This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Morgan, G. Articles by Kristensen, P. H. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

The contested space of multinationals: Varieties of institutionalism, varieties of capitalism

Warwick Business School, UK, glenn.morgan{at}warwick.ac.uk

Peer Hull Kristensen

Copenhagen Business School, Denmark,phk.cbp{at}cbs.dk

The article argues that institutionalist theory applied to multinationals focuses on the issue of ‘institutional duality’, that is, that within multinationals, actors are pressured to conform to the expectations of their home context whilst also being subjected to the transfer of practices from the home context of the MNC itself. This institutional duality leads to conflicts that can be labelled as forms of ‘micro-politics’. The head office managers transfer practices, people and resources to subsidiaries in order to maintain control and achieve their objectives. Local subsidiaries have differential capacities to resist these transfers or to develop them in their own interests depending on their institutional context. The article distinguishes institutional contexts that produce ‘Boy Scout’ subsidiaries, doing what they are told and consequently allowing locally distinctive capabilities to be undermined and those that produce ‘subversive strategists’ which look to deepen their connection with the local context not the MNC itself. These processes are exacerbated by the demands of capital markets which impose performance requirements on MNCs and lead to continuous organizational restructuring. Head offices become stronger in their attempts to impose standards in all their subsidiaries. The consequences of these processes are that except for a few pockets of ‘subversive strategists’, multinationals produce subsidiary ‘clones’ with little ability to leverage the specific assets which the institutional context provides. As it is the subversive strategists that are best placed to be innovative, the problem for the MNC is how to manage this tension.

Key Words: embeddedness • institutionalism • isomorphism • multinationals • varieties of capitalism

Human Relations, Vol. 59, No. 11, 1467-1490 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0018726706072866


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Boussebaa Struggling to organize across national borders: The case of global resource management in professional service firms Human Relations, June 1, 2009; 62(6): 829 - 850. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Bouquet and J. Birkinshaw Managing Power in the Multinational Corporation: How Low-Power Actors Gain Influence Journal of Management, June 1, 2008; 34(3): 477 - 508. [Abstract] [PDF]