Advertisement

Management International Review

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 449–469 | Cite as

Headquarters’ Attention and Its Effect on Subsidiary Performance

  • Tina C. AmbosEmail author
  • Julian Birkinshaw
Research Article

Abstract

  • Drawing on a sample of 283 subsidiaries in three countries, we investigate how headquarters’ attention affects subsidiary performance.

  • Scholars have recently argued that top management’s attention is the most critical, scarce and sought-after resource in organizations (Haas and Hansen 2001; Bouquet and Birkinshaw 2008). However, the question how headquarters’ attention affects subsidiary companies remains largely unexplored.

  • Our study shows that subsidiaries which have a high level of strategic choice and receive attention from headquarters perform better than their peers. More specifically, we find that the interactions of subsidiaries’ autonomy, inter-unit power and initiatives with attention increase subsidiary performance.

Keywords

Headquarters-subsidiary relationships Attention Strategic choice Subsidiary performance 

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Ambos, B., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2007). Innovation and control in the multinational firm: A comparison of political and contingency approaches. Strategic Management Journal, 28(5), 473–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson, U., & Pahlberg, C. (1997). Subsidiary influence on strategic behaviour in MNCs: An empirical study. International Business Review, 6(3), 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arvidsson, N. (1999). The ignorant MNE: The role of perception gaps in knowledge management (Doctoral dissertation). Institute of International Business, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  6. Asakawa, K. (2001). Evolving headquarters-subsidiaries dynamics in international R&D: The case of Japanese multinationals. R&D Management, 31(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Asakawa, K. (2009, June 26–30). Determinants and consequence of subsidiary isolation and consequence. Panel presentation at Academy of International Business Annual Meeting, San Diego.Google Scholar
  8. Astley, W. G., & Sachdeva, P. S. (1984). Structural sources of intraorganizational power: A theoretical synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 104–113.Google Scholar
  9. Astley, W. G., & Zajac, E. J. (1990). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 22–39.Google Scholar
  10. Bacharach, S. B., & Aiken, M. (1976). Structural and process constraints on influence in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(4), 623–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  12. Birkinshaw, J. (1997). Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The characteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 18(3), 207–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Birkinshaw, J., Bouquet, C., & Ambos, T. C. (2007). Managing executive attention in the global company. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(4), 39–45.Google Scholar
  14. Birkinshaw, J., & Hood, N. (1998). Multinational subsidiary evolution: Capability and charter change in foreign-owned subsidiary companies. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 773–795.Google Scholar
  15. Birkinshaw, J., Hood, N., & Jonsson, S. (1998). Building firm-specific advantages in multinational corporations: The role of subsidiary initiative. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Birkinshaw, J., Hood, N., & Young, S. (2005). Subsidiary entrepreneurship, internal and external competitive forces, and subsidiary performance. International Business Review, 14(2), 227–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Birkinshaw, J. M., & Morrison, A. J. (1995). Configurations of strategy and structure in subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(4), 729–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Boland, R. J., Tenkasi, R. V., & Te’eni, D. (1994). Designing information technology to support distributed cognition. Organization Science, 5(3), 456–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Weight versus voice: How foreign subsidiaries gain attention from corporate headquarters. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  20. Burgelman, R. A. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science, 2(3), 239–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cantwell, J., & Mudambi, R. (2005). MNE competence-creating subsidiary mandates. Strategic Management Journal, 26(12), 1109–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Campbell, A. (1989). Are you getting what you want from headquarters? Long Range Planning, 22(6), 132–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chandler, A. D. (1991). The functions of the HQ unit in the multibusiness firm. Strategic Management Journal, 12(S2), 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Child, J. (1972). Organization structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284–295.Google Scholar
  27. D’Aveni, R., & MacMillan, I. C. (1990). Crisis and the content of managerial communications: A study of the focus of attention of top managers in surviving and failing firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4), 634–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Doz, Y. L., Santos, K., & Williamson, P. (2001). From global to metanational: How companies win in the knowledge economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  30. Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. (1993). Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18(3), 397–428.Google Scholar
  31. Dutton, J. E., Fahey, L., & Narayanan, U. K. (1983). Toward understanding strategic issue diagnosis. Strategic Management Journal, 4(4), 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–75.Google Scholar
  33. Forsgren, M., Holm, U., & Johanson, J. (2005). Managing the embedded multinational: A business network view. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  34. Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. (2002). Transferring knowledge in MNCs: The role of sources of subsidiary knowledge and organizational context. Journal of International Management, 8(1), 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Galunic, D. C., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1996). The evolution of intracorporate domains: Divisional charter losses in high-technology, multidivisional corporations. Organization Science, 7(3), 255–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Galunic, D. C., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2001). Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 229–1249.Google Scholar
  37. Garg, V. K., Walters, B. A., & Priem, R. L. (2003). Chief executive scanning emphases, environmental dynamisms, and manufacturing firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24(8), 725–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1988). Creation, adoption and diffusion of innovations by subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3), 365–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ghoshal, S., Korine, H., & Szulanski, G. (1994). Interunit communication in multinational corporations. Management Science, 40(1), 96–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ghoshal, S., Moran, P., & Almeida-Costa, L. (1995). The essence of the mega-corporation. Journal of International and Theoretical Economics, 151(4), 748–759.Google Scholar
  41. Ghoshal, S., & Nohria, N. (1989). Internal differentiation within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 10(4), 323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ghoshal, S., & Nohria, N. (1997). The differential network: Organizing the multinational corporation for value creation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  43. Gibson, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. K. (1991). Knowledge flows and the structure of control within MNCs. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 768–792.Google Scholar
  45. Gupta, A. K. (2009, June 27–30). State-of-the-Art Research in Global Strategy: Headquarters, Subsidiaries and Global Structure. Panel Presentation at Academy of International Business Annual Meeting, San Diego.Google Scholar
  46. Haas, M. R., & Hansen, M. T. (2001). Competing for attention in knowledge markets: Electronic document dissemination in a management consulting company. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E.,Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  48. Harzing, A.-W. (1999). Managing the multinational. Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  49. Harzing, A.-W. (2000). Cross national industrial mail surveys: Why do response rates differ between countries. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(3), 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hedlund, G. (1986). The hypermodern MNC: A heterarchy? Human Resource Management, 25(1), 9–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hedlund, G. (1994). A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2), 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Henderson, B. D. (1979). Henderson on corporate strategy. Cambridge: Abt Books.Google Scholar
  53. Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Lee, C. A., Schneck, R. E., & Pennings, J. M. (1971). A strategic contingencies theory of intraorganizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(2), 216–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kanter, R. M. (1982). The middle manager as innovator. Harvard Business Review, 60(July–August), 95–105.Google Scholar
  55. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (2nd ed.). New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  56. Kuemmerle, W. (1999). The drivers of foreign direct investment into research and development: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Law, K. S., Wong, C.-S., & Mobley, W. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 741–755.Google Scholar
  58. Ling, Y., Floyd, S. W., & Baldridge, D. C. (2005). Toward a model of issue-selling by subsidiary managers in multinational organizations. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(6), 637–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Luo, Y. (2003). Market-seeking MNEs in an emerging market: How parent-subsidiary links shape overseas success. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(3), 290–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. March, J. G., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  61. Martinez, J. I., & Jarillo, J. C. (1989). The evolution of research on coordination mechanisms in MNC’s. Journal of International Business Studies, 20(3), 489–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Monteiro, L. F., Arvidsson, N., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations: Explaining subsidiary isolation and its performance implications. Organization Science, 19(1), 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mudambi, R., & Navarra, P. (2004). Is knowledge power? Knowledge flows, subsidiary power and rent-seeking within MNCs. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5), 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nobel, R., & Birkinshaw, J. (1998). Innovation in multinational corporations: Control and communication patterns in international R&D. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 479–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Nohria, N., & Ghoshal, S. (1994). Differentiated fit and shared valued: Alternatives for managing headquarters-subsidiariy relations. Strategic Management Journal, 15(6), 491–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(Summer Special Issue), 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. O’Donnell, S. W. (2000). Managing foreign subsidiaries: Agents of headquarters, or an interdependent network? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 525–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Paterson, S. L., & Brock, D. M. (2002). The development of subsidiary-management research: Review and theoretical analysis. International Business Review, 11(2), 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  71. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Prahalad, C. K., & Doz,Y. L. (1981). An approach to strategic control in MNCs. Sloan Management Review, 4(Summer), 5–13.Google Scholar
  73. Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, R.C., & Tuner, C. (1968). Dimensions of organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13(1), 65–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Roth, K., & Nigh, D. (1992). The effectiveness of headquarters-subsidiary relationships: The role of coordination, control and conflict. Journal of Business Research, 25(4), 277–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Roth, K., Schweiger, D., & Morrison, A. J. (1991). Global strategy implementation at the business unit level: Operational capabilities and administrative mechanisms. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(3), 369–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2001). Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Science Council of Canada (1980). Multinationals and industrial strategy: The role of World Product Mandates. Science Council of Canada, Supply and Services, Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  78. Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 681–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  80. Simons, R. (1991). Strategic orientation and top management attention to control systems. Strategic Management Journal, 12(1), 46–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Smith, K. G., Grimm, C. M., Gannon, M. J., & Chen, M.-J. (1991). Organizational information processing, competitive responses, and performance in the US airline industry. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 60–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Taggart, J. H. (1997). Autonomy and procedural justices: A framework for evaluation of subsidiary strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(1), 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tallman, S., & Koza, M. P. (2010). Keeping the global in mind: The evolution of the headquarters’ role in global multi-business firms. Management International Review, 50(4).Google Scholar
  84. Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Gioia, D. A. (1993). Strategic sensemaking and organizational performance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, action and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(2), 239–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Thomas, J. B., & McDaniel, R. (1990). Interpreting strategic issues: Effects of strategy and the information processing structure of top management team. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 286–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Thompson, J. (1956). Authority and power in “identical organizations”. American Journal of Sociology, 62(3), 290–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Vancil, R. F. (1979). Decentralization: Managerial ambiguity by design. Homewood: Dow Jones-Irwin.Google Scholar
  88. Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 801–815.Google Scholar
  89. White, R. E., & Poynter, T. A. (1990). Organizing for world-wide advantage. In G. Hedlund (Ed.), Managing the global firm. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  90. Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Introductory Econometrics. Mason: Thomson.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Gabler Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International ManagementJohannes Kepler UniversityLinzAustria
  2. 2.Strategic and International ManagementLondon Business SchoolLondonUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations