© 2013 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. CHAPTER 12 GLOBAL2 PENG © DJ Dates/Alamy

© 2013 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

CHAPTER 12

GLOBAL2 PENG

© D

J D

ates

/Ala

my


CHAPTER 12 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Define terms of “strategy” & “structure”2. Understand the conflicting cost reduction and local

adaptation pressures on MNE’s and how it drives strategy and the four resulting structure options.

3. Explain the home replication, global standardization, localization and transnational strategies, including their strengths & weaknesses.

4. Outline the challenges associated with learning, innovation, and knowledge management, including how they affect strategy and structure.

5. Understand the impact of the institutional and resource based views on strategy & structure.


LO1: TWO CONFLICTING PRESSURES FOR MNE

MNEs confront two CONFLICTING sets of pressures which require a strategic decision on which to give priority:

Cost reduction – calls for global integration and standardization.

Local responsiveness – calls for local adaptation and customization These two sets of pressures are analyzed in the following integration-responsiveness framework.


LO1: MULTINATIONAL STRATEGIES AND STRUCTURES


LO1: MULTINATIONAL STRATEGIES- Advantages & Disadvantages

© iS

tock

phot

o.co

m/b

lack

red


LO1: MULTINATIONAL STRATEGIES

Home replication strategy – duplicates home-based competencies in foreign

countries.

Makes sense when most customers are domestic and is less costly. Lacks local responsiveness and fails to overcome disadvantage of foreigness.



Localization strategy – focuses on a number of countries/regions, each one regarded as a stand-

alone market through local adaptation focus.

Effective when differences among markets are clear and pressures for cost reduction are low. High costs due to duplication of efforts in multiple countries but more attractive to local foreign customers.



Global standardization strategy– development and distribution of standardized

products worldwide like Apple iPhones.

Not limited to major operations at home—may designate foreign centers of excellence which produce global market products.

Best when pressure for cost reduction is high and need for local responsiveness is low.



Transnational strategy – endeavors to be both cost effective and locally responsive.

Global learning and diffusion of innovations.

Organizationally complex, difficult to implement, requires a matrix structure which can confuse employees & cause lack personal accountability for results.


LO1: FOUR ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES

International division – typically used when firms expand abroad, often engaging

in home replication strategy and is easiest/least costly to implement.

Foreign subsidiary managers often not given sufficient voice. International division serves as silo whose activities are not coordinated with rest of the firm.



International division: Typically used when firms engage in home replication strategy



Geographic area structure – organizes MNE according to geographic areas.

Most appropriate for localization strategy. Regional managers carry a great deal of weight & have full business unit resources. Strong local responsiveness, but also encourages turf wars/fragmentation of MNE.



Geographic area structure: appropriate for localization strategy


LO1: FOUR ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Global product division structure – supports global standardization strategy

by assigning global responsibilities to each product division.

Highly responsive to pressure for cost efficiency. Reduces inefficient duplication in multiple countries. Lags in local responsiveness.


LO1: FOUR ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Global product division structure: Highly responsive to pressure for

cost efficiency; Reduces inefficient duplication in multiple countries



Global matrix – sharing and coordination of responsibilities between product divisions and geographic areas in order to be both

cost efficient and locally responsive.

Difficult to deliver in practice. May add layers of management, slow down decision speed, requires employees to work for two bosses which can confuse .



Global matrix: Designed to be both cost efficient and locally responsive;

Difficult to deliver in practice


LO1: INTERRELATED MULTINATIONAL STRATEGIES AND STRUCTURES

The relationship between strategy and structure is reciprocal since they impact

each other in many ways.

Neither strategy nor structure is static. It is often necessary to change one,

the other, or both to respond to changes in either the institutional requirements or the

resource-based demand of the market .


LO2: EFFECT OF INSTITUTIONS AND RESOURCES


LO2: INSTITUTION-BASED CONSIDERATIONS-government, culture & local organization

External relationships

Internal relationships


LO2: RESOURCE-BASED CONSIDERATIONS

Does a structural change add value?

Internal Structure should be as rare as possible for competitive advantage.

Inimitability – formal structures are easier to observe, making informal structures more important to avoid competitor copying

Organization of MNEs, formal and informal, are critical to ability to deliver value to customers


LO3: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT – impact on strategy & structure

Knowledge management:the structures, processes, and systems

that actively develop, leverage, and transfer important business know-how

& knowledge.


LO3: CATEGORIES OF KNOWLEDGE

Explicit knowledge – codifiable.Transferred with little loss of richness since it is written and recorded.

Tacit knowledge – non-codifiable and held in worker’s heads from work experiences. Transfer requires hands-on interaction from employees working together.


LO3: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN FOUR TYPES OF MNE STRATEGIES


LO3: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN FOUR TYPES OF MNEs

Globalizing R&D- multiple global sites involved in R&D

A fundamental basis for competitive advantage is innovation-based

firm global diversity creating a broader pool of innovative ideas.

Decentralized R&D in different locations drives broader idea pool at cost of

potential duplication of effort through lack of coordination of R&D resources


LO4: THREE THINGS TO DO


DEBATE: CORPORATE CONTROL vs. SUBSIDIARY INITIATIVES

Subsidiary control:Subsidiary initiatives may inject a spirit of entrepreneurship throughout the larger corporation.

Corporate control: Hard to distinguish between good-faith subsidiary initiative and opportunistic empire building. Subsidiary initiatives are not necessarily compatible with corporate-wide goals.

Documents

© 2013 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. CHAPTER 12 GLOBAL2 PENG © DJ Dates/Alamy