How to choose the most appropriate distance perspective for practical applications? The concept of distance has been widely used for international location decisions but with inconclusive empirical results in the leading debates, e.g., cultural vs institutional distance, psychic distance, geographic distance, and distance in global value chains. However, practical applications of the concept, e.g., market entry strategies, supply chain management, cross-cultural management, and customer relationship management, are becoming more relevant for practitioners.

We take the theoretical perspectives that involve the CAGE framework, the Uppsala Model, the Institutional Theory, the Transaction Cost Economics, and the Resource-Based View to compare five perspectives of distance and assess their advantages for practitioners. We also examine the relationship between distance dimensions and the characteristics of various issues involved in distance investigations, i.e., industry, ownership, type, motive, and timing of internationalization. We propose that distance represents the disadvantages of host countries for international location decisions; as such, it should be used in conjunction with factors that represent host country attractiveness or advantages. Our research suggests that an inappropriate selection of the distance perspective and neglect of attractiveness factors in the analysis could be additional alternative explanations for mixed empirical results in prior studies.

This study explores how different types of mandates (competence-creating and competence-exploiting) shape subsidiary coopetitive behavior and the role subsidiary managers play in this process. We conducted an in-depth qualitative study investigating 50 episodes of competition and cooperation observed across five headquarters–subsidiary relationships. Findings demonstrate that a competence-creating subsidiary mandate role tend to influence more competitive behavior, since the role brings status and prestige, whereas cooperative behavior is observed for subsidiaries involved in competence-exploiting mandate role as a response to the need for survival. By examining the influence of different mandates and the role of subsidiary managers, this study enhances our comprehension of how competence-creating and competence-exploiting mandate roles impact subsidiary behavior. Additionally, we address the crucial role subsidiary managers play in shaping the mandate dynamics within MNEs, as their aspiration for career development motivates them to engage strategically in competition and cooperation with their peers at different times. Understanding these dynamics can help MNE managers to make more informed decisions regarding resource allocation, innovation strategies, and subsidiary role development, ultimately contributing to the MNE’s competitiveness and success.

Although middle managers are crucial as change agents throughout organizations, there has been little research how middle managers’ ambidextrous behaviors affect higher level outcomes such as strategic renewal activities. Quite surprising, as job demands are drastically increasing in complexity and contradiction especially in the midfield of organizations and multi-level studies tend to better explain the effects of ambidexterity in organizations. As a result, this multi-level study explores the relationship between middle managers’ ambidexterity and strategic renewal in the business unit. We conceptualize middle managers’ upward and downward influencing behaviors as mediators in this relationship. An empirical analysis of 277 middle managers from Germany indicate that middle managers’ ambidexterity may lead to higher strategic renewal in the business unit. However, as we show a full mediation effect, this may be highly dependent upon middle managers’ level of upward and downward influence. Our findings underscore the importance of strategic influence as a mechanisms through which middle managers translate ambidextrous behaviors to higher strategic renewal performance in the unit. At the same time, we unravel individual ambidexterity as a behavioral tool for middle managers to cope with risings tensions in their strategic roles.

Multinational enterprise (MNE) subsidiaries are embedded in both their headquarters (HQ) and the host country, necessitating the fulfillment of demands from both to maintain legitimacy. This dual embeddedness can create a legitimacy dilemma when demands conflict, as satisfying one set may oppose the other. This study employs a microfoundations perspective to examine how MNE subsidiaries perceive and navigate differing CSR demands from HQ and host countries. Through interviews with 26 informants, we find that subsidiary CSR managers perceive fewer tensions between HQ and local demands but more significant tensions regarding CSR value, manifesting in conflicts between HQ CSR units and local business functions. Instead of experiencing dual embeddedness as a constraint, subsidiary managers leverage their dual embeddedness to legitimize their CSR practices. Our research contributes to the literature on MNE CSR, subsidiary management, and organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands.

Latest advances in network literature outline the growing interdependencies across multiple business networks of the MNE operating in the globalized marketplace. However, multiple network context of the MNEs used to remain faceless. Prior studies mostly adopt the local network perspective. The present study is driven by an interest in understanding the complexity of the multiple business network context: the type of network actors and the nature of their cross-border interdependencies. We also seek to empirically explore how the MNE leverages multiple network connectivity to pursue its business development. The empirical study is based on three case studies with 34 interviews conducted with the respondents from the HQ and several foreign subsidiaries within each case firm. The findings provide the insights about the nature of cross-country interdependencies within the international customer network of the MNEs (1), suggest a nuanced perspective of local embeddedness (2), expand the conceptualization of multiple embeddedness patterns (3).

This study aims to explore the challenges faced by multinational corporations (MNCs) when they plan to move from traditional organizational structures to agile ones at the subsidiary level. We focus on reducing organizational hierarchies in an environment in which respect for social hierarchy is culturally engrained. Thirty-two in-depth qualitative interviews with Korean-subsidiary-level decision makers of German and French MNCs are conducted. Our findings show that some subsidiaries failed and reintroduced their former hierarchy-oriented organizational design. Others succeeded in building agile structures and flattened the organizational hierarchy through job title remove in the Korean subsidiaries. This study has identified the challenges in building the agility in the Korean subsidiaries of European MNC, which is related to the interplay between formal and informal hierarchies. We further suggest an agility matrix that assists change leaders to identify suitable options for their subsidiaries to become agile. Further, we develop a process model for subsidiaries of MNCs to implement agile features across seven stages in their agile transition journey.