This paper develops a political sensemaking approach to the post-acquisition integration process, which directs attention to how powerful social actors construct the relationship between multinational corporations (MNCs) and their multiple local contexts. This political, processual and actor-centred perspective explores subsidiary integration as identity construction and institution building. The different characteristics that local and head office managers attribute to the subsidiary establish diverse interests in and political stances towards it and, through actions to resolve these differences, senior decision makers shape the subsidiary’s strategic and structural location in the MNC. We illustrate this argumentation with reference to post-socialist acquisitions by Western multinationals, whose contrasting institutional and management experiences put the problem of multiple contexts and subsidiary integration into sharp relief. This approach complements mainstream international business research by attending directly to the neglected processual nature of subsidiary integration and examining different socio-political dynamics resulting from sensemaking and sensegiving interactions between key actors in the MNC

Given the increased public interest in the use and misuse of power in multinationals in the aftermath of the financial crisis, it is notable that power relations in multinational corporations (MNCs) have not gained enhanced attention in the academic community. What is missing so far in the study of MNCs is a systematic examination of how power and politics within MNCs have been addressed in mainstream international business (IB) and sociological research studying the MNC. This paper starts by critically reviewing these two mainstream approaches in the study of MNCs as organizations and seeking to understand the shortcomings of former research. Next, it reviews new emergent critical perspectives, which the authors call socio‐political studies of MNCs, where power and politics are addressed not just more prominently, but also differently, from a more bottom‐up and actor‐centred perspective. After reviewing this emergent stream of research, the authors propose that future studies should take a more micro‐political perspective and focus in more detail on the micro‐foundations of power relations. In the concluding section, the authors show how future studies of MNCs can learn from both critical interactionist and discursive theories when analysing organizational politics and power relations. A framework is proposed for the study of micro‐level political game‐playing in MNCs, based on a three‐dimensional framework for organizational power (episodic, rules of the game and domination), and some key research questions for future studies are suggested.

This paper intends to shed some light on strategies and power resources of subsidiary managers and employee representatives involved in 'charter changes' and the implementation of 'best practices' developed elsewhere. Research shows that local managers face a dilemma in that they need both internal legitimacy (within the MNC itself) and external legitimacy (within the local context). We argue that the power resources key actors draw on in the (internal) decision-making processes of 'charter changes' are intertwined with certain (external) national business system (NBS) characteristics, an aspect often neglected in North-American research about MNCs.We identify three key influences, which restrain or empower local management and employees in their ability to make strategic choices and gain power within the MNC.They are (1) the overall strategic approach of the multinational group, (2) the strategic position and the economic performance of the subsidiary itself and (3) the degree of institutional embeddedness of the subsidiary in the host country. Comparative minicase studies are used to illustrate the effect of local management and employee representatives' empowerment on their ability to retain skills and work practices supportive of a diversified quality production process in the face of MNC pressure to adopt global 'best practices' based on more standardised production processes.

This paper seeks to examine empirically the extent to which actors in subsidiaries of multinational companies (MNCs) are able to exercise some choice in the face of global pressures from the MNC headquarters (HQ). We argue that managerial practices in MNCs are not the result of a simple imposition of a global or a MNC organisational rationality but are subject to an interactive process, where differing contextual rationalities come into play. Using data from MNC subsidiaries in Britain and Germany, the paper compares the power resources and strategic choices of subsidiary level actors and shows the ways in which they seek to influence global strategy implementation as it affects local work systems. We investigate the different abilities of German and British managers to shape global restructuring processes in their local organisational contexts and conclude that national contexts impact on both the formulation of parent company strategies via a home country rationality and on the implementation of global strategies via a host country rationality. There are greater national barriers to a MNC policy of convergence based on standardized products and processes in Germany than in the UK.

No abstract

No abstract

The study of power and politics in multinational companies (MNCs) has been a niche area of study for both scholars of organization studies (OS) and international business (IB). Further, the awareness of each research community with regard to the efforts of the other has been rather superficial. Hence, bridgebuilding efforts to cross-fertilize ideas developed in IB and OS in order to enhance our understanding of the nature and role of politics and power in the MNC are overdue. In order to develop the basis for integration, we trace the conceptual developments in the two disciplines, that enables us to highlight particularly promising opportunities for integrative advances. Using a typology which differentiates among four 'faces' of power in the study of management and organization, we discuss how focusing on each of these four dimensions may help us to both see and make sense of different aspects of power relations and facets of politics in MNCs. We then use the 'four faces' framework to outline how OS and IB approaches can be integrated to develop a more complete understanding of politics and power in MNCs. Finally we suggest some directions for future research.

This paper deals with the role institutional differences play in managerial risk-taking when engaging in international acquisitions. We assume that MNCs have different interests and capabilities when dealing with international acquisition, which in our view are significantly shaped by specific home country institutional influences. Our study concerns the question of how different forms of ownership -concentrated (e.g.