This study reviews the academic literature on global reputations and its implications for meritocracy. Over the years, systems of measuring and visualizing reputation have proliferated globally with organizations competing for talented employees, clients, and resources in a situation of limited supply, resulting in the emergence of reputation systems as a device to position businesses in the international market and to contend cross-nationally for prestige. Yet, the tangible utilities of these systems for promoting a meritocratic culture remain contested. Notwithstanding their utility as cognitive heuristics, global reputation systems can distort information and become dysfunctional when consumers embedded in vastly different cultures and institutional environments navigate these systems. This chapter identifies gaps in extant knowledge and suggests number of ways of improving our theoretical and analytical frameworks on the association between reputation and meritocracy. Specifically, it advances the concept of “reputation work” to understand how reputations are built, evaluated, maintained, communicated, consumed, and deconstructed and calls for attention to each of these dimensions to forge a stronger coupling between reputations and meritocracy.
Organizations are increasingly required to take up extended responsibilities for social and environmental outcomes, including in global value chains. To address these challenges, the organization must call upon stakeholders to engage, contribute, and innovate, and in turn, this requires the organization to have a stronger social basis for its relationships. An integrative model of global value chain management based on social cooperation shifts the focus from corporate reputation to value chain reputation, from a firm-centric view of corporate reputation to a multistakeholder conception of value chain reputation. This approach conceptualizes reputation as a dynamic and potentially vulnerable organizational feature which cannot always be managed by public relations but requires a more stable notion grounded in something more permanent in the organization’s character, history, and the quality of its relationships with stakeholders. We consider the prospects for attending to organizational integrity as a stabilizing force for its public reputation. Integrity may be adopted as a hypernorm for motivating stakeholders who share a concern for the organization’s reputation. Co-creating reputation depends upon a social bond of cooperation developed by stakeholders caring about the organization and in turn, the organization caring about its stakeholders. This socialized understanding of reputation-building is grounded in an ethic of care and manifested through joint purposes, boundary-crossing processes, collaboration practices, and a division of labor into which value chain members are integrated and brought into relation with one another. We propose a model of global value chain management that discusses organizational capabilities required for such an approach.
In this chapter, we explore the multilevel nature of reputation from a shared value perspective. Building on a large body of literature surrounding corporate reputation, we discuss how the creation of reputational value at the firm level may also lead to value shared by the industries and countries in which a firm operates, and vice versa. In examining the recursive and dynamic relationships, strategic implications emerge with regard to managing reputations globally. We argue that the value of reputation is determined by the ability to meet the expectations of stakeholders with respect to what they as an audience perceive as important. Stakeholders' expectations and perceptions of what is valuable fluctuate across different markets and the more heterogeneous the markets in which a firm diversifies internationally, the more difficult it will be to manage all these expectations. By building on our understanding of firm, industry, and country reputation, and the recursive relationships between them, we contend that creating shared value (CSV), as part of the global reputation management process (GRM), is likely to be easier when there is contextual similarity and limited product diversification. Building on previous frameworks, and employing signaling theory, we create a simplified model of GRM that highlights CSV in the form of multilevel reputation. Distinctions are drawn between being efficient and effective as part of the GRM process and a corresponding typology is created. The chapter concludes with a discussion of strategic implications, alongside a few recommendations, and possible directions for future research.
This chapter examines how leaders can utilize a clear values framework to signal what they want their organization’s reputation to be as well as design their organization to help ensure that what happens in the organization lives up to those espoused values. Reputations are, of course, built up among both internal and external audiences, and work must be done to ensure that neither audience develops negative impressions about the organization’s reputation.Key to this reputation development and management is consistency between espoused values and enacted values. While many organizations have espoused values, it can be difficult to embed them into the foundational practices of an organization; if they are not enacted, this can lead to direct reputational harm. Building them in fully means clearly enacting the espoused values with structures (the systems and rules), people (who is hired, supported, and excluded), and culture (the environment in which the organization operates). Values frameworks are therefore posited as the foundation upon which to build organizations which can lead to warding off potential reputational calamities in the first place, minimizing the impacts of reputational harms that do take place, and bouncing back more strongly in the wake of hits to an organization’s reputation.
Abstract Corporate reputation is a strategic asset leading to numerous positive firm-level outcomes. Motivated by the prediction that the translation of customer-based corporate reputation to customer-level outcomes (trust, customer–company identification, and word-of-mouth intentions) might be highly context-dependent, we investigate the moderating role of national culture (particularly, individualism–collectivism dimension) and individual trait (self-construal) in the association between reputational dimensions (product and service efficacy, market prominence, and societal ethicality) and their outcomes. Using survey data from two countries (US and India, N = 812), we estimate the effects of corporate reputation on focal outcomes, moderated by country as a proxy for individualism/collectivism and independent self-construal (IND)/interdependent self-construal (INTER). The results strongly suggest that when individual-level variables are taken into account, the country-level variable does not affect the translation of reputational dimensions to customer-level outcomes. Moreover, individuals high on IND are more responsive to utilitarian (egoistic) reputational dimensions of product and service efficacy, whereas individuals high on INTER are more sensitive to the group-oriented reputation for market prominence and society-oriented reputation for social ethicality. The reported findings have major implications for cross-country reputational research and global reputation management strategies.
Economic globalization is leading large companies to focus on international strategic management. Nowadays, the assets referred to as “corporate intangibles,” such as corporate reputation, are becoming increasingly important because they are considered a key factor for the viability of an organization, and companies therefore need to incorporate them into their scorecards for management. The problem is that their measurement is subjective and latent. These two characteristics impede direct international comparison and require demonstrating the accuracy of comparison via a minimum of two tests – construct equivalence and metric equivalence. As regards corporate reputation, construct equivalence was verified by Naomi Gardberg (2006). However, the subsequent studies did not address metric equivalence. Based on the results of a survey provided by the Reputation Institute (n = 5,950, 50 firms evaluated in 17 countries in the Americas, Europe, Asia and Australia), the degree of RepTrak metric equivalence has been tested, using two different methodologies, multigroup analysis (structural equation model), and a new technique from 2016, the Measurement Invariance of Composite Model procedure from the Partial Least Square Path Modeling family. As one would expect from other cross-cultural studies, reputation metrics do not meet the full metric equivalence, which is why they require standardization processes to ensure international comparability. Both methodologies have identified the same correction parameters, which have allowed validation of the mean and variance of response style by country.
This volume of Research in Global Strategic Management, the first under the new editorship of William Newburry, provides new perspectives on headquarters-subsidiary relationships in the context of the contemporary multinational corporation
Explicit barriers to international trade, investment, technology, and financial flows have been reduced considerably. As a result, "macro-liberalization" of international economic transactions has largely run its course. Now, attention needs to shift from international rules for governments to international rules dealing with the various aspects of the international operations of firms - what are called "micro-issues" in this chapter; these include, by way of example, cross-border mergers and acquisitions and international bankruptcies. Such international rules for the principal actors in international production and markets would complement (or replace) the unilateral rules that exist at the national level. International rules would set the direct parameters for certain aspects of the international activities of firms and hence provide the global governance for operating in the global production and trading spaces. This chapter exemplifies for a number of areas the state of rule-making for some micro-issues, analyzes the nature of this rule-making, and suggests a way forward. Developing international micro-regulatory frameworks of rules of the road for the various aspects of the international operations of firms in the globalizing world economy should be the new frontier of international commercial diplomacy.
With this chapter, we seek to shed light on the question how headquarters (HQ) can cope with geographic distance and effectively transfer relevant knowledge to their subsidiaries. By constructing a mediating model, we aim at disentangling the effects of geographic distance on the relevance of HQ knowledge to their subsidiaries, via the creation of a shared context between HQ and their subsidiaries. We tested our hypotheses using partial least squares based structural equation modelling on a sample of 124 European subsidiaries. We did not find a significant direct relationship between geographic distance and HQ knowledge relevance. Yet, we found support for our mediation hypotheses that geographic distance makes it more difficult for HQ to establish a shared normative and operational context, but that both dimensions of shared context can help HQ to transfer relevant knowledge to their subsidiaries. We contribute to the research on knowledge flows in multinational corporations (MNC) by investigating knowledge relevance directly rather than knowledge flows as such. We also advance our understanding of shared context in HQ-subsidiary relationships by showing that shared context comprises an operational and a normative dimension. Moreover, we contribute to social learning theory in basing our reasoning on the idea that shared practices and social relationships help overcoming distance to manage knowledge transfer more effectively. Finally, we add to the research of distance in international business by conceptualizing space, organizational context and knowledge transfer in one comprehensive model.
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.
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.
Increased global competition originating from both within the multinational corporation (MNC) and from global adversaries dictates that subsidiaries must be responsive to change, adaptable, and capable of sensing and seizing new opportunities for capability development and growth. For many subsidiaries adhering to, or being seen to adhere to, the wider organizational goals dictated by their parent represents an additional complexity. While it may be necessary to divert slack resources towards capability development, subsidiaries which do so, on their own initiative, may well run the risk of being categorized as an unruly node in the MNC's network. Further, by failing to show compliance with organizational strategy future subsidiary-driven efforts may be curbed or prohibited. The need to demonstrate value to the MNC through developing new and novel capabilities while complying with parent-driven strategy thus represents a key subsidiary dilemma, yet remains an underexplored phenomenon in international business research. Framing this dilemma via an ambidexterity lens, our chapter explores how five subsidiary units balance and negotiate allegiances within a modern MNC context. We find that in the subsidiary context aligning and adapting may not be competing or exclusive strategies, but in effect two sides of the same coin. The structural context can shape relative levels of alignment via controlling mechanisms and monitoring of operations while the subsidiary's behavioral context, idiosyncratic to the subsidiary, can dictate its capacity to generate initiatives and to create new and novel capabilities for diffusion across the MNC network.
The chapter examines how distance, integration mechanisms, and atmosphere influence the level of organizing costs and subsidiary initiatives in headquarter-subsidiary relationships. Survey data were collected at the subsidiary level in one major Norwegian multinational company. Empirical analyses were based on regression and partial correlation analyses. Organizing costs are driven by distance to headquarters as well as the integration mechanisms and the atmosphere that exists in subsidiary-headquarter relationships. Another important insight gained by this study is that integration mechanisms influence subsidiary initiatives.
This chapter aims to investigate the relationship between levels of subsidiary autonomy and the performance of a subsidiary's subunit (factory) in Japanese manufacturing subsidiaries in Thailand. We conducted ordinary least squares regression analysis based on a questionnaire survey of 50 Japanese manufacturing subsidiaries in Thailand and multiple case studies to investigate the causal relationship between subsidiary autonomy and factory performance. We have three main findings. First, the autonomy level of Japanese manufacturing subsidiaries is linked to the subsidiaries' factories' performance compared to factories in Japan, but not in other foreign countries. Second, high levels of subsidiary autonomy are negatively associated with factory performance. Third, there are two causal relationships: high factory performance leading to low subsidiary autonomy and high/low subsidiary autonomy leading to low/high factory performance. From this, we discussed whether the degree of resource centralization in the home country influences the relationship between the level of subsidiary autonomy and a subunit's performance in the foreign subsidiary. Moreover, we discussed the possibility that the causal relationships between them are not necessarily direct causal relationships. We identified a new factor determining subsidiary autonomy and investigated the relationship between the subsidiary autonomy and performance of a subunit in the foreign subsidiary compared to the home country. Because this has not been discussed in previous studies, this chapter contributes to the study of headquarters-subsidiary relationships and gives guidelines to practitioners on managing subsidiary autonomy.
