Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:55:59.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strategic and architectural dimensions of the decision-making processes in South African multinational corporations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2014

John M Luiz  and
Grant Visser
John M Luiz*
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
Grant Visser
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine the manner in which South African-owned multinationals devolve power to their international subsidiaries in Africa, and the resulting effects of the interaction between strategy and structure. The research suggests that a dynamic process of power distribution may develop, in terms of the following: (1) the performance of the subsidiary, its expertise and experience to adapt to local market demands; and (2) the multinational’s need to manage the risks propagated by the African operating environment in which it operates. There is a dual facet to power devolvement, one in which South African multinationals opt for risk mitigation through long-standing control, often at the expense of operational adaptation. In contrast with the literature, which sees multinational corporations as differentiated networks, in the South African case we find a more traditional approach with clear headquarters and ‘miniature replica’ subsidiaries. This suggests that South African multinational corporations are still emerging and that it will take time to develop differentiated networks.

Keywords

multinational corporationsAfricaSouth AfricaMNC–subsidiary relationships
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 20 , Issue 6 , November 2014 , pp. 832 - 850
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achcaouchaou, F., Bernardo, M., & Castan, J. (2009). Determinants of organizational structures: An empirical study. Review of International Comparative Management, 10(3), 566–578.Google Scholar
Alcácer, J., & Chung, W. (2011). Benefiting from location: Knowledge retrieval. Global Strategy Journal, 1, 233–236.Google Scholar
Alfoldi, E. A., Clegg, L. J., & McGaughey, S. L. (2012). Coordination at the edge of the empire: The delegation of headquarters functions through regional management mandates. Journal of International Management, 18(3), 276–292.Google Scholar
Alonso, R., Dessien, W., & Matouschek, N. (2008). When coordination requires centralization. American Economic Review, 98(1), 145–179.Google Scholar
Ambos, T., Ambos, B., & Schlegelmilch, B. (2006). Learning from foreign subsidiaries: An empirical investigation of headquarters’ benefits from reverse knowledge transfers. International Business Review, 15(3), 294–312.Google Scholar
Amitabh, M., & Gupta, R. K. (2010). Research in strategy-structure-performance construct: Review of trends, paradigms and methodologies. Journal of Management & Organization, 16(5), 744–763.Google Scholar
Badinger, H., & Egger, P. (2010). Horizontal versus vertical interdependence in multinational activity. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 72(6), 744–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baliga, B., & Jaeger, A. (1984). Multinational corporations: Control systems and delegation issues. Journal of International Business Studies, 15(2), 25–40.Google Scholar
Birkinshaw, J., & Morrison, A. (1995). Configurations of strategy and structure in subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(2), 729–753.Google Scholar
Brook, M. (1984). Autonomy and centralization in multinational corporations. International Studies of Management and Organizations, 14(1), 3–22.Google Scholar
Bryan, L., & Joyce, C. (2007). Better strategy through organizational design. The McKinsey Quarterly, 81(3), 21–30.Google Scholar
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2007). Business research methods (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burgleman, R. (1983). A model of interaction of strategic behavior, corporate context and the concept of strategy. Academy of Management Review, 8(1), 61–70.Google Scholar
Chiao, Y., & Ying, K. (2013). Network effect and subsidiary autonomy in multinational corporations: An investigation of Taiwanese subsidiaries. International Business Review, 22(4), 652–662.Google Scholar
Ciabuschi, F., Dellestrand, H., & Holm, U. (2012). The role of headquarters in the contemporary MNC. Journal of International Management, 18(3), 213–223.Google Scholar
Dörrenbächer, C., & Gammelgaard, J. (2011). Subsidiary power in multinational corporations: The subtle role of micro – political bargaining power. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 7(1), 30–47.Google Scholar
Dörrenbächer, C., & Geppert, M. (2006). Micro-politics and conflicts in multinational corporations: Current debates, re-framing, and contributions of this special issue. Journal of International Management, 12(3), 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doz, Y., & Prahalad, C. (1984). Patterns of strategic control within multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 15(2), 55–72.Google Scholar
Duysters, G., & Hagedoorn, J. (2001). Do company strategies and structures converge? Evidence from the computer industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(2), 347–356.Google Scholar
Ferner, A., Tregaskis, O., Edwards, P., Edwards, T., Marginson, P., Adam, D., & Meyer, M. (2011). HRM structures and subsidiary discretion in foreign multinationals in the UK. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(3), 483–509.Google Scholar
Gammelgaard, J., McDonald, F., Stephan, A., Tüselmann, H., & Dörrenbächer, C. (2012). The impact of increases in subsidiary autonomy and network relationships on performance. International Business Review, 21(6), 1158–1172.Google Scholar
Ghoshal, S., & Nohria, N. (1993). Horses for courses: organizational forms for multinational corporations. Sloan Management Review, 34(2), 180–203.Google Scholar
Ghoshal, S., & Wheatley, D. (2005). Organizational theory and the multinational corporation. New York, NY: Palgrave and MacMillan.Google Scholar
Herbert, T. (1984). Strategy and multinational organizational structure: An inter – organizational relationship perspective. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 259–270.Google Scholar
King, W., & Sethi, V. (1999). An empirical assessment of the organization of transnational information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(4), 7–28.Google Scholar
Luiz, J. M., & Charalambous, H. (2009). Factors influencing foreign direct investment of South African financial services firms in sub-saharan Africa. International Business Review, 18(3), 305–317.Google Scholar
Luiz, J. M., & Ruplal, M. (2013). Factors influencing the internationalization of South African mining companies. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 49(4), 113–129.Google Scholar
Luiz, J. M., & Stephan, H. (2012). The multinationalization of South African telecommunications firms into Africa. Telecommunications Policy, 36(8), 621–635.Google Scholar
Luiz, J. M., & Stewart, C. (2014). Corruption, South African multinational enterprises and institutions in Africa. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(3), 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahnke, V., Ambos, B., Nell, P. C., & Hobdari, B. (2012). How do regional headquarters influence corporate decisions in networked MNCs? Journal of International Management, 18(3), 293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, K. E., Estrin, S., Bhaumik, S. K., & Peng, M. W. (2009). Institutions, resources, and entry strategies in emerging economies. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 61–80.Google Scholar
Ming Lau, C., & Yue Ngo, H. (2001). Organizational development and firm performance: A comparison of multinational and local firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(1), 95–114.Google Scholar
Molz, R., Ratiu, C., & Taleb, A. (2010). The multinational enterprise in developing countries: Local versus global logic. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, F. (2011). Holistic ethnography: Studying the impact of multiple national identities on post acquisition organizations. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 654–671.Google Scholar
Mudambi, R., & Navarra, P. (2004). Is knowledge power? Knowledge flows, subsidiary power and rent seeking within MNCs. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5), 385–406.Google Scholar
Oh, C. H., & Oetzel, J. (2011). Multinationals’ response to major disasters: How does subsidiary investment vary in response to the type of disaster and the quality of country governance? Strategic Management Journal, 32, 658–681.Google Scholar
Seeck, H., & Kantola, A. (2009). Organizational control: Restrictive or productive? Journal of Management & Organization, 15(2), 241–257.Google Scholar
Smith, C. (2001). Organizational architecture and corporate finance. Journal of Financial Research, 24(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Taggart, J., & Todd, N. (1999). Determinants of autonomy in multinational corporation subsidiaries. European Management Journal, 17(2), 226–236.Google Scholar
Tonks, G. R., & Dowling, P. J. (2002). The case of the Bougainville Mine: Success and failure in the management of a multinational corporation. Journal of Management & Organization, 8(1), 70–85.Google Scholar
UNCTAD (2012). World investment report. Retrieved from www.unctad-docs.org/files/UNCTAD-WIR2011-Full-en.pdf.Google Scholar
Vahlne, J. E., Schweizer, R., & Johanson, J. (2012). Overcoming the liability of outsidership – The challenge of HQ of the global firm. Journal of International Management, 18(3), 224–232.Google Scholar
Zaheer, A., & Hernandez, E. (2011). The geographic scope of the MNC and its alliance portfolio: Resolving the paradox of distance. Global Strategy Journal, 1(1/2), 109–126.Google Scholar