STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT OF
MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES
DINESH SONAK
Master’s Thesis
International Economics & Business Faculty of Economics and Business
University of Groningen
Amsterdam August 31, 2007
Supervisors: Arjen van Witteloostuijn
ABSTRACT
The objective of this study is to investigate if and how fit between a multinational corporation subsidiary’s strategy and management team composition positively affects performance. To this end, the study presents and tests a model of fit, based on theories of strategic management, strategic international human resource management and international marketing. The model proposes that fit between the main orientation of strategy (global or local) and the nationalities of its top management team members (parent country or host country) has positive effects on the financial and non-financial performance of subsidiaries. Primary data on marketing strategy, management team nationality and performance (in terms of sales growth and revenues) of 22 foreign subsidiaries of a Dutch multinational corporation in the food and beverages industry were used to test the hypotheses. Three out of five hypotheses were supported. The results indicate that fit between the type of marketing strategy and the nationality of top managers leads to superior performance at subsidiary level. The main contribution of this study is the integration of strategic management, SIHRM and international marketing theories and the application and testing of a new model of fit to MNC subsidiaries. Based on the theoretical model and empirical test a number of directions for future strategy and MNC management research are suggested.
Key words
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
HEINEKEN N.V.1
Concomitant with the rapid expansion of Heineken’s international activities, a number of organizational issues arise in the early 1980s that centered on what should be the proper division of responsibilities between headquarters staff, functional directors and the management of the operating companies. The increasing complexity and diversity of national subsidiaries and licensees together with the different stakes held by Heineken in each local company made any universal approach to managing these relationships difficult if not unworkable.
It was increasingly obvious that operating companies should be as autonomous and self-reliant as possible in order to exploit to the best of their ability all domestic market opportunities. Since market conditions, competition and political factors vary enormously among the more than forty countries where Heineken operated, it was widely accepted that no central organization could deal effectively with this diversity.
Nonetheless, Heineken’s top management felt that there were a number of issues that must be either directed or closely controlled from Amsterdam. These were not limited to marketing and brand policy; it was argued that major deviations from corporate functional policies from one country to another could entail considerable difficulties for the company’s desire to achieve a uniform world-wide corporate image as well as for its effectiveness. Thus the essence of the argument was how to best reconcile these two divergent requirements and foster a willing acceptance by managers, both in the operating companies and at head office, that none could be wholly independent of the others.
1
CONTENTS Abstract 2 Acknowledgements 3 Heineken NV 4 Contents 5 1. Introduction 7 2. Literature review 9
2.1 Strategic management research 9
2.2 Strategic international human resource management 10
2.3 MNC and subsidiary strategy 11
2.4 Subsidiary management 14
2.5 Subsidiary performance 18
3. Theory 21
3.1 Model of fit: Strategy-management-performance 21
5.2 Discussion of findings 35
6. Conclusions 37
6.1 Contributions 37
6.2 Managerial implications 37
6.3 Limitations and directions for future research 38
Appendices 40
1 INTRODUCTION
The study of multinational corporations is interesting and important for three main reasons (Venaik, 1999). First, the dynamic global economic and business environment drives an increasing number of firms to internationalize their activities (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1998). Second, internationalization has a significant impact on the firm’s strategy, management and performance (Prahalad & Doz, 1987). Finally, internationalization influences both global and local competition and consumers.
The issues of MNCs can be studied at three levels: at the corporate level, the subsidiary (or business-unit) level, and at a functional level, such as marketing (Hofer & Schendel, 1978). This study focuses on marketing strategy and human resource management at the subsidiary level of MNCs. The way in which marketing strategy implementation is managed is a critical determinant of the strategy’s success (Cespedes & Piercy, 1996).
The objective of this study is to understand the effects of the interaction between strategic and management factors in driving the performance of MNC subsidiaries. The explanation of performance is at the heart of strategic management (Venkatraman & Ramanujam, 1986). The key research question addressed is: Does fit between strategy type and management team composition have a positive effect on subsidiary performance?
To answer this question, a model of fit between marketing strategy types and management team composition is proposed and tested with a sample of 22 subsidiaries of a Dutch MNC. The main constructs of the model are depicted in Figure 1.
The objective of this study is important from both managerial and research perspectives. From the perspective of managers, understanding the factors that drive performance is essential in competing effectively in global markets. Understanding the interaction between human resource management and marketing management is important for decision-making by top management of both headquarters and subsidiaries. From a research perspective, the study overcomes the conceptual limitations in the literature by integrating frameworks from strategic management, human resource management and marketing management to present a new model of fit. The study fills a number of gaps. First, the effects of the fit between strategy and human resource management at subsidiary level have not been tested empirically before. Second, the theoretical effects of marketing strategy (in terms of brand portfolio composition) on subsidiary performance are a new addition to the MNC management literature and the global integration – local responsiveness framework.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Strategic management research
The fundamental question in the field of strategic management is how firms achieve and sustain competitive advantage (Rumelt et al., 1994; Hawawini et al., 2003). There are two major streams of research on the determinants of firm performance. One emphasizes the importance of external market (industry) factors. The other line of research sees organizational factors as the determinants of success (Hansen & Wernerfelt, 1989).
firms to generate rents (Castanias & Helfat, 2001). In sum, the RBV of competitive advantage emphasizes the links between the internal resources of the firm, its strategy and its performance (Wright et al., 1994). Before we examine these links in more detail (chapter 3), the next section will further explore the role of human resources as a source of competitive advantage.
2.2 Strategic international human resource management
The RBV demonstrates that strategies are not universally implementable, but are contingent on having the right human resources necessary to implement them (Wright & McMahan, 1992). Strategic international human resource management is defined as the pattern of planned human resource deployments intended to enable an MNC to achieve its goals (Wright & McMahan, 1992). It concerns the linkage of international human resource management with the strategic needs of the business (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1998). The recognition that human resource management at any level is important to strategy implementation reasons is one of the main reasons for the development of strategic international human resource management (Schuler et al., 1993; Hamel & Prahalad, 1986).
2.3 MNC and subsidiary strategy
The most popular framework for studying international strategy in MNCs is the GI-LR framework (Devinney et al., 2000). According to Prahalad and Doz (1987) there are two essential managerial demands in an MNC – global integration (GI) and local responsiveness (LR). The MNC, to secure competitive advantages vis-à-vis the domestic firm, must exploit market imperfections that are derived through multi-country capacities. However, given that the MNC is operating in multiple country locations, it must also be responsive to the market demands imposed in each location (Roth & Morrison, 1990). Pressures for global integration are structural and competitive industry forces that demand global strategies. Pressures for local responsiveness are industry forces that demand local strategies.
Levitt (1983) has argued that effective global strategy is the successful practice of product standardization: developing a standardized product to be produced and sold the same way throughout the world (Ghoshal, 1987). The main strategic objectives of a global strategy are achieving efficiency in operations, managing risks, and a combination of innovation, learning and adaptation. A subsidiary of an MNC in a given country follows an autonomous (local) strategy if it carries out most of the functions of the value chain in a manner that is relatively independent of the parent organization or other subsidiaries (Jarillo & Martinez, 1990).
(Venaik, 1999). Marketing program refers to the marketing mix elements of product, price, distribution and promotion. Marketing process refers to the systems and policies for marketing planning, budgeting and human resource management. The degree of coordination of marketing and brand strategy at the MNC subsidiary level – examined in this study – can be analyzed within the GI-LR framework. The MNC’s brand strategy can be the same across countries or modified to fit each country’s circumstances. The international marketing literature uses the standardization/adaptation framework (Solberg, 2000). Global marketing program standardization involves the use of a common marketing and brand mix on a worldwide basis (Venaik, 1999). There are two principal routes of adaptation (Arnold, 2004). The first is based on the use of global sources of advantage, but it involves the MNC adopting its marketing mix to make that global asset more suited to local emerging market conditions. For example, an MNC might transfer an established global brand into an emerging market but change its packaging, prices or even its product formulation to enhance its attraction to local consumers. An alternative strategy is to develop new market-specific resources, by adding local brands to its brand portfolio. Building a coherent global brand architecture is a key component of the firm’s overall marketing strategy (Douglas et al., 2001). Strong brands help the firm establish an identity in the marketplace, develop a solid customer franchise, and provide a weapon to counter growing retailer power (Aaker 1996; Keller, 2003). The firm’s branding strategy also plays an important role in integrating the firm’s activities worldwide. Three major factors drive a firm’s international brand structure: firm-based characteristics, product-market characteristics, and market dynamics (Douglas et al., 2001).
advantage of global brands is the opportunity to benefit from strong economies of scale (cost reductions in research and development, packaging and communication). MNCs have leveraged these economies of scale to gain competitive advantage in global markets (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1986; Buzzell 1968; Takeuchi & Porter, 1986). Other advantages of global brands include the development of a unique brand image across countries, the speed to market for new product initiatives, the higher perceived quality by consumers, and the supply to globalizing distributors.
Local brands represent a number of strategic advantages, including better response to local needs and competition, flexibility of pricing strategy, possibility of responding to local or international competition, the possibility of balancing a portfolio of brands, the possibility of responding to needs not covered by global brands, and the possibility of fast entry into new markets (Schuiling & Kapferer, 2004).
Since both standardization and adaptation offer unique advantages to the MNC, the overall objective is to gain competitive advantage in global strategy by exploiting the asymmetries in the gains and losses associated with marketing mix standardization and adaptation. The main issue for MNCs is thus the degree of standardization or adaptation. Following the framework by Perlmutter (1969) this thesis holds that the MNC’s subsidiaries pursue a global marketing strategy when global brands dominate the subsidiary’s brand mix, and that the MNC’s subsidiaries pursue a local marketing strategy when local brands dominate the brand mix.
2.4 Subsidiary management
2.4.1 Subsidiary management team
Multinational corporations recognize that human resources play an important role in developing and sustaining competitive advantage, both at HQ and subsidiary level (Taylor et al., 1996). Staffing of foreign subsidiaries is therefore one of the most important strategic human resource concerns (Gong, 2003). This section discusses the composition of subsidiary top management teams (TMTs) and its relationships with firm strategy and performance. Empirical research suggests that TMTs influence organizational outcomes such as strategic orientation and firm performance (Sambharya, 1996; Murray, 1989).
MNCs can staff the management teams of their foreign subsidiaries with parent country nationals (PCNs), third country nationals (TCNs) and host country nationals (HCNs), or any combination of the three (Dowling et al., 1999). Subsidiary staffing composition refers to the distribution of PCNs, TCNs and HCNs in subsidiary management teams.
Parent country nationals are defined as employees of the MNC who are citizens of the country where the MNC’s headquarters are located. Prior research (Dowling et al., 1999; Schuler et al., 1993) has characterized PCNs as having three fundamental competencies: familiarity with the MNC’s corporate culture and policies, ability to effectively communicate with headquarters, and ability to maintain control over the subsidiary’s operations. In general, the presence of PCNs in the subsidiary management team provides some assurance that the subsidiary will comply with MNC strategic objectives and policies (Tarique et al., 2006).
1977). The second major motive is management development. The transfer gives the manager international experience. This kind of transfer would be carried out even if qualified host-country nationals were available. The third reason for international transfers is organizational development: the final goal is not the development of individuals but of the organization as a whole. Transfers are used to change or maintain the structure of the organization and as a coordination and control strategy. This leads to socialization of expatriate and local managers into the corporate culture and creates a network that provides links between subsidiaries and headquarters (Harzing, 2001).
with government restrictions on labor practices. HCNs, however, lack familiarity with the parent company culture.
TCNs are employees of the MNC who are neither citizens of the country where the MNC is headquartered, nor citizens of the country where the foreign subsidiary is located. TCNs are perhaps the best compromise between securing technical and managerial expertise and adapting to a foreign socio-economic and cultural environment. The scarcity of suitable candidates for international assignments and the need to keep down the cost of expatriation are two factors driving TCN employment (Evans et al., 2002). Disadvantages of using TCNs are the host country’s sensitivity with respect to nationals of specific countries and the fact that local nationals are impeded in their efforts to assume responsible positions in multinational subsidiaries (Harzing, 1999). Most TCNs are trained at the MNC’s headquarters, and – especially when they come from the same region – are often used as country managers for foreign subsidiaries to fill in a variety of roles in strategy implementation (Martinez & Quelch, 1996). By appointing TCNs to international assignments, the manager develops a global mind-set which is key for the manager in becoming one of the MNC’s global executives (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1992; McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002).
environment, the nature of competition, the characteristics of the national culture, as well as the cultural distance between the home and host country.
2.4.2 Subsidiary management team and strategy
A central theme in MNC literature is the challenge faced by MNCs in their efforts to balance the needs of global coordination (integration) and local responsiveness (differentiation) (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1998; Doz & Prahalad, 1981; Ghoshal & Prahalad, 1990; Kobrin, 1994; Kamoche, 1996). Theoretically, the degree and type of control exerted by headquarters over its international operations would match its strategic positioning along the integration-differentiation continuum (Harris & Holden, 2001). This implies that staffing composition should support the strategic role of the subsidiary and its competitive strategy. The firm-specific capabilities of expatriates enhance their understanding of the subsidiary’s role within the MNC, and thus should increase their productivity in implementing the MNC’s strategy in foreign subsidiaries (Tan and Mahoney, 2003). If obtaining local knowledge and making local adaptation are crucial managerial tasks, local managers should better fit and are more likely to be assigned to the managerial positions of subsidiaries.
2.4.3 Subsidiary management team and performance
extensively on intra-firm coordination across business units to achieve corporate performance (Kim and Mauborgne, 1991). The transfer of firm-specific knowledge and skills is a second way in which expatriates affect performance. A third benefit is the role of the international executive as a resource. Executives with international experience are rare, non-substitutable, and inimitable (Carpenter et al., 1998; Sambharya, 1996; Black et al., 1996). These types of resources lead to sustained competitive advantage and superior performance (Barney, 1991).
Gong (2003a, 2003b, 2006) has examined the impact of subsidiary top management team composition on subsidiary performance. His studies show that subsidiary TMT nationality heterogeneity was positively related to behavioral, cognitive and strategic outcomes, which in turn affect subsidiary financial performance. The next section provides an overview of factors other than human resource policies that may affect subsidiary performance.
2.5 Subsidiary performance
competitors, and the threat of new products and substitutes) can be used to analyze the impact of industry structure on firm performance (Christmann et al., 1999).
The second factor is resources. The resource-based view of the firm argues that characteristics of the individual firm, such as its resources and capabilities (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991; Teece et al., 1997) and its market position (Buzzell & Gale, 1987) are the main determinants of firm performance. Human resources, in particular top managers, fall into this category.
Country characteristics form a third category of performance-driving factors. Malnight (1995) suggests that MNC subsidiaries gradually evolve from those that leverage home country capabilities in local markets to those that build new expertise with host country input and facilitate the exploitation of these innovations throughout the MNC. Almeida and Phene (2004) find that the subsidiary’s knowledge linkages and the technological diversity within the host country have a positive impact on innovation. These location-specific advantages can be specific to individual firms or a group of firms in a host country (Makino et al., 2004). Examples of country-related factors include the level of economic development and education, as well as the political environment (Prahalad & Doz, 1987). Rangan and Drummond (2004) point out that MNC’s firm-specific advantages may be location bound or constrained. This liability of foreignness theory maintains that, vis-à-vis local firms operating in a given host market, the competitiveness of foreign MNCs is weakened due to lesser relative familiarity with local information, governments, consumers, laws, language and suppliers. This limits the extent to which MNCs can exploit their global assets, and thus influences local subsidiary performance. Country-related factors are difficult to control for subsidiary managers, but can be controlled by headquarters when they choose which markets to enter for foreign direct investment.
1985). These elements differ in importance depending on the type of industry. Marketing strategies are more important for industries selling branded consumer goods (Christmann et al., 1999). We will discuss the selection of strategy in the measurement section of the empirical analysis.
A number of other effects are related to the MNC headquarters. These effects include the entry mode, ownership type and level, international experience of the MNC and top management, and various human resource management practices and control mechanisms.
3 THEORY
3.1 Model of fit: Strategy-Management-Performance
3.1.1 Fit
focuses on matching organizational elements to the firm’s strategy, building on strategy-structure literature (Chandler, 1962; Miles & Snow, 1978). In testing the performance effects of combining strategy and HRM, this study can be categorized in the implementation school of fit theories.
3.1.2 Strategy-management fit and performance
managers whose background, knowledge and skills are congruent with the requirements of a particular strategy.
Figure 2 depicts the main model of this study. It proposes that fit between the type of subsidiary strategy (global or local marketing strategy) and the composition of the management team (in terms of nationality) has a positive effect on performance (in terms of sales growth and market share). This effect is additional to the individual effects that strategy and the management team, as well as other (external) factors have on subsidiary performance.
Figure 2: “Fit between subsidiary strategy and management team and performance”
Martinez and Jarillo (1991) have explored the relationship between the strategy of the MNC (and its subsidiaries) and the mechanisms of coordination used to implement that strategy. Coordination mechanisms are not only used for strategy implementation but also for managing headquarters-subsidiary relations (Nohria & Ghoshal, 1994). As each subsidiary context and
Subsidiary strategy
- Global marketing strategy - Local marketing strategy
Subsidiary management team composition (nationality)
- # of Parent Country Nationals - # of Third Country Nationals - # of Host Country Nationals
strategy is different, each headquarters-subsidiary relation presents a control problem that must be managed accordingly. The process of coordination requires formal and informal administrative tools. This study will focus on the subsidiary’s marketing strategy in relation to the type of coordination mechanism, and not on the subsidiary’s role within the MNC. If the coordination effort is contingent on the strategy, and different subsidiaries pursue different strategies within the MNC, it follows that the type of coordination may vary for each subsidiary within the firm (Martinez & Jarillo, 1991). One form of coordination is headquarters supervision, defined as the presence at the foreign subsidiary of MNC headquarters personnel in subsidiary management positions (O’Donnell, 2000). Although TCNs are capable of implementing both global integration and local responsiveness strategies, we define them as global managers. Because of their relations with headquarters we assign TCNs in the same category as parent country nationals (PCNs) for the purpose of this research study. Table 1 provides an overview of the logic behind integrating MNC and subsidiary strategy models with strategic international human resource management frameworks.
MNC strategy Subsidiary marketing strategy
Subsidiary brand mix Management team (predominant) nationality
Global integration Standardization Global brands PCNs and TCNs
Local responsiveness Adaptation Local brands HCNs
Table 1: “Strategy and human resource management model at MNC and subsidiary level”
implementing marketing strategies that are adapted to the demands of the local market, and therefore feature more local brands than global brands. Subsequently, the theory presented predicts that fit between the subsidiary’s strategy and management types leads to higher performance. As noted before, the coordination of marketing strategy within the multinational is an important consideration in designing a global strategy and of great importance to MNC managers and researchers (Zou & Cavousgil, 2002). The next section presents five hypotheses that examine the relationship between MNC subsidiary strategy, management and performance.
3.2 Hypotheses
This thesis builds on the marketing literature in examining the subsidiary’s role in the development and implementation of branding strategy (Jain, 1989; Zou & Cavousgil, 2002; Quelch & Hoff, 1986; Hewett et al., 2003). Following the assumption that MNC subsidiaries either pursue a ‘global marketing strategy’ or a ‘local marketing strategy’ this thesis has pointed out that the nationality of the managers implementing the strategy must be aligned with the type of strategy. Based on the theory of fit, the first two hypotheses thus predict that the MNC matches strategy and management type. They point out that the degree of marketing strategy standardization determines the composition of the subsidiary management team in terms of the nationality mix.
H2: If the subsidiary pursues a ‘local’ marketing strategy, the number of parent and third country nationals in the subsidiary management team is relatively smaller than the number of parent and third country nationals in the management team of subsidiaries pursuing a ‘global’ marketing strategy.
Our theoretical model also argues that global managers are better at coordinating global strategies and that local managers are better at coordinating local strategies. Building on this logic, this study proposes that fit between strategy and management type leads to superior performance. The degree of international marketing strategy standardization interacts with the extent to which parent and third country nationals are deployed in subsidiaries in determining subsidiary performance: the greater the importance of global brands, the greater the positive impact of global managers on subsidiary performance.
H3: Parent and third country nationals are superior in implementing global marketing strategy at the subsidiary level.
H4: Host country nationals are superior in implementing local marketing strategy at the subsidiary level.
H5: Fit between the type of marketing strategy and the nationality of managers leads to superior performance at subsidiary level.
4 METHODOLOGY
4.1 Research design
4.2 Sample
4.3 Measurement
4.4 Data collection
Data were collected from both public sources and internal documents. The two public sources that were used are the Annual Reports of Heineken NV for 2005 and 2006. Data related to the performance of subsidiaries in terms of overall sales, sales growth, market share, revenues and brand performance were extracted from the regional development chapter of the report of the executive board. For most subsidiaries sales growth was calculated by comparing the volumes of 2006 with those of 2005. In a number of cases the report mentioned the sales growth percentage per country. Information about the brands sold in each country was obtained from the ‘countries and brands’ section in the Annual Reports. The reports point out which brands are local (sold in one country only) and which brands are global (sold in more than one country and/or region). The sum of all global and local brands sold per country was calculated. The ‘countries and brand’ section also provided data on the ownership level and the exact name of each foreign subsidiary. Details about management team composition of foreign subsidiaries were found in the expatriate staff 2006 report. This report is issued every year by Heineken Expatriate Services. The report presents an overview of all parent country nationals and third country nationals who hold senior management positions in all subsidiaries around the world. It mentions the nationality and specific function of each expatriate manager. However, it does not mention the total size of the management team, or the number and details (name, function, experience) of the host country nationals in the management team. Information about the size of economies, measured as gross national income per capita (Atlas method), was obtained from the World Bank2.
2
5 DATA ANALYSIS
5.1 Results
Appendix 1 presents an overview of all available data for 22 subsidiaries. This section presents a descriptive analysis of all main data and the relationships between the main constructs.
The first construct of the model of fit is strategy. The Russian subsidiary has the highest number of global brands and three subsidiaries maintain only one global brand in their country markets. The highest number of local brands is eight (Italy and Austria). Two subsidiaries (USA and Ireland) do not have any local brands. We conclude that, out of 22 subsidiaries, 9 have a global marketing strategy, 12 have a local marketing strategy, and for one subsidiary the number of global and local brands is the same. The average number of global brands is 2.7 per subsidiary and the average number of local brands is 3.9 per subsidiary (appendix 2).
The second construct of the model of fit is management team composition in terms of nationality of the manager relative to the subsidiary country. The average number of PCNs is 1.6 and the average number of TCNs is 0.7. The highest number of PCNs is four (Ireland) and the lowest number of PCNs is zero (three subsidiaries). The highest number of TCNs is three (Russia) and the lowest number of TCNs is zero (twelve subsidiaries).
of PCNs and four out of nine subsidiaries with a global marketing strategy have a higher than average number of TCNs in the management team. Five out of twelve subsidiaries with a local marketing strategy have a lower than average number of PCNs and six out of twelve subsidiaries with a local marketing strategy have a lower than average number of TCNs in the management team.
We measure three levels of fit in six subsidiaries with a global marketing strategy (Ireland, Russia, Greece, USA, Rwanda, China). Russia, USA and Rwanda show fit between strategy and both PCNs and TCNs. Ireland and Greece show fit between strategy and the number of PCNs only. China shows fit between strategy and the number of TCNs only. Similarly, we measure three levels of fit in eight subsidiaries with a local marketing strategy (France, Italy, Austria, Chili, Argentina, Nigeria, Singapore and Bulgaria). The strongest fit was measured in three subsidiaries (Italy, Argentina, Bulgaria) where the levels of both PCNs and TCNs are lower than average. For two subsidiaries (Austria and Nigeria) the level of PCNs matches the strategy type and for three subsidiaries (France, Chili and Singapore) the number of TCNs is in line with the strategy type.
We measure no fit (misfit) in seven subsidiaries (Spain, Switzerland, Romania, Poland, Egypt, Thailand and Hungary). The Vietnam subsidiary was excluded from the calculations as the strategy type remains undefined.
marketing strategy and subsidiaries with a local marketing strategy. The subsidiaries with strategy-management fit show substantially higher performance across all measures in comparison with the subsidiaries with misfit. Subsidiaries with fit between global marketing strategy and management team composition score higher performance in relation to subsidiaries with fit between local marketing strategy and management team composition, as well as in relation to subsidiaries with misfit between strategy and management. Subsidiaries with fit between local marketing strategy and management team composition show a lower than average result in growth of total sales in comparison to subsidiaries with a misfit. A small sample of subsidiaries shows fit or misfit in terms of management team composition for both PCNs and TCNs. For the misfit group this applies to all subsidiaries, and for the fit group this applies to Italy, Russia, US, Argentina, Rwanda, and Bulgaria. The performance results of the second (fit) group are 33.5% in growth of Heineken brand sales, 31% in market share growth, 17.5% in revenue growth, and 26% in total sales growth. These figures beat both the misfit group across all performance indicators, as well as the total fit group (including partial fit in terms of PCNs and TCNs) across all performance measures. The data thus support hypotheses 3 and 5 but do not support hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 4 is not supported as the growth of total sales for the fit (local marketing) group is slightly lower (6.6% versus 7.1%) than total sales growth of the misfit group.
Country Growth Heineken
Sales
Growth Market Share
Growth Revenue Growth Total Sales
Spain 1% 1.7% Switzerland 1% Romania 20% Poland 15% 2% 8% Egypt -3% 6% Thailand 6% Hungary 8%
Total: 7 Total: 2 Total: 3 Total: 0 Total: 6
Country Growth Heineken Sales
Growth Market Share
Growth Revenue Growth Total Sales
Ireland 2% Russia 30% 65% 81% Greece 6% 0% 3% United States 19% 15% 15% Rwanda 65% China 9.8%
Total: 6 Total: 5 Total: 2 Total: 1 Total: 4
Average: 26% Average: 32.5% Average: 15% Average: 25.3% Table 3a: “Performance results for subsidiaries with fit between global marketing strategy and management team composition”
Country Growth Heineken
Sales
Growth Market Share
Growth Revenue Growth Total Sales
France 1% 0% 1.7% -3% Italy -3% 0% Austria 34% -4% -2% Chili 20% 12.9% Argentina 20% 20% 8% Nigeria 49% 8% 11% Singapore 7% Bulgaria 9%
Total: 8 Total: 5 Total: 4 Total: 3 Total: 7
Average: 24.8% Average: 0.3% Average: 6.6% Average: 6.4% Table 3b: “Performance results for subsidiaries with fit between local marketing strategy and management team composition”
Country Growth Heineken
Sales
Growth Market Share
Growth Revenue Growth Total Sales
Total: 14 Total: 10 Total: 6 Total: 4 Total: 11
Average: 25.4% Average: 16.4% Average: 10.8% Average: 15.9% Table 3c: Performance results for all subsidiaries with fit between marketing strategy and management team composition”
5.2 Discussion of findings
Hypothesis 1 and 2 propose a deliberate fit between the type of strategy and composition of the management team of MNC subsidiaries. The data only partly support hypotheses 1 and 2. The theory holds for PCNs but does not hold for TCNs. This can be explained in two ways. First, as proposed in the theoretical framework, MNCs appoint PCNs at top management positions in foreign subsidiaries when knowledge of the global brand strategy and global corporate culture is of vital importance for implementation of the strategy and transfer of knowledge and a global mind-set to the subsidiary. Third country nationals are often local managers who are assigned in regional management functions for development purposes. Also, some local brands are exported to the regional environment because of similar culture, language, tastes and preferences across countries in the same region. Therefore, a higher than expected number of TCNs could have top management positions in subsidiaries pursuing a local marketing strategy. The higher than expected number of PCNs and TCNs in subsidiaries with a local marketing strategy can be explained in two ways. First, PCNs are not only transferred because of their familiarity with global brands and policies, but also for development purposes and for filling positions. International experience contributes to the top manager’s development and in some cases this HRM objective prevails over his lack of knowledge of local marketing strategy. In some countries, especially developing countries, the number of qualified top managers can be relatively low. In this case, regional or global managers are appointed.
lower than the performance level of the misfit group. This can be explained in multiple ways. First, the quality of ‘local’ management was measured by the (lower) number of global managers in the management team due to lack of data. The number and percentage of local managers (HCNs) in the subsidiary top management team was not available. The performance in terms of market share and growth of the Heineken brand was higher than the control group. It is possible that prices were lowered to boost market share. This depends on the stage of development of the beer market in the countries we evaluated.
The effects of the two control factors, economic development and ownership level, were mixed. For twelve out of seventeen subsidiaries the level of economic development relative to the average produced exactly the opposite results in total sales growth of the twelve subsidiaries concerned. For ownership, ten out of seventeen subsidiaries the level of ownership did not match with the position in performance. We therefore assume that both economic development and ownership levels do not systematically affect performance positively or negatively in this sample, and that the performance results can be attributed to strategy-management fit.
6 CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Contributions
This thesis contributes to the literature in various ways. First, it is one of the first to combine strategic management, HRM and marketing literature into a new management model for the MNC. Second, it is one of the first to empirically test and measure the affects of relating subsidiary strategy and management team composition to performance. Third, the presented model serves as a basis for more detailed research on strategy types and management teams not only at the subsidiary level but also across global teams and in the management of HQ-subsidiary relations. A growing body of research studies the advantages, disadvantages and performance impact of global and local brands. This study adds to the understanding of how the marketing (advertising, packaging, positioning) of global and local brands can be managed effectively. The study also contributes to conceptual development in subsidiary staffing. Finally, the concept of fit has been used extensively in strategy research by relating strategy to structure and the environment. This study presents a next step in MNC research by aligning strategy to management at subsidiary level instead of MNC level, and by formulating structure in terms of management team composition instead of organizational structure.
6.2 Managerial implications
context (Gong, 2003a and 2003b). Second, the study helps managers in understanding how to balance the organizational need for coordination (GI) and flexibility (LR) at the subsidiary level. Third, this study is an important step in better understanding the strategic role of regional and local managers in global strategy implementation. Finally, the findings suggest that the more closely headquarters HRM management and subsidiary strategies are aligned, the higher performance tends to be.
6.3 Limitations and directions for future research
This study has a number of theoretical and empirical limitations. First, the relationships between strategic management, human resource management and marketing are examined without the context environmental factors, such as type of industry, degree of competition, and the stage of development of the market. Second, this study has focused on the role of brands in marketing strategy in the firm’s total global strategy. Future studies should take other elements of global strategy into consideration. Third, the presented theory does not account for the stage of internationalization of the firm. Fourth, whereas this study has focused on the MNC’s market strategy at the subsidiary level, other studies have examined the relationships between the strategic role of the subsidiary within the MNC and top management teams and performance. It would be useful to add market strategy to this stream of research. Finally, the understanding of the management of HQ-subsidiary relations has benefited from research of various coordination mechanisms besides the development and transfer of global manager. Linking knowledge transfer mechanisms and dynamic capabilities to strategy and management team composition would be a useful next step in both strategy and HRM research.
APPENDIX 1: SUBSIDARY COUNTRIES IN SAMPLE
Region Number Country
1 Spain 2 Ireland 3 Switzerland 4 France Western Europe 5 Italy 6 Romania 7 Russia 8 Poland 9 Austria 10 Greece 11 Bulgaria
Central and Eastern Europe
12 Hungary 13 United States 14 Argentina Americas 15 Chile 16 Rwanda 17 Egypt
Africa & Middle-East
APPENDIX 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL CONSTRUCTS, VARIABLES AND MEASURES
Construct Variables Code Construct definition Construct measure
Strategy Global Strategy GI The number of global brands
sold in the country
#
Local Strategy LR The number of local brands sold
in the country
#
Management Team Parent Country National PCN Management team member
nationality equals parent company nationality
#
Third Country National TCN Management team member
nationality does not equal parent and host country nationality
#
Performance Growth Heineken Sales G HS Growth of Heineken brand sales
2005/2006
%
Growth Market Share G MS Growth of total market share
2005/2006
%
Growth Revenues G R Growth of total sales in terms of %
Growth Total Sales G TS Growth of total sales in terms of
volume 2005/2006
%
Control Economic Development ED GNI per capita (Atlas method) $
Ownership O % Stake of the parent company
APPENDIX 3: CONSTRUCT SCORES AND MEANS
Number Subsidiary Country Strategy Management Team
Performance Time Control
Global Local PCN TCN Growth
Heineken Sales Growth Market Share Growth Revenue Growth Total Sales Economic Development Ownership
1 Heineken Espana Spain 5 3 1 0 1% 7.7% 1.7% 2006 27570 98.5%
2 Heineken Ireland Ireland 4 0 4 0 2% 2006 45580 100%
3 Heineken
Switzerland
Switzerland 3 2 1 0 1% 2006 57230 100%
4 Heineken France France 5 7 2 0 1% 0% 1.7% -3% 2006 36550 100%
5 Heineken Italia Italy 4 8 1 0 -3% 0 2006 32020 100%
6 Brau Union
Romania
Romania 1 7 2 2 20% 2006 4850 96%
7 Heineken Brewery Russia 6 4 2 3 30% 65% 81% 2006 5780 100%
8 Grupa Zywiec Poland 2 7 2 2 15% 2% 8% 2006 8190 61.8%
9 Brau Union
Osterreich
Austria 1 8 1 2 34% -4% -2% 2006 39590 100%
10 Athenian Brewery Greece 5 3 2 0 6% 0% 3% 2006 21690 98.8%
11 Heineken USA United
States 2 0 2 1 19% 15% 15% 2006 44970 100% 12 Companias Cervecerias Unidas Chili 1 2 3 0 20% 12.9% 2006 6980 33.1% 13 Companias Cervecerias Unidas Argentina Argentina 2 5 0 0 20% 20% 8% 2006 5150 30.4%
14 Nigerian Breweries Nigeria 2 5 1 2 49% 8% 11% 2006 640 54.1%
15 Al Ahram Beverages Company Egypt 1 5 2 1 -3% 6% 2006 1350 99.9% 16 Bralirwa Rwanda 3 2 3 1 65% 2006 250 70% 17 Asia Pacific Breweries Singapore 2 4 2 0 7% 2006 29320 41.9% 18 Shanghai Asia Pacific Brewery China 2 1 0 1 9.8% 2006 2010 44.6%
19 Vietnam Brewery Vietnam 2 2 0 0 20% 2006 690 25.2%
20 Thai Asia Pacific Brewery
Thailand 2 1 1 0 6% 2006 2990 14.7%
21 Brau Union
Hungaria
Hungary 3 6 3 1 8% 2006 10950 99.6%
22 Zagorka Brewery Bulgaria 2 3 1 0 9% 2006 3990 49%
APPENDIX 4: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: CONSTRUCT SCORES RELATIVE TO MEANS
Number Subsidiary Country Strategy Management Team
Performance Time Control
Global Local PCN TCN Growth
Heineken Sales Growth Market Share Growth Revenue Growth Total Sales Economic Development Ownership
1 Heineken Espana Spain 2.27 -0.86 -0.64 -0.73 -0.06 -0.03 -0.09 2006 9918 24
2 Heineken Ireland Ireland 1.27 -3.86 2.36 -0.73 -0.08 2006 27928 26
3 Heineken
Switzerland
Switzerland 0.27 -1.86 -0.64 -0.73 -0.09 2006 39578 26
4 Heineken France France 2.27 3.14 0.36 -0.73 -0.22 -0.08 -0.09 -0.13 2006 18898 26
5 Heineken Italia Italy 1.27 4.14 -0.64 -0.73 -0.11 -0.10 2006 14368 26
6 Brau Union
Romania
Romania -1.73 3.14 0.36 1.27 0.10 2006 -12802 23
7 Heineken Brewery Russia 3.27 0.14 0.36 2.27 0.07 0.58 0.70 2006 -11872 26
8 Grupa Zywiec Poland -0.73 3.14 0.36 1.27 -0.08 -0.05 -0.02 2006 -9462 -12
9 Brau Union
Osterreich
Austria -1.73 4.14 -0.64 1.27 0.11 -0.11 -0.13 2006 21938 26
10 Athenian Brewery Greece 2.27 -0.86 0.36 -0.73 -0.17 -0.07 -0.07 2006 4038 25
11 Heineken USA United
States -0.73 -3.86 0.36 0.27 -0.04 0.04 0.05 2006 27318 26 12 Companias Cervecerias Unidas Chili -1.73 -1.86 1.36 -0.73 -0.03 0.03 2006 -10672 -40 13 Companias Cervecerias Unidas Argentina Argentina -0.73 1.14 -1.64 -0.73 -0.03 0.09 -0.02 2006 -12502 -43
14 Nigerian Breweries Nigeria -0.73 1.14 -0.64 1.27 0.26 0 0.01 2006 -17012 -19
15 Al Ahram Beverages Company Egypt -1.73 1.14 0.36 0.27 -0.10 -0.04 2006 -16302 26 16 Bralirwa Rwanda 0.27 -1.86 1.36 0.27 0.42 2006 -17402 -4 17 Asia Pacific Breweries Singapore -0.73 0.14 0.36 -0.73 -0.03 2006 11668 -32 18 Shanghai Asia Pacific Brewery China -0.73 -2.86 -1.64 0.27 -0.13 2006 -15642 -29
19 Vietnam Brewery Vietnam -0.73 -1.86 -1.64 -0.73 -0.03 2006 -16962 -48
20 Thai Asia Pacific Brewery
Thailand -0.73 -2.86 -0.64 -0.73 -0.04 2006 -14662 -59
21 Brau Union
Hungaria
Hungary 0.27 2.14 1.36 0.27 -0.15 2006 -6702 26
REFERENCES
Aaker D. 1996. Building Strong Brands. The Free Press. New York
Adner R, Helfat CE. 2003. Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strategic
Management Journal, 24: 1011-1025
Almeida P, Phene A. 2004. Subsidiaries and knowledge creation: The influence of the MNC and host country on innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 847-864
Amit R, Schoemaker PJH. 1993. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management
Journal, 14: 33-46
Andrews KR. 1971. The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Dow-Jones Irwin. Homewood, IL
Arnold D. 2004. The Mirage of Global Markets: How Globalizing Companies Can Succeed as
Markets Localize. Financial Times Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ
Barney J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99-120
Bartlett CA, Ghoshal S. 1986. Tap your subsidiaries for global reach. Harvard Business Review, November-December: 87-94
Bartlett CA, Ghoshal S. 1992. What is a global manager? Harvard Business Review, September-October: 124-132
Bartlett CA, Ghoshal S. 1998. Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution. Harvard Business School Press. Boston, MA
Bartlett CA, Ghoshal S. 2002. Competitive advantage through people. MIT Sloan Management
Review, Winter: 34-41
Becker BE, Huselid MA, Ulrich D. 2001. The HR Scorecard: Linking People, Strategy, and
Birkinshaw JM, Morrison AJ. 1995. Configurations of strategy and structure in subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, Fourth Quarter: 729-753
Black JS, Gregersen HB, Mendenhall M. 1992. Global Assignments: Successfully Expatriating
and Repatriating International Managers. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA
Boone CB, De Brabander B, Van Witteloostuijn A. 1996. CEO locus of control and small firm performance: An integrative framework and empirical test. Journal of Management
Studies, 5: 667-699
Boyacigiller N. 1990. The role of expatriates in the management of interdependence, complexity and risk in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 3: 357-381
Buzzell RD. 1986. Can you standardize multinational marketing? Harvard Business Review, November-December: 102-113
Buzzell RD, Gale BT. 1987. The PIMS Principles: Linking Strategy to Performance. The Free Press. New York
Carpenter MA, Sanders WG, Gregersen HB. 2001. Bundling human capital with organizational context: The impact of international assignment experience on multinational firm performance and CEO pay. Academy of Management Journal, 3: 493-511
Castanias RP, Helfat CE. 2001. The managerial rents model: Theory and empirical analysis.
Journal of Management, 27: 661-678
Cespedes FV, Piercy NF. 1996. Implementing marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing
Management, 12: 135-160
Chandler Jr AD. 1962. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the history of the Amercian Industrial
Enterprise. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA
Christmann P, Day D & Yip GS. 1999. The relative influence of country conditions, industry structure, and business strategy on multinational corporation subsidiary performance.
Journal of International Management, 5: 241-265
Collis DJ. 1994. Research note: How valuable are organizational capabilities? Strategic
Management Journal, 15: 143-152
Daily CM, Certo ST, Dalton DR. 2000. International experience in the executive suite: The path to prosperity? Strategic Management Journal, 21: 515-523
Devinney TM, Midgley DF, Venaik S. 2000. The optimal performance of the global firm: Formalizing and extending the integration-responsiveness framework. Organization
Science, 6: 674-695
Douglas SP, Craig CS, Nijssen EJ. 2001. Integrating branding strategy across markets: Building international brand architecture. Journal of International Marketing, 2: 97-114
Dowling P, Welch D, Schuler R. 1999. International Human Resource Management: Managing
People in a Multinational Context. Cincinnati, OH: South West
Doz Y, Prahalad CK. 1981. Headquarters influence and strategic control in MNCs. Sloan
Management Review, Fall: 15-29
Edstrom A, Galbraith JR. 1977. Transfer of managers as a coordination and control strategy in multinational organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 248-263
Edstrom A, Lorange P. 1984. Matching strategy and human resources in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, Fall: 125-137
Egelhoff WG. 1988. Organizing the Multinational Enterprise: An Information-processing
Evans P, Pucik V, Barsoux JL. 2002. The Global Challenge: Frameworks for International
Human Resource Management. McGraw-Hill/Irwin. New York. NY.
Ghoshal S. Global strategy: An organizing framework. Strategic Management Journal, 8: 425-440
Ghoshal S, Bartlett C. 1990. The multinational corporation as an interorganizational network.
Academy of Management Review, October: 603-625
Gong Y. 2003a. Toward a dynamic process model of staffing composition and subsidiary outcomes in multinational enterprises. Journal of Management, 29: 259-280
Gong Y. 2003b. Subsidiary staffing in multinational enterprises: agency, resources, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 6: 728-739
Gong Y. 2006. The impact of subsidiary top management team national diversity on subsidiary performance: Knowledge and legitimacy perspectives. Management International Review, 6: 771-789
Govindarajan V. 1988. A contingency approach to strategy implementation at the business-unit level: Integrating administrative mechanisms with strategy. Academy of Management
Journal, 4: 828-853
Govindarajan V. 1989. Implementing competitive strategies at the business unit level: Implications of matching managers to strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 10: 251-269
Gupta AK, Govindarajan V. 1984. Business unit strategy, managerial characteristics, and business unit effectiveness at strategy implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 27: 24-41
Hamel G, Prahalad CK. 1986. Do you really have a global strategy? Harvard Business Review, July-August: 139-148
Hansen GS, Wernerfelt B. 1989. Determinants of firm performance: The relative importance of economic and organizational factors. Strategic Management Journal, 10: 399-411
Hawawini G, Subramanian V, Verdin P. 2003. Is performance driven by industry- or firm-specific factors? A new look at the evidence. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 1-16 Harris H, Holden L. 2001. Between autonomy and control: Expatriate managers and strategic
IHRM in SMEs. Thunderbird International Business Review, 1: 77-100
Harzing AW. 1999. Managing the Multinationals: An International Study of Control
Mechanisms. Edward Elgar. Cheltenham, UK
Harzing AW. 2001. Who’s in charge? En empirical study of executive staffing practices in foreign subsidiaries. Human Resource Management, 2: 139-158
Heijltjes M, Van Witteloostuijn A. 2003. Configurations of market environments, competitive strategies, manufacturing technologies and human resource management policies: A two-industry and two-country analysis of fit. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 19: 31-62 Hewett K, Roth MS, Roth K. 2003. Conditions influencing headquarters and foreign subsidiary
roles in marketing activities and their effects on performance. Journal of International
Business Studies, 34: 567-585
Hofer CW, Schendel D. 1978. Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts, West Publishing. New York
Hoopes DG, Madsen TL, Walker G. 2003. Guest editor’s introduction to the special issue: Why is there a resource-based view? Toward a theory of competitive heterogeneity. Strategic
Management Journal, 24: 889-902
Huselid MA. 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 3: 635-672
Jain SC. 1989. Standardization of international marketing strategy: Some research hypotheses.
Journal of Marketing, 1: 70-79
Jarillo JC, Martinez JI. 1990. Different roles for subsidiaries: The case of multinational corporations in Spain. Strategic Management Journal, 11: 501-512
Kamoche K. 1996. Strategic human resource management within a resource-capability view of the firm. Journal of Management Studies, 2: 213-233
Katsikeas CS, Samiee S, Theodosiou M. 2006. Strategy fit and performance consequences of international marketing standardization. Strategic Management Journal, 27: 867-890 Keeley RH, Roure JB. 1990. Management, strategy, and industry structure as influences on the
success of new firms: A structural model. Management Science, 10: 1256-1267
Keller KL. 2003. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand
Equity. Pearson Education. Upper Saddle River, NJ
Kim W, Mauborgne R. 1991. Implementing global strategies: The role of procedural justice.
Strategic Management Journal, 12: 125-143
Kobrin SJ. 1988. Expatriate reduction and strategic control in American multinational corporations. Human Resource Management, 27: 63-75
Kobrin SJ. 1994. Is there a relationship between a geometric mind-set and multinational strategy?
Journal of International Business Studies, Third Quarter: 493-521
Lawrence PR, Lorsch JW. 1967. Organization and Environment. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA
Levitt T. 1983. The globalization of markets. Harvard Business Review, May-June: 92-102 Makino S, Isobe T, Chan CM. 2004. Does country matter? Strategic Management Journal, 25:
1025-1043
Malnight TW. 1995. Globalization of an ethnocentric firm: An evolutionary perspective.
Strategic Management Journal, 2: 116-141
Martinez JI, Jarillo JC. 1989. The evolution of research on coordination mechanisms in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, Fall: 489-514 Martinez JI, Jarillo JC. 1991. Coordination demands of international strategies. Journal of
International Business Studies, Third Quarter: 429-444
Martinez JI, Quelch JA. 1996. Country managers: The next generation. International Marketing
Review, 3: 43-55
McCall Jr MW, Hollenbeck GP. 2002. Developing Global Executives: The Lessons of
International Experience. Harvard Business School Press. Boston, MA
Miles RE, Snow CC. 1978. Organization Strategy, Structure and Process. McGraw-Hill, New York
Miller D, Kets de Vries MFR, Toulouse JM. 1982. Top executive locus of control and its relationship to strategy-making, structure, and environment. Academy of Management
Journal, 25: 237-253
Murray AI. 1989. Top management team group heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 10: 125-141
McGahan AM, Porter ME. 1997. How much does industry matter, really? Strategic Management
Nohria N, Ghoshal S. 1994. Differentiated fit and shared values: Alternatives for managing headquarters-subsidiary relations. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 491-502
Nohria N, Ghoshal S. 1997. The Differentiated Network. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco
Parker SC, Van Witteloostuijn A. 2007. A general framework for estimating multidimensional ‘fit’. Unpublished paper. University of Antwerpen
Paterson SL, Brock. DB. 2002. The development of subsidiary-management research: review and theoretical analysis. International Business Review, 11: 139-163
Perlmutter H. 1969. The tortuous evolution of the multinational corporation. Columbia Journal of
World Business, 4: 9-18
Peteraf MA. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic
Management Journal, 3: 179-191
Porter ME. 1980. Competitive Strategy. Free Press. New York Porter ME. 1985. Competitive Advantage. Free Press. New York
Prahalad CK, Doz YL. 1987. The Multinational Mission. The Free Press. New York
Quelch JA, Hoff EJ. 1986. Customizing global marketing. Harvard Business Review, 64: 59-68 Rangan S, Drummond A. 2004. Explaining outcomes in competition among foreign
multinationals in a focal host market. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 285-293
Rigby DK, Vishwanath V. 2006. Localization: The revolution in consumer markets. Harvard
Business Review, April: 82-92
Rosenzweig PM, Singh IV. 1991. Organizational environments and the multinational enterprise.
Academy of Management Review, 16: 340-361
Roth K, Schweiger DM, Morrison AJ. 1991. Global strategy implementation at the business unit level: Operational capabilities and administrative mechanisms. Journal of International
Business Studies, Third Quarter: 369-402
Roth K, Morrisson AJ. 1990. An empirical analysis of the integration-responsiveness framework in global industries. Journal of International Business Studies, Fourth Quarter: 541-564 Rumelt RP. 1991. How much does industry matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12: 167-185 Rumelt RP, Schendel D, Teece D. 1994. Fundamental Issues in Strategy. Harvard Business
School Press. Cambridge, MA
Sambharya R. 1996. Foreign experience of top management teams and international diversification strategies of U.S. multinational corporations. Strategic Management
Journal, 9: 739-746
Scherer F. 1980. Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance. Houghton-Mifflin. Boston
Schuiling I, Kapferer JN. 2004. Real differences between local and international brands: Strategic implications for international marketers. Journal of International Marketing, 4: 97-112 Schuler R, Dowling P, De Cieri H. 1993. An integrative framework of strategic international
human resource management. Journal of Management, 19: 419-458
Solberg, CA. 2000. Standardization or adaptation of the international marketing mix: The role of the local subsidiary/representative. Journal of International Marketing, 1: 78-98
Szymanski DM, Bharadwaj SG, Varadarajan PR. 1993. Standardization versus adaptation of international marketing strategy: An empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing, 57: 1-17
Tallman SB. 1991. Strategic management models and resource-based strategies among MNEs in a host market. Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue 12: 69-82
Tan D, Mahoney JT. 2003. Explaining the utilization of managerial expatriates from the perspective of resource-based, agency, an transaction cost theories. Advances in
International Management, 15: 179-205
Tarique I, Schuler R, Gong Y. 2006. A model of multinational enterprise subsidiary staffing composition. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2: 207-224
Taylor S, Beechler S, Napier N. 1996. Toward an integrative model of strategic international human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 21: 959-985
Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic
Management Journal, 7: 509-533
Torre de la J. 1986. Heineken NV: Organizational issues. INSEAD Case 396-008-1
Venaik S. 1999. A model of global marketing in multinational firms: An empirical investigation. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Australian Graduate School of Management
Venkatraman N. 1989. The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review, 3: 423-444
Venkatraman N., Ramanujam V. 1986. Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 4: 801-814 Werner S. 2002. Recent developments in international management research: A review of 20 top
management journals. Journal of Management, 3: 277-305
Wernerfelt B. 1984. A resource-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5: 171-180
Wright PM, McMahan GC, McWilliams A. 1994. Human resources and sustained competitive advantage: A resource-based perspective. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 2: 301-326
Zou S, Cavusgil ST. 2002. The GMS: A broad conceptualization of global marketing strategy and its effect on firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 66: 40-56
