| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Lagerström, Katarina, 1969-, et al.
(författare)
-
Cooperating while competing in multinational corporations
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Competition: What it is and Why it Happens. - Oxford : Oxford University Press. - 9780192898012 - 0192652869 ; , s. 176-188
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this chapter we investigate the organization of competition among subunits in multinational corporations (MNCs) with the intent to explore how headquarters encourages and organizes for competition and when and why competition is handled by subunits that cooperate. The organization of competition by headquarters among the subunits is characterized by special conditions due to the formal hierarchical organization and access to legitimate tools to instil competition. Competition arises around three sources: allocation of resources, system position and headquarters attention, and the allocation of subsidiary mandates. Empirical findings from six MNCs are used to illustrate the adoption of cooperative and non-cooperative behaviours among subunits as outcomes of headquarters implementation of different tools to organize for competition. The findings also show that headquarters is not only a fourth-but also a third-party as it adjudicates many of the competitive situations that it organizes among its units.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Lagerström, Katarina, 1969-, et al.
(författare)
-
The Competition-Cooperation Interplay for Knowledge Development : A Headquarters-Subsidiary Perspective
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Strategy and Management.. - : Emerald Group Publishing Limited. - 1755-425X .- 1755-4268. ; 16:2, s. 362-377
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PurposeIn this paper, the authors contribute with insights on competition and cooperation in multinational enterprises with a focus on challenges related to these governance mechanisms in a knowledge development context. The mechanisms have been widely recognized as important for developing knowledge, but their contradicting nature implies considerable complexity when it comes to governance. The complexity is further increased as a result of the headquarters-subsidiary relationships. The aim of this paper is to contribute with theoretical and empirical insights on these aspects by focusing on the research question: How and why does competition and cooperation in an MNE emerge over time?Design/methodology/approachA manufacturing MNE with headquarters (HQ) in Sweden is analyzed on both HQ and subsidiary levels. Interviews with 24 managers in Sweden and India have been performed.FindingsThe study illustrates that competition and cooperation are integral aspects in HQ-subsidiary relationships. The results show that both competition and cooperation depend on environmental, organizational and object-related conditions and that these conditions influence the dynamics of the interplay. The importance of including a subsidiary perspective and the interdependencies in an MNE setting are emphasized.Originality/valueThe authors add to the discussion on the interplay between competition and cooperation as they play an important role for knowledge development in MNEs. The results indicate that they do not take place simultaneously, and therefore, the authors suggest that the dynamic can be better understood by focusing on the interplay and analyze the concepts separately.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Lagerström, Katarina, et al.
(författare)
-
The Competition - Cooperation Interplay within MNEs for Knowledge Development and Innovation
- 2019
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- While prior research has recognized the importance of intra-firm competition or cooperation for innovation and performance, we know little how competition and cooperation should be internally organized by firms. This paper aims to address this critical gap by focusing on the following questions: (a) what conditions drive cooperation and competition within the multinational? and (b) how does competition and cooperation dynamically change over time? To answer our research questions a single case study of SKF – a manufacturing MNE with headquarters in Sweden - is performed on two analytical levels (headquarters/subsidiaries). Our preliminary analysis shows that organizing for cooperation and competition depends on the environmental, organizational and object-related conditions. Such conditions, however, are not limited to HQ’s initiatives but it may also be a subsidiary-led process. Thus, the cooperation and competition interplay is an outcome of the HQ’s strategic orientation as well as subsidiary’s autonomy, local responsiveness and its ability to innovate.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Schweizer, Roger, et al.
(författare)
-
The Role of Headquarters in Managing Coopetition within MNCs : A Tale of Two Paradoxes
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Multinational Business Review. - : Emerald Group Publishing Limited. - 1525-383X.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the discussion on how multinational company (MNC) headquarters (HQs) can manage the existing coopetition paradox to ensure innovation within the MNC. In contrast to the rather scarce previous research, the authors argue that HQ needs to solve the coopetition paradox under the sway of a parenting paradox. Hence, HQ faces a dual paradox.Design/methodology/approach: Drawing on the literature on HQ's role during MNCs' innovation processes, this conceptual paper revisits the previously suggested HQ measures to enable coopetition among subsidiaries. By applying a sheer ignorance perspective, the authors contribute with a more nuanced understanding of the HQ's role in innovation activities.Findings: The article identifies four challenges as the HQ faces a parenting paradox that hinders its ability to solve the coopetition paradox: context specificity of subsidiaries' innovation work, normative expectations of subsidiary managers, potential opportunistic behavior of HQ manager and HQ underestimation of needed resources. The article suggests that HQ needs to become more informed and preferably even embedded in the local innovation networks of its most important subsidiaries and that coopetition should not be managed solely on an HQ level.Originality/value: Advocating a sheer ignorance perspective, the article pioneers in discussing the role that HQ plays in managing coopetition among subsidiaries in innovation activities.
|
|
