J PROD INNOV MANAG 2007;24:442–455
r 2007 Product Development & Management Association
Global Innovation in MNCs: The Effects of Subsidiary
Self-Determination and TeamworkÃ
Ram Mudambi, Susan M. Mudambi, and Pietro Navarra
The ability of multinational corporations (MNCs) to leverage their innovation competencies across globally dispersed subsidiaries is an increasingly valuable source of competitive advantage. As multinational enterprises turn to foreign subsidiaries for research and development (R&D) and product development, questions arise regarding the most effective organizational structures for global innovation. Although organizational conditions that satisfy the needs for self-determination and teamwork have long been considered intrinsic motivators, past research has not analyzed the consequences of intrinsic motivators on global innovation. The basic research question is this: In globally dispersed subsidiary R&D units, what organizational conditions and motivators are associated with the highest knowledge output? A sample of 275 globally dispersed R&D subsidiaries were studied from 1995 to 2002. Data were collected from a postal survey, ﬁeld and telephone interviews, and secondary sources. Subsidiary self-determination and teamwork were found to have a signiﬁcant effect on knowledge output, as objectively measured by patent citations. Subsidiary selfdetermination on inputs such as sourcing and hiring, and self-determination on outputs such as marketing and product development, emerged as positive determinants of knowledge generation in R&D subsidiaries. In addition, interteam cooperation and intrateam cooperation were signiﬁcant determinants of knowledge generation by subsidiaries. These ﬁndings highlight the importance of self-determination, teamwork, and cooperation to knowledge creation and innovations. Managers face the tough challenge of how to motivate globally dispersed knowledge workers to conduct research that will generate knowledge and will strengthen ﬁrm performance. The results provide theoretical and practical insights on how MNCs can leverage their innovation competencies across foreign R&D subsidiaries.
ompetition in many industries has become
more knowledge and technology intensive as
ﬁrms strive to increase their global innovation
Address correspondence to: Susan M. Mudambi, Temple University, Department of Marketing, Speakman Hall, Fox School of Business and Management, Philadelphia PA 19122. Tel.: (215) 204-3561. Fax: (215) 204-6237. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Ã The authors would like to thank seminar participants at the Copenhagen Business School, Janine Black, Sjoerd Beugelsdijk, Nicolai Foss, Vikas Kumar, Jacqueline Pennings, Junfeng Zhang, three anonymous referees, and the special issue editors for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.
capabilities. The ability of multinational corporations
(MNCs) to leverage their innovation competencies
across globally dispersed subsidiaries is an increasingly valuable source of competitive advantage (Almeida, 1996; Frost, 2001; Hansen, 2002; Hansen and Lovas,
2004; Nobel and Birkinshaw, 1998). As multinational
enterprises turn to foreign subsidiaries for research and
development (R&D) and product innovation, questions
arise regarding the most effective organizational structures for global innovation (Chiesa, 2000; McDonough, Kahn, and Barczak, 2001; Mendez, 2003).
Organizational structures need to reﬂect human
nature and the motivation of the scientists involved
GLOBAL INNOVATION IN MNCs
(Steiner, 1995). With this in mind, motivation theory is
drawn on to explain how the level of self-determination
and teamwork of globally dispersed R&D subsidiaries
is important to innovation. Motivation theory has typically been employed to understand and explain actions at the individual level. In contrast, in this article
motivation theory is applied at the organizational...
Citations: Kogut, B. and Singh, H. (1988). The Effect of National Culture on the
Choice of Entry Mode
Maslow, A.H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological
McClelland, D.C. (1961). The Achieving Society. Princeton, NJ: Van
McDonough III, E.F. (2000). Investigation of Factors Contributing to
the Success of Cross-Functional Teams
McDonough III, E.F., Kahn, K., and Barczak, G. (2001). An Investigation of the Use of Global, Virtual, and Colocated New Product
McFadyen, M.A. and Cannella Jr., A.A. (2004). Social Capital and
Knowledge Creation: Diminishing Returns of the Number and
McMillan, G.S., Hamilton III, R.D., and Deeds, D.L. (2000). Firm
Management of Scientiﬁc Information: An Empirical Update.
Giarratana, M. (2004). The Birth of a New Industry: Entry by StartUps and the Drivers of Firm Growth. Research Policy 33(5):
McMillan, G.S., Klavans, R.A., and Hamilton III, R.D. (1995). Firm
Management of Scientiﬁc Information: Some Predictors and Implications of Openness versus Secrecy
Gittelman, M. and Kogut, B. (2003). Does Good Science Lead to
Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary
Mendez, A. (2003). The Coordination of Globalized R&D Activities
through Project Teams Organization: An Exploratory Empirical
Mudambi, R. and Navarra, P. (2004). Is Knowledge Power? Knowledge Flows, Subsidiary Power and Rent-Seeking within MNCs.
Nesta, L. and Saviotti, P.P. (2005). Coherence of the Knowledge Base
and the Firm’s Innovative Performance: Evidence from the U.S.
Shenkar, O. (2001). Cultural Distance Revisited: Towards a More
Rigorous Conceptualization and Measurement of Cultural Differences
Sherman, J.D. and Smith, H.L. (1984). The Inﬂuence of Organizational
Structure on Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Motivation
Nobel, R. and Birkinshaw, J. (1998). Innovation in Multinational
Corporations: Control and Communication Patterns in International R&D
Steiner, C.J. (1995). A Philosophy for Innovation: The Role of
Unconventional Individuals in Innovation Success
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stern, S. (2004). Do Scientists Pay to Be Scientists? Management
Orlikowski, W.J. (2002). Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective
Capability in Distributed Organizing
Tampoe, M. (1993). Motivating Knowledge Workers. Long Range
Osterloh, M. and Frey, B.S. (2000). Motivation, Knowledge Transfer,
and Organizational Forms
Tauer, J.M. and Harackiewicz, J.M. (2004). The Effects of Cooperation and Competition on Intrinsic Motivation and Performance.
Pakes, A. (1985). On Patents, R&D, and the Stock Market Rate of
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and
Persaud, A. (2005). Enhancing Synergistic Innovative Capability in
Multinational Corporations: An Empirical Investigation
Tomlin, L. (2001). The Effects of Model Speciﬁcation on Foreign Direct Investment Models: An Application of Count Data Models.
Reid, S.E. and de Brentani, U. (2004). The Fuzzy Front End of
New Product Development for Discontinuous Innovations: A
Please join StudyMode to read the full document