Search results

Many theories have been proposed to understand and improve the process of leadership development. One useful way to structure the literature is around three complementary perspectives, briefly summarized as the “knowing, doing and being” dimensions of leadership. While the complementarities between these perspectives have been discussed, the mechanisms by which they are linked are less clear. The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of experimentation as one such mechanism.

Building on interviews and prior literature, the authors argue that experimentation consists of two processes: task-prototyping focused on the work overseen by the leader and self-prototyping focused on how the leader relates to others. This study proposes a theoretical framework linking experimentation to action-taking (e.g. being entrepreneurial and taking on challenging assignments), which in turn links to leader effectiveness. The authors test the hypotheses on two groups of leaders (481 business school alumni and 310 financial services leaders).

The authors find evidence that both forms of experimentation provide significant explanatory power in understanding why some individuals engage in higher levels of action-taking than others. Additionally, their study confirms the central role of action-taking in leadership development.

Conceptually, this study distinguishes two dimensions of experimentation and their connection to action-taking, knowledge development and identity development. Empirically, the authors show that these two experimentation activities were significant predictors of action-taking, even after controlling for all other factors, and that action-taking (along with self-prototyping) was an important predictor of leader effectiveness. The results offer a practical framework for leadership and development professionals to use in designing and evaluating leadership development activities.

This chapter complements the one that appeared as “History of the AIB Fellows: 1975–2008” in Volume 14 of this series (International Business Scholarship: AIB Fellows on the First 50 Years and Beyond, Jean J. Boddewyn, Editor). It traces what happened under the deanship of Alan Rugman (2011–2014) who took many initiatives reported here while his death in July 2014 generated trenchant, funny, and loving comments from more than half of the AIB Fellows. The lives and contributions of many other major international business scholars who passed away from 2008 to 2014 are also evoked here: Endel Kolde, Lee Nehrt, Howard Perlmutter, Stefan Robock, John Ryans, Vern Terpstra, and Daniel Van Den Bulcke.

In this paper, I review and evaluate the concept of subsidiary initiative, and I discuss how theorizing about the multinational corporation (MNC) in general has been informed by studies focusing on subsidiary initiative and related subsidiary-level issues. In the second part of the paper, I discuss some of the trends underway in the world of business that are influencing the nature and amount of subsidiary initiative observed in MNCs. Most of these seem likely to make subsidiary initiative more common, though some of them will favor externally focused initiatives while others will favor internally focused ones.

We examine how internal markets channel the limited attention of corporate headquarters (HQ) executives inside the multinational enterprise. In doing so, we desire to understand three related set of issues: First, why do some HQ executives invest more time and effort than others in the international marketplace? Second, what factors explain the attention that specific subsidiaries attract within the multinational system? Third, how does such attention relate to subsidiary performance? Unlike fully independent local companies, subsidiaries have fundamental ties to a corporate network that can contribute to the realization of local objectives or, on the contrary, restrict their scope of actions and hinder performance. By securing the attention they need from HQ, subsidiaries can achieve benefits that justify their association to the multinational network, without compromising the pursuit of local objectives.

This paper relates management innovation to multinational corporations (MNCs). We argue that MNCs play two key roles in implementing management innovations. First, they can engage in management innovating by inventing and implementing new management practices. We show that while MNCs have been involved in management innovating, few of their management innovations are specifically international in nature. Second, they can be involved in the diffusion of management innovations, including the transfer of new management practices to other countries. There is more evidence for this role. We propose that international business research should attempt to incorporate management innovation into its body of research themes.

Despite the increasing use of the agency perspective in studies of headquarters-subsidiaries relations in the multinational corporation (MNC), opponents fundamentally question its utility. In an attempt to contribute to this debate, we evaluate prior studies and develop considerations for future research. Our review of extant studies of headquarters-subsidiaries relations that make (explicit) use of the agency perspective reveals two significant shortcomings. First, we identify a need to validate the underlying assumptions when using the agency perspective in studies of headquarters-subsidiaries relations. Second, we detect a need to better account for the complex nature of headquarters-subsidiary relations in the MNC. A focus on these two areas can improve the use of the agency perspective and, ultimately, help resolve the contentious debate over the utility of the agency perspective.

In this chapter, we explore the relationship between organizational complexity and firm-level innovation. We define and operationalize a new construct, experienced complexity, which is the extent to which the organizational environment makes it challenging for decision makers to do their jobs effectively. We distinguish experienced complexity from structural complexity, which is the elements of the organization, such as the number of reporting lines or integrating mechanisms, that are deliberately put in place to help the organization deliver on its objectives, and we argue that structural complexity correlates positively with firm-level innovation, while experienced complexity correlates negatively with innovation. Using a novel dataset combining survey and objective data on 209 large firms, we find support for our arguments.