Strategy Creativity in Multinational Subsidiaries

  • Dónal O’Brien
  • Pamela Sharkey Scott
  • Ulf Andersson
Part of the The Academy of International Business book series (AIB)


Can multinational subsidiary managers develop creative strategies at the subsidiary level? To answer this question, we suggest that tensions between the headquarters and subsidiary perspectives demand a greater focus on the micro-foundations of strategy development in multinational subsidiaries. At a time when subsidiaries are coming under increasing pressure to meet the conflicting demands of innovation and integration in complex MNCs, this research contributes by uncovering the drivers of strategy creativity in subsidiaries and the mediating effect of an entrepreneurial subsidiary CEO. This study focuses on the attributes of the most senior manager in the subsidiary, the subsidiary CEO, and highlights how the entrepreneurial self-efficacy of these managers impacts the propensity for subsidiaries to be creative in their strategic approach.


  1. Ambos, T. C., Andersson, U., & Birkinshaw, J. (2010). What are the consequences of initiative-taking in multinational subsidiaries? Journal of International Business Studies, 41(7), 1099–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, B. S., Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (2009). Understanding the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and strategic learning capability: An empirical investigation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(3), 218–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson, U., Dellestrand, H., & Pedersen, T. (2014). The contribution of local environments to competence creation in multinational enterprises. Long Range Planning, 47(1–2), 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.Google Scholar
  5. Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1986). Tap your subsidiaries for global reach. Harvard Business Review, 64(6), 87–94.Google Scholar
  6. Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  7. Birkinshaw, J. (1997). Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The characteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 18(3), 207–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birkinshaw, J. (1999). The determinants and consequences of subsidiary initiative in multinational corporations. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 24(1), 11–38.Google Scholar
  9. Birkinshaw, J., & Hood, N. (1998a). Multinational subsidiary development: Capability evolution and charter change in foreign-owned subsidiary companies. Management International Review, 37(4), 339–364.Google Scholar
  10. Birkinshaw, J., & Hood, N. (1998b). Multinational subsidiary evolution: Capability and charter change in foreign-owned subsidiary companies. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 773–795.Google Scholar
  11. Birkinshaw, J., Hood, N., & Jonsson, S. (1998). Building firm specific advantages in multinational corporations: The role of subsidiary initiative. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Managing power in the multinational corporation: How low-power actors gain influence. Journal of Management, 34(3), 477–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cantwell, J., & Mudambi, R. (2005). MNE Competence creating subsidiary mandates. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 1109–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chandler, G. N., & Jansen, E. (1992). The founder’s self-assessed competence and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(3), 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, L., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Covin, J. G., Green, K. M., & Slevin, D. P. (2006). Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial orientation—sales growth rate relationship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30(1), 57–81.Google Scholar
  18. Delany, E. (2000). Strategic development of the multinational subsidiary through subsidiary initiative-taking. Long Range Planning, 33, 220–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm performance: Tests of contingency and configurational models. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 677–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dillman, D. A. (2000). How pre-notice letters, stamped return envelopes, and reminder postcards affect mailback response rates for census questionnaires. Survey Methodology, 21, 1–7.Google Scholar
  21. Dorrenbacher, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dörrenbächer, C., & Geppert, M. (2009). A micro-political perspective on subsidiary initiative-taking: Evidence from German-owned subsidiaries in France. European Management Journal, 27(2), 100–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dunning, J. H. (1995). Re-appraising the eclectic paradigm in an age of alliance capatilisim. Journal of International Business Studies, 6(3), 461–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Etemand, H., & Dulude, L. S. (1986). Managing the multinational subsidiary: Response to environmental changes and to host nation R&D policies. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  25. Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2005). Strategic organization: A field in search of micro-foundations. Strategic Organization, 3(4), 441–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. (2002). Transferring knowledge in MNCs: The role of sources of subsidiary knowledge and organisational context. Journal of International Management, 8(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. (2004). Organizing knowledge processes in the multinational corporation: An introduction. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5), 340–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Garcia-Pont, C., Canales, J. I., & Noboa, F. (2009). Subsidiary strategy: The embeddedness component. Journal of Management Studies, 46(2), 182–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Garnier, G. H. (1982). Context and decision making autonomy in the foreign affiliates of U.S. multinational corporations. Academy of Management Journal, 25(4), 893–908.Google Scholar
  30. Ghoshal, S., Korine, H., & Szulanski, G. (1994). Interunit communication in multinational corporations. Management Science, 40(96–110), 96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 472–485.Google Scholar
  32. Gong, Y., Huang, J., & Farth, J. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creativity self efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 765–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gupta, A. K., Govindarajan, V., & Malhotra, A. (1999). Feedback-seeking behavior within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 20(3), 205–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hambrick, D. C., & Finkelstein, S. (1995). The effects of ownership structure on conditions at the top: The case of CEO pay raises. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harzing, A.-W., & Noorderhaven, N. (2006). Knowledge flows in MNCs: An empirical test and extension of Gupta and Govindarajan’s typology of subsidiary roles. International Business Review, 15(3), 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis. New York and London: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hedlund, G. (1986). The hypermodern MNC—A heterarchy. Human Resource Management, 25(1), 9–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Henderson, R. I. (1984). Performance appraisal. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. Heneman, H. G. (1974). Comparisons of self and superior ratings of managerial performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 346–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behaviour and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 280–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hmieleski, K. M., & Corbett, A. C. (2008). The contrasting interaction effects of improvisational behavior with entrepreneurial self-efficacy on new venture performance and entrepreneur work satisfaction. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(4), 482–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Holm, U., & Sharma, D. D. (2006). Subsidiary marketing knowledge and strategic development of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Management, 12(1), 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hult, G. T. M., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001). Does market orientation matter?: A test of the relationship between positional advantage and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 899–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Karagozoglu, N., & Brown, W. B. (1988). Adaptive responses by conservative and entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 5(4), 269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Latham, G. P., & Wexley, K. N. (1981). Increasing productivity through performance appraisal. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  46. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organisational learning. Organization Science, 2(1, Special Issue), 71–87.Google Scholar
  49. Menon, A., Bharadwaj, S. G., Adidam, P. T., & Edison, S. W. (1999). Antecedents and consequences of marketing strategy making: A model and a test. Journal of Marketing, 63, 18–40.Google Scholar
  50. Mudambi, R. (2011). Hierarchy, coordination, and innovation in the multinational enterprise. Global Strategy Journal, 1, 317–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Newburry, W. (2011). Up, down, sideways, in, and out; multiple connections in the strategic management of the global enterprise. Global Strategy Journal, 1, 324–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival guide (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  55. Philips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self efficacy and goal setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 792–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pietersen, W. (2002). Reinventing strategy: Using strategic learning to create and sustain breakthrough performance. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  57. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Prahalad, C. K., & Y. Doz, L. (1981). An approach to strategic control in MNCs. Sloan Management Review, 22(4), 5–13.Google Scholar
  59. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ramani, G., & Kumar, V. (2008). Interaction orientation and firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 72(1), 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Roth, K., & Morrison, A. (1992). Implementing global strategy: Characteristics of global subsidiary mandates. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(4), 715–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2001). Subsidiary specific advantages in multinational enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Extending the theory of multinational enterprise: International and strategic management perspectives. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(2), 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rugman, A. M., Verbeke, A., & Nguyen, Q. T. K. (2011). Fifty years of international business theory and beyond. Management International Review, 51, 755–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Scott, P., Gibbons, P., & Coughlan, J. (2010). Developing subsidiary contribution to the MNC—Subsidiary entrepreneurship and strategy creativity. Journal of International Management, 16, 328–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tabachnick, B. G., & Findell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson International.Google Scholar
  67. Taggart, J. H. (1998). Strategy shifts in multinational subsidiaires. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 663–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thomas, J. B., Sussman, S. W., & Henderson, J. C. (2001). Understanding Strategic Learning: Linking organizational learning, knowledge management and sensemaking. Organization Science, 12(3), 331–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tsui, A. S., & Ohlott, P. (1988). Multiple assessment of managerial effectiveness: Interrater agreement and consensus in effectiveness models. Personnel Psychology, 41, 779–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Watson O’Donnell, S. (2000). Managing foreign subsidiaries: Agents of headquarters, or an independent network? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 525–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Williams, C. (2009). Subsidiary-level determinants of global initiatives in multinational corporations. Journal of International Management, 15(1), 92–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Williams, J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Resampling and distribution of the product methods for testing indirect effect in complex models. Structural Equation Modelling, 15, 23–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 31(3), 387–406.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dónal O’Brien
    • 1
  • Pamela Sharkey Scott
    • 1
  • Ulf Andersson
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Dublin City UniversityDublinIreland
  2. 2.Mälardalen UniversityVästeråsSweden
  3. 3.BI Norwegian Business SchoolOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations