2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.intman.2006.06.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Socio-political processes in international management in post-socialist contexts: Knowledge, learning and transnational institution building

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
55
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
0
55
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similarly, in spite of an institutional incompatibility between the German MNE and the Polish subsidiary, the Polish operation also displayed passive agency. The subsidiary was only a 'peripheral participant' within the German MNE network structure (Clark and Geppert, 2006), and its functional and operational integration within the MNE group was weak. By contrast, we found that where there was a fit between MNE structures embedded in home institutional contexts and host context demands, there was active agency where the MNE coordination structure served as a means of mobilizing resources.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, in spite of an institutional incompatibility between the German MNE and the Polish subsidiary, the Polish operation also displayed passive agency. The subsidiary was only a 'peripheral participant' within the German MNE network structure (Clark and Geppert, 2006), and its functional and operational integration within the MNE group was weak. By contrast, we found that where there was a fit between MNE structures embedded in home institutional contexts and host context demands, there was active agency where the MNE coordination structure served as a means of mobilizing resources.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, this aspect of power has hitherto been picked up by only a handful of researchers (Vaara et al, 2005). We position our contribution in recent writings on intraorganizational power and politics in MNCs (Bouquet and Birkinshaw, 2008;Clark and Geppert, 2006;Dörrenbächer and Geppert, 2011) and the growing research stream of language in international business (Marschan et al, 1997;Marschan-Piekkari et al, 1999a, 1999bPiekkari and Tietze, 2011). Firstly, we introduce acts of translation to the discussion of intraorganizational power, particularly power over meaning (Ferner et al, 2012).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In their case, subsidiaries not only pursued their own agendas, as in our case, but also succeeded in making deals with the headquarters that at least partly reflected their own interests, adding to a much more dialectical picture of the MNC than our case study would suggest. Thus, more systematic comparative research is needed to generate a better understanding of the impact of distinct headquarters-subsidiary constellations as well as of different governance styles applied by headquarters (Clark/Geppert 2006). A second conclusion, which emerges from the longitudinal scope of the Siemens Telefongyár case study, is that environments and strategic situations, as well as the interpretation of these, change over time.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%