Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 787–801 | Cite as

Subsidiary size and the level of subsidiary autonomy in multinational corporations: a quadratic model investigation of Australian subsidiaries

Article

Abstract

We investigate the relationship between subsidiary size and subsidiary autonomy in multinational corporations (MNCs) and conclude that a quadratic inverted U-shaped model is the best fit to our data. Founding our arguments in resource dependence theory, we propose that, while the subsidiary is relatively small, increasing subsidiary size will correlate with increasing resources in the subsidiary and a consequent increase in subsidiary autonomy. This positive linear relationship persists until an inflection point is reached and subsidiary autonomy begins to decline. We argue that this is due to increasing subsidiary size bringing increasing coordination complexity, a need for greater inputs of managerial experience and expertise, and growing interdependence between the subsidiary and the rest of the corporation. Employing a sample of 313 Australian subsidiaries of mostly US, UK, European and Japanese MNCs, we use a three-step hierarchical regression to investigate controls only, linear and quadratic effects of subsidiary size on subsidiary autonomy. The quadratic inverted-U model supports and extends Hedlund's (1981) proposition. A post hoc investigation suggested that there might be value in exploring a sinusoidal relationship between size and autonomy.

Keywords

subsidiary autonomy subsidiary size Australian subsidiaries inverted U-shaped model triphasic model resource dependence theory 

References

  1. Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interaction, Sage: Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  2. Aldrich, H.E. (1979) Organizations and Environments, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  3. Allison, P.D. (1977) ‘Testing for interaction in multiple regression’, American Journal of Sociology 83 (1): 144–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anon (2001) Why Do Businesses Choose to Invest in Australia?, Austrade: Canberra.Google Scholar
  5. Aylmer, R.J. (1970) ‘Who makes marketing decisions in the multinational firm?’ Journal of Marketing 34 (4): 25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1986) ‘Tap your subsidiaries for global reach’, Harvard Business Review 64 (6): 87–94.Google Scholar
  7. Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1987) ‘Managing across borders: new organizational responses’, Sloan Management Review 29 (1): 43–53.Google Scholar
  8. Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1989) Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution, Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  9. Baruch, Y. (1999) ‘Response rates in academic studies: a comparative analysis’, Human Relations 52 (4): 421–438.Google Scholar
  10. Benson, J.K. (1975) ‘The interorganizational network as a political economy’, Administrative Science Quarterly 20 (2): 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Birkinshaw, J. and Hood, N. (eds.) (1998) Multinational Corporate Evolution and Subsidiary Development, St Martin's Press: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Birkinshaw, J. and Hood, N. (2000) ‘Characteristics of foreign subsidiaries in industry clusters’, Journal of International Business Studies 31 (1): 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Blau, P.M. (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley: New York.Google Scholar
  15. Bowman, S., Duncan, J. and Weir, C. (2000) ‘Decision-making autonomy in multinational corporation subsidiaries operating in Scotland’, European Business Review 12 (3): 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boyacigiller, N. (1990) ‘The role of expatriates in the management of interdependence, complexity and risk in multinational corporations’, Journal of International Business Studies 21 (3): 357–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Camison-Zornoza, C., Lapiedra-Alcami, R., Segarra-Cipres, M. and Boronat-Navarro, M. (2004) ‘A meta-analysis of innovation and organizational size’, Organization Studies 25 (3): 331–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Caves, R.E. (1996) Multinational Enterprise and Economic Analysis, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  19. Chandler, A.D. (1962) Strategy and Structure, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  20. Chang, E. and Taylor, M.S. (1999) ‘Control in multinational corporations (MNCs): the case of Korean manufacturing subsidiaries’, Journal of Management 25 (4): 541–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the ehavioral Sciences, 3rd edn, Lawrence-Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  22. Cool, K. and Henderson, J. (1998) ‘Power and firm profitability in supply chains: French manufacturing industry in 1993’, Strategic Management Journal 19 (10): 909–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cray, D. (1984) ‘Control and coordination in multinational corporations’, Journal of International Business Studies 15 (2): 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dierickx, I. and Cool, K. (1989) ‘Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage’, Management Science 35 (12): 1504–1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Doz, Y.L. and Prahalad, C.K. (1981) ‘Headquarters influence and strategic control in MNCs’, Sloan Management Review 23 (1): 15–29.Google Scholar
  26. Duhaime, I.M. and Baird, I.S. (1987) ‘Divestment decision-making: the role of business unit size’, Journal of Management 13 (3): 483–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dun & Bradstreet (1994) Who Owns Whom (North American, Australasia and the Far East, Continental Europe and United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland editions), Dun & Bradstreet: London.Google Scholar
  28. Dun & Bradstreet (1999) Who Owns Whom (Australia and the Far East, North America, United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland and Continental Europe editions), Dun & Bradstreet: London.Google Scholar
  29. Dunning, J.H. (1986) ‘Decision making structures in US and Japanese manufacturing affiliates in the UK: some similarities and contrasts’, Working Paper No. 41, Geneva: Multinational Enterprises Programme, ILO.Google Scholar
  30. Edwards, R., Ahmad, A. and Moss, S. (2002) ‘Subsidiary autonomy: the case of multinational subsidiaries in Malaysia’, Journal of International Business Studies 33 (1): 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Egelhoff, W.G. (1984) ‘Patterns of control in US, UK, and European multinational corporations’, Journal of International Business Studies 15 (2): 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Egelhoff, W.G. (1988) Organizing the Multinational Enterprise: An Information-Processing Perspective, Ballinger: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  33. Enright, M.J. (2000) ‘Regional clusters and multinational enterprises: independence, dependence, or interdependence?’ International Studies of Management and Organization 30 (2): 114–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Garnier, G.H. (1982) ‘Context and decision-making autonomy in the foreign affiliates of US multinational corporations’, Academy of Management Journal 25 (4): 893–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gates, S.R. and Egelhoff, W.G. (1986) ‘Centralization in headquarters–subsidiary relationships’, Journal of International Business Studies 17 (2): 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ghoshal, S. and 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
  37. Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett, C.A. (1990) ‘The multinational corporation as an interorganizational network’, Academy of Management Review 15 (4): 603–625.Google Scholar
  38. Ghoshal, S., Korine, H. and Szulanski, G. (1994) ‘Interunit communication in multinational corporations’, Management Science 40 (1): 96–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Grinyer, P.H. and Yasai-Ardekani, M. (1980) ‘Dimensions of organizational structure: a critical replication’, Academy of Management Journal 23 (3): 405–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Grinyer, P.H. and Yasai-Ardekani, M. (1981) ‘Some problems with measurement of macro-organizational structure’, Organization Studies 2 (3): 287–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Grover, V. and Davenport, T.H. (2001) ‘General perspectives on knowledge management: fostering a research agenda’, Journal of Management Information Systems 18 (1): 5–21.Google Scholar
  42. Hardy, C. and Clegg, S. (1996) ‘Some Dare Call it Power’, in S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy and W.R. Nord (eds.) Handbook of Organization Studies, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, pp: 622–641.Google Scholar
  43. Harpaz, I. and Meshoulman, I. (1997) ‘Intraorganizational power in high technology organizations’, Journal of High Technology Management Research 8 (1): 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hedlund, G. (1981) ‘Autonomy of Subsidiaries and Formalization of Headquarters–Subsidiary Relationships in Swedish MNCs’, in L. Otterbeck (ed.) The Management of Headquarters: Subsidiary Relationships in Multinational Corporations, Gower: Aldershot, pp: 25–78.Google Scholar
  45. Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values, Sage: Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  46. Inkpen, A.C. and Beamish, P.W. (1997) ‘Knowledge, bargaining power and the instability of international joint ventures’, Academy of Management Review 22 (1): 177–202.Google Scholar
  47. Johnston, S. (2005) Headquarters and Subsidiaries in Multinational Corporations: Strategies, Tasks and Coordination, Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kumar, S. and Seth, A. (1998) ‘The design of coordination and control mechanisms for managing joint venture-parent relationships’, Strategic Management Journal 19 (6): 579–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lazarfeld, P.F. and Menzel, H. (1961) ‘On the Relation Between Individual and Collective Properties’, in A. Etzioni (ed.) Complex Organizations: A Sociological Reader, Holt Rinehart & Winston: New York, pp: 422–440.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Morehead, A., Steele, M., Alexander, M., Stephen, K. and Duffin, L. (1997) Changes at Work: The 1995 Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey, Longman: South Melbourne.Google Scholar
  52. Negandhi, A.R. and Baliga, R. (1981a) ‘Internal Functioning of American, German and Japanese Multinational Corporations’, in L. Otterbeck (ed.) The Management of Headquarters: Subsidiary Relationships in Multinational Corporations, Gower: Aldershot, pp: 107–120.Google Scholar
  53. Negandhi, A.R. and Baliga, B.R. (1981b) Tables Are Turning: German and Japanese Multinational Companies in the United States, Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  54. Negandhi, A.R. and Serapio, M.G. (1991) ‘Management strategies and policies of Japanese multinational companies: a re-examination’, Management Japan 24 (1): 25–32.Google Scholar
  55. Negandhi, A.R. and Welge, M.K. (1984) Beyond Theory Z: Global Rationalization Strategies of American, German and Japanese Multinational Corporations, JAI Press: Greenwich, CT.Google Scholar
  56. Neter, J., Wasserman, W. and Kutner, M.H. (1985) Applied Linear Statistical Models: Regression, Analysis of Variance, and Experimental Design, Richard Irwin: Homewood, IL.Google Scholar
  57. Nohria, N. and Ghoshal, S. (1997) The Differentiated Network: Organizing Multinational Corporations for Value Creation, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.Google Scholar
  58. Nunnally, J.C. (1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill: New York.Google Scholar
  59. Nygaard, A. and Dahlstrom, R. (2002) ‘Role stress and effectiveness in horizontal alliances’, Journal of Marketing 66 (2): 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Paterson, S.L. and Brock, D.M. (2002) ‘The development of subsidiary-management research: review and theoretical analysis’, International Business Review 11 (2): 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Peccei, R. and Warner, M. (1976) ‘Decision-making in a multinational firm’, Journal of General Management 4 (1): 66–71.Google Scholar
  62. Penrose, E.T. (1995) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 3rd edn, Blackwell: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Perlmutter, H.V. (1969) ‘The tortuous evolution of the multinational corporation’, Columbia Journal of World Business 4 (1): 9–18.Google Scholar
  64. Pfeffer, J. (1981) Power in Organizations, Pitman: Marshfield, MA.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. Picard, J. (1977) ‘Factors of Variance in Multinational Marketing Control’, in L.-G. Mattsson and F. Widersheim-Paul (eds.) Recent Researches on the Internationalization of Business, Uppsala University: Stockholm, pp: 220–232.Google Scholar
  67. Picard, J., Boddewyn, J.J. and Grosse, R. (1998) ‘Centralization and autonomy in international-marketing decision making: a longitudinal study (1973–1993) of US MNEs in the European Union’, Journal of Global Marketing 12 (2): 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Prahalad, C.K. and Doz, Y.L. (1981) ‘An approach to strategic control in MNCs’, Sloan Management Review 22 (4): 5–13.Google Scholar
  69. Poynter, T.A. and Rugman, A.M. (1982) ‘World product mandates: how will multinationals respond?’ Ivey Business Quarterly 47 (3): 54–61.Google Scholar
  70. Roth, K. and Morrison, A.J. (1992) ‘Implementing global strategy: characteristics of global subsidiary mandates’, Journal of International Business Studies 23 (4): 715–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Roth, K. and 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
  72. Rugman, A.M. and Bennett, J. (1982) ‘Technology transfer and world product mandating in Canada’, Columbia Journal of World Business 17 (4): 58–62.Google Scholar
  73. Shen, T.Y. (1970) ‘Economies of scale, Penrose-effect, growth of plants and their size distribution’, Journal of Political Economy 78 (4): 702–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Skinner, W. (1968) American Industry in Developing Economies, Wiley: New York.Google Scholar
  75. Stopford, J. and Wells, L.T. (1972) Managing the Multinational Enterprise, Basic Books: New York.Google Scholar
  76. Taggart, J.H. (1996) ‘Evolution of multinational strategy: evidence from Scottish manufacturing subsidiaries’, Journal of Marketing Management 12 (6): 533–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tan, D. (2003) ‘The limits to the growth of multinational firms in a foreign market’, Managerial and Decision Economics 24 (8): 569–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Welge, M.K. (1981) ‘The Effective Design of Headquarters–Subsidiary Relationships in German MNCs’, in L. Otterbeck (ed.) The Management of Headquarters: Subsidiary Relationships in Multinational Corporations, Gower: Aldershot, pp: 79–106.Google Scholar
  79. Welge, M.K. (1994) ‘A comparison of managerial structures in German subsidiaries in France, India, and the United States’, Management International Review 34 (1): 33–49.Google Scholar
  80. White, R.E. and Poynter, T.A. (1984) ‘Strategies for foreign-owned subsidiaries in Canada’, Ivey Business Quarterly 49 (2): 59–69.Google Scholar
  81. Young, S., Hood, N. and Hamill, J. (1985) ‘Decision making in foreign owned multinational subsidiaries in the United Kingdom’, Working Paper No. 35, Geneva: Multinational Enterprises Programme, ILO.Google Scholar
  82. Young, S., Hood, N. and Dunlop, S. (1988) ‘Global strategies, multinational subsidiary roles and economic impact in Scotland’, Regional Studies 22 (6): 487–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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 Management and MarketingUniversity of MelbourneVictoriaAustralia
  2. 2.Department of MarketingInternational Business and Strategy, Faculty of Business, Brock UniversitySt CatharinesCanada

Personalised recommendations