Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 802–818 | Cite as

Balancing subsidiary influence in the federative MNC: a business network view

  • Ulf AnderssonEmail author
  • Mats Forsgren
  • Ulf Holm


In this paper, we argue that a fruitful approach to the analysis of inter-organisational power in multinational corporations (MNCs) is to model the organisation as a federation. In the federative MNC, the headquarters and the subsidiaries are involved in a perpetual bargaining process. Thus a crucial issue is what power bases are there that the different actors in the federative MNC can use to influence strategic decisions. In this paper, we focus on the power bases associated with the local business network in which the different subsidiaries are embedded, and on the headquarters’ knowledge concerning these networks. A causal model is developed and tested with data from 97 subsidiaries in 20 MNC divisions. The results indicate that the strength and influence of a subsidiary's local business network are determined by the extent to which the subsidiary provides technology within the MNC. The fact that the business network is strong does not suffice to augment the intra-organisational power of a subsidiary. In addition, our investigation also provides support for the idea that, when the headquarters has a sound knowledge of the subsidiaries’ business networks, it is better able to balance or moderate the influence of strong subsidiaries. The paper concludes by pointing out a potential dilemma facing the headquarters of the federative MNC: externally embedded subsidiaries can provide access to a variety of competencies, but they may also reduce the subsidiaries’ interest in contributing to the overall performance of the MNC.


federative MNC subsidiary influence network embeddedness intra-organisational power rent-seeking headquarters knowledge 



We would like to thank three anonymous reviewers, the Departmental Editor Nicolai J. Foss, and seminar participants at the Fox School of Business, Temple University and IIB at Stockholm School of Economics for comments on earlier drafts. The usual disclaimer applies. We also greatly appreciate the financial support from Handelsbankens Research Foundations.


  1. Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988) ‘Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach’, Psychological Bulletin 103 (3): 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson, U. and Forsgren, M. (1996) ‘Subsidiary embeddedness and control in the multinational corporation’, International Business Review 5 (5): 487–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson, U. and Pahlberg, C. (1997) ‘Subsidiary influence on strategic behavior in MNCs: an empirical study’, International Business Review 6 (3): 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersson, U., Forsgren, M. and Holm, U. (2001) ‘Subsidiary embeddedness and competence development in MNCs: a multilevel analysis’, Organization Studies 22 (6): 1013–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersson, U., Forsgren, M. and Holm, U. (2002) ‘The strategic impact of external networks: subsidiary performance and competence development in the multinational corporation’, Strategic Management Journal 23 (11): 979–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Asakawa, K. (2001) ‘Organizational tension in international R&D management: the case of Japanese firms’, Research Policy 30 (5): 735–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Astley, G. and Sachdewa, P. (1984) ‘Structural sources of intraorganizational power: a theoretical synthesis’, Academy of Management Review 9 (1): 104–113.Google Scholar
  8. Astley, G. and Zajac, E. (1990) ‘Beyond dyadic exchange: functional interdependence and sub-unit power’, Organization Studies 11 (4): 481–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1989) Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution, Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  10. Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1997) ‘Managing innovation in the transnational corporation’, in M. Tushman and P. Anderson (eds.) Managing Strategic Innovation and Change, Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp: 452–476.Google Scholar
  11. Birkinshaw, J. and Fry, N. (1998) ‘Subsidiary initiatives to develop new markets’, Sloan Management Review 39 (3): 51–61.Google Scholar
  12. Birkinshaw, J. and 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
  13. Birkinshaw, J. and Morrison, A.M. (1995) ‘Configurations of strategy and structure in subsidiaries of multinational structure’, Journal of International Business Studies 26 (4): 729–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Birkinshaw, J.M., Hood, N. and 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. Bollen, K.A. (1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables, Wiley: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bollen, K.A. and Long, J.S. (1993) Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage: Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  17. Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1989) ‘Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures’, Multivariate Behavioral Research 24 (4): 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Burgelman, R.A. and Rosenbloom, R.S. (1997) ‘Technology strategy: an evolutionary process perspective’, in M. Tushman and P. Anderson (eds.) Managing Strategic Innovation and Change, Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp: 273–286.Google Scholar
  19. Chatfield, C. (1988) A Statistician's Guide, Chapman & Hall: London.Google Scholar
  20. Coff, R.W. (1999) ‘When competitive advantage doesn’t lead to performance: the resource-based view and stakeholder bargaining power’, Organization Science 10 (1): 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dahl, R.A. (1957) ‘The concept of power’, Behavioral Science 2 (3): 210–215.Google Scholar
  22. Doz, Y. and Prahalad, C.K. (1981) ‘Headquarters’ influence and strategic control in MNCs’, Sloan Management Review 23 (1): 15–29.Google Scholar
  23. Doz, Y. and Prahalad, C.K. (1993) ‘Managing DMNCs: a search for a new paradigm’, in S. Ghoshal and D.E. Westney (eds.) Organization Theory and the Multinational Corporation, St Martin's Press: New York, pp: 24–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Egelhoff, W.G. (1988) Organizing the Multinational Enterprise: An Information-Processing Perspective, Ballinger: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  25. Emerson, R.M. (1962) ‘Power-dependence relations’, American Sociological Review 27 (1): 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ferner, A. (2000) ‘The underpinnings of “bureaucratic” control systems: HRM in European multinationals’, Journal of Management Studies 37 (4): 521–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ferner, A. and Edwards, P. (1995) ‘Power and the diffusion of organizational change within multinational enterprises’, European Journal of Industrial Relations 1 (2): 229–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ford, D. (ed.) (1997) Understanding Business Markets, Dryden Press: London.Google Scholar
  29. Forsgren, M. (1989) Managing the Internationalization Process: The Swedish Case, Routledge: London.Google Scholar
  30. Forsgren, M. (1997) ‘The advantage paradox of the multinational corporation’, in I. Björkman and M. Forsgren (eds.) The Nature of the International Firm, Copenhagen Business School Press: Copenhagen, pp: 69–85.Google Scholar
  31. Forsgren, M., Johanson, J. and Sharma, D.D. (2000) ‘Development of MNC centers of excellence’, in U. Holm and T. Pedersen (eds.) The Emergence and Impact of MNC Centers of Excellence, Macmillan: London, pp: 45–67.Google Scholar
  32. Forsgren, M., Pedersen, T. and Foss, N.J. (1999) ‘Accounting for the strengths of MNC subsidiaries: the case of foreign-owned firms in Denmark’, International Business Review 8 (2): 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Foss, K., Foss, N.J. and Vázquez, X.H. (2006) ‘“Tying the manager's hands”: constraining opportunistic managerial intervention’, Cambridge Journal of Economics 30 (5): 797–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Foss, N.J. and Pedersen, T. (2002) ‘Transferring knowledge in MNCs: the role of sources of subsidiary knowledge and organizational context’, Journal of International Management 8 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Galbraith, J.R. (1973) Designing Complex Organizations, Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  36. Galunic, D.C. and 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
  37. Geppert, M., Williams, K. and Matten, D. (2003) ‘The social construction of contextual rationalities in MNCs: an Anglo-German comparison of subsidiary choice’, Journal of Management Studies 40 (3): 617–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett, C.A. (1990) ‘The multinational corporation as an interorganizational network’, Academy of Management Review 15 (4): 603–625.Google Scholar
  39. Ghoshal, S. and Nohria, N. (1997) The Differentiated MNC: Organizing Multinational Corporations for Value Creation, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  40. Gulati, R. (1998) ‘Alliances and networks’, Strategic Management Journal 19 (4): 293–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gulati, R., Nohria, N. and Zaheer, A. (2000) ‘Strategic networks’, Strategic Management Journal 21 (3): 203–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gupta, A. and Govindarajan, V. (1991) ‘Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations’, Academy of Management Review 16 (4): 768–792.Google Scholar
  43. Håkansson, H. and Snehota, I. (1995) Developing Relationships in Business Networks, Routledge: London.Google Scholar
  44. Handy, C. (1992) ‘Balancing corporate power: a new federalist paper’, Harvard Business Review 70 (6): 59–72.Google Scholar
  45. Hedlund, G. (1980) ‘The role of foreign subsidiaries in strategic decision making in Swedish companies’, Strategic Management Journal 1 (1): 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hedlund, G. (1986) ‘The hypermodern MNC: a heterarchy?’ Human Resource Management 25 (1): 9–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hennart, J.F. (1991) ‘Control in multinational firms: the role of price and hierarchy’, Management International Review 30 (1): 71–89.Google Scholar
  48. Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (1993) LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language, Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  49. Krackhardt, D. (1990) ‘Assessing the political landscape: structure, cognition and power in organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (2): 342–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kristensen, P.H. and Zeitlin, J. (2001) ‘The making of a global firm: local pathways to multinational enterprise’, in G. Morgan, P.H. Kristensen and R. Whitley (eds.) The Multinational Firm, Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp: 172–195.Google Scholar
  51. Lane, P.J. and Lubatkin, M. (1998) ‘Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning’, Strategic Management Journal 19 (5): 461–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lukes, S. (1974) Power: A Radical View, Macmillan: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mansfield, E. (1968) Industrial Research and Technological Innovation, W.W. Norton: New York.Google Scholar
  54. March, J. (1966) ‘The power of power’, in D. Easton (ed.) Varieties of Political Theory, Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp: 39–70.Google Scholar
  55. McEvily, B. and Zaheer, A. (1999) ‘Bridging ties: a source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities’, Strategic Management Journal 20 (12): 1133–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Medcof, J.W. (2001) ‘Resource-based strategy and managerial power in networks of internationally dispersed technology units’, Strategic Management Journal 22 (11): 999–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mizruchi, S. (1983) ‘Who controls whom? An examination of the relation between management and boards of directors in large American corporations’, Academy of Management Review 8 (3): 426–435.Google Scholar
  58. Morgan, W. and Whitley, R. (2003) ‘Introduction to special issue’, Journal of Management Studies 40 (3): 609–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mowery, D.C., Oxley, J.E. and Silverman, B.S. (1996) ‘Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer’, Strategic Management Journal 17 (Special Issue): 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mudambi, R. (1999) ‘MNE internal capital markets and subsidiary strategic independence’, International Business Review 8 (2): 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mudambi, R. and 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
  62. O’Donnell, S.W. (2000) ‘Managing foreign subsidiaries: agents of headquarters, or an interdependent network?’ Strategic Management Journal 21 (5): 525–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pfeffer, J. (1981) Power in Organizations, Pitman: Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  64. Pfeffer, J. (1987) ‘Bringing the environment back in: the social context of business strategy’, in D.J. Teece (ed.) The Competitive Challenge: Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal, Ballinger: Cambridge, MA, pp: 119–135.Google Scholar
  65. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, Harper & Row: New York.Google Scholar
  66. Porter, M.E. (1983) ‘The technological dimension of competitive strategy’, in R.S. Rosenbloom (ed.) Research on Technological Innovation, Management and Policy, Vol. 1, JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, pp: 1–33.Google Scholar
  67. Provan, K.G. (1983) ‘The federation as an interorganizational linkage network’, Academy of Management Review 8 (1): 79–89.Google Scholar
  68. Rajan, R.G. and Zingales, L. (1998) ‘Power in a theory of the firm’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 113 (2): 367–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Salancik, G.B. and Pfeffer, J. (1977) ‘Who gets power—and how they hold on to it: a strategic-contingency model of power’, Organizational Dynamics 5 (3): 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Scarfstein, D. and Stein, J.C. (2000) ‘The dark side of internal capital markets: divisional rent-seeking and inefficient investment’, Journal of Finance 55 (6): 2537–2564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stopford, J.M. and Wells, L.T. (1972) Managing the Multinational Enterprise: Organization of the Firm and Ownership of the Subsidiaries, Longman: London.Google Scholar
  72. Uzzi, B. (1996) ‘The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: the network effect’, American Sociological Review 61 (4): 674–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Young, S. and Tavares, A.T. (2004) ‘Centralization and autonomy: back to the future’, International Business Review 13 (2): 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business StudiesUppsala UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations