Mind mapping the topic of subsidiary management (SM)
Joseph Kim-keung Ho
Independent Trainer
Hong Kong, China
Abstract: The topic of subsidiary management (SM) is
a main one in global business management. This article makes use of the mind
mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach to render an image on the
knowledge structure of subsidiary management. The finding of the review
exercise is that its knowledge structure comprises four main themes, i.e., (a)
Definitions of basic concepts, (b) Major underlying theories and thinking, (c)
Main research topics and issues, and (d) Major trends and issues related to
practices. There is also a set of key
concepts identified from the SM literature review. The article offers some academic and pedagogical values on the topics of
SM, literature review and the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR)
approach.
Key
words: Subsidiary management,
literature review, mind map, the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR)
approach, global business management
Introduction
Subsidiary
management (SM) is a main topic in global business
management. It is of academic and pedagogical interest to the writer who has
been a lecturer on global business management for some tertiary education
centres in Hong Kong. In this article, the writer presents his literature
review findings on SM using the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR)
approach. This approach was proposed by this writer this year and has been
employed to review the literature on a number of topics, such as supply chain
management, strategic management accounting and customer relationship
management (Ho, 2016). The MMBLR approach itself is not particularly novel
since mind mapping has been employed in literature review since its inception.
The overall aims of this exercise are to:
1. Render an image of the knowledge structure of
subsidiary management (SM) via the
application of the MMBLR approach;
2. Illustrate how the MMBLR approach can be
applied in literature review on an academic topic, such as SM.
The findings from this
literature review exercise offer academic and pedagogical values to those who
are interested in the topics of SM, literature review and the MMBLR approach.
Other than that, this exercise facilitates this writer’s intellectual learning
on these three topics. The next section makes a brief introduction on the MMBLR
approach. After that, an account of how it is applied to study SM is presented.
On mind mapping-based literature review
The mind mapping-based
literature review (MMBLR) approach was developed by this writer this year (Ho,
2016). It makes use of mind mapping as a complementary literature review
exercise (see the Literature on mind
mapping Facebook page and the Literature
on literature review Facebook page). The approach is made up of two steps.
Step 1 is a thematic analysis on the literature of the topic chosen for study.
Step 2 makes use of the findings from step 1 to produce a complementary mind
map. The MMBLR approach is a relatively straightforward and brief exercise. The
approach is not particularly original since the idea of using mind maps in
literature review has been well recognized in the mind mapping literature. The
MMBLR approach is also an interpretive exercise in the sense that different
reviewers with different research interest and intellectual background inevitably
will select different ideas, facts and findings in their thematic analysis
(i.e., step 1 of the MMBLR approach). Also, to conduct the approach, the
reviewer needs to perform a literature search beforehand. Apparently, what a
reviewer gathers from a literature search depends on what library facility,
including e-library, is available to the reviewer. The next section presents
the findings from the MMBLR approach step 1; afterward, a companion mind map is
provided based on the MMBLR approach step 1 findings.
Mind mapping-based literature review on subsidiary
management (SM): step 1 findings
Step 1 of the MMBLR approach is
a thematic analysis on the literature of the topic under investigation (Ho,
2016). In our case, this is the SM topic. The writer gathers some academic
articles from some universities’ e-libraries as well as via the Google Scholar.
With the academic articles collected, the writer conducted a literature review
on them to assemble a set of ideas, viewpoints, concepts and findings (called
points here). The points from the SM literature are then grouped into four
themes here. The key words in the quotations are bolded in order to highlight
the key concepts involved.
Theme 1: Definitions of basic concepts
Point 1.1.
“A subsidiary is defined as a value-adding
entity for a parent TNC, located in a host country. This definition allows
a TNC [transnational corporation]
group to have several subsidiaries in any given host country or in different
countries, and they may be independent in their roles. A subsidiary can perform
a single activity (for example, manufacturing) or an entire value chain of
activities” (Iguchi, 2012);
Point 1.2.
“…subsidiary can refer to the totality of the MNC’s
holdings in a host country or to a single entity, such as a manufacturing or
sales operation. Subsidiaries are established for a variety of motives (e.g., resource seeking, market
seeking, or efficiency seeking)
and through a variety of modes
(e.g., greenfield, acquisition, or joint venture). The relationship of the
subsidiary to the parent company can be anything from legal holding company to
fully integrated” (Birkinshaw and Hood, 1998);
Point 1.3.
”Relationships
between headquarters and foreign subsidiaries are among
the most crucial issues concerning the management of multinational enterprises (MNEs) … MNEs are firms that engage in foreign direct investments (FDIs) by
controlling and managing value-added activities abroad …..; thus, foreign
subsidiaries contribute to their global value chain” (Beddi and
Mayrhofer, 2013);
Point 1.4.
“Competence-creating subsidiaries have strong autonomy levels as a result of
either enhanced capabilities or charters which also require responsibilities
for sourcing parts or components and managing R&D activities, as well as
the cost efficiency and quality required by the TNC parent” (Iguchi,
2012);
Point 1.5.
“Some
subsidiaries may have responsibility for all of the firm’s products, others may
have responsibility for a single product line or even a single product” (Enright
and Subramanian, 2007);
Point 1.6.
“…it [subsidiary
evolution] can be understood broadly as the process of accumulation or
depletion of resources/capabilities in the subsidiary over time” (Birkinshaw
and Hood, 1998);
Point 1.7.
“…some subsidiaries are capability makers and other
subsidiaries are capability takers”
(Enright and Subramanian, 2007);
Point 1.8.
“…some subsidiaries may rely more on knowledge sourced from their local environments in the process of
building valuable subsidiary-level knowledge (“external knowledge”), whereas
others might build knowledge assets based on knowledge inputs from other
subsidiaries or corporate headquarters” (Asmussen, Foss and Pedersen,
2013);
Point 1.9.
“A network MNC
strongly delegates decision rights to subsidiaries, while retaining some
decision-rights at the HQ. It is often characterized by a low degree of
formalization, extensive lateral communication and knowledge transfer. Its
subsidiaries are often resource-rich, hence powerful. It is a change-oriented
organization situated in high-dynamism environments in which local adaptation
as well as integration pressures coexist” (Foss, Foss and Nell, 2011);
Point 1.10.
“Leaders
are subsidiaries that create substantive capabilities through
their research and development and managerial activities and are important
users of capabilities in production, marketing and sales, and similar
activities. Innovators
are firms that generate capabilities, but have low levels of
capability utilization such as engaging in the production or marketing or
related activities that directly leverage capabilities into the local economy.
….Implementers are
subsidiaries that have low levels of capability creation ….. but are important
users of capabilities generated in other parts of the firm. Observers
are not important to the firm as capability generators or users” (Enright
and Subramanian, 2007);
Point 1.11.
“A subsidiary that generates
capabilities used regionally or globally may be very different from one that
generates important capabilities only used locally. The use of the terms ‘local
implementer’…., ‘global innovator’ and ‘local innovator’ … and ‘world mandate’
…, also show that the geographic scope
of the subsidiary’s influence allows one to distinguish one subsidiary type
from another” (Enright and Subramanian, 2007);
Point 1.12.
“Different scholars have described subsidiary control in many different ways. Child …, for example, defined it as ‘regulating
the activities within an organization so that they are in accord with the
expectations established in policies, plans and targets’,
whereas Wilkinson et
al … conceptualized it as ‘the
process through which a parent company’s
interests are protected’..” (Pudelko
and Tenzer, 2013);
Point 1.13.
“The
MNC is viewed as a network of geographically
separate but mutually linked nodes (or units), each possessing unique
knowledge resources ... Possibilities for combining complementary knowledge
resources, and for supporting their transfer and subsequent combination, drive
overall value creation …” (Asmussen, Foss and Pedersen, 2013);
Theme 2: Major underlying theories and thinking
Point 2.1.
“…the TNC [transnational corporation] group is modelled as an
‘inter-organisational network’ … of loosely coupled entities, rather than a
singular hierarchy, which gives the subsidiary the necessary freedom to develop
and shift its own unique resource profile, including human and technological
resources, within the host country. This view provides a valuable perspective
on the emergence of competence-creating subsidiaries” (Iguchi,
2012);
Point 2.2.
“From this
perspective [resource based view],
rather than seeking foreign markets for exploiting rent-yielding firm-specific advantages, multinationals pursue
knowledge-seeking strategies not just for exploitation but also for enhancement
or development of new capabilities (Moore, 2001; Madhok, 1997). In that sense,
some subsidiaries are given mandates for exploring local knowledge and access
to expertise complementary to the multinational, which, when leveraged by the
transfer of knowledge among MNC units, leads to a competitive advantage for the
whole corporation” (Miravitlles, Guitart-Tarrés
and Nuñez-Carballosa, 2014);
Point 2.3.
“The PLC [product life cycle] model helps us
to understand the development process as subsidiaries’ roles shift toward high
value-added activities – from servicing the local market to “adapting” the
technology to local specifications, then exporting back to the home country,
and eventually to contributing to product development…. However, it is limited
in two ways: (1) the subsidiary is always subordinate to the center, and (2)
the possibility of subsidiary decline is not considered” (Birkinshaw and Hood,
1998);
Point 2.4.
“The benefits of concentrating any function
in the value chain at a few sites lie fundamentally in obtaining economies of scale, learning and scope, while the advantages of dispersing activities in different
countries include, among others, the degree of specialisation at each location,
the diversification of political or exchange rate risks and the flexibility to
respond to competitors in different ways in each country” (Miravitlles,
Guitart-Tarrés and Nuñez-Carballosa, 2014);
Point 2.5.
“…a large segment of the international business literature
argues that multinational corporations (MNCs) can derive advantages relative to
purely domestic firms from their superior access to heterogeneously distributed knowledge… and their ability to
transfer and exploit such knowledge within the MNC” (Asmussen,
Foss and Pedersen, 2013);
Point 2.6.
“…local
market knowledge, which can be acquired by the
parent MNE through own (prior) investment experience or through the involvement
of a local partner, negates the effect of psychic distance on subsidiary
performance because such market knowledge eliminates the factors that prevent a
firm’s learning about a foreign environment” (Dikova,
2009);
Point 2.7.
“…the longer a subsidiary has operated
and built internationally integrated relationships, the more it will have been
able to evolve away from a primarily domestic orientation, thereby finding
opportunity to accumulate capability and autonomy” (Iguchi,
2012);
Point 2.8.
“…the uniqueness of
the subsidiary’s knowledge in an MNC context tends to be larger, ceteris
paribus, if that knowledge is acquired in the subsidiary’s external host
country environment rather than from other MNC units. This enhances the benefit
of knowledge transfer as it may
stimulate innovation by increasing diversity of knowledge in the receiving unit”
(Asmussen,
Foss and Pedersen, 2013);
Point 2.9.
“A multinational subsidiary can assimilate knowledge from a set of six exhaustive and mutually
exclusive sources. The first three operate under a unified corporate identity:
the subsidiary itself (i.e., utilizing own knowledge); MNC headquarters
(located in the home country of the MNC); and other MNC subsidiaries (located
in other countries). The three sources located outside the firm’s boundaries
are: other firms in the host country (where the subsidiary is located); other
firms in the home country (where the MNC headquarters are located); and firms
in other countries” (Phene, and Almeida, 2008);
Point 2.10.
“A
useful starting model for analyzing subsidiary capacity building is the “global factory” … the key macro analytical decisions in the
global factory are very simple—control and location. The planning center of the
global factory has to ask two very straightforward questions of each activity
in the global network: Where should this activity be located? How should this
activity be controlled? The second question concerns the means of control.
Should the activity be managed by the market via a contract and price
relationship, or should it be internalized and controlled by management?” (Horn, 2016);
Point 2.11.
“Deciding on an appropriate
ownership strategy is a critical task for multinational enterprises (MNEs)
that wish to effectively and efficiently manage foreign subsidiaries in host
markets …The choice between a wholly owned subsidiary (WOS) and a joint venture
(JV) ownership structure is determined by various factors. These factors
include strategic intent …., capability level …, organizational characteristics
…, and the type of internal knowledge to be transferred between foreign
subsidiaries” (Lee, Kwak and Kim, 2014);
Point 2.12.
“Head-office assignment of roles is a
critical determinant of subsidiary evolution, but in our reading of the
literature, it is just one of three broad mechanisms that are responsible for
driving the process. The second we refer to as subsidiary choice, which reflects the decisions taken by subsidiary
management to define for themselves the role of their subsidiary. The third we
refer to as local environment
determinism, in that the role of the subsidiary can be understood as a
function of the constraints and opportunities in the local market” (Birkinshaw
and Hood, 1998);
Point 2.13.
“Two main kinds of subsidiary
control can be distinguished: HQ may either directly influence their foreign operations
by centrally controlling subsidiary activities or exert more indirect control
through staffing
key subsidiary positions with expatriates. Whereas the former option should
guarantee the subsidiary’s compliance with corporate strategy, it is not always possible
to implement it in full. If this is the case, an MNC uses global staffing, particularly in the form of
expatriation, as the primary means to coordinate and control its spatially
dispersed operations” (Pudelko
and Tenzer, 2013);
Theme 3: Main research topics and issues
Point 3.1.
“A
number of researchers have developed typologies
that attempt to identify the salient features that distinguish subsidiaries
…. Recent research has largely focused on the structural aspects of the MNC,
particularly the mechanisms of coordination and control to classify MNC
subsidiaries …, or on examining specific roles of subsidiaries such as Centers
of Excellence …, or on studying how such subsidiary roles are gained or lost” (Enright
and Subramanian, 2007);
Point 3.2.
“A source of competitive advantage for
contemporary multinational enterprises (MNEs) is their ability to leverage distinct competencies of internationally
dispersed subsidiaries. Much research under the modern stream of subsidiary
development has focused on the different roles that subsidiaries can play
within the MNE system, drawing on subsidiary-specific competencies” (Dimitratos, Liouka and Young, 2014);
Point 3.3.
“Despite its significance, the notion of subsidiary entrepreneurship, in terms
of competencies that could contribute both to subsidiary- and MNE-level
development, has largely been neglected in the relevant literature” (Dimitratos, Liouka and Young, 2014);
Point 3.4.
“…when
recipients acquire new knowledge that conflicts with their existing beliefs,
they may inadvertently alter their existing knowledge structures—a process that
cognitive constructivists call “accommodation”
…. In the context of the MNC, this may lead a foreign subsidiary to alter or
discard preexisting knowledge that happened to be valuable to other MNC units.
This implies that knowledge inflows from the environment may be value
destroying, an effect that cannot be captured if we assume knowledge to be
cumulative” (Asmussen, Foss and Pedersen, 2013);
Point 3.5.
“…while the benefits of individual subsidiaries interacting with their
particular local environment to create knowledge and initiatives for
dissemination across the MNC is increasingly accepted …, the potential for a
subsidiary to exploit their local environment through developing subsidiary
entrepreneurship has been
underexplored” (Scott,
Gibbons and Coughlan, 2010);
Point 3.6.
“During
the past couple of decades, numerous studies have been made on heterogeneity
among subsidiaries …showing that subsidiaries within the same MNC often have
different roles. The focus has mainly been on internal conditions. …. Few
studies have more explicitly examined the importance that a subsidiary’s external network of specific
business relationships has on its market performance and strategic role
within the MNC” (Ljung and Pahlberg, 2015);
Point 3.7.
“Given that control is of paramount importance for the implementation of an MNC’s
global strategy …, it represents ‘the
central issue’ of headquarters
(HQ)-subsidiary relationships” (Pudelko
and Tenzer, 2013);
Point 3.8.
“MNE
subsidiaries are distinctive from independent firms because of their status as “affiliates”,
and hence, are subject to the ultimate control of their parent firms. Thus, their cross-border
relationships with their parent corporation and other subsidiaries create very
distinctive opportunities and challenges in developing entrepreneurial competencies” (Dimitratos,
Liouka and Young, 2014);
Point 3.9.
“The control
of foreign subsidiaries by headquarters (HQ) poses a particularly
interesting area of research. Foreign subsidiaries are often culturally and
socially distant from their parents. They may resent HQ’s formal control
mechanisms, discarding them as signs of inflexibility and unwillingness to
adapt to the local environment. And they may welcome informal control up to a
certain point but consider it interference beyond that” (Scott,
Gibbons and Coughlan, 2010);
Point
3.10.
“It is accepted that the latitude provided by federal MNC structures has enabled
subsidiaries to engage in strategy development ….which is concerned about the
future direction of an organisation …, but little is known about the drivers of
variation in subsidiary strategy” (Scott, Gibbons and Coughlan, 2010);
Point 3.11.
“The attributes of headquarters-subsidiary relations make them
very similar to principal-agent relationships … As the principal, the
headquarters cannot effectively make all the decisions in the MNC since it does
not possess and must, therefore, depend on the unique knowledge of the
subsidiaries. At the same time, the headquarters cannot relinquish all
decision-rights to the subsidiaries since the local interests of subsidiaries
may not always be aligned with those of the headquarters or the MNC as a whole”
(Nohria
and Ghoshal, 1994);
Theme 4: Major trends and issues related to practices
Point 4.1.
“The traditional Thai antipathy to downsizing – particularly by Western-parented company – is
reflected in a labour law which makes layoffs difficult and potentially costly.
The nature of social relationships
in Thai culture is such that the need for externally imposed change programmes
is invariably construed as a ‘loss of face’ by senior local executives accustomed
to the traditional top-down management system” (Andrews, 2010);
Point 4.2.
“For
MNEs originating from mature markets, managing subsidiaries in emerging economies appears to be a
difficult task because the local environment of these foreign subsidiaries
usually presents important differences from the home-country environment of the
parent company. In fact, the distance separating the headquarters of the MNEs
from their local subsidiaries may affect relationships between them” (Beddi and
Mayrhofer, 2013);
Point 4.3.
“Host developing countries have promoted inward FDI in order to link host
countries’ technology or firms with global technology and innovation networks
through TNC subsidiaries” (Iguchi, 2012);
Point 4.4.
“Over the last few years, MNEs from mature economies have
increased their investments in developing countries…, mostly in emerging
markets. The role of foreign subsidiaries located in emerging countries is,
thus, likely to change over time” (Beddi and Mayrhofer,
2013);
Point 4.5.
“As the complexity of the local environment in which the
subsidiary is located increases, the importance of local knowledge increases
and the subsidiary must be allowed greater influence in decision making. At the
same time, as the level of resources possessed by the subsidiary increases,
agency costs or the risk associated with the subsidiary acting in its own
partisan interests increases” (Nohria and Ghoshal, 1994);
Point 4.6.
“Historically, the role of subsidiaries is to adapt
products developed in the parent TNC’s [[transnational corporation] home country
to local tastes or customer needs, and to adapt processes to the availability
of local resources and production conditions. This type of traditional
subsidiary was dependent on the competence of its parent TNC, and its role was competence-exploiting” (Iguchi,
2012);
Each of them has a set of
associated points (i.e., idea, viewpoints, concepts and findings). Together
they provide an organized way to comprehend the knowledge structure of the subsidiary
management (SM) topic. The bolded key words in the quotation reveal, based on
the writer’s intellectual judgement, the key concepts examined in the SM
literature. The referencing indicated on the points identified informs the
readers where to find the academic articles to learn more about the details on
these points; readers are also referred to the Literature on multinational corporation Facebook page. The process
of conducting the thematic analysis is an exploratory as well as synthetic
learning endeavour on the topic’s literature. Once the structure of the themes,
sub-themes[1]
and their associated points are finalized, the reviewer is in a position to
move forward to step 2 of the MMBLR approach. The MMBLR approach step 2
finding, i.e., a companion mind map on SM, is presented in the next section.
Mind mapping-based literature review on SM: step 2
(mind mapping) output
By adopting the findings from
the MMBLR approach step 1 on subsidiary management (SM), the writer constructs
a companion mind map shown as Figure 1.
Referring to the mind map on SM,
the topic label is shown right at the centre of the map as a large blob. Four
main branches are attached to it, corresponding to the four themes identified
in the thematic analysis. The links and ending nodes with key phrases represent
the points from the thematic analysis. The key phrases have also been bolded in
the quotations provided in the thematic analysis. As a whole, the mind map
renders an image of the knowledge structure on SM based on the thematic
analysis findings. Constructing the mind map is part of the learning process on
literature review. The mind mapping process is speedy and entertaining. The
resultant mind map also serves as a useful presentation and teaching material.
This mind mapping experience confirms the writer’s previous experience using on
the MMBLR approach (Ho, 2016). Readers are also referred to the Literature on literature review Facebook
page and the Literature on mind
mapping Facebook page for additional information on these two topics.
Concluding remarks
The MMBLR approach to study SM
provided here is mainly for its practice illustration as its procedures have
been refined via a number of its employment on an array of topics (Ho, 2016).
No major additional MMBLR steps nor notions have been introduced in this
article. In this respect, the exercise reported here primarily offers some
pedagogical value as well as some systematic and stimulated learning on subsidiary
management (SM) in global business management. Nevertheless, the thematic findings
and the image of the knowledge structure on SM in the form of a mind map should
also be of academic value to those who research on this topic.
Bibliography
1.
Andrews, T.G. 2010. “Downsizing the Thai Subsidiary Corporation:
A Case Analysis” Asia Pacific Business
Review 8(2): 149-170.
2.
Asmussen, C.G., N.J. Foss and T. Pedersen. 2013. “Knowledge
Transfer and Accommodation Effects in Multinational Corporations: Evidence from
European Subsidiaries” Journal of
Management 39(6) September, Sage: 1397-1429.
3.
Beddi, H. and U. Mayrhofer. 2013.
“Headquarters-subsidiaries relationships of French multinationals in emerging
markets” The Multinational Business
Review 21(2), Emerald: 174-194.
4.
Birkinshaw, J. and N. Hood. 1998.
“Multinationality subsidiary evolution: capability and charter change in
foreign-owned subsidiary companies” Academy
of Management Review 23(4): 773-795.
5.
Dikova, D. 2009. “Performance of foreign
subsidiaries: Does psychic distance matter?” International Business Review 18, Elsevier: 38-49.
6. Dimitratos, P., I. Liouka and S. Young. 2014. “A missing
Operationalization: Entrepreneurial Competencies in Multinational Enterprise
Subsidiaries” Long Range Planning 47,
Elsevier: 64-75.
7. Enright,
M.J. and V. Subramanian. 2007. “An organizing framework for MNC subsidiary
typology” Management International Review
47 December: 895-924.
8. Foss,
K., N.J. Foss and P.C. Nell. 2011. “MNC organizational Form and subsidiary
motivation problems: controlling intervention hazards in the network MNC”
December 6, SSRN.com (url address: Electronic copy available
at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1969402) [visited at December 25, 2016].
9.
Ho,
J.K.K. 2016. Mind mapping for literature
review – a ebook, Joseph KK Ho publication folder October 7 (url address: http://josephkkho.blogspot.hk/2016/10/mind-mapping-for-literature-review-ebook.html).
10. Horn, S.A. 2016. “Subsidiary Capacity Building in Emerging
Markets: How Japanese MNEs Sequence Market Entry and Development Strategies in
India” Thunderbird International Business
Review 58(1) January/February: 55-74.
11. Iguchi,
C. 2012. “Globalisation of R&D by TNC subsidiaries: The Case of South-East
Asian countries” Asian Business &
Management 11(1), Palgrave: 79-100.
12. Lee,
J.Y., J.Y. Kwak and K.A. Kim. 2014. “Subsidiary goals, learning orientations,
and ownership strategies of multinational enterprises: evidence from foreign
direct investments in Korea” Asia Pacific
Business Review 20(4), Routledge: 558-577.
13. Literature on multinational corporation
Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address:
https://www.facebook.com/literature.multinational.corporation/).
14.
Literature on literature review Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address:
https://www.facebook.com/literature.literaturereview/).
15.
Literature on mind mapping Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.mind.mapping/).
16.
Ljung, A. and C. Pahlberg. 2015.
“Subsidiary strategy processes in Latin America” European Business Review 27(5), Emerald: 535-550.
17.
Miravitlles, P., L. Guitart-Tarrés
and A. Nuñez-Carballosa. 2014. “Competitiveness of Spanish foreign
subsidiaries” Competitiveness Review
24(3), Emerald: 171-189.
18.
Nohria, N. and S. Ghoshal.
1994. “Differentiated fit and shared values: Alternatives for managing
headquarters-subsidiary relations” Strategic
Management Journal 15: 491-502.
19.
Phene, A. and P. Almeida. 2008. “Innovation in multinational
subsidiaries: The role of knowledge assimilation and subsidiary capabilities” Journal of International Business Studies
39: 901-919.
20.
Pudelko,
M. and H. Tenzer. 2013. “Subsidiary control in Japanese, German and US
multinational corporations: Direct control from headquarters versus indirect
control through expatriation” Asian
Business & Management 12(4), Palgrave: 409-431.
21. Richards, M. and M.Y. Hu. 2003. “US subsidiary control in Malaysia
and Singapore” Business Horizons
November-December: 71-76.
22. Scott, P., P. Gibbons and
J. Coughlan. 2010. “Developing subsidiary contribution to the MNC-Subsidiary
entrepreneurship and strategy creativity” Journal of International
Management 16, Elsevier: 328-339.
Pdf version at: https://www.academia.edu/30609449/Mind_mapping_the_topic_of_subsidiary_management_SM_
ReplyDelete