The Penrose effect: “Excess” expatriates in multinational enterprises

Abstract and Key ResultsPenrose’s (1959) theory of firm growth argues that firm knowledge and experience gives rise to “excess” resources which can be (re)deployed to explore and exploit productive opportunities leading, ultimately, to the achievement of firm goals.We examine this key insight on organizational slack in the context of expatriate managers within multinational enterprises (MNEs).Expatriates are not only a viable way of examining the Penrosian concept of slack but, as an unique element of MNE management, expatriates also provide an opportunity to develop new insights into international business theory.Using a large sample of MNE subsidiaries, we found that when host country experience is comparatively low, subsidiaries with “excess” expatriate managers are more likely to experience inferior performance. Alternatively, expatriate slack is associated with a higher likelihood of superior performance in the context of comparatively high host country experience.

[1]  Nancy K. Napier,et al.  Toward an Integrative Model of Strategic International Human Resource Management , 1996 .

[2]  M. Crossan.  The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation , 1996 .

[3]  Henry C. Ellis,et al.  Transfer of Learning , 2021, Research in Mathematics Education.

[4]  Joseph T. Mahoney,et al.  Penrose’s Resource-Based Approach: The Process and Product of Research Creativity , 2002 .

[5]  Michael C. Jensen,et al.  The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal Control Systems , 1993, A Theory of the Firm.

[6]  Gabriel Szulanski.  Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm , 1996 .

[7]  R. Peterson,et al.  Corporate Expatriate HRM Policies, Internationalization, and Performance in the World's Largest MNCs1 , 1996 .

[8]  J. Birkinshaw.  How Multinational Subsidiary Mandates are Gained and Lost , 1996 .

[9]  J. R. Moore,et al.  The theory of the growth of the firm twenty-five years after , 1960 .

[10]  Jean‐Franois Hennart.  THE ‘COMPARATIVE INSTITUTIONAL’ THEORY OF THE FIRM: SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR CORPORATE STRATEGY* , 1994 .

[11]  Joseph T. Mahoney,et al.  Edith Penrose's (1959) Contributions to the Resource‐based View of Strategic Management , 2004 .

[12]  Stephen Tallman.  Managing across Borders: The Transnational Solution , 1990 .

[13]  G. Hedlund.  The hypermodern MNC—A heterarchy? , 1986 .

[14]  Steve Thompson,et al.  Edith Penrose's Contributions to the Resource-Based View: An Alternative Perspective , 2004 .

[15]  Christos N. Pitelis,et al.  A theory of the (growth of the) transnational firm: a Penrosean perspective , 2000 .

[16]  C. Bartlett,et al.  Managing across Borders: The Transnational Solution , 1990 .

[17]  K. Marino,et al.  Measuring Organizational Slack: A Note on the Convergence and Divergence of Alternative Operational Definitions , 1983 .

[18]  O. Williamson.  / STRATEGIZING, ECONOMIZING, AND ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION , 1991 .

[19]  I. Nonaka,et al.  How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation , 1995 .

[20]  J. Birkinshaw,et al.  Multinational Subsidiary Evolution: Capability and Charter Change in Foreign-Owned Subsidiary Companies , 1998 .

[21]  Joseph L. C. Cheng,et al.  Organizational Slack and Response to Environmental Shifts: The Impact of Resource Allocation Patterns , 1997 .

[22]  C. Bartlett,et al.  Creation, Adoption and Diffusion of Innovations by Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations , 1988 .

[23]  A. Rugman,et al.  A Final Word on Edith Penrose , 2004 .

[24]  Harry G. Barkema,et al.  Organizational Learning and diversification , 1994 .

[25]  M. Kamien,et al.  Market structure and innovation , 1982 .

[26]  R. Gulati.  Is Slack Good or Bad for Innovation ? , 2007 .

[27]  A. Rugman,et al.  Inside the Multinationals, the Economics of Internal Markets@@@The Canadian Multinationals , 1982 .

[28]  Steve Dunphy,et al.  Structure and Innovation , 1995 .

[29]  C. Bartlett,et al.  The Multinational Corporation as an Interorganizational Network , 1990 .

[30]  K. Clark,et al.  Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction☆ , 1993 .

[31]  Nakiye Avdan Boyacıgiller,et al.  The Role of Expatriates in the Management of Interdependence Complexity and Risk in Multinational Corporations , 1990 .

[32]  B. Harrison,et al.  Lean and Mean: The Changing Landscape of Corporate Power in the Age of Flexibility. , 1995 .

[33]  Peter J. Lane,et al.  Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning , 1998 .

[34]  E. Penrose,et al.  Foreign Investment and the Growth of the Firm , 1956 .

[35]  Kressel,et al.  Competing for the Future , 2007 .

[36]  Steve Thompson,et al.  The resource-based view and economics , 2001 .

[37]  George J. Stigler,et al.  The Organization of Industry , 1969 .

[38]  A. Rugman,et al.  Subsidiary‐specific advantages in multinational enterprises , 2001 .

[39]  J. Birkinshaw.  Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations : The characteristics of subsidiary initiatives , 1997 .

[40]  W. Abernathy,et al.  The Productivity Dilemma: Roadblock t o Znnovation in the Automobile Industry , 1978 .

[41]  Y. Gong.  Subsidiary Staffing in Multinational Enterprises: Agency, Resources, and Performance , 2003 .

[42]  L. Bourgeois.  On the Measurement of Organizational Slack , 1981 .

[43]  A. Rugman,et al.  A Note on the Transnational Solution and the Transaction Cost Theory of Multinational Strategic Management , 1992 .

[44]  W. Shan,et al.  Country—specific advantage and international cooperation , 1991 .

[45]  J. M. Geringer,et al.  Measuring Performance of International Joint Ventures , 1991 .

[46]  A. Rugman,et al.  Edith Penrose's contribution to the resource-based view of strategic management , 2002 .

[47]  Roderick E. White,et al.  The Strategies of Foreign Subsidiaries: Responses to Organizational Slack , 1984 .

[48]  W. Abernathy.  Innovation : Mapping the winds of creative destruction * , 2003 .