An exploratory investigation into how the implementation and internalization of processes within a MNC are affected by the regulatory, cognitive, and normative domains of institutionalism

Abstract

This research investigates the relationship between the Headquarters and Subsidiary (HQS) of the Multinational Corporations. The particular aspect of the relationship is the transfer of activities and processes between the units which is viewed through the framework of Institutionalism and Scott’s Three Pillars. The aim was to investigate the areas of contention between the Headquarters & Subsidiary and to assess the importance of the Regulatory, Normative and Cognitive - Cultural carriers on the legitimacy of a transfer process. Semi structured interviews where undertaken with participants from two MNCs with subsidiaries in Ghana. The initial response to the interviews was that there was minimal conflict, even a harmonious relationship between H.Q. & the Subunits. However, despite the general level of agreement it was found that there had recently been conflict in reality between the two parties regarding work processes and activities. Arising from Scott’s Three Pillar framework an exploratory qualitative approach was used to assess the potential barriers to the implementation & internalisation of novel processes into the everyday routines of the workforce. Methodological assumptions such as forms of Reality & Dominant Logics underpinning interpretivism & constructivism were made in order to assess any relationships using Constructivist Grounded Theory analysis. The NVivo qualitative package was applied to conduct an exploratory investigation of the data. This approach indicated that there tended to be an overall acceptance of activities and processes that appeared to be part of the regulatory instructions from the Head Quarters. On the other hand, where there were instructions on activities and processes which appeared to impact on the cultural/cognitive aspect of working practices of the employees there appeared to be a different outcome. It was found that certain activities and processes were not psychic internalised and there was considerable reaction from the employees which lead to dissent within the corporations. The theoretical implications of the findings indicate that, considering the constructionist stance and utilising the Three Pillar framework, it is potentially possible to model the outcome of H.Q. directives and mandates on the implementation and internalisation of reactions of a workforce in an international cultural/cognitive context.This research investigates the relationship between the Headquarters and Subsidiary (HQS) of the Multinational Corporations. The particular aspect of the relationship is the transfer of activities and processes between the units which is viewed through the framework of Institutionalism and Scott’s Three Pillars. The aim was to investigate the areas of contention between the Headquarters & Subsidiary and to assess the importance of the Regulatory, Normative and Cognitive - Cultural carriers on the legitimacy of a transfer process. Semi structured interviews where undertaken with participants from two MNCs with subsidiaries in Ghana. The initial response to the interviews was that there was minimal conflict, even a harmonious relationship between H.Q. & the Subunits. However, despite the general level of agreement it was found that there had recently been conflict in reality between the two parties regarding work processes and activities. Arising from Scott’s Three Pillar framework an exploratory qualitative approach was used to assess the potential barriers to the implementation & internalisation of novel processes into the everyday routines of the workforce. Methodological assumptions such as forms of Reality & Dominant Logics underpinning interpretivism & constructivism were made in order to assess any relationships using Constructivist Grounded Theory analysis. The NVivo qualitative package was applied to conduct an exploratory investigation of the data. This approach indicated that there tended to be an overall acceptance of activities and processes that appeared to be part of the regulatory instructions from the Head Quarters. On the other hand, where there were instructions on activities and processes which appeared to impact on the cultural/cognitive aspect of working practices of the employees there appeared to be a different outcome. It was found that certain activities and processes were not psychic internalised and there was considerable reaction from the employees which lead to dissent within the corporations. The theoretical implications of the findings indicate that, considering the constructionist stance and utilising the Three Pillar framework, it is potentially possible to model the outcome of H.Q. directives and mandates on the implementation and internalisation of reactions of a workforce in an international cultural/cognitive context.