the globalisation of service multinationals

The Globalization of Service Multinationals Alexandra J. Campbell and Alain Verbeke

T HE CHALLENGE OF STRENGTHENING AND eXplOiting

cross-border synergies within multinational corporations (MNCs) has recently emerged as one of the major issues in global strategic management. The fundamental challenge of balancing local demands while maintaining a global vision has been the topic of several influential works about the design of MNCs.’ The central theme of these frameworks is how multinational managers can design an organizational structure that allows firms to cope with the twin pressures of central co-ordination of activities across borders and autonomous subsidiary responsiveness to local market demands. This involves developing multiple strategic capabilities which allow MNCs to capitalize on the key advantages of national responsiveness, scale economies and scope economies.

Without exception, analytical frameworks used to guide multinational managerial decision-making have been based upon an analysis of data collected in the manufacturing sector. Much of the recent restructuring occurring in manufacturing MNCs such as downsizing, a renewed focus on core businesses and a growing disenchantment with con- glomerate operations are consistent with the norma- tive prescriptions of these frameworks. However, in contrast to these trends, the service sector has been characterized by a different pattern of organizational restructuring. This pattern includes continuing internationalization and increasing firm size and scope.2 This suggests that the key challenges facing service MNCs may be quite different from those facing manufacturing MNCs. The differences between the inherent characteristics of services vs manufactured goods suggests that there may also be critical differences in the principles which guide the strategic management of service MNCS.~ Many of the

traditional rules of business strategy shaped in the manufacturing environment may not be relevent to services.

Trade in international services represents an increasingly important share of world exports due to service trade liberalization, technological change and socioeconomic trends.4 Competition in the service sector is intensifying and globalizing which has prompted a fundamental restructuring of many service industries. This restructuring means there is a greater need for managers in service MNCs to think strategically and develop effective competitive strategies to create and sustain competitive advantages worldwide. But currently, there are few tools available for managers of service MNCs to guide their strategic thinking.

In this article, we examine how the unique characteristics of services affect the strategic capabilities necessary to deal with the competitive challenges facing service MNCs. Based upon an analysis of nine service MNCs, we argue that service MNCs build upon different core competencies as compared to manufacturing MNCs. The nine service MNCs in our research sample operate in four major service sectors: financial services (Citicorp Banking

PeTgalXlOn Long Range Planning Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 95 to 102, 1994 0024~6301(93)EOO14-H Copyright 0 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0024~6301/94 $s.oo+.oo

and American Express); management consulting (McKinsey, Towers Perrin, Arthur Andersen and Ernst and Young); hotels (Four Seasons and Shera- ton Hotels); and data processing (National Data Corporation). While the types of services rendered are very different in each of these four sectors, the common element is that in each sector the core competence of the firm lies in the management of its human capital. These firms were the subject of case studies which consisted of in-depth interviews with managers and the analysis of publicly available information.

Classification schemes for services are logically based upon the characteristics which distinguish service experiences from physical goods and which have an impact on the marketing strategies of the firm. As a starting point, we examine how the inherent characteristics of services affect a service MNC’s bases of competitive advantage.

‘Transnational’ Services

Services deliver a bundle of benefits to the customer through the experience that is created for that customer. The service literature has consistently identified five characteristics which differentiate services from physical goods marketing: intangibility; inseparability of production and consumption; heterogeneity; variability; and regulation.5 While all five characteristics influence the strategic options available to service MNCs, we restrict our discussion to those service characteristics which directly affect internal organizational design issues (service intangibility, inseparability and heterogeneity).

In contrast, analytical frameworks used to analyse the manufacturing sector have identified three strategic capabilities as critical to so called ‘transnational’ management processes, namely, economies of scale, economies of scope and national responsiveness. Economies of scale arise from heavy investment in specialized assets and are based upon global efficiencies associated with integrating activities across different markets or organizational sub-units. Scope economies arise from a firm’s ability to share knowledge and learning across different sub-units within the organization. In a transnational management context, the primary source of scope economies is the diffusion of innovation across subsidiaries within the organization. Finally, national

responsiveness refers to a firm’s ability to respond in flexible manner to competitive changes in individual local markets. The truly transnational company is then seen as the firm able to develop these three capabilities simultaneously.6 The implications of service intangibility, inseparability and heterogeneity for transnationalism in the service sector are examined in turn.

The ‘Intangibility’ of Services Since services are performances rather than objects, they cannot be seen or touched in the same manner as goods. Intangibility increases the purchase risk, thereby increasing theimportance for customers to acquire relevant information with which purchasing uncertainty can be reduced. Intangibility creates difficulties in the achievement of differentiation since customers do not always understand what information is being conveyed by different competitors. As a result, successful service companies focus on creating, in the minds of customers, tangible elements of an otherwise intangible experience. For example, firms may standardize tangible elements like the interior (American Express) or exterior (McDonalds) of buildings. Since services themselves are difficult to standardize, any economies of scale which do exist tend to occur in marketing (through branding or investment in corporate image) rather than in production.

The difficulties in establishing a well-defined service concept increases the importance of national responsiveness and economies of scope. The former allows firms to personalize their service offerings in local markets. The latter allows service products in industries such as banking, accounting and insur- ance to share common characteristics across borders (e.g. through the effective use of the information processing capabilities offered by computer systems). In this context, the ongoing ability to rapidly adapt and transfer information and service innovations to international markets is a key requirement for a service firm’s competitive success.

‘Inseparability’ of Production and Consumption Inseparability means that production and consumption of services often occur simultaneously so that services must be produced when they are required. Since services are consumed as they are created, there is a high level of buyer-seller interaction. The major implication of inseparability for transnational

The Globalization of Service Multinationals

management is the importance of national respons- country and transferred from it or whether know- iveness in order to tailor offerings to suit local how should be developed and diffused from various market preferences and culture. geographical sources.

Inseparability encourages a focus strategy in which a company develops expertise in meeting the needs of specific segments. There is more oppor- tunity to customize services to the individual customer than in manufacturing and unlike manufacturing, service industries tend to be fragmented with firms specializing in particular market segments. The extent of national responsiveness required to meet the needs of these market segments depends on the degree to which the segment needs are homogeneous across national borders. While some market needs are global, thus allowing economies of scope, in many cases a central aspect of the service delivered is an intimate knowledge of the local economy. In industries such as management consulting, the firm is expected to have an understanding of the trends and issues facing firms and industries in the country in which it is based.

Impact of Service Characteristics The inherent characteristics of services present unique problems and opportunities for the effective management of the strategic capabilities of service MNCs. Service MNCs do not appear to use the three transnational capabilities (economies of scale, scope and national responsiveness) in the same way as do manufacturing firms. For service firms, scale economies occur primarily in the marketing area and are thus typically far less important than for manufacturing firms. This does not mean that scale economies are trivial. American Express is one example where extensive international coverage provides a barrier to entry and backs up the competitive claim of prompt credit card replacement service for travellers regard- less of the country in which they travel. However, scale economies appear to be of less strategic importance than national responsiveness and scope economies.

‘Heterogeneity’ of Services Services have the potential for considerable variability in their performance or delivery due to the labour-intensity of most services production. Because services are people-centred, the marked differences between individuals result in an equivalent heterogeneity in service production. This character- istic has two main strategic implications. The first is that it increases the importance of quality control, particularly in the case of branded services. Firms meet this challenge by either attempting to reduce the human element in service production (by substi- tuting capital for labour, for example, as in the case of Automatic Teller Machines within the banking industry) or through extensive employee training in which service operations are broken down into minute and discrete stagese7

The second implication of service heterogeneity is that it increases the difficulty of achieving success with new products. The variability of individual performance means that past performance may not be a valid indicator of future success. Thus, the ability to obtain scope economies by adapting and transferring innovations to international markets is a key requirement for global competitive success. An important question for service MNCs then, is whether knowledge should be created in the home

In service MNCs, national responsiveness and the centralization of innovation (leading to scope economies) may not represent discrete options, in contrast to the situation described by strategic planning models based on manufacturing firms. Service inseparability implies that decisions about the management of innovation influence a firm’s ability to be nationally responsive and vice versa. Since most service innovations are immediately experi- enced by customers, there is a close link between a firm’s upstream activities such as innovation and its downstream activities such as marketing. These activities are more closely related in service firms than in manufacturing and often cannot be separ- ated. Hence, it seems likely that centralized innovation in the home country and high national responsiveness cannot be achieved simultaneously, even with sophisticated telecommunication systems. When innovation is centralized in the home country, the lack of possibilities for subsidiaries to innovate in host countries automatically reduces the firm’s opportunities to be nationally responsive in marketing. A similar logic may apply to the relationship between decentralized innovation and high national responsiveness. When innovation is decentralized and subsidiaries are allowed to innovate in host countries, the firm’s level of national responsiveness

Long Range Planning Vol. 27 April 1994

at the downstream level of activities is automatically increased.

The analysis of the business strategies of the nine service firms in our research sample tends to support this reasoning. Firms were either very nationally responsive [whereby subsidiaries abroad were allowed to engage in decentralized innovation), or they tended to focus on centralized innovation which reduced the potential of subsidiaries to be nationally responsive. In our sample, firms which emphasize national responsiveness are organized as MNCs consisting of multiple national subsidiaries that are only loosely connected across national boundaries (Ernst & Young, McKinsey, Citicorp and Towers Perrin). The competitive position of these firms is based on a strategy of high national responsiveness and decentralized transfer of organizational learning across national borders. The parent companies manage a portfolio of multiple national entities, each characterized by a strong local presence, which market tailored products. Organiza- tional characteristics important to the success of this strategy are extensive teamwork and a strong common corporate culture to allow the diffusion of organizational learning.

In contrast, firms that emphasize the centralization of innovation mostly have their subsidiaries operate according to guidelines and directions from the parent companies (American Express, Arthur Andersen, Four Seasons, Sheraton Hotels and National Data Corporation). Quality control and service consistency are paramount and any new knowledge and expertise is generally first developed in the parent companies and only then transferred to overseas subsidiaries.

The strategies currently being pursued by these nine service MNCs demonstrate the limitations of current frameworks in helping managers to deal with the strategic issues currently facing service MNCs. Not only are scale economies of less strategic importance to service MNCs, service inseparability suggests that national responsiveness and scope economies actually reflect only one strategic capability. Service firms leverage their core competencies either through centralized innovation (and low national responsiveness) or through high national responsiveness (and decentralized innovation).

An additional strategic capability which may be particularly important to service multinationals is suggested by service intangibility. Service intangi-

bility means that the customer often finds it difficult to isolate service quality from the quality of the service provider. Since a firm’s reputation is critical to a customer’s purchasing decision, it is important that the firm appear ‘legitimate’ in the eyes of its customers. Institutional theory8 deals with how firms respond to environmental pressures to justify their activities or outputs. These environmental pressures encourage similarity (or isomorphism) among firms within a given business environment. According to institutional theory, one important way in which firms can respond to pressures for similarity and enhance their legitimacy is by building relationships with other firms in their business environment. This network of relationships becomes strategic when it is composed of relationships which have an important impact on the firm .g Potentially, strategic networks

may include relationships with competitors, suppliers, customers or firms in related industries.

There are a number of strategies open to firms to improve their perceived legitimacy. These include demonstrating or improving the firm’s reputation, image, prestige, or congruence with prevailing norms in its institutional environment. Although empirical studies that relate legitimacy specifically to external relationship formation are scarce, there is some evidence which indicates that new organizations are able to increase their legitimacy as a function of their ability to invoke affiliations with known organizations.‘O

In view of the significant problems posed by service intangibility, we think that a strategic capability critical to multinational service firms is networking flexibility. Networking flexibility refers to the extent to which a multinational service firm is able to adapt its behaviour and organizational structures to conform to pressures for similarity in various global market places. It represents the ability within sub-units of the firm to develop networks of relationships with external parties in order to improve the firm’s ‘legitimacy’ and thus the service experience of customers. The concept of networking flexibility reflects a company’s strength in imitating organizational structures and patterns of behaviour which appear legitimate to customers. It thus reflects a firm’s ability to develop networks of relationships at various levels, including the local, sub-national, national, regional trading bloc and even global level.


Networking Flexibility

In order to assess the relevance of networking flexibility for service multinationals, the nine firms in our research sample were represented in a matrix (Figure 1) which reflects two strategic capabilities. The first is networking flexibility (horizontal axis) and the second is a firm’s emphasis on either national responsiveness or centralized innovation (vertical axis). On the basis of the two axes in Figure 1, four cases can be distinguished.

In the first quadrant of Table 1, a firm’s strategic posture emphasizes centralized innovation and high networking flexibility. Firms in this quadrant are organized as consortia in which sub-units have different operating forms which parallel those found in firms with whom they have close business relationships. Since national responsiveness is low, this strategic posture is most likely when firms are serving multiple market segments which cross national borders. Serving multiple market segments compounds the difficulties that service firms face in achieving differentiation and brand identification. This may explain why none of the firms in our study conforms exactly to this picture. However, there is some indication that service MNCs are beginning to move towards the concept of consortia operations. In developing its AMRIS computer system, American Airlines is now beginning to share reservation and capacity management systems with hotel and car rental companies. This may result in a loose con- federation of separately owned firms that operate together through close working relationships.ll

In our sample, the firm closest to this organizational form is Sheraton Hotels, due to the diversity of its service offerings. Sheraton has three classes of hotel types: Sheraton Hotels, Inns and Suites. Although all three hotel classes focus on the business traveller, each hotel grouping has a distinct positioning which requires different external linkages. Sheraton Inns pursue the midscale traveller, Sheraton Hotels concentrates on the leisure and con- vention guest and Sheraton Suites caters to the upscale traveller. Currently, the different hotel groupings do not have distinct organizational structures. The parent company’s knowledge and capabilities are developed by the senior management team and local operations are strictly controlled through the Sheraton Guest Satisfaction Standards Program which ensures the consistency of service levels across all units of the firm. Service is not completely standardized, however, since the hotel general managers do operate independently and have some flexibility to develop working relationships with different local firms. Thus, it is possible that over time, Sheraton’s different hotel groupings may evolve into distinct organizational structures.

In quadrant 2, firms are highly nationally responsive and simultaneously respond effectively to the pressure of conforming to the organizational structures of firms in different relevant environments. Three of the four consulting firms in our sample fit into this category (McKinsey, Towers Perrin and Ernst and Young). All three firms are highly nationally responsive to their customers but simultaneously use project teams in which specialists can

NETWORKING CAPABILITY

USE OF CORE COMPETENCIES IN THE FIRM

Centralized innovation

High

Sheraton Hotels

Low

American Express Four Seasons Hotel Arthur Andersen

, 3 National Data Corp.

High national responsiveness

McKinsey Towers Perrin Ernst and Young

2 4 Citicorp


originate from any country. These project teams with experts considered credible by the customer reflect the capability of networking flexibility. At both McKinsey and Ernst and Young, innovations developed at one location are shared through informal communication linkages throughout the organization. However, Towers Perrin illustrates the potential pitfalls of this position. Towers Perrin has grown through acquisitions to become a conglom- erate of very different consulting groups, each with its own corporate culture and organizational structure. Since Towers Perrin is completely decentralized, informal communication between sub-units occurs only randomly. As a result, knowledge acquired by one subsidiary is rarely transferred to other sub-units within the organization.

Networking flexibility does not need to occur at the expense of effective knowledge transfer within the organization. At McKinsey for example, subsidiaries are decentralized and employees are driven by their own operating principles. Yet, McKinsey has been successful at developing common resource centres such as the one in Brussels to deal with pan- European issues in a way that is perceived legitimate to pan-European firms. This allows different subsidiaries to pool knowledge and share innovations without imposing a rigid organizational structure. In addition, employees who share common interests at McKinsey are also encouraged to participate in Com- petence Arenas on general topics which include improving the firm’s knowledge base and its legitimacy vis-h-vis customers with needs in specific competence areas.

In the third quadrant (American Express, Four Seasons, Arthur Andersen and National Data Cor- poration) firms have low networking flexibility and build their competitiveness predominantly from centralized innovation. These firms have pursued a focus strategy specializing in narrow global market segments so there is less need for national responsiveness. In contrast to Sheraton Hotels, Four Seasons has a low product diversity (hotels and resorts) targeted at only one market segment (upscale international business travellers) which does not require the firms to pursue legitimacy vis-h- vis various customer segments. American Express has pursued a focus strategy and expanded its product offerings to a customer base characterized by above-average incomes, frequent travel and complex financial requirements.” National Data

Corporation’s (NDC) expertise is in the area of electronic data processing which is quite standardized across all countries.

Subsidiaries in these companies have limited free- dom to modify core products and any new knowledge and expertise is first developed in (or trans- mitted to) the parent company and only then transferred to other overseas subsidiaries. Different organizational mechanisms are used to ensure the smooth and timely flow of information across different sub-units. National Data Corporation, for example, has applied much of its proficiency in data communications to its intra-company communication systems. All communications are wholly controlled by the corporate head office and innovations are rapidly transferred to NDC’s entire network of branches. Both Arthur Andersen and American Express have centralized training facilities where employees are taught new techniques or innovations. In both companies, common training means that the processes for most activities are standardized resulting in a ‘by the book’ approach to service delivery across the entire customer base.

Firms in this quadrant may be experiencing an increase in strategic vulnerability due to their lack of networking flexibility. One example of a firm in this position could be American Express. American Express is currently under severe pressure from its competitors and needs to increase ‘switching costs’ for its customers in its established markets such as North America and Europe. Whereas successful rivals such as Visa and Mastercard benefit from their relationships with the banks, American Express has not yet developed strategic affiliations with these financial institutions in different markets. This encourages inter-product competition in which American Express and other financial institutions compete for similar business but where American Express is often perceived as less credible, especially by lower and middle income customers given its lack of linkages with, for example, local banks.

Finally, in quadrant four, a firm has a strategic posture emphasizing national responsiveness but has low networking flexibility. An example of a firm with an administrative heritage in this quadrant is Citicorp. Citicorp considers itself to be a ‘geographically organized bank’ although this position may be transitional since Citicorp’s worldwide strategy is currently undergoing some changes. Historically, Citicorp’s administrative structure has


been characterized by decentralization in which branches were both geographically and administra- tively isolated. This resulted in high national responsiveness since branches had the autonomy to develop their own strategies according to the needs of the local marketplace. In order to increase internal knowledge transfer, new business methods are trans- mitted through a group of individuals called the International Staff. This group is split up and placed in different countries for periods of 6 months to 3 years, and then rotated to other countries.

Recently, however, on-line computer systems have transcended the physical barriers of geographic isolation for individual branches. In response to declining profits, the firm is in the process of reor- ganizing subsidiaries into interdependent activity centres. This has already occurred for Citicorp’s JENA (Japan-Europe-North America) corporate bank subsidiary. The purpose of this reorganization is to foster a common vision and values within the organization. In addition, Citicorp is now attempting to institute strict financial and information control systems. However, the domination of the corporate banking appproach may also reduce Citicorp’s ability to engage in modes of behaviour perceived as legitimate in other areas of banking. One example of this occurred in the bank’s British subsidiary. The customers of this particular branch used to buy gilts (a low-margin type of British government security) as part of their product portfolio along with other more profitable products. In 1980, an American manager discontinued the British branch’s sale of gilts due to its low profit margins. Gilts were perceived by customers of the UK subsidiary as an essential part of their product portfolio. The decision to discontinue this product line has affected Citicorp’s credibility with investors at the British subsidiary, many of whom now perceive the company to be obsessed with the bottom line at the expense of customer service.13 Networking flexibility reflects the extent to which a subsidiary’s network of relationships (which may be quite different from the network of the firm’s head office] is recognized and allowed to exist. The gilt decision by head office indicates low networking flexibility since Citicorp failed to realize that the British subsidiary had its own network of customer relationships. The customer network of the UK subsidiary was completely ignored given that it differed from the corporate customer network of Citicorp’s head office.

The above analysis suggests that a ‘transnational solution’ may be even more complex for service MNC’s than for MNCs in the manufacturing sector. Global competitiveness in the service sector implies the choice between national responsiveness (and decentralized innovation) and centralized innovation. This first capability should then be com- plemented by high networking flexibility in order to improve the firm’s legitimacy and thus the service experience of customers.

It should be emphasized that our positioning of particular firms in the four quadrants reflects primarily the researchers’ judgement rather than the perceptions of the firms’ managers who were inter- viewed. While this judgement appears to be cor- roborated by the internal organizational structures currently in place within these firms, further research regarding these relationships is needed. In this research, we examined the importance of networking flexibility to firms in four different service sectors. Although we have offered some speculation about the possible threats and opportunities for firms operating in each quadrant, it is not yet clear how a lack of networking flexibility may affect relative performance outcomes such as market share, profitability or firm size.

Conclusions

Although the data collected in this study provide a preliminary basis for understanding how service MNCs can leverage their strategic capabilities, the logical implications developed in our discussion of service ‘intangibility’, ‘inseparability’ and ‘heterogeneity’ suggest that service MNCs face quite different strategic challenges from manufacturing MNCs. Specifically, our results suggest that ‘national responsiveness’ and ‘economies of scope’ are of critical strategic importance to service MNCs. However, high national responsiveness can only be successful when combined with decentralized innovation. In contrast, economies of scope resulting from centralized innovation severely limit a firm’s potential to respond to the requirements of different countries. This view is in sharp contrast with Bartlett and Ghoshal’s transnational solution for manufacturing firms which suggest that national responsiveness can and should be combined with any form of learning and scope economies.


Our analysis suggests that a ‘transnational solution’ for service MNC’s may require development through two stages. First, firms need to develop a strategic capability which allows either national responsiveness or centralized innovation. Second, given the administrative structure resulting from the first choice, firms need to develop networking flexibility. To achieve networking flexibility requires the ability to initiate relationships with outside suppliers

References

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(16)

(11)

(12)

(13)

or related organizations at any geographical level (local, regional or global) deemed appropriate in order to enhance the firm’s perceived legitimacy in the view of customers.

Acknowledgements-The authors are grateful for the helpful

suggestions of Alan Middleton and for the research assistance

of Karl Moore.

Two particularly influential books which deal with organizational design issues facing manufacturing MNCs are: C. K. Prahalad and Y. L. Doz. The Multinational Mission: Balancing Local Demands and Global vision, The Free Press, New York, (1987); and C. A. Bartlett and S. Ghoshal, Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution, Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts (1989). In both books the authors suggest that successful MNCs possess multiple strategic capabilities which allow them to create cross-border synergies. Prahalad and Do2 deal with how managers in MNCs can deal with conflicting pressures for local responsiveness and global integration while Bartlett and Ghoshal propose a new organizational model for the ‘transnational corporation’ which combines the key advantages of nationally responsive firms, global companies that build upon scale economies, and firms that rely primarily upon sharing know-how across borders.

P. Enderwick, The Scale and Scope of Service Sector Multinationals in Peter J. Buckley and Mark Casson (eds), Multinational Enterprises in the World Economy: Essays in Honour of John Dunning, pp. 134-152, Edward Elgar Publishing, Vermont (1992).

I. Wilson Competitive Strategies for Service Businesses, Long Range Planning, 21 (6). IO-1 2 (1988).

E. Trondsen and R. Edfelt, New Opportunities in Global Services, Long Range Planning, 20 (5). 53-60 (1987).

J. E. G. Bateson, Managing Services Marketing: Text and Readings, Dryden HBJ, Toronto (1992); J. E. G. Bateson, Why We Need Service Marketing, in 0. C. Ferrell, S. W. Brown and C. W. Lamb Jr. (eds), Conceptualand Theoretical Developments in Marketing, pp. 131-146, American Marketing Association, Chicago (1992); J. H. Dunning, Transnational Corporations and the Growth of Services: Some Conceptual and Theoretical issues. UNCTC Current Studies Series A No. 9, United Nations, New York (1989); P. Enderwick (ed), MultinationalService Firms, Routledge, London (1989); D. F. Channon, Global Banking Strategy, John Wiley, Chichester (1988); J. Nusbaumer, Services in the Global Market, Kluwer, Boston, Mass (1987).

C. A. Barlett and S. Ghoshal, op. cit. (1987).

P. Enderwick, op. cit.

Institutional theory proposes that there are two related ways in which firms can increase their perceived legitimacy. The first is by emulating the types of organizational structures found in their relevant environments. Firms are perceived legitimate when they appear to be in agreement with the prevailing norms, rules, beliefs or expectations of external constituents. Firm behaviour aimed at creating a greater degree of similarity between the focal firm and other firms in its industry acts as a powerful signalling device to external firms. For a description of the theoretical bases of institutional theory see: P. J. DiMaggio, Interest and agency in institutional theory, in L. G. Zucker (ed), lnstitutionalpattems and organizations, pp. 3-21, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA (1988); P. J. DiMaggio and W. W. Powell, The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields, American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160 (1983); M. L. Fennell, C. 0. Ross and R. 8. Warnecke, Organizational environment and network structure, in S. 6. Barcharach (ed), Research in the sociology of organizations, pp. 311-34, JAI Press, Greenwich CT (1987).

C. Snodgrass, Use of Networks in Cross Border Competition, Long Range Planning, 28 (2), 41-50 (1993).

See, W. Wiewel and A. Hunter, The interorganizational network as a resource: A comparative case study on organizational genesis, Administrative Science Quartedy, 30, 482-496 (1985); J. Byrne, The McKinsey Mystique, Business Week, Sept. 20, 66-74 (1993); and J. Huey, How McKinsey Does It, Fortune, Nov. 1, 56-68 (1993).

P. Enderwick, op. cit.

J. L. Heskett (1986) Managing in the Service Economy, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.

Can Citicorp get its Act together in Europe?, institutional Investor, p. 159 (1988).


the globalisation of service multinationals

Documents