Content area
Full Text
INTRODUCTION
In recent scholarly and managerial writings there is considerable evidence of foreign affiliates of multinational enterprises (MNEs) taking an active part in shaping the overall strategy of the parent company (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989; Benito, Grogaard, & Narula, 2003; Birkinshaw, 1997; Birkinshaw & Hood, 1998; Burgelman, 1983; Cantwell & Mudambi, 2005; Delany, 2000; Galunic & Eisenhardt, 1996; Rugman & Verbeke, 2001; Schmid, 2003): for example, NCR's Scottish subsidiary developing the automatic teller machine, GE's Canadian subsidiary establishing a new business unit (Birkinshaw & Fry, 1998), or T-Mobile's US subsidiary innovating in wireless technology (Ambos & Schlegelmilch, 2005). And there exists further anecdotal evidence of subsidiaries that have independently developed new products for international markets, prepared acquisitions of other companies, or attracted major investments. Such entrepreneurial undertakings that occur outside the home country of the MNE and allow the subsidiary to tap into new opportunities have been brought together under the label subsidiary initiatives (Birkinshaw, 1997; Rugman & Verbeke, 2001).
The concept of subsidiary initiative is important in advancing our understanding of how MNEs evolve, because it explains how change can occur from within - through the entrepreneurial efforts of individuals a long way from the corporate headquarters (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989; Burgelman, 1983; Cantwell & Mudambi, 2005; Rugman & Verbeke, 2001). However, it is also a troublesome and little-understood concept. First, the literature on subsidiary initiative has focused almost exclusively on cases where the initiative was well intentioned, and where its outcomes generated benefits for the entire corporation. However, it is self-apparent, and occasionally acknowledged through anecdotal evidence, that subsidiary initiatives are not always fully aligned with the overall priorities of the parent company, and can sometimes lead to adverse effects for the subsidiary (Delany, 2000; Dörrenbächer & Gammelgaard, 2006; Griffin, 2007; Holm & Pedersen, 2000).
Second, because initiatives unfold over several stages, the notion of initiative "success" is problematic. A first indicator of success is the subsidiary's ability to pursue it in the first place, which requires some level of autonomy and managerial courage. This stage has been the subject of a stream of literature focusing on the antecedents of subsidiary initiative (Birkinshaw & Hood, 1998; Bower, 1970; Burgelman, 1983). A second manifestation of success, and our focus here, is how past initiatives...