What Do We Know About Corporate Headquarters? A Review, Integration, and Research Agenda

Abstract

During the past five decades, scholars have studied the corporate headquarters (CHQ) -the multidivisional firm's central organizational unit. The purpose of this article is to review the diverse and fragmented literature on the CHQ and to identify the variables of interest, the dominant relationships, and the contributions. We integrate, for the first time, the existing knowledge of the CHQ into an organizing framework. Based on a synthesis of the literature, we identify major shortcomings and gaps, and present an agenda for future research that contributes to our understanding of the CHQ and the multidivisional firm. KeywordsCorporate headquarters, corporate parent, corporate center, corporate strategy, multidivisional firm, multibusiness firm, multinational corporation. However, since scholars have studied CHQ phenomena from diverse perspectives and have employed different methods, there is a need for a framework that integrates this research in order to advance theory on the multidivisional firm.Specifically, three factors motivated this synthesis of research on the CHQ. First, while there is a substantial amount of research on the CHQ, the insights from these works are diffuse, requiring consolidation to take stock of this body of knowledge. By delineating the evolution of this literature and the different perspectives, we identify the state of CHQ research and enhance our understanding of how research issues have emerged. We also provide an overview of the Corporate Headquarters 2 most frequently explored CHQ phenomena and establish a common vocabulary. Second, research on the CHQ is increasingly disconnected, having developed along four different tracks in the economic, organization, international business, and practice-oriented traditions. This has not only led to different research foci and approaches to studying the CHQ, but also to a lack of understanding of the variables of interest and the relationships between them. An important purpose of the review is thus to provide a first comprehensive framework of CHQ research that integrates the dispersed insights, identifies the most relevant variables of interest, and specifies the dominant relationships between them. Third, while our review reveals the contributions of the literature on the CHQ, it also uncovers several weak, and even unexplored research areas. In addition, the integrative review reveals a potential for cross-fertilization, for example, between the academic and practice-oriented literatures. We therefore identify gaps within and across the different research areas and highlight pressing future research questions that will help advance our understanding of the CHQ and the multidivisional firm.

Upgrading and Subsidiary Autonomy : Experience of Hungarian Manufacturing Companies

“…Another, more recent, widely-cited reference is Collis et al (2007), who advanced a more detailed classification of HQ functions including a) 'obligatory tasks' such as legal requirements (tax and financial reporting), treasury and general management; b) 'shared services' to obtain scale economies; c) 'coordination' and 'control'; and d) 'value creation'. A recent comprehensive survey and synthesis of the literature is provided by Menz et al (2014). 7) Organizational innovations are oft-forgotten though crucial aspects of industries' globalization.…”

“…At the same time it has become even more obvious than before that the way HQs design the MNC organization and allocate tasks, responsibilities and resources among subunits (Malnight, 1996) is a factor of competitiveness in itself, since it greatly influences MNC-level performance (Menz et al, 2014). With the unbundling of ever finer slices in the value chain (Baldwin, 2011) and the global sourcing of a variety of activities, the costs of management and coordination also increased.…”

Changes at Corporate Headquarters: Review, Integration and Future Research

“…Menz et al 2013), including 'strategic apex' (Mintzberg 1979), 'central administrative office' (Aarland et al 2007;Davis and Henderson 2008;Montague 1986), 'corporate centre' (Baaij et al 2004;Hansen and Peytz 1991), 'corporate parent' (Campbell et al 1995a,b) and 'headquarters' (Henderson and Ono 2008;Strauss-Kahn and Vives 2009). First, we identified relevant publications in academic and practice-oriented journals.…”

“…Scholars have used a variety of terms when describing and analysing the CHQ (cf. Menz et al 2013), including 'strategic apex' (Mintzberg 1979), 'central administrative office' (Aarland et al 2007;Davis and Henderson 2008;Montague 1986), 'corporate centre' (Baaij et al 2004;Hansen and Peytz 1991), 'corporate parent' (Campbell et al 1995a,b) and 'headquarters' (Henderson and Ono 2008;Strauss-Kahn and Vives 2009). Recently, scholars have used the term 'corporate headquarters' (Birkinshaw et al 2006;Collis et al 2007Collis et al , 2012Foss 1997;Garvin and Levesque 2008;Young et al 2000) to distinguish the headquarters (HQ) of the overall firm from those of business units (BUs) or regional headquarters.…”

“…Birkinshaw et al 2006;Ferlie and Pettigrew 1996), research in this area is vital for at least two additional reasons. First, studies of changes at the CHQ can enhance scholarly understanding of the functioning of the CHQ, which is a central component in many theories of the firm (Kleinbaum and Stuart 2014;Menz et al 2013). The use of a change perspective provides an alternative way to explore phenomena even when the primary focus is on non-temporal issues (Ancona et al 2001, p. 660).…”