2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.intman.2006.06.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Strategic change and organisational restructuring: How managers negotiate change initiatives

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
26
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
2
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We also build on existing studies of the subsidiary-parent relationship (Boussebaa et al, 2012;Clark & Geppert, 2011;Dörrenbächer & Gammelgaard, 2006;Dörrenbächer & Geppert, 2006;Meyer et al, 2011;Mudambi, 2011;Rouleau & Balogun;Taplin, 2006) by showing how actors create the social facts they rely on to undertake their reasoning about what is a 'rational' course of action to take: what Clark and Geppert (2011, p. 397) refer to as 'contextual rationalities'. This, we propose, enables us to explain why subsidiaries come to adopt certain courses of action, such as when to say nothing (sense-censoring) or do nothing (strategic inaction).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We also build on existing studies of the subsidiary-parent relationship (Boussebaa et al, 2012;Clark & Geppert, 2011;Dörrenbächer & Gammelgaard, 2006;Dörrenbächer & Geppert, 2006;Meyer et al, 2011;Mudambi, 2011;Rouleau & Balogun;Taplin, 2006) by showing how actors create the social facts they rely on to undertake their reasoning about what is a 'rational' course of action to take: what Clark and Geppert (2011, p. 397) refer to as 'contextual rationalities'. This, we propose, enables us to explain why subsidiaries come to adopt certain courses of action, such as when to say nothing (sense-censoring) or do nothing (strategic inaction).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this view, not only have political dynamics been largely neglected in the IB literature, but also the actions of subsidiary managers and employees themselves. Hence this stream of research has focused on how managers negotiate, accept or resist HQ intended strategies that impact on subsidiary development (see, e.g., Clark & Geppert, 2011;Dörrenbächer & Gammelgaard, 2006;Geppert & Williams, 2006;Taplin, 2006). Whether subsidiary role changes involve charter enlargement or reduction, micropolitical negotiation processes are an integral part of the subsidiary development process (Dörrenbächer & Gammelgaard, 2006;Taplin, 2006).…”
Section: Subsidiary Roles In Mnesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to TCE logic, opportunism together with specific assets is the key driver for contractual hazards among cooperating parties. Further, according to theory, opportunism will be significantly reduced if those independent parties are incorporated within one single organization (Williamson, 1985); however, opportunism will not vanish (Eisenhardt, 1989;Schotter and Beamish, 2011;Taplin, 2006). While governance structures may promote or curb certain behaviors, they do not fundamentally transform human nature.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All forms of organizations are subject to risks of opportunism (Williamson, 1975), but opportunism will not disappear with common ownership (Eisenhardt, 1989;Schotter and Beamish, 2011;Taplin, 2006). Cultural, spatial, and institutional distance decrease opportunities for headquarters to monitor subsidiaries, which makes opportunism particularly relevant in headquarters-subsidiary relations (Hennart, 1991), and if opportunities arise, opportunism from subsidiaries may drive ex post governance costs.…”
Section: Relational Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%