7A - Vora Kostova 2007 DOI - JOB

Journal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 327–350 (2007)

Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.422
A model of dual organizational

identification in the context of the
multinational enterprise
DAVINA VORA1* AND TATIANA KOSTOVA2
1
Organizations, Strategy, & International Management, School of Management,
University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas, U.S.A.
2
Sonoco International Business Department, Moore School of Business,
University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, U.S.A.
Summary Integrating organizational behavior research on Social Identity Theory (SIT), Self-Categor-
ization Theory (SCT), and organizational identification with international management
research, we develop a model of dual organizational identification (DOI) for subsidiary
managers in multinational enterprises (MNEs). We conceptualize the DOI construct in terms
of relative magnitude and form and then present a model that specifies a set of contextual
antecedents at the organizational and country levels of analysis as well as individual and
organizational level consequences related to subsidiary manager role issues. Specifically, we
suggest that type of MNE impacts the relative magnitude of DOI, while type of MNE, cultural
distance, and institutional distance affect the form of DOI. In turn, relative magnitude of DOI is
posited to impact fulfillment of subsidiary manager roles, subsidiary-parent cooperation, and
knowledge transfer. Form of DOI affects the experience of role conflict by subsidiary
managers. We conclude with a discussion of the contribution of our model to the organiz-
ational behavior and international management literatures, its implications for research, and
some possible theoretical extensions. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
As shown by this special issue, there is increasing interest in the study of multinational enterprises
(MNEs) and the question of how existing organizational theories apply to this context. The particular
focus in this paper is on dual organizational identification (DOI) of subsidiary managers in MNEs. We
believe that the nature of the MNE highlights certain issues, the exploration of which can add further to
the current understanding of the construct of DOI. More specifically, our interest in this topic is
motivated by three primary reasons.
First, the study of multiple and complex psychological attachments like DOI extends existing
organizational behavior research. While research on psychological attachment with one entity has been
published for over 40 years (e.g., research on organizational commitment dates back to Becker (1960)),
* Correspondence to: Davina Vora, Organizations, Strategy, & International Management, School of Management, University of
Texas at Dallas, P.O. Box 830688, SM 43, Richardson, TX 75083-0688, U.S.A. E-mail: davina.vora@utdallas.edu
Received 30 March 2005

Revised 23 June 2006
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 3 August 2006
328 D. VORA AND T. KOSTOVA
research on multiple attachments is relatively young and, with few exceptions (e.g., Gregersen & Black,
1992, 1996; Mueller & Lawler, 1999), has been focused primarily on union-management commitment
(e.g., Angle & Perry, 1986; Gordon & Ladd, 1990). The state of multiple organizational identifications,
in particular, has received limited discussion in the literature (Brewer, 1999; Pratt & Foreman, 2000),
especially with regard to MNEs (Reade, 2001a,b is a notable exception). Researchers agree that multiple
identifications exist (e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Barker & Tompkins, 1994; George & Chattopadhyay,
2005; van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000), but a clear conceptualization of this state seems to be
missing. It is this paper’s objective to offer ideas on such a conceptualization. Rather than viewing
multiple identifications as simply separate identifications with more than one entity as previously done
(e.g., Barker & Tompkins, 1994; George & Chattopadhyay, 2005; Reade, 2001a,b; Scott, 1997), we
emphasize the complex combination of identifications. This serves as the foundation for our model and
may inform future research on complex psychological attachments in general.
Second, we study DOI in the context of MNEs because these organizations provide a relevant and
theoretically interesting context (Roth & Kostova, 2003). Due to the cross-border condition that defines
them (i.e., owning facilities and operating in more than one country), MNEs are much more complex
M
than domestic firms. They operate in multiple cultural and institutional environments, they use complex
organizational arrangements such as virtual and cross-cultural teams, and they deal with a wide variety
of managerial practices, routines, and individual mindsets. As argued by Roth and Kostova (2003),
MNEs are characterized by extreme heterogeneity at the external level (e.g., culture, institutions), the
intraorganizational level (e.g., strategic goals, management practices, and control mechanisms of each
unit), and the individual level (e.g., nationalities, languages, values, and beliefs of employees). This
makes it difficult for shared norms and values to emerge (Kostova & Roth, 2003) and challenging for
managers to recognize the key characteristics of an organizational unit they may wish to identify with. It
also increases the difficulty of developing identification with multiple units, especially when those units
are geographically separated. Furthermore, such heterogeneity often results in complex role structures
where people face multiple and at times conflicting requirements, for example, home and host country
office performance expectations (Feldman & Thomas, 1992). Hence there is the question of how
managers can relate to both the MNE and subsidiary and be effective despite the potential conflicts.
We propose that an effective way of dealing with MNE complexity is through the development of
equally complex psychological attachments of individuals to organizations. Those managers and
employees who are capable of integrating multiple organizational identifications will be more
successful in handling complex organizational roles. Dual organizational identification, which we
explore in this paper, is an example of such a complex attachment. A sense of oneness (Ashforth &
Mael, 1989) with multiple entities can allow individuals to leverage their understanding of these
entities and work towards fulfilling their goals. While there might be negative effects of multiple
identifications, like role conflict, such states are generally believed to have positive consequences. For
example, Doz and Prahalad (1986) mention that dual loyalties, although difficult to achieve, may be
vital for organizational performance in MNEs. Similarly, Gregersen and Black (1992) suggest that dual
commitment to the parent and subsidiary is especially crucial for managers of foreign operations
because these individuals must balance parent and local interests. Those who identify with complex
organizations are more likely to act of their own volition in the organization’s interest (Tompkins &
Cheney, 1983), which is particularly essential in MNEs, where formal control may be infeasible,
making it necessary to rely on informal controls (Kostova, 1998). Finally, previous research has largely
neglected the MNE setting and has not developed a purely MNE-oriented model of DOI. Instead, it has
explored separate identifications with each entity (e.g., MNE and subsidiary) and has identified
predominantly context-free antecedents to such states. A comprehensive understanding of
identification must, we believe, also include context-specific theorizing such as dual identification
in MNEs. Thus, examining DOI in MNE settings is theoretically interesting.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 327–350 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/job
DUAL ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION 329
Third, we focus on the DOI of subsidiary managers because these individuals are most likely to
experience this state and because this, in turn, has implications for the firm. Subsidiary managers have a
boundary spanning role as they are in contact with and must act on behalf of both the corporate office
and the subsidiary (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1998). As a result of such exposure, they may gain an
understanding of the MNE as well as the subsidiary, and eventually develop a sense of oneness with
both. Furthermore, through their actions, subsidiary managers may directly affect organizational
•
outcomes at the subsidiary and the MNE levels, more than the actions of other employees. As Thomas
(1994) suggests, boundary spanning behaviors between the home and local office impact not only
individual, but also sub-unit performance. Thus, studying DOI of subsidiary managers is theoretically
appropriate and practically significant. It may also help to inform research on role theory, which deals
with boundary spanning issues (e.g., Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoeck, & Rosenthal, 1964).
Our theorizing on DOI of subsidiary managers attempts to provide the missing link between the
organizational behavior, international management, and organizational theory literatures on this topic.
The organizational behavior literature is crucial for our conceptualization of DOI and the discussion of
DOI antecedents, where we employ ideas from Social Identity Theory (SIT) and Self-Categorization
Theory (SCT) to explain the underlying motivations and mechanisms through which social
identification of MNE subsidiary managers occurs.
International management, particularly the influential research of Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989, 1998)
from which we draw extensively, is instructive in both parts of the model. On the antecedents side, we
discuss how the type of MNE model as identified by Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989, 1998) (i.e.,
multinational, international, global, and transnational) shapes the DOI that managers are likely to
experience. We extend Bartlett and Ghoshal’s (1989, 1998) discussion of MNE models by building on
early organizational design and contingency theory literatures (e.g., Donaldson, 1996; Mintzberg,
1979; Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, MacDonald, Turner, & Lupton, 1963). We suggest that their four MNE
models are characterized by different levels of centralization, dependence, formalization,
specialization, and differentiation (e.g., Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Mintzberg, 1979; Pugh et al.,
1963; Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, & Turner, 1968), which impact DOI. We use Bartlett and Ghoshal’s
(1989, 1998) stylized models because they combine a number of organizational design concepts that
are vital to an understanding of any firm (Gibson, 1994) into one framework that is better adapted to the
MNE context than traditional work on organizational design that would describe MNEs simply as
having a divisional or matrix structure (e.g., Donaldson, 1996; Mintzberg, 1979).
On the consequences side, we build on Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989, 1998) to select MNE-specific
outcomes, particularly related to subsidiary manager roles. We see Bartlett and Ghoshal’s (1989, 1998)
work on subsidiary manager roles as an extension and complement to Kahn et al.’s (1964) role theory,
as Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989, 1998) describe specific responsibilities of subsidiary managers and thus
elaborate on basic categories of role senders for the MNE context. Thus, it is also better suited to the
MNE environment than organizational theory concepts regarding organizational roles in general.
Figure 1 below provides a summary of our model.
The Construct of Dual Organizational Identification
Social identity theory, self-categorization theory, and organizational identification
Identity has been conceptualized in varying ways by researchers in sociology and psychology (e.g.,
Burke’s (1991, 1996) role identity; Swann’s (1983, 1985, 1987, 1990) self-verification theory; Markus
DOI: 10.1002/job
Dual Organizational
Antecedents Consequences
Identification
Organizational-Level Individual-Level Role Issues
.Type of MNE Model

Relative .Subsidiary Manager Roles
.Bi-cultural Interpreter
Multinational P7
.International P1-P3 Magnitude
.Global .Comparable P8
.National Advocate and Defender
.Transnational P4
.Disparate P9 Frontline Implementer
Role Conflict
f. k④
P 10
Form
Country-Level .Distinct Organization-Level Role Issues
P5 .Compound P 11
Cultural Distance .Nested P 12

Subsidiary-Parent Cooperation
P6
Institutional Distance Knowledge Transfer
Figure 1. A model of dual organizational identification
and Wurf’s (1987) self-concept being comprised of self-representations). The construct of

organizational identification, the focus of this paper, has its roots in the social psychology’s Social
Identity Theory (SIT) and its extension Self-Categorization Theory (SCT), both of which deal with
identification with groups. SIT, developed by Tajfel (1972, 1978) and Turner (1975, 1982, Tajfel &
Turner, 1986) suggests that individuals categorize themselves and others into social groups. The
underlying motive for identification with a group is the need for positive self-esteem or self-
enhancement, which, in turn, can lead to in-group favoritism (Hogg, 1996; Hogg & Terry, 2000;
Rabbie, Schot, & Visser, 1989; Turner, 1975). Thus, people identify with a social group and try to
positively differentiate this group from others in order to enhance their self-esteem. Much of the
research on SIT has focused on intergroup issues such as intergroup conflict and discrimination (Hogg,
1996; Tajfel, 1982; Thoits & Virshup, 1997).
Self-categorization theory, often seen as an extension of social identity theory (Chattopadhyay,
Tluchowska, & George, 2004; Erez & Earley, 1993; Hogg, 1996; Hogg & Terry, 2000), focuses more
on intragroup issues (Hogg, 1996; Thoits & Virshup, 1997). Developed by Turner and his colleagues
(e.g., Turner, 1987; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987; Turner, Oakes, Haslam, &
McGarty, 1994), SCT delves into the processes by which individuals categorize themselves into
groups. It suggests that all identities are self-categorizations that can exist at different levels of
abstraction, ranging from human to social to personal. It is the fit of a category in a given situation that
will influence which identity becomes salient at any given time. The underlying motive for self-
categorization is the need to reduce uncertainty (Hogg & Abrams, 1993; Hogg & Grieve, 1999; Hogg &
Mullin, 1999). By categorizing themselves into a social category, individuals adopt prototypical group
characteristics, which help to provide certainty regarding who they are and how to behave (Hogg &
Mullin, 1999).
Organizational identification is a specific case of group identification in which individuals identify
with an organization. Indeed, Ashforth and Mael (1989) drew upon SIT to describe organizational
identification and differentiate it from the related constructs of organizational commitment and
internalization (for a detailed discussion of the differences between these constructs, see also Gautam,
van Dick, & Wagner, 2004; Pratt, 1998; van Knippenberg, 2000). Consistent with its roots in SIT and
SCT, organizational identification is a cognitive construct whereby individuals perceive their identities
as being intertwined with that of the organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton, Dukerich, &
Harquail, 1994; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Mael and Ashforth define it as ‘the perception of oneness with
DOI: 10.1002/job
or belongingness to an organization, where the individual defines him or herself in terms of the
organization(s) in which he or she is a member’ (1992:104) and, as a result, personalizes
the organization’s successes and failures. When identification occurs, ‘. . .members adopt the defining
characteristics of the organization as defining characteristics of themselves’ (Dutton et al., 1994: 242).
Identification has been conceptualized as a cognitive construct, and, recently, as including also
affective and behavioral components (e.g., Christ, van Dick, Wagner, & Stellmacher, 2003; Harquail,
1998). We adopt the original conceptualization of organizational identification as a cognitive state of
psychological attachment whereby individuals define themselves in terms of the organization and
personalize its successes and failures. Researchers have suggested various motives for identification,
such as safety needs, affiliation needs, holistic needs, self-efficacy, self-consistency, and self-
verification (e.g., Cheney, 1983; Erez & Earley, 1993; George & Chattopadhyay, 2005; Pratt, 1998).
Due to our theoretical grounding in SIT and SCT and consistent with Hogg and Terry (2000) and
Hornsey and Hogg (2000), we focus on two particular needs—the needs for positive self-esteem (self-
enhancement) and uncertainty reduction—as the two main motivations for identification.
Dual organizational identification
DOI refers to an individual’s sense of identification with two organizational entities, which could be at
various levels, such as department, division, subsidiary, or overall organization. The idea that
individuals can identify with multiple targets is consistent with SIT research (e.g., Tajfel, 1972) and has
been empirically demonstrated. Research has generally focused on identification with a work group
and the organization as a whole (e.g., Barker & Tompkins, 1994; Christ et al., 2003; van Knippenberg &
van Schie, 2000), though targets like county, area, and state offices (Scott, 1997), the MNE and
subsidiary (Reade, 2001a,b), and contract workers’ employer and client (George & Chattopadhyay,
2005) have also been examined. Such research has found that individuals are indeed capable of
identifying with two or more entities. In these studies, DOI has been typically viewed as consisting of
two separate identifications with each entity (e.g., Barker & Tompkins, 1994; Christ et al., 2003; Reade,
2001a,b; Scott, 1997). Recently, it has been suggested that identifications with two or more targets can
occur simultaneously (e.g., George & Chattopadhyay, 2005; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). As Ashforth and
Johnson (2001) posit, multiple identities can be simultaneously salient under certain conditions and this
occurs when identities overlap, are relevant to a particular context, are cognitively linked to each other,
and when individuals can tolerate such simultaneous identifications. George and Chattopadhyay (2005)
echo this view, stating that simultaneous identifications are likely when the different focal points (in
their case, client and employer organization) have compatible characteristics. Finally, based on an
experiment that found little ingroup bias when both superordinate and subgroup identities were
activated at the same time, Hornsey and Hogg (2000) concur that dual categorization occurs. Despite
the newfound agreement on the existence of multiple, particularly simultaneous, identifications, this
idea has not yet been fully developed theoretically. In particular, the construct of dual organizational
identification, we believe, could be developed further. In addition, a model of the antecedents and
consequences of dual (rather than separate) identifications is missing from the literature. We use the
case of subsidiary managers in MNEs to push this discussion further.
Characteristics of dual organizational identification
To capture DOI as a more complex construct, we suggest using two characteristics: relative magnitude
and form. Relative magnitude refers to the relative strength of the sense of identification with each of
DOI: 10.1002/job
high Comparable levels

of DOI
Disparate levels of DOI high
(MNC-oriented)
MNC
Identification
Disparate levels of DOI
(subsidiary-oriented)
low
low 450
low high
Subsidiary
Identification
Figure 2. Relative magnitude of dual organizational identification (DOI)
the two entities. An individual can identify more with one entity than the other, or can identify at
comparable (i.e., equal) levels with both. As depicted in Figure 2, the levels of DOI ranging from low to
high can be anywhere on a 2-dimensional graph, with each axis representing identification with a
different entity, in our case the MNE and the subsidiary. The combination of these levels of
identification with the MNE and subsidiary can be grouped into three main areas. Individuals can
experience disparate MNE-oriented DOI (i.e., higher identification with the MNE compared to the
subsidiary), disparate subsidiary-oriented DOI (i.e., higher identification with the subsidiary compared
to the MNE), or comparable levels of DOI. Comparable levels are shown by points anywhere along a
45 degree line with points higher on this line showing overall higher identification with both entities.
Points off the line show disparate levels.
The relative magnitude of an individual’s DOI is determined by the relative potential of each target
to fulfill the needs for self-enhancement and uncertainty reduction. The more any one entity is
capable of fulfilling those needs, the more the individual will identify with it. In this we depart from
those suggesting that identification is stronger with the more proximal, lower level entity (e.g.,
Ashforth & Johnson, 2001; Barker & Tompkins, 1994; Reade, 2001a; van Knippenberg & van Schie,
2000). We believe that it is an entity’s ability to satisfy one of the two core needs that give rise to
identification, rather than its proximity that matters. Thus, subsidiary managers may identify more
with the MNE than their own subsidiary if it is the MNE as a whole that makes them feel better or
more certain about themselves. This is consistent with Ashforth and Johnson’s comment (2001) that
higher order identities can at times be considered more important than lower-level identities.
However, we also believe the opposite may be true, in that subsidiary managers may identify more
with the subsidiary than the MNE if the subsidiary better fulfills self-esteem and uncertainty
reduction needs. In terms of the relative importance of each need, we do not believe that either the
need for self-enhancement or the need for uncertainty reduction is more primary than the other. As
Hogg and Terry (2000) note, these two fundamental motivations are likely to independently affect
identification processes and can vary in importance depending on the situation. Thus, we can expect
these two motivations to act separately from one other, rather than creating an interaction effect.
Form of DOI refers to the perceived configuration of the two identifications. It concerns the
conscious or even subconscious sense of the degree of overlap between identifications with each entity.
Such perceived overlap can exists at any relative magnitude of DOI, that is, regardless of whether the
experienced DOI is disparate or comparable. Extending Brewer’s (1999) framework for organizational
DOI: 10.1002/job
MNC
Suubssidiary
Subsidiary MNC MNC
Subsidiary
S
Distinct Compound Nested
Figure 3. Form of organizational identification
identities, we suggest that the form of DOI can be distinct, compound, or nested. These three forms are
on a continuum, ranging from distinct to nested, as depicted in Figure 3.
Distinct DOI occurs when an individual who identifies with two entities cognitively distinguishes
between these identifications. In our context, this means that although a subsidiary manager may
identify with both the subsidiary and the MNE, he or she perceives such identifications to be separate
and unrelated and may accept and adopt different subsets of values and goals from each entity. While
individuals could potentially identify highly with both entities, because these identifications are viewed
as so distinct, the individual would generally switch between identifications, rather than experience
them simultaneously (Brewer, 1999). Compound DOI occurs when individuals perceive their
identifications as overlapping somewhat. The two targets in this case may share some goals and values,
thus making it easier to perceive that these identifications are relatively related. Because of this,
individuals can more easily identify simultaneously with both entities and may find it more difficult to
differentiate between the two. Finally, nested DOI occurs when an individual identifies with two
entities and views one identification as superordinate to, and therefore encompassing, the other. The
subordinate identification is subsumed by the second, overarching identification. Hence, by identifying
with the subordinate entity, the individual necessarily identifies with the superordinate entity and vice
versa. In this case, it may be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to differentiate between the two
entities with regard to identification. As Ashforth and Johnson (2001) suggest, the foci for
identification, in our case the MNE and the subsidiary, may blur because of such nestedness.
Considering both aspects—relative magnitude and form—provides a more comprehensive
conceptualization of DOI than has been used in the past. Such an approach is particularly relevant
to the MNE context where the geographically dispersed, contextually different environments of the MNE
and subsidiary may make it extremely difficult for managers to develop comparable and overlapping
attachments. Examining the whole range and the various combinations of experienced DOI sheds
additional light on this complex psychological state. As we argue below, relative magnitude and form are
likely to be shaped by different sets of antecedents and to have different effects on a number of outcomes.
Antecedents to dual organizational identification

In this section, we develop propositions about organization- and country-level antecedents to DOI. The
propositions are derived based on the following. First, consistent with our theorizing on DOI, we
develop propositions for both DOI relative magnitude and form. Second, we use the needs for self-
enhancement and uncertainty reduction as the underlying explanatory mechanism for the occurrence of
DOI. Third, since our primary interest is extending the DOI literature to MNEs, we focus on
antecedents most relevant and specific to that context. They are grouped at two levels—organizational
and country level. The proposed model is summarized in Figure 1.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Relative magnitude of DOI
We propose that a primary organization-level determinant of the relative magnitude of DOI

experienced by subsidiary managers is the type of MNE model. The reason is that type of MNE is
reflected in certain organizational design characteristics, which influence the likelihood that an entity
(MNE or subsidiary) will have the capacity to satisfy an individual’s needs for self-esteem and
uncertainty reduction, thus impacting DOI relative magnitude.
Type of MNE Model

Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989, 1998) discuss four types of MNE models: multinational, international,
global, and transnational. This typology of organizational structures and relations is central in the
international management literature. It has been tested in its own right (e.g., Harzing, 2000; Leong &
Tan, 1993) and has been used in examining a number of key international management issues, such as
social capital requirements in MNEs (Kostova & Roth, 2003), knowledge and resource flows in MNEs
(Gupta & Govindarajan, 1991), and subsidiary strategies (Jarillo & Martinez, 1990). We suggest the
four stylized MNE models will also affect subsidiary manager DOI.
Although missing from the international management literature, we see a direct link between Bartlett
and Ghoshal’s typology and more traditional organizational design concepts, which are relevant to
consider when examining DOI. In particular, the four models represent different organizational
structures in terms of MNE-subsidiary relations and reflect different combinations of organization
design parameters (see Table 1) like centralization, the concentration of power and decision-making in
an organization; dependence on other units; power relations between units; formalization, the extent of
written communication about procedures, rules, roles, and operations specialization of activities; and
differentiation, the extent organizational units have different time, goal, and interpersonal orientations
as well as formality of structures (e.g., Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Mintzberg, 1979; Pugh et al., 1963,
1968; Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, & Turner, 1969). Examining these design characteristics provides an
opportunity for a more in-depth theoretical analysis of the impact of the four MNE models on DOI.
While Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989, 1998) do not explicitly link their MNE models to each of these
organizational theory issues, they do draw upon them. Multinational MNEs are characterized by
decentralization, where subsidiaries are independent from headquarters. In this type of MNE,
subsidiaries are highly autonomous in terms of both decision-making and resources. Subsidiaries are
considered to be independent businesses that generate their own knowledge and respond to the local
market (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989, 1998). Multinational MNEs have little formalization, as subsidiaries
are self-sufficient and are only informally controlled by headquarters (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989, 1998).
They also have minimal specialization, since assets and resources are decentralized (Bartlett &
Ghoshal, 1989, 1998), requiring each subsidiary to conduct all business independently from other units.
As such, multinational MNEs are also highly differentiated. Because each subsidiary relies on itself to
survive and has minimal communication with other units, differences in orientations as well as
structure are likely.
We suggest that these multinational MNE characteristics result in disparate subsidiary-oriented DOI
among subsidiary managers. Due to the decentralized structure of the multinational MNE where
subsidiary managers are responsible for making major decisions about the subsidiary, subsidiary
managers will feel important. Identifying with such an independent subsidiary helps to fulfill their need
for a positive self-esteem. Further, it fulfills their need for uncertainty reduction. Due to the subsidiary’s
autonomy, subsidiary managers are keenly aware of the local, subsidiary environment. Identification
with the subsidiary can thus reduce their uncertainty about what is expected of them, thereby serving to
fulfill this need. In contrast, subsidiary managers of multinational MNEs have little impact on or
familiarity with the MNE as a whole, since there is minimal contact with the MNE. Therefore, they are
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 1. MNE models and organizational design parameters
MNE Models
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Organizational Multinational
design parameter MNE International MNE Global MNE Transnational MNE
Centralization Decentralized to subsidiaries Centralized at headquarters Centralized at headquarters Moderately centralized between
MNE and subsidiary
Dependence Independent from headquarters Dependent on headquarters Dependent on headquarters Independent from headquarters
Power relations Subsidiary-centric Headquarters-centric Headquarters-centric Equality among All units
Formalization Not formalized Formalized Formalized Formalized
Specialization Not specialized Not Specialized Specialized Specialized
Differentiation High differentiation Low differentiation Low differentiation Moderate differentiation
DUAL ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION
Disantis
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 327–350 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/job
335
aside
on
less likely to identify with the MNE, as such identification would not increase their self-esteem or
reduce their uncertainty.
0
Proposition 1: Type of MNE model relates to relative magnitude of DOI such that subsidiary
a-
managers in multinational MNEs experience disparate subsidiary-oriented DOI.
International MNEs, in contrast to multinational MNEs, are characterized by centralization,

dependence on headquarters, formalization, no specialization, and low differentiation. International
MNEs have some decentralization of resources and decision-making, but are largely centralized
because headquarters guides the subsidiary to follow its directives (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989, 1998).
Subsidiaries are dependent on headquarters for knowledge dissemination in terms of new products,
processes, and ideas (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989, 1998). There is also a high degree of formalization, as
formal systems and controls are implemented to control subsidiary activities (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989,
1998). However, there is little specialization because of decentralized assets and resources.
International MNEs also have low differentiation because they are seen as appendages to headquarters’
operations (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989, 1998) and thus subsidiaries are unlikely to develop their own
methods of doing business.
Global MNEs are in some ways similar to international MNEs. They also are highly centralized at
and dependent on headquarters, are headquarters-centric, formalized, and have low differentiation,
though they are specialized. In global MNEs, most strategic assets, resources, responsibilities, and
decisions are centralized at headquarters (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989, 1998). Headquarters develops and
retains knowledge, so global MNE subsidiaries depend on a powerful headquarters to provide direction
and resources (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989, 1998). Although not mentioned by Bartlett and Ghoshal
(1989, 1998), we can infer that there is minimal formalization due to the high reliance on centralization.
Global MNEs have, however, highly specialized units, since headquarters determines which
subsidiaries will conduct certain activities to be dispersed around the globe for maximum efficiency
(Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989, 1998). They also have low differentiation, since they follow headquarters’
directives. Because such tight integration facilitates efficiency, subsidiaries are likely to have similar
views, business practices, and norms to headquarters.
In terms of the relationship of international and global MNEs to DOI, considering that headquarters
is for these MNE models the source of strategic and resource allocation decisions, as well as knowledge
creation, and that it is responsible for disseminating relevant information and resources throughout its
subsidiaries (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989, 1998), the headquarters could be viewed as ‘the heart’ of the
MNE. In that situation, employees are likely to equate headquarters with the MNE and view it as more
powerful, knowledgeable, and prestigious, than the subsidiary. Because identifying with a prestigious
organization can increase self-esteem (Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Pratt, 1998), we expect subsidiary
managers from international and global MNEs to identify more with the MNE than the subsidiary. This
helps to fulfill subsidiary managers’ need for a positive self-esteem.
managers in international and global MNEs experience disparate MNE-oriented DOI.
-
-
Finally, transnational MNEs are moderately centralized, with little subsidiary dependence on
headquarters, equal power among all units, formalization, specialized units, and moderate
differentiation. Transnational MNEs have moderate centralization both in terms of resources and
decision-making. Some resources and decisions are decentralized, while others are decentralized to
subsidiaries, though headquarters tends to make substantive decisions for the MNE as a whole (Bartlett
& Ghoshal, 1989, 1998). However, despite the moderate levels of centralization, there is little
dependence on headquarters in transnational MNEs. Indeed, transnational MNEs are defined by
DOI: 10.1002/job
interdependence. All units (headquarters and subsidiaries) work together to create and share their
knowledge, as well as fulfill objectives through the pooling of resources, people, and information
(Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989, 1998). Thus, there tends to be equal power among all units of the
organization. However, because coordination among units is critical for transnational MNEs,
formalization is also characteristic of this type of MNE (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989, 1998).
Transnational MNEs also have specialized roles, with subsidiaries specializing in areas in which they
are efficient. They have moderate differentiation, since some subsidiaries are highly differentiated,
while others are not due to varying differentiation needs by market (e.g., customer preferences,
government regulations, source of competition) (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989, 1998).
Subsidiary managers of transnational MNEs are expected to experience comparable levels of DOI.
Because subsidiaries and headquarters are integrated into a network where subsidiaries and
headquarters coordinate with each other, developing and sharing products, technologies, knowledge
and people to fulfill organizational goals (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1998; Kostova & Roth, 2003), neither the
headquarters nor subsidiary is primary. Rather, all units throughout the organization interact
extensively and cooperate with each other. Therefore, subsidiary managers are able to gain an
understanding of the attitudinal and behavioral norms of different units, which creates conditions for
uncertainty reduction when identifying with them. Furthermore, subsidiary managers are likely to have
access to much information in the headquarters, the subsidiary, and the other subsidiaries. Managers
may feel privileged to be privy to such information, and therefore gain a sense of self-esteem from
identifying with both MNE and subsidiary.
00
managers in transnational MNEs experience comparable DOI.
Form of DOI
The form of DOI likely experienced by subsidiary managers (distinct, compound, or nested) will be
affected by the perceived similarity between the two targets of DOI—the MNE and the subsidiary.
Perceived similarity is affected by the type of MNE model and by the difference between the home
(headquarters) and the host (subsidiary) country as reflected in cultural and institutional distance.
Type of MNE Model

The type of MNE model is related to form of DOI because each type is characterized by a degree of
similarity between units, which can impact perception of overlap between identifications.
Multinational MNEs by definition are independent, focused on their local market, developing and
retaining knowledge within each unit (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1998). Considering also that there is limited
interaction between their units and that each unit is adapting to its local environment, we can expect the
different units to vary considerably in terms of their strategy, culture, and business practices. Therefore,
subsidiary managers are likely to perceive distinct identifications for multinational MNEs. They may
experience the need to ‘switch’ between identifications, as it would be difficult to experience sense of
oneness simultaneously.
In contrast, international and global MNEs’ subsidiaries are expected to emulate headquarters. They
adopt corporate strategies and processes in their subunits, albeit for international MNEs at times with
some minor modifications (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1998). Subsidiary managers may believe the MNE is
influencing the subsidiary, transplanting MNE characteristics into the subsidiary, and therefore perceive
their identification with the MNE as enveloping their identification with the subsidiary. Because of such a
perception of similarity in the units, managers intertwine their identifications and automatically identify
DOI: 10.1002/job
with both entities simultaneously. Since their identifications are nested in one another for international
and global MNEs, by identifying with one entity, they necessarily identify with the other.
Finally, we expect transnational MNEs to be perceived as having compound identities. Due to the
high level of interdependence among units, there are likely to be some similar business practices,
processes, and norms among the different units. However, because each unit has its own differentiated
responsibilities, knowledge creation processes, and specializations (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1998; Kostova
& Roth, 2003), there are likely to also be some differences among units. As a result, there will be some
level of overlap in the perception of dual identifications. By identifying with some attributes that exist
in both entities, managers automatically identify with both entities, while for others they have a sense of
a separation between identifications.
Proposition 4: Type of MNE model relates to form of DOI such that subsidiary managers experience
distinct DOI in multinational MNEs, nested DOI in international and global MNEs, and compound
DOI in transnational MNEs.
Cultural distance
Cultural distance refers to differences in culture that can hinder understanding of a foreign environment
(Kogut & Singh, 1988; Park & Ungson, 1997). Countries that are culturally close (e.g., U.S. and
Canada) have more similar cultural values and norms than those that are culturally distant (e.g., U.S.
and Thailand). Although there are differences between culturally close countries that can affect
business operations (O’Grady & Lane, 1996), differences from culturally distant countries are greater
and are expected to cause greater misunderstanding (Park & Ungson, 1997). Kogut and Singh (1988:
414) suggest that ‘the more culturally distant are two countries, the more distant are their organizational
characteristics on average.’ Note that, while cultural distance could be related to MNE type, the root
cause of organizational differences here is cultural (rather than organizational) and thus we include
cultural distance as a country-level variable.
We suggest that the cultural distance between the countries where a subsidiary and headquarters are
located will affect the form of DOI experienced by subsidiary managers. The more culturally distant the
entities, the more managers will experience distinct organizational identification with these entities.
Culturally distant units differ in their organizational practices, administrative operations, and
management systems (Kogut & Singh, 1988; Park & Ungson, 1997). As a result, managers may find it
difficult to simultaneously identify with both entities and will likely ‘switch’ between their
identifications. In contrast, if the headquarters and subsidiary countries are culturally close, the manager
may not perceive extreme differences and thus may experience compound or nested forms of DOI. The
more culturally close the countries, the greater the degree of overlap in compound DOI, and the closer
the form of DOI will be to nested. This is consistent with Ashforth and Johnson’s (2001) and George and
Chattopadhyay’s (2005) suggestion that similarity in different entities facilitates simultaneous
identifications. While objective national characteristics may not necessarily lead to a subjective
understanding of overlap in identifications, consistent with social information processing theory, we can
9cal
expect managers who interact with both entities to gain information about these entities, in part from
social information, which can impact their perception of the environment (e.g., Zalesny & Ford, 1990).
①
Proposition 5: Cultural distance between home and host country in an MNE relates to form of DOI distance
such that subsidiary managers experience distinct DOI with high cultural distance, compound DOI
Tdit
with moderate cultural distance, and nested DOI with low cultural distance.
Institutional distance
In addition to cultural differences, MNEs also face institutional differences (Kostova & Roth,
2002). Institutional theory suggests that organizations must adapt to the local environment’s rule and
gap
DOI: 10.1002/job
belief systems in order to survive (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Scott, 1995).
Institutional systems have regulatory, cognitive, and normative components. The regulatory aspect
comprises rules and laws to ensure stability and order, the cognitive component consists of shared
cognitive categories such as schemas and frames that impact how people interpret the environment, and
the normative component comprises society’s values and norms (Kostova, 1999; Kostova & Zaheer,
1999; Scott, 1995). MNEs, because of their presence in different countries, must deal with multiple
institutional environments since each country typically has its own institutional environment (Kostova
& Zaheer, 1999). It is the overall differences in such institutional environments that are referred to as
institutional distance. As Xu and Shenkar (2002: 608) explain, ‘institutional distance is the extent of
similarity or dissimilarity between the regulatory, cognitive, and normative institutions of two
countries’. Such institutional differences affect MNE characteristics, which are likely to impact form
of DOI.
MNEs are embedded in their institutional environments and thus their characteristics are shaped by
the surrounding institutions. As Xu & Shenkar (2002) note, local governments may enact laws
precluding the MNE from adopting its typical business practices in a country, routines may need to be
adapted to ensure no symbolic challenge to local cognitive schemas, and goals and objectives may need
to change to reflect the normative environment. Hence, when the institutional distance between the
MNE and the subsidiary countries is large, subsidiary managers identifying with both are likely to
perceive their identifications as distinct. In contrast, the more similar the institutional environments, the
less the MNE would need to adapt its goals, objectives, and practices to the local environment, and the
more similar its units will be. Then, subsidiary managers will perceive a greater similarity among their
identifications with the two entities, moving towards a compound and eventually nested form. T ID .
Proposition 6: Institutional distance between home and host country of an MNE relates to form of
DOI such that subsidiary managers experience distinct identification with high institutional
distance, compound DOI with moderate institutional distance, and nested DOI with low institutional T
distinct
distance.
Consequences of dual organizational identification

One premise of this paper is that DOI matters as it helps managers fulfill their complex managerial
roles. In this section we address the central question ‘How does DOI affect managerial roles?’ First, we
discuss consequences of relative magnitude of DOI, followed by an examination of the consequences
of form of DOI. Our choice of outcome variables was guided by the MNE context. We chose variables
that directly relate to subsidiary manager roles and the issues surrounding these roles that are especially
pertinent for MNEs: Bartlett & Ghoshal’s (1998) subsidiary manager roles, subsidiary-parent
cooperation, knowledge transfer, and role conflict. These variables have been suggested to impact
MNE performance and competitive advantage (e.g., Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1992, 1998; Gupta &
Govindarajan, 2000; Kogut & Zander, 1993; Kostova & Roth, 2003), and hence MNE success.
Relative magnitude of DOI
Roles of the subsidiary manager

Bartlett (1985) and Bartlett and Ghoshal (1992, 1998) discuss subsidiary manager roles that are specific
to the MNE setting. Thus, they provide a more specific characterization of roles for the MNE context
than Mintzberg’s (1963) explication of roles for managers in general. They also add to the literature on
role theory (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoeck, & Rosenthal, 1964) by describing three primary roles that
MNE subsidiary managers are expected to fulfill. Bartlett (1985) suggests that subsidiary (or country, in
DOI: 10.1002/job
his terms) managers have three different roles: (1) bi-cultural interpreter, (2) national advocate and
defender, and (3) front-line implementer of corporate strategy. These are similar to Bartlett and
Ghoshal’s (1992, 1998) breakdown of country manager roles of sensor, local builder, and contributor in
global strategy. To maintain consistency and take advantage of a slightly more detailed description of
the various roles, we use Bartlett’s (1985) terms. It should be noted that Bartlett (1985) and Bartlett and
Ghoshal (1992, 1998) apply these roles particularly to transnational MNEs. However, to the extent that
most MNEs are developing into transnational corporations in order to succeed in today’s environment
(Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1998), it can be argued that these roles apply to all MNEs. Further, even non-
transnational MNEs are likely to require their managers to fulfill at least one, if not more, of these roles.
Therefore, examining the effect of DOI on these roles is relevant for MNEs in general.
We argue that subsidiary managers emphasize, and are effective at, different roles based on their
relative levels of identification with the MNE and the subsidiary. As a bi-cultural interpreter, subsidiary
managers are responsible for interpreting and explaining the local environment to headquarters, on the
one hand, and ensuring that local employees understand the MNE’s goals, strategies, and values, on
the other hand. Not only do subsidiary managers analyze the local situation and communicate this to the
corporate office, but they also transfer the views of headquarters to the subsidiary (Bartlett, 1985;
Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1992, 1998). This role will be best fulfilled if managers experience DOI at high
comparable levels (as opposed to disparate or low comparable levels). Identification with the subsidiary
ensures that managers relate strongly to the subsidiary and are aware of its values and needs. Such
managers will be better able to interpret the local environment and to explain the subsidiary’s situation
to headquarters. Identification with the MNE, on the other hand, will help managers accept and
advocate the MNE’s views and ensure that subsidiary employees understand and work toward the
MNE’s goals and uphold MNE values. The duality in managers’ identification will also help balance
the needs of the two sides and reconcile their possibly conflicting perspectives and interests. Because
they personalize the successes and failures of both the MNE and subsidiary (Mael & Ashforth, 1992),
subsidiary managers will strive to provide complete, useful information to both sides to help them both.
Further, managers are likely to make a judgment call in terms of when it may be better to stress one
entity’s view, as well as recognize compromises that might be made in both entities, to ultimately help
both entities succeed.
In contrast, when subsidiary managers identify at disparate levels with the two entities, they are
unlikely to properly fulfill the role of bi-cultural interpreter. For lower levels of subsidiary
identification, it will be harder to understand the subsidiary’s challenges, opportunities, and values, and
with lower levels of MNE identification they will be less likely to attempt to explain MNE goals,
strategies, and values in the subsidiary. In these cases, managers will be less motivated to fulfill both
aspects of this role. Instead, their efforts will be more one-sided, stressing either informing the MNE of
subsidiary issues in the hope of more recognition and/or resources, or emphasizing MNE goals and
values in the subsidiary to uphold MNE desires. Finally, we expect this role to be fulfilled the least with
low comparable levels of DOI. This state will imply less effectiveness of both aspects of this role due to
lack of understanding of the entities and lack of motivation to help either entity succeed.
Proposition 7: Relative magnitude of subsidiary manager DOI affects fulfillment of the bi-cultural
interpreter role such that it is best fulfilled at high comparable levels, moderately fulfilled at
disparate levels, and least fulfilled at low comparable levels.
In their role as national advocates and defenders, managers are responsible for ‘standing up for’ the
subsidiary; they explain to headquarters why certain organizational strategies and structures may not be
effective in the subsidiary, state the ways in which the subsidiary is a valuable asset to the MNE, and
attempt to ensure that the MNE accounts for the particular needs and opportunities in the subsidiary and
DOI: 10.1002/job
its host country (Bartlett, 1985; Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1992, 1998). This role requires at times being
assertive about subsidiary needs and interests despite headquarters’ disapproval or different viewpoint.
The national advocate and defender role is likely to be best performed by subsidiary managers
identifying more with the subsidiary than the MNE, since these managers have a bond with the
subsidiary and may have little incentive to follow the MNE when its interests are harmful. In this case
mangers are willing to do what is necessary to help the subsidiary succeed, even when the MNE may
disapprove of such actions or when it may not be in the strategic interest of the MNE. On the other hand,
if managers identify more with the MNE, there is little incentive to oppose or criticize the MNE and
managers are less likely to stand up for the subsidiary, particularly when it is unclear how fulfillment of
its needs would directly help the MNE. Hence, we do not expect managers with disparate MNE-
oriented identifications to fulfill this role well.
In the case of comparable DOI, we expect high comparable levels to result in fulfilling this role well,
since managers will act in the subsidiary’s best interest and will have intimate knowledge of the MNE
to effectively advocate for the subsidiary. As Dutton and Ashford (1993) suggest, those who are
familiar with an issue (e.g., subsidiary needs) and are aware of how it relates to top management
strategy may gain more attention when bringing it up. However, since managers with high comparable
levels of DOI are still concerned about the MNE, they may not be as strong an advocate of the
subsidiary as those with disparate subsidiary-oriented DOI. They may decide to abdicate from asserting
all the subsidiary’s needs in favor of conflicting corporate goals or other subsidiaries’ interests, as this
might ultimately help the MNE more. Since high comparable levels will entail such compromises, we
expect this case to be associated with less fulfillment of the national advocate role than disparate
subsidiary-oriented DOI. Finally, subsidiary managers with low comparable levels of DOI have little
incentive to help the subsidiary, which results in poor fulfillment of this role.
Proposition 8: Relative magnitude of subsidiary manager DOI affects fulfillment of the national
advocate role such that it is best fulfilled at disparate subsidiary-oriented levels, moderately fulfilled
at high comparable levels, and least fulfilled at low comparable and disparate MNE-oriented levels.
In the role of front-line implementer (Bartlett, 1985) managers are responsible for implementing
corporate strategy despite their potential disagreement with it. They must convince subsidiary
employees of the merit of the strategy and develop commitment to and enthusiasm about it. Just like the
role of bi-cultural interpreter, this role requires an understanding and acceptance of the MNE’s
viewpoint. We therefore expect that individuals who identify more with the MNE would best perform
this role. Indeed, Kostova (1998) and Kostova and Roth (2002) suggest that subsidiary employees who
identify with the parent are more likely to transfer organizational practices from the parent to the
subsidiary. A manager who identifies more with the subsidiary than the MNE will be less zealous about
the implementation of corporate strategies, particularly when such implementation might be viewed as
detrimental to the subsidiary. With regard to comparable levels, similar to the argument above, high
comparable levels are likely to result in less fulfillment of this role than disparate MNE-oriented DOI
because those with comparable DOI also want the subsidiary to succeed and therefore may choose not
to implement MNE objectives if they believe the subsidiary would be hurt by doing so. Finally, the role
of frontline implementer is likely to be better fulfilled at high comparable than low comparable levels of
DOI because of managers’ personalization of the MNE’s success.
Proposition 9: Relative magnitude of subsidiary manager DOI affects fulfillment of the front-line
implementer role such that it is best fulfilled at disparate MNE-oriented levels, moderately fulfilled
at high comparable levels, and least fulfilled at low comparable and disparate subsidiary-oriented
levels.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Subsidiary-parent cooperation
Inter-unit cooperation in organizations is fundamental to business success, as it impacts firm efficiency,
profitability, and innovation (Smith, Carroll, & Ashford, 1995). Cooperation is especially vital in
MNEs, where geographically dispersed entities are often interdependent (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1998;
Kostova & Roth, 2003). Subsidiary managers, because of their boundary spanning role, can affect this
organizational outcome. Kostova and Roth (2003) agree, suggesting that individual boundary spanners
are crucial for building social capital in MNEs, which facilitates cooperation among MNE units.
We suggest that DOI is related to subsidiary-parent cooperation. Identification can increase
cooperation between organizational members (Dutton et al., 1994; Kramer, 1993). While researchers
have not explicitly examined inter-unit cooperation, it is likely that those who highly identify with both
units will cooperate with each entity since their self-image is related to the success of both (Erez &
Earley, 1993; Tajfel, 1978) and such cooperation will help the organization in many ways (Smith et al.,
1995). Managers identifying at comparable levels with both entities are not biased towards either.
While one entity may lose some benefits through cooperation, the other will gain, and the overall net
benefit from cooperation will outweigh the costs. Therefore, managers with high comparable DOI will
encourage subsidiary-parent cooperation. In contrast, at low comparable levels, managers’ self-
concepts are not as closely intertwined with the MNE and subsidiary, so these managers may be less
likely to foster cooperation. Finally, managers with disparate levels of DOI may be inclined to co-
operate only when cooperation benefits the entity with which they have higher identification. However,
since they personalize the success of this entity, they may foster subsidiary-parent cooperation more
than those at low comparable levels who do not have such a psychological attachment.
Proposition 10: Relative magnitude of subsidiary manager DOI affects subsidiary-parent
cooperation such that it is highest at high comparable levels, moderate at disparate levels, and
lowest at low comparable levels.
Knowledge transfer
Knowledge and knowledge transfer are critical sources of a firm’s competitive advantage (Gupta &
Govindarajan, 2000; Kogut & Zander, 1993). A number of variables have been identified as affecting
knowledge transfer, such as degree of tacitness of knowledge, absorptive capacity of the target unit,
value of the knowledge, and richness in communication channels (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Kogut
& Zander, 1993). We suggest that organizational identification can also impact knowledge transfer.
Subsidiary managers, simply by virtue of their boundary spanning role, may be particularly adept at
facilitating communication within the firm (Kogut & Zander, 1992), thus impacting overall knowledge
transfer. Because of their understanding of the other unit, they may be effective in sending knowledge
to the other unit, and identification may increase their propensity to do so. The issue of identification
affecting knowledge transfer has been briefly alluded to by researchers. Bresman, Birkinshaw, and
Nobel (1999: 442) note that ‘individuals will only participate willingly in knowledge exchange once
they share a sense of identity or belonging with their colleagues.’ Similarly, Dyer and Nobeoka (2000)
state that knowledge sharing is effective in part because of a strong network identity among units.
Because they personalize organizational successes and failures, managers who identify with the
organization would like to help it succeed, which can be accomplished in part through knowledge
transfer (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000).
We expect knowledge transfer to vary depending on relative magnitude of DOI. Managers with high
comparable levels of DOI are concerned about both MNE and subsidiary success and are likely to
transfer much knowledge between the two so that both units could benefit. In contrast, disparate levels
of DOI result in uni-directional transfers primarily to the unit with which managers identify more, even
though they may be aware of the potential benefits of knowledge for the other entity. Finally,
DOI: 10.1002/job
knowledge transfer is lowest for low comparable levels of DOI because managers have little
personalization of the successes and failures of either entity.
Proposition 11: Relative magnitude of subsidiary manager DOI affects knowledge transfer such that
it is greatest for high comparable levels, moderate and more unidirectional at disparate levels, and
lowest at low comparable levels.
Form of dual organizational identification
Role conflict
Role conflict, ‘the degree of incongruity or incompatibility of expectations associated with a role’
(Miles & Perrault, 1976: 22) is especially prevalent in boundary spanning roles (Friedman & Podolny,
1992; Kahn et al., 1964; Miles, 1976). Boundary spanners, simply by definition, must consider the
goals, expectations, and interests of two parties (Adams, 1976; Friedman & Podolny, 1992). These two
entities may have different or even incompatible objectives as well as expectations about the boundary
spanner’s role (Friedman & Podolny, 1992). Since boundary spanners are representatives and
negotiators for each side (Organ, 1971), they may be unable to fulfill these expectations and may
experience role conflict. As Miles (1976) notes, the greater the differences between units, the greater
the potential for boundary spanners to experience role conflict. This has a number of dysfunctional
effects for both the individual and the organization, including increased turnover intent and actual
turnover, as well as decreased individual performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment
(Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Thomas, 1994). Clearly, role conflict is an area of concern for organizations,
especially with boundary spanners such as subsidiary managers in MNEs.
We suggest that form of DOI affects role conflict such that it is highest with distinct identifications
and lowest with nested identifications. As discussed earlier, managers with distinct DOI sense a
separation between their identifications with the subsidiary and MNE and may find it difficult or
impossible to reconcile the two. They are thus likely to ‘switch’ their attachments depending on the
situation. However, because they have a sense of identification with both entities, they would like both
to succeed. This becomes difficult because at times the goals and values of these entities may be so
different that pursuing the objectives of one may hinder those of the other. Hence, the manager who has
distinct identification is likely to experience role conflict. With compound or nested identification, such
conflict is less likely, since there are more perceived similarities. Because of such a perceived alignment
in values and goals, the advancement of one entity’s objectives could be viewed as advancing the other
entity’s objectives as well, reducing the role conflict felt by the manager. This convergence will be
highest in nested DOI.
Proposition 12: Subsidiary manager role conflict is highest for distinct DOI, moderate for
compound, and lowest for nested.
Discussion
While the existing literature on organizational identification, international management, and

organizational design helped inform our theorizing, it was our field work with MNE managers that
intrigued us to examine this topic. Successful global managers, we found, seem to have a broader and
more encompassing understanding of what their role is in the organization, be very good at reconciling
DOI: 10.1002/job
the big picture with day-to-day operations, and be capable of handling stress and anxiety on multiple
fronts. We came to the realization that this unique ability to handle complexity was a function of micro
determinants such as having a more multifaceted self-concept. We tried to understand this further by
focusing on one particular psychological state—dual organizational identification—that we believe
can explain the variance of role fulfillment and effectiveness among managers. We advanced the idea
that those who are capable of developing multiplicity (in our case, duality) of psychological
attachments in the organization will be more successful and effective. Our inquiry led to a novel
conceptualization of the construct of DOI, which then formed the basis for developing the theoretical
model of antecedents and consequences of DOI.
In our view, this paper’s primary contribution stems from the integration of two fields of research—
international management, on the one hand, and organizational behavior (OB), on the other. In turn, the
paper contributes back to both of these literatures that have traditionally held little in common
(Feldman, 1997). To international management, we provide in-depth theorizing on DOI of subsidiary
managers. Following Boyacigiller and Adler (1997), we utilized OB research to further develop MNE
issues. Drawing from the rigorous OB perspective has allowed a deeper understanding of this state, the
way it is formed, and its importance for the larger goals of MNEs. Such a discussion enriches the
existing research on subsidiary managers and their roles in MNEs, which has been to a large extent
qualitative, anecdotal, and case-based. This is particularly true for the two widely used frameworks in
international management, types of MNEs (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989, 1998) and roles of MNE
managers (Bartlett, 1985; Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1992, 1998). To explicate the theoretical link between
MNE model and type of manager psychological attachment (DOI), as well as the importance of such
psychological attachments for managers’ role effectiveness, in the development of the propositions we
also employed more traditional ideas from the structural contingency and organizational design
perspectives.
The paper contributes to the OB literature as well. Anchoring the theorizing in the context of MNEs
has allowed us to identify additional aspects of the construct of DOI, its nature, antecedents, and
consequences. It was the extreme variance among multiple targets of identification in MNEs and the
implications of such psychological attachments for MNEs and subsidiary managers that brought forth
the importance of considering the complexity of DOI. We emphasize that DOI cannot be simply
reduced to two separate identifications, but instead reflects a combinative phenomenon, which we
attempted to capture by using two characteristics: relative magnitude and form. Recognizing these two
aspects of the state of DOI allows an examination of a wide range of levels and forms of DOI and
provides better grounds for empirical work in this area. To our knowledge, this is the first such
characterization of this construct. As we have proposed, the two characteristics have different
antecedents and consequences, and therefore require distinct theorizing. However, we view them as
ultimately reflecting aspects of the same complex latent state of DOI.
The model presented here can serve as a basis for future research. The following are some ideas of
how it could be empirically tested. Most of the constructs can be measured through surveys. Subsidiary
managers could answer questions about their identifications, role conflict, and perception of type of
MNE model used in the firm. Then, supervisors or other subsidiary managers could be asked about the
manager’s role performance as well as levels of subsidiary-parent cooperation and knowledge transfer.
Many of these measures already exist, for example, Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman’s (1970) scale of role
conflict and Leong and Tan’s (1993) or Harzing’s (2000) measure of type of MNE. Similarly, Bresman
et al.’s (1999) measure of knowledge transfer and Song, Montoya-Weiss and Schmidt’s (1997) measure
of cross-functional cooperation could be adapted to fit the MNE setting. Mael and Ashforth’s (1992)
measure for organizational identification (e.g., George & Chattopadhyay, 2005; Kreiner & Ashforth,
2004; van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000) could be adapted to MNE and subsidiary identification.
Then, these two identifications could be juxtaposed to categorize identifications in terms of high and
DOI: 10.1002/job
low comparable or disparate MNE- and subsidiary-oriented DOI to capture relative magnitude. Form
of identification would need a separate measure and could be measured by creating different levels of
overlap between concentric circles and asking managers to rate the perceived similarity between their
identifications with the MNE and subsidiary. Since it is a subjective construct, a direct measure of
overlap is appropriate and sidesteps issues of difference scores (Kristof, 1996; Tisak & Smith, 1994).
Other measures, such as subsidiary manager roles could be developed based on the literature. Related
scales could be incorporated or used to determine their validity. For example, Kim and Mauborgne’s
(1993) measure of subsidiary compliance have items theoretically consistent with Bartlett’s (1985)
national advocate and defender and frontline implementer roles. Cultural and institutional distance
could be measured by taking the country attributes into account. For cultural distance, one could use
Kogut and Singh’s (1988) measure, which is based on Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions.
Alternatively, a new measure could be developed based on Shenkar’s (2001) framework. Institutional
distance could be assessed through a combination of objective and subjective measures of the
institutional environment following Kostova and Roth (2003).
Further theoretical extensions of the model are warranted as well. Some of these include examining
the negative consequences of DOI, developing a dynamic model rather than a static model of this state,
or focusing on other aspects of identification only recently emerging in the literature, such as
disidentification, ambivalent identification, and neutral identification (e.g., Ashforth, 2001; Dukerich,
Kramer, & Parks, 1998; Elsbach, 1999; Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004). The model can also serve as the
basis for theorizing on multiple (rather than dual) identifications (Pratt & Foreman, 2000) targeted at
various groupings in the organization (e.g., team, division, company) and also identification with other
spheres of life (e.g., career, nation, geographic region, culture), as some researchers have done (e.g.,
Boyacigiller, Kleinberg, Phillips, & Sackmann, 2003; Christ et al., 2003; Cinnirella, 1997; Mlicki &
Ellemers, 1996; van Dick & Wagner, 2002; Wenzel, 2000). Related to this is the interesting question of
the possible limit in the number of identifications that people can develop. Work on other forms of
psychological attachment such as dual (or multiple) organizational commitment could benefit from our
model as well.
We believe the most critical next theoretical step in the work on DOI is the examination of individual
level antecedents to this state. Due to space constraints, we limited our theorizing to organizational and
country level antecedents that are unique to the MNE and that have not been discussed in the literature.
However, we recognize that there will be substantial individual variance in DOI based on an
individual’s personal experiences and predispositions, which are relevant and theoretically important to
consider. Some of these could be derived from the existing literature on identification, for example an
individual’s perception of communication quality in the organization (Smidts, Pruyn, & van Riel, 2001)
or tenure in a unit (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Others are perhaps more specific to the MNE context, for
example the nationality of the individual or the degree to which he or she possesses a global mindset.
Host country nationals, because of their familiarity with the local environment (Lee & Larwood, 1983)
likely identify with the subsidiary, while home country nationals may identify more with the MNE.
Further, an individual’s global mindset, the ‘openness to and awareness of diversity across cultures and
markets with a propensity and ability to synthesize across this diversity’ (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2002:
177) may also impact subsidiary manager DOI through fulfilling the need for uncertainty reduction. A
more thorough examination of individual level antecedents is thus warranted for a better understanding
of this complex state.
Finally, in this paper we only theorized on the direct, independent effects of antecedent variables on
dual identification, which we view as a necessary first step in disentangling the complexity of this state.
Further conceptual work could explore the more complex combinations and interaction effects of sets
of independent variables on patterns of DOI. We recognize that such an extension would be extremely
challenging from a theoretical point of view. For example, including the individual level antecedents to
DOI: 10.1002/job
DOI suggested above, in addition to the model presented in this paper, and taking the approach of
examining their interactive effects, would lead to a complex set of combinations that determine the
pattern of experienced DOI.
We would note that while in our model we deliberately focused on constructs that are relevant for the
MNE, most of the propositions could apply, with modifications, to any organization in general. For
example, our conceptualization of DOI should be useful in a domestic firm. It may be that due to the
higher similarity among organizational units, managers will tend to develop less disparate and more
nested or compound DOI. On the antecedents side, type of MNE can be modified to domestic firms to
reflect degree of centralization and interdependence. Similarly, all the consequences of DOI suggested
here could serve as a basis for theorizing about DOI consequences in firms in general, not only MNEs.
Author biographies
Davina Vora (Ph.D., University of South Carolina) is an Assistant Professor of Organizations,

Strategy, and International Management at The University of Texas at Dallas. Her research interests
encompass international management and organizational behavior and include forms of psychological
attachment such as organizational identification in multinational contexts, international diversity
issues, cross-cultural management, and subsidiary-MNC relationships.
Tatiana Kostova (Ph.D., University of Minnesota) is an Associate Professor of International Business
at the Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina. Her research interests are in the broad
area of MNC management and include topics like transfer of best practices within MNCs, creation of
social capital in MNCs, MNC legitimacy, cross-unit relationships, organizational identification,
psychological ownership and others.
References
Adams, J. (1976). The structure and dynamics of behavior in organizational boundary roles. In M. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of organizational and industrial psychology (pp. 1175–1199). Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.
Angle, H., & Perry, J. (1983). Dual commitment and labor-management relationship climates. Academy of
Management Journal, 29, 31–50.
Ashforth, B. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ashforth, B., & Johnson, S. (2001). Which hat to wear? The relative salience of multiple identities in
organizational contexts. In B. Ashforth, & S. Johnson (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational
contexts (pp. 31–48). Ann Arbor, MI: Taylor & Francis.
Ashforth, B., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14,
20–39.
Barker, J., & Tompkins, P. (1994). Identification in the self-managing organization: Characteristics of target and
tenure. Human Communication Research, 21, 223–240.
Bartlett, C. (1985). Roles and responsibilities of the subsidiary manager: MNC operations from the national
organization’s perspective. Harvard Business School.
Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1992). What is a global manager? Harvard Business Review, 7(5), 124–132.
Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1989, 1998). Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Becker, H. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66(1), 32–40.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J., & Nobel, R. (1999). Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions. Journal of
International Business Studies, 30, 439–462.
Brewer, M. (1999). Multiple identities and identity transition: Implications for Hong Kong. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 23, 187–197.
Boyacigiller, N., & Adler, N. (1997). Insiders and outsiders: Bridging the worlds of organizational behavior and
international management. In B. Toyne, & D. Nigh (Eds.), International business: An emerging vision (pp. 396–
416). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Boyacigiller, N., Kleinberg, M., Phillips, M., & Sackmann, M. (2003). Conceptualizing culture: Elucidating the
streams of research in international cross-cultural research. In B. J. Punnett, & O. Shenkar (Eds.), Handbook of
international management research (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Burke, P. (1991). Identity processes sand social stress. American Sociological Review, 56, 836–849.
Burke, P. (1996). Social identities and psychosocial stress. In H. Kaplan (Ed.), Psychosocial stress: Perspectives on
theory, life-course, and methods (pp. 141–173). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Chattopadhyay, P., Tluchowska, M., & George, E. (2004). Identifying the in-group: A closer look at the
influence of demographic dissimilarity on employee social identity. Academy of Management Review, 29,
180–202.
Cheney, G. (1983). The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational communication. Quarterly
Journal of Speech, 69, 143–158.
Christ, O., van Dick, R., Wagner, U., & Stellmacher, J. (2003). When teachers go the extra mile: Foci of
organisational identification as determinants of different forms of organisational citizenship behaviour among
schoolteachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology 73, 329–341.
Cinnirella, M. (1997). Towards a European identity? Interactions between the national and European
social identities manifested by university students in Britain and Italy. British Journal of Social Psychology,
36, 19–31.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in
organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
Donaldson, L. (1996). The normal science of structural contingency theory. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord
(Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 58–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Doz, Y., & Prahalad, C. (1986). Controlled variety: A challenge for human resource management in the MNC.
Human Resource Management, 25(1), 55–71.
Dukerich, J., Kramer, R., & Parks, J. (1998). The dark side of organizational identification. In D. Whetten, &
P. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 245–256). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dutton, J., & Ashford, B. (1993). Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18, 397–
428.
Dutton, J., Dukerich, J., & Harquail, C. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 39, 293–363.
Dyer, J., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creatining and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The
Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 345–367.
Elsbach, K. (1999). An expanded model of organizational identification. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21,
59–90.
Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Feldman, D. (1997). When does demonstrating a difference make a difference? An organizational behavior
perspective on international management. In B. Toyne, & D. Nigh (Eds.), International business: An emerging
vision (pp. 446–466). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Feldman, D., & Thomas, D. (1992). Career management issues facing expatriates. Journal of International
Business Studies, 23, 271–293.
Friedman, R., & Podolny, J. (1992). Differentiation of boundary spanning roles: Labor negotiations and
implications for role conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 28–47.
Gautam, T., van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2004). Organizational identification and organizational commitment:
Distinct aspects of two related concepts. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 301–315.
George, E., & Chattopadhyay, P. (2005). One foot in each camp: The dual identification of contract workers.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 68–99.
Gibson, C. (1994). The implications of national culture for organizational structure. In S. Prasad (Ed.), Advances in
international comparative management (Vol. 9, pp. 3–38). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Gordon, M., & Ladd, R. (1990). Dual allegiance: Renewal, reconsideration, and recantation. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 43, 37–69.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Gregersen, H. B., & Black, J. S. (1992). Antecedents to commitment to a parent company and a foreign operation.
Academy of Management Journal, 35, 65–90.
Gregersen, H. B., & Black, J. S. (1996). Multiple commitments upon repatriation: The Japanese experience.
Journal of Management, 22, 209–229.
Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. (1991). Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational
corporations. Academy of Management Review, 16, 768–792.
Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management
Journal, 21, 473–496.
Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. (2002). Cultivating a global mindset. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 116–
126.
Harquail, C. (1998). Organizational identification and the ‘‘whole person’’: Integrating affect, behavior, cognition.
In D. Whetten, & P. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 223–
231). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Harzing, A. (2000). An empirical analysis and extension of the Bartlett and Ghoshal typology of multinational
corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 31, 101–120.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hogg, M. (1996). Social identity, self-categorization, and the small group. In E. Witte, & J. Davis (Eds.),
Understanding group behavior (pp. 227–253). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hogg, M., & Abrams, D. (1993). Towards a single-process uncertainty-reduction model of social motivation in
groups. In M. Hogg, & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 173–190).
New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Hogg, M., & Grieve, P. (1999). Social identity theory and the crisis of confidence in social psychology: A
commentary, and some research on uncertainty reduction. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 79–93.
Hogg, M., & Mullin, B. (1999). Joining groups to reduce uncertainty: Subjective uncertainty reduction and group
identification. In D. Abrams, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition (pp. 249–279). Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Hogg, M., & Terry, D. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts.
Academy of Management Review, 25, 212–240.
Hornsey, M., & Hogg, M. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 143–156.
Jackson, S., & Schuler, R. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role
conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 16–78.
Jarillo, J., & Martinez, J. (1990). Different roles for subsidiaries: The case of multinational corporations in Spain.
Strategic Management Journal, 11, 501–512.
Kahn, R., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R., Snoeck, J., & Rosenthal, R. (1964). Organization stress. New York, NY:
Wiley.
Kim, W., & Mauborgne, R. (1993). Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary top management compliance with
multinationals’ corporate strategic decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 502–526.
Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International
Business Studies, 19, 411–432.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology.
Organization Science, 34, 383–397.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1993). Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational
corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 4, 625–645.
Kostova, T. (1998). The quality of inter-unit relationships in MNEs as a source of competitive advantage. In M. A.
Hitt, J. E. Ricart i Costa, & R. D. Nixon (Eds.), New managerial mindsets: Organizational transformation and
strategy implementation (pp. 299–324). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Kostova, T. (1999). Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A contextual perspective. Academy
of Management Review, 24, 308–324.
Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an organizational practice by the subsidiaries of multinational
corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 215–233.
Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2003). Social capital in multinational corporations and a micro-macro model of its
formation. Academy of Management Review, 28, 297–317.
Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. (1999). Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the
multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24, 64–81.
Kramer, R. (1993). Cooperation and organizational identification. In J. Murninghan (Ed.), Social psychology in
organizations: Advances in theory and research (pp. 244–268). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Kreiner, G., & Ashforth, B. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1–27.
Kristof, A. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and
implications. Personnel Psychology, 49: 1–49.
Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, R. (1967). Organization and environment. Boston, MA: Division of Research, Harvard
Business School.
Lee, Y., & Larwood, L. (1983). The socialization of expatriate managers in multinational firms. Academy of
Management Journal, 26, 657–665.
Leong, S., & Tan, C. (1993). Managing across borders: An empirical test of the Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989)
organizational typology. Journal of International Business Studies, 24, 449–464.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of
organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123.
Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 38, 299–337.
Meyer, W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony.
American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
Miles, R. (1976). Role requirements as sources of organizational stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 172–179.
Miles, R., & Perrault, W. (1976). Organizational role conflict: Its antecedents and consequences. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 17, 19–44.
Mintzberg, H. (1963). The nature of managerial work. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Mlicki, P., & Ellemers, N. (1996). Being different or being better? National stereotypes and identifications of
Polish and Dutch students. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 97–114.
Mueller, C., & Lawler, E. (1999). Commitment to nested organizational units: Some basic principles and
preliminary findings. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62, 325–346.
O’Grady, S., & Lane, H. (1996). The psychic distance paradox. Journal of International Business Studies, 27, 309–
333.
Organ, D. (1971). Some variables affecting boundary role behavior. Sociometry, 34, 524–537.
Park, S., & Ungson, G. (1997). The effect of national culture, organizational complementarity, and economic
motivation on joint venture dissolution. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 279–307.
Pratt, M. (1998). To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational identification. In D. Whetten, & P. Godfrey
(Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 171–207). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Pratt, M., & Foreman, P. (2000). Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities. Academy
of Management Review, 25, 18–42.
Pugh, D., Hickson, D., Hinings, C., Macdonald, K., Turner, C., & Lupton, T. (1963). A conceptual scheme for
organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 8, 289–315.
Pugh, D., Hickson, D., Hinings, C., & Turner, C. (1968). Dimensions of organization structure. Administrative
Pugh, D., Hickson, D., Hinings, C., & Turner, C. (1969). The context of organization structures. Administrative
Rabbie, J., Schot, J., & Visser, L. (1989). Social identity theory: A conceptual and empirical critique from the
perspective of a behavioural interaction model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 171–202.
Reade, C. (2001a). Dual identification in multinational corporations: Local managers and their psychological
attachment to the subsidiary versus the global organization. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 12, 405–424.
Reade, C. (2001b). Antecedents of organizational identification in multinational corporations: Fostering psycho-
logical attachment to the local subsidiary and the global organization. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 12, 1269–1291.
Rizzo, J., House, R., & Lirtzman, S. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative
Roth, K., & Kostova, T. (2003). The use of the multinational corporation as a research context. Journal of
Management, 29, 883–902.
Scott, C. (1997). Identification with multiple targets in a geographically dispersed organization. Management
Communication Quarterly, 10, 491–522.
Scott, W. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Shenkar, O. (2001). Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of
cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 32, 519–535.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A., & van Riel, C. (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external
prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1051–1062.
Smith, K., Carroll, S., & Ashford, S. (1995). Intra- and interorganizational cooperation: Toward a research agenda.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 7–23.
Song, X., Montoya-Weiss, M., & Schmidt, J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of cross-functional
cooperation: A comparison of R&D, manufacturing, and marketing perspectives. Journal of Product and
Innovation Management, 14, 35–47.
Swann, B. (1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,
1038–1051.
Swann, W. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In J. Suls, & A. Greenwald
(Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 33–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Swann, W. (1985). The self as architect of social reality. In B. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social reality (pp. 100–
126). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Swann, W. (1990). To be adored or to be known? The interplay of self-enhancement and self-verification. In
E. Higgins, & R. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior
(Vol. 2, pp. 408–448). New York: Guilford Press.
Tajfel, H. (1972). Social categorization. English MS. of La categorisation sociale. In S. Moscovici (Ed.),
Introduction a la Psychologie Sociale (Vol. 1). Paris: Larousse.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity, and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation
between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 61–76). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel, & W. Austin (Eds.),
Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Thoits, P., & Virshup, L. (1997). Me’s and we’s: Forms and functions of social identities. In R. Ashmore, &
L. Jussim (Eds.), Self and identity: Fundamental issues (pp. 106–133). London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, D. (1994). The boundary-spanning role of expatriates in the multinational corporation. Advances in
International Comparative Management, 9, 145–170.
Tisak, J., & Smith, C. (1994). Rejoinder to Edwards’ comments. Journal of Management, 23, 691–694.
Tompkins, P., & Cheney, G. (1983). Account analysis of organizations: Decision making and identification. In
L. Putnam, & M. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations (pp. 123–146). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
Turner, J. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 5–34.
Turner, J. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfrel (Ed.), Social identity and
intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorisation theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Turner, J., Hogg, M., Oakes, P., Reicher, S., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-
categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Turner, J., Oakes, P., Haslam, S., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454–463.
van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2002). Social identification among school teachers: Dimensions, foci, and correlates.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(2), 129–149.
van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychol-
ogy: An International Review, 49, 357–371.
van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 137–147.
Wenzel, M. (2000). Justice and identity: The significance of inclusion for perceptions of entitlement and the justice
motive. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 157–176.
Xu, D., & Shenkar, O. (2002). Institutional distance and the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management
Review, 27, 608–618.
Zalesny, M., & Ford, J. (1990). Extending the social information processing perspective: New links to attitudes,
behaviors, and perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 205–246.
DOI: 10.1002/job

7A - Vora Kostova 2007 DOI - JOB

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

7A - Vora Kostova 2007 DOI - JOB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Organizational Behavior

J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 327–350 (2007)

A model of dual organizational

Received 30 March 2005

The Construct of Dual Organizational Identification

Social identity theory, self-categorization theory, and organizational identification

Organizational-Level Individual-Level Role Issues

.Type of MNE Model

Cultural Distance .Nested P 12

Figure 1. A model of dual organizational identification

and Wurf’s (1987) self-concept being comprised of self-representations). The construct of

Dual organizational identification

Characteristics of dual organizational identification

high Comparable levels

Figure 2. Relative magnitude of dual organizational identification (DOI)

Figure 3. Form of organizational identification

Antecedents to dual organizational identification

Relative magnitude of DOI

We propose that a primary organization-level determinant of the relative magnitude of DOI

Type of MNE Model

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 327–350 (2007)

International MNEs, in contrast to multinational MNEs, are characterized by centralization,

Type of MNE Model

Consequences of dual organizational identification

Relative magnitude of DOI

Roles of the subsidiary manager

Form of dual organizational identification

While the existing literature on organizational identification, international management, and

Davina Vora (Ph.D., University of South Carolina) is an Assistant Professor of Organizations,

You might also like