1993. Management/Labour Relations at Hungarian Affiliates of Multinational Enterprises. Budapest OECD – Ministry of LabourGoogle Scholar
Nohria, N. and Ghoshal, S. 1997. The Differentiated Network – Organizing Multinational Corporations for Value Creation. San Francisco: Jossey-BassGoogle Scholar
O'Donnell, S. W. 2000. “Managing foreign subsidiaries: agents of headquarters, or an independent network?,” Strategic Management Journal 21: 525–483.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otterbeck, L. (ed.) 1981. The Management of Headquarters–Subsidiary Relationships in Multinational Corporations. Aldershot: Gower
Pahl, J. M. and K. Roth 1993. “Managing the headquarters–foreign subsidiary relationship: the roles of strategy, conflict and integration,” The International Journal of Conflict Management 4: 139–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, R. 1999. “The evolution of technology in multinational enterprises: the role of creative subsidiaries,” International Business Review 8: 125–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, A. M. 1987. “Context and action in the transformation of the firm,” Journal of Management Studies 24: 649–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W. and Cameron, K. S. 2001. “Studying organizational change and development: challenges for future research,” Academy of Management Journal 44: 697–713Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R. 1978. The External Controls of Organizations – A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & RowGoogle Scholar
Roth, K. and Nigh, D. 1992. “The effectiveness of headquarters–subsidiary relationships: the role of coordination, control and conflict,” Journal of Business Research 25: 277–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J. and Friedman, V. J. 2001. “Identity, conflict, and organizational learning” in Dierkes, , Berthoin-Antal, , Child, and Nonaka, (eds.) Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge. Oxford University Press, pp. 582–97Google Scholar
Rugman, A. M. and A. Verbeke 2001. “Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises,” Strategic Management Journal 22: 237–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, S. and Maurer, J. 2008. “Relationships between subsidiaries – towards a classification scheme.” Working Paper No. 35 (mimeo) ESCP-EAP, Berlin
Sölvell, Ö. and Zander, I. 1998. “International diffusion of knowledge: isolating mechanisms and the role of the MNE” in Chandler, Hagström and Sölvell, (eds.) The Dynamic Firm: The Role of Technology, Strategy, Organization and Regions. Oxford University Press, pp. 402–16Google Scholar
Soulsby, A. and Clark, E. 2007. “Organizational theory and the post socialist transformation: contributions to organizational knowledge,” Human Relations 60: 1419–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taplin, I. M. 2006. “Strategic change and organisational restructuring: how managers negotiate change initiatives,” Journal of International Management 12: 284–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tasoluk, , B., Yaprak, A. and Calantone, R. J. 2006. “Conflict and collaboration in headquarters–subsidiary relationships,” International Journal of Conflict Management 17: 332–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulcke, D. 1984. “Decision-making in multinational enterprises and the information and consultation of employees: the proposed Vredeling directive of the EC Commission,” International Studies of Management and Organization 14: 26–60Google Scholar
Walsh, S., Linton, J., Boylan, R. and Sylla, C. 2002. “The evolution of technology management practice in developing economies: findings from northern China,” International Journal of Technology Management 24: 311–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. London: SageGoogle Scholar
Welch, C., Marschan-Piekkari, R., Penttinen, H. and Tahvanainen, M. 2002. “Corporate elites as informants in qualitative international business research,” International Business Review 11: 611–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, D. 1998. “The development of foreign-owned manufacturing subsidiaries: some empirical evidence,” European Business Review 98: 282–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamin, M. and Sinkovics, R. R., 2007. “ICT and MNE reorganisation: the paradox of control,” Critical Perspectives on International Business 3: 322–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, R. K. 2003. Case Study Research Design and Methods. 3rd edn. Newbury Park/London/New Delhi: SageGoogle Scholar
Zagare, F. C. 1984. Game Theory. London: SageCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×