Sobre la afectación al principio de no discriminación e igualdad

In the light of the research questions, the requirements for a combination of in-depth data about managers, and the specific nature of power as a theoretical lens, it was decided to select a qualitative case study approach. This is “an empirical inquiry that investigates a phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context” (Yin, 2009, p. 18), and is an approach that is particularly useful for “learning about a little known or poorly understood situation” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010, p. 137), as well as investigating longitudinal dynamic and process issues (Ghauri, 2004).

For this research, the case method brings key advantages. Firstly, it provides the opportunity

to understand the managers’ experiences in the‘real’ world. Case studies have been shown

to be a particularly useful approach for providing such context-dependent knowledge (Flyvberg, 2006). Secondly, a case study allows the collection and presentation of rich detail

Power and Coordination in the Multinational Company Page | 89 and multiple perspectives. Thirdly, it allows key themes to emerge, rather than being predetermined as required in surveys or structured interviews – an inductive approach required given the limited prior literature of the phenomenon. Finally, by building ‘stories’ of power, the ‘big picture’ can be retained.

Given these factors, it is not surprising that case study method dominates much of the work on power in organisations – and indeed Stewart Clegg (2009, p. 157) comments

unambiguously that “researching power and politics in organizations is best done through case

study. Only case study can provide the fine-grained contextual detail necessary to being to appreciate the finer points of theoretical arguments”.

Selection of Case or Cases

The first key decision was whether the research would focus upon a single case, or multiple cases.

Some authors strongly argue for examining multiple cases. For example, Yin (2009) advocates their role in literal replication (trying to get the same ‘experimental’ result) or theoretical replication (seeing the impact of a change in a key parameter), while Eisenhardt (1989) focuses on comparative case studies. However, such authors come from a primarily positivist philosophical perspective, where the multiple cases are being largely used to replicate the logic of ‘large-N’ studies (Tsoukas, 2009).

Yet there is a strong tradition in organisational research of undertaking case studies of single organisations –consider for example the work of Pettigrew (1985) on ICI, Kristensen & Zeitlin’s (2005) study of APV, or Balogun et al’s studies of ‘Brand Co’ (2011, 2019; Jarzabkowsi & Balogun, 2009).

Indeed, Yin (2009, p. 51) recognises the benefit of the single case where this is “critical,

unusual, common, revelatory or longitudinal”. In this instance, I was aware that the way that

power ‘worked’ in some multinationals seemed to differ from the picture painted by much of

the extant literature. As such, studying a single organisation could be revelatory. Furthermore, in this study there is no intention to generate some sort of representative sample. Rather the aim is to explore, compare and contrast similar phenomena in a single setting, with Lervik (2011) arguing that focus on a single multinational can increase both contextual sensitivity and the precision of interpretations. Furthermore, by keeping the research within one organisation, (corporate) cultural issues and many of the individual participants are common to the different stories (or cases) removing unnecessary variation.

Power and Coordination in the Multinational Company Page | 90 Selection of Case Organisation

Having concluded that a case study of a single organisation was appropriate, this still requires the selection of which organisation will be the focus of research. For this study this needed to be a multinational company that showed characteristics of the heterarchy. Furthermore, my primary interest was in was with the traditional “well-established multinational” (Zander & Matthews, 2010, p. 36) that motivated Hedlund, and remains the focus of much of the academic debate on MNCs presented in Chapter 2.

For me, the selection of GlobeCo was a relatively straight-forward choice for theoretical, pragmatic and personal reasons. GlobeCo is a long-established multinational that has been through the journey from a polycentric organisation of loosely connected and quasi- independent subsidiaries to a heterarchical organisation with a complex matrix of interdependent units, teams and functions. As such, it provided an excellent example of a heterarchical MNC. Furthermore, in returning to academia and interacting with the literature on the MNC it became clear that my experiences of the ways in which decisions were made and implemented within GlobeCo seemed to challenge the dominant perspective. As such

GlobeCo provided a ‘revelatory’ case that offered high potential for developing new insights

into an understudied phenomenon (Yin, 2009).

Secondly, there was a pragmatic advantage in selecting GlobeCo as the focal organisation. Access was made easier, for having previously worked at the company I had many established contacts I could reach out to. At the same time, my prior history within the organisation provided a ‘the stamp of legitimacy’ (Marschan-Piekkari et al, 2004) that seemed to contribute to respondents’ willingness to participate.

Thirdly, I cannot deny that there was a personal interest in trying to better understand the organisation for which I spent many years working. As Dennis Gioia wrote that “no

organization is more salient or more important to me than my own organization” (Gioia, 2004,

p. 102).

However, this did not mean that access was straight-forward. Initial contacts with senior management suggested that nobody felt in a position where they had authority to grant access to a researcher for a study that covered so many different parts of the organisation – this was an early sign of the issues of ambiguity and the inadequacy of hierarchy in a heterarchy. Consequently, I decided to proceed on a snow-ball basis, talking to individual managers without seeking formal organisational approval which – so it seemed – no one individual was able to grant. This approach also gave the benefit of removing the possibility of pressure from

Power and Coordination in the Multinational Company Page | 91 sponsoring executives to shape research conclusions – a risk that has been reported in other studies of power (Piekkari & Tietze, 2016).

Case Organisation and the Lack of Detachment

In selecting GlobeCo as research subject, it is necessary to address the potential criticism that I am an insider, having had significant involvement in some of the areas that are subject of investigation. While such involvement would be unacceptable within the scientific method, where it is critical that the researcher remains detached, it is widely accepted in qualitative research (Easterby-Smith et al, 2012).

However, it is clear that such a situation requires careful handling. Buchanan & Bryman (2007, p. 487) have warned that “personal experience sits at the bottom of the hierarchy of evidence,

to be treated with caution if not discarded”. Furthermore, it has been argued that researchers

should be ‘professional strangers’ (Agar, 1996), yet I was familiar with many of the issues, people, practices and processes I was investigating. This creates a danger of missing the outsider (‘etic’) perspective that might be crucial in identifying both what is unusual and what is taken-for-granted (Tietze, 2012). To an extent, such challenges are not unique to this sort of study – no researcher is completely free of personal history and biases, nor can they avoid entanglement in power and political issues (Piekkari & Tietze, 2016). However, working within an organisation you know requires particular care, with Tietze (2012, p. 56) emphasising that

this is a precarious balancing act where it becomes necessary “to find the means to render

strange what is established as ‘normal’, that will find mechanisms that will distance themselves from what they already know.”

There is no single way to resolve this. However, this emphasises the need to be focused upon the data, to ensure a polyphony of respondent voices, to listen carefully to outsiders who read and discuss my work and to continue to be analytically reflexive. But these are the challenges for any qualitative researcher. Ultimately, it must be to the reader to judge whether I have been successful in this.

Historic or ‘Live’ Case

The third key choice I faced was of the type of incidents or cases that are studied within the focus organisation. Should these be historic – that is, which are essentially completed and are considered in retrospect – or ‘live’, studying them as they evolve?

Power and Coordination in the Multinational Company Page | 92 A number of authors strongly recommend the benefit of following a ‘live’ case (including Clegg, 2009). Apart from avoiding issues around imperfect recollection, this clearly adds additional possibilities for gathering data in an ethnographic manner – for example through observation, participation or the use of participant diaries. Such real-time study could be crucial where

aspects of power may be revealed at a fine ‘micro-level’ of the detailed interaction between

individuals (Pache & Santos, 2010) –with Langley (1999) stressing that a relevant ‘event’ can be in as apparently trivial action as a hand-shake.

Yet, despite recognising the potential benefits of following a real-time case, eventually I decided to focus upon retrospective events within GlobeCo – an approach adopted in the majority of case studies (Ghauri, 2004). For me, this was primarily driven by very real practical issues.

Firstly, the total elapsed time that I could devote to fieldwork was limited, due to the requirements of my PhD. Even if an appropriate live case could be identified, there was no certainty that it would be completed within my necessary time horizon. This could leave me analysing an incomplete case or, worse, not completing my PhD. By focusing upon historic events, I could ensure that these were fully played through.

Secondly, there was no guarantee that a live case within GlobeCo would necessary provide appropriate data to address my research questions. By studying cases historically, it became possible to review multiple incidents and identify which of these were likely to be particularly revealing and focus upon these for further fieldwork and analysis.

Thirdly, it was clear from early discussions that access could be a key issue for following a project live. This reflected concerns of the sensitive/confidential nature of the projects as well as worries about the presence of a researcher being a distraction.

Yet the selection of retrospective case had some advantages over and above the efficiency for the researcher (Leonard-Barton, 1990). I was interested in studying the full life-cycle of incidents, from the conception of the original ideas, but this is difficult with real-time ethnographic study, where researchers can often only identify a project that is well underway with focus upon the latter implementation phases (e.g. Balogun et al, 2019). As will be seen in Chapter 8 retrospective data collection allowed an understanding of the evolving power relations from the very first contemplation of an idea, through to final implementation with the benefit of sufficient hindsight to understand the significance of key events.

Power and Coordination in the Multinational Company Page | 93 Nested Cases

It quickly became apparent that within GlobeCo there were multiple stories illustrating power in action that gave insight into how individuals navigate the organisational structures and achieve coordinated outcomes. While each of these could be individually regarded as a ‘case’, at the same time, many of these stories could be grouped together as part of a broader story of a wider organisational change. This is illustrated in Figure 5.1.

This is in effect a ‘nested’ case study (Buchanan, 2012) where there are cases within cases. This approach has been adopted elsewhere within studies of MNCs including Pettigrew’s (1985) study of ICI which investigates different divisions and their interactions within the wider organisation, and Kristensen & Zeitlin’s (2005) ‘Local Players in Global Games’ which studies different subsidiaries and their relationships with headquarters.