How and Why are International Firms Different? the consequences of cross-border managerial coordination for firm characteristics and behaviour

By R. Whitley. 2001

191 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/31cbc6ddeea7547c5759190d18087d53f8e32989

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Organizational Learning in Multinationals: R&D Networks of Japanese and US MNEs in the UK* (2003, background): “…develop 'transnational learning spaces' and their ability to tap into local knowledge sources, however, differ between firms of different national origins, as suggested by the institutional approach to organizations (Doremus et al., 1998; Morgan, 2001; Pauly and Reich, 1997; Whitley, 1999, 2001).”
Unraveling Home and Host Country Effects: An Investigation of the HR Policies of an American Multinational in Four European Countries (2005, unknown): “Finally, host business systems vary in terms of how “open” they are, making them more or less amenable to external management styles (Whitley 2001).”
The Global Professional Service Firm: ‘One Firm’ Models versus (Italian) Distant Institutionalized Practices (2013, unknown): “Specifically, the paper shows that whilst existing work on MNCs (e.g. Kostova & Roth, 2002; Meyer et al., 2011; Whitley, 2001) has undoubtedly advanced our understanding of the way corporate strategies and best practices are impeded by local institutions, there is too great a tendency to present…”
Integrating Finance into Global Production Networks (2014, background): “The broad literatures on transnational corporations (e.g. DOREMUS et al., 1998), and varieties of capitalism/business systems (e.g. WHITLEY, 2001) in turn reflect how the home country financial environment shapes the globalization strategies of firms.5 The contention is that this link between home…”