Abstracts
Abstract
Torn between pressures coming from their global and their local environments, multinational subsidiary managers are often confronted with multiple and sometimes conflicting demands. In this inductive research we propose to mobilize paradox theory in order to investigate the process through which local managers navigate paradoxical tensions in their practices. Based on an in-depth case study of a French manufacturing site of IBM, our research reveals that local managers often struggle with belonging and performing paradoxical tensions and that they may navigate such tensions by adopting paradoxical responses—transgressive alignment, obedient deviance—that simultaneously combine elements of compliance and non-compliance.
Keywords:
- local managers,
- MNC,
- paradox,
- inductive research,
- micro-politics
Résumé
Tiraillés entre les pressions globales-locales de leurs environnements, les managers locaux de multinationales sont régulièrement confrontés à des demandes conflictuelles. Dans cette recherche inductive, nous proposons de mobiliser la théorie des paradoxes afin d’étudier comment les managers locaux répondent, en pratiques, aux tensions paradoxales. Basée sur l’étude de cas d’un site français d’IBM, notre recherche révèle que les managers locaux sont confrontés à des tensions paradoxales d’appartenance et de performance, et qu’ils font face à ces tensions en adoptant des réponses tout aussi paradoxales qui présentent simultanément des formes de conformité et de déviance : alignement transgressif, déviance obéissante.
Mots-clés :
- managers locaux,
- FMN,
- paradoxe,
- recherche inductive,
- micro-politique
Resumen
Enfrentando las tensiones entre expectativas globales y locales, los gerentes de subsidiarias multinacionales a menudo se enfrentan con demandas múltiples y en ocasiones conflictivas. En esta investigación inductiva nos proponemos movilizar la teoría de la paradoja para investigar el proceso a través del cual los administradores locales navegan por tensiones paradójicas en sus prácticas. Basado en un estudio de caso en profundidad de un sitio de fabricación francés de IBM, nuestra investigación revela que los gerentes enfrentan tensiones antagonistas entre pertenecer o ejecutar, y pueden manejar estas tensiones adoptando respuestas paradójicas que simultáneamente combinan elementos de cumplimiento e incumplimiento.
Palabras clave:
- gerentes locales,
- MNC,
- paradoja,
- investigación inductiva,
- micropolítica
Appendices
Bibliography
- Arnaud, N.; Mills, C.; Legrand, C. (2016). “Liberation through narrativity: A case of organization reconstruction through strategic storytelling”, Management International, Vol. 20, No 2, p. 107-118.
- Ambos, T. C.; Fuchs, S. H.; Zimmermann, A. (2020). “Managing interrelated tensions in headquarters—subsidiary relationships: The case of a multinational hybrid organization”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 51, No 6, p. 1-27.
- Ashcraft, K. L. (2005). “Resistance through consent? Occupational identity, organizational form, and the maintenance of masculinity among commercial airline pilots”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 19, No 1, p. 67-90.
- Balogun, J.; Johnson, G. (2004). “Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47, No 4, p. 523-549.
- Beddi, H. (2015). “Pouvoir et conflit dans les relations siège-filiales des firmes multinationales”, Management International/International Management/Gestión Internacional, Vol. 19, numéro spécial, p. 84-100.
- Birkinshaw, J.; Hood, N.; Jonsson, S. (1998). “Building firm-specific advantages in multinational corporations: the role of subsidiary initiative”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19, No 3, p. 221-242.
- Birkinshaw, J. (1999). “The determinants and consequences of subsidiary initiative in multinational corporations”, Entrepreneurship theory and practice, Vol. 24, No 1, p. 9-36.
- Birkinshaw, J.; Crilly, D.; Bouquet, C.; Lee, S. Y. (2016). “How do firms manage strategic dualities? A process perspective”, Academy of Management Discoveries, Vol. 2, No 1, p. 51-78.
- Boyce, M. E. (1995). “Collective centring and collective sense-making in the stories and storytelling of one organization”, Organization Studies, Vol. 16, No 1, p. 107-137.
- Clegg, S.; Geppert, M.; Hollinshead, G. (2018). “Politicization and political contests in and around contemporary multinational corporations: An introduction”, Human Relations, Vol. 71, No 6, p. 745-765.
- Corbin, J. M.; Strauss, A. C. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd Revised edition). Los Angeles, Calif: SAGE Publications.
- Cuganesan, S. (2017). “Identity paradoxes: How senior managers and employees negotiate similarity and distinctiveness tensions over time”, Organization Studies, Vol. 38, No 3-4, p. 489-511
- De Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life, trans. Steven Rendall. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Derksen, K.; Blomme, R. J.; de Caluwé, L.; Rupert, J.; Simons, R. J. (2019). “Breaking the Paradox: Understanding How Teams Create Developmental Space”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 28, No 3, p. 366-380.
- Dörrenbächer, C.; Gammelgaard, J. (2011). “Subsidiary power in multinational corporations: the subtle role of micro-political bargaining power”, Critical perspectives on international business, Vol. 7 No 1, p. 30-47.
- 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, Vol. 12, No 3, p. 251-265.
- Eisenhardt, K. M.; Schoonhoven, C. B. (1990). “Organizational growth: Linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among US semiconductor ventures, 1978-1988”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, No 3, p. 504-529.
- Farjoun, M. (2010). “Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35, No 2, p. 202-225.
- Geppert, M. (2003). “Sensemaking and politics in MNCs: A comparative analysis of vocabularies within the global manufacturing discourse in one industrial sector”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 12, No 4, p. 312-329.
- Geppert, M.; Williams, K. (2006). “Global, national and local practices in multinational corporations: Towards a sociopolitical framework”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 17, No 1, p. 49-69.
- Geppert, M.; Becker-Ritterspach, F.; Mudambi, R. (2016). “Politics and power in multinational companies: Integrating the international business and organization studies perspectives”, Organization Studies, Vol. 37, No 9, p. 1209-1225.
- Gerstner, L. V.; Herrmann, E. (2002). Who says elephants can’t dance? Inside IBM’s historic turnaround. New York: HarperBusiness.
- Gioia, D. A.; Corley, K. G.; Hamilton, A. L. (2013). “Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 16, No 1, p. 15-31.
- Glaser, B.; Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
- Golden, B. R. (1992). “The past is the past—or is it? The use of retrospective accounts as indicators of past strategy”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35, No 4, p. 848-860.
- Ghoshal, S.; Bartlett, C. A. (1990). “The multinational corporation as an interorganizational network”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, No 4, p. 603-626.
- Ghoshal, S.; Nohria, N. (1989). “Internal differentiation within multinational corporations”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10, No 4, p. 323-337.
- Greenwood, R.; Díaz, A. M.; Li, S. X.; Lorente, J. C. (2010). “The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses”, Organization Science, Vol. 21, No 2, p. 521-539.
- Guba, E. G. (1981). “Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries”, Ectj, Vol. 29, No 2, p. 75-91.
- Guler, I.; Guillén, M. F.; Macpherson, J. M. (2002). “Global competition, institutions, and the diffusion of organizational practices: The international spread of ISO 9000 quality certificates”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47, No 2, p. 207-232.
- Gupta, A. K., and Govindarajan, V. (2002). “Cultivating a global mindset”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16, No 1, p. 116-126.
- Holm, A. E.; Decreton, B.; Nell, P. C.; Klopf, P. (2017). “The dynamic response process to conflicting institutional demands in MNC subsidiaries: An inductive study in the Sub-Saharan African e-commerce sector”, Global Strategy Journal, Vol. 7, No 1, p. 104-124.
- Huber, G. P.; Power, D. J. (1985). “Retrospective reports of strategic-level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 6, No 2, p. 171-180.
- Jarzabkowski, P. A.; Lê, J. K. (2017). “We have to do this and that? You must be joking: Constructing and responding to paradox through humor”, Organization Studies, Vol. 38, No 3-4, p. 433-462.
- Jarzabkowski, P.; Lê, J.; Ven, A. (2013). “Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging and performing paradoxes co-evolve”, Strategic Organization, Vol. 11, No 3, p. 245-280.
- Jonsson, S.; Greve, H. R.; Fujiwara-Greve, T. (2009). “Lost without deserving: The spread of legitimacy loss in response to reported corporate deviance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 54, No 2, p. 195-228.
- Kidwell, R. E.; Martin, C. L. (2005). “The prevalence (and ambiguity) of deviant behavior at work”, dans Kidwell R. E. and Martin C. L. (sous la direction de), Managing organizational deviance, Sage Thousand Oaks, CA, p. 1-38.
- Knight, E.; Paroutis, S. (2017). “Becoming salient: The TMT leader’s role in shaping the interpretive context of paradoxical tensions”, Organization Studies, Vol. 38, No 3-4, p. 403-432.
- Kostova, T.; Roth, K. (2002). “Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45, No 1, p. 215-233.
- Levy, O.; Beechler, S.; Taylor, S.; Boyacigiller, N. A. (2007). “What we talk about when we talk about ‘global mindset’: Managerial cognition in multinational corporations”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 38, No 2, p. 231-258.
- Lewis, M. W. (2000). “Exploring paradox: toward a more comprehensive guide”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No 4, p. 760-776.
- Lewis, M. W.; Andriopoulos, C.; Smith, W. K. (2014). “Paradoxical leadership to enable strategic agility”, California Management Review, Vol. 56, No 3, p. 58-77.
- Lincoln, Y. S.; Guba, E. G. (1985). “Establishing trustworthiness”, Naturalistic Inquiry, Vol. 289, No 331, p. 289-327.
- Lüscher, L. S.; Lewis, M. W. (2008). “Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 51, No 2, p. 221-240.
- Meyer, K. E.; Mudambi, R.; Narula, R. (2011). “Multinational enterprises and local contexts: The opportunities and challenges of multiple embeddedness”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 48, No 2, p. 235-252.
- Miller, C. C.; Cardinal, L. B.; Glick, W. H. (1997). “Retrospective reports in organizational research: A reexamination of recent evidence”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40, No 1, p. 189-204.
- Miron-Spektor, E.; Ingram, A.; Keller, J.; Smith, W. K.; Lewis, M. W. (2017). “Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 61, No 1, p. 26-45.
- Morgan, G.; Kristensen, P. H. (2006). “The contested space of multinationals: Varieties of institutionalism, varieties of capitalism”, Human Relations, Vol. 59, No 11, p. 1467-1490.
- Narula, R. (2014). “Exploring the paradox of competence-creating subsidiaries: balancing bandwidth and dispersion in MNEs”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 47, No 1-2, p. 4-15.
- O’Brien, D.; Sharkey Scott, P.; Andersson, U.; Ambos, T.; Fu, N. (2019). “The microfoundations of subsidiary initiatives: How subsidiary manager activities unlock entrepreneurship”, Global Strategy Journal, Vol. 9, No 1, p. 66-91.
- Oliver, C. (1991). “Strategic responses to institutional processes”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, No 1, p. 145-179.
- Pache, A.-C., and Santos, F. (2010). “When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35, No 3, p. 455-476.
- Pant, A.; Ramachandran, J. (2017). “Navigating identity duality in multinational subsidiaries: A paradox lens on identity claims at Hindustan Unilever 1959-2015”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 48, No 6, p. 664-692.
- Papachroni, A.; Heracleous, L.; Paroutis, S. (2015). “Organizational ambidexterity through the lens of paradox theory: Building a novel research agenda”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 51, No 1, p. 71-93.
- Poole, M. S.; Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). “Using paradox to build management and organization theories”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No 4, p. 562-578.
- Prahalad, C. K.; Doz, Y. L. (1987). The multinational mission: Balancing local demands and global vision, New York: The Free Press.
- Putnam, L. L.; Fairhurst, G. T.; Banghart, S. (2016). “Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 10, No 1, p. 65-171.
- Richards, J. (2008). “The many approaches to organisational misbehaviour: A review, map and research agenda”, Employee Relations, Vol. 30, No 6, p. 653-678.
- Saka-Helmhout, A.; Deeg, R.; Greenwood, R. (2016). “The MNE as a challenge to institutional theory: Key concepts, recent developments and empirical evidence”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 53, No 1, p. 1-11.
- Schad, J.; Lewis, M. W.; Raisch, S.; Smith, W. K. (2016). “Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 10, No 1, p. 5-64.
- Schildt, H.; Perkmann, M. (2017). “Organizational settlements: Theorizing how organizations respond to institutional complexity”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 26, No 2, p. 139-145.
- Smith, W. K.; Lewis, M. W. (2011). “Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36, No 2, p. 381-403.
- Smith, W. K.; Tracey, P. (2016). “Institutional complexity and paradox theory: Complementarities of competing demands”, Strategic Organization, Vol. 14, No 4, p. 455-466.
- Smith, W. K.; Tushman, M. L. (2005). “Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams”, Organization Science, Vol. 16, No 5, p. 522-536.
- Spreitzer, G. M.; Sonenshein, S. (2004). “Toward the construct definition of positive deviance”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 47, No 6, p. 828-847.
- Stashevsky, S.; Weisberg, J. (2003). “Covering-up behaviour in organizations”, dans Sagie, A.; Stashevsky, S.; Koslowsky, M. (sous la direction de), Misbehaviour and Dysfunctional Attitudes in Organizations, Palgrave Macmillan, London, p. 57-78.
- Suddaby, R. (2006). “From the editors: What grounded theory is not”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 49, No 4, p. 633-642.
- Tempel, A.; Edwards, T.; Ferner, A.; Muller-Camen, M.; Wächter, H. (2006). “Subsidiary responses to institutional duality: Collective representation practices of US multinationals in Britain and Germany”, Human Relations, Vol. 59, No 11, p. 1543-1570.
- Tuckermann, H. (2018). “Visibilizing and invisibilizing paradox: A process study of interactions in a hospital executive board”, Organization Studies, Vol. 40, No 12, p. 1851-1872.
- Van de Ven, A. H.; Poole, M. S. (2000). “Methods for studying innovation processes”, dans Van de Ven, A.H.; Angle, H. L. and Poole M. S. (sous la direction de), Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota studies, Oxford University Press, USA, p. 31-54.
- Vernay, J.; Barazer, P. (1988). Chroniques de la Compagnie IBM France, Paris: IBM France.
- Vince, R.; Broussine, M. (1996). “Paradox, defense and attachment: Accessing and working with emotions and relations underlying organizational change”, Organization Studies, Vol. 17, No 1, p. 1-21.
- Watson, T. J. (2003). A Business and Its Beliefs: The Ideas That Helped Build IBM. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.