Constructing Global Firms? National, Transnational and Neocolonial Effects in International Management Consultancies

Abstract

Drawing on an empirical study of four major international management consultancies, this article examines managerial efforts to construct 'global' organizations. We show how these efforts are undermined by interoffice conflicts over the staffing of client projects. We argue that such constraints cannot be adequately understood as an outcome of inappropriate organizational structures and incentives since this explanation ignores the important role of institutional contexts. In this vein, we outline and develop four different institutionalist lenses and apply them to the empirical findings. In so doing, we reveal the need to adopt a multi-dimensional institutionalist approach to the study of 'global' firms, one that can account for not only national effects but also transnational and neocolonial influences on these organizations.

Englishization in offshore call centers: A postcolonial perspective

“…Whilst such studies offer useful insights into the relationship between national contexts and intra-MNC organization and power, they provide conceptualizations and explanations that are largely divorced from the history and present-day reality of capitalist imperialism (cf. Boussebaa et al, 2012also Boussebaa, 2009). We believe that addressing this problem is especially important in the study of offshore outsourcing arrangements given these are, ultimately, designed to facilitate the exploitation of 'Third-World' human resources by 'First-World' companies that "arrogantly treat the globe as their playground" (Gopal et al, 2003: 237) and that can largely dictate the terms of the transactions and threaten, as they regularly do, to take their business elsewhere.…”

The work of global professional service firms

“…For instance, research in the context of some of the largest international management consultancies shows how employees, whilst subscribing to the idea of the 'global' firm, tend to act in ways that, paradoxically, militate against global integration (Boussebaa, 2009;Boussebaa et al, 2012).…”

“…This reality, together with unequal coreperiphery profit distributions and a perceived core-periphery misalignment in work standards and practices, produces differential commitments to the ideal of the integrated 'global' firm and, in particular, undermine efforts to assemble effective global teams and provide seamless cross-national service (Boussebaa, 2015;Boussebaa et al, 2012).…”

Global ends, local means: Cross-national homogeneity in professional service firms

“…The corollary of this is institutional complexity. Resonant with this line of thinking is research on multinational management consultancies, a key insight of which is that these firms' aspirations to be globally integrated are chronically thwarted by local institutional factors (Boussebaa, 2009 andBoussebaa et al, 2012).…”

“…There has been a curious absence of any substantive comparative work in this area, especially when contrasted with the burgeoning literature on varieties of capitalism (see Walker, Brewster and Wood, 2014 for an overview of this literature). Indeed, recent articles have explicitly called for further research to remedy this: For example, Boussebaa et al (2012) make the case for more work comparing PSFs in different countries. Further, Boussebaa et al (2012) suggest that their work on consultancy PSFs be extended and tested through analyses "other types of professional service firms such as accountancies, law firms, advertising agencies and recruitment or head-hunting firms" (482).…”