Selling, resistance and reconciliation: A critical discursive approach to subsidiary role evolution in MNEs

Abstract

Studies of political dynamics between multinational enterprise (MNE) parents and subsidiaries during subsidiary role evolution have focused largely on control and resistance. This paper adopts a critical discursive approach to enable an exploration of subtle dynamics in the way that both headquarters and subsidiaries subjectively reconstruct their independent-interdependent relationships with each other during change. We draw from a real-time qualitative study of a revealing case of charter change in an important European subsidiary of an MNE attempting to build closer integration across European country operations. Our results illustrate the role of three discourses -selling, resistance and reconciliation -in the reconstruction of the subsidiary-parent relationship. From this analysis we develop a process framework that elucidates the important role of these three discourses in the reconstruction of subsidiary roles, showing how resistance is not simply subversive but an important part of integration. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of the micro-level political dynamics in subsidiary role evolution, and of how voice is exercised in MNEs. This study also provides a rare example of discourse-based analysis in an MNE context, advancing our knowledge of how discursive methods can help to advance international business research more generally.

On the risk of studying practices in isolation: Linking what, who, and how in strategy research

“…For example, multi-level studies of managerial influence suggest that misalignment, far from being damaging, may be critical for preserving key strategic markets, branding and skills within business units (Balogun, Jarzabkowski and Vaara, 2011), generating strategic innovations that radically alter firm strategy (e.g., Regnér, 2003), and enabling firms to adjust to the complexities of delivering strategy in multiple contexts with diverse stakeholders (Rouleau and Balogun, 2011). Such findings run counter to the concepts of corporate control and strategic alignment that seek to understand how firms can perform consistently despite the complexity of the multiple contexts of their business units (Kreutzer et al, forthcoming;Luo and Park, 2001).…”

The legitimacy of subsidiary issue selling: Balancing positive & negative attention from corporate headquarters

“…Despite this, the application of issue-selling arguments in advancing the attention perspective of the MNE have largely been overlooked (Ansoff, 1980;Ocasio, 2011). Observed through the lens of impression management, issue selling is an upward influencing technique where subsidiaries act as 'sellers' in an internal market system (Balogun et al 2011;Dutton et al 2001). In this way, subsidiary managers conceive of, suggest or trigger new ideas that executives may neither foresee nor attend to, allowing lower level managers to shape the overall strategic agenda of the MNE (Dutton & Ashford, 1993).…”

“…Drawing on and contributing to two distinct but interrelated fields of work, namely -subsidiary issue selling (Balogun et al 2011;Dutton & Ashford, 1993;Ling et al 2005) and organisational legitimacy - (Bitekine, 2011;Suchman, 1995;Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002;Zott & Huy, 2007) we contribute to the attention oriented perspective on the MNE Bouquet & Birkinshaw, 2008a;Birkinshaw et al 2009;Bouquet et al 2016;Ocasio, 2011) by exhibiting legitimacy as a key determinant for attracting and capturing positive CHQ attention, while concomitantly minimising negative CHQ attention. The paper is structured as follows; the next section positions the current study within the literature on CHQ attention before outlining subsidiary issue selling and legitimacy in the MNE.…”

Managerial Coordination Challenges in the Alignment of Capabilities and New Subsidiary Charters in MNEs

“…Prior research indicates that charters may however also evolve through subsidiaries' autonomous actions (e.g. Balogun et al, 2011; coordination in other settings of capability and charter alignment, when for instance competition for charters exists or when charters are re-negotiated in a bottom-up process.…”