March 2015 1980 1980 1980 Bartlett & Ghoshal 1989 Transnational Doz, Santos & Williamson 2001 Metanational 2009 2005 23 2003 ; 2012 2010 4 1 1970 one way model 2 1980
121 3 1980 90 Bartlett & Goshal ; 1989 4 2000 Doz, Santos & Williamson ; 2001 80 4 2 3 1 1 1970 1980 Fayerweather fragmentation vs. unification Fayerweather ; 1969Fayerweather R&D Fayerweather ; 1979 Fayerweather Perlmutter 1969 Perlmutter Ethnocentric Polycentric Regioegiocentric Geocentric 4 EPRG Perlmutter 4 Bartlett & Ghoshal 1989 2 1980 90 1980 Hedlund 1980 ; 1986 heterarchy Hedlund Birkinshaw & Morisson 1995 hierarchy-like low autonomy heterarchy-like high autonomy 2007 Hedlund Bartlett & Ghoshal 1989 Bartlett & Ghoshal 1989
March 2015 4 4 multinational international global transnational 2012 4 1 1 3 Bartlett & Ghoshal 1989 1989 90 Nohria & Ghoshal 1993 1 1989 2012 p.132 9 1 2007 Bartlett & Ghoshal 1989 Bartlett & Ghoshal Ghoshal & Nohria 1989 differentiated network Jarillo & Martinez 1990 Active Receptive Autonomous 3 Birkinshaw & Morisson 1995 Bartlett & Ghoshal 3
121 Bartlett & Ghoshal Bartlett & Ghoshal 1990 1980 3 2000 2000 Doz, Santos & Williamson 2001 metanational meta beyond 2003Doz, Santos & Williamson 1 Bartlett & Goshal Doz, Santos & Williamson 1 2 3 4 3 knowledge
March 2015 2003 1 2 3 2 2 2 Regional Headquarters ; RHQ 3 R&D R&D 2 2 3 2014
121 2 M&A 3 2 general management 2 R&D R&D R& D R&D 2011 R &D R&D R&D 2 1 R&D R&D R&D 2011 p.40 2 R&D 2011 p.41 R&D R&D R&D 2 R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D 3 Kuemmerle 1997 Home-base-Augmenting Laboratory Site Home-base-Exploiting Laboratory Site 2
March 2015 2014 Bartlett & Goshal Doz, Santos & Williamson 4 R&D R& D R& 4 R&D Bartlett & Goshal 1989 Doz, Santos & Williamson 2001 D R&D vs. R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D 1 p 1 C C$C 0#X!E 1 X R&D X!0 C 0 E R&D R&D R&D 1R&D R&D 1 P P$b#a(c!b ) 2 b a(0"a"1) b"c"0 a$0 P$b a$1 P$c 0!a!1 risk sharing 1 X a$1
121 P!c R&D 1 R&D a!0 p!b x 0!a!1 a a a 1 1 R&D R&D E"0 C a!1 a!0 R&D a R&D R&D R&D R&D a!1 R&D 1 R&D a 0 a 1 R&D Bartlett & Ghoshal 3 5 X Y q Tobin s q theory q q 1 q 1 q q q q q
March 2015 5 3 q 3 5 G 3 V 3 A M&A 5 G 2 V 2 B 3 3 G 1 V 1 C 2 I 3 q I 2 B I 2! C q I 2 I 2!
121 1 general management M&A 2 H1 H2 R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D 2 2009 7 Bartlett, C. A. & Ghoshal, S. 1989, Managing across borders : the transnational solution, Harvard Business School Press.1990 Birkinshaw, J. 1996, How multinational subsidiary mandates are gained and lost, Journal of International Business Studies, Vo.27, No.3. Birkinshaw, J. & Morisson, J. 1995Configuration of Strategy and Structure in Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.26, No.4.
March 2015 Doz, Y., Santos, J. & Williamson, P. 2001, From Global to Metanational, Harvard Business School Press. Fayerweather, J. H. 1979, International Strategy and Administration, Ballinger. Ghoshal, S. & Nohria, N. 1989, Internal differentiation with multinational corporations, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.10. Hedlund, G. 1980, The role of foreign subsidiaries in strategic decision-making in Swedish multinational corporations, Strategic Management Journal. Vol.9. Hedlund, G. 1986, The Hypermodern MNC A Heterarchy?, Human Resource Management, Spring, Vol.25. Jarillo, J. & Martinez, J. 1990, Different roles for subsidiaries : The case of multinational corporations in Spain, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.11. Kuemmerle, W. 1997, Building effective R&D capabilities abroad, Harvard Busines Review, Vol.75, No. 2. Leong, A. & Tan, C. 1993, Managing Across Borders : An Empirical Test of the Bartlett and Ghoshal, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.23, No.4. Nohria, N. & Ghoshal, S. 1993, Horses for courses : Organizational forms for multinational corporations, Sloan Management Review, 34. Stonehill, A. and Moffett, M., eds. 1993, International Financial Management United Nations library on transnational corporations, vol.5, Routledge. 2003 2006 Vo.39 2009 21 2 2011 R&D 2006 Vo.39 2013 2009 2012 8 2014 2010 75 2007 11 2003 4 2007 1
121 A Consideration of the Comparison between Transnational and Metanational Management ABSTRACT This article intends to clarify the differences between transnational and metanational management in terms of comparing the characteristics of both general management and R&D (research and development) management. In order to investigate such differences, a literature review is presented, and new axes can be discovered in the figure which discerns metanational from transnational. Subsidiaries business linkages that have regional headquarters in addition to their parent company are effective while examining the subsidiaries collaboration with other companies in an open network. Another figure has axes comprised of discretion degree of subsidiaries in their decision-making as well as their dependency on the headquarters resources for R&D and production. A metanational firm is characterized as an absorber of external capabilities and a knowledge creator. One equation model can be utilized to establish a criterion for selecting either transnational or metanational in R&D activities, which leads to a proposition regarding its selection. Finally applying Tobin s q theory to a corporate value which is one objective for a globalized firm, metanational management should be distinguished from transnational management in that the former prefers a higher growth ratio to corporate value. Therefore two hypotheses can be built centered on the role of either type of subsidiary in general management and R&D. Key Words: transnational, metanational, RHQ: Regional Headquarters