Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorRaziq, Muhammad Mustafa
dc.contributor.authorBenito, Gabriel R G
dc.contributor.authorKang, Yuanfei
dc.date.accessioned2023-09-25T08:54:44Z
dc.date.available2023-09-25T08:54:44Z
dc.date.created2021-12-15T15:37:06Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationGroup & Organization Management. 2021, .en_US
dc.identifier.issn1059-6011
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3091674
dc.description.abstractMultinational enterprises (MNEs) develop structural configurations for managing their geographically dispersed and disaggregated activities. These structures can be classified as (a) simple headquarters configurations (involves corporate, regional, divisional headquarters and mandated units) involving few direct reporting relationships; (b) network organizations involving no direct reporting relationships; and (c) matrix configurations involving multiple reporting relationships. While these structures are built for handling various complexities and purposes, it is unclear how they influence subsidiary role and capability development. We hypothesize how these structures influence subsidiary development and propose a moderating role of MNE establishment mode on the direct structure-subsidiary development relationship. Based on data from 429 foreign subsidiaries in New Zealand, our results show that subsidiary development varies across the structures such that simple headquarters configurations experience the least opportunities to develop. While the matrix and network structures as complex configurations offer distinct paths to subsidiary development, subsidiaries managed under the former are more likely to follow the developmental path of networking and interunit learning, and the subsidiaries managed under the latter are more likely to follow the path of autonomy and innovation. Furthermore, the positive association of network structure with subsidiary initiatives and autonomy is stronger for greenfield subsidiaries, whereas the positive association of matrix structure with subsidiary mandates is stronger for acquired subsidiariesen_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSageen_US
dc.subjectMNE organizational structuresen_US
dc.subjectsubsidiary rolesen_US
dc.subjectsubsidiary capabilityen_US
dc.subjectreverse knowledge transfersen_US
dc.subjectsubsidiary initiativesen_US
dc.titleMultinational enterprise organizational structures and subsidiary role and capability development: The moderating role of establishment modeen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionacceptedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holderSageen_US
dc.source.pagenumber45en_US
dc.source.volume48en_US
dc.source.journalGroup & Organization Managementen_US
dc.source.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/10596011211060952
dc.identifier.cristin1969039
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextpostprint
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel