Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 43, Issue 8, pp 746–771 | Cite as

Problem solving in MNCs: How local and global solutions are (and are not) created

  • Esther Tippmann
  • Pamela Sharkey Scott
  • Vincent Mangematin
Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

It is widely acknowledged in the international business literature that subsidiaries can make a strategic contribution to multinational corporations (MNCs). Departing from the common focus on subsidiary role, contexts and organizational MNC factors, this study explores the micro-level details of managers’ actions and interactions. We conducted an in-depth qualitative study into 38 problem-solving processes employed across four subsidiaries. Taking a non-routine problem-solving perspective on how subsidiaries contribute strategically to renewing MNC competences, this paper uncovers four problem-solving approaches: local template adaptation; superior technology creation; local template creation; and global principle creation. The findings depict how the way problems are framed influences knowledge search and solution-finding activities, and how these different activities may result in local and global solutions. The paper extends insights into MNC innovation and subsidiary initiative by detailing how subsidiary managers navigate different problem-solving approaches, and contributes to discussions on the micro-foundations and social aspects of MNC knowledge flows, revealing factors that trigger distance-spanning knowledge search.

Keywords

multinational corporations (MNCs) and enterprises (MNEs) organizational learning knowledge-seeking behavior knowledge transfer and innovation in MNCs/MNEs global learning case-theoretic approaches 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Area Editor Professor Paula Caligiuri and the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. We are also very grateful for comments on early ideas and drafts of this paper from Julia Balogun, Antonella Zucchella, Ulf Andersson, Charles Dhanaraj, Paul Donnelly, Peter McNamara, Alan Rugman, participants at the EGOS Early Career Workshop 2010, the Global Strategy paper development workshop at SMS 2010, and the strategic management research colloquium at Dublin Institute of Technology. Earlier versions of this paper received the Most Promising Dissertation Proposal Award at the Academy of Management Meeting, International Management Division (2010), and the Michael Z Brooke Prize for the Best Doctoral Paper at the Academy of International Business UK & Ireland Conference (2010), and it was a finalist for the Best Practice Implications Award at the Strategic Management Society Conference (2010). The usual caveats apply. We thank the participating organizations and Dublin Institute of Technology for their support of this study.

References

  1. Ambos, T. C., Ambos, B., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. 2006. Learning from foreign subsidiaries: An empirical investigation of headquarters’ benefits from reverse knowledge transfers. International Business Review, 15 (3): 294–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambos, T. C., Andersson, U., & Birkinshaw, J. 2010. What are the consequences of initiative-taking in multinational subsidiaries? Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (7): 1099–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Holm, U. 2002. The strategic impact of external networks: Subsidiary performance and competence development in the multinational corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 23 (11): 979–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. 1996. R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 86 (3): 630–640.Google Scholar
  5. Baden-Fuller, C., & Winter, S. 2007. Replicating knowledge practices: Principles or templates? London: Cass Business School, City University.Google Scholar
  6. Baer, M., Dirks, K. T., & Nickerson, J. A. 2012. Microfoundations of strategic problem formulation. Strategic Management Journal, advance online publication 17 July, doi: 10.1002/smj.2004.Google Scholar
  7. Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. 2004. Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (4): 523–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Balogun, J., Jarzabkowski, P., & Vaara, E. 2011. Selling, resistance and reconciliation: A critical discursive approach to subsidiary role evolution in MNEs. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (6): 765–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Managing across borders: The transnational solution, (2nd edn). London: Random House Business Books.Google Scholar
  10. Beck, T. E., & Plowman, D. A. 2009. Experiencing rare and unusual events richly: The role of middle managers in animating and guiding organizational interpretation. Organization Science, 20 (5): 909–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Becker-Ritterspach, F. A. A., Saka-Helmhout, A., & Hotho, H. J. 2010. Learning in multinational enterprises as the socially embedded translation of practices. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 6 (1): 8–37.CrossRefGoogle 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. 1999. The determinants and consequences of subsidiary initiative in multinational corporations. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 24 (1): 11–38.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Birkinshaw, J., Brannen, M. Y., & Tung, R. L. 2011. From a distance and generalizable to up close and grounded: Reclaiming a place for qualitative methods in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (5): 573–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Blomkvist, K., Kappen, P., & Zander, I. 2010. Quo vadis? The entry into new technologies in advanced foreign subsidiaries of the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (9): 1525–1549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Boschma, R. 2005. Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39 (1): 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Weight versus voice: How foreign subsidiaries gain attention from corporate headquarters. Academy of Management Journal, 51 (3): 577–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bouquet, C., Morrison, A., & Birkinshaw, J. 2009. International attention and multinational enterprise performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (1): 108–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1997. The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (1): 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Buckley, P. J., & Carter, M. J. 2004. A formal analysis of knowledge combination in multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35 (5): 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Burgelman, R. A. 1983. A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (2): 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Burgelman, R. A. 1991. Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science, 2 (3): 239–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Carlile, P. R. 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13 (4): 442–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ciabuschi, F., Forsgren, M., & Martin, O. M. 2011. Rationality vs ignorance: The role of MNE headquarters in subsidiaries’ innovation processes. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (7): 958–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cowan, D. A. 1990. Developing a classification structure of organizational problems: An empirical investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 33 (2): 366–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cross, R., & Sproull, L. 2004. More than an answer: Information relationships for actionable knowledge. Organization Science, 15 (4): 446–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. Behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Dellestrand, H., & Kappen, P. 2012. The effects of spatial and contextual factors on headquarters resource allocation to MNE subsidiaries. Journal of International Business Studies, 43 (3): 219–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dunbar, R. L. M., & Garud, R. 2009. Distributed knowledge and indeterminate meaning: The case of the Columbia shuttle flight. Organization Studies, 30 (4): 397–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Edwards, T., & Tempel, A. 2010. Explaining variation in reverse diffusion of HR practices: Evidence from the German and British subsidiaries of American multinationals. Journal of World Business, 45 (1): 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4): 532–550.Google Scholar
  33. Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. 2009. Organizational routines and capabilities: Historical drift and a course-correction toward microfoundations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25 (2): 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. 2000. Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25 (1): 154–177.Google Scholar
  35. Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. 1999. Knowledge creation and social networks in corporate entrepreneurship: The renewal of organizational capability. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 23 (3): 123–143.Google Scholar
  36. Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. 2004. Organizing knowledge processes in the multinational corporation: An introduction. Journal of International Business Studies, 35 (5): 340–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Foss, N. J., Husted, K., & Michailova, S. 2010. Governing knowledge sharing in organizations: Levels of analysis, governance mechanisms, and research directions. Journal of Management Studies, 47 (3): 455–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Frost, T. S., Birkinshaw, J. M., & Ensign, P. C. 2002. Centers of excellence in multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 23 (11): 997–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Galunic, C. D., & Rodan, S. 1998. Resource recombinations in the firm: Knowledge structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 19 (12): 1193–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ghemawat, P. 2001. Distance still matters. The hard reality of global expansion. Harvard Business Review, 79 (8): 137–147.Google Scholar
  41. Ghoshal, S. 1986. The innovative multinational: A differentiated network of organizational roles and management processes, Unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Gnyawali, D. R., Singal, M., & Mu, S. C. 2009. Knowledge ties among subsidiaries in MNCs: A multi-level conceptual model. Journal of International Management, 15 (4): 387–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Golden, B. R. 1992. Research notes. The past is the past – or is it? The use of retrospective accounts as indicators of past strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 35 (4): 848–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gray, P. H., & Meister, D. B. 2006. Knowledge sourcing methods. Information & Management, 43 (2): 142–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. 1991. Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review, 16 (4): 768–792.Google Scholar
  47. Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. 2000. Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (4): 473–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Haas, M. R., & Hansen, M. T. 2007. Different knowledge, different benefits: Toward a productivity perspective on knowledge sharing in organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 28 (11): 1133–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hansen, M. T. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (1): 82–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hansen, M. T., & Løvås, B. 2004. How do multinationals leverage technological competencies? Moving from single to interdependent explanations. Strategic Management Journal, 25 (8/9): 801–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hansen, M. T., Mors, M. L., & Løvås, B. 2005. Knowledge sharing in organizations: Multiple networks, multiple phases. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (5): 776–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hedlund, G. 1994. A model of knowledge management and the n-form corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 15 (Summer special issue): 73–90.Google Scholar
  53. Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. 1990. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1): 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Holm, U., & Pedersen, T. 2000. The emergence and impact of MNC centres of excellence: A subsidiary perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  55. Huber, G. P., & Power, D. J. 1985. Retrospective reports of strategic-level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management Journal, 6 (2): 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Jarzabkowski, P. 2005. Strategy as practice: An activity-based approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  57. Jick, T. D. 1979. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 (4): 602–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Johnson, G., Melin, L., & Whittington, R. 2003. Micro strategy and strategizing: Towards an activity-based view. Journal of Management Studies, 40 (1): 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kanter, R. M. 1982. The middle manager as innovator. Harvard Business Review, 60 (4): 95–105.Google Scholar
  60. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1993. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24 (4): 625–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2002. Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (1): 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2003. Social capital in multinational corporations and a micro-macro model of its formation. Academy of Management Review, 28 (2): 297–317.Google Scholar
  63. Lampel, J., Shamsie, J., & Shapira, Z. 2009. Experiencing the improbable: Rare events and organizational learning. Organization Science, 20 (5): 835–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  65. Lyles, M. A. 1981. Formulating strategic problems: Empirical analysis and model development. Strategic Management Journal, 2 (1): 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lyles, M. A., & Mitroff, I. I. 1980. Organizational problem formulation: An empirical study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25 (1): 102–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mantere, S. 2008. Role expectations and middle manager strategic agency. Journal of Management Studies, 45 (2): 294–316.Google Scholar
  68. Meyer, K. E., Mudambi, R., & Narula, R. 2011. Multinational enterprises and local contexts: The opportunities and challenges of multiple embeddedness. Journal of Management Studies, 48 (2): 235–252.Google Scholar
  69. Miller, C. C., Cardinal, L. B., & Glick, W. H. 1997. Retrospective reports in organizational research: A reexamination of recent evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 40 (1): 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mom, T. J. M., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. 2007. Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44 (6): 910–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Monteiro, 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
  72. Morgan, K. 2004. The exaggerated death of geography: Learning, proximity and territorial innovation systems. Journal of Economic Geography, 4 (1): 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mudambi, R., & Swift, T. 2009. Professional guilds, tension and knowledge management. Research Policy, 38 (5): 736–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Nachum, L., & Zaheer, S. 2005. The persistence of distance? The impact of technology on MNE motivations for foreign investment. Strategic Management Journal, 26 (8): 747–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Elements of a theory of human problem solving. Psychological Review, 65 (3): 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Nickerson, J. A., & Zenger, T. R. 2004. A knowledge-based theory of the firm: The problem-solving perspective. Organization Science, 15 (6): 617–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Nickerson, J., Yen, C. J., & Mahoney, J. T. 2012. Exploring the problem-finding and problem-solving approach for designing organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26 (1): 52–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Nohria, N., & Ghoshal, S. 1997. The differentiated network: Organizing multinational corporations for value creation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  80. Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5 (1): 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Noorderhaven, N., & Harzing, A.-W. 2009. Knowledge-sharing and social interaction within MNEs. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (5): 719–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Nooteboom, B. 2000. Learning by interaction: Absorptive capacity, cognitive distance and governance. Journal of Management and Governance, 4 (1/2): 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., & van den Oord, A. 2007. Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36 (7): 1016–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Piscitello, L. 2011. Strategy, location, and the conceptual metamorphosis of the MNE. Global Strategy Journal, 1 (1–2): 127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Polanyi, M. 1966. The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co.Google Scholar
  86. Postrel, S. 2002. Islands of shared knowledge: Specialization and mutual understanding in problem-solving teams. Organization Science, 13 (3): 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Prahalad, C. K., & Doz, Y. L. 1987. The multinational mission: Balancing local demands and global vision. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  88. Qin, Y., Mudambi, R., & Meyer, K. E. 2008. Conventional and reverse knowledge flows in multinational corporations. Journal of Management, 34 (5): 882–902.Google Scholar
  89. Rouleau, L., & Balogun, J. 2011. Middle managers, strategic sensemaking and discursive competence. Journal of Management Studies, 48 (5): 953–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 1992. A note on the transnational solution and the transaction cost theory of multinational strategic management. Journal of International Business Studies, 23 (4): 761–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2001. Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (3): 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Rugman, A. M., Verbeke, A., & Wenlong, Y. 2011. Re-conceptualizing Bartlett and Ghoshal's classification of national subsidiary roles in the multinational enterprise. Journal of Management Studies, 48 (2): 253–277.Google Scholar
  93. Saka-Helmhout, A. 2009. Agency-based view of learning within the multinational corporation. Management Learning, 40 (3): 258–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Saka-Helmhout, A. 2010. Organizational learning as a situated routine-based activity in international settings. Journal of World Business, 45 (1): 41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Simon, H. A. 1962. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106 (6): 467–482.Google Scholar
  96. Simon, H. A. 1973. The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4 (3–4): 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Simon, H. A., & Barenfeld, M. 1969. Information-processing analysis of perceptual processes in problem solving. Psychological Review, 76 (5): 473–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Smith, G. F. 1988. Towards a heuristic theory of problem structuring. Management Science, 34 (12): 1489–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Smith, G. F. 1989. Defining managerial problems: A framework for prescriptive theorizing. Management Science, 35 (8): 963–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Spender, J. C. 1989. Industry recipes: An enquiry into the nature and sources of managerial judgement. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  101. Starbuck, W. H. 2009. Cognitive reactions to rare events: Perceptions, uncertainty, and learning. Organization Science, 20 (5): 925–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Tallman, S., & Chacar, A. S. 2011. Knowledge accumulation and dissemination in MNEs: A practice-based framework. Journal of Management Studies, 48 (2): 278–304.Google Scholar
  103. Tsang, E. W. K., & Yip, P. S. L. 2007. Economic distance and the survival of foreign direct investments. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (5): 1156–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. 1981. Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Academy of Management Journal, 24 (2): 289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Vaccaro, A., Brusoni, S., & Veloso, F. M. 2011. Virtual design, problem framing, and innovation: An empirical study in the automotive industry. Journal of Management Studies, 48 (1): 99–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J. P., & Lyles, M. A. 2008. Inter- and intra-organizational knowledge transfer: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management Studies, 45 (4): 830–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. 2011. Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (5): 740–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Whittington, R. 2003. The work of strategizing and organizing: For a practice perspective. Strategic Organization, 1 (1): 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Wilson, J. M., Boyer O’Leary, M., Metiu, A., & Jett, Q. R. 2008. Perceived proximity in virtual work: Explaining the paradox of far-but-close. Organization Studies, 29 (7): 979–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Wooldridge, B., & Floyd, S. W. 1990. The strategy process, middle management involvement, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 11 (3): 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T., & Floyd, S. W. 2008. The middle management perspective on strategy process: Contributions, synthesis, and future research. Journal of Management, 34 (6): 1190–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Wuyts, S., Colombo, M. G., Dutta, S., & Nooteboom, B. 2005. Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 58 (2): 277–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Yamin, M., Tsai, H.-J. S., & Holm, U. 2011. The performance effects of headquarters’ involvement in lateral innovation transfers in multinational corporations. Management International Review, 51 (2): 157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Zaheer, S., Schomaker, M. S., & Nachum, L. 2012. Distance without direction: Restoring credibility to a much-loved construct. Journal of International Business Studies, 43 (1): 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Esther Tippmann
    • 1
  • Pamela Sharkey Scott
    • 2
  • Vincent Mangematin
    • 3
  1. 1.Quinn School of Business, University College DublinDublinIreland
  2. 2.College of Business, Dublin Institute of TechnologyDublinIreland
  3. 3.Grenoble Ecole de ManagementGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations