离岸业务职能选择错位治理模式:前景理论视角

IF 5.7 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
{"title":"离岸业务职能选择错位治理模式:前景理论视角","authors":"Stefano Elia,&nbsp;Marcus M. Larsen,&nbsp;Lucia Piscitello","doi":"10.1002/gsj.1445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Research Summary</h3>\n \n <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>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Managerial Summary</h3>\n \n <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>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47563,"journal":{"name":"Global Strategy Journal","volume":"13 2","pages":"251-280"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gsj.1445","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Choosing misaligned governance modes when offshoring business functions: A prospect theory perspective\",\"authors\":\"Stefano Elia,&nbsp;Marcus M. Larsen,&nbsp;Lucia Piscitello\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/gsj.1445\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Research Summary</h3>\\n \\n <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>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Managerial Summary</h3>\\n \\n <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>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47563,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Strategy Journal\",\"volume\":\"13 2\",\"pages\":\"251-280\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gsj.1445\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Strategy Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gsj.1445\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Strategy Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gsj.1445","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Choosing misaligned governance modes when offshoring business functions: A prospect theory perspective

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.20
自引率
11.80%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: The Global Strategy Journal is a premier platform dedicated to publishing highly influential managerially-oriented global strategy research worldwide. Covering themes such as international and global strategy, assembling the global enterprise, and strategic management, GSJ plays a vital role in advancing our understanding of global business dynamics.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information - TOC A perspective on three trade-offs of blockchain technology for the global strategy of the MNC Issue Information - TOC Inward FDI and local firms' political connections in emerging markets: Evidence from China Issue Information - TOC
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1