Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revisiting Ghoshal and Bartlett’s Theory of the Multinational Corporation as an Interorganizational Network

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Management International Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

More than 25 years after its appearance, Ghoshal and Bartlett’s seminal paper ‘The Multinational Corporation as an Interorganizational Network’ stands as a widely recognized but insufficiently understood contribution to the international management literature. This paper reviews related literature, celebrates and critically discusses Ghoshal and Bartlett’s work and proposes ways to address its main limitations, which are a lack of a defined set of parameters describing networks and the delineation of network boundaries. We then translate their theory into concrete propositions and thereby bring it closer to empirical testing. Taking a subsidiary-network perspective, we expand the authors’ work by combining network and entrepreneurship literature and theoretically deducting positive effects of networks on subsidiary entrepreneurial orientation. This yields entirely new insights and a more holistic view of the effects of subsidiary networks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Soon after the appearance of Ghoshal and Bartlett’s paper, the Academy of Management Review published a paper by Gupta and Govindarajan (1991) that was somehow similar than Ghoshal and Bartlett’s paper, but without any reference to this, ‘devoted to advancing the theoretical base for the conduct of future research on the subject of strategy-organization coalignment within MNCs’ (p. 768). Their paper provides many insights that are also helpful for the present article, but focuses more on describing the characteristics of different subsidiary role models than on the impact of internal and external networks characteristics on structural and cultural variables.

  2. Andersson and Pahlberg (1997, p. 329) claim that ‘a fundamental characteristic of a network is that it is unbounded and therefore some kind of arbitrary boundary must be drawn. The unbounded and transparent nature of networks makes it useful to identify the actors' view of the relevant network.’

  3. This should not be confused with Ghoshal and Bartlett’s (1990, p. 610) external network, which encompasses ‘all members of all the organization sets of the different units’ of the MNC, regardless of whether they reside inside or outside it.

References

  • Achcaoucaou, F., Miravitlles, P., & León-Darder, F. (2014). Knowledge sharing and subsidiary R&D mandate development: a matter of dual embeddedness. International Business Review, 23(1), 76–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G. (2000). The duality of collaboration: inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 317–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almeida, P., & Phene, A. (2004). Subsidiaries and knowledge creation: the influence of the MNC and host country on innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8–9), 847–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambos, T., Andersson, U., & Birkinshaw, J. (2010). What are the consequences of initiative-taking in multinational subsidiaries? Journal of International Business Studies, 41(7), 1099–1118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambos, B., & Reitsperger, W. D. (2004). Offshore centers of excellence: social control and success. Management International Review, 44(2), 51–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, U. (1999). Some notes on subsidiary network embeddedness and its effects on the multinational corporation. Working paper, Uppsala University, Department of Business Studies, Uppsala, Sweden.

  • Andersson, U., & Forsgren, M. (1996). Subsidiary embeddedness and control in the multinational corporation. International Business Review, 5(5), 487–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, U., & Forsgren, M. (2000). In search of centre of excellence: network embeddedness and subsidiary roles in multinational corporations. Management International Review, 40(4), 329–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Holm, U. (2001a). Subsidiary embeddedness and competence development in MNCs—multi-level analysis. Organization Studies, 22(6), 1013–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), 979–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Pedersen, T. (2001b). Subsidiary performance in multinational corporations: the importance of technology embeddedness. International Business Review, 10(1), 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, U., & Pahlberg, C. (1997). Subsidiary influence on strategic behaviour in MNCs: an empirical study. International Business Review, 6(3), 319–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beugelsdijk, S., & Cornet, M. (2002). A far friend is worth more than a good neighbour: proximity and innovation in a small country. Journal of Management and Governance, 6(2), 169–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J. M. (1997). Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: the characteristics of subsidiary initiative. Strategic Management Journal, 18(3), 207–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J., & Fey, C. (2000). Building an internal market system: insights from five R&D organizations. In J. Birkinshaw & P. Hagstrom (Eds.), The flexible firm: Capability management in network organizations (pp. 149–175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J. M., & Ridderstrale, J. (1999). Fighting the corporate immune system: a process study of subsidiary initiatives in multinational corporations. International Business Review, 8(2), 149–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehe, D. M. (2008). Product development in emerging market subsidiaries—the influence of autonomy and internal markets on subsidiary roles. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 5(1), 29–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boojihawon, D. K., Dimitratos, P., & Young, S. (2007). Characteristics and influence of multinational subsidiary entrepreneurial culture: the case of the advertising sector. International Business Review, 16(5), 549–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. London: SAGE Publications Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borini, F. M., Fleury, T. L., Fleury, A. C. C., Junior, O., & de Miranda, M. (2009). The relevance of subsidiary initiatives for Brazilian multinationals. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 49(3), 253–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boso, N., Story, V. M., & Cadogan, J. W. (2013). Entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, network ties, and performance: study of entrepreneurial firms in a developing economy. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 708–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: a multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 795–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, B., & Ambos, B. (2013). A question of legitimacy? A dynamic perspective on multinational firm control. Organization Science, 24(3), 773–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1983). Corporate profits and cooptation. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2002). Complementarity in the innovation strategy: internal R&D, external technology acquisition and cooperation. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 3284, Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.

  • Cavanagh, A., & Freeman, S. (2012). The development of subsidiary roles in the motor vehicle manufacturing industry. International Business Review, 21(4), 602–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, H. F. L. (2012). Export market orientation, managerial ties, and performance. International Marketing Review, 29(4), 403–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciabuschi, F., Dellestrand, H., & Martín, O. M. (2011). Internal embeddedness, headquarters involvement, and innovation importance in multinational enterprises. Journal of Management Studies, 48(7), 1612–1639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, K. S. (1977). Exchange and power in networks of interorganizational relations. Sociological Quarterly, 18(1), 62–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1998). The influence of organization structure on the utility of an entrepreneurial top management style. Journal of Management Studies, 25(3), 217–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J. G., & Wales, W. J. (2012). The measurement of entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 677–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dacin, M. T., Ventresca, M. J., & Beal, B. D. (1999). The embeddedness of organizations: dialogue and directions. Journal of Management, 25(3), 317–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Meyer, A. (1992). Management of international R&D operations. In O. Granstrand, L. Hakanson, & S. Sjolander (Eds.), Technology management and international business (pp. 163–179). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2005). The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective corporate entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(1), 147–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Norcia, V. (1991). Managing across borders: the transnational solution. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 225–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitratos, P., Liouka, I., & Young, S. (2009). Regional location of multinational corporation subsidiaries and economic development contribution: evidence from the UK. Journal of World Business, 44(2), 180–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djodat, N. (2015). Developing a research agenda for the relationship between network embeddedness and entrepreneurial orientation in multinational corporations. Working Paper, Technische Universität Berlin.

  • Djodat, N. (2016). Network embeddedness as a determinant of organizational structure and culture—an empirical study. Working paper. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2814280 or from the author upon request.

  • Dörrenbächer, C., & Geppert, M. (2006). Micro-politics and conflicts in multinational corporations: current debates, re-framing, and contributions of this special issue. Journal of International Management, 12(3), 251–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J. H. (1998). Location and the multinational enterprise: a neglected factor? Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1), 45–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egelhoff, W. G. (1988). Strategy and structure in multinational corporations: a revision of the Stopford and Wells model. Strategic Management Journal, 9(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faust, K. (1997). Centrality in affiliation networks. Social. Network, 19(2), 157–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, M. P. (2011). A bibliometric study on Ghoshal’s Managing across Borders. The Multinational Business Review, 19(4), 357–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1999). Knowledge creation and social networks in corporate entrepreneurship: the renewal of organizational capability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 123–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. J. (1982). Strategies for network research in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 7(2), 280–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsgren, M., Holm, U., & Johanson, J. (2005). Managing the embedded multinational. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Galaskiewicz, J., & Wasserman, S. (1994). Introduction: advances in the social and behavioral sciences from social network analysis. In S. Wasserman & J. Galaskiewicz (Eds.), Advances in social network analysis (pp. 11–17). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Pont, C., Canales, J. I., & Noboa, F. (2009). Subsidiary strategy: the embeddedness component. Journal of Management Studies, 46(2), 182–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, G., Wood, D., Jr., & Khan, R. (2001). Networking strategy of boards: implications for small and medium-sized enterprises. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 13(3), 269–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geppert, M., Williams, K., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1990). The multinational corporation as an interorganizational network. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 603–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S., & Moran, P. (1996). Bad for practice: a critique of the transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 13–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S., & Westney, E. (1993). Organization theory and the multinational corporation. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gilsing, V., Nooteboom, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G., & van den Oord, A. (2008). Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: technological distance, betweenness centrality and density. Research Policy, 37(10), 1717–1731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gnyawali, D. R., Singal, M., & Mu, S. (2009). Knowledge ties among subsidiaries in MNCs: a multi-level conceptual model. Journal of International Management, 15(4), 387–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabher, G. (1993). The embedded firm: On the socioeconomics of industrial relations. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 293–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 473–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halinen, A., & Törnroos, J. Å. (1998). The role of embeddedness in the evolution of business networks. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 14(3), 187–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, D. J., & Saias, M. A. (1980). Strategy follows structure! Strategic Management Journal, 1(2), 149–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallin, C., Holm, U., & Sharma, D. D. (2011). Embeddedness of innovation receivers in the multinational corporation: effects on business performance. International Business Review, 20(3), 362–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. B. (2003). Resources, knowledge and influence: the organizational effects of intraorganizational collaboration. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2), 321–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, Y. C. (2014). Multilateral knowledge transfer and multiple embeddedness. Multinational Business Review, 22(2), 155–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 165–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, S., & Paladino, A. (2007). Knowledge management and involvement in innovations in MNC subsidiaries. Management International Review, 47(2), 281–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karnani, A., & Wernerfelt, B. (1985). Multiple point competition. Strategic Management Journal, 6(1), 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2003). Social networks and organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lipparini, A., & Lomi, A. (1999). Interorganizational relations in the modern biomedical industry: a case study in local economic development. In A. Grandori (Ed.), Interfirm networks: organization and industrial competitiveness (pp. 120–150). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madhok, A., & Liu, C. (2006). A coevolutionary theory of the multinational firm. Journal of International Management, 12(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marino, L., Strandholm, K., Steensma, H. K., & Weaver, K. M. (2002). The moderating effect of national culture on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and strategic alliance portfolio extensiveness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 145–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, J. C. (1973). Networks, norms and institutions. In J. Boissevain & J. C. Mitchell (Eds.), Network analysis. Studies in human interaction. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mizruchi, M. S. (1994). Social network analysis: recent achievements and current controversies. Acta Sociologica, 37(4), 329–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran, P. (2005). Structural vs. relational embeddedness: social capital and managerial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(12), 1129–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mu, S., Gnyawali, D. R., & Hatfield, D. E. (2007). Foreign subsidiaries’ learning from local environments: an empirical test. Management International Review, 47(1), 79–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panzar, J. C., & Willig, R. D. (1981). Economies of scope. American Economic Review, 71(2), 268–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterson, S. L., & Brock, D. M. (2002). The development of subsidiary-management research: review and theoretical analysis. International Business Review, 11(2), 139–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesalj, B. (2011). Competitive advantages of multinational companies: a review of theoretical approaches. Međunarodni Problem, 63(2), 237–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5(3–4), 137–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podolny, J. M. (2001). Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology, 107(1), 33–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1986). Competition in global industries: a conceptual framework. In M. E. Porter (Ed.), Competition in global industries (pp. 15–60). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Bettis, R. A. (1986). The dominant logic: a new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(6), 485–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provan, K. G., Fish, A., & Sydow, J. (2007). Interorganizational networks at the network level: a review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of Management, 33(3), 479–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raskovic, M., Makovec Brencic, M., & Jaklic, M. (2013). Antecedents and evolution of the Bartlett and Ghoshal transnational typology. Multinational Business Review, 21(2), 148–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: an assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, D., Bussiere, D., & Greenaway, K. (2001). Alliance formation issues for knowledge-based enterprises. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(1), 79–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig, P. M., & Singh, J. V. (1991). Organizational environments and the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 340–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, K., & Kostova, T. (2003). The use of the multinational corporation as a research context. Journal of Management, 29(6), 883–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M. (2002). International business. Routledge: Critical perspectives on business and management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleimer, S. C., & Pedersen, T. (2013). The driving forces of subsidiary absorptive capacity. Journal of Management Studies, 50(4), 646–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, S., Dzedek, L. R., & Lehrer, M. (2014). From rocking the boat to wagging the dog: a literature review of subsidiary initiative research and integrative framework. Journal of International Management, 20(2), 201–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stopford, J. M., & Wells, L. T., Jr. (1972). Managing the multinational enterprise. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strutzenberger, A., & Ambos, T. C. (2013). Unravelling the subsidiary initiative process: a multilevel approach. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(3), 314–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundaram, A. K., & Black, J. S. (1992). The environment and internal organization of multinational enterprises. Academy of Management Review, 17(4), 729–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1980). Economies of scope and the scope of the enterprise. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(3), 223–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tichy, N. M., Tushman, M. L., & Fombrun, C. (1979). Social network analysis for organizations. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 507–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinzi, V. E., Chin, W. W., Henseler, J., & Wang, H. (2010). Handbook of partial least squares. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1991). Springfield: Merriam Webster.

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C. (2009). Subsidiary-level determinants of global initiatives in multinational corporations. Journal of International Management, 15(1), 92–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witte, E. (1977). Power and innovation: a two-center theory. International Studies of Management and Organization, 7(1), 47–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamin, M., & Andersson, U. (2011). Subsidiary importance in the MNC: what role does internal embeddedness play? International Business Review, 20(2), 151–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, S., & Tavares, A. T. (2004). Centralization and autonomy: back to the future. International Business Review, 13(2), 215–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Strategic Leadership and Global Management, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135/H92, 10623, Berlin, Germany

    Natalie Djodat

  2. Chair of Strategic Leadership and Global Management, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135/H92, 10623, Berlin, Germany

    Dodo zu Knyphausen-Aufseß

Authors
  1. Natalie Djodat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dodo zu Knyphausen-Aufseß
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dodo zu Knyphausen-Aufseß.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 1.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Djodat, N., zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, D. Revisiting Ghoshal and Bartlett’s Theory of the Multinational Corporation as an Interorganizational Network. Manag Int Rev 57, 349–378 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-016-0298-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-016-0298-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation