MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009298005 · doi:10.1080/09585192.2014.949819

Impact of nationality composition in foreign subsidiary on its performance: a case of Korean companies

2014· article· en· W2009298005 on OpenAlexaff
Hea‐Jung Hyun, Chang Hoon Oh, Yongsun Paik

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Human Resource Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsidiaryMultinational corporationBusinessStaffingNationalityParent companyExpatriateQuality (philosophy)Order (exchange)Industrial organizationManagementEconomicsFinancePolitical scienceImmigration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores how the nationality compositions of management teams and employee groups in foreign subsidiaries can affect subsidiary performance. By analyzing firm-level data on 401 South Korean subsidiaries across 35 countries in the period between 2005 and 2007, we found that balanced compositions in both subsidiary management teams (SMTs) and subsidiary employee groups (SEGs) were positively associated with subsidiary performance. The results suggest that the benefits of balanced composition are higher for both innovative and coordinative tasks conducted by management teams and for simple computational tasks conducted by employee groups. The effect of the SMT and SEG compositions on subsidiary performance, however, may depend on the host country's institutional conditions. These findings have practical implications for multinational staffing strategies in order to ensure high performance in subsidiaries and for host country policies used to attract high quality foreign direct investments.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Human Resource ManagementSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207