نقش‏‌ بنگاه‌های مادر ایرانی در خلق و تخریب ارزش: مطالعه موردی چندگانه

نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

2 استادیار، گروه مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

3 دانشیار، گروه مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

4 استاد، گروه مدیریت، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

هدف: امروزه در ایران به علت رواج سرمایه‌گذاری‌های نهادی با استفاده از اهرم شرکت‌های هلدینگی، اهمیت بنگاه‌های مادر دوچندان شده است. یکی از ویژگی‌های متمایز این نوع از سازمان‌‏ها، سبدی از کسب‌وکارهای متنوع است که توسط ستاد مرکزی مدیریت می‏‌شوند. پرسش اساسی این است که ستاد مرکزی برای موفقیت کل شرکت باید چه نقش‌‏هایی را ایفاء نماید. لذا، هدف از پژوهش حاضر، تبیین مداخلات و نقش‌های ستاد مرکزی بنگاه‌های مادر ایرانی در کسب‏‌وکارهای تابعه می‏‌باشد.
روش: روش در این پژوهش مطالعه موردی چندگانه می‌‌باشد. موردهای تحت مطالعه در این پژوهش به صورت هدفمند انتخاب شدند و شامل دو ستاد مرکزی در بنگاه‌های مادر وابسته به یکی از نهادهای حاکمیتی دارای فعالیت‌های اقتصادی می‌باشند. در این پژوهش از منابع داده‌های مختلفی از قبیل اسناد بایگانی، مستندات، مشاهده مشارکتی و مصاحبه با 15 مدیر ارشد در ستاد مرکزی استفاده شده است و داده‌ها با استفاده از روش تحلیل محتوا تحلیل شدند.
یافته‌ها: یافته‌های پژوهش، وجود 4 نقش در قالب 22 مداخله و بیش از 55 فعالیت را برای بنگاه‌های مادر ایرانی نشان داد. این نقش‌ها شامل «پیشگیری‏‌کننده از زیان»، «مدیر کسب‏‌وکارها»، «خلق‏‌کننده ارزش» و «تخریب‏‌کننده ارزش» می‌باشند. از نوآوری‌های این پژوهش می‌توان به تبیین فعالیت‌های «قدرت چانه‌زنی بنگاه مادر با نهادهای دولتی» ذیل مداخله «دارایی‌های بنگاه» و همچنین «اعمال سیاست‏‌ها و قوانین مخرب و محدودکننده» و «فشار به کسب‌وکارها برای اخذ نقدینگی» ذیل مداخله «مداخله‏‌های مخرب و اعمال محدودیت‏‌ها» اشاره نمود.
نتیجه‌‌گیری: تمامی نقش‌‏های ستاد مرکزی منجر به خلق ارزش نمی‌شوند و گاهی اوقات مداخلات آن‌‏ها تنها جلوی تخریب ارزش را می‏‌گیرند (نقش پیشگیرنده) و برخی موارد ستاد مرکزی عامل «تخریب ارزش» در واحدهای کسب‌‏وکار می‌‏شود که عمده دلیل آن عدم شناخت کافی ستاد مرکزی از عوامل موقعیتی کسب‌وکارهای تابعه می‌باشد به گونه‌ای که اگر هر یک از فعالیت‌های خلق ارزش به درستی صورت نگیرد منجر به تخریب ارزش خواهد شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Roles of Iranian Parent Enterprises in Creating and Destroying Value: A Multiple Case Study

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Ali Fallah 1
  • Ali Heidari 2
  • Hashem Aghazade 3
  • Seyyed Mohamad A'arabi 4
1 , Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Prof., Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
3 Associate Prof., Department of Business Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
4 Prof., Department of Management, Faculty of Management, University of Allameh Tabataba'i, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

This study aims to explain the types of activities of the Headquarters among their subordinate businesses and their classification in terms of interventions and the Headquarters roles. In other words, this study seeks to answer the following questions: (1) what roles do the headquarters play in Iranian parent firms? and (2) what activities and interventions does each of these roles belong to? However, there has been no similar local study conducted in the country. Moreover, despite a more in-depth study of such phenomenon abroad, each researcher has addressed the activities and functions of the headquarters from a specific perspective, and there is no comprehensive study to investigate all the aspects and dimensions of this phenomenon.
 
Methodology
This qualitative research is a multiple case study in terms of research strategy. The cases which were observed in this study were purposefully selected and included two headquarters in parent companies affiliated with one of the governmental institutions engaged in economic activities. In this study, various data sources such as archived documents, documentations, participatory observations and interviews with 15 senior managers in the headquarters were used and then the data were analyzed using content analysis method.
 
Findings
The research findings indicated 4 roles in the form of 22 interventions and more than 55 activities for Iranian parent companies. These roles include "Loss Prevention", according to which the headquarters seek to intervene in a way to prevent the loss and destruction of value in subsidiaries rather than seeking to create values; “Business Manager”, where the headquarters define the scope of their business activity and portfolio, therby create diversity in their competitive areas through integration and acquisition, as well as organic and domestic growth. It also designs the appropriate organizational structure and mechanisms at the macro levels; "Value Creation" which can be played in two ways: (1) direct influence and interference of the headquarters in businesses (creating vertical value / headquarters to business) and (2) indirect influence and intervention of the headquarters in businesses and building coordination between them (creating horizontal value / business to business); and finally "Value Destruction" which occurs in two ways: (1) the direct influence of the headquarters on business processes (destruction of the vertical values / headquarters to the business) and (2) the indirect influence of the headquarters in business processes (destruction of the horizontal values / business to business). Innovations in this research include determining the activities of "Parent Enterprise Bargaining Power with Government Institutions" under the intervention of "Enterprise Assets" as well as "implementing destructive and restrictive policies and laws" and "imposing pressure on businesses to obtain liquidity" under the intervention of "destructive intervention and restrictive measures".
 
Conclusion
The role of the business manager is an inherent duty of any headquarters. In addition to this role, the headquarters sometimes only prevent the devaluation where the headquarters intervene through planning, governing and controlling interventions. Among the four determined roles, "Value Creation" is the most important role that headquarters can play for the subordinate businesses. However, despite the senior managers’ desire, their interventions and activities in some cases lead to the destruction of values. It is bekieved that the main reason is the lack of comprehensive understanding of the headquarters reharding the subordinate business.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Iranian Parent Enretprise
  • Headquarters
  • Interventions
  • Roles
  • Value creation
  • Value destruction
منابع
اسدزاده، عبداله (1397). تاثیر نقش‌های استراتژیک بنگاه مادر بر الگوی اداره کسب‌وکارها. کاوش‌های مدیریت بازرگانی، 7(6)، 233– 251.
اسدزاده، عبداله؛ رحمان سرشت، حسین (1394). مدلی برای تبیین هوشمندی در شرکت‌های هولدینگ. مدیریت بازرگانی، 7(6)، 805– 822.
سبحان‌اللهی، محمدعلی؛ رحمان‌سرشت، حسین؛ اصلی‌بیگی، فرزانه (1391). الگوی تعامل استراتژیک در شرکت‌های هلدینگ. مدیریت بازرگانی، 7(6)، 15– 42.
مؤمن‏زاده، محمدمهدی (1394). هلدینگ‏ها، راهی برای هم‌افزایی و ارزش‌آفرینی. نشریه شاخص. 1، 12-16.
 
References
Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1-11.
Alexander, M., Campbell, A., & Goold, M. (1995). A new model for reforming the planning review process. Planning Review, 23(1), 12-48.
Ambos, B., & Mahnke, V. (2010). How do MNC headquarters add value?. Management International Review, 50(4), 403-412.
Ambos, T. C., & Mueller-Stewens, G. (2017). Rethinking the role of the centre in the multidivisional firm: A retrospective. Long Range Planning, 50(1), 8-16.
Asadzadeh, A. (2018). Effect of Parent company roles on Managing of Businesses. Business Management Research Journal, 7(6), 233-251. (in Persian)
Asadzadeh, A., Rahmanseresht, H. (2015). A Model for Evaluating Parent Companies Smart. Journal of Business Management, 7(6), 805-822. (in Persian)
Atabaki, M. (2004). Steering holding companies. Developing a model for organizational excellence. Tehran, Payam Moalef. (in Persian)
Baaij, M.G., Mom, T.J., Van den Bosch, F.A., & Volberda, H. W. (2015). Why do multinational corporations relocate core parts of their corporate headquarters abroad? Long Range Planning, 48(1), 46-58.
Beddi, H., & Mayrhofer, U. (2013). Headquarters-subsidiaries relationships of French multinationals in emerging markets. Multinational Business Review, 21(2), 174-194.
Birkinshaw, J., Braunerhjelm, P., Holm, U., & Terjesen, S. (2006). Why do some multinational corporations relocate their headquarters overseas? Strategic Management Journal, 27(7), 681-700.
Bloom, M., & Grant, M. (2011). Valuing headquarters (HQs): Analysis of the role, value and benefit of HQs in global value chains. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2179943
Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Weight versus voice: How foreign subsidiaries gain attention from corporate headquarters. Academy of Management journal, 51(3), 577-601.
Bower, J. L. (1971). Managing the resource allocation process: A study of corporate planning and investment. Homewood: Irwin-Dorsey.
Brunsman, B., DeVore, S., & Houston, A. (2011). The corporate strategy function: improving its value and effectiveness. Journal of business strategy, 32(5), 43-50.
Campbell, A. (1995). Corporate strategy: The quest for parenting advantage. Harvard business review, 120-132.
Campbell, A., Goold, M., & Alexander, M. (1995). The value of the parent company. California Management Review, 38(1), 79-97.
Chandler Jr, A. D. (1991). The functions of the HQ unit in the multibusiness firm. Strategic management journal, 12(S2), 31-50.
Ciabuschi, F., Dellestrand, H., & Holm, U. (2012). The role of headquarters in the contemporary MNC. Journal of International Management, 18(3), 213-223.
Ciabuschi, F., Dellestrand, H., & Nilsson, A. C. (2015). Value generation in the multinational corporation. In The future of global organizing (pp. 39-56). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Ciabuschi, F., Forsgren, M., & Martín, O. M. (2017). Value creation at the subsidiary level: testing the MNC headquarters parenting advantage logic. Long Range Planning, 50(1), 48-62.
Collis, D. J., & Montgomery, C. A. (1998). Creating corporate advantage (pp. 71-83). Harvard Business School.
Collis, D., Young, D., & Goold, M. (2007). The size, structure, and performance of corporate headquarters. Strategic Management Journal, 28(4), 383-405.
Cooper, H. M. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Cramer, J., Kim, R., & van Dam, E. (2004). Corporate social responsibility in Dutch industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 11(4), 188-195.
Creswell, J. W. (2015). 30 essential skills for the qualitative researcher. Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
Decreton, B., Nell, P. C., & Stea, D. (2018). Headquarters involvement, socialization, and entrepreneurial behaviors in MNC subsidiaries. Long Range Planning.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2017). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications Ltd.
Desai, M. A. (2008). The finance function in a global corporation. Harvard Business Review, 86 (7/8).
Duffy, S. (1990). Brief case: Corporate restructuring—Causes and categories. Long Range Planning, 23(4), 114-116.
Egelhoff, W. G., & Wolf, J. (2017). The role of headquarters in the contemporary MNC: A contingency model. Multinational corporations and organization theory: Post millennium perspectives, 49, 71À98.
Eisenhardt, K., & Piezunka, H. (2011). Complexity theory and corporate strategy. The SAGE handbook of complexity and management, 506-523.
Fernández, F. A., & Montoya, L. M. R. (2018). Multi-business companies: The Leonisa case. Cuadernos de Administración, 34(60), 81–95.
Goold, M. (1996). Parenting strategies for the mature business. Long Range Planning, 29(3), 358-369.
Goold, M., & Campbell, A. (1987). Managing diversity: strategy and control in diversified british companies. Long Range Planning, 20(5), 42-52.
Goold, M., & Campbell, A. (1991). Brief case: From corporate strategy to parenting advantage. Long Range Planning, 24(1), 115-117.
Goold, M., & Campbell, A. (2002). Do you have a well-designed organization? Harvard business review, 80(3), 117-24.
Goold, M., Campbell, A., & Alexander, M. (1994). Corporate-level strategy: Creating value in the multibusiness company. Wiley.
Grant, R. M., Pettigrew, A. M., Thomas, H., & Whittington, R. (2002). Corporate strategy: managing scope and strategy content. Sage publications.
Gulev, R. (2006). Economic cultural influence: Effects on headquarter-Subsidiary management in Slovenia and three longstanding EU countries. Journal for East European Management Studies, 205-226.
Hungenberg, H. (1993). How to ensure that headquarters add value. Long Range Planning, 26(6), 62-73.
Kleinbaum, A. M., & Stuart, T. E. (2014). Inside the black box of the corporate staff: Social networks and the implementation of corporate strategy. Strategic management journal, 35(1), 24-47.
Kruehler, M., Pidun, U., & Rubner, H. (2012). How to assess the corporate parenting strategy? A conceptual answer. Journal of business strategy, 33(4), 4-17.
Landau, C., & Bock, C. (2013). Value creation through vertical intervention of corporate centres in single business units of unrelated diversified portfolios–the case of private equity firms. Long Range Planning, 46(1-2), 97-124.
Lange, D., Boivie, S., & Henderson, A. D. (2009). The parenting paradox: How multibusiness diversifiers endorse disruptive technologies while their corporate children struggle. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 179-198.
Lind, C. H., & Kang, O. H. (2017). The value-adding role of the corporate headquarters in innovation transfer processes: The issue of headquarters knowledge situation. Management International Review, 57(4), 571-602.
Mahlendorf, M. D., Rehring, J., Schäffer, U., & Wyszomirski, E. (2012). Influencing foreign subsidiary decisions through headquarter performance measurement systems. Management Decision, 50(4), 688-717.
McKinsey Global Institute. (2013). Urban world: The shifting global business landscape. In McKinsey Global Institute (Ed.).
Menz, M., Kunisch, S., & Collis, D. J. (2015). The corporate headquarters in the contemporary corporation: Advancing a multimarket firm perspective. The Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 633-714.
Miozzo, M., & Yamin, M. (2012). Institutional and sectoral determinants of headquarters-subsidiary relationships: A study of UK service multinationals in China, Korea, Brazil and Argentina. Long Range Planning, 45(1), 16-40.
Mishra, A., & Akbar, M. (2007). Parenting advantage in business groups of emerging markets. Vision, 11(3), 1-10.
Miyajima, H., Ogawa, R., & Ushijima, T. (2017). Are Smaller (Larger) Corporate Headquarters Better? Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
Momenzadeh, M. (2015). Parent Companies: A Way for Synergy and Value Creating. Journal of Index, 1, 12-16. (in Persian)
Moore, C. M., & Birtwistle, G. (2005). The nature of parenting advantage in luxury fashion retailing–the case of Gucci group NV. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 33(4), 256-270.
Nell, P. C., & Ambos, B. (2013). Parenting advantage in the MNC: An embeddedness perspective on the value added by headquarters. Strategic Management Journal, 34(9), 1086-1103.
Poppo, L. (2003). The visible hands of hierarchy within the M‐form: an empirical test of corporate parenting of internal product exchanges. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2), 403-430.
Puranam, P., & Vanneste, B. (2016). Corporate strategy: Tools for analysis and decision-making. Cambridge University Press.
Sadtler, D. R. (1999). The third question. Long Range Planning, 3(32), 373-376.
Saunders, M. N. (2015). Research methods for business students, 7/e. Pearson Education India.
Sobhanollahi, M., Rahmanseresht, H., Aslibaigi, F. (2012). A model for Interaction in Parent Companies. Journal of Business Management, 7(6), 15-42. (in Persian)
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage publications.
Stein, J. C. (1997). Internal capital markets and the competition for corporate resources. The Journal of Finance, 52(1), 111-133.
Swanborn, P. (2010). Case study research: What, why and how? Sage publications.
Teece, D. J. (1982). Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(1), 39-63.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications. Sage publications.