Not all threats are equal: symbolic and realistic threats and the deployment of parent-country nationals

Abstract

AbstractThrough extending the psychological approach to threats, we advance a threat–contingency model to understand how two domains of host-country threats–symbolic and realistic–drive multinational enterprises (MNEs) to deploy parent-country nationals to manage their foreign subsidiaries. When faced with symbolic threats related to ethics and morals in a host country, MNEs act rigidly and conservatively, increasing the likelihood of deploying parent-country nationals as executives in foreign subsidiaries. When dealing with realistic threats associated with potential economic losses in a host country, however, MNEs are adaptive, decreasing the tendency to transfer parent-country nationals abroad and increasing the use of host-country nationals in foreign subsidiaries. The two threats interact in affecting staffing decisions. Moreover, industry globalization moderates asymmetrically the influences of the two threats: globalization strengthens the effect of symbolic threats but weakens the effect of realistic threats. We used a primary archival study and supplementary laboratory studies to test our hypotheses. Overall, our study provides an additional theoretical account to explain MNEs’ divergent responses toward two domains of threats in a host country. We conclude the study with implications for international business and global mobility research.