Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T00:40:19.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of Subsidiary TMT Network Attention on Innovation: The Moderating Role of Subsidiary Autonomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 September 2022

Shi-quan Wang ,
Shuang Zhang  and
Guo-yin Shang
Shi-quan Wang
Affiliation:
Northeastern University, China
Shuang Zhang*
Affiliation:
Yanshan University, China
Guo-yin Shang
Affiliation:
Northeastern University, China
*
Corresponding author: Shuang Zhang (819753244@qq.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article takes group subsidiaries that were listed in the A-share market of Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges in China from 2012 to 2017 as the research subject and innovatively explores the impact of subsidiary TMT (top management team) attention at different networks on subsidiary innovation, considering dual network embedding characteristics and autonomy of subsidiaries. Results show that subsidiary TMT group network attention will inhibit subsidiary innovation, while their external network attention will promote subsidiary innovation, after the inclusion of industry category factors, the effect has changed accordingly, but the moderating effect of subsidiary autonomy on the relationship between subsidiary TMT attention on different networks and subsidiary innovation is always significant. The identification of subsidiary TMT attention not only supplements to current literature's narrow focus on impact of the group parent company attention on subsidiary behaviors, but also broadens theoretical understanding of the driving factors of innovation behavior of subsidiaries. Through expounding on the moderating role of subsidiary autonomy, this article clarifies boundary conditions of subsidiary TMT attention's impact on subsidiary innovation and provides operable guidance for subsidiary TMT to allocate and utilize their attention to promote the development of subsidiary innovation behaviors.

摘要

本文以2012-2017年中国沪深市A股上市且具有集团背景的子公司为对象，结合子公司双重网络嵌入特质，在考虑子公司自主权情况下，创新性的探讨了子公司高管团队不同网络层面注意力对子公司创新的影响。结果表明，子公司高管团队集团网络注意力会抑制子公司创新行为开展，外部网络注意力对子公司创新具有促进作用，子公司自主权可调节子公司高管团队不同网络层面注意力与子公司创新间关系。文章对子公司高管团队注意力的识别，不仅是对以往仅关注母公司高管团队注意力对子公司行为作用的补充，还拓宽了对子公司创新行为驱动因素的理论认知。对子公司自主权调节作用的阐释，明晰了子公司高管团队注意力影响子公司创新的边界条件，并可为子公司高管团队如何分配及利用可促成自身创新行为开展的注意力提供可操作性指导。

Keywords

external network attentiongroup network attentionsubsidiary autonomysubsidiary innovationTMT attention高管团队注意力集团网络注意力外部网络注意力子公司创新子公司自主权
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 18 , Issue 6 , December 2022 , pp. 1077 - 1115
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. 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 Senior Editor Carine Peeters

References

REFERENCES

Ahuja, G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3): 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Ambos, T. C., & Birkinshaw, J. 2010. Headquarters’ attention and its effect on subsidiary performance. Management International Review, 50(4): 449–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ang, J., Cole, R., & Lin, J. 2000. Agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Finance, 55(1): 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asmussen, C. G., Pedersen, T., & Dhanaraj, C. 2009. Host-country environment and subsidiary competence: Extending the diamond network model. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(1): 42–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, V. L. III, & Mueller, G. C. 2002. CEO characteristics and firm R&D spending. Management Science, 48(6): 782–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkinshaw, J., & Ridderstråle, J. 1999. Fighting the corporate immune system: A process study of subsidiary initiatives in multinational corporations. International Business Review, 8(2): 149–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, M. M. 2010. Financial innovation, leverage, bubbles and the distribution of income. Review of Banking and Financial Law, 30: 225.Google Scholar
Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Weight versus voice: How foreign subsidiaries gain attention from corporate headquarters. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3): 577–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouquet, C., Morrison, A., & Birkinshaw, J. 2009. International attention and multinational enterprise performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(1): 108–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourgeois, L. J. III 1981. On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 6(1): 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. 1994. Fading memories: A process theory of strategic business exit in dynamic environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1): 24–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cang, Y., Chu, Y., & Fan, Z. 2020. Complexity in diversified firms, concentrated ownership and operating performance. Accounting Research, 6: 24–35.Google Scholar
Carlucci, D., Marr, B., & Schiuma, G. 2004. The knowledge value chain: How intellectual capital impacts on business performance. International Journal of Technology Management, 27(6–7): 575–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Y. Y., Gong, Y., & Peng, M. W. 2012. Expatriate knowledge transfer, subsidiary absorptive capacity, and subsidiary performance. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4): 927–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, S., Bu, M., Wu, S., & Liang, X. 2015. How does TMT attention to innovation of Chinese firms influence firm innovation activities? A study on the moderating role of corporate governance. Journal of Business Research, 68(5): 1127–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chernenko, S., Foley, C. F., & Greenwood, R. 2012. Agency costs, mispricing, and ownership structure. Financial Management, 41(4): 885–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chini, T., Ambos, B., & Wehle, K. 2005. The headquarters–subsidiaries trench: Tracing perception gaps within the multinational corporation. European Management Journal, 23(2): 145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, T. S., & Hambrick, D. C. 2006. Attention as the mediator between top management team characteristics and strategic change: The case of airline deregulation. Organization Science, 17(4): 453–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conroy, K. M., & Collings, D. G. 2016. The legitimacy of subsidiary issue selling: Balancing positive & negative attention from corporate headquarters. Journal of World Business, 51(4): 612–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daellenbach, U. S., McCarthy, A. M., & Schoenecker, T. S. 1999. Commitment to innovation: The impact of top management team characteristics. R&D Management, 29(3): 199–208.Google Scholar
D'Aveni, R. A. 1998. Waking up to the new era of hyper competition. Washington Quarterly, 21(1): 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. 2002. Transferring knowledge in MNCs: The role of sources of subsidiary knowledge and organizational context. Journal of International Management, 8(1): 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao, Y., Gao, S., Zhou, Y., & Huang, K. 2015. Picturing firms’ institutional capital-based radical innovation under China's institutional voids. Journal of Business Research, 68(6): 1166–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, R., & Kabir, R. 2008. Business groups and profit redistribution: A boon or bane for firms? Journal of Business Research, 61(9): 1004–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonenc, H., & Hermes, N. 2008. Propping: Evidence from new share issues of Turkish business group firms. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 18(3): 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. 2000. Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3): 203–215.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haq, H. U., Drogendijk, R., & Holm, D. B. 2017. Attention in words, not in deeds: Effects of attention dissonance on headquarters-subsidiary communication in multinational corporations. Journal of World Business, 52(1): 111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmancioglu, N., Grinstein, A., & Goldman, A. 2010. Innovation and performance outcomes of market information collection efforts: The role of top management team involvement. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(1): 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, H., Lü, C. J., & Zhu, X. W. 2018. Second generation involvement and corporate innovation: Evidence from China. Nankai Business Review, 21(01): 6–116.Google Scholar
Huemer, L., Boström, G. O., & Felzensztein, C. 2009. Control–trust inter-plays and the influence paradox: A comparative study of MNC-subsidiary relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(5): 520–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jia, N., Tian, X., & Zhang, W. 2016. The real effects of tournament incentives: The case of firm innovation. Kelley School of Business Research Paper, No. 16–21, PBCSF-NIFR Research Paper. Available from URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2732911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, J., & Wilson, A. J. 2017. The growth of the firm: An attention-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 39(6): 1779–1800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawai, N., & Strange, R. 2014. Subsidiary autonomy and performance in Japanese multinationals in Europe. International Business Review, 23(3): 504–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khanna, T., & Yafeh, Y. 2007. Business groups in emerging markets: Paragons or parasites? Journal of Economic Literature, 45(2): 331–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinknecht, R., Haq, H. U., Muller, A., & Kraan, K. O. 2020. An attention-based view of short-termism: The effects of organizational structure. European Management Journal, 38(2): 244–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laamanen, T. 2019. Dynamic attention-based view of corporate headquarters in MNCs. Journal of Organization Design, 8(16): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinthal, D. A. 1997. Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Science, 43(7): 934–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, O. 2005. The influence of top management team attention patterns on global strategic posture of firms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7): 797–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, L. 2005. The effects of trust and shared vision on inward knowledge transfer in subsidiaries’ intra-and inter-organizational relationships. International Business Review, 14(1): 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, B. W., Lee, Y., & Hung, S. C. 2006. R&D intensity and commercialization orientation effects on financial performance. Journal of Business Research, 59(6): 679–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, G. Y., & Yun, H. 2010. Study on industrial cluster's independent innovation capacity from the perspective of factor intensity. China Soft Science, S2: 295–304.Google Scholar
Lu, T., & Dang, Y. 2014. Corporate governance and innovation differences among industry categories. Economic Research Journal, 49(6): 115–128.Google Scholar
Luciano, E., & Nicodano, G. 2008. Credit risk and rating assignments with parent-subsidiary links. Strategic Management Journal, 6: 1–12.Google Scholar
Manev, I. M. 2003. The managerial network in a multinational enterprise and the resource profiles of subsidiaries. Journal of International Management, 9(2): 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manolopoulos, D. 2006. The concept of autonomy in the subsidiary management research: A conceptual investigation. Journal of Transnational Management, 11(4): 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchica, M. T., & Mura, R. 2010. Financial flexibility, investment ability, and firm value: Evidence from firms with spare debt capacity. Financial Management, 39(4): 1339–1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, K. E., Mudambi, R., & Narula, R. 2011. Multinational enterprises and local contexts: The opportunities and challenges of multiple embeddedness. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2): 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadkarni, S., & Chen, J. 2014. Bridging yesterday, today, and tomorrow: CEO temporal focus, environmental dynamism, and rate of new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6): 1810–1833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ocasio, W. 1997. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1): 187–206.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ocasio, W. 2011. Attention to attention. Organization Science, 22(5): 1286–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ocasio, W., Laamanen, T., & Vaara, E. 2018. Communication and attention dynamics: An attention-based view of strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 39(1): 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royer, I. 2003. Why bad projects are so hard to kill. Harvard Business Review, 81(2): 48–57.Google ScholarPubMed
Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2001. Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3): 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, S., & Schurig, A. 2003. The development of critical capabilities in foreign subsidiaries: Disentangling the role of the subsidiary's business network. International Business Review, 12(6): 755–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, C. H. H., & Zhang, H. 2013. CEO risk incentives and firm performance following R&D increases. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(4): 1176–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1947. Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Temmes, A., & Välikangas, L. 2019. Out-of-sync in managerial attention: Temporal and repertory mismatches between the headquarters and subsidiary. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 3(2): 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tong, T. W., He, W., He, Z. L., & Lu, J. 2014. Patent regime shift and firm innovation: Evidence from the second amendment to china's patent law. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1: 14174.Google Scholar
Tong, C., Wang, A., & Kwok, E. 2012. Major determinants affecting the autonomy of multinational corporation subsidiaries in China. Journal of Management Research, 4(1): 1–33.Google Scholar
Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. 2000. Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11): 1147–1161.3.0.CO;2-R>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vachani, S. 1999. Global diversification's effect on multinational subsidiaries autonomy. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(5–6): 535–560.Google Scholar
Wang, X., Chen, S., & Nguyen, L. T. 2018. TMT's attention towards space and firms R&D investment: CLIWC to extract psychological features. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Science and Application Engineering: 136. ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, J., & Guan, B. 2015. The effect of top management team characteristics on international market entry mode: The mediating role of attention. Management Review, 27(11): 118–131.Google Scholar
Yadav, M. S., Prabhu, J. C., & Chandy, R. K. 2007. Managing the future: CEO attention and innovation outcomes. Journal of Marketing, 71(4): 84–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, M., Sheng, L., & Li, W. 2018. Executive incentive, innovation input and corporate performance: An empirical study based on endogeneity and industry categories. Nankai Business Review, 21(1): 109–117.Google Scholar
Yiu, D., Bruton, G. D., & Lu, Y. 2005. Understanding business group performance in an emerging economy: Acquiring resources and capabilities in order to prosper. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1): 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhong, R. I. 2018. Transparency and firm innovation. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 66(1): 67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar