Dr. Andrea Daniel finished her doctorate at ESCP Europe Wirtschaftshochschule Berlin, Chair of International Management and Strategic Management (Prof. Dr. Stefan Schmid).

Vorwort der Herausgeber 6
Preface 7
Foreword 8
Preface 10
Brief Contents 11
Contents 13
List of Figures 18
List of Tables 20
1. Introduction 21
1.1 Context 21
1.2 Goals of the Study 22
1.3 Outline of the Study 23
2. Central Concepts 25
2.1 Multinational Network Corporations 25
2.1.1 General Characteristics of Multinational Corporations 25
2.1.2 Towards a Network Model of Multinational Corporations 26
2.1.3 Characteristics of Multinational Network Corporations 30
2.2 Subsidiary Roles in Multinational Network Corporations 33
2.2.1 The Subsidiary Role Concept in the International Business Literature 33
2.2.2 Subsidiary Role Typologies 36
2.2.3 Approach to Subsidiary Roles in the Present Study 40
2.2.3.1 Selection of Subsidiary Role Typologies 40
2.2.3.2 Differentiation of Subsidiary Roles According to Bartlett and Ghoshal 42
2.2.3.3 Differentiation of Subsidiary Roles According to Gupta and Govindarajan 45
2.3 Perception Gaps Concerning Subsidiary Roles 47
2.3.1 Attributes of Perception Gaps 47
2.3.1.1 The Subjective Nature of Perception 47
2.3.1.2 Perception Gaps vs. Perception Errors 48
2.3.2 Perception Gaps in the International Business Literature 50
2.3.2.1 Approaches to Perception Gaps 50
2.3.2.2 Contributions on Perception Gaps Concerning Subsidiary Roles 52
2.3.2.3 Overview of the Research Field 57
2.3.3 Approach to Perception Gaps in the Present Study 58
2.4 Headquarters-Subsidiary Confli 59
2.4.1 General Conflict Literature 59
2.4.2 Headquarters-Subsidiary Conflict in the International Business Literature 63
2.4.3 Approach to Headquarters-Subsidiary Conflict in the Present Study 66
2.4.3.1 Overview 66
2.4.3.2 Conflict Issues 67
2.5 Summary and Conclusions 72
3. Conceptual Framework 74
3.1 Open System Approach According to Katz and Kahn 74
3.1.1 Selecting a Conceptual Approach for the Present Study 74
3.1.1.1 Categories of Organizational Theories 74
3.1.1.2 System Theoretical Approaches to Organizations 78
3.1.2 Overview of the Open System Approach 80
3.1.2.1 Point of Departure 80
3.1.2.2 Characteristics of Open Systems 81
3.1.2.3 Social Organizations as Open Systems 84
3.1.3 Role Theoretical Framework 87
3.1.3.1 Overview of Role Theory 87
3.1.3.2 Role Theoretical Framework Within the Open System Approach 90
3.1.4 Conflict Model 94
3.2 Multinational Network Corporations as Open Systems 97
3.2.1 Applicability of the Open System Approach 97
3.2.1.1 Parallels Between Network Perspectives and the Open System Approach 97
3.2.1.2 Specific Demands of Multinational Network Corporations 99
3.2.1.3 Dealing with the Duality of Individuals and Organizational Units 103
3.2.2 Subsidiary Roles from a Role Theoretical Perspective 105
3.2.3 Headquarters-Subsidiary Conflict from an Open SystemPerspective 109
3.3 Research Framework 113
3.3.1 Overview 113
3.3.2 Likelihood of Perception Gaps 114
3.3.2.1 Perception Gaps Concerning the Subsidiary’s Overall Role 114
3.3.2.2 Perception Gaps Concerning the Importance of the Subsidiary’s Market 116
3.3.2.3 Perception Gaps Concerning the Subsidiary’s Capabilities 117
3.3.2.4 Perception Gaps Concerning Knowledge Flows 117
3.3.2.5 Summary 119
3.3.3 Consequences of Perception Gaps 119
3.3.3.1 Conflict as General Consequence Proposed by the Conceptual Framework 119
3.3.3.2 Perception Gaps Concerning the Importance of the Subsidiary’s Market 121
3.3.3.3 Perception Gaps Concerning the Subsidiary’s Capabilities 124
3.3.3.4 Perception Gaps Concerning Knowledge Inflow 126
3.3.3.5 Perception Gaps Concerning Knowledge Outflow 128
3.3.4 Summary 130
4. Empirical Study 131
4.1 Research Design 131
4.1.1 Rationale for a Case Study Approach 131
4.1.2 Overview of the Case Study Design 133
4.1.2.1 Unit of Analysis 133
4.1.2.2 Case Selection 134
4.1.2.3 Types of Data 136
4.1.3 Operationalization of the Conceptual Framework 137
4.2 Data Collection 138
4.2.1 Questionnaire 138
4.2.1.1 Goals 138
4.2.1.2 Procedure 139
4.2.1.3 Operationalization of the Subsidiary Role Dimensions 140
4.2.1.4 Operationalization of Headquarters-Subsidiary Conflict 144
4.2.2 Interviews 149
4.2.2.1 Goals 149
4.2.2.2 Procedure 150
4.2.2.3 Interview Guideline 151
4.2.3 Respondents 153
4.3 Data Analysis 155
4.3.1 Questionnaire 155
4.3.1.1 Overview 155
4.3.1.2 Subsidiary Role Dimensions 155
4.3.1.3 Headquarters-Subsidiary Conflict 156
4.3.2 Interviews 157
4.3.2.1 Overview 157
4.3.2.2 The Code List 159
4.3.2.3 From Individual Codes to Patterns 161
4.4 Scientific Quality Criteria 162
4.4.1 Overview 162
4.4.2 Objectivity 162
4.4.3 Reliability 163
4.4.4 Validity 164
5. Empirical Findings 167
5.1 Introduction 167
5.1.1 The Two Companies 167
5.1.1.1 Company A, the Strategic Business Unit Autocomp and Autocomp’s Subsidiaries 167
5.1.1.2 Company B, the Division Construc and Construc’s Subsidiaries 169
5.1.2 Comments on the Subsidiary Role Dimensions 170
5.1.3 Identifying Perception Gaps 172
5.1.3.1 Perception Gaps vs. Artefacts 172
5.1.3.2 Individual Differences 173
5.1.3.3 Role Behaviour vs. Role Expectations 173
5.1.4 Chapter Overview 174
5.2 The Cases 175
5.2.1 Overview 175
5.2.2 Hungary 176
5.2.2.1 Perceptions of the Role Dimensions 176
5.2.2.2 Implications for the Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationship130 181
5.2.2.3 Interpretation According to the Conceptual Framework 182
5.2.3 Poland 185
5.2.3.1 Perceptions of the Role Dimensions 185
5.2.3.2 Implications for the Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationship 188
5.2.3.3 Interpretation According to the Conceptual Framework 188
5.2.4 Turkey 189
5.2.4.1 Perceptions of the Role Dimensions 189
5.2.4.2 Implications for the Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationship 195
5.2.4.3 Interpretation According to the Conceptual Framework 197
5.2.5 Mexico 202
5.2.5.1 Perceptions of the Role Dimensions 202
5.2.5.2 Implications for the Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationship 208
5.2.5.3 Interpretation According to the Conceptual Framework 208
5.2.6 China 209
5.2.6.1 Perceptions of the Role Dimensions 209
5.2.6.2 Implications for the Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationship 214
5.2.6.3 Interpretation According to the Conceptual Framework 215
5.2.7 USA 217
5.2.7.1 Perceptions of the Role Dimensions 217
5.2.7.2 Implications for the Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationship 221
5.3 Perception Gaps Concerning the Subsidiary’s Role 223
5.3.1 Subsidiary Role Dimensions in the Present Study 223
5.3.1.1 Overview 223
5.3.1.2 Conceptual and Empirical Review of the Individual Dimensions 224
5.3.1.3 Critical Reflection on the Proposed Subsidiary Role Concept 232
5.3.2 Perception Gaps in the Present Study 234
5.3.2.1 Overview 234
5.3.2.2 Conceptual Structure of the Identified Perception Gaps 235
5.3.2.3 Critical Review of Perception Gaps 238
5.4 Implications of Perception Gaps for the Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationship 239
5.4.1 The Empirical Findings in the Context of the InternationalBusiness Literature 239
5.4.1.1 Overview 239
5.4.1.2 Importance of the Subsidiary’s Market 239
5.4.1.3 Product Scope 240
5.4.1.4 Subsidiary’s Capabilities 241
5.4.1.5 Knowledge Inflow to the Subsidiary 241
5.4.1.6 Knowledge Outflow from the Subsidiary 242
5.4.1.7 Subsidiary’s Autonomy and Involvement in Value Chain Activities 243
5.4.1.8 Conclusion 244
5.4.2 Fit of the Conceptual Framework in the Light of the Empirical Findings 244
5.4.2.1 Overview 244
5.4.2.2 Conflict as Implication of Perception Gaps 245
5.4.2.3 Role Related Conflict and Further Implications 247
5.4.2.4 Critical Review of the Conceptual Framework 254
5.4.2.5 Extension of the Conceptual Framework 255
5.4.2.6 Conclusion 258
6. Discussion 260
6.1 Limitations of the Present Study 260
6.1.1 Scope of the Study 260
6.1.2 Conceptual Issues 261
6.1.3 Methodological Issues 263
6.2 Implications for the International Business Literature 265
6.2.1 Knowledge about Subsidiary Roles 265
6.2.2 Conceptual Contribution 266
6.2.3 Methodological Implications 268
6.3 Avenues for Future Research 270
6.3.1 Research on Perception Gaps Concerning the Subsidiary’s Role 270
6.3.2 Theoretical Consolidation 272
6.3.3 Methodological Approaches 272
6.4 Managerial Implications 273
6.5 Summary 276
Appendix 277
Appendix A Questionnaire Results on Disagreement and Interference 277
Appendix B Final Code List 283
References 286