Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does dual Embeddedness matter? Mechanisms and patterns of subsidiary ambidexterity that links a Subsidiary’s dual Embeddedness with its learning strategy

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study extends the idea of subsidiary ambidexterity as a subsidiary’s attempt to obtain a fit between its dual embeddedness (i.e. ambidextrous contexts) and its learning strategy (i.e. ambidextrous behaviors). We design a dyadic survey to collect data from Taiwanese MNEs and their Chinese subsidiaries to test our arguments. First, we redefine subsidiary ambidexterity as a three-step mechanism in which three different types of dual embeddedness will cause different legitimacy effects (resource or conformity effect), which will then result in a subsidiary’s different learning strategies. Second, we propose three different subsidiary ambidexterity patterns: (1) a subsidiary will prefer in maintaining higher external than internal political embeddedness, which leads to their focusing on exploitation (an adaptability case of ambidexterity); (2) a subsidiary will intend to develop both high external and high internal cultural embeddedness and that will cause them to explore and exploit simultaneously (an alignment case of ambidexterity); and (3) in sometimes a subsidiary will prefer to maintain higher external than internal cognitive embeddedness and that will lead the subsidiary to emphasize exploration, whereas in other times a subsidiary will prefer to have higher internal cognitive than external cognitive embeddedness and that will lead the subsidiary to emphasize exploitation (a balancing case of ambidexterity). Our view can largely contribute to the subsidiary learning literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Achcaoucaou, F., Miravitlles, P., & León-Darder, F. 2017. Do we really know the predictors of competence-creating R&D subsidiaries? Uncovering the mediation of dual network embeddedness. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 116: 181–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambos, T. C., Ambos, B., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. 2006. Learning from foreign subsidiaries: An empirical investigation of headquarters' benefits from reverse knowledge transfers. International Business Review, 15(3): 294–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambos, T. C., Andersson, U., & Birkinshaw, J. 2010. What are the consequences of initiative-taking in multinational subsidiaries? Journal of International Business Studies, 41(7): 1099–1118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, U., Bjorkman, I., & Forsgren, M. 2005. Managing subsidiary knowledge creation: The effect of control mechanisms on subsidiary local embeddedness. International Business Review, 14(5): 521–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, U., Dellestrand, H., & Pedersen, T. 2014. The contribution of local environments to competence creation in multinational enterprises. Long Range Planning, 47(1–2): 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Holm, U. 2007. Adaptive subsidiaries influence in the federative MNC: A business network view. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(5): 802–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. 1977. Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing, 14(3): 396–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auh, S., & Menguc, B. 2005. Adaptive exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58(12): 1652–1661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aulakh, P. S., Kundu, S. K., & Lahiri, S. 2016. Learning and knowledge management in and out of emerging markets: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of World Business, 51(5): 656–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, S., & Venaik, S. 2017. The effect of corporate political activity on MNC subsidiary legitimacy: An institutional perspective. Management International Review, 57(1): 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social-psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. 1989. Managing across Borders: The transnational solution. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckert, J. 1999. Economic action and Embeddedness: The problem of the structure of action. UC Berkeley:Center for Culture, Organizations and Politics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. 2013. Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4): 287–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J., & Hood, N. 1998. Multinational subsidiary evolution: Capability and charter change in foreign-owned subsidiary companies. Academy of Management Review, 23(4): 773–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J., & Ridderstråle, J. 1999. Fighting the corporate immune system: A process study of subsidiary initiatives in multinational corporations. International Business Review, 8(2): 149–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Björkman, I., Barner-Rasmussen, W., & Li, L. 2004. Managing knowledge transfer in MNCs: The impact of headquarters control mechanisms. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5): 443–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleiklie, I., Enders, J., & Lepori, B. 2015. Organizations as penetrated hierarchies: Environmental pressures and control in professional organizations. Organization Studies, 36(7): 873–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Weight versus voice: How foreign subsidiaries gain attention from corporate headquarters. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3): 577–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A. 2002. Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2): 325–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. 2009. Unpacking organization ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4): 78–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cenamor, J., Parida, V., Oghazi, P., Pesӓmaa, O., & Wincent, J. 2019. Addressing dual embeddedness: The roles of absorptive capacity and appropriability mechanisms in subsidiary performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 78: 239–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, C. M., & Makino, S. 2007. Legitimacy and multi-level institutional environments: Implications for foreign subsidiary ownership structure. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4): 621–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, C. M., Makino, S., & Isobe, T. 2010. Does subnational region matter? Foreign affiliate performance in the United States and China. Strategic Management Journal, 31(11): 1226–1243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. 2007. It’s all about me: Narcissistic CEOs and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3): 351–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Child, J., & Tsai, T. 2005. The dynamic between firms’ environmental strategies and institutional constraints in emerging economies: Evidence from China and Taiwan. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1): 95–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciabuschi, F., Holm, U., & Martín, O. M. 2014. Dual embeddedness, influence and performance of innovating subsidiaries in the multinational corporation. International Business Review, 23(5): 897–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conroy, K. M., & Collings, D. G. 2016. The legitimacy of subsidiary issue selling: Balancing positive and negative attention from corporate headquarters. Journal of World Business, 51(4): 612–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dacin, M. T., Ventresca, M. J., & Beal, B. D. 1999. The embeddedness of organizations: Dialogue and directions. Journal of Management, 25(3): 317–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dacin, M. T. 1997. Isomorphism in context: The power and prescription of institutional norms. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1): 46–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dequech, D. 2003. Uncertainty and economic sociology. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 62(3): 509–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitratos, P., Plakoyiannaki, E., Thanos, I. C., & Förbom, Y. K. 2014. The overlooked distinction of multinational enterprise subsidiary learning: Its managerial and entrepreneurial learning modes. International Business Review, 23(1): 102–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drori, I., & Honig, B. 2013. A process model of internal and external legitimacy. Organization Studies, 34(3): 345–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., Furr, N. R., & Bingham, C. B. 2010. Microfoundations of performance: Adaptive efficient and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science, 21(6): 1263–1273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figueiredo, P. N. 2011. The role of dual embeddedness in the innovative performance of MNE subsidiaries: Evidence from Brazil. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2): 417–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3): 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao, C., Zuzul, T., Jones, G., & Khanna, T. 2017. Overcoming institutional voids: A reputation-based view of long-run survival. Strategic Management Journal, 38(11: 2147–2167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Pont, C., Canales, J. I., & Noboa, F. 2009. Subsidiary strategy: The embeddedness component. Journal of Management Studies, 46(2): 182–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. W., & Verhees, B. 2011. Cultural legitimacy and framing struggles in innovation journeys: A cultural-performative perspective and a case study of Dutch nuclear energy (1945–1986). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(6): 910–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2): 209–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, R. V. D., & de Melo, T. M. 2018. The effect of organization context on knowledge exploration and exploitation. Journal of Business Research, 90: 215–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granger, C. J. 1969. Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral models. Econometrica, 37(3): 424–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3): 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. H. 2008. Econometric analysis, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River:Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. 2006. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 693–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadjikhani, A., Lee, J., & Ghauri, P. N. 2008. Network view of MNCs’ socio-political behavior. Journal of Business Research, 61(9): 912–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, M., Novicevic, M. M., & Garrison, G. 2004. Challenges to staffing global virtual teams. Human Resource Management Review, 14(3): 275–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4): 481–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Wan, W. P. 2005. The determinants of MNE subsidiaries’ political strategies: Evidence of institutional duality. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(2):322–340.

  • Jensen, R., & Szulanski, G. 2004. Stickiness and the adaptation of organizational practices in cross-border knowledge transfers. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(6): 508–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Junni, P., Sarala, R., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. 2013. Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4): 299–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klopf, P., & Nell, P. C. 2018. How “space” and “place” influence subsidiary host country political embeddedness. International Business Review, 27(1): 186–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2002. Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 215–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. 1999. Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1): 64–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, C. M., Tse, D. K., & Zhou, N. 2002. Institutional forces and organizational culture in China: Effects on change schemas, firm commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3): 533–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, D., Kang, J., & Rosenkodf, L. 2011. Balance within and across domains: The performance implications of exploration and exploitation in alliance. Organization Science, 22(6): 1517–1538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J.-H., & Gaur, A. S. 2013. Managing multibusiness firms: A comparison between Korean chaebols and diversified U.S. firms. Journal of World Business, 48(4): 443–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., Peng, M. W., & Lee, K. 2008. From diversification premium to diversification discount during institutional transitions. Journal of World Business, 43(1): 47–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J. J., Poppo, L., & Zhou, K. 2010. Relational mechanisms, formal contracts, and local knowledge acquisition by international subsidiaries. Strategic Management Journal, 31(4): 349–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J. T., Yang, J. Y., & Yue, D. R. 2007. Identity community, and audience: How wholly owned foreign subsidiaries gain legitimacy in China. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, W. 2016. FDI decisions and business-group insider control: Evidence from Taiwanese group-affiliated firms investing in the Chinese market. Journal of World Business, 51(4): 525–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., Vahtera, P., Wang, C., Wang, J., & Wei, Y. 2017. The delicate balance: Managing technology adoption and creation multinational affiliates in an emerging economy. International Business Review, 26(3): 515–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y., Shenkar, O., & Nyaw, M. K. 2002. Mitigating liabilities of foreignness: Defensive versus offensive approaches. Journal of International Management, 8(3): 283–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, X., Tong, T. W., & Fitza, M. 2013. How much does subnational region matter to foreign subsidiary performance? Evidence from Fortune global 500 corporations’ investment in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(1): 66–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malesky, E., & Taussig, M. 2017. The danger of not listening to firms: Government responsiveness and the goal of regulatory compliance. Academy of Management Journal, 60(5): 1741–1770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K. E., & Nguyen, H. V. 2005. Foreign investment strategies and sub-national institutions in emerging markets: Evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1): 63–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K. E., Mudambi, R., & Narula, R. 2011. Multinational enterprises and local context: The opportunities and challenges of multiple embeddedness. Journal of Management Studies, 49(2): 235–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Micelotta, E., Lounsbury, M., & Greenwood, R. 2017. Pathways of institutional change: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 43(6): 1885–1910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michailova, S., & Zhan, W. 2015. Dynamic capabilities and innovation in MNC subsidiaries. Journal of World Business, 50(3): 576–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mu, S. C., Gnyawali, D. R., & Hatfield, D. E. 2007. Foreign subsidiaries’ learning from local environments: An empirical test. Management International Review, 47(1): 79–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudambi, R., & Navarra, P. 2004. Is knowledge power? Knowledge flows, subsidiary power and rent-seeking within MNCs. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5): 385–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Najafi-Tavani, Z., Giroud, A., & Andersson, U. 2014. The interplay of networking activities and internal knowledge actions for subsidiary influence within MNCs. Journal of World Business, 49(1): 122–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Najafi-Tavani, Z., Robson, M. J., Zaefarian, G., Anderson, U., & Yu, C. 2018. Building subsidiary local responsiveness: (when) does the directionality of intrafirm transfers matters? Journal of World Business, 53(4): 475–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Najafi-Tavani, Z., Giroud, A., & Sinkovics, R. R. 2012. Knowledge-intensive business services: Does dual embeddedness matter? Service Industries Journal, 32(10): 1691–1705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nell, P. C., & Ambos, B. 2013. Parenting advantage in the MNC: An embeddedness perspective on the value added by headquarters. Strategic Management Journal, 34(9): 1086–1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nell, P. C., Ambos, B., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. 2011. The MNC as an externally embedded organization: An investigation of embeddedness overlap in local subsidiary networks. Journal of World Business, 46(4): 497–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nell, P. C., Puck, J., & Heidenreich, S. 2014. Strictly limited choice or agency? Institutional duality, legitimacy, and subsidiaries’ political strategies. Journal of World Business, 50(2): 302–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nohria, N., & Ghoshal, S. 1997. The differentiated network: Organizations knowledge flows in multinational corporations. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oehmichen, J., & Puck, J. 2016. Embeddedness, ownership mode and dynamics, and the performance of MNE subsidiaries. Journal of International Management, 22(1): 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. 1956. Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(1): 63–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W., & Zhou, J. Q. 2005. How network strategies and institutional transitions evolve in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22(4): 321–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perri, A., Andersson, U., Nell, P., & Santangelo, G. D. 2013. Adaptive the trade-off between learning prospects and spillover risks: MNC subsidiaries’ vertical linkage patterns in developed countries. Journal of World Business, 48(4): 503–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York:Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pu, M., & Soh, P.-H. 2018. The role of dual embeddedness and organization learning in subsidiary development. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35(2): 373–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raaijmakers, A. G. M., Vermeulen, P. A. M., Meeus, M. T. H., & Zietsma, C. 2015. I need time! Exploring pathways to compliance under institutional complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1): 85–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4): 685–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., Verbeke, A., & Yuan, W. 2011. Re-conceptualizing Bartlett and Ghoshal's classification of national subsidiary roles in the multinational enterprise. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2): 253–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Seidl, D. 2013. Managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneous environments: Sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2): 259–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schildt, H. A., Maula, M. V. J., & Keil, T. 2005. Explorative and exploitative learning from external corporate ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4): 493–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks:SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheng, M. L., Hartmann, N. N., Chen, Q., & Chen, I. 2015. The synergetic of multinational corporation management’s social cognitive capability on tacit-knowledge management: Product innovation ability insights from Asia. Journal of International Marketing, 23(2): 94–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheng, S., Zhou, K. Z., & Li, J. J. 2011. The effects of business and political ties on firm performance: Evidence from China. Journal of Marketing, 75(1): 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. 2002. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4): 422–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simsek, Z. 2009. Organization ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4): 598–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. E. 1982. Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.). Sociological methodology 1982: 290–312. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stettner, U., & Lavie, D. 2014. Ambidexterity under scrutiny: Exploration and exploitation via internal organization, alliances, and acquisition. Strategic Management Journal, 35(13): 1903–1929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 571–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, P., Mellahi, K., & Thun, E. 2010. The dynamic value of MNE political embeddedness: The case of the Chinese automobile industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(1): 1161–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. 1969. Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 25(4): 79–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tallman, S., & Chacar, A. S. 2011. Communities, alliances, networks and knowledge in multinational firms: A micro-analytic framework. Journal of International Management, 17(3): 201–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. 1996. The ambidextrous organization: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4): 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyre, M., & von Hippel, E. 1997. The situated nature of adaptive learning in organizations. Organization Science, 8(1): 71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vora, D., Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2007. Roles of subsidiary managers in multinational corporations: The effect of dual organisational identity. Management International Review, 47(4): 595–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter, J., Lechner, C., & Kellermanns, F. W. 2016. Learning activities, exploration, and the performance of strategic initiatives. Journal of Management, 42(3): 769–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, P., Tong, T. W., & Koh, C. P. 2004. An integrated model of knowledge transfer from MNC parent to China subsidiary. Journal of World Business, 39(2): 168–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weng, D. H., & Cheng, H. L. 2019. The more, the merrier? How a subsidiary's organizational identification with the MNE affects its initiative. Long Range Planning, 52(4): 101860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C. 2009. Subsidiary-level determinants of global initiatives in multinational corporations. Journal of International Management, 15(1): 92–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C., & Lee, S. H. 2011. Entrepreneurial contexts and knowledge coordination within the multinational corporation. Journal of World Business, 46(2): 253–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D., Pan, Y., & Beamish, P. W. 2004. The effect of regulative and normative distances on MNE ownership and expatriate strategies. Management International Review., 44(3): 285–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yalcinkaya, G., Calantone, R. J., & Griffith, D. A. 2007. An examination of exploration and exploitation capabilities: Implications for product innovation and market performance. Journal of International Marketing, 15(4): 63–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamin, M., & Andersson, U. 2011. Subsidiary importance in the MNC: What role does internal embeddedness play? International Business Review, 20(2): 151–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, F., Jiang, G., & Cantwell, J. A. 2015. Subsidiary exploration and innovative performance of large multinational corporations. Journal of World Business, 24(2): 224–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, H., Eden, L., Miller, S. R., & Douglas, E. 2012. Host-country location decisions of early movers and latecomers: The role of local density and experiential learning. International Business Review, 21(2): 145–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zilber, T. B. 2002. Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings and actors: The case of a rape crisis center in Israel. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 234–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, M., & Zeitz, G. 2002. Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3): 414–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zukin, S., & DiMaggio, P. 1990. Introduction to structures of capital. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, National Chung Cheng University, 168, University Rd., Ming-Hsiung, Chiayi County, Taiwan

    Hsiang-Lin Cheng

  2. College of Management, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Douliu, Taiwan

    Ming-Chang Huang

Authors
  1. Hsiang-Lin Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ming-Chang Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hsiang-Lin Cheng.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cheng, HL., Huang, MC. Does dual Embeddedness matter? Mechanisms and patterns of subsidiary ambidexterity that links a Subsidiary’s dual Embeddedness with its learning strategy. Asia Pac J Manag 38, 1431–1465 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-020-09711-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-020-09711-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation