Sven Gunnar Tilo Kunisch

In this paper, we propose and test an agency model for HQ-subsidiary relations. Drawing on classical agency assumptions, we develop a baseline hypothesis that links informal controls (i.e., socialization), HQ-subsidiary goal conflicts, and the HQ’s use of formal controls (i.e., behavioral controls). We subsequently introduce an important boundary condition, which reflects subsidiaries’ internal agency relations with subsidiary CEOs as second principals. More specifically, we argue that the baseline relationship only holds under low levels of second principal power. To test our model, we employed a unique study design with three parallel surveys addressing the agents and the two principals involved in 131 agency relations within one MNC.

Managerial perception gaps are common and have considerable implications for organizations. This study examines the extant knowledge on managerial perception gaps, and proposes an organizing framework for their antecedents and consequences. Based on this analysis, we identify several shortcomings in the extant literature and outline a future Research agenda. We recommend three avenues for future research: 1) illuminating the underlying processes and micro-foundations, 2) advancing conceptualization and measurement, and 3) exploring complex, multilevel, and nested relationships.

Benchmarking is a widely applied management practice, but it is controversial from a strategy viewpoint. In business terms, “benchmarking” refers to the process of comparing one firm's practices or performance to best practices from other companies.1 In his article entitled “Benchmarking Corporate Headquarters”, David Young (1998) applies this general idea to the corporate headquarters (CHQ), which is the central organizational entity in large and diversified firms (cf. Menz et al., 2015). Whereas Young largely focuses on the potential merits of CHQ benchmarking, the purpose of this commentary is to draw attention to its potential perils. It is useful to first briefly revisit Young's main assertions: The article is motived by two observations. One observation is that many firms are dissatisfied with their CHQ performance (Young, 1993, Young and Goold, 1993, Young et al., 2000). A second observation is that firms often struggle to challenge the CHQ's status quo owing to its highly political nature (also see Ferlie and Pettigrew, 1996). Based on these observations the article's main objective is to suggest a rather objective way for practicing managers to assess the design and performance of their CHQ. The author argues that a comparison of the firm's own CHQ activities and performance metrics with corresponding metrics for industry leaders or other corporations can be useful for improving performance and for triggering discussions about the corporation's parenting strategy.

Despite the importance that scholars and practicing managers attribute to the organizational design of the corporate headquarters (CHQ), research on changes in CHQ size is lacking. In an attempt to empirically explore the antecedents and potential consequences of such changes, I draw on the contingency and organizational-adaptation perspectives to develop a set of hypotheses for the relationships between corporate-level strategic change (CSC) – defined as changes in the firm’s business portfolio –, changes in the size of the CHQ and firm performance. To test the hypotheses, I analyse data from a comprehensive survey of large public firms in Europe and the US, and data from public sources pertaining to the surveyed firms. While the empirical results lend support to the hypothesized role of CSC, they also reveal differences between related CSC and unrelated CSC. However, I find no support for the expected performance implications. The study contributes to research on the CHQ, corporate-level strategic change, and the relationship between strategy and structure in the contemporary corporation. The findings also inform corporate managers and those involved in advising firms, such as strategy consultants.

In ever-changing environments, strategic change manifests as a crucial concern for firms and is thus central to the fields ofmanagement and strategy. Common and foundational to all strategic change research is time—whether recognized in the extant studies or not. In this article, we critically review the existing body of knowledge through a time lens. We organize this review along (1) conceptions of time in strategic change, (2) time and strategic change activities, and (3) time and strategic change agents. This approach facilitates our assessment of what scholars do and do not know about strategic change, especially its temporal components. Our review has particularly revealed a need to advance scholarly understanding about the processual dynamics of strategic change. We thus extend our assessment by proposing six pathways for advancing future research on strategic change that aim at fostering an understanding of its processual dynamics: (1) temporality, (2) actors, (3) emotionality, (4) tools and practices, (5) complexity, and (6) tensions.

In modern corporations, the corporate headquarters (CHQ) unit is considered central to the fortune of the overall firm. In light of ever-changing environments, changes at the CHQ have become a crucial concern in management research and practice, and scholars have studied a variety of changes at the CHQ. Despite the common focus on the CHQ entity and the potential for cross-fertilization across several research tracks, a coherent picture of this dispersed body of knowledge is lacking. In this article, we review 25 years of research on changes at the CHQ. In so doing, we advance a common language and an overarching framework that integrates the existing knowledge in the intellectual domains of strategy, organizational design and international business research. On this basis, we suggest directions for future research to advance our knowledge of: (1) the pressure for and resistance to changes at the CHQ, (2) interrelationships among changes at the CHQ, (3) change processes at the CHQ, (4) agents involved in changes at the CHQ and (5) adaptive and disruptive effects of changes at the CHQ. Overall, the study provides a conceptual basis for combining the existing knowledge of changes at the CHQ and serves as a guide for future research.

The corporate headquarters (CHQ) is the central organizational unit in the contemporary corporation, and is critical for value creation in the overall firm. Since the early 1960s, a significant body of research on the CHQ has evolved along two separate but related streams. The first stream focuses on the CHQ in the multibusiness firm, while the second stream concerns the CHQ in the multinational firm. In this article, we promote a consistent multimarket firm perspective that draws on research in both streams. First, we describe the origins and evolution of CHQ research in each stream, and articulate the benefits of a multimarket firm perspective. Second, we integrate the conversations found in the two streams into a schematic framework, review the studies' findings, and establish a shared language. We also propose ways in which scholars in each stream might enrich their work by incorporating some of the theories, methods, and findings of the other stream. Third, we discuss four fundamental inquiries for future research that draw upon the cumulative CHQ research in both streams. Overall, this article informs the study of the CHQ and, thereby, contributes to our understanding of the contemporary corporation.