What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

There has been a profound evolution in thinking about multinational corporations (MNCs) [since the late 1980s]. Traditionally, in academic models researchers assumed that ownership-specific advantages were developed at the corporate headquarters and leveraged overseas through the transfer of technology to a network of foreign subsidiaries (Vernon, 1966; Dunning, 1981). As these overseas subsidiaries grew in size and developed their own unique resources, however, it became apparent to many researchers that corporate headquarters was no longer the sole source of competitive advantage for the MNC. Scholars developed models such as the heterarchy (Hedlund, 1986) and the transnational (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1989) to reflect the critical role played by many subsidiaries in their corporations’ competitiveness, and research attention began to shift toward understanding the new roles played by subsidiaries.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/259062.pdf

Multinational Subsidiary Evolution: Capability and Charter Change in Foreign-Owned Subsidiary Companies

A special feature of multinational firms (MNCs) is the notion that their sub-units (subsidiaries) are embedded in different local networks (Ghoshal and Bartlett, 1990; Ghoshal and Nohria, 1997; Fors-gren, Johanson, and Sharma, 2000). Each subsidiary maintains unique and idiosyncratic patterns of network linkages and consequently is differentially exposed to new knowledge, ideas and opportunities (McEvily and Zaheer, 1999). In fact, this differential exposure has been put forward as one of the basic competitive advantages of the multinational firm, because it increases the breadth and variety of its network resources (Malnight, 1996). It is also in line with recent trends in foreign direct investment theory, in which foreign investments are viewed as series of attempts to selectively tap knowledge linked to specific local business contexts (Cantwell, 1990; Almeida, 1996; Dunning, 1996).

The strategic impact of external networks: Subsidiary performance and competence development in the multinational corporation

Interpersonal relations — a theory of interdependence

Conflict and Conflict Management.

Consequences of perception gaps in the headquarters–subsidiary relationship

This paper addresses the question of whether the dyadic approach to international business relationships should, in some situations, be extended to a triadic one. In studies of business relationships the common view is that the relationship consists of two parties, one selling party and one buying party. However, in some, especially international business relationships an intermediary exists that has contact with both the selling party and the buying party, at the same time as the selling party and the buying party also have direct contact with each other, i.e. these relationships are triadic by nature. The purpose here is to investigate whether a triadic approach should be used in these types of situations. The empirical analysis is based on a subset of the database established within the IMP2‐project. The analysis of the data material was done using LISREL. Trust and commitment, two central concepts in studies within the field of business‐to‐business research, are used to investigate whether business‐relationship triads are different from business‐relationship dyads. The results indicate that this is very much the case.

International business-relationship triads

Competence development in the multinational corporation (MNC) is driven by competition in local industrial clusters, and the operating units engaged in those clusters are critical in the development of the MNC, as Porter, Solvell, and Zander (1990) posit. They assume that the operations of the single, unique subsidiary in relation to its unique industrial setting are critical in the development of the MNC. In this view, competence development is not created by organizational arrangements; rather, it is the outcome of a struggle in the market. But it does not take place in response to general market forces; it is driven by interaction with customers, suppliers, and competitors in the industrial cluster.

Headquarters’ Knowledge of Subsidiary Network Contexts in the Multinational Corporation

Purpose – While an ever‐increasing body of research on business networks has commented on vertically connected relationships, this study embeds the horizontally connected relationships. Constructed on business network theories the paper aims to add more knowledge on business networks by developing a connection model including both vertical and horizontal connections. The model aims to explore the impact of connections on focal business relationships. It differentiates connected relationships on the basis of their vertical and horizontal natures. The purpose is to grasp the impact of these different connected relationships on the focal business relationship. The focal relationship elements are defined by commitment and trust, which capture their properties from the dyadic interaction and the two types of connected relationships.Design/methodology/approach – The paper tests the theoretical construction empirically. The empirical study is based on the IMP2 survey, utilizing information from extensive intervi...

Peter Thilenius

Papers

Consequences of perception gaps in the headquarters–subsidiary relationship

International business-relationship triads

Headquarters’ Knowledge of Subsidiary Network Contexts in the Multinational Corporation

The impact of horizontal and vertical connections on relationships' commitment and trust

The internationalization process model: A proposed view of firms’ regular incremental and irregular non-incremental behaviour