Sobre la afectación al Derecho al reconocimiento de la personalidad jurídica

While the dominant approach to power in the International Business literature focuses upon units, a niche area of study (Geppert et al, 2016) has emerged that focuses upon power within the MNC at a finer level of granularity and which considers MNC relations “as processual, political, and actor-centred” (Clark & Geppert, 2011, p. 397). This moves the focus onto key actors, particularly managers, employees and unions operating within the ‘contested terrain’ of the MNC (Edwards & Bélanger, 2009). This perspective recognises the agency of actors – that is the “capacity of people to act upon their world … purposefully and reflectively … to

reiterate and remake the world in which they live” (Inden, 1990, quoted in Holland et al, 1998,

p. 54). However, at the same time these actors inhabit specific environments with taken-for- granted assumptions, cultures and power structures and consequently “are neither the executive organs of given structures, nor fully autonomous” (Dörrenbächer & Geppert, 2009b, p. 103).

In the previous chapter, two streams of work were introduced that focused upon the role of the individual within the MNC – the micro-political and the discursive perspective. Both of

Power and Coordination in the Multinational Company Page | 67

these ‘emergent critical perspectives’ (Barner-Rasmussen et al, 2010) share a common

assumption, described by Geppert & Dörrenbächer (2014, p. 237) in which they see:

“Power relations within MNCs as not pre-given or institutionally determined or the outcome of objective managerial decision. Rather, we believe that power is the result of continuously socially constructed dynamic relationships among key actors, who make use of existing power resources and, in doing so, stabilize and destabilize

established power.”

As such both approaches try to capture the role of social agency and the micro-dynamics of the structures of the relations of politics and power structures. Yet, in doing so they highlight fundamentally different aspects of power relationships.

Interpreting Power in the Micro-Political Perspective

As outlined in Chapter 3, there is a relatively new literature focusing upon micro-politics around the different (and contradictory) interests and identities of key actors within the MNC (particularly managers) and the micro-political ‘games’ that they play. These are frequently regarded as being closely linked with power – with Delmestri & Brumana (2017, p. 330)

describing such games as “concrete mechanisms used by interest-driven individuals to

structure and regularize their relations of power.”

Interpreted in terms of the literature on power, it becomes clear that the micro-political perspective primarily focuses upon the episodic (Geppert & Dörrenbächer, 2014), considering the actions of the key actors. With its focus upon ‘resource mobilization strategies’ (Dörrenbächer & Geppert, 2009a; Becker-Ritterspach & Dörrenbächer, 2011) it largely adopts a resource-focused view of power. Becker-Ritterspach & Dörrenbächer (2011) specifically highlight that they are see power ‘constituted by relationships that allow the exchange of

resources’ (p. 542) and consider how actors can “mobilize resources (based on their resource

exchange relationships) within and outside the multinational corporation” (p. 533) in order to

“exchange (or potentially deny) possibilities of action that are relevant to others” (p. 543). At one level, such resource power can be seen in simple episodic action – for examples in Boussebaa et al (2012) where actors hoard resources (in this case consultants) thereby thwarting a corporate initiative, or where actors initiate wild-cat strikes (Becker-Ritterspach & Blazejewski, 2016b).

In particular, the micro-political perspective puts particular attention upon resource power derived from the local (institutional) context within which actors are sited. For example,

Power and Coordination in the Multinational Company Page | 68 Geppert et al, 2015, showed how managers in Lidl in Finland could build a robust ‘toolkit’ of resources based upon local collective bargaining and employment law that could be used in dealings with the parent company. More generally, Becker-Ritterspach & Blazejewski, (2016a, p. 92) highlight that “to achieve their goals actors mobilize resources through social relationships or by referring to broader societal or institutional rules.” As such, there is an acceptance of a systemic background to power relations that shape actors’ opportunities. Indeed, Geppert et al (2016, p. 1241) highlight that micro-political perspectives “move into systemic power perspectives to the extent that they see actor interests and actor power (ability to enter social relationships or the mobilization of resources) as socially constituted by unquestioned organizational rules and societal institutions.”

Interpreting Power in the Discursive Perspective of the MNC

In contrast, the second theme emphasises upon the discursive nature of power struggles. This “examines the role played by language in the construction of power relationships and reproduction of domination” (Vaara et al, 2006, p. 792).

In part, this focuses upon explicitly episodic action based upon language reflecting the third dimension of power, the power of meaning, or what Balogun et al’s (2019, p. 246) study consider “a specific kind of power dynamic that builds on reframing.” Power is exercised by

those who are able to shape others’ understanding through the “deployment of discursive

resources” (Whittle & Zirpoli, 2016, p. 1242) both to have positive‘mobilizing effects’ as well as constraining organisational action (Vaara & Monin, 2010). Key actors participate in ‘language games’ (Geppert et al, 2014) including those involving ‘issue selling’ (Dutton & Ashford, 1993). Critically, attention has been upon how actors use sensemaking and sensegiving to promote a particular course of action for the MNC. For example, Vaara & Tienari (2008, 2011) explore how established narratives (‘antenarratives’) are leveraged to make sense of events and through which actors can “position themselves vis-à-vis specific discourses or mobilize particular discourses for their own advantage” (Vaara & Tienari, 2008, p. 987). Particular emphasis within the literature focuses upon the way in which actors build discursive legitimacy, where “the crux of this struggle revolves around attempts to get … interests accepted and shared by others in the MNC as legitimate and worthwhile” (Koveshnikov et al, 2017, p. 16).

Yet the episodic use of meaning seems to reflect an aspect of power that goes beyond that seen in the logic of resource dependency. The research indicates that this is a multi-level process that involves individuals at varying levels of the organisation, with opportunities to

Power and Coordination in the Multinational Company Page | 69 influence understanding, discourse and outcomes irrespective of their hierarchical position (Rouleau & Balogun, 2011; Vaara, 2002), and consequently through examining the discursive we gain “deeper insights about both the silencing of powerful players and the gaining of ‘voice’

by weaker actors” (Geppert et al, 2016 p. 1218).

Importantly, within the discursive perspective there is a recognition that episodic discursive acts can have a longer-lasting impact upon systemic aspects of power. Vaara & Tienari (2011, p. 385) emphasise that discourses become “constitutive elements of MNCs as institutions and organizations”. Similarly, Balogun et al’s (2011) study of charter change highlights how through discourse it was possible to ‘subjectively reconstruct’ the relationship between HQ and a subsidiary. Consequently, this starts to suggest that through discursive practices within the MNC managers are not only able to shape specific outcomes, but can start to influence the systemic understandings of the multinational and its ways of doing things.