Subsidiary coopetition competence: Navigating subsidiary evolution in the multinational corporation

Tippmann, Esther; Scott, Pamela Sharkey; Reilly, Marty; O’Brien, Dónal

doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2018.02.006

Cited by 49 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These tasks or responsibilities may be related to a product, market, or value-added scope in existing or new functions for the subsidiary (Dorrenbacher & Gammelgaard, 2006). Extant research details the various types of subsidiary mandates or "charters" (Bouquet & Birkinshaw, 2008a;Cantwell & Mudambi, 2005;Galunic & Eisenhardt, 1996) and more recently explores how subsidiaries develop or manage the evolution of their mandates (Andersson et al, 2007;Cavanagh, Freeman, Kalfadellis, & Cavusgil, 2017;Dorrenbacher & Gammelgaard, 2016;Mudambi, Pedersen, & Andersson, 2014;Tippmann, Scott, Reilly, & O'Brien, 2018). All of these studies recognize that subsidiaries have to be cognizant of the control and power corporate HQ has over their ability to influence and "upgrade" to a more advanced mandate than initially allocated (Asakawa et al, 2017;Burger, Jindra, Marek, & Rojec, 2017;Delany, 2000;Garcia-Pont et al, 2009).…”

Section: Subsidiary Influence For Mandate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Sowing the seeds of subsidiary influence: Social navigating and political maneuvering of subsidiary actors

Conroy

Collings

Clancy

2018

Global Strategy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary: This paper emphasizes the social and political dimensions of subsidiary influence in strategically repositioning the subsidiary's mandate. The specific skills subsidiary actors deploy in attempting to influence corporate headquarters have largely been neglected in existing literature. Drawing from a micro‐political perspective, we provide a more nuanced, fine‐grained understanding of subsidiary influence by illuminating how influence is augmented and enriched through the concomitant effects of subsidiary actors' social and political skills. Using a multiple case study analysis and drawing on qualitative interviews, we illustrate how subsidiary actors' social skills are used to continuously create, maintain, and develop spaces of social engagement with corporate decision makers, whereas political skill involves the ability to leverage social spaces by developing specific influence tactics such as targeting, showcasing, and framing. Managerial Summary: Subsidiaries of multinational companies play an increasingly dominant role in the global business environment. The role of the individual subsidiary actor in influencing corporate management is crucial to the development of the subsidiary mandate. Despite this, very little is known about the microlevel skills individual subsidiary actors draw upon to influence the development of their mandates. This article explores how subsidiary actors channel key social and political skills in strategically repositioning their mandates within the multinational enterprise. We find that subsidiary actors may use their social skills to establish increased interaction and communication with key corporate decision makers, whereas political skill is used to develop a variety of influence tactics.

show abstract

Section: Subsidiary Influence For Mandate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Sowing the seeds of subsidiary influence: Social navigating and political maneuvering of subsidiary actors

Conroy

Collings

Clancy

2018

Global Strategy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of these studies have investigated coopetition at the inter-firm level to highlight its benefits, limits and managerial implications. Only a small, emerging group of studies seeks to extend the concept to the intra-firm level, stressing the existence and effects of competition between units that are part of the same organization (Luo, 2005;Luo et al, 2006;Seran et al, 2016;Tippmann et al, 2018;Tsai, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“All for One and One for All?” - Knowledge broker roles in managing tensions of internal coopetition: The Ubisoft case

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coopetition, i.e., cooperation between competing actors, has become a pervasive strategy for innovative firms. The primary focus of studies investigating coopetition centers on inter-firm relationships, highlighting the benefits, limits and configurational patterns of cooperative relationships between competing firms. Only a small, emerging group of studies seeks to extend the concept to the intra-firm level, stressing the existence and effects of competition and cooperation between units that are part of the same organization. This paper contributes to this latter group by investigating the effects of internal coopetition on knowledge and innovation sharing and highlighting the fundamental role of knowledge brokers in managing the resulting tensions. Based on a qualitative case study of the video game publisher Ubisoft, we stress how the tensions raised by internal coopetitive settings limit knowledge sharing between units, and we analyze the mechanisms through which the knowledge broker helps to overcome these limits. We identify three main functions of this knowledge broker that allow the promotion of knowledge and innovation transfer to occur between coopeting units: (1) protecting the unit's competitive advantage by introducing a lagging principle in the transfer process, (2) reducing sharing costs by standardizing innovative solutions, and (3) enhancing awareness of and trust in innovative solutions by centralizing knowledge diffusion.

show abstract

“…As shown in earlier studies, headquarters-subsidiary relationships can be conceived of as mixed motive dyads (Cuervo-Cazurra et al 2019;Garcia-Pont et al 2009;Tieying et al 2009;Tippmann et al 2018). In such a setting, the MNC resembles a federation in which power struggles and goal conflicts are the norm rather the exception (Ciabuschi et al 2011;Ciabuschi et al 2012;Egelhoff et al 2013;Pahl and Roth 1993).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Headquarter resource allocation strategies and subsidiary competitive or cooperative behavior: achieving a fit for value creation

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrating insights from the literature on the multinational corporation into current perspectives on resource allocation, we argue that the ability of headquarters to create value through resource allocation to subsidiaries within the multinational corporation is contingent on the complementary fit between the resource allocation strategy and the dominant behavior of the receivers of the resources. We expound on a theory and an explanation for the volatility of value creation generated by headquarter resource allocation that includes multiple layers of hierarchy. As a corollary, we extend and contribute to the theorizing on headquarters-subsidiary relations and resource allocation by illustrating different scenarios of the resource allocation process. More specifically, we develop a two-by-two matrix of the resource allocation process that corresponds to different resource allocation strategies of headquarters (winner-picking and cross-subsidization) and subsidiary behavior (collaboration or competition) in multinational corporations. We argue that, depending on which scenario within the matrix is brought to the fore, our understanding of how the resource allocation process plays out between headquarters and subsidiaries will differ and therefore influence value creation within the multinational corporation.

show abstract

Subsidiary coopetition competence: Navigating subsidiary evolution in the multinational corporation

Cited by 49 publications

References 76 publications

Sowing the seeds of subsidiary influence: Social navigating and political maneuvering of subsidiary actors

Sowing the seeds of subsidiary influence: Social navigating and political maneuvering of subsidiary actors

“All for One and One for All?” - Knowledge broker roles in managing tensions of internal coopetition: The Ubisoft case

Headquarter resource allocation strategies and subsidiary competitive or cooperative behavior: achieving a fit for value creation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About