Unfolding the Intra-organisational Perception Gap in Decision-Making

  • Shasha Zhao
  • Marina Papanastassiou
  • Yiannis Bassiakos
  • Evis Sinani
  • Robert Pearce
Part of the The Academy of International Business book series (AIB)


This chapter explores the dyadic relationship between headquarters and in terms of their perceptions of decision-making loci and associated organisational structure. By comparing the responses of parents of Greek Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) and their subsidiaries, we find evidence in favour of a perception gap in terms of decision-making between headquarters and subsidiaries. We argue that future research needs to carefully consider and account for the perception gap and point out the importance of the role of MNE managers in removing such barriers in order to achieve effective decision-making.


  1. Aharoni, Y., Tihanyi, L., & Connelly, B. L. (2011). Managerial decision-making in international business: A forty-five-year retrospective. Journal of World Business, 46(2), 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambos, T. C., Ambos, B., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2006). Learning from foreign subsidiaries: An empirical investigation of headquarters’ benefits from reverse knowledge transfers. International Business Review, 15, 294–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambos, T. C., Andersson, U., & Birkinshaw, J. (2010). What are the consequences of initiative-taking in multinational subsidiaries? Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 1099–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balogun, J., Jarzabkowski, P., & Vaara, E. (2012). Selling, resistance and reconciliation: A critical discursive approach to subsidiary role evolution in MNEs. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(6), 765–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barry, F., Görg, H., & McDowell, A. (2003). Outward FDI and the investment development path of a late-industrializing economy: Evidence from Ireland. Regional Studies, 37(4), 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (2002). Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bellak, C. (1996). Foreign direct investment from small states and integration. Micro- and macro-economic evidence from Austria. In S. Hisrch & T. Almor (Eds.), Outsiders’ response to European integration. Copenhagen: CBS Press.Google Scholar
  8. Birkinshaw, J. M., & Morrison, A. J. (1995). Configurations of strategy and structure in subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(4), 729–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birkinshaw, J., Nobel, R., & Ridderstrale, J. (2002). Knowledge as a contingency variable: Do the characteristic of knowledge predict organizational structure? Organization Science, 13(3), 274–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brauer, M., & Heitmann, M. (2013). Antecedents and temporal dynamics of strategic divergence in multinational corporations: Evidence from Europe. Journal of World Business, 48(1), 110–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cantwell, J., Dunning, J. H., & Lundan, S. M. (2010). An evolutionary approach to understanding international business activity: The co-evolution of MNEs and the institutional environment. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4), 567–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carifio, J., & Perla, J. R. (2007). Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 106–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Castello, S. A., & Ozawa, T. (2014). Globalisation of small economics as a strategic behavior in international business. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Chidlow, A., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Welsh, C. (2014). Translation in cross-language international business research: Beyond equivalence. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5), 562–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Child, J., & Hsieh, L. H. (2014). Decision mode, information and network attachment in the internationalization of SMEs: A configurational and contingency analysis. Journal of World Business, 49(4), 598–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chini, T., Ambos, B., & Wehle, K. (2005). The headquarters–subsidiaries trench: Tracing perception gaps within the multinational corporation. European Management Journal, 23(2), 145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Damijan, J. P., Polanec, S., & Prašnikar, J. (2007). Outward FDI and productivity: Micro-evidence from Slovenia. The World Economy, 30(1), 135–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de Jong, G., van Dut, V., Jindra, B., & Marek, P. (2015). Does country context distance determine subsidiary decision-making autonomy? Theory and evidence from European transition economies. International Business Review, 24(5), 874–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dörrenbächer, C., & Gammelgaard, J. (2006). Subsidiary role development: The effect of micro-political headquarters–subsidiary negotiations on the product, market and value-added scope of foreign-owned subsidiaries. Journal of International Management, 12(3), 266–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dörrenbächer, C., & Gammelgaard, J. (2011). Conflicts in headquarters–subsidiary relationships: Headquarters-driven charter losses in foreign subsidiaries. Politics and power in the multinational corporation: The role of institutions, interests and identities (pp. 231–254). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Forfas. (2006). Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation Ireland. Available at
  22. Frost, T. S., Birkinshaw, J. M., & Ensign, P. C. (2002). Centers of excellence in multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 23(11), 997–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gates, S. R., & Egelhoff, W. G. (1986). Centralization in headquarters–subsidiary relationship. Journal of International Business Studies, Summer, 17(2), 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Glass, G. V., Peckman, P. D., & Sanders, J. R. (1972). Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying the analyses of variance and covariance. Review of Educational Research, 42(3), 237–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Håkanson, L., Ambos, B., Schuster, A., & Leicht-Deobald, U. (2016). The psychology of psychic distance: Antecedents of asymmetric perceptions. Journal of World Business, 51(2), 308–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1983). Managing strategic responsibility in the MNE. Strategic Management Journal, 4, 342–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harzing, A. W. (2000). Cross-national industrial mail surveys: Why do response rates differ between countries? Industrial Marketing Management, 29(3), 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harzing, A. W., Reiche, B. S., & Pudelko, M. (2013). Challenges in international survey research: A review with illustrations and suggested solutions for best practice. European Journal of International Management, 7(1), 112–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hedlund, G. (1980). The role of foreign subsidiaries in strategic decision-making in Swedish Multinational Corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 1, 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ICAP. (2006). Industry, annual sectoral publications. Athens: ICAP Publications.Google Scholar
  32. IOBE. (2007). The impact of Greek multinationals on the growth of the Greek economy. IOBE, Athens, Greece (in Greek).Google Scholar
  33. IOBE. (2009). Greek multinationals, and their overseas subsidiaries. IOBE, Athens, Greece (in Greek).Google Scholar
  34. Jiang, G. F., Holburn, G. L., & Beamish, P. W. (2015). The spatial structure of foreign subsidiaries and MNE expansion strategy. Journal of World Business, 51(3), 438–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kosmidou, K., Pasiouras, F., & Tsaklanganos, A. (2007). Domestic and multinational determinants of foreign bank profits: The case of Greek banks operating abroad. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 17(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kostova, T., Marano, V., & Tallman, S. (2016). Headquarters–subsidiary relationships in MNCs: Fifty years of evolving research. Journal of World Business, 51(1), 176–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lehmann, E. L. With the special assistance of H. J. M. D’Abrera (2006). Nonparametrics: Statistical methods based on ranks (Reprinting of 1988 revision of 1975 Holden-Day ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Lunnan, R., Tomassen, S., & Benito, G. R. (2016). Exploring subsidiaries’ perceptions of corporate headquarters: Subsidiary initiatives and organizing costs. In T. C. Ambos, B. Ambos, & J. Birkinshaw (Eds.), Perspectives on headquarters-subsidiary relationships in the contemporary MNC (pp. 165–189). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  39. Mudambi, R., Pedersen, T., & Andersson, U. (2014). How subsidiaries gain power in multinational corporations. Journal of World Business, 49(1), 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nell, P. C., & Andersson, U. (2012). The complexity of the business network context and its effect on subsidiary relational (over-) embeddedness. International Business Review, 21(6), 1087–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Donnell, S. W. (2000). Managing foreign subsidiaries: Agents of headquarters, or an interdependent network? Strategic Management Journal, 525–548.Google Scholar
  42. Oladottir, A. D., Hobdari, B., Papanastassiou, M., Pearce, R., & Sinani, E. (2012). Strategic complexity and global expansion: An empirical study of newcomer multinational corporations from small economies. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 686–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oxelheim, L., & Gartner, R. (1996). The response of small outsider countries to the EC 1992 program: Some stylised facts. In S. Hisrch & T. Almor (Eds.), Outsiders’ response to European integration (pp. 37–56). Copenhagen: CBS Press.Google Scholar
  44. Papanastassiou, M., & Pearce, R. (1999). Multinationals, technology and national competitiveness. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  45. Papanastassiou, M., & Pearce, R. (2009). The strategic development of multinationals; subsidiaries and innovation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  47. Schüler-Zhou, Y., & Schüller, M. (2013). An empirical study of Chinese subsidiaries’ decision-making autonomy in Germany. Asian Business & Management, 12(3), 321–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Slangen, A., & Hennart, J.-F. (2008). Do foreign greenfields outperform foreign acquisitions or vice versa? An institutional perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 45(7), 1301–1328.Google Scholar
  49. Taggart, J. H. (1997). Autonomy and procedural justice: A framework for evaluating subsidiary strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(1), 1st Qtr., 51–76.Google Scholar
  50. Taggart, J. H. (1998). Strategy shifts in MNC subsidiaries. Strategic Management Journal, 19(7), 663–681.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shasha Zhao
    • 1
  • Marina Papanastassiou
    • 1
  • Yiannis Bassiakos
    • 2
  • Evis Sinani
    • 3
  • Robert Pearce
    • 4
  1. 1.Middlesex University Business SchoolLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  3. 3.Copenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark
  4. 4.Henley Business SchoolJohn H. Dunning Centre for International Business, University of ReadingReadingUK

Personalised recommendations