行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫 成果報告
國際企業策略、結構與文化之研究：綜合的觀點(第 3 年)
研究成果報告(完整版)
計 畫 類 別 ： 個別型 計 畫 編 號 ： NSC 98-2410-H-151-014-MY3 執 行 期 間 ： 100 年 08 月 01 日至 101 年 07 月 31 日 執 行 單 位 ： 國立高雄應用科技大學國際企業系 計 畫 主 持 人 ： 林亮宏 計畫參與人員： 碩士級-專任助理人員：林瑋欣 報 告 附 件 ： 出席國際會議研究心得報告及發表論文 公 開 資 訊 ： 本計畫可公開查詢中 華 民 國 101 年 10 月 27 日
中 文 摘 要 ： 國際企業、策略與組織等研究議題的結合在全球化的企業環 境中尤顯重要。策略與結構的適當匹配，向來被學界認可會 對企業績效產生正向影響。然而，觀諸二十年來的國際企業 實證研究，顯示其效果並不明顯。其原因可能有二：（一） 國際企業策略與結構近年已產生重大變化，舊模型無法適切 描述目前現況；（二）國際企業內部管理與外部環境均為複 雜，之前「策略－結構－績效」模型過於簡單，對企業績效 解釋力不足。針對這兩大問題，本研究擬增加國際企業「文 化」構面，以策略、結構與文化的綜合觀點（Synthesis）來 解釋三者匹配對績效的影響；另外本研究認為過去理論已顯 過時（例如，Stopford & Wells (1972) 的 pure
structures 太過簡單，無法描述現今國際企業結構趨於複雜 混合之現況；Cox (1991) 的 multicultural MNCs 觀點亦太 過武斷，無法解釋所有文化現象），故有必要採用新的模式 進行研究。 本研究以 March (1991) exploration-exploitation 觀點為 研究主軸，嘗試建立國際企業策略－結構－文化之綜合模 型，以解釋企業生存發展情形。計畫分為兩個子研究：Study 1 從組織學習角度切入，輔以賽局理論之動態觀點，探討不 同 exploration-exploitation trade-off 對國際企業策略 之影響；Study 2 繼續探討前述 trade-off 對結構與文化之 影響，並進一步探討國際企業「策略－結構」與「策略－文 化」匹配問題，最後彙整成整體模型。研究所需的實證資料 來源有二：台灣 MNCs 資料由訪談與問卷取得；國際 MNCs 資 料則由 International case survey method 取得。本研究 預期可將完成之質化量化資料，提供後續學界及企業界參 考。另國際企業策略、結構與文化綜合觀點之建立，對於企 業全球佈局與海外擴張等相關行動，將提供理論與實務上的 重要建議。 中文關鍵詞： 國際企業策略、組織結構、組織文化、探索、盡用、賽局理 論、國際個案檢視法 英 文 摘 要 ： 英文關鍵詞：
目 錄
中文摘要... II 英文摘要... III 前言... 1 文獻探討... 4 研究方法... 14 結果... 19 討論與結論... 19 參考文獻... 21摘要
國際企業、策略與組織等研究議題的結合在全球化的企業環境中尤顯重要。 策略與結構的適當匹配，向來被學界認可會對企業績效產生正向影響。然而，觀 諸二十年來的國際企業實證研究，顯示其效果並不明顯。其原因可能有二：（一） 國際企業策略與結構近年已產生重大變化，舊模型無法適切描述目前現況；（二） 國際企業內部管理與外部環境均為複雜，之前「策略－結構－績效」模型過於簡 單，對企業績效解釋力不足。針對這兩大問題，本研究擬增加國際企業「文化」 構面，以策略、結構與文化的綜合觀點（Synthesis）來解釋三者匹配對績效的影 響；另外本研究認為過去理論已顯過時（例如，Stopford & Wells (1972) 的 pure structures 太過簡單，無法描述現今國際企業結構趨於複雜混合之現況； Cox (1991) 的 multicultural MNCs 觀點亦太過武斷，無法解釋所有文化現象），故有 必要採用新的模式進行研究。 本研究以 March (1991) exploration-exploitation 觀點為研究主軸，嘗試建立 國際企業策略－結構－文化之綜合模型，以解釋企業生存發展情形。計畫分為兩 個子研究：Study 1 從組織學習角度切入，輔以賽局理論之動態觀點，探討不同 exploration-exploitation trade-off 對國際企業策略之影響；Study 2 繼續探討前述 trade-off 對結構與文化之影響，並進一步探討國際企業「策略－結構」與「策略 －文化」匹配問題，最後彙整成整體模型。研究所需的實證資料來源有二：台灣 MNCs 資料由訪談與問卷取得；國際 MNCs 資料則由 International case survey method 取得。本研究預期可將完成之質化量化資料，提供後續學界及企業界參 考。另國際企業策略、結構與文化綜合觀點之建立，對於企業全球佈局與海外擴 張等相關行動，將提供理論與實務上的重要建議。關鍵字：國際企業策略、組織結構、組織文化、探索、盡用、賽局理論、國際個 案檢視法
Abstract
The integration of international business, strategy and organization is especially important in the global corporate environment. Even though an appropriate fit between strategy and structure has long been considered to have a positive effect on corporate performance, its effect is not fully supported by the empirical studies in the past 20 years, which may derive from two reasons. One reason is that recent strategy and structure of international business has changed significantly. The old model therefore cannot give an appropriate description of current situation. The other is that the internal management and external environment are both complicated. The previous “strategy-structure-performance” model is somehow oversimplified and consequently loses its explanatory power for corporate performance. In light of these two issues, this study further introduces the construct of culture and explains the effect of strategy-structure-culture synthesis on performance. As the previous theory seems out of date, e.g., Stopford & Wells’ (1972) pure structures are too simple to describe complicated and mixed condition of international corporate structures nowadays; Cox’s (1991) pure structures are too arbitrary to appropriately explain each cultural phenomenon. A new model is therefore required for this study.
From the perspective of exploration-exploitation by March (1991), this study attempts to establish a strategy-structure-culture model to explain companies’ development for survival. Moreover, this study is consisted of two sub-studies. Study 1, from the perspective of organizational learning along with the dynamic perspective of Game Theory, discusses the effect of different exploration-exploitation trade-offs on strategy of international business. Study 2 discusses the effect of above-mentioned trade-offs on structure and culture. A further investigation concerning problems of “strategy-structure” and “strategy-culture” fits will also be made to establish the final “strategy-structure-culture” model. Data used in this empirical study can be divided into two parts: Taiwan MNCs through interviews and questionnaires and International MNCs through international case survey method. Findings of this study can be provided for both academic and business fields for reference. Additionally, the establishment of international business strategy-structure-culture synthesis has significant theoretical and practical implications for companies’ global deployment and overseas expansion.
Keywords: International business strategy; Organizational structure; Organizational culture; Exploration; Exploitation; Game Theory; International case survey method
國際企業策略、結構與文化之研究：綜合的觀點（III）
本研究計畫第三年主要完成二項工作，包含（一）探討前述第一年與第二年 所推論之國際企業「策略－結構－文化」匹配（match）問題，提出可以實際檢
驗之假設（Hypotheses），（二）收集國際企業樣本，並完成三項交互作用之假設
檢 定 ， 分 別 探 討 國 際 企 業 母 公 司 與 子 公 司 interdependence 與 M-form 組 織 (Hypotheses 1a, 1b)，國際企業local responsiveness與M-form組織（Hypotheses 2a, 2b），國際企業interdependence與acculturation（Hypothesis 3），國際企業local responsiveness與acculturation（Hypothesis 4）之匹配度對子公司績效之影響。實 證結果顯示：Hypothesis 1不成立，Hypothesis 2部分成立，Hypothesis 3與4皆成 立。
INTRODUCTION
As strategies of multinational corporations (MNCs) evolve, it is increasing important to explore strategy-structure fits for understanding the relationship between strategy and structure in MNCs. The main advantages for such fits include a clear specification of when a designated structure is suitable and how the goodness of fit affects firm performance. Over the past two decades, however, empirical research has not been able to provide a consistent conclusion about the impact of strategy-structure fit on MNCs performance (Habib & Victor, 1991; Wolf & Egelhoff, 2002). The reasons might include (1) substantial change has occurred in both MNC strategy and organizational design, and (2) past strategy-structure-performance research only focused on bivariate models even though the relationships in MNCs are more complex and involve multiple contingencies (Wasserman, 2008). For the first problem, this study considers strategy or structure alone cannot facilitate superior performance, only proper strategy-structure fit in the international context can enhance MNC performance. For the second problem, culture is taken into account owing to its great impact on strategy and structure. This study attempts to extend structural and cultural fits in international strategy theory to better reflect their implications on MNC performance.
The population-ecology perspective provides a general logic for understanding the relationship between organizational design and the contextual factors of an organization’s environment (Egelhoff, 1982; Hannan & Freeman, 1987). The perspective suggests that the connection can be described as the goodness of fit relationship, in which good fit means that a specific structure is appropriate to exploiting the resource of its environment. If strategy reflects the most critical elements in the environment, an organization that fails to structure properly to fit its strategy will loses its competitive advantages. Chandler’s (1962) study on the
relationship between organizational structure and diversification strategy was the first empirical work to relate structure to strategy. He argued that changes in diversification strategy require changes in organizational structure. Rumelt (1974) extended Chandler’s (1962) argument to explore performance implications and demonstrated that a certain strategy needs to be supported by a certain structure. He argued that the diversification strategy-structure fit affects firm performance and found that the related diversification-divisional structure match attained the best economic performance.
Following studies of Chandler (1962) and Rumelt (1974), international management researchers began to explore strategy and structure of MNCs. In MNC strategy studies, diversification strategy was still the major concern during 1970s-1990s. The dimensions of product diversity and international market diversity were identified to capture MNC strategy in terms of products and markets (e.g., Buckley, 2009; Daniels, Pitts, & Tretter, 1984; Egelhoff, 1988; Habib & Victor, 1991; Lemak & Bracker, 1988; Stopford & Wells, 1972). Both dimensions were considered to affect MNC performance. In studies on MNC structure, ‘pure’ structural types were emphasized in this era. Distinguished by the top management role and the way overseas operations report to headquarters, MNC structures were classified into several main types: worldwide functional, international division, worldwide product divisions, worldwide area structure, and matrix/mixed (e.g., Daniels, Pitts, & Tretter, 1985; Egelhoff, 1982; Habib & Victor, 1991; Stopford & Wells, 1972). Of these, the Stopford and Wells work was the most comprehensive, and it also developed the association between strategy and structure of MNCs. Connecting strategic dimensions of market and product diversifications and the pure international structural types, they argued that low relative size of foreign sales and low degree of foreign product diversity are associated with an international division. Low foreign sales and high product diversity are associated with a worldwide product division. High foreign sales and low foreign product diversity are associated with a worldwide area structure. Conditions of both high are associated with a matrix or mixed structure. Later studies have confirmed and extended the Stopford and Wells’ (1972) model by identifying new elements of strategies and structural types of MNCs (e.g., Daniels et al., 1984, 1985; Egelhoff, 1988; Wolf & Egelhoff, 2002).
Strategy-structure-performance model suggests that rather than seeing strategy or structure alone as having crucial effects on performance, it is the linkage between them that is important. In the context of international business, however, the model has been plagued by two challenges. First, past strategy-structure fit studies have used narrow definitions of strategy and structure (Wasserman, 2008) even though
substantial change has occurred in both international strategy and structure during these two decades. In MNC strategy dimensions, the integration-responsiveness (IR) framework (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989, 2000) has gained the most attention to analyze environmental pressures for global integration and local responsiveness. In MNC structure dimensions, ‘pure’ structural type is no longer valid since structures of large MNCs are almost always mixed (Shenkar & Luo, 2004) and 60% of them use a type of structure not directly addressed by traditional strategy-structure theories (Wolf & Egelhoff, 2002). In contrast with pure structures, multidivisional structure (M-form) has become the dominant framework for organizing globally diversified corporations on the basis of transaction and information processing efficiency (Chandler, 1962, 1998; Hill, Hitt, & Hoskisson, 1992; Williamson, 1975, 1985). Substantial research exists on several streams of M-form (e.g., Galunic & Eisenhardt, 1994, 1996; Harrison, Hitt, Hoskisson, & Ireland, 2001; Ramanujam & Varadarajan, 1989). ‘Corporate strategy and structure fit’ focuses on diversification and which specific organizational form fits corporate strategy. ‘SBU strategy and structure fit’ focuses on the fit between strategy and structure in SBUs. ‘Intracorporate fit’ emphasized on M-form and the interrelationship between corporate and SBU levels. ‘Intracorporate networks’ focuses on the horizontal connections among SBUs according to the need for interdependence and integration. Large multidivisional firms are usually multinationals. These M-form research streams provide insights for implementing international strategy. To broaden structure of international organizations, the M-form paradigm is discussed in the present study.
Second, past strategy-structure-performance research mainly focused on bivariate models even though the relationships in MNCs are more complex and involve multiple contingencies (Wasserman, 2008). Thus, the configurational view of strategy (Galunic & Eisenhardt, 1994; Miller, 1986, 1996) is needed to broaden research focus on how organizational characteristics fit international strategy. Configuration is defined as “the degree to which an organization’s elements are orchestrated and connected by a single theme” (Miller, 1996: 509). Configuration is a far greater source of competitive advantage than strategy itself because it reflects different multivariate relationships among elements of strategy, structure, process, and culture (Miller & Chen, 1996). The greater range of elements, the more comprehensive the configuration. Based on M-form paradigm and I-R framework, the present study attempts to clarify structural and cultural fits in different MNC strategies from a perspective of organizational learning. Control process and reward system will also be discussed.
INTERNATIONAL STRATEGY
There is considerable variation in the typology of international strategy. The perspective of global verses federal strategy exhibits a good example. Global strategy is considered as the pursuit of standardization, delivering similar product worldwide, and managing global cash flows (Ghoshal, 1987; Levitt, 1983). Federal firms are considered to be locally responsive with respect to products and globally integrated with respect to manufacturing processes (Prahalad & Doz, 1987). Classifying MNCs as either global or federal is not appropriate because this typology hides variation among firms of the same strategy, and ignores similarities among firms of different strategies (Devinney, Midgley, & Venaik, 2000). Following Dunning’s (1981) eclectic OLI (ownership, location, and internalization) paradigm, Takeuchi and Porter (1986) analyzed the internationalization of value chain activities and put their emphasis on three key issues: (1) the configuration of activities including whether the activities should be distributed to headquarters or subsidiaries; (2) the coordination of activities including whether activities should be standardized or adapted in each nation; (3) the linkage of activities including how these activities are linked across functions.
In studying international strategy in MNCs, the integration-responsiveness (IR) framework (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989, 2000; Prahalad & Doz, 1987) was widely used to analyze environmental pressures for global integration and local responsiveness. Pressure for local responsiveness arises because an MNC must respond to contingencies that differ dramatically among the environments in which it operates, including particular customer tastes, special government regulation, and different resource characteristic. Pressure for global integration arises from organization’s opportunities to exploit commonalities across nations, including the integration of similar activities in order to reach production efficiency and economies of scale. For MNCs facing intense pressure for local responsiveness, managers should adjust practices in various subsidiaries to suit distinctive demand in each market. Thus, these firms must development worldwide adaptability to manage diverse market-specific risk and opportunity. For MNCs facing intense pressure for global integration, managers should seek for economic efficiency and cost fertilization within worldwide networks and reducing redundancy. Although a global competitive MNC must seek global scale efficiency and multinational flexibility simultaneously (Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1988), the degree of integration or responsiveness is a firm-specific issue depending upon firm’s contextual contingencies and learning ability (Luo, 2001). The diversity of the local markets presents MNCs with unique learning opportunities.
According to I-R framework, numerous international strategies for MNCs were explored such as polycentric, geocentric, ethnocentric, international, global, and
transaction. Among them, the three-fold typology of global, multidomestic, and transnational strategies are most popular in the discussion of international strategy and organization management. Using discriminating variables including environment, corporate/subsidiary strategy, control mechanism, and human resource management, Harzing (2000) empirically clustered MNCs into three strategic groups: (1) Global MNCs operate in industries with relatively standardized customer demand that make realizing economies of scale important. In I-R framework, global firms face low pressure for local responsiveness and high pressure for global integration. (2) Multidomestic MNCs are the reverse of global MNCs. Organization’s products and services are differentiated to meet various local demands, and policies and actions are differentiated to adapt to local markets. In I-R framework, multidomestic firms face high pressure for local responsiveness and low pressure for global integration. (3) Transnational MNCs combines characteristics of both global and multidomestic firms by simultaneously respond to conflicting strategic needs of global efficiency and national adaptation. In I-R framework, global firms face high pressures for both local responsiveness and global integration.
STRATEGY-STRUCTURE FIT IN MNCs
To differ from Stopford and Wells (1972) ‘pure’ structure argument, this study adopts the M-form (multidivisional) and CM-form (centralized multidivisional) as basic forms for achieving international strategies. For large corporations that deal with multiple products in various markets, Williamson (1975, 1985) proposed that the M-form is superior to functional (U-form) and holding company (H-form) structures. Williamson (1975: 134) also found that large diverse U-form firms experience efficiency reduction due to the loss of internal control, whereas H-form firms do not provide appropriate control necessary for capital allocation. Based on Williamson (1985) and Hill et al. (1992), an M-form firm is multidivisional with decentralized operational control, centralized strategic control, and centralized financial control and emphasizes profit criteria and resources allocation between divisions (Hill, 1988). M-form centers must design adequate reward and control systems to supervise divisional performance, and must reallocate organizational resources to the most promising and expanding divisions. Conversely, the CM-form centers are closely involved in division operational activities. Therefore divisional autonomy is constrained by business-level strategies and operational decisions determined in the headquarters. To ensure synergies in implementation, elegant integration mechanisms are necessary for inter-divisional coordination.
Following Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989) and Doz and Prahalad (1991), global MNCs operate in industries with standardized demands the make economies of scale
important. The key strategic requirement for these firms is to produce products in a cost-efficient manner since price competition is crucial (Harzing, 2000). Global MNCs therefore integrate and rationalize their subunits to realize production efficiency. Subsidiaries are not supposed to be actively local responsive because they are very dependent on headquarters and other subsidiaries. Focusing on reducing cost through improving efficiency of the existing products, exploitation is crucial to implement global strategy. As MNCs learn to enhance efficiency through incremental improvements and variation reduction in routines, their linkage between routines and exploitation in existing activities is tight (Levitt & March, 1988). So structure of global forms should be centralized and globally scaled, and the major subsidiary role is to implement headquarters strategy. That is, to fulfill roles as “pipelines” of products and strategies (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 2000).
A global MNC attempts to increase value by sharing resources and knowledge among headquarters and subsidiaries. To achieve economic synergy, headquarters must make operating decisions and enhance vertical coordination. Therefore, an integration mechanism and functional experts are useful to coordinate knowledge and resource transfer. Through horizontal coordination, subsidiaries transfer knowledge, share resources, and invest in co-specialized or complementary investments. Such coordination allows for exploitative activities in vertical or related fields. Effective coordination and integration is rarely achieved without proper structural arrangements to induce cooperation among subsidiaries (Poppo, 2003). The CM-form is considered cooperative (Hill et al., 1992) because the interdependent subunits in such firms must be tightly coupled (Hill & Hoskisson 1987). Coordination problems are likely to happen because internal trading subsidiaries must contribute to corporate missions, but are likely to have conflicting objectives. Notably, performance ambiguities occur when subsidiaries lose their autonomy of operating decisions. To overcome this problem, headquarters should deemphasize objective measures of subsidiary performance (e.g., rate of return) and emphasize subjective criteria (e.g., innovativeness). Compensation for subsidiary managers can be linked to overall organizational performance rather than divisional performance (Hoskisson, Hill, & Kim, 1993). Another alternative for inducing cooperation among subsidiaries is to centralize core function, such as R&D and marketing. Child (1984) argued that centralization in the headquarters and interdependencies between divisions encourage corporate managers to preserve control over divisional operations and ensure sufficient coordination. Hoskisson et al. (1993) also observed that interdivisional sharing of resources and technologies was typically achieved via centralization. Thus, high degree of centralized control over operational and strategic decision is necessary in global MNCs. Thus, a CM-form structure is proper for MNCs pursuing a global
strategy.
Hypothesis 1a: The interaction between MNC headquarter-subsidiary interdependence and the degree of headquarters centralization is positively related to subsidiary performance.
Hypothesis 1b: The interaction between MNC headquarter-subsidiary interdependence and the degree of interdivisional integration is positively related to post-acquisition performance.
In some respects multidomestic strategy is the reverse of global strategy (Harzing, 2000). Following Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989) and Doz and Prahalad (1991), the main strategic orientation of multidomestic MNCs is to respond to local demands. Products and services are differentiated to meet national differences, and policies are characterized to conform to governmental regulations and local business practices. Since products are expected to be actively adapted to differences in national preference, proportion of products sold by subsidiaries is relatively large. Both modification of the existing products and the development of new products (NPD) are necessary for the adaptation to local circumstances. Such market-oriented NPD is exploratory in two ways: First, managers might find opportunities to creatively redeploy firm’s current distinctive competences to develop new products in new industries. Second, managers might find new distinctive competences to develop new products in the existing industry. Subsidiaries of multidomestic MNCs adapt a large percentage of marketing to local circumstances because they make their products and services more appealing to a variety of consumers. Therefore a multidomestic MNC acts as a loosely coupled federation of independent national divisions. Subsidiaries are relatively independent from both headquarters and other subsidiaries since their major ties are with local demands. So structure of multidomestic firms should be decentralized with a low flow of products people, and information among subsidiaries (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 2000).
A firm implementing multidomestic strategy focuses on local responsiveness. Low inter-divisional integration and coordination is necessary to realize this strategy owing to the encouragement of the fast adaptation of local market needs. Excessive linkage is not necessary because the main concern is the autonomy of subsidiaries. This also implies a low level of performance ambiguity ad a result of lacking interdependence. To achieve this strategy, a decentralized multidivisional (M-form) structure is required for implementing local consumer satisfaction (Williamson, 1975) because operating and subsidiary decisions are left to local managers. Headquarter managers monitor the performance of each subsidiaries and intervene only when necessary because these subunits have minimal need for coordination. Therefore,
MNC corporate manages control foreign operations mainly by output controls and the management by exception. Such a decentralized multidivisional structure is associated with lower bureaucratic costs because this fit is based on poor interdependence, where each subsidiary is a self-contained unit (Jones & Hill, 1988). To achieve this strategy-structure fit, headquarters should emphasize objective measures of subsidiary performance (e.g., rate of return) and the compensation for subsidiary managers can be linked to their own subsidiary performance (Hoskisson et al., 1993). An M-form structure facilitates local responsiveness because responsibilities of product, marketing and business strategies are decentralized to cope with the local conditions. This also encourages independent subsidiaries into highly autonomous entities with separated business practices and processes. As a result, the need for common organizational culture is low. Thus, an M-form structure is proper for MNCs pursuing a multidomestic strategy.
Hypothesis 2a: The interaction between MNC’s local responsiveness and the degree of headquarters centralization is negatively related to subsidiary performance.
Hypothesis 2b: The interaction between MNC’s local responsiveness and the degree of interdivisional integration is negatively related to subsidiary performance.
STRATEGY-CULTURE FIT IN MNCs
Strong cultures were proposed for MNC scholars owing to the potential benefit that managers and employees can share consistent values, norms, and the way work is performed (Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1997). In such a culture, new managers and employees adopt these values and norms quickly, and they tend to leave if they do not fit in with this strong culture. However, strong does not necessarily mean good. A strong culture that leads to superior performance in the home country may not be easy to impose on other foreign subsidiaries. As to MNCs that quickly expand the global market by acquiring established enterprises, there exist two import problems: how to change the existing cultures of the acquired subsidiaries, and how to introduce a new culture that is incompatible to the members in the subsidiaries (Hill, 2006). Just as international strategies differ in many ways, the underlying culture to support different strategies differs from company to company. Lei, Slocum and Slater (1990) classified MNC cultures into clan-based and market-based cultures. “Clan” describes cultures that embody a detailed socialization process, strong norms, and a powerful set of internalized controls. “Market” describes those in which organizations treat their managers no differently than they would treat the external markets. Lei et al. (1990) argued that a clan culture fits a global strategy because it facilitates interdivisional long-term commitments and a sense of headquarters controls that work well under conditions of reciprocal interdependence
(Thompson, 1967) and economies of scale arguments. A market culture is suitable for multidomestic firms because it help guide domestic managers in designing marketing and production programs to match local conditions in distant countries.
Acculturation is crucial in MNC strategy-culture fit analysis because it provides methods by which cultural difference between dominant culture (headquarters) and other minority culture groups (subsidiaries) are resolved or treated (Cox, 1991). Acculturation is defined as changes induced in systems resulting from the diffusion of cultural elements in both directions (Berry, 1980). It may occur at both individual and group levels according to three steps: contact, conflict and adaptation (Berry, 1983). Although this process involves a balanced two-way flow, members of the dominant culture try to change members of the minority culture. Based on studies in mergers and acquisitions (M&As) cross-cultural acculturation processes (Berry, 1983; Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1986, 1988), four classical modes were defined according to the degree to which members of the acquired firms value preservation of their own culture and the degree to which members of the acquired firms are attracted to the culture of the acquiring firm. These basic acculturative forms are integration, assimilation, separation, and deculturation (see Fig. 1). Nahavandi and Malekzadeh (1986, 1988) modified Berry’s basic acculturative modes and proposed the preferred modes regarding M&A diversification and the acquirer’s multiculturalism (see Fig. 2). Multiculturalism is defined as “the degree to which an organization values cultural diversity and is willing to tolerate and encourage it” (Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1988: 83). M&A strategy is classified into related and unrelated M&As. In grids of Figures 1 and 2, Integration occurs when the members of the acquired firms wish to preserve their culture, identity, autonomy, and independence. Assimilation is a unilateral process through which employees of acquired firms abandon their own culture, and adopts that of the acquiring firm. Separation involves the acquired firm attempting to preserve its own culture and practices and refusing to become assimilated with the acquirer. Deculturation involves the loss of cultural contact between the cultures of the two sides.
FIGURE 1
Acquired Firm’s Modes of Acculturation
Source: Berry (1983)
Figure 2
Acquirer’s Mode of Acculturation
Source: Nahavandi & Malekzadeh (1988)
This study, taking both acquiring and acquired firms into consideration, explores different modes of acculturation and tries to expand the classical modes to the acculturative process between headquarters and foreign subsidiaries in MNCs. Following the concepts of Berry (1983) and Nahavandi and Malekzadeh (1986, 1988), two determinants must be discussed in MNC acculturation: headquarters multiculturalism and subsidiary interdependence. From a perspective of diversity management, Cox (1991) classified organizations based on the extent of the diversity Integration Assimilation Separation Deculturation Integration Assimilation Separation Deculturation Very attractive Not at all attractive
Very much Not at all
Perception of the attractiveness of the acquirer
How much do members of the acquired firm value preservation of their own culture
Related
Unrelated
Multicultural Unicultural
M&A Strategy: Degree of relatedness of the target firm
initiative implementation. A monolithic organization is highly homogeneous because ethnocentrism leads to no adoption of minority-cultural norms by majority group members. A plural organization has a heterogeneous membership and will include persons from the minority group. A multicultural organization contains diversity and values norms of different cultures. If a firm simply contains several cultural groups, it is considered to be plural; if in addition, the firm values this diversity, it is considered to be multicultural (Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1988). Konopaske and Ivancevich (2004) highlight the importance of multiculturalism in MNCs because cultural diversity among organizations can lead to increased creativity due to a broad range of ideas and perspectives. These diverse ideas also lead to better problem identification and decision-making. If an MNC is unicultural and focuses on unique goals, strategies, and management practices, corporate headquarters is possible to impose its own culture to the foreign subsidiaries. If an MNC is multicultural, it is possible to consider diversity and allow the subsidiaries to retain their own cultures. The need of strong cultures or multiculturalism for MNCs probably varies with strategies of the firms.
Subsidiary interdependence indicates the extent to which subsidiaries of an MNC are dependent on each other (Harzing, 2000). Interdependence is an important element of headquarter-subsidiary government structure. A subsidiary is interdependent if this subsidiary, headquarters, and other subsidiaries all participate in an interdependent network. They all depend on each other. Conversely, a subsidiary is said to be independent if it is not at all dependent on headquarters or other subsidiaries. The independent subsidiary usually operates as a self-contained and self-sufficient company. Since the acculturative process involved a dynamic tension between forces of cultural differentiation (the side of subsidiaries) and those of organizational integration (the side of headquarters) (Elsass & Veiga, 1994), the MNC acculturation process should involve the dynamic of the subsidiary interdependence, and the headquarters multiculturalism. Figure 3 illustrates different modes of acculturation in MNCs.
Figure 3
Modes of Acculturation in MNCs
Assimilation is always a unilateral process through which employees of foreign subsidiaries abandon their own culture, and adopts that of the headquarters (Berry, 1983). This can occur if headquarters is unicultural and the subsidiaries are interdependent on headquarters and other subsidiaries (Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1988). Since unicultural headquarters emphasize conformity to unique goals and practices, it is likely to impose headquarters culture in the home country on the foreign subsidiaries, especially when a subsidiary is obtained from international M&A. The main concern for such MNCs is control. MNCs undertaking direct investment, either by greenfield investment or M&As, is seen as seeking control over its subsidiaries in a bid to enhance corporate performance, with monitoring and coordination all aimed at the purpose – to maintain control and dominance over resources and operations in foreign locations (Shenkar, Luo, & Yeheskel, 2008). The perspectives of subsidiaries are seldom taken into account. Thus subsidiary employees perceive their own culture as dysfunctional and impeding corporate performance. High degree of subsidiary interdependence also leads to both cultural and structural assimilation. However, separation may occur if some members of the acquired subsidiary are unwilling to relinquish their own culture and system. To implement assimilation is easier if a subsidiary is established by greenfield investment.
Separation occurs if members in the foreign subsidiaries attempt to preserve their own culture and refuse to become assimilated with the headquarters (Berry, 1983). If permitted by headquarter, the subsidiaries will function as a separate division under the financial control of the parent company. Therefore, culture exchange between the two entities will be minimal. This may occur if headquarters is multicultural and the subsidiaries are independent on headquarters and other subsidiaries (Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1988). Control and coordination is not very Integration Assimilation Separation Deculturation Interdependence Independence Multicultural Unicultural Subsidiary side: Subsidiary degree of interdependence
important in this situation. However, the separation mode of acculturation is likely to cause cultural collision (Cartwright & Cooper, 1994).
Integration occurs when the members of the subsidiaries wish to preserve part of their culture, and simultaneously adopt part of headquarters culture. Berry (1983) argued that although integration involves interaction and adaptation between two cultures, it does not involve reduction of cultural identity by either. As a result, foreign subsidiary members wish to maintain some of their basic assumptions and practice to make them unique. Simultaneously, they wish to be integrated into the MNC. Integration will occur if headquarters is multicultural and the subsidiaries are interdependent on headquarters and other subsidiaries (Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1988). Headquarters control is important in this situation. However, subsidiary autonomy is also allowed to cope with local environment. Overall, integration leads to a degree of change on both sides of cultural groups (Cartwright & Cooper, 1993).
Deculturation involves the loss of cultural contact between headquarters and subsidiaries. Deculturation may occur if subsidiary members do not wish to assimilate into headquarters culture and they do no depend much on the headquarters. Consequently, employees and managers experience confusion and alienation if this situation occurs.
An MNC adopting global integration strategy promotes a perspective of global operations and explicitly organize interdependent products and processes in inter- and intraorganizational networks. These interdependences often include the achievement of specialization and economies of scale in functional activities while avoiding duplication in subsidiaries, the ensuring of standardized operations throughout the MNC, and the tight coordination activities across functions and borders. Thus, an MNC often increase control through centralization of decision making to enhance cost efficiency, and usually rationalize global manufacturing activities by standardizing products and processes across local markets. As organizations learn to enhance efficiency through incremental improvements and variation reduction in routines, their linkage between routines and exploitation in existing activities is tight (Garvin, 1998; Levitt & March, 1988). In such exploitative subsidiaries, maximizing efficiency and control exhibits an ideal logic for the tight coordination associated with corporate goals. Thus these exploitation units should be more centralized with tight cultures and processes (Benner & Tushman, 2003). MNCs adopt a global strategy to realize synergistic economics and enhance performance based on shared value and utilize joint inputs or activities. To realize synergistic economics, headquarters and foreign subsidiaries should first establish effective linkages and a similar culture. Second, efficient information flow must be made among headquarters and subsidiaries
(Chatterjee, 1986). Thus, headquarters in a global MNC wishes to be unicultural and impose its own culture on subsidiaries of different functional activities. This imposition is typically made because headquarters possesses resources and technological advantages, and pressures subsidiaries to adopt its culture and management systems. Thus, an assimilation mode of acculturation is proper for MNCs pursuing a global strategy.
Hypothesis 3: The interaction between MNC headquarter-subsidiary interdependence and the degree of MNC acculturation is positively related to subsidiary performance.
While exploitation involves the search for improvement in existing technologies within the organization with intent to enhance product performance, quality and efficiency in the current market, exploration involves the search for new technologies to develop new products/services in new markets (Benner & Tushman, 2002). A multidomestic subsidiary is exploratory in two ways: First, local managers might find opportunities to creatively redeploy firm’s current distinctive competences to develop new products in new industries. Second, managers might find new distinctive competences to develop new products in the existing industry. Adaptability and exploration in new markets are crucial because local preference, local marketing and other local circumstances might force multidomestic MNCs to promptly modify their products. Firms pursuing this strategy optimize allocation of capital and resources and explore new products in new markets or industries (Jones & Hill, 1988). Since these exploratory units have minimal need of coordination and central control, cultures and process in the foreign subsidiaries can be allowed to separate from the headquarters in a bid to enhance local responsiveness. In general, exploratory subsidiaries should be decentralized with loose cultures and processes (Benner & Tushman, 2003) because culture in MNCs pursuing a multidomestic strategy should stress values of autonomy and independency involving subsidiaries with weak connections. Thus, multidomestic headquarters tend to be multicultural and permit their subsidiaries to maintain autonomous operations and cultural separation (Cartwright & Cooper, 1994).
Hypothesis 4: The interaction between MNC’s local responsiveness and the degree of MNC acculturation is negatively related to subsidiary performance.
METHODS Data
I collect data at financial and organizational levels of subsidiaries of Fortune top 500 MNCs in Taiwan. Corporate financial data are collected from the databases in Securities and Futures Commission, Ministry of Finance, Taiwan. Questionnaires that
contain descriptions of MNC organizational structure and acculturation are distributed to general managers of these Taiwanese subsidiaries and 96 are returned. The reason why questionnaires are distributed to subsidiary managers is that only subsidiary managers actually know how intense the subsidiary is integrated with the headquarters
Measures
Subsidiary performance. Strategic management studies on diversification and firm performance have sought to refine the measures of performance. For examining the diversification-performance relationship, Palich, Cardinal and Miller (2000) investigate meta-analytic data from 55 previously published studies. In their regression work, the set of correlations based on accounting performance measures are analyzed separately from the set of correlations based on market measures. The results show that market-based performance measures are more relevant to diversification and acquisition research since they capture expectations of future returns, as opposed to past outcomes reflected in accounting-based measures. The primary dependent variable is market value, calculated as log (price of outstanding common shares × number of shares + book value of preferred stock + book value of debt) (Miller, 2006). The adoption of market value is also common in finance studies on diversification, which suggest that using market-based measures of performance allows better controls of potential endogeneity than using accounting-based measures (Mansi & Reeb, 2002).
Organizational structure in MNC. Two variables can be used to characterize CM-form firms: headquarters centralization and interdivisional integration (Hill et al., 1992). An organization is regarded as CM-form when degrees of centralization and integration are both high. According to centralization dimension developed by Ghoshal and Nohria (1989: 336), headquarters centralization in this study is measured by divisional managers estimating the degree to which head office influences on divisional (i) introduction of new products, (ii) changes in product design, (iii) changes in manufacturing processes, and (iv) career development plans for senior managers (five-point scale, Cronbach- = 0.85). In the dimension of integration, interdivisional integration, containing operational integration and strategic integration (Burgelman & Doz, 2001), is measured by divisional managers estimating the degree of interdivisional activities in (i) joint procurement, (ii) sharing a sales force, (iii) sharing production information, (iv) sharing best practices in various administrative processes and (v) involving the combination of resources from different divisions to create new business (five-point scale, Cronbach- = 0.87).
subsidiary managers estimating the degree in which MNC headquarters and subsidiary is interdependent in term of subsidiary input and outcome (Harzing, 2000), such as (i) the percentage of yearly purchase is from headquarters, (ii) the percentage of yearly purchase is from other subsidiaries, (iii) the percentage of yearly output is from headquarters, (iv) the percentage of yearly output is from other subsidiaries (five-point scale, Cronbach- = 0.82).
MNC’s local responsiveness. This study adopts Harzing’s (2000) measures of subsidiary managers estimating the degree in which (i) the percentage of R&D incorporated into products of this subsidiary is performed by this subsidiary, (ii) the percentage of manufacturing of products in this subsidiary is performed by this subsidiary, (iii) the percentage of products of this subsidiary is created or substantially modified for this market, (iv) the percentage of marketing for products of this subsidiary is consciously adapted to local circumstances (five-point scale, Cronbach- = 0.85).
Acculturation. Acculturation is a cultural process through which employees of the target firm are acculturated to the acquirer’s belief, assumptions, and values (Larsson & Lubatkin, 2001). Based on Håkanson (1995) and Larsson and Lubatkin (2001), acculturation is measured by the acquired firm’s managers concerning the level of (i) jointly shared meanings fostering cooperation between jointing firms, (ii) a joint organizational culture through activities such as cross-visit, celebrations, and other rituals, and (iii) the existing culture in the acquired firm is forced to change (five-point scale, Cronbach- = 0.84).
Control variables
This study adopts four control variables: organizational age of MNC and subsidiary, national cultural distance between MNC headquarters and subsidiary, and capital structure of subsidiary (total MNC owned or joint venture with local firms)
TABLE 1 Correlation Matrix 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1. Market value 2. MNC age 0.10 3. Subsidiary age –0.04 –0.05 4. Capture structure –0.08 0.08 0.11 5. NCD –0.29** 0.00 0.21** 0.13 6. Interdependence 0.38** 0.16* –0.03 0.08 –0.13 7. Local responsiveness –0.61** 0.15 –0.07 0.01 –0.02 0.06 8. Centralization –0.28** –0.01 –0.03 –0.01 0.00 –0.10 0.01 9. Integration –0.16 0.00 0.05 –0.06 –0.01 0.01 –0.14 –0.16* 10. Attractiveness –0.14 –0.04 –0.04 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.13
TABLE 2
Regression results estimating the effects of strategic and structural fits on subsidiary performance (Market value)
Model 1 Market value Model 2 Market value Model 3 Market value Intercept 5.90 (1.39) 7.90 (1.49) 6.073 (2.221) MNC age –0.007 (0.004) –0.004 (0.005) –0.008 (0.005) Subsidiary age –0.029 (0.031) –0.020 (0.021) 0.017 (0.019) Capture structure –0.430 (1.045) –0.730 (1.145) 0.429 (1.003) NCD –0.089 (0.178) –0.081 (0.170) –0.207 (0.158) Interdependence 0.024 (0.144) –0.674 (0.371) Local responsiveness –0.734*** (0.126) 0.178 (0.362) Centralization –0.650** (0.193) 0.098 (0.523) Integration 0.123 (0.168) –0.905 (0.660) Acculturation 0.059 (0.211) 0.255 (0.606) Interdependence × Headquarters centralization (H1a) –0.217
(0.183) Interdependence × Interdivisional integration (H1b) 0.188
(0.196) Local responsiveness × Headquarters centralization (H2a) –0.286*
(0.140) Local responsiveness × Interdivisional integration (H2b) –0.016
(0.442) Interdependence × acculturation (H3) 0.201*
(0.115) Local responsiveness × acculturation (H4) –0.422**
(0.148) Adjusted R2 0.295 0.475 0.644 △R2 0.180** 0.169*** Unstandardized regression coefficients reported. Dummy variables for each year are not shown.
RESULTS
Hierarchical regressions were applied to test research hypotheses because all hypotheses advanced in the previous sections indicate the inclusion of interaction terms. To assess the problem of multicollinearity, variance inflation factors (VIFs) were calculated for each coefficient. All VIFs of all associated coefficients were in the range of 1.11–2.37, implying minor multicollinearity (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). The Dubin-Watson statistics for regression models were in the range of 2.11–2.33, also indicated that autocorrelation did not bias the parameter estimates.
Table 1 reports correlation matrix for the variables, while Table 2 contains regression results estimating the effects of structural and acculturative fits on subsidiary performance (Market value). I first estimate a respective base line model containing the control variables only (Model 1). In model 2, direct effects of strategic and organizational variables were inserted. In model 3, I inserted the interaction terms to assess the simultaneous effects of acquisition strategy and formal and informal organizational settings on subsidiary performance. The statistically significant negative interaction terms between local responsiveness and centralization (p < 0.05) supports hypothesis 2a. The statistically significant positive interaction terms between interdependence and acculturation (p < 0.05) support hypothesis 3. The statistically significant negative interaction terms between local responsiveness and acculturation (p < 0.01) support hypothesis 4. Hypotheses 1a, 1b and 2b are not supported in this study.
DISSCUSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
As global competition increases, many MNCs must face both pressures of cost reduction and local adaptability. This study explores strategy-structure fit and strategy-culture fit in MNCs from perspective of exploration-exploitation and suggests that (1) MNCs of global strategy should adopt a centralized M-form structure and an assimilation mode of acculturation for the pursuit of organizational exploitation; (2) MNCs of multidomestic strategy should adopt a decentralized M-form structure and a separation mode acculturation for the pursuit of organizational exploration.
A common corporate culture is the glue that holds exploitative and exploratory subsidiaries together in transnational MNCs. The clue in these organizations is a reliance on a widely shared culture to promote integration across borders and to encourage identification and resource sharing. The common overall culture also provides consistence and predictability among dispersedly located subsidiaries. These firms promote both local responsiveness and global integration through consistent
cultural control. Subsidiary managers aren’t second-guessed by headquarters because strategy and information flow from the bottom up. Headquarters managers should adopt a tight-loose aspect of culture because an ambidextrous organization is supported by a common vision and appropriate variations of subcultures across subsidiaries.
REFFERENCES
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. 1989. Managing across Borders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. 2000. Transnational Management: Text, Cases, and
Readings in Cross-Border Management. Boston, MA: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. 2002. Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 676–706.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. 2003. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management
Review, 2: 238–256.
Berry, J. W. 1980. Social and culture change. In H. C. Triandis, & R. W. Brishn (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology 5: 211–279. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Berry, J. W. 1983. Acculturation: A comparative analysis of alternative forms. In R. J. Samuda, & S. L. Woods (Eds.), Perspective in Immigrant and Minority
Education: 65–78. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Buckley, P. J. 2009. The impact of the global factory on economic development.
Journal of World Business, 44: 131–143.
Burgelman, R. A., & Doz, Y. L. 2001. The power of strategic integration. Sloan
Management Review, 42(3): 28–38.
Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. 1993. The role of culture compatibility in successful organizational marriage. Academy of Management Executive, 7(2): 57–70. Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. 1994. The human effects of mergers and acquisitions.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1: 47–61.
Chandler, A. D. 1962. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the
Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chatterjee, S. 1986. Types of synergy and economic value: The impact of acquisitions on merging and rival firms. Strategic Management Journal, 7: 119–140.
Child, J. 1984. Organization. A Guild to Problems and Practice. London: Harper & Row.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. 2003. Applied Multiple
Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Cox, T., Jr. 1991. The multicultural organizations. Academy of Management
Executive, 5(2): 34–46.
Daniels, J. D., Pitts, R. A., & Tretter, M. J. 1984. Strategy and structure of U.S. multinationals: An exploratory study. Academy of Management Journal, 27(2):
292–307.
Daniels, J. D., Pitts, R. A., & Tretter, M. J. 1985. Organizing for dual strategies of product diversity and international expansion. Strategic Management Journal, 6: 223–237.
Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F., & Venaik, S. 2000. The optimal performance of the global firm: Formalizing and extending the integration-responsiveness framework. Organization Science, 11(6): 674–695.
Doz, Y., & Prahalad, C. K. 1991. Managing DMNCs: A search for a new paradigm.
Strategic Management Journal, 12: 145–164.
Dunning, J. 1981. International Production and the Multinational Enterprise. London: Allen & Unwin.
Egelhoff, W. G. 1982. Strategy and structure in multinational corporations: An information-processing approach. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 435–458.
Egelhoff, W. G. 1988. Strategy and structure in multinational corporations: A revision of the Stopford and Wells model. Strategic Management Journal, 9: 1–14. Elsass, P. M, & Veiga, J. F. 1994. Acculturation in acquired organizations: A
force-field perspective. Human Relations, 47(4): 431–454.
Galunic, D. C., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1994. Renewing the strategy-structure-performance paradigm. Research Organizational Behavior, 16: 215–255.
Galunic, D. C., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1996. The evolution of intracorporate domains: Divisional charter losses in high-technology, multinational corporations.
Organization Science, 7(3): 255–282.
Garvin, D. A. 1998. The process of organization and management. Sloan
Management Review, 39(4): 33–50.
Ghoshal, S. 1987. Global strategy: An organizing framework. Strategic Management
Journal, 8: 425–440.
Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. 1988. Creation, adoption, and diffusion of innovations by subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Journal of International
Business Studies, 19: 365–388.
Ghoshal, S., & Nohria, N. 1989. Internal differentiation within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 10: 323–337.
Habib, M. M., & Victor, B. 1991. Strategy, structure, and performance of U.S. manufacturing and service MNCs: A comparative analysis. Strategic
Management Journal, 12: 589–606.
Håkanson, L. (1995). Learning through acquisitions: Management and integration of foreign R&D laboratories. International Study of Management & Organization,
25(1/2): 121–157.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. H. 1987. The ecology of organizational foundings: American labor unions, 1836-1985. American Journal of Sociology, 92: 910–943.
Harrison, J. S., Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Ireland, R. D. 2001. Resource complementarity in business combination: Extending the logic to organizational alliance. Journal of Management, 27: 679–690.
Harzing, A. W. 2000. An empirical analysis and extension of the Bartlett and Ghoshal typology of multinational companies. Journal of International Business
Studies, 31(1): 101–120.
Hill, C. W. L. 1988. Internal capital market controls and financial performance in multidivisional. Journal of Industrial Economics, 37(1): 67–83.
Hill, C. W. L. 2006. International Business: Competing in the Global Marketplace. New York: McGraw-Hill
Hill, C. W. L., Hitt, M. A. & Hoskisson, R. E. 1992. Cooperative versus competitive structures in related and unrelated diversified firms. Organization Science, 3: 501–521.
Hill, C. W. L., & Hoskisson, R. E. 1987. Strategy and structure in the multiproduct firm. Academy of Management Review, 12: 331–341.
Hoskisson, R. E., Hill, C. W. L., & Kim, H. 1993. The multidivisional structure: Organizational fossil or source of value? Journal of Management, 19: 269–298. Jones, G. R., & Hill, C. W. L. 1988 Transaction cost analysis of strategy-structure
choice. Strategic Management Journal, 9: 159–172.
Konopaske, R., & Ivancevich, J. M. 2004. Global management and organizational
behavior. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. 1992. Corporate culture and performance. New York: Free Press.
Larsson, R., & Lubatkin, M. 2001. Achieving acculturation in mergers and acquisitions: An international case survey. Human Relations, 54(12): 1573–1607.
Lei, D., Slocum, J. W., Jr., & Slater, R. W. 1990. Global strategy and reward systems: The key roles of management development and corporate culture.
Organizational Dynamics, 19(2): 27–41.
Lemak, D. J., & Bracker, J. S. 1988. A strategic contingency model of multinational corporate structure. Strategic Management Journal, 9: 521-526.
Levitt, T. 1983. The globalization of markets. Harvard Business Review, 61: 92–102. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual Review of
Luo, Y. 2001. Determinants of local responsiveness: Perspectives from foreign subsidiaries in an emerging market. Journal of Management, 27: 451–477. Mansi, S. A., & Reeb, D. M. 2002. Corporate diversification: What gets discounted.
Journal of Finance, 57: 2167–2183.
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.
Organization Science, 2: 71–87.
Miller, D. 1986. Configurations of strategy and structure: Towards a synthesis.
Strategic Management Journal, 7: 233–249.
Miller, D. 1996. Configurations revisited. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 505–512.
Miller, D., & Chen, M.-J. 1996. The simplicity of competitive repertoires: An empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 419–439.
Nahavandi, A., & Malekzadeh, A. R. 1986. The role of acculturation in the implementation of mergers. In J. A. Pearce, & R. B. Robinson (Eds.), Academy
of Management, Best Papers Proceedings: 140–144.
Nahavandi, A., & Malekzadeh, A. R. 1988. Acculturation in mergers and acquisitions.
Academy of Management Review, 13(1): 79–90.
Palich, L. E., Cardinal, L. B., & Miller, C. C. 2000. Curvilinearity in the diversification-performance relationship: An examination of over three decades of research. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 155–174.
Poppo, L. 2003. The visible hands of hierarchy within the M-form: An empirical test of corporate parenting of internal product exchanges. Journal of Management
Studies, 40(2): 403–425.
Prahalad, C. K., & Doz, Y. 1987. The Multinational Mission: Balancing Local
Demands and Global Vision. New York: Free Press.
Ramanujam, V., & Varadarajan, P. 1989. Research on corporate diversification: A synthesis. Strategic Management Journal, 10: 523–551.
Rumelt, R. P. 1974. Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shenkar, O., & Luo, Y. 2004. International Business. NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Shenkar, O., Luo, Y., & Yeheskel, O. 2008. From “distance” to “friction”: Substituting metaphors and redirecting intercultural research. Academy of Management
Review, 33(4): 905–923.
Stopford, J. M., & Wells, L. T. Jr. 1972. Managing the Multinational Enterprise. New York: Basic Books.
Thompson J. 1967. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. 1997. Winning through Innovation: A Practical
Business School Press.
Wasserman, N. 2008. Revisiting the strategy, structure, and performance paradigm: The case of venture capital. Organization Science, 19(2): 241–259.
Williamson, O. E. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust
Implication. New York: Free Press.
Williamson, O. E. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.
Wolf, J., & Egelhoff, W. G. 2002. A reexamination and extension of international strategy-structure theory. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 181–189.
國科會補助專題研究計畫項下出席國際學術會議心得報告
日期： 101 年 04 月 05 日
一、參加會議經過
3 月 30 日為報到日。本次研討會所發表的論文為 Improving Quality of Interorganizational
Collaboration: The Role of IT-enabled Structure in Large Manufacturing Firms，採用海報
的方式發表。
二、與會心得
與會期間，除了接受各方對本篇論文的批評指教與討論，也參與了各種不同議題的討
論。在本次研討會所發表的論文當中，對南韓弘益大學 Hyung Jun Ahn 副教授所發表
的“Semantic Network Analysis of Brand Image Texts”特別感興趣，並對 Semantic
Network（語意網路）有了初步的瞭解，冀望未來有機會能將此概念運用在新的研究
當中。
三、考察參觀活動(無是項活動者略)
無
四、建議
計畫編號
NSC 98－2410－H－151－014－MY3
計畫名稱
國際企業策略、結構與文化之研究：綜合的觀點出國人員
姓名
林瑋欣
服務機構
及職稱
國立高雄應用科技大學國際企業
系，國科會計畫專任助理
會議時間
101 年 3 月 30 日至
101 年 4 月 1 日
會議地點
香港
會議名稱
2012 International Conference on e-Commerce, e-Administration, e-Society,e-Education, and e-Technology
發表論文
題目
Improving Quality of Interorganizational Collaboration: The Role of IT-enabled Structure in Large Manufacturing Firms
