Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T02:00:08.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Preliminary Test of the Impact of De-Globalization on MNC Performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2021

Hilla Peretz  and
Michael J. Morley
Hilla Peretz
Affiliation:
Ort Braude College, Israel
Michael J. Morley
Affiliation:
University of Limerick, Ireland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We offer a preliminary examination of whether national and organizational level contexts amplify or reduce the effects of de-globalization on the performance of MNCs. Theoretically, we borrow ideas from both event system theory and institutional fit to propose a model explicating key dimensions of the relationship between de-globalization, national and organizational context, and MNC performance. We then test our ideas using data assembled from 283 MNCs in 20 countries. We find that while de-globalization has a negative effect on MNC performance, national and organizational level contextual endowments do moderate this relationship. We discuss some implications of our findings and highlight attendant limitations.

Keywords

de-globalizationMNC performancenational and organizational contextual endowments
Type
Dialogue, Debate, and Discussion
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 17 , Special Issue 2: Business Model Innovation in Transforming Economies , May 2021 , pp. 412 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

ACCEPTED BY Editor-in-Chief Arie Y. Lewin

References

REFERENCES

Adams, R., Bessant, J., & Phelps, R. 2006. Innovation management measurement: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1): 21–47.10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00119.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, D., & Raynor, M. 2004. Preparing for a new global business environment: Divided and disorderly or integrated and harmonious? Journal of Business Strategy, 25(5): 16–25.10.1108/02756660410558906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, S., & Rangan, S. 2019. Editors’ comments: The rise of nationalism – An opportunity for reflection and research. Academy of Management Review, 44(4): 719–723.10.5465/amr.2019.0278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aragón-Correa, J., & Sharma, S. 2003. A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 28: 71–88.10.5465/amr.2003.8925233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babones, S. 2007. Studying globalization: Methodological issues. In Ritzer, G. (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to globalization: 144–161. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. 2005. Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40(3): 373–400.10.1207/s15327906mbr4003_5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bello, W. 2002. Deglobalization: Ideas for a new world economy. London: Zed Books.10.5040/9781350219519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, W. 2009. Business risks, business strategies, HRM and de-globalization. Asian Social Science, 5(1): 18–24.10.20849/ajsss.v5i3.777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chimerine, L. 1997. The new economic realities in business. Management Review, 86(1): 12–17.Google Scholar
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. 2003. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. 2010. A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6): 1154–1191.10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czuchry, A. J., & Yasin, M. M. 2001. Enhancing global competitiveness of small and mid-sized firms: A rapid assessment methodology approach. Journal of Competitiveness Studies, 9(1): 87.Google Scholar
Deephouse, D. L. 1999. To be different, or to be the same? It's a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2): 147–166.10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2<147::AID-SMJ11>3.0.CO;2-Q3.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1985. Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30 (4): 514–539.10.2307/2392695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. 2007. Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12: 121–138.10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes. 2018. Global 2000. Available from URL: www.forbes.com/global2000Google Scholar
Hair, J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. 2010. Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education InternationalGoogle Scholar
Hillebrand, E. E. 2010. Deglobalization scenarios: Who wins? Who loses? Global Economy Journal, 10(2): 1–1910.2202/1524-5861.1611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitt, M. A., Keats, B. W., & DeMarie, S. M. 1998. Navigating in the new competitive landscape: Building strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st century. Academy of Management Perspectives, 12(4): 22–42.10.5465/ame.1998.1333922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. 2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
King, S. D. 2018. Grave new world: The end of globalization, the return of history. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kogut, B. 1993. Designing global strategies: Profiting from operational flexibility. In Aliber, R. Z. & Click, R. W. (Eds.), Readings in international business: A decision approach: 195–213. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lavallée, P., & Beaumont, J. F. 2015. Why we should put some weight on weights. Survey methods: Insights from the field (SMIF). Available from URL: https://surveyinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Why-We-Should-Put-Some-Weight-On-Weights.pdfGoogle Scholar
Li, V., Mitchell, R., & Boyle, B. 2016. The divergent effects of transformational leadership on individual and team innovation. Group and Organization Management, 41(1): 66–97.10.1177/1059601115573792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livesey, F. 2018. From global to local: The making of things and the end of globalization. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Marquis, C., & Raynard, M. 2015. Institutional strategies in emerging markets. The Academy of Management Annals, 9(1): 291–33510.5465/19416520.2015.1014661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, K. D., Cullen, J. B., Johnson, J. L., & Parboteeah, K. P. 2007. Deciding to bribe: A cross-level analysis of firm and home country influences on bribery activity. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6): 1401–1422.10.5465/amj.2007.28179462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, C. H., & Brueggemann, R. 2015. Innovation and entrepreneurship: A competency framework. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315813622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeish, D. M., & Stapleton, L. M. 2016. The effect of small sample size on two-level model estimates: A review and illustration. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2): 295–314.10.1007/s10648-014-9287-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgeson, F. P., Mitchell, T. R., & Liu, D. 2015. Event system theory: An event-oriented approach to the organizational sciences. Academy of Management Review, 40(4): 515–537.10.5465/amr.2012.0099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morley, M. J., Murphy, K. R., Cleveland, J. N., Heraty, N., & McCarthy, J. 2021. Home and host distal context and performance appraisal in multinational enterprises: A 22 country study. Human Resource Management: https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. 2018. Mplus. The comprehensive modelling program for applied researchers: User's guide, 5. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
OECD. 2017. FDI regulatory restrictiveness index. Available from URL: oecd.org/investment/fdiindex.htmGoogle Scholar
Oke, A., Walumbwa, F. O., & Myers, A. 2012. Innovation strategy, human resource policy, and firms’ revenue growth: The roles of environmental uncertainty and innovation performance. Decision Sciences, 43(2): 273–302.10.1111/j.1540-5915.2011.00350.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peretz, H., & Fried, Y. 2012. National cultures, performance appraisal practices, and organizational absenteeism and turnover: a study across 21 countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2): 448–459.10.1037/a0026011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Postelnicu, C., Dinu, V., & Dabija, D. C. 2015. Economic deglobalization–from hypothesis to reality. Ekonomie a Management, 18(2): 4–14.10.15240/tul/001/2015-2-001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabl, T., Jayasinghe, M., Gerhart, B., & Kühlmann, T. M. 2014. A meta-analysis of country differences in the high-performance work system–business performance relationship: The roles of national culture and managerial discretion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6): 1011–1041.10.1037/a0037712CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Recchia, A. 2010. R squared measures for two level hierarchical linear models using SAS. Journal of Statistical Software, 32: 1–9.10.18637/jss.v032.c02CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, R. D., & Russell, C. J. 1992. An examination of the effects of organizational norms, organizational structure, and environmental uncertainty on entrepreneurial strategy. Journal of Management, 18(4): 639–656.10.1177/014920639201800403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, W. R. 1995. Introduction: Institutional theory and organizations. In Scott, W. R., & Christensen, S. M. (Eds.), The institutional construction of organizations: 11–23. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. 1999. Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and applied multilevel analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
van Bergeijk, P. 2017. One is not enough! An economic history perspective on world trade collapses and deglobalization. ISS Working Paper Series/General Series, 628: 1–23.Google Scholar
Verbeke, A., Coeurderoy, R., & Matt, T. 2018. The future of international business research on corporate globalization that never was. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(9): 1101–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volberda, H. W., van der Weerdt, N., Verwaal, E., Stienstra, M., & Verdu, A. J. 2012. Contingency fit, institutional fit, and firm performance: A metafit approach to organization–environment relationships. Organization Science, 23 (4): 1040–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witt, M. A. 2019. De-globalization: Theories, predictions, and opportunities for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(7): 1053–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The World Bank. 2017. Foreign direct investment data. Available from URL: data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.CD.WDGoogle Scholar
The World Bank. 2017. Trade to GDP ratio data. Available from URL: data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.TRD.GNFS.ZSGoogle Scholar
World Economic Forum. 2016. The human capital index. Human capital report. Available from URL: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/HCR2016_Main_Report.pdfGoogle Scholar
World Economic Forum. 2016. Global Competitiveness Report. Available from URL: weforum.org/docs/GCR2016-2017/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2016-2017_FINAL.pdfGoogle Scholar