Assignment 2. Global Intellectual Capital - Global Business Savvy Submit Assignment 2 to 3 pages

Managing Executive Attention in the Global Company

S U M M E R 2 0 0 7 V O L . 4 8 N O . 4

R E P R I N T N U M B E R 4 8 4 1 3

Julian Birkinshaw, Cyril Bouquet and Tina C. Ambos

SUMMER 2007 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 39

any companies today are truly global in reach. Shell Oil has operations

in more than 140 countries, Coca-Cola sells its products in more than

200 countries, and Nestlé boasts that it has factories or operations in

almost every country in the world. For the executives running these

companies, the challenge of keeping abreast of events in markets around the world

is mind boggling. Interestingly, the biggest problem is not a lack of information:

Executives are deluged with monthly reports and market analyses for every country

in which they operate. The problem is having the time and energy to process the

information. Indeed, executive attention is a scarce resource, one that needs to be

carefully managed.1

How should executives prioritize their time to ensure that it is focused on the

countries and subsidiaries that need their attention? Which markets should they

emphasize, and which can they allow to fall off their radar screen? We have re-

searched executive attention in global companies for the past five years, interviewing

50 executives at 30 corporations. (See “About the Research,” p. 40.) Despite the best

of intentions and irrespective of the exhortation that companies should “think

global, act local,” the evidence shows clearly that corporate executives end up pri-

oritizing a handful of markets at the expense of the others. One reason for selective

attention is ethnocentric thinking — the tendency to assume that the home market

is most important. Of course, no executive would state this directly, but the evi-

dence of a home-country bias is widespread and undisputed.2

Another factor is the so-called “herd mentality,” which causes companies to focus

on markets that competitors have identified. It is human nature to go “where the

action is,” and as a result some countries (most recently, China and India) attract a

disproportionate amount of executive attention.

Both of these approaches are entirely defensible: They help channel resources

to the most important areas of activity, and they seem relatively safe. But they

can also be very wrong. Because executive attention is so limited, focusing on

the home market or on a hot market will always come at the expense of other op-

portunities. The resulting mismatch between what’s possible and what’s

M

Julian Birkinshaw is professor of strategic and international management at London Business School and a senior fellow of the Advanced Institute of Management Research. Cyril Bouquet is an assistant professor of strategic management at the Schulich School of Business, York University in Toronto. Tina C. Ambos is a lecturer at the University of Edinburgh and an assistant professor of economics and business administration at Vienna University. Comment on this article or contact the authors through [email protected].

G l o b a l b u s i n e s s

Managing Executive Attention in the Global Company

How can executives

prioritize their time to

ensure that they are

focusing on the countries

and subsidiaries that need

the most attention?

Julian Birkinshaw,

Cyril Bouquet and

Tina C. Ambos

SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EdU

40 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW SUMMER 2007

needed can be quite damaging: Too much attention can dis-

empower or suffocate subsidiary managers. As one executive

noted, managers can become so preoccupied with represent-

ing their operations to executives that they don’t have enough

time to manage the business.

Too little attention can lead to even bigger problems, because

it can result in missed opportunities and decisions by talented

employees to leave. Consider, for example, the case of Dun &

Bradstreet Corp.’s Australian subsidiary, which was ignored by

the U.S. head office for years in the belief that Australia was not a

“strategic” market. Frustrated by the lack of attention, the subsid-

iary’s CEO persuaded the parent company to sell the business to

a local private equity company in 2001; within three years, it had

doubled in size and increased earnings tenfold. As a subsidiary

company, its access to investment capital had been hamstrung by

how corporate executives viewed Australia; as a standalone com-

pany, it could invest in whichever opportunities offered a

promising investment return.

In this article, we examine the nature of executive attention and

identify mechanisms by which subsidiary companies draw atten-

G l o b a l b u s i n e s s

SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EdU

Our research study was organized into two

parts. In the first part, we conducted about

50 interviews with executives in corporate

headquarters and subsidiaries of 30 global

companies. The interviews were con-

ducted in Australia, Canada, the United

Kingdom, France, Sweden, Switzerland

and the United States. We asked headquar-

ters executives about the systems they

used for managing attention in their com-

panies and how they allocated their

attention among competing claims from

subsidiaries. We also asked subsidiary com-

pany executives to discuss strategies they

used for gaining the attention of execu-

tives at the parent companies. In the

second part of the study, we developed a

questionnaire to ask managers about the

“weight” and the “voice” of the subsidiar-

ies, and the amount of attention the

subsidiaries actually received. We received

completed questionnaires from 283 sub-

sidiary managers in four countries

(Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom,

and the United States). We also collected

secondary data on the same subsidiary

companies: how often they were men-

tioned in the annual report of their parent

company, and market share and sales vol-

ume in the local country.

Subsidiary Weight and Attention Our

baseline hypothesis was that attention

decisions would be based partially on the

structural positions that subsidiary units

occupy within the corporate system —

their “weight.” To test this hypothesis, we

undertook a series of regression analyses,

which showed that attention correlates

with such factors as (1) the size of the sub-

sidiary (measured in terms of total sales,

employees and number of officers in the

top management team); (2) the strategic

importance of the local market (whether

conceptualized in terms of sales figures

or flows of foreign direct investment); and

(3) the strength of the subsidiary’s opera-

tions (an index capturing the extent to

which the subsidiary occupies a highly

valued role in the global organization).

Subsidiary Voice and Attention Our sec-

ond hypothesis was that subsidiaries also

had a “voice” of their own that they could

use to attract attention. To test this idea,

we asked questions about a range of sub-

sidiary-level activities, out of which we

created two indexes (one for initiative tak-

ing, the other for profile building). Both

factors were found to positively correlate

with the level of attention granted to the

subsidiary, indicating support for our sec-

ond hypothesis.

Strategic Isolation and Attention The

third hypothesis was that the relationship

between subsidiary voice and headquar-

ters attention would be moderated by

two specific aspects of the subsidiary’s

historical situation, which have often con-

tributed to the subsidiary’s strategic

isolation: geographic distance and a com-

petence anchored in the downstream

part of the value chain. Using a series of

regression analyses, we found support for

this hypothesis. The more subsidiaries are

at risk of strategic isolation, the greater

the importance of voice in shaping levels

of executive attention.

About the Research

Positive HQ Attention

The Voice of a Subsidiary

Low Threat of Strategic

Isolation

High Threat of Strategic

Isolation

Note: Attention is the extent to which the parent company recognizes and gives credit to the subsidiary for its contribution to the multinational en- terprise as a whole. It is the composite of three factors assessing the relative, supportive and visible aspects of at- tention, each measured through a variety of indicators.

For a full description of the research and statistical analyses, please refer to C. Bouquet and J. Birkinshaw, “Weight Versus Voice: How Foreign Subsidiar- ies Gain Attention From Corporate Headquarters,” Academy of Manage- ment Journal, in press.

SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EdUSLOANREVIEW.MIT.EdU

SUMMER 2007 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 41

tion from the top executives of their organizations.

Although attention can be harmful as well as help-

ful, we focus on the positive aspects. In particular,

we see executive attention as consisting of three

important elements: support, in terms of how head-

quarters executives interact with and help subsidiary

managers achieve their goals; visibility, in terms of

the public statements headquarters executives make

about how the subsidiary is doing; and relative

standing, in terms of the subsidiary’s perceived sta-

tus vis-à-vis other subsidiaries in the organization.

Conceptualized in this way, we address two im-

portant questions: How can a subsidiary attract

more attention? And what can headquarters execu-

tives do to make sure that the right subsidiaries

receive the attention they deserve?

Allocating Attention Across the Corporate Portfolio How do headquarters executives decide which

markets to focus on? While ethnocentric bias and

herdlike behavior influence executive attention in

profound ways, most global companies have none-

theless established reasonably sophisticated

mechanisms for directing attention to the markets

that need it most. These mechanisms include choices about lines

of reporting, which meetings to attend and which individuals to

put in positions of influence. Such mechanisms don’t just chan-

nel executive attention to particular markets or issues. They also

provide an important signal within the company about which

markets matter most.

Top executives obtain insights about which countries or sub-

sidiaries should receive their attention in two ways: externally, in

the form of industry reports, the media and competitor intelli-

gence; and internally, from standard reporting processes and the

active lobbying of individuals. From this information, we have

identified four distinct markets. (See “Attracting Attention in the

Global Company.”)

Large global companies often regard countries such as the

United States and Japan as “major markets” that attract a high

level of attention through both internal and external channels.

China and India receive lots of media attention and thus are often

seen as “honey pots,” but the business opportunities there may

not live up to the buzz. In many companies, Canada and Austra-

lia receive attention based on relationships; we characterize such

markets as “squeaky wheels” because they represent established

operations whose achievements are well known to headquarters

executives, even if the markets themselves don’t justify the em-

phasis. We call the last group the “forgotten markets” because

they have difficulty getting onto the corporate radar screen. Note

that our framework says nothing about whether the subsidiary is

performing well or badly, only the level of management attention

the subsidiary receives. Some squeaky wheels are troubled opera-

tions that need to be turned around; others might be rising stars;

and some of the forgotten markets, like Dun & Bradstreet (Aus-

tralia) Pty. Ltd., may actually be hidden gems.

Our framework suggests that a subsidiary can use two very

different strategies to attract the attention of executives at the

parent company: It can count on its weight as a player in an im-

portant market, and it can exert its voice by working through

channels within the company. Some subsidiaries focus on one or

the other, while others pursue both approaches in parallel. We

will explain how these two approaches work.

Attracting Attention With “Weight” In global organizations, subsidiaries that play pivotal roles in the

success of the overall business have no trouble getting attention.

China, for example, is a critical market for ABB Ltd., the Switzer-

land-based engineering group: In 2006, ABB’s Chinese

subsidiaries contributed $2.9 billion in revenues — approxi-

mately 12% of ABB’s global business. The previous year, it

captured capital funds and investments of $80 million out of

$454 million for the whole corporate portfolio. Like other multi-

national corporations, ABB has high hopes for the Chinese

market in the years ahead. But as China prepares for elections in

SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EdU

Subsidiary units can be categorized on two dimensions: the amount of

attention they gain through external or top-down channels, and the

amount of attention they gain through internal or bottom-up channels.

Where the subsidiary is located will define the appropriate strategy for

gaining additional attention.

Attracting Attention in the Global Company

Squeaky Wheels

Internal success stories, problem cases or

markets with highly vocal managers

Major Markets Markets that represent big

opportunities or threats

Honey Pots Markets that represent big

opportunities or threats but limited

current activity

Level of Attention

On basis of internal or bottom-up

channels

Attention Given to Market

On basis of external or top-down channels

High

Low

Low High

Forgotten Markets

Very low visibility at a corporate level

SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EdUSLOANREVIEW.MIT.EdU

42 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW SUMMER 2007

G l o b a l b u s i n e s s

SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EdU

2008, there is considerable uncertainty about how best to main-

tain a positive climate for investment. ABB executives spend

several hours a week on conference calls with their Chinese coun-

terparts to identify and mobilize the necessary corporate resources

and to ensure that the company’s executives in Zurich are up to

speed on major developments in the region. Ulrich Spiesshofer,

ABB’s head of corporate development, recently noted that “ques-

tions related to the activities of our Chinese business get top

management preoccupied on a daily basis.”3

A subsidiary’s weight is not simply a function of its size. In

many cases, it also reflects the impact it has on the company’s

global network. Subsidiaries occupying highly valued roles — for

example, as centers of competence or as technological hubs —

have significant weight as well. Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp.,

for example, is recognized for its expertise in the small aircraft

turbine market. Because of its highly skilled labor force and ad-

vanced technologies, many sister subsidiaries look to it for

technological advice and support.

Attracting Attention With “Voice” How does a subsidiary that lacks weight capture the attention of

top management? Our research found that subsidiaries without

weight often seek other ways to gain visibility in a global com-

pany. Many managers rely on two types of proactive efforts:

initiative taking and profile building.

Initiative Taking This approach involves strategically selecting projects or ventures to grow the subsidiary, perhaps by develop-

ing new products, penetrating new markets or simply generating

new ideas.4 Such actions can influence the attention of the par-

ent company in very direct ways. For example, when Fred

Kindle, the CEO of ABB, visited the managers of the company’s

Czech subsidiary, he learned that managers there had found an

innovative way of networking the company’s administrative

computers at night (when they were not used) to leverage their

built-in processing capacity. This enabled the company to run

complex research and development algorithms more quickly

and, in turn, gave the Czech subsidiary valuable recognition and

corporate support.

Initiative taking can also draw attention from headquarters in

ways that are less direct. Individuals behind successful initiatives,

for example, can build reputations that open doors to opportuni-

ties. For instance, Sara Lee Corp.’s Australian subsidiary became

known within the company for its leadership on diversity issues,

thus making Angela Laing, the diversity champion, a rising star.

She soon became vice president of human resources for the com-

pany’s worldwide household and body care division, and several

others from Sara Lee Australia moved into senior positions else-

where in the corporation. Nestlé Canada Inc., which developed a

new line selling custom batches of frozen foods to food service

operators, has leveraged this innovation into increased attention

overall. (See “Defining a Value-Added Role for Nestlé Canada.”)

Profile Building Subsidiary managers use a variety of mechanisms to improve their image, credibility and reputation within the

global company. If initiative taking occurs in the local context,

profile building focuses on the things managers do within the

broader corporate network. We found that successful profile

builders focused on three types of activities.

They build a stellar track record. The managers of profile build-

ing subsidiaries delivered results above the expectations of the

parent company for a number of years. As Mark Masterson, vice

president of health care product maker Abbott Laboratories’ Pa-

cific, Asia and Africa operations, observed, “Getting attention is

about establishing credibility, and it doesn’t happen within a

short period of time. People need time to evaluate how you run

a business. If you demonstrate predictability and results over

time, you start to gain more confidence to put more challenging

options to the company.”5

They support corporate objectives. To the extent that managers

pursued their own local priorities, they did not downplay corpo-

rate concerns in the least. This may be common sense to seasoned

executives, but it can also call for some careful juggling as subsid-

iary managers attempt to balance local initiatives with

commitments to the corporate cause. Many of the subsidiary

managers we spoke to described how they “push back” on some

corporate requests and how they explain problems to their im-

mediate bosses. “You are stupid if you don’t keep some things up

your sleeve,” one manager explained. “You have to manage expec-

tations, which involves not telling the whole story until you are

ready. So I act as a buffer.”

They work as internal brokers. Successful subsidiary managers

spend a lot of time building relationships within and beyond their

corporate network. Some of this work is to build awareness — let-

ting other parts of the company know what the unit does, how well

it does it and what it might be able to contribute in the future. It

can also be targeted toward specific projects and take the form of

preselling ideas and lobbying with key power brokers in the corpo-

rate hierarchy. For example, one manager talked about the

preselling process: getting all interested parties involved early and

“oiling the wheels” so that when the formal proposal is presented it

encounters no resistance. Another manager noted the importance

of timing: “If you tell the story too early, you risk getting shot down

or building up unreasonable expectations; if you tell it too late and

they get mad, you will struggle to get support.” It is important to

recognize the level of planning required for a successful campaign

to build support for new investment and new initiatives.

SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EdUSLOANREVIEW.MIT.EdU

SUMMER 2007 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 43

The Threat of Strategic Isolation In addition to the strategic approaches subsidiaries used for at-

tracting attention, we found two particular contexts where

initiative taking and profile building were especially important:

when subsidiaries were located far away from corporate head-

quarters and when the subsidiary’s activities were focused solely

on the local market. This finding is not entirely surprising: Re-

mote operations are especially likely to fall off the radar screen

of headquarters executives. But for subsidiary managers, it is

reassuring to know that there are ways to overcome the “tyr-

anny of distance.”

We found that profile building was the more effective approach

to capturing attention, either on its own or in combination with

initiative taking. One of the dangers of subsidiary managers pur-

suing initiatives on their own is that unless they have already built

a track record with the parent company, the initiatives can be seen

as empire building. The initiatives may also compete with the

entrepreneurial activities of subsidiaries in other parts of the

world for headquarters’ attention. Subsidiary managers often seek

to mitigate these concerns by approaching initiatives cautiously:

focusing on ideas and projects that will add value to the rest of the

global company or collaborating with peers in other countries.

For example, the CEO of Oracle Corp. Australia Pty. Ltd. spon-

sored the design of an integrated approach to education, which he

believed had the potential to revolutionize methods of learning

within the K-12 school system. But pursuing this initiative re-

quired substantial funds and did not fit into the existing corporate

research and development priorities. By lining up support from

his overseas colleagues, the Australian CEO was able to build a

critical mass and attract notice from the head office.

Subsidiary managers often argue that their ability to influence

their own destiny is undermined by their lack of decision-making

power. However, we found that a subsidiary’s degree of decision-

making autonomy has no meaningful effect on the level of

executive attention it receives. Indeed, in many instances subsid-

iary managers used their limited degrees of freedom to great

effect. For example, Yum! Restaurants International’s KFC divi-

sion in Australia has built a reputation as a leading innovator in its

global business. One of its most notable breakthroughs involved

its drive-through business. For a variety of reasons (some of

which had to do with technical problems relating to the drive-

through speaker box), customers at many stores had been reluctant

to use the drive-through window. With a modest investment,

however, Yum Australia redesigned the entire drive-through expe-

rience: It expanded the order window, redesigned the menu board

and trained employees to assist customers with their menu choices.

The result was a dramatic increase in drive-

through sales and customer satisfaction and

enhanced visibility for Yum Australia within the

corporate system, reinforcing its position as a

leading global innovator.

Refocusing Executive Attention What lessons can corporate headquarters exec-

utives draw from our research? What sorts of

changes should they make to get the most out

of their portfolio of subsidiary companies? Our

findings suggest four broad approaches.

Create channels for attention. Attention is

channelled through a number of formal and

informal mechanisms, many of which are de-

signed explicitly to direct executive attention to

the biggest or weightiest issues. But if execu-

tives want to find ways to amplify the voice of

their subsidiaries around the world, they need

to give creative thought to the meetings, events

and forums they participate in. Some examples

of what we observed include:

■ Holding performance reviews in the coun-

try or region being evaluated. One Australian

subsidiary manager had been meeting his Eu-

ropean boss in Bangkok as a way to share the

SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EdU

In the years following the North American Free Trade Agreement, Nestlé Can-

ada, like many Canadian subsidiaries, found it increasingly difficult to add

value to the company’s low-growth lines of business. The reality was that most

Canadian markets could be tapped more efficiently from the United States.

Nestlé Canada’s best hope was to define a distinctive role within the global

company. Management came up with the idea of a new line of products: cus-

tom batches of restaurant-quality frozen food for food service operators, who

would then market to hospitals, hotels and airlines. If successful, it would pro-

vide a new revenue stream while positioning Nestlé Canada to test market

other new products.

Nestlé Canada has turned into a major success story. In 2006, it employed

3,600 people in 16 facilities across the country, with sales of $2.3 billion,

mostly from direct exports to 70 countries worldwide. “Canada has highly so-

phisticated consumers, and yet [it has] a population base that allows us to

experiment without breaking the bank,” said Frank Cella, former president

and chief executive of Nestlé Canada, who went on to become a senior execu-

tive with the corporate parent.i “We made a case for allowing us to be an

experimental lab, and that has given us a uniqueness that we would not have

otherwise. We add value by innovation, by trying new ideas and getting them

to market faster. We are so innovative that the worldwide group is sending

people [to Canada] to learn about how we do it.”

i. See Business Council on National Issues, “Going For Gold: Winning Corporate Strategies and Their Impact on Canada,” working paper released at the CEO Summit 2000, Toronto, April 5, 2000.

Defining a Value-Added Role for Nestlé Canada

SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EdUSLOANREVIEW.MIT.EdU

44 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW SUMMER 2007

G l o b a l b u s i n e s s

SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EdU

travel time. But once he was able to persuade his boss to travel to

Sydney, he noticed a dramatic — and positive — change in his

boss’s attitude toward the subsidiary.

■ Locating board meetings overseas. Companies have found that

this often leads to dramatic changes in outlook, providing board

members with opportunities to talk directly with distant customers

and examine production operations firsthand. Melbourne- and

London-based global mining company Rio Tinto, for example, took

its entire board to China for a week in 2005. London-based engi-

neering consultancy Arup Group Ltd. holds every other board

meeting in an overseas location such as Poland or Brazil.

■ Cultivating interpersonal ties. The attention headquarters

executives pay to subsidiaries typically stems from past interac-

tions and how well executives know the local people. Accordingly,

many companies host forums for the purpose of cultivating ties

among different players in the organization. For example, ABB

brings its country managers together at least twice a year both to

socialize and to share important local insights. In addition, staff

from subsidiaries around the world meet with headquarters staff

regularly through their involvement in cross-country teams.

■ Assigning mentorship responsibilities. At Procter & Gamble

Co., country managers are formally linked to a corporate execu-

tive, who is expected to keep his antennae out and play a

championing role in helping the subsidiary gain access to corpo-

rate resources. Ultimately, however, it is up to the subsidiary staff

to inform mentors of interesting local developments and to build

the case for what they can contribute to the company as a whole.

■ Recognizing that regional support for subsidiaries can cut

both ways. Regional headquarters can help subsidiaries attract

attention, but they can also act as a harmful buffer. IBM Corp.,

for example, re-evaluated the role of its European headquarters

recently, and ended up replacing its Paris headquarters with two

new focused headquarters serving North/East Europe and South/

West Europe, respectively.

Seek out the hidden gems and give them a platform. It is worth

paying special attention to subsidiary companies that deliver sur-

prisingly good results in relation to their overall stature. Over and

above delivering stellar numbers financially, they may also be sources

of new insights or practices. Finding these subsidiaries is partly a

matter of opening up the attention channels. But it also may require

some extra analysis. Which subsidiaries are attracting more interest

internally than their market position might warrant? And which are

responsible for the biggest annual jumps in sales and profits?

Groupe Danone, the French food products company, does a

good job of giving a platform to its hidden gems. Following a

major initiative aimed at increasing the company’s top-line

growth, Danone recently identified the leading countries in the

world for certain activities and designated them as the corporate

“champions” that others could learn from. Frucor Beverages

Group Ltd., Danone’s New Zealand subsidiary, became a center

for innovation, and executives from elsewhere in the company

have been encouraged to spend time in New Zealand to under-

stand how it has been able to deliver revenue growth of 7% to

10% over the past 10 years in a flat market. Similarly, Indonesia

was recognized for its expertise in “affordability.”

Measure returns on executive attention. A slightly different

challenge is how to assess the value of investments in attention,

particularly as they relate to big emerging markets: In essence,

this involves understanding how to leverage attention into capa-

bility. General Electric Co.’s experience in this area provides

useful insights. Like executives of most global companies, GE

executives pay huge amounts of attention to growth opportuni-

ties in China, India, Russia and markets in the Middle East and

Latin America. But they are highly disciplined about how they go

about it so that the investment opportunities aren’t wasted. Their

motto is: “Go big and continuously look back.” Indeed, they don’t

get involved unless they can help the company win mega project

proposals in the region — for example, airport expansion pro-

grams in China or major water-power programs in India. Less

significant opportunities are left for local talent to ponder. Per-

haps more importantly, they continually evaluate whether these

investments are delivering against their performance expecta-

tions, and this analysis becomes a significant input into subsequent

investment decisions.6

Give subsidiaries a chance to contribute. Good subsidiary man-

agers are looking for ways to contribute to the company as a whole

over and above achieving good results in their own business. One

of the roles of headquarters managers is to define the needs. For

example, executives at several Australian subsidiaries spoke about

how their parent wanted them to develop management talent for

the rest of the company. Many were reluctant to give up their most

promising managers to careers in Europe or North America. But

Roger Eaton, the CEO of Yum Australia, decided to make export-

ing talent a cornerstone of his strategy. Each year he recommended

three senior managers for key assignments outside Australia; as

these individuals have excelled in their new assignments, the repu-

tation of the Australian operation has grown. “You can’t avoid the

Aussies in YUM globally,” notes Eaton. “If you look at the top 200

executives in the company, you’d find over 20 Australians!”

managing at tention in a global company often boils down

to specific and apparently small actions: holding a board meeting

in a remote city, initiating a forum to discuss emerging market

opportunities or asking a division head to groom executives for

overseas assignments. However, in an environment where high-

level attention is in such short supply, small actions can have

enormous consequences. They can furnish opportunities for

SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EdUSLOANREVIEW.MIT.EdU

SUMMER 2007 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 45

subsidiaries to showcase their initiatives or gain access to expan-

sion capital. They can trigger important shifts in the parent

company’s overall growth trajectory.

We are accustomed to thinking of subsidiaries as having fairly

fixed roles.7 But actually, the roles can be fairly fluid, changing to

reflect evolving opportunities and new competencies the subsid-

iary can contribute. Executive attention can facilitate these

internal shifts. Attention may not be the ultimate objective, but it

is a necessary ingredient for any subsidiary that seeks to play a

more pivotal role in the global company.

ACknowledgmenTs

The authors wish to thank the Advanced Institute of Management Research, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, York University’s Institute for Social Research and CEO Forum Group (Australia) for their support.

RefeRenCes

1. Several studies have examined the challenges of managing execu- tive attention. See T.H. Davenport and J.C. Beck, “The Attention Economy: Understanding the New Currency of Business” (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2001); C. Bouquet, “Building Global Mindsets: An Attention-Based Perspective” (New York: Palgrave Mac- millan, 2005); W. Ocasio, “Towards an Attention-Based View of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal 18, special issue (Dec. 4, 1998): 187-206; and M.T. Hansen and M.R. Haas, “Competing For Attention in Knowledge Markets: Electronic Document Dissemination in a Manage- ment Consulting Company,” Administrative Science Quarterly 46, no. 1 (March 2001): 1-28.

2. See A.M. Rugman and A. Verbeke, “Subsidiary-Specific Advantages in Multinational Enterprises,” Strategic Management Journal 22, no. 3 (January 2001): 237-250.

3. U. Spiesshofer, “Managing the Balance: A Global Player’s Perspec- tive On Institutional Change” (keynote address at the 26th Annual Conference of the Strategic Management Society, Vienna, Austria, Oct. 30, 2006).

4. See J.M. Birkinshaw and N. Fry, “Subsidiary Initiative to Develop New Markets,” Sloan Management Review 39, no. 3 (spring 1998): 51-61.

5. Interestingly, a poor track record is also conducive to getting attention, but not the type of attention that subsidiary managers feel is most con- ducive to creating the right set of conditions for the subsidiary to develop in the future. 3M Co., for instance, recently reacted to the disappointing results of its Canadian subsidiary by almost completely replacing the local management structure. Four out of five VPs were let go; the Cana- dian CEO who completed our survey was moved to a lesser position in the United States; and a substantial number of middle-level managers ended up being replaced.

6. J. Immelt (untitled presentation at Electrical Products Group confer- ence, Long Boat Keys, Florida, May 24, 2006).

7. See C.A. Bartlett and S. Ghoshal, “Tap Your Subsidiaries For Global Reach,” Harvard Business Review 64, no. 6 (November 1986): 87-94.

Reprint 48413. For ordering information, see page 1. Copyright © Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007. All rights reserved.

SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EdUSLOANREVIEW.MIT.EdUSLOANREVIEW.MIT.EdU

Reprint 48413. Copyright © Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007. All rights reserved.

PDFs ■ Reprints ■ Permission to Copy ■ Back Issues

Electronic copies of MIT Sloan Management Review articles as well as traditional reprints and back issues can be purchased on our Web site: sloanreview.mit.edu or you may order through our Business Service Center (9 a.m.-5 p.m. ET) at the phone numbers listed below.

To reproduce or transmit one or more MIT Sloan Management Review articles by electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying or archiving in any information storage or retrieval system) requires written permission. To request permission, use our Web site (sloanreview.mit.edu), call or e-mail:

Toll-free in U.S. and Canada: 877-727-7170 International: 617-253-7170 Fax: 617-258-9739 e-mail: [email protected]

MIT Sloan Management Review 77 Massachusetts Ave., E60-100 Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 e-mail: [email protected]

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.