Research summary For nearly five decades, international business (IB) research in general and the literature on organizational design and staffing of multinationals in particular have treated ethnocentrism mainly as an adverse attribute. Limited attention has been paid to the disciplines that originally established the concept—anthropology, sociology, and psychology. These disciplines have examined ethnocentrism as a positive, neutral, or negative phenomenon with a complex hierarchical structure. IB literature, in turn, has almost exclusively adopted a negative view, suggesting that ethnocentrism hinders adoption of a global strategy. This article borrows insights from the three base disciplines to rethink the concept of ethnocentrism in IB research and to draw implications for global strategy research. The article also calls for a more careful borrowing of concepts from other disciplines. Managerial summary This article is about ethnocentrism. Ethnocentric people tend to believe that their group, organization, culture, or ethnicity is superior to others. Ethnocentrism can exist in international business, for instance, where home country staff consider themselves superior to foreign staff in other countries. In international business research, ethnocentrism is usually considered undesirable, something that should be eliminated. However, sociology, anthropology, and psychology, where the concept was originally established, have adopted a wider, far more nuanced and intellectually richer view that also acknowledges the neutrality and benefits of ethnocentrism. We draw on this more refined view to rethink ethnocentrism in international business and show implications for global strategy research.

This paper develops the idea of neocolonialism as organizational identity work in multinational corporations (MNCs). We argue that neocolonialism – the ethos and practice of colonialism and western superiority in contemporary society – is a means through which identity is worked on at MNC headquarters (HQ). In contrast to extant neocolonial studies of western MNCs, which focus on the subsidiaries (the colonized) and how their identities are shaped by the HQ (the colonizer), we analyse how the HQ is shaped by the subsidiaries. We elucidate two versions of neocolonialism at play: a traditional neocolonial ethos, which prevails at HQ, and a more contemporary version, which is silenced. Our findings show that nurturing a shared and enduring organizational identity across all units of an MNC is a quixotic task. Nevertheless, HQ managers in western MNCs keep attempting to do this, suggesting that neocolonial ethos and practice continue to be relevant in these organizations.

Purpose-Inter-unit conflict in MNCs is an important and well-researched theme. However, while most studies have focused on open conflicts acknowledged by both headquarters and subsidiaries, much less research has dealt with low intensity conflicts caused by power asymmetries. Still, low intensity conflicts can be highly damagingnot least because they are rarely resolved. Thus, we set out to identify why and in which form low intensity conflict develops, as perceived by low power subsidiary representatives, in the interaction between MNC headquarters and subsidiaries. Design/methodology/approach-We use a qualitative approach to understand low intensity conflict relying on 170 interviews in four Danish MNCs. Findings-We describe antecedents of low intensity conflict and identify four types of actions by HQ representatives that can lead to the development of such conflicts, namely ignoring, bypassing, assuming, and educating. Originality/value-Very few studies have dealt with low intensity conflictnot least in international business research. We argue that the study of low intensity conflict in MNCs can provide us with relevant, novel knowledge of MNC functioning.

No abstract

No abstract