Global Strategy Journal最新文献_第8页

Formal institutional context in global strategy research: A layer cake perspective 全球战略研究中的正式制度背景:层次饼视角

IF 4.7 2区管理学 Q1 BUSINESS

Global Strategy Journal

Pub Date : 2022-07-05 DOI: 10.1002/gsj.1455

Daniel S. Andrews, Stav Fainshmidt, Andreas P. J. Schotter, Ajai Gaur

Research summary

We offer a novel view of formal institutions as a layer cake, suggesting a structural relationship between higher-level and lower-level institutions. In this context, inter-layer conflict imposes complex pressures on multinational corporations (MNCs). These tensions have become more rife amid the growth in global connectedness and the commensurate increase in the importance of within-country differences. Drawing on political science and economic geography research, we introduce regime type and the distribution of economic resources as conditions under which inter-layer conflict is most likely to arise. We leverage two caselets to illustrate the inter-layer conflict and the novel response options MNCs can deploy. Our perspective advances the theoretical understanding of intra-national institutional diversity, laying the groundwork for future research at the nexus of institutional theory and global strategy.

Managerial summary

Firms often encounter opposing pressures in their operating environments because institutions within the nation-state impose misaligned policies. Despite acknowledging that such interactions exist, firms traditionally did not make it an integral part of their strategy. We demarcate how formal institutions cascade, forming a layer cake of relevant influences whereby the structural relationship between higher-level and lower-level institutions may impose complex pressures when in conflict. We turn to political science and economic geography literatures for explanations of when such conflict is most likely and offer a window into the responses by multinational firms using caselets within the COVID-19 pandemic context. We offer new avenues for research on the ways in which institutions function to affect multinational firms in a global economy increasingly characterized by institutional complexity.

本文提出了一种将正式制度视为分层蛋糕的新观点，提出了高层制度与低层制度之间的结构关系。在这种背景下，层间冲突给跨国公司带来了复杂的压力。随着全球连通性的增强以及国内差异的重要性相应增加，这些紧张关系变得更加普遍。本文借鉴政治学和经济地理学的研究，将政权类型和经济资源的分配作为最可能发生层间冲突的条件。我们利用两个案例来说明层间冲突和跨国公司可以部署的新应对方案。我们的观点促进了对国家内部制度多样性的理论理解，为制度理论与全球战略关系的未来研究奠定了基础。企业在其经营环境中经常遇到相反的压力，因为民族国家内部的机构强加了不一致的政策。尽管承认这种相互作用的存在，但企业传统上并没有将其作为其战略的一个组成部分。我们界定了正式制度是如何级联的，形成了一个相关影响的层饼，在冲突中，高层和低层制度之间的结构关系可能会施加复杂的压力。我们求助于政治学和经济地理学文献来解释这种冲突何时最有可能发生，并在COVID-19大流行背景下使用案例为跨国公司的反应提供了一个窗口。我们提供了新的研究途径，在日益以制度复杂性为特征的全球经济中，制度是如何影响跨国公司的。

{"title":"Formal institutional context in global strategy research: A layer cake perspective","authors":"Daniel S. Andrews, Stav Fainshmidt, Andreas P. J. Schotter, Ajai Gaur","doi":"10.1002/gsj.1455","DOIUrl":"10.1002/gsj.1455","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Research summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We offer a novel view of formal institutions as a layer cake, suggesting a structural relationship between higher-level and lower-level institutions. In this context, inter-layer conflict imposes complex pressures on multinational corporations (MNCs). These tensions have become more rife amid the growth in global connectedness and the commensurate increase in the importance of within-country differences. Drawing on political science and economic geography research, we introduce regime type and the distribution of economic resources as conditions under which inter-layer conflict is most likely to arise. We leverage two caselets to illustrate the inter-layer conflict and the novel response options MNCs can deploy. Our perspective advances the theoretical understanding of intra-national institutional diversity, laying the groundwork for future research at the nexus of institutional theory and global strategy.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Managerial summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Firms often encounter opposing pressures in their operating environments because institutions within the nation-state impose misaligned policies. Despite acknowledging that such interactions exist, firms traditionally did not make it an integral part of their strategy. We demarcate how formal institutions cascade, forming a layer cake of relevant influences whereby the structural relationship between higher-level and lower-level institutions may impose complex pressures when in conflict. We turn to political science and economic geography literatures for explanations of when such conflict is most likely and offer a window into the responses by multinational firms using caselets within the COVID-19 pandemic context. We offer new avenues for research on the ways in which institutions function to affect multinational firms in a global economy increasingly characterized by institutional complexity.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47563,"journal":{"name":"Global Strategy Journal","volume":"14 1","pages":"3-24"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2022-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45044762","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The complexity of post-mergers and acquisitions reorganization: Integration and differentiation 并购后重组的复杂性：整合与差异化

IF 7.6 2区管理学 Q1 BUSINESS

Global Strategy Journal

Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI: 10.1002/gsj.1454

Kim E. van Oorschot, Bella B. Nujen, Hans Solli-Sæther, Deodat Edward Mwesiumo

Research Summary

This article applies a mixed-method approach to explore the complexities of post-mergers and acquisitions (M&A) integration processes. Extant literature provides significant insights regarding the impact of task and human integration and their influence on post-integration processes. However, the literature often fails to differentiate between subelements of these two dimensions. This article investigates task and human integration in a cross-border M&A aimed at efficiency and innovativeness. We highlight the importance of a clear distinction between two subelements of task integration (product harmonization and structural integration) and show that different interorganizational contexts matter. Consequently, we propose a conceptual framework based on two contextual characteristics—source of synergy and choice of location—suggesting that different integration approaches should be applied simultaneously in different contexts of the same post-M&A organization.

Managerial Summary

Due to the complexity of the post-M&A integration process, organizing and managing such a process is a challenge to most practitioners. Understanding how to manage different integration dimensions increases the need for prioritization in order to bypass a one-size-fits-all initiative. We suggest that managers should apply a differentiated postintegration approach, depending on specific organizational contexts. A product-focused approach seems to fit best in a context where target and acquirer remain working in separate locations, but on similar products. A structure-focused approach is recommended when target and acquirer remain separated, but work on complementary products. Finally, a people-focused approach is proposed when target and acquirer are colocated.

本文采用混合方法来探讨并购后(M& a)整合过程的复杂性。现存文献对任务和人类整合的影响及其对整合后过程的影响提供了重要的见解。然而，文献往往不能区分这两个维度的子元素。本文研究了以效率和创新为目标的跨国并购中的任务和人的整合。我们强调了明确区分任务集成的两个子元素(产品协调和结构集成)的重要性，并表明不同的组织间环境很重要。因此，我们提出了一个基于两个语境特征(协同来源和位置选择)的概念框架，表明不同的整合方法应该同时应用于同一并购后组织的不同语境。由于后管理整合过程的复杂性，组织和管理这样一个过程对大多数实践者来说是一个挑战。了解如何管理不同的集成维度增加了对优先级的需求，以便绕过一刀切的计划。我们建议管理者应根据具体的组织环境，采用差异化的整合后方法。以产品为中心的方法似乎最适合目标和收购者在不同的地方工作，但在类似的产品上。当目标公司和收购公司保持分离，但在互补产品上工作时，建议采用以结构为重点的方法。最后，提出了以人为本的并购策略。

{"title":"The complexity of post-mergers and acquisitions reorganization: Integration and differentiation","authors":"Kim E. van Oorschot, Bella B. Nujen, Hans Solli-Sæther, Deodat Edward Mwesiumo","doi":"10.1002/gsj.1454","DOIUrl":"10.1002/gsj.1454","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Research Summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This article applies a mixed-method approach to explore the complexities of post-mergers and acquisitions (M&A) integration processes. Extant literature provides significant insights regarding the impact of task and human integration and their influence on post-integration processes. However, the literature often fails to differentiate between subelements of these two dimensions. This article investigates task and human integration in a cross-border M&A aimed at efficiency and innovativeness. We highlight the importance of a clear distinction between two subelements of task integration (product harmonization and structural integration) and show that different interorganizational contexts matter. Consequently, we propose a conceptual framework based on two contextual characteristics—source of synergy and choice of location—suggesting that different integration approaches should be applied simultaneously in different contexts of the same post-M&A organization.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Managerial Summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Due to the complexity of the post-M&A integration process, organizing and managing such a process is a challenge to most practitioners. Understanding how to manage different integration dimensions increases the need for prioritization in order to bypass a one-size-fits-all initiative. We suggest that managers should apply a differentiated postintegration approach, depending on specific organizational contexts. A product-focused approach seems to fit best in a context where target and acquirer remain working in separate locations, but on similar products. A structure-focused approach is recommended when target and acquirer remain separated, but work on complementary products. Finally, a people-focused approach is proposed when target and acquirer are colocated.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47563,"journal":{"name":"Global Strategy Journal","volume":"13 3","pages":"673-699"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gsj.1454","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45169984","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

When are global decisions strategic? 什么时候全局决策是战略性的?

IF 7.6 2区管理学 Q1 BUSINESS

Global Strategy Journal

Pub Date : 2022-06-23 DOI: 10.1002/gsj.1451

Michael J. Leiblein, Jeffrey J. Reuer, Marcus M. Larsen, Torben Pedersen

Research Summary

A robust academic field must set and revisit boundary conditions that define where, when, and to whom its insights apply. This is particularly true for a field such as global strategy where the ubiquity of the key terms invites indiscriminate use of the phrase. This essay argues that it is useful to define the field of global strategy as the subset of questions that meet the criteria for both “global” and “strategic” decisions. We offer an a priori approach to identifying and formulating problems that are unique to the global strategy field, suggest how our approach may help scholars better understand the “strategicness” of global decisions, and ultimately, offer a way for individuals with varied disciplinary or topical interests to connect with the field's core.

Managerial Summary

It has been observed that few executives can clearly articulate their firm's global strategy. This observation is disappointing given the development of theoretical insights from the fields of international business and strategic management that suggest alternative ways in which organizations can reliably and repeatedly create, capture, and deliver value. The existence of this shortcoming suggests that it will be beneficial to develop unambiguous statements that define what constitutes a global, a strategic, and a globally strategic decision. This essay offers a priori definitions of these terms in the hope of helping individuals both consider the unique and distinctive elements of global strategy and better understand the core decisions that guide an organization's pursuit of its global objectives, scope, and sources of advantage.

一个强大的学术领域必须设置和重新审视边界条件，以确定其见解在何时何地适用于谁。对于像全球战略这样的领域来说尤其如此，因为无处不在的关键术语会导致不加区分地使用该短语。本文认为，将全球战略领域定义为满足“全球”和“战略”决策标准的问题子集是有用的。我们提供了一种先验的方法来识别和制定全球战略领域独有的问题，建议我们的方法如何帮助学者更好地理解全球决策的“战略性”，并最终为具有不同学科或主题兴趣的个人提供一种与该领域核心联系的方法。据观察，很少有高管能清楚地阐明公司的全球战略。考虑到国际商业和战略管理领域的理论见解的发展，这种观察结果令人失望，这些理论见解提出了组织可以可靠地、反复地创造、获取和交付价值的替代方法。这一缺点的存在表明，制定明确的声明来定义什么是全球性的、战略性的和全球性的战略决策将是有益的。本文提供了这些术语的先验定义，希望帮助个人考虑全球战略的独特和独特元素，并更好地理解指导组织追求其全球目标、范围和优势来源的核心决策。

{"title":"When are global decisions strategic?","authors":"Michael J. Leiblein, Jeffrey J. Reuer, Marcus M. Larsen, Torben Pedersen","doi":"10.1002/gsj.1451","DOIUrl":"10.1002/gsj.1451","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Research Summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A robust academic field must set and revisit boundary conditions that define where, when, and to whom its insights apply. This is particularly true for a field such as global strategy where the ubiquity of the key terms invites indiscriminate use of the phrase. This essay argues that it is useful to define the field of global strategy as the subset of questions that meet the criteria for both “global” and “strategic” decisions. We offer an a priori approach to identifying and formulating problems that are unique to the global strategy field, suggest how our approach may help scholars better understand the “strategicness” of global decisions, and ultimately, offer a way for individuals with varied disciplinary or topical interests to connect with the field's core.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Managerial Summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>It has been observed that few executives can clearly articulate their firm's global strategy. This observation is disappointing given the development of theoretical insights from the fields of international business and strategic management that suggest alternative ways in which organizations can reliably and repeatedly create, capture, and deliver value. The existence of this shortcoming suggests that it will be beneficial to develop unambiguous statements that define what constitutes a global, a strategic, and a globally strategic decision. This essay offers a priori definitions of these terms in the hope of helping individuals both consider the unique and distinctive elements of global strategy and better understand the core decisions that guide an organization's pursuit of its global objectives, scope, and sources of advantage.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47563,"journal":{"name":"Global Strategy Journal","volume":"12 4","pages":"714-737"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2022-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gsj.1451","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48979152","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

Post-entry internationalization speed, learning speed, and performance: A meta-analytic review and theory extension 入职后国际化速度、学习速度和绩效：元分析综述和理论扩展

IF 7.6 2区管理学 Q1 BUSINESS

Global Strategy Journal

Pub Date : 2022-06-21 DOI: 10.1002/gsj.1452

Sheng Huang, Zhenkuo Ding, Xiaoman Lin, Yunxia Zhu

Research Summary

The impact of post-entry internationalization speed (PIS) on firm performance has become a central issue in global strategy research. This paper conducts a meta-analysis concerning the relationships between two dimensions (i.e., international commitment speed and international scope speed) of PIS and performance, and the moderating effects of learning speed on these relationships among international firms. Empirical evidence from 60 independent samples reveals that international commitment speed positively influences performance, while international scope speed has an inverted U-shaped impact on performance. Our results also indicate that learning speed negatively moderates the link between international commitment speed and performance, whereas it positively moderates the association between international scope speed and performance. Based on the findings, we discuss the contributions to the global strategy literature, organizational learning theory and time-based competition view, and point at future research directions systematically.

Managerial Summary

We analyze the relationships between two types (i.e., international commitment speed and international scope speed) of post-entry internationalization speed (PIS) and performance among international firms. We find that accelerating international commitment speed facilitates performance, while expediting international scope speed first facilitates and then inhibits performance. We also find that learning speed weakens the positive influence of international commitment speed on performance, whereas it strengthens the association between international scope speed and performance. These findings have important implications for managers in international firms seeking to achieve superior firm performance.

进入后国际化速度(PIS)对企业绩效的影响已成为全球战略研究的核心问题。本文对跨国企业中PIS的两个维度(国际承诺速度和国际范围速度)与绩效之间的关系以及学习速度对这些关系的调节作用进行了meta分析。来自60个独立样本的实证表明，国际承诺速度对绩效有正向影响，而国际范围速度对绩效有倒u型影响。学习速度负向调节国际承诺速度与绩效之间的关系，而学习速度正向调节国际范围速度与绩效之间的关系。在此基础上，本文讨论了全球战略理论、组织学习理论和基于时间的竞争理论对未来研究的贡献，并系统地指出了未来的研究方向。本文分析了国际企业进入后国际化速度(PIS)的两种类型(即国际承诺速度和国际范围速度)与绩效之间的关系。我们发现，加快国际承诺速度有利于绩效，而加快国际范围速度先促进后抑制绩效。我们还发现，学习速度削弱了国际承诺速度对绩效的正向影响，而强化了国际范围速度与绩效的关联。这些发现对寻求实现卓越公司绩效的跨国公司经理具有重要意义。

{"title":"Post-entry internationalization speed, learning speed, and performance: A meta-analytic review and theory extension","authors":"Sheng Huang, Zhenkuo Ding, Xiaoman Lin, Yunxia Zhu","doi":"10.1002/gsj.1452","DOIUrl":"10.1002/gsj.1452","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Research Summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The impact of post-entry internationalization speed (PIS) on firm performance has become a central issue in global strategy research. This paper conducts a meta-analysis concerning the relationships between two dimensions (i.e., international commitment speed and international scope speed) of PIS and performance, and the moderating effects of learning speed on these relationships among international firms. Empirical evidence from 60 independent samples reveals that international commitment speed positively influences performance, while international scope speed has an inverted U-shaped impact on performance. Our results also indicate that learning speed negatively moderates the link between international commitment speed and performance, whereas it positively moderates the association between international scope speed and performance. Based on the findings, we discuss the contributions to the global strategy literature, organizational learning theory and time-based competition view, and point at future research directions systematically.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Managerial Summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We analyze the relationships between two types (i.e., international commitment speed and international scope speed) of post-entry internationalization speed (PIS) and performance among international firms. We find that accelerating international commitment speed facilitates performance, while expediting international scope speed first facilitates and then inhibits performance. We also find that learning speed weakens the positive influence of international commitment speed on performance, whereas it strengthens the association between international scope speed and performance. These findings have important implications for managers in international firms seeking to achieve superior firm performance.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47563,"journal":{"name":"Global Strategy Journal","volume":"13 2","pages":"483-516"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2022-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42192461","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 5

Pedersen T, Tallman S. Global strategy collections: Emerging market multinational enterprises Pedersen T，Tallman S.全球战略系列：新兴市场跨国企业

IF 7.6 2区管理学 Q1 BUSINESS

Global Strategy Journal

Pub Date : 2022-06-21 DOI: 10.1002/gsj.1453

In Table 1 and Selected Works section page 206, the citation “Thakur-Wernz and Shantala (2019)” should read as “Thakur-Wernz and Samant (2019)”.

In reference list, the reference “Thakur-Wernz, P., & Shantala, S. (2019). Relationship between international experience and innovation performance: The importance of organizational learning for EMNEs. Global Strategy Journal, 9(3), 378–404.” should read as “Thakur-Wernz, P., & Samant, S. (2019). Relationship between international experience and innovation performance: The importance of organizational learning for EMNEs. Global Strategy Journal, 9(3), 378–404.”.

在第206页的表1和选集部分，引文“Thakur Wernz和Shantala（2019）”应改为“Thakur-Wernz and Samant（2019）。在参考文献列表中，参考文献“Thakur Wernz，P.，&；Shantala，S.（2019）。国际经验与创新绩效之间的关系：组织学习对新兴市场经济体的重要性。全球战略杂志，9（3），378–404。”应改为“Thakur-Wenz，P.，amp；Samant，S（2019）国际经验与创新绩效之间的关系：组织学习对新兴市场经济体的重要性。《全球战略杂志》，9（3），378-404。”。

引用次数: 0

Extending internalization theory: Integrating international business strategy with international management 拓展国际化理论:将国际化经营战略与国际化管理相结合

IF 7.6 2区管理学 Q1 BUSINESS

Global Strategy Journal

Pub Date : 2022-06-13 DOI: 10.1002/gsj.1450

Mark Casson

Research summary

International business strategy and international management are two distinct but related fields of study. This article explores the connections between them. It shows how internalization theory can act as a bridge between them. The key is to analyze not only core activities, such as production, marketing and R&D, but support services such as human resource management, information technology, and corporate finance. Internalization decisions and location decisions must be analyzed holistically, and diagrammatic techniques show how this can be done. These diagrams reveal the networks of communication and the hierarchical structures that emerge from such decisions.

Managerial summary

The organizational structure of a multinational enterprise is inherently complex, making it difficult to determine whether one organizational structure is more efficient than another. Delayering, decentralization, and agility are recommended, but what are their practical implications? Internalization theory addresses these problems in a simple and coherent way. It shows that it is not only core activities, namely production, marketing and R&D, that need to be coordinated, but support services too. Decisions on the location and out-sourcing of support services must be aligned with similar decisions on core activities. A diagrammatic analysis is presented that facilitates the solution of these problems.

国际商业战略和国际管理是两个截然不同但又相关的研究领域。本文探讨了它们之间的联系。它展示了内化理论如何在两者之间架起一座桥梁。关键是不仅要分析核心活动，如生产、营销和研发，还要分析支持性服务，如人力资源管理、信息技术和公司财务。内部化决策和位置决策必须进行整体分析，图表技术显示了如何做到这一点。这些图表揭示了通信网络和从这些决策中产生的层次结构。跨国企业的组织结构本质上是复杂的，因此很难确定一种组织结构是否比另一种组织结构更有效率。我们推荐去分层、去中心化和敏捷性，但它们的实际含义是什么?内化理论以一种简单而连贯的方式解决了这些问题。它表明，不仅需要协调核心活动，即生产、销售和研发，而且还需要协调支助服务。关于支助服务地点和外包的决定必须与关于核心活动的类似决定保持一致。本文提出了一种图解分析方法，有助于解决这些问题。

{"title":"Extending internalization theory: Integrating international business strategy with international management","authors":"Mark Casson","doi":"10.1002/gsj.1450","DOIUrl":"10.1002/gsj.1450","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Research summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>International business strategy and international management are two distinct but related fields of study. This article explores the connections between them. It shows how internalization theory can act as a bridge between them. The key is to analyze not only core activities, such as production, marketing and R&D, but support services such as human resource management, information technology, and corporate finance. Internalization decisions and location decisions must be analyzed holistically, and diagrammatic techniques show how this can be done. These diagrams reveal the networks of communication and the hierarchical structures that emerge from such decisions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Managerial summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The organizational structure of a multinational enterprise is inherently complex, making it difficult to determine whether one organizational structure is more efficient than another. Delayering, decentralization, and agility are recommended, but what are their practical implications? Internalization theory addresses these problems in a simple and coherent way. It shows that it is not only core activities, namely production, marketing and R&D, that need to be coordinated, but support services too. Decisions on the location and out-sourcing of support services must be aligned with similar decisions on core activities. A diagrammatic analysis is presented that facilitates the solution of these problems.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47563,"journal":{"name":"Global Strategy Journal","volume":"12 4","pages":"632-657"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2022-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gsj.1450","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48243102","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 4

Choosing misaligned governance modes when offshoring business functions: A prospect theory perspective 离岸业务职能选择错位治理模式：前景理论视角

IF 7.6 2区管理学 Q1 BUSINESS

Global Strategy Journal

Pub Date : 2022-06-01 DOI: 10.1002/gsj.1445

Stefano Elia, Marcus M. Larsen, Lucia Piscitello

Research Summary

Transaction cost economics (TCE) holds that multinational corporations (MNCs) should select governance modes based on associated transactional hazards. However, MNCs often adopt theoretically misaligned governance modes. Applying a prospect theory (PT) perspective, we use the context of business-process offshoring to explore why firms choose misaligned governance modes. We argue that theoretically misaligned governance modes are regarded as riskier than aligned governance modes, and we suggest that prior experiences of failure in an international context—especially in business functions that are relevant for the internationalization of a firm—prompt decision-makers to choose theoretically misaligned governance modes. We enhance discussions on governance-mode decisions with important behavioral perspectives on how such decisions materialize.

Managerial Summary

Experience with underperforming investments provides decision-makers with an important motivation to search for riskier, nontraditional solutions, such as governance modes that do not necessarily comply with conventional logics. We show that such decisions, which have traditionally been conceived as managerial mistakes, are driven by behavioral insights found in the fields of human and organizational psychology. While we explore this idea in the context of international governance-mode decisions, we believe such a behavioral perspective on international decision-making is generalizable to other relevant contexts.

交易成本经济学(TCE)认为跨国公司应该根据相关交易风险来选择治理模式。然而，跨国公司往往采用理论上不一致的治理模式。运用前景理论(PT)的观点，我们利用业务流程离岸外包的背景来探讨为什么企业选择不一致的治理模式。我们认为，理论上不一致的治理模式被认为比一致的治理模式风险更大，并且我们认为，先前在国际背景下失败的经验——特别是在与公司国际化相关的业务职能方面——促使决策者选择理论上不一致的治理模式。我们加强了对治理模式决策的讨论，并从重要的行为角度探讨了这些决策如何实现。管理总结:对表现不佳的投资的经验为决策者提供了一个重要的动机，去寻找风险更大的、非传统的解决方案，比如不一定符合传统逻辑的治理模式。我们表明，这些传统上被认为是管理错误的决策，是由人类和组织心理学领域的行为洞察力驱动的。虽然我们在国际治理模式决策的背景下探讨了这一观点，但我们认为，这种关于国际决策的行为视角可以推广到其他相关背景。

{"title":"Choosing misaligned governance modes when offshoring business functions: A prospect theory perspective","authors":"Stefano Elia, Marcus M. Larsen, Lucia Piscitello","doi":"10.1002/gsj.1445","DOIUrl":"10.1002/gsj.1445","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Research Summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Transaction cost economics (TCE) holds that multinational corporations (MNCs) should select governance modes based on associated transactional hazards. However, MNCs often adopt theoretically misaligned governance modes. Applying a prospect theory (PT) perspective, we use the context of business-process offshoring to explore why firms choose misaligned governance modes. We argue that theoretically misaligned governance modes are regarded as riskier than aligned governance modes, and we suggest that prior experiences of failure in an international context—especially in business functions that are relevant for the internationalization of a firm—prompt decision-makers to choose theoretically misaligned governance modes. We enhance discussions on governance-mode decisions with important behavioral perspectives on how such decisions materialize.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Managerial Summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Experience with underperforming investments provides decision-makers with an important motivation to search for riskier, nontraditional solutions, such as governance modes that do not necessarily comply with conventional logics. We show that such decisions, which have traditionally been conceived as managerial mistakes, are driven by behavioral insights found in the fields of human and organizational psychology. While we explore this idea in the context of international governance-mode decisions, we believe such a behavioral perspective on international decision-making is generalizable to other relevant contexts.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47563,"journal":{"name":"Global Strategy Journal","volume":"13 2","pages":"251-280"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gsj.1445","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46366750","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

What is digital transformation? Core tensions facing established companies on the global stage 什么是数字化转型?老牌企业在全球舞台上面临的核心紧张关系

IF 7.6 2区管理学 Q1 BUSINESS

Global Strategy Journal

Pub Date : 2022-05-23 DOI: 10.1002/gsj.1442

Nathan Furr, Pinar Ozcan, Kathleen M. Eisenhardt

Research summary

Digital transformation is a dominant theme in the global economy, but what it means for established companies remains perplexing for both academics and practitioners. As digital erases familiar geographic, industrial, and organizational boundaries, it has led to simplistic characterizations such as “digital changes everything.” Yet while digital changes some things, others remain the same. Here, we identify three core tensions at the heart of digital transformation—products vs platforms, firms vs ecosystems, and people vs tools—and describe their underlying economics, driving forces, and countervailing forces. These tensions frame a concrete discussion of strategic alternatives for global companies. Overall, we emphasize that digital transformation is not an objective state, but rather a strategic choice by executives from an array of alternatives.

Managerial summary

Digital transformation is a dominant theme in the global economy, but what it means remains perplexing for executives and academics. Pundits claim that “digital changes everything” and that leaders must “disrupt or be disrupted,” but is this really true for established companies serving robust customer needs on the global stage? Understanding what digital transformation means can be challenging as it breaks down familiar geographic, industrial, and organizational boundaries, creating new opportunities and threats. In this paper, we explore three key tensions at the heart of digital transformation—products vs platforms, firms vs ecosystems, and people vs tools—and enumerate their enabling and constraining forces. Building on these concrete constructs provides effective foundations for formulating digital transformation strategy.

数字化转型是全球经济的一个主导主题，但对于学术界和实践者来说，数字化转型对老牌企业意味着什么仍然令人困惑。由于数字消除了熟悉的地理、行业和组织界限，它导致了简单化的描述，如“数字改变一切”。然而，虽然数字化改变了一些东西，但其他东西却保持不变。在这里，我们确定了数字转型核心的三个核心紧张关系——产品与平台、公司与生态系统、人与工具——并描述了它们的潜在经济学、驱动力和反作用力。这些紧张关系构成了对全球企业战略选择的具体讨论。总的来说，我们强调数字化转型不是一种客观状态，而是高管们从一系列替代方案中做出的一种战略选择。数字化转型是全球经济的主导主题，但其含义仍令高管和学者感到困惑。权威人士声称“数字化改变了一切”，领导者必须“颠覆或被颠覆”，但对于在全球舞台上服务于强劲客户需求的老牌公司来说，这真的是真的吗?理解数字化转型意味着什么是具有挑战性的，因为它打破了熟悉的地理、行业和组织边界，创造了新的机会和威胁。在本文中，我们探讨了数字化转型核心的三个关键紧张关系——产品与平台、公司与生态系统、人和工具——并列举了它们的推动和制约力量。在这些具体结构的基础上，为制定数字化转型战略提供了有效的基础。

{"title":"What is digital transformation? Core tensions facing established companies on the global stage","authors":"Nathan Furr, Pinar Ozcan, Kathleen M. Eisenhardt","doi":"10.1002/gsj.1442","DOIUrl":"10.1002/gsj.1442","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Research summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Digital transformation is a dominant theme in the global economy, but what it means for established companies remains perplexing for both academics and practitioners. As digital erases familiar geographic, industrial, and organizational boundaries, it has led to simplistic characterizations such as “digital changes everything.” Yet while digital changes some things, others remain the same. Here, we identify three core tensions at the heart of digital transformation—products vs platforms, firms vs ecosystems, and people vs tools—and describe their underlying economics, driving forces, and countervailing forces. These tensions frame a concrete discussion of strategic alternatives for global companies. Overall, we emphasize that digital transformation is not an objective state, but rather a strategic choice by executives from an array of alternatives.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Managerial summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Digital transformation is a dominant theme in the global economy, but what it means remains perplexing for executives and academics. Pundits claim that “digital changes everything” and that leaders must “disrupt or be disrupted,” but is this really true for established companies serving robust customer needs on the global stage? Understanding what digital transformation means can be challenging as it breaks down familiar geographic, industrial, and organizational boundaries, creating new opportunities and threats. In this paper, we explore three key tensions at the heart of digital transformation—products vs platforms, firms vs ecosystems, and people vs tools—and enumerate their enabling and constraining forces. Building on these concrete constructs provides effective foundations for formulating digital transformation strategy.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47563,"journal":{"name":"Global Strategy Journal","volume":"12 4","pages":"595-618"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2022-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gsj.1442","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43988927","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 24

Navigating three vectors of power: Global strategy in a world of intense competition, aggressive nation states, and antagonistic civil society 驾驭权力的三个载体:在一个激烈竞争的世界中的全球战略，侵略性的民族国家，和敌对的公民社会

IF 7.6 2区管理学 Q1 BUSINESS

Global Strategy Journal

Pub Date : 2022-05-20 DOI: 10.1002/gsj.1444

Peter J. Buckley

Research Summary

Global strategy must negotiate three vectors of external power: State policies (that often conflict across national boundaries), the demands of civil society, and market pressures. The global strategies of corporations must reflect their two enduring and non-replicable advantages—innovation and flexibility. These qualities are essential in the face of increased government regulation together with intensification of non-market strategies as well as improving responses to the increased exigencies of international competition. A radical reappraisal of global strategies is therefore necessary. The global strategies of corporations here are analyzed using the “governance triangle” that examines governance through coordination (the role of the state), governance through competition (the market), and governance through argumentation (civil society). Future global strategies must contend with this web of constraint.

Managerial Summary

This paper suggests that managers need to recognize the web of constraints surrounding their strategic decisions. The three key vectors of external power are the state and government regulation, the power of civil society exercised through argumentation, and competitive action. Recognition of increasing pressure from the three vectors of power is the first step in reformulating global strategy. A wider acknowledgement and inclusion of stakeholders and increasing non-market strategic activity are no longer optional but are mandatory. Navigating these constraints suggests a new web of opportunity where the true long-run advantages of successful firms—flexibility and innovation—can be implemented.

全球战略必须协调外部力量的三个矢量:国家政策(经常跨越国界发生冲突)、民间社会的要求和市场压力。企业的全球战略必须体现其两个持久且不可复制的优势——创新和灵活性。面对政府管制的加强、非市场战略的加强以及对日益紧迫的国际竞争作出更好的反应，这些品质是必不可少的。因此，有必要对全球战略进行彻底的重新评估。本文使用“治理三角”来分析公司的全球战略，该三角考察了通过协调(国家的作用)、通过竞争(市场)和通过辩论(公民社会)进行的治理。未来的全球战略必须应对这一制约因素。本文建议管理者需要认识到围绕其战略决策的约束网络。外部权力的三个关键载体是国家和政府监管、通过辩论行使的公民社会权力和竞争行动。认识到来自三大力量的压力越来越大，是重新制定全球战略的第一步。更广泛地承认和包容利益相关者以及增加非市场战略活动不再是可有可无的，而是强制性的。克服这些限制意味着一个新的机会网络，在这个网络中，成功企业的真正长期优势——灵活性和创新——可以得到实现。

{"title":"Navigating three vectors of power: Global strategy in a world of intense competition, aggressive nation states, and antagonistic civil society","authors":"Peter J. Buckley","doi":"10.1002/gsj.1444","DOIUrl":"10.1002/gsj.1444","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Research Summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Global strategy must negotiate three vectors of external power: State policies (that often conflict across national boundaries), the demands of civil society, and market pressures. The global strategies of corporations must reflect their two enduring and non-replicable advantages—innovation and flexibility. These qualities are essential in the face of increased government regulation together with intensification of non-market strategies as well as improving responses to the increased exigencies of international competition. A radical reappraisal of global strategies is therefore necessary. The global strategies of corporations here are analyzed using the “governance triangle” that examines governance through coordination (the role of the state), governance through competition (the market), and governance through argumentation (civil society). Future global strategies must contend with this web of constraint.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Managerial Summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This paper suggests that managers need to recognize the web of constraints surrounding their strategic decisions. The three key vectors of external power are the state and government regulation, the power of civil society exercised through argumentation, and competitive action. Recognition of increasing pressure from the three vectors of power is the first step in reformulating global strategy. A wider acknowledgement and inclusion of stakeholders and increasing non-market strategic activity are no longer optional but are mandatory. Navigating these constraints suggests a new web of opportunity where the true long-run advantages of successful firms—flexibility and innovation—can be implemented.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47563,"journal":{"name":"Global Strategy Journal","volume":"12 3","pages":"543-554"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2022-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gsj.1444","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42292171","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 5

Strategizing and economizing in global strategy 全球战略中的战略和节约

IF 7.6 2区管理学 Q1 BUSINESS

Global Strategy Journal

Pub Date : 2022-05-16 DOI: 10.1002/gsj.1443

Christian Geisler Asmussen, Nicolai J. Foss

Research summary

The strategic management and international business fields have followed, in some respects, quite similar intellectual trajectories, as reflected in the push for a field of “global strategy.” However, a key distinction in the strategy literature—namely, Williamson's distinction between “strategizing” and “economizing”—has not been explicitly recognized in the international business/global strategy fields. We argue that progress can be made in global strategy by recognizing this distinction and exploring the interaction between “strategizing” and “economizing.” To lend credence to this claim, we offer a simple model of the entry decision which highlights both economizing and strategizing aspects of this decision. We also offer recommendations on economizing-strategizing research in global strategy.

Managerial summary

Multinational enterprises gain competitive advantage either by improving the efficiency with which they operate (by having unique resources, lowering costs, or improving managerial practices) or by exercising their market and bargaining power. Most research has emphasized the former source of competitive advantage. However, in actuality, the two sources are intertwined. We detail how they are intertwined by means of a simple numerical example of the entry decision facing a company that can choose between competing or collaborating with the local firm. We show that strategizing plays into the entry decision in this case.

战略管理和国际商务领域在某些方面遵循着非常相似的智力轨迹，正如对“全球战略”领域的推动所反映的那样。然而，战略文献中的一个关键区别——即威廉姆森对“战略化”和“经济化”的区分——并未在国际商业/全球战略领域得到明确认可。我们认为，认识到这一区别，并探索“战略化”和“经济化”之间的相互作用，可以在全球战略方面取得进展。为了证明这一观点，我们提供了一个简单的进入决策模型，该模型突出了该决策的经济性和战略性两个方面。并对全球战略中的节约型战略研究提出了建议。跨国企业通过提高其经营效率(通过拥有独特的资源、降低成本或改进管理实践)或通过行使其市场和议价能力获得竞争优势。大多数研究都强调竞争优势的前一种来源。然而，实际上，这两个来源是交织在一起的。我们通过一个简单的数值例子来详细说明它们是如何交织在一起的，这个例子是一家公司面临的进入决策，它可以选择与当地公司竞争或合作。我们表明，在这种情况下，策略在进入决策中起作用。

{"title":"Strategizing and economizing in global strategy","authors":"Christian Geisler Asmussen, Nicolai J. Foss","doi":"10.1002/gsj.1443","DOIUrl":"10.1002/gsj.1443","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Research summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The strategic management and international business fields have followed, in some respects, quite similar intellectual trajectories, as reflected in the push for a field of “global strategy.” However, a key distinction in the strategy literature—namely, Williamson's distinction between “strategizing” and “economizing”—has not been explicitly recognized in the international business/global strategy fields. We argue that progress can be made in global strategy by recognizing this distinction and exploring the interaction between “strategizing” and “economizing.” To lend credence to this claim, we offer a simple model of the entry decision which highlights both economizing and strategizing aspects of this decision. We also offer recommendations on economizing-strategizing research in global strategy.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Managerial summary</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Multinational enterprises gain competitive advantage either by improving the efficiency with which they operate (by having unique resources, lowering costs, or improving managerial practices) or by exercising their market and bargaining power. Most research has emphasized the former source of competitive advantage. However, in actuality, the two sources are intertwined. We detail how they are intertwined by means of a simple numerical example of the entry decision facing a company that can choose between competing or collaborating with the local firm. We show that strategizing plays into the entry decision in this case.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":47563,"journal":{"name":"Global Strategy Journal","volume":"12 3","pages":"578-591"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2022-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gsj.1443","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45923844","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1