Global strategy formulation and learning from the field : Three modes of comparative learning and a case illustration.

Firms formulate their global strategies from what they have learned from observing others and from their own experiences relying on the logic of comparison. From the literature and an in-depth case analysis, we identify three modes of comparative learning for global strategy formulation: seeking best practice, surfacing universals, and grounded strategizing. We argue that grounded strategizing, which we define as the process by which firms learn from unanticipated variations in their own global strategy implementation, is often inferred, remains relatively unexplored, and may provide the most valuable source of learning. By examining the case of NSK Ball Bearings, we show that strategy formulation is much like theory building—each era of internationalization has its own theoretical foundation based on differing basic assumptions and logics of comparison.

[1]  Jackman Robert,et al.  CROSS-NATIONAL STATISTICAL RESEARCH AND THE STUDY OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS , 1985 .

[2]  T. Kostova,et al.  Organizational Legitimacy Under Conditions of Complexity: The Case of the Multinational Enterprise , 1999 .

[3]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[4]  Douglas Dow,et al.  Developing a multidimensional instrument to measure psychic distance stimuli , 2006 .

[5]  Gabriel Szulanski,et al.  Stickiness and the adaptation of organizational practices in cross-border knowledge transfers , 2004 .

[6]  George S. Yip,et al.  Exploiting globalization potential: U.S. and japanese strategies , 1994 .

[7]  Karl E. Weick,et al.  Organizing and Failures of Imagination , 2005 .

[8]  Srilata Zaheer Overcoming the Liability of Foreignness , 1995 .

[9]  Anne S. Tsui,et al.  Contributing to Global Management Knowledge: A Case for High Quality Indigenous Research , 2004 .

[10]  R. Vernon International investment and international trade in the product cycle , 1966 .

[11]  F. Eggan Social Anthropology and the Method of Controlled Comparison , 1954 .

[12]  B. Kogut,et al.  What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning , 1996 .

[13]  J. Dunning,et al.  An evolutionary approach to understanding international business activity: The co-evolution of MNEs and the institutional environment , 2009 .

[14]  Arthur L. Kalleberg,et al.  The Logic of Comparison: A Methodological Note on the Comparative Study of Political Systems , 1966, World Politics.

[15]  Dennis A. Gioia,et al.  Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation , 1991 .

[16]  R. Suddaby From the Editors: What Grounded Theory is Not , 2006 .

[17]  Jesper B. Sørensen,et al.  The interplay between theory and method , 2007 .

[18]  D. Eleanor Westney,et al.  The Evolution of Japan's Industrial Research and Development , 1994 .

[19]  G. Hamilton,et al.  Market, Culture, and Authority: A Comparative Analysis of Management and Organization in the Far East , 1988, American Journal of Sociology.

[20]  Mary Yoko Brannen,et al.  When Mickey Loses Face: Recontextualization, Semantic Fit, and the Semiotics of Foreignness , 2004 .

[21]  Mary E. Zellmer-Bruhn,et al.  MULTINATIONAL ORGANIZATION CONTEXT: IMPLICATIONS FOR TEAM LEARNING AND PERFORMANCE , 2006 .

[22]  Mary E. Zellmer-Bruhn Interruptive Events and Team Knowledge Acquisition , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[23]  J. Johanson,et al.  The Internationalization Process of the Firm—A Model of Knowledge Development and Increasing Foreign Market Commitments , 1977 .

[24]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[25]  Jordan I. Siegel,et al.  Labor Market Institutions and Global Strategic Adaptation: Evidence from Lincoln Electric , 2009, Manag. Sci..

[26]  Henry W. Lane,et al.  The Psychic Distance Paradox , 1996 .

[27]  H. Barkema,et al.  FOREIGN ENTRY, CULTURAL BARRIERS, AND LEARNING , 1996 .

[28]  H. Barkema,et al.  Learning Through Acquisitions , 2001 .

[29]  G. Hedlund A model of knowledge management and the N‐form corporation , 2007 .

[30]  Nitin Nohria,et al.  Influences on Human Resource Management Practices in Multinational Corporations , 1994 .

[31]  John H. Dunning,et al.  The Key Literature on IB Activities: 1960–2000 , 2001 .

[32]  Schon Beechler,et al.  The Transfer of Japanese-Style Management to American Subsidiaries: Constraints, and Competencies , 1994 .

[33]  Peggy M. Lee A comparative analysis of layoff announcements and stock price reactions in the United States and Japan , 1997 .

[34]  G. Huber Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures , 1991 .

[35]  B. Kogut,et al.  Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology , 1992 .

[36]  T. Kostova,et al.  Institutional Theory in the Study of Multinational Corporations: A Critique and New Directions , 2008 .

[37]  Masahiko Aoki,et al.  The Japanese Firm , 1994 .

[38]  Srilata Zaheer The liability of foreignness, redux: a commentary , 2002 .

[39]  E. Gene DeFelice,et al.  Comparison Misconceived: Common Nonsense in Comparative Politics , 1980 .

[40]  J. Johanson,et al.  The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership , 2009 .

[41]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutional conditions for diffusion , 1993 .

[42]  M. Alvesson,et al.  Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development , 2007 .