ABSTRACT
The previous chapter considered the activities and issues connected with international multi-unit leadership – particularly with regard to subsidiary/affiliate and operations-level leadership. But what practices do subsidiary/affiliates apply at a local field level within a multi-unit context to ensure control? How do they ensure efficiency and effectiveness at unit level where the proverbial rubber hits the road? In my previous book I argued that in individualistic developed market contexts such as the US and UK effective MULs needed to generate commitment before they could ensure control (Edger 2012). However, within international contexts, due to increased distance and major cultural divergences, organisations – for dependability, resilience and quality purposes – must ensure that they, and their members, exert control prior to generating commitment. This is in spite of the fact that managers from a variety of cultures rank control activities as the least attractive part of their role unless they are appropriately trained and rewarded (Konrad et al. 2001). To this extent this chapter needs to understand the nature, deployment and effects of control in cross-border international multi-unit situations. How do different organisations from differing cultures ensure operational and financial control through formal (i.e. hierarchy, policies/practices, procedures, rules, laws, monitoring, compliance, punishment, reward, etc.) or informal (i.e. relational, social, network, personalised contacts, etc.) means? Which control approaches are appropriate in which contexts? Why?
