Exploring the Black Box ofCommunity SupervisionJAMES BON.docx

Exploring the Black Box of
Community Supervision
JAMES BONTA
TANYA RUGGE
TERRI-LYNNE SCOTT
GUY BOURGON
ANNIE K. YESSINE
ABSTRACT Community supervision has been an integral part
of cor-
rections since the establishment of probation more than 100
years ago.
It has commonly been assumed that offenders benefit from
community
supervision much more than if they were incarcerated. However,
empiri-
cal evidence in support of the effectiveness of community
supervision in
reducing recidivism questions this assumption. A detailed
examination of
audio taped interviews between 62 probation officers and their
clients
found relatively poor adherence to some of the basic principles
of effec-
tive intervention–the principles of Risk, Need and Responsivity.
For the
most part, probation officers spent too much time on the

enforcement
aspect of supervision (i.e., complying with the conditions of
probation)
and not enough time on the service delivery role of supervision.
Major
criminogenic needs such as antisocial attitudes and social
supports for
crime were largely ignored and probation officers evidenced
few of the
skills (e.g., prosocial modeling, differential reinforcement) that
could
influence behavioral change in their clients. As a snapshot of
present
practices, this study begins a path to a systematic and structured
training
agenda to help probation officers become more effective agents
of
change.
This article is not subject to U.S. copyright law.
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, Vol. 47(3), 2008. Pp. 248–
270.
Available online at http://jor.haworthpress.com
doi: 10.1080/10509670802134085
KEYWORDS Community supervision, offender rehabilitation,
probation
PROBATION IN THE U.S. AND CANADA
Probation was introduced to the United States (Boston) by John

Augustus in 1841 and in 1876, Elmira Reformatory in New York
State was the first prison to release inmates on parole. More
than a
century later probation and parole represent the major forms of
supervising offenders in the community. In 2004 in the United
States
there were nearly five million people either on probation or
parole
supervision (Glaze & Palla, 2005). During the same time period,
in
Canada, there were 98,805 adult offenders on probation and
another
21,695 on some other forms of community supervision (e.g.,
parole,
conditional sentences; Beattie, 2006). Despite the widespread
use of
community supervision, what do we really know about the
effective-
ness of community supervision in managing offender
recidivism?
The Effectiveness of Community Supervision Pre-1967
Community sentences (i.e., probation) are generally viewed as
an
alternative to imprisonment suitable for many offenders. It
provides
a safe and inexpensive way of delivering punishments that fit
less
serious crimes while avoiding the detrimental effects of
incarceration.
Parole is not a sentence handed down by a court like probation
but
rather a community sanction administered by tribunal paroling
autho-
rities and parole supervision is seen as a sensible way of

integrating
offenders into their communities and reducing offender
recidivism.
Both probation and parole promise to control offender
recidivism
and this promise came under scrutiny with Lipton, Martinson
and
Wilks’ (1975) review of correctional treatment programs.
In the Lipton et al. (1975) review, the criteria for inclusion of a
study
required that the study was conducted between 1945 and 1967,
repre-
sented a ‘‘treatment method applied to criminal offenders’’ (p.
4) and
reported measures of performance improvement for an
experimental
and a control=comparison group. Lipton et al.’s (1975)
definition of
‘‘treatment’’ was extremely broad. They selected studies that
are com-
monly considered to reflect offender rehabilitation programs
(e.g.,
Bonta et al. 249
individual psychotherapy, drug and alcohol counselling) but
they also
included studies on the effects of criminal justice settings,
namely,
imprisonment, probation and parole. Their review of the
‘‘treatment
effect’’ of probation and parole with respect to recidivism found
differential effects. Probation (18 studies) appeared more

effective
with younger offenders (under the age of 18) especially under
con-
ditions of small case loads (less than 15 cases per officer).
Adult men
on parole demonstrated lower return rates to prison while under
parole
supervision, compared to men directly released from prison
without
supervision, but there were no differences in recidivism
following the
period of parole supervision (19 studies).
Subsequent to the 1975 review, Martinson and Wilks (1978)
pro-
vided a more detailed assessment of the parole effectiveness
literature.
They compared the recidivism rates of parolees with inmates
released
from prisons without supervision. Across various measures of
recidi-
vism, parolees showed lower rates of recidivism. The highest
differ-
ence was when recidivism was measured as a new arrest with
parolees having a re-arrest rate of 24.5% and straight releases
having
a re-arrest rate of 42.9%. The differences decreased with
conviction
as the outcome measure (19.5% vs. 29.9%) and further still
when a
new prison sentence was the outcome criterion (10.6% vs.
14.8%).
Moreover, in 74 of the 80 comparisons that were conducted
(e.g.,
long follow-up or short follow-up, first offenders or repeat
offenders), lower recidivism rates were found for parolees.

Despite
Martinson and Wilks’ (1978) conclusion that ‘‘at the very least,
the
data. . .should give pause to those policy makers and legislators
who have been operating under the assumption that parole
super-
vision makes no difference’’ (p. 426, italics original) we know
that,
at least in the United States, few listened and parole boards
were
either abolished or their authority greatly weakened.
Community Supervision Post Martinson and Wilks (1978)
Presently, we are conducting a meta-analytic review of the
effec-
tiveness of community supervision. Two general questions are
asked.
First, does parole make a difference in recidivism and second, is
more
community supervision, whether it be probation or parole,
better
than less supervision. Studies were selected if they met the
following
criteria:
250 JOURNAL OF OFFENDER REHABILITATION
1. parolees were compared with non-parolees;
2. probation supervision could be compared along a less-more
dimension (e.g., short periods of probation with long periods;
intensive probation with routine supervision);

3. recidivism outcome was reported in a manner that permitted
the calculation of an effect size and;
4. the study was published after Martinson and Wilks (1978).
At this point, 15 studies published between 1980 and 2006 have
been reviewed and coded yielding 26 effect size estimates. We
selected
the phi coefficient as our measure of effect size. The phi
coefficient is
used to measure the association between two dichotomous
variables
and can be interpreted like the Pearson product-moment
coefficient.
Table 1 summarizes the results.
The average follow-up in the studies summarized in Table 1 was
17
months. The average phi coefficient was .022 and although the
Confidence Interval (CI) did not include zero the decrease in
recidi-
vism associated with community supervision was extremely
small.
The findings with violent recidivism fared worse with the CI
including
zero indicating no statistically significant relationship between
com-
munity supervision and violent recidivism. On the whole,
community
supervision does not appear to work very well. Why this may be
so is
discussed in the next section and will also be answered, in part,
by the
study described in this paper.
What do We Know about Reducing Offender Recidivism?

One of the most effective ways of decreasing criminal behavior
is to intervene at the human service level. Furthermore, this
& Table 1: Meta-analytic Findings on the Effectiveness of
Community Supervision
Recidivism Outcome k Total N Phi CI
General 26 53,930 .022 .014–.030
Violent 8 28,523 .004 � .008–.016
Notes: k ¼ number of effect size estimates; Total N is the sum
of experimental and control subjects.
CI ¼ confidence interval.
Bonta et al. 251
intervention is most effective when the service is delivered in
the
community (Andrews & Bonta, 2006). Reviews of the offender
rehabilitation literature have found that providing services to
offenders are associated, on average, with a reduction of ten
percent-
age points in recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Lipsey,
1995;
Lösel, 1995). Not only is there consensus on the finding that
treat-
ment can reduce recidivism but we also know under what
conditions
treatment effectiveness can be enhanced.
The effectiveness of treatment can be maximized through adher-

ence to the principles of Risk, Need and Responsivity
(Andrews,
Bonta & Hoge, 1990). The Risk Principle states that the level of
service should be matched to the risk level of the offender with
higher
risk offenders receiving more treatment. The Need Principle
states
that the targets for intervention should be factors related
to offending (often referred to as criminogenic needs) and the
Responsivity Principle states that interventions should be
delivered
in a manner that is appropriate to the learning styles of
offenders.
In general, cognitive-behavioral treatments have been most
effective
in bringing about change in offenders. When all three principles
are
in operation, particularly in community settings, reductions in
recidi-
vism of up to 50% have been reported (Andrews & Bonta,
2006).
One of the cornerstones of community supervision is case
manage-
ment. Case management requires a proper assessment of the
needs
of offenders, linking these needs to a service delivery plan and
implementing the plan (Healey, 1999). If one considers the find-
ings from the offender rehabilitation literature then case
management
should have the following features:
1. an assessment of offender risk in order to match the appro-
priate level of supervision to the offender’s risk;
2. an assessment of criminogenic needs to define the goals of

intervention; and
3. the provision of cognitive-behavioral interventions that target
criminogenic needs.
Unfortunately, there is very little research that examines case
man-
agement within the context of the offender rehabilitation
literature
even though the importance of juxtaposing case management
with
the ‘‘what works’’ literature has been recognized (Taxman,
Shapardson
& Bello, 2003). Do probation and parole officers use offender
risk
assessments in assigning intensity of intervention and
identifying
criminogenic needs that should be addressed? Do probation and
parole officers use cognitive-behavioral techniques during their
supervision sessions? Answers to these questions are lacking
and
yet answers are sorely needed to improve supervision practices.
Answers to these questions may explain the very modest
findings
of our preliminary meta-analysis (Table 1). The following study
describes and evaluates the process of service delivery within a
probation context. More specifically, the research examined
how
assessment instruments were routinely used in a Canadian pro-
bation setting, the appropriateness of the treatment targets sele-
cted for intervention and the methods of influencing offenders

to
change.
METHOD
Participants
Probation officers supervising both adult and young offenders
participated in the project. At the time of the study (2001),
approxi-
mately 6,400 adults and 2,000 youth were under a sentence of
pro-
bation in the Canadian province of Manitoba. There were 108
probation officers with supervising responsibilities and 62 (57.4
%
of supervising officers) agreed to participate in the project.
Probation
officers were asked to submit four cases sequentially chosen as
they
came onto their caseloads. Despite a number of efforts to
minimize
workload demands on probation officers, participation in the
pro-
ject was below our expectations. Data was submitted on only
154
offenders.
Data collection ended April 30, 2002 and recidivism infor-
mation was gathered in 2004. Our measure of recidivism was
a new conviction during the follow-up period that began on
the date of the intake assessment. The average follow-up was
3.3 years (SD ¼ 0.21). The information was collected from the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s Criminal History Records, a
national database, and Manitoba Justice’s Offender Management
System.

Bonta et al. 253
Assessment Procedures
In general, data was collected from the following three
information
sources:
1. The intake risk-needs assessments;
2. The audio taping of officer-probationer interviews at three
time
periods; and
3. Offender files.
A more detailed description of the information collected for the
project follows.
1. Intake Risk-Needs Assessment. The Primary Risk Assessment
(PRA) instrument is the offender classification instrument used
in Manitoba community corrections for profiling the risk and
needs of probationers. For adults, the PRA is a modification
of the Wisconsin Risk and Needs instrument and the instru-
ment has been validated on probationers in Manitoba (Bonta,
Parkinson, Pang, Barkwell, & Wallace-Capretta, 1994). For
youth (ages 13 to 17 years), the PRA is a modification of the
Youth Level of Service=Case Management Inventory (Hoge
& Andrews, 2002).
Policy requires an Intervention Plan to be completed within
two months of conducting a PRA. The Intervention Plan out-
lines how the probation officer plans to address the problem
areas identified by the PRA.
2. Audiotape Interviews. Audiotape recordings of the officer-

offender meetings were conducted on three separate occasions.
The first audio taped interview was administered within the
second or third week following the Intervention Plan. The
second taping occurred three months later and the final taping
at the six month mark. Upon completion of an interview, the
audiotape was forwarded directly to the researchers for coding.
Each five-minute segment of the intake audiotape was coded as
to discussions around potential criminogenic needs. For an
item to be scored as present, at least two examples of state-
ments regarding criminogenic needs had to be apparent.
A detailed coding manual for the audiotapes was developed.
The coding procedures in this study followed similar procedures
to those used in the probation studies of Andrews and Kiessling
(1980; Ontario) and Trotter (1996, 1999; Australia). The same
coding procedures were used for both adult and youth. Two
research assistants were trained in using the manual and per-
iodic inter-rater reliability checks were conducted.
Audiotapes were reviewed in five-minute segments and coded
according to three general domains. The first domain was
offender needs as defined by the PRA. The presence or absence
of statements concerning the needs identified by the PRA was
noted. The remaining two domains assessed were the quality
of the relationship between probationer and officer and the
probation officer’s use of behavioral techniques to influence
change.
The latter two domains (relationship and behavioral techni-
ques) are often viewed as the core dimensions in behavioral
influence processes (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Dowden &
Andrews, 2004). A positive interpersonal relationship as evi-
denced by warmth, openness, enthusiasm, empathy and respect
for the client are needed to engage and motivate the client in

taking steps to change. Modeling appropriate behavior, provid-
ing opportunities for behavioral practice, reinforcing prosocial
activity and discouraging antisocial behaviors provide the
concrete direction for change.
3. File Review. A file review provided additional information
not
captured by the questionnaires and audiotapes. This infor-
mation was also used to collaborate the results from the other
sources of information. Personal demographic and criminal
history information were coded as well as information relevant
to the supervision of the probationers (e.g., frequency of con-
tact with the probationer, breaches).
Non-participant Comparison Groups
Not all probation officers participated in the research. This
raised
the possibility that differential participation would affect the
general-
izability of the results. Thus, it was important to assess whether
there
were significant differences between the officers and the
probationers
who participated in the study and those who did not participate.
A
sample of non-participating probation officers was selected and
Bonta et al. 255
demographic information (e.g., ethnicity, years of experience)
was
collected. For each non-participating probation officer, a
random

sample of two cases was drawn from his=her files. These files
were
coded following the same file coding procedures that were used
with
the participating probationers.
RESULTS
Sixty-two probation officers participated in the study submitting
data on as many as 154 offenders. The information submitted,
how-
ever, varied for a number of reasons. For example, offenders
changed
their minds about participation part way through the project,
failed
to report, or were transferred to another probation officer. In
order
to assess the representativeness of the sample of participating
proba-
tioners, a file review of 77 randomly selected cases from 42
non-
participating probation officers was conducted (seven cases had
to
be rejected because they were not currently being supervised).
No
statistically reliable differences were found between the
participating
and non-participating probation officers in age, years as a
probation
officer, ethnicity and education level.
Personal-demographic information on the participating and non-
participating offender samples is presented in Table 2. The
majority
of the participants were adult offenders and the average age of
all

participants was 27.7 years (33.1 years for adults and 15.9 years
for youth). No statistically significant differences were found
between the participating probationers and the non-participating
probationers on personal-demographic, criminal histories and
assessed risk variables.
Case Management and the Risk Principle
The Risk Principle of effective rehabilitation states that the
inten-
sity of intervention should be matched to the risk level of the
offender, that is, minimal services for low risk offenders and
intensive
services for high risk offenders. One of the purposes of
risk=need
assessments in probation is to guide the amount of supervision
that is assigned to a probationer. Thus, we would expect that the
frequency of reporting would be proportional to the risk level of
the
offender.
From the file reviews of the participants and non-participants,
we
were able to count the number of contacts between the probation
officers and the probationers during the first three months of
super-
vision. On average, during the first three months of probation,
clients
were seen on 4.3 occasions. Approximately half of the
probationers
were seen three or four times (47.2%). The number of contacts

was
positively related to the risk score as measured by the PRA for
adults
& Table 2: Characteristics of the Probationers (n)
Characteristic Participants Non-Participants
Gender (%):
Male 75.0 (84) 83.1 (64)
Female 25.0 (28) 16.9 (13)
Education (%):
less than grade 9 21.0 (22) 28.0 (21)
Grade 9 or higher 79.0 (83) 72.0 (54)
Employed=Student (%):
Yes 71.6 (78) 69.7 (53)
No 28.4 (31) 30.3 (23)
Marital Status (%):
Single 68.2 (75) 68.9 (51)
Married=Common-Law 31.8 (35) 31.1 (23)
Prior Incarceration (%):
Yes 37.6 (35) 51.4 (37)

No 62.4 (58) 48.6 (35)
Prior Probation (%):
Yes 55.8 (53) 66.7 (46)
No 44.2 (42) 33.3 (23)
Number of Prior Crimes 5.8 (87) 6.2 (71)
Mean PRA Score (Adults) 8.3 (SD ¼ 3.5) 8.7 (SD ¼ 4.2)
Mean PRA Score (Youth) 23.1 (SD ¼ 11.8) 27.3 (SD ¼ 8.5)
Note: Numbers vary due to missing data (Participants from 93–
112; Non-participants from 69–77).
SD ¼ Standard deviation.
All comparisons statistically nonsignificant.
Bonta et al. 257
(r ¼ .22, p < .01, n ¼ 133) but not for youth (r ¼ .09, ns, n ¼
47).
However, the significant correlation for adults was accounted
for
by the fact that high-risk offenders in particular were seen more
often
than low and medium risk offenders (F ¼ 7.43, df ¼ 2, 130,
p < .001). There were no statistically significant differences
between
the number of contacts for low risk offenders (seen an average
of
4.3 times; SD ¼ 2.2) versus medium risk offenders (seen an
average
of 3.7 times; SD ¼ 1.5). High-risk offenders were seen an

average
of 5.7 times over the first three months of supervision (SD ¼
3.6).
Finally, the number of contacts was unrelated to caseloads
(r ¼ �.01, ns).
Formulating a Case Management Plan
The Need Principle makes a distinction between two types of
offender needs: criminogenic and noncriminogenic needs.
Almost
all correctional systems in Canada use structured risk-needs
assess-
ment to assist staff in identifying the criminogenic needs of
offenders
that should be addressed in order to manage their risk of re-
offending.
In Manitoba, the PRA is used for this purpose. Upon completion
of the PRA, the probation officer is in a position to integrate
this
& Table 3: Percentage Participating and Non-Participating
Probationers
with Needs Identified by the PRA
Need Adult (n ¼ 147) Youth (n ¼ 66)
Accommodation 25.2 (37) 59.1 (39)
Employment 40.8 (60) NA
Substance Abuse 36.7 (54) 62.1 (41)
Attitude 55.8 (82) NA
Family=Marital 52.4 (77) 95.5 (63)

Financial 28.6 (42) NA
Emotional 22.4 (33) 57.6 (38)
Peer Problems 47.4 (70) 89.4 (59)
Academic=Vocational 7.5 (11) 84.8 (56)
Note: NA ¼ Not assessed by the Youth PRA.
information into his=her supervision of offenders by completing
an
Intervention Plan. A summary of needs identified by the PRA is
pre-
sented in Table 3 (for youth, the PRA does not measure the
same
needs as for adults).
The Intervention Plan is a one-page form that records the crim-
inogenic needs of the offender (‘‘problems=issues’’) and
outlines the
actions or steps to address each of the offender’s problem areas.
Intervention Plans and matching risk-needs assessments were
avail-
able for up to 105 participating probationers. For many of the
vari-
ables, some information was missing.
A total of 175 instances of needs were identified for the proba-
tioners and there were 69 plans. That is, 39.4% of the needs
identified

had a corresponding intervention plan. For young offenders, it
was
more difficult to categorize action plans due to their uniqueness
(e.g., ‘‘assist in leaving gang’’, ‘‘maintain contact with mom’’)
but
efforts were made to group them into broader categories. The
results
are shown in Table 4.
In order to facilitate reading Table 4, we take substance abuse
as
an example. Substance abuse problems were identified by the
PRA
for 40.2% of adult probationers and an action plan to address
this
area was evident in 79.5% of the cases. In contrast to the
relatively
high agreement between certain identified needs (e.g., substance
abuse and emotional problems) and a corresponding action plan,
& Table 4: Intervention Plans for PRA Identified Needs: Adults
and
Youth
Criminogenic Need (N) % with Need % Any Plan
Substance Abuse: Adults (97) 40.2 79.5
Youth (31) 45.2 64.3
Employment: Adults (97) 41.2 10.0
Emotional: Adults (91) 23.1 71.4
Family=Marital: Adults (97) 52.6 29.4

Youth (30) 40.0 83.3
Accommodation: Adults (101) 23.8 16.6
Youth (33) 12.1 50.0
Note: Data based upon participating and non-participating
probationers.
Bonta et al. 259
other needs were not being addressed in the Intervention Plan.
For
example, over 40% of the adult offenders had identified
difficulties
with employment yet only 10% of these cases described an
action
plan to deal with these difficulties. Attitudes and companions
were
only mentioned in a few cases and therefore, not shown in the
table.
Addressing Criminogenic Needs During Supervision
After the administration of the Primary Risk Assessment and
for-
mulation of the Intervention Plan, participating probation
officers
tape-recorded their first ‘‘supervision’’ meeting with the
offender.
Inter-rater reliability was conducted with two research
assistants
who coded 108 variables from 25 audiotapes independently of
each

other. The median kappa was .94 and ranged from .48 to 1.0.
The intake interviews ranged from five minutes and 50 seconds
to
47 minutes and 40 seconds in length. The average first
supervision
interview lasted 22 minutes and 34 seconds. Although the
interviews
were not lengthy, one must be reminded that probation officers
are
involved in other activities related to the client (e.g., meeting
family
members, calling employers, etc.).
& Table 5: Discussions of Needs Identified in the Primary Risk
Assessment at First Supervision Session
Need
Adult (n ¼ 72) Youth (n ¼ 31)
#Identified Discussed (%) #Identified Discussed (%)
Accommodation 21 12 (57.1) 15 11 (73.3)
Employment 28 16 (57.1) NA NA
Substance Abuse 32 25 (78.1) 29 19 (65.5)
Attitude 34 3 (8.8) NA NA
Family=Marital 40 36 (90.0) 30 23 (76.7)
Financial 26 9 (34.6) NA NA
Emotional 17 11 (64.7) 14 2 (14.3)

Peer Problems 38 8 (21.1) 30 13 (43.3)
Academic=Vocational 7 0.0 (0.0) 31 22 (71.0)
Note: NA ¼ Not applicable (not assessed in Youth PRA).
Table 5 summarizes the findings for the first audio taped inter-
views with a focus on the criminogenic needs identified by the
PRA.
That is, the results shown in Table 5 are based on offenders
having
a need identified by the PRA and discussions around it. For
youth,
a need was identified if the subcomponent score was greater
than
or equal to one. Choosing a subcomponent score of 1 or more is
a
low threshold for defining a criminogenic need. For example,
scoring
positively on only one of nine items on the Substance Abuse
subcom-
ponent would define a criminogenic need. However, this liberal
assessment of a criminogenic need maximized the number of
cases
for our small group of young offenders.
Once again, to facilitate reading Table 5, accommodation is
used
as an illustration. Twenty-one adult offenders (out of 72
possible
cases) had accommodation identified as problematic by the
PRA.

In 12 or 57.1 percent of these cases the probation officer and
pro-
bationer discussed the difficulties surrounding inadequate living
con-
ditions. Likewise, 15 (of 31) young offenders had
accommodation
problems as measured by the youth PRA. Eleven cases (73.3%)
evi-
denced audio taped discussions around this topic. For both
adults
and young offenders, family=marital issues were the most
frequently
discussed criminogenic need. This was followed by substance
abuse
for adults (78.1%) and accommodation for youth (73.3%).
Some criminogenic need areas received relatively little
attention.
For example, employment difficulties, a problem area for 28 of
72
(38.9%) of adult probationers, were discussed in 57.1% of
cases.
Two of the major risk factors in criminal behavior, antisocial
attitudes and criminal peers, were evident for approximately
half of
adult probationers. However, these need areas were infrequently
discussed (8.8% and 21.1% respectively). Similarly for youth,
almost
all (30 of 31) had peer problems but discussions around
negative peer
influence accounted for less than half of the cases (43.3%).
Influencing Offenders in Interpersonal Relationships
The most direct ways of influencing the behavior of individuals
is

to reward desirable behavior and punish or ignore undesirable
beha-
vior. However, the impact of interpersonal rewards and
punishment
is moderated by the relationship between the person who is
trying
Bonta et al. 261
to effect change and the individual whose behavior is a target
for
change. Within the case management context, it is important for
the probation officer to establish a positive, warm and
respectful
relationship with the client in order for the probationer to be
willing
to listen to what the probation officer has to say and to follow
his
or her advice. The audiotapes were coded for seven indicators
of posi-
tive interpersonal skills. The seven indicators were: 1) empathy,
2)
openness, 3) warmth, 4) firmness, 5) prompting and
encouragement,
6) enthusiasm, and 7) humor.
The assessment of relationship factors from the audiotapes is
presented in Table 6. The most common indicator of a positive
relationship was evident in the high frequency of prompting and
encouraging behavior from the probation officer. Expressions of
openness and warmth, occurring in approximately half of the
inter-
views, were the next most frequent behaviors that were
observed. It

appeared that these behaviors were part of an individual’s
interperso-
nal style and that they changed little with time. All other
indicators of
relationship skills occurred less frequently and some changed
with
time. Empathic statements (e.g., paraphrasing, reflection of
feelings,
etc.) decreased over the six-month period as did firm but fair
state-
ments (i.e., setting appropriate limits for the probationer). On
the
other hand, enthusiasm and humor increased over time. None of
these factors were related to recidivism.
& Table 6: Relationship Factors over Time (Audiotape) (%)
Relationship Factor
Audiotape
1st 2nd 3rd
Empathy 48.5 35.2 22.2
Openness 54.4 66.7 59.3
Warmth 45.6 40.7 48.1
Firmness 45.6 53.7 24.1
Enthusiastic 27.2 27.8 44.4
Prompting and encouragement 97.1 94.4 96.3
Humour 30.1 27.8 42.6

Note: For the first audiotape, n ¼ 103. For the second and third
audiotape, n ¼ 54.
Also noteworthy was the lack of evidence of behaviors that
could
‘‘turn off’’ the probationer. Coders were attentive to indicators
of unfriendly, hostile behavior from the probation officer (e.g.,
‘‘Don’t interrupt me, can’t you see I’m talking’’) or evidence of
bore-
dom (e.g., ‘‘I don’t find this very interesting’’). From our
review of
211 audiotapes over the three time frames, only seven instances
of
such behavior were noted.
Behavioral interventions are one of the major characteristics
of effective treatment with offenders. Behavioral interventions
include the modeling of desired behavior, opportunities to
practice
the behavior, providing appropriate feedback (i.e., the
systematic
reinforcement of prosocial behaviors and discouragement of
anti-
social behaviors), teaching relapse prevention and the
assignment
of behavioral homework. The degree to which probation officers
engaged in these practices was assessed from the audiotapes.
In Table 7 the prevalence of the major indicators of behavioral
intervention is presented. Prosocial reinforcement by the
probation
officers was the most frequently used method of influencing

change
in their clients. That is, when an offender reported engaging in a
pro-
social activity (e.g., spent the day searching for work), the
officer
recognized this as desirable and expressed approval.
Interestingly,
probation officers were not very responsive to antisocial
expressions
from their clients (antisocial discouragement was noted in
18.5% to
25.9% of the audiotapes). When the probationer reported an
& Table 7: Directive Factors over Time (Audiotape) (%)
Factor
Audiotape
1st 2nd 3rd
Prosocial Modeling 16.5 14.8 14.8
Practice 22.3 24.1 24.1
Prosocial Reinforcement 68.0 55.6 72.2
Antisocial Discouragement 20.4 25.9 18.5
Relapse Prevention 16.5 25.9 29.6
Homework Assignment 28.2 27.8 24.1
Note: For the first audiotape, n ¼ 103. For the second and third
audiotape, n ¼ 54.
Bonta et al. 263

antisocial activity or expressed an antisocial attitude, the
probation
officer did not note this nor challenge the behavior or attitude.
Other aspects of behavioral intervention (i.e., prosocial
modeling,
practice, relapse prevention and the assignment of tasks or
‘‘home-
work’’) occurred in a minority of the audiotapes. Once again,
this
behavior did not change over time–if probation officers were
not
using behavioral techniques to bring about change near the
beginning
of supervision then they were not doing it six months later.
Only
discussions around relapse prevention showed an increase but
only
from the first to the third and six-month audiotapes.
As with our analysis of the relationship factors, probation
officers
were found not to engage in behaviors that were
counterproductive
to prosocial change in the offender. Only six instances of the
pro-
bation officer modeling antisocial behavior (e.g., rationalizes
crime)
and three examples of reinforcing antisocial behavior were
found
among the audiotapes. Again, the specific directive factors did
not
predict recidivism.

As already alluded to, some of the analyses with respect to
recidi-
vism found no significant results. However, there were a few
impor-
tant exceptions. First, the amount of time devoted to dealing
with a
criminogenic need predicted recidivism (Table 8). The more
time
spent dealing with a criminogenic need, the lower the
recidivism.
Although the results shown in Table 8 appear impressive, we
also
found that only one-third of probation officers spent a
significant
amount of time focused on a few criminogenic needs in their
super-
vision sessions. In fact, 67% of the probation officers dealt with
an
average 5.2 different criminogenic needs during a supervision
session.
Considering that the average session was 22 minutes, to spend a
few
minutes covering a range of criminogenic needs was not
productive.
& Table 8: Time Devoted to Discussions of a Criminogenic
Need and Recidivism
Time Spent discussing Criminogenic Need Percent Recidivated
0 to 19 minutes 49
20 to 39 minutes 36
More than 40 minutes 3

We found that the more topics covered during a session, the
higher
the recidivism rate (r ¼ .19, p < .05).
The other additional finding of note was that the more time that
the probation officer spent discussing the conditions of
probation,
the higher the recidivism rate. In sessions where less than 15
minutes
was spent discussing the probation conditions, the recidivism
rate,
after adjusting for risk, was 18.9% but the rate was 42.3% when
more
that 15 minutes was devoted to this topic.
DISCUSSION
The overall purpose of this study was to better understand how
probation officers use risk-needs assessments to formulate their
case
plans and how they manage their cases. This study provided a
snap-
shot of present practices. That having been said, the study was
not
without methodological limitations and difficulties. We did not
have
the participation that we were hoping for, leaving us with
relatively
few cases on which to base our findings. The small sample of
youth
cases prevented some analyses and the lack of participation by

42 probation officers raised the possibility that the results
would
not generalize. However, a comparison of participating and non-
participating probation officers and probationer files revealed
few
differences leading us to cautiously conclude that the findings
are rep-
resentative of case management practice in Manitoba
community
corrections during the period of study.
Over the course of the first three months, probation officers met
with their offenders an average of 4.3 times. There are few
reports
in the literature of how often probation officers have face-to-
face
contacts with their clients. Latessa (1987) found an average of
1.6
contacts per month in Ohio probation, approximately the same
num-
ber that we found in Manitoba probation. This number of
contacts
may be appropriate for low risk offenders but the average of 5.7
con-
tacts over three months may be inadequate for high risk
offenders.
From a treatment perspective, the recommendation has been that
high risk offenders require at least 100 hours (Lipsey, 1995) and
some
have called for 300 hours of treatment (Bourgon & Armstrong,
2005).
The average length of a session between the probation officer
and
the probationer was slightly more than 22 minutes. These two

Bonta et al. 265
findings (number of contacts and length of session) raise the
question as to whether or not probation supervision can be
effective
with this amount of time spent with probationers. However, we
need to keep in mind that probation officers are involved in
other
activities (e.g., making referrals, meeting with collaterals) and
not
all of their time is spent in direct contact with their clients.
Jester
(1990) estimated that only 30 to 40 percent of a
probation=parole
officer’s time is spent in direct contact with offenders.
However,
Trotter (1996) contends that a short period of time may be suf-
ficient if that time is properly used. In his study, probation
officers
were trained in prosocial modeling and problem-solving and the
probationers receiving supervision from the trained probation
offi-
cers demonstrated a recidivism rate of 46% while offenders
under
supervision by untrained probation officers had a recidivism
rate
of 64% (recidivism was measured at four years). The average
length
of session was less than 25 minutes.
The issue that arises from these findings is the need to identify
the
reasons why probation officers are not spending more time with
their

clients. The most obvious reason may be caseload. However,
caseload
size was not associated with either the number of contacts in the
first
three months or the length of the audio taped session. Another
reason
may be that probation officers are engaged in other activities
related
to supervision of the client such as meeting with family
members and
dealing with welfare agencies that place limits on the time they
can
spend directly with the probationer. Further research in this area
is
suggested.
The findings of the present study suggest a lack of follow
through
between the assessment and case management. Assessments are
com-
pleted according to policy but much of the information from the
assessment fails to make it into the Intervention Plan and even
less
is dealt with in the sessions. Harris and her colleagues (Harris,
Gingerich & Whittaker, 2004) also found poor compliance
between
the assessment and the action plan in a sample of probation
officers
in the United States. One problem may be the physical
separation of
the assessment instrument from the Intervention Plan (they are
two
separate forms). A possible solution is to integrate the
assessment
with the case plan. The Level of Service=Case Management
Inventory

(LS=CMI; Andrews, Bonta & Wormith, 2004) does just this and
Manitoba Corrections has adopted this instrument to address the
shortcoming posed by the PRA and the lack of integration with
the
Intervention Plan.
Analyses of the audiotapes showed that identified criminogenic
needs were not discussed in the majority of cases. These results
may not be all that surprising given that actions to address
offender
needs were loosely formulated in the Intervention Plan. After
all, if
the Intervention Plan does not build on the PRA assessment of
needs,
then how can we expect probation officers to discuss the
problems
of probationers in their sessions? Based on the offender
rehabilita-
tion literature, the first step in behavioral change is to identify
and
address criminogenic needs. In cases where criminogenic needs
were
the focus of supervision, decreases in offender recidivism were
found.
It appears that educating and training probation officers to
target
their discussions on the criminogenic needs of those they
supervise
would be an important step in improving probation
effectiveness.

Establishing a good relationship with the offender and then
providing the offender with structured direction are key factors
to
reducing recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2006). Upon examining
the
audio taped interviews we found instances of probation officers
demonstrating warmth, openness, encouragement and other
indica-
tors of a positive relationship but in only half of the audiotapes.
The relationship factors did not predict recidivism but this is
not
surprising. Relationship oriented therapies alone do not reduce
recidivism; structuring skills are also needed.
Along the structuring and directive dimensions of interpersonal
influence we found, as with relationship skills, that probation
officers
could do more. They were quite good in praising and rewarding
offenders when they said something prosocial but missed
opportu-
nities to alter antisocial expressions through appropriate
discourage-
ment. Other skills (e.g., prosocial modeling, practice) that could
be
very effective in changing offender behavior were evident in a
minority of audio taped interviews. The low base rate may
explain
why these factors were unrelated to recidivism.
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analytic findings presented earlier on the
effectiveness
of community supervision showed that supervision was
unrelated

Bonta et al. 267
to recidivism. This is a disturbing finding in a public climate
where
the mood is to be tough on offenders. If community supervision
does
not ‘‘work’’ in reducing recidivism then is cost-savings the only
rea-
son to maintain forms of community supervision? We think not.
We suspect that our findings regarding the low levels of
adherence
to the Risk and Need principles and the sparse use of behavioral
tech-
niques of influence is not limited to just the jurisdiction that we
stud-
ied but may be common to many probation and parole agencies.
Problems with the integrity of service delivery within
corrections have
been noted by others (e.g., Harris et al., 2004) and it has been
especially problematic when trying to apply the principles of
Risk,
Need and Responsivity (Andrews, 2006; Lowenkamp, Latessa &
Holsinger, 2006; Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Smith, 2006). From
our
findings, it is clear that probation officers can learn to do more
and to do it better. Trotter (1996;1999) has demonstrated that
train-
ing in prosocial modeling and other structuring techniques can
make
a difference and the beneficiaries of such training efforts will
be the
staff, the offenders and the community.
REFERENCES

Andrews, D. A. (2006). Enhancing adherence to Risk-Need-
Responsivity:
Making quality a matter of policy. Criminology and Public
Policy, 5, 595–602.
Andrews, D. A. & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal
conduct
(4th ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis=Mathew Bender.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification
for effective
rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and
Behavior,
17, 19–52.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, S. J. (2004). The level
of service=case
management inventory (LS=CMI): User’s manual. Toronto,
Ontario:
Multi-Health Systems.
Andrews, D. A. & Kiessling, J. J. (1980). Program structure and
effective
correctional practice: A summary of CaVic research. In R. Ross
&
P. Gendreau (Eds.), Effective correctional treatment (pp. 439–
463).
Toronto, Ontario: Butterworths.
Beattie, K. (2006). Adult correctional services in Canada,
2004=2005. Jursi-
tat, 26, 1–34.
Bonta, J., Parkinson, R., Pang, B., Barkwell, L., & Wallace-
Capretta, S.

(1994). The Revised Manitoba Classification System. Ottawa,
Ontario:
Solicitor General Canada.
Bourgon, G. & Armstrong, B. (2005). Transferring the
principles of effective
treatment into a ‘‘Real World’’ prison setting. Criminal Justice
and
Behavior, 32, 3–25.
Dowden, C. & Andrews, D. A. (2004). The importance of staff
practice in
delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta-analytic
review of core
correctional practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy
and
Comparative Criminology, 48, 203–214.
Glaze, L. E. & Palla, S. (2005). Probation and parole in the
United States,
2004. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, November, U.S.
Department
of Justice.
Harris, P. M., Gingerich, R., & Whittaker, T. K. (2004). The
‘‘effectiveness’’
of differential supervision. Crime and Delinquency, 50, 235–
271.
Healey, K. M. (1999). Case management in the criminal justice
system.
Research in action. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of

Justice.
Hendrick, D., & Farmer, L. (2002). Adult correctional services
in Canada,
2000=01. Juristat, 22(10), 1–24.
Hoge, R. D. & Andrews, D. A. (2002). Youth level of
service=case
management inventory: User’s manual. Toronto, Ontario: Multi-
Health
Systems.
Jester, J. (1990). Technologies of probation and parole. In D. E.
Duffee &
E. F. McGarrell (Eds.), Community corrections: A community
field
approach (pp. 123–164). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Latessa, E. J. (1987). The effectiveness of intensive supervision
with high-
risk probationers. In B. R. McCarthy (Ed.), Intermediate
punishments:
Intensive supervision, home confinement and electronic
surveillance
(pp. 99–112). Monsey, NY: Willow Tree.
Lipsey, M. W. (1995). What do we learn from 400 research
studies on
the effectiveness of treatment with juvenile delinquency. In J.
McGuire
(Ed.) What works: Reducing reoffending (pp. 63–78).
Chichester, UK:
Wiley.
Lipton, D., Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. (1975). The effectiveness
of cor-

rectional treatment: A survey of treatment evaluation studies.
New York:
Praeger.
Lösel, F. (1995). The efficacy of correctional treatment: A
review and
synthesis of meta-evaluations. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works:
Reduc-
ing reoffending (pp. 79–111). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. M. (2006).
The risk
principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676
offenders and 97
correctional programs? Crime and Delinquency, 52, 77–93.
Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does
correctional
program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the
principles
of effective interventions. Criminology and Public Policy, 5,
575–594.
Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. (1978). Save parole supervision.
Federal
Probation, 42, 23–27.
Bonta et al. 269
Taxman, F. S., Shepardson, E., & Bello, M. (2003). Reframing
supervision
with ‘‘what works’’ principles: An implementation guideline.
Paper
presented at the Annual conference of the International

Community
Corrections Association.
Trotter, C. (1996). The impact of different supervision practices
in
community corrections: Cause for optimism. Australian and
New Zealand
Journal of Criminology, 29, 1–18.
Trotter, C. (1999). Working with involuntary clients: A guide to
practice.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
AUTHORS’ NOTES
James Bonta, PhD, Tanya Rugge, PhD, Terri-Lynne Scott, MA,
Guy Bourgon,
PhD, and Annie K. Yessine, PhD, are all affiliated with Public
Safety Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
The research described in this report was conducted with the
support of staff from
Community Corrections (Manitoba) and we are indebted to their
assistance. The
views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect those of Public
Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada or Manitoba
Department of Justice
(Corrections).
Address correspondence to James Bonta, PhD, Public Safety and
Emergency
Preparedness Canada, 340 Laurier Ave. West, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada K1A 0P8
(E-mail: [email protected]).

I want from you to write a proposal based on my research that
focuses on Headquarters subsidiary relationships (see attached).
Please note that you should look to undertake qualitative
research with interviews preferably and you should focus on a
theory for your proposal, some suggestions might be the
attention based view of the multinational.
The Proposal - your research proposal should not be more than
2000 words (maximum) in length (excluding references).
Please follow the guidance below:
Title - the title should be concise and descriptive. For example,
the phrase, "An investigation of . . ." could be omitted. Often
titles are stated in terms of a functional relationship, because
such titles clearly indicate the independent and dependent
variables. However, if possible, think of an informative but
catchy title. An effective title not only pricks the reader's
interest, but also predisposes him/her favourably towards the
proposal.
Abstract - it is a brief summary of approximately 300 words. It
should include the research question, the rationale for the study,
the hypothesis (if any), the method. Descriptions of the method
may include the design, procedures, the sample or a range of
partcipants and any instruments that will be used.
Other key components are:
· The Introduction - A description of the research problem
(background / context aims and objectives)
· The Literature Review - A review of literature relevant to the
research problem (theoretical or conceptual framework)
· Research Questions - Key Research questions arising from the
literature review
· Research Methods - A description of the proposed research
methodology (qualitative, quantitative etc.)

· Common Mistakes
· Time Schedule and Review - (a step by step guide to the
stages of the research over the time period)
Aims and Objectives
Aims are broad statements of desired outcomes or the general
intentions of the research, which 'paint the picture' of your
research proposal – they:
· emphasize what is to be accomplished, not how it is to be
accomplished
· address the long-term project outcomes, i.e. they should
reflect the aspirations and expectations of the research topic
Objectives are the steps you are going to take to answer your
research questions or a specific list of tasks needed to
accomplish the goals of the project - they:
· emphasize how aims are to be accomplished
· must be highly focused and feasible
· address the more immediate project outcomes
· make accurate use of concepts and be sensible and precisely
described
· are usually numbered so that each objective reads as an
'individual' statement to convey your intention
The Introduction
The main purpose of the introduction is to provide the necessary
background or context for your research problem. How to frame
the research problem is perhaps the biggest problem in proposal
writing. If the research problem is framed in the context of a
general, rambling literature review, then the research question
may appear trivial and uninteresting. However, if the same
question is placed in the context of a very focused and current
research area, its significance will become evident.
Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules on how to frame
your research question just as there is no prescription on how to
write an interesting and informative opening paragraph. A lot
depends on your creativity, your ability to think clearly and the
depth of your understanding of problem areas. However, try to
place your research question in the context of either a current

"hot" area, or an older area that remains viable. Secondly, you
need to provide a brief but appropriate historical backdrop.
Thirdly, provide the contemporary context in which your
proposed research question occupies the central stage. Finally,
identify "key writers" and refer to the most relevant and
representative publications. In short, try to paint your research
question in broad brushes and at the same time bring out its
significance.
The introduction typically begins with a general statement of
the problem area, with a focus on a specific research problem,
to be followed by the rationale or justification for the proposed
study. The introduction generally covers the following
elements:
1. State the research problem, which is often referred to as the
purpose of the study.
2. Provide the context and set the stage for your research
question in such a way as to show its necessity and importance.
3. Present the rationale of your proposed study and clearly
indicate why it is worth doing.
4. Briefly describe the major issues and sub-problems to be
addressed by your research.
5. Identify the key independent and dependent variables of your
experiment. Alternatively, specify the phenomenon you want to
study.
6. State your hypothesis or theory, if any. For exploratory or
phenomenological research, you may not have any hypotheses.
(Please do not confuse the hypothesis with the statistical null
hypothesis.)
7. Set the delimitation or boundaries of your proposed research
in order to provide a clear focus.
8. Define key concepts where appropriate
Literature Review
Sometimes the literature review is incorporated into the
introduction section. However, most reviewers will prefer a
separate section, which allows a more thorough review of the
literature.

The literature review serves several important functions:
1. Ensures that you are not "reinventing the wheel".
2. Gives credits to those who have laid the groundwork for your
research.
3. Demonstrates your knowledge of the research problem.
4. Demonstrates your understanding of the theoretical and
research issues related to your research question.
5. Shows your ability to critically evaluate relevant literature
information.
6. Indicates your ability to integrate and synthesize the existing
literature.
7. Provides new theoretical insights or develops a new model as
the conceptual framework for your research.
8. Convinces your reader that your proposed research will make
a significant and substantial contribution to the literature (i.e.,
resolving an important theoretical issue or filling a major gap in
the literature).
Most students' literature reviews suffer from the following
problems:
· Lacking organization and structure
· Lacking focus, unity and coherence
· Being repetitive and verbose
· Failing to cite influential papers
· Failing to keep up with recent developments
· Failing to critically evaluate cited papers
· Citing irrelevant or trivial references
· Depending too much on secondary sources
Your scholarship and research competence will be questioned if
any of the above applies to your proposal.
There are different ways to organize your literature review.
Make use of subheadings to bring order and coherence to your
review. It is also helpful to keep in mind that you are telling a
story to an audience. Try to tell it in a stimulating and engaging
manner. Do not bore them, because it may lead to rejection of
your worthy proposal.
Examples - the research topic is "the History of Mental Illness

in Natal in the period up to 1945":
A Successful Literature Review
"This study will draw on diverse approaches to the history of
psychiatry, and to the origins of segregation in southern Africa.
Histories of psychiatry and psychology have shown that,
although having a probable partial biochemical basis, the
criteria for the definition of mental illness have differed across
time and place. (Brin, 2000) The history of science and
medicine in both Europe and in the colonial order provide a
means for exploring the role of biomedicine (including
psychiatry) in contributing to racial, class, and sexual
discrimination (Brown,2008). Feminist analyses of the
centrality of gender, and critiques of psychiatry and
psychology, will be a key axis around which this study is
formed. For example, while men of all races formed the
majority of inmates at the Natal Government Asylum in
nineteenth century Natal, women were deemed to be particularly
prone to particular forms of mental illness (Knowles, 2001;
Keogh, 2004)
Post-structuralist and post-modernist approaches to the
construction and representation of identities, and to the
articulation of power, will provide a means of deconstructing
the 'texts' and discourses which are an important part of this
study. In particular, the works of Michel Foucault (1967) on
mental illness, asylums, and the archaeology of knowledge will
be considered. I recognise, however, that the application of
Foucault's ideas in the African context is problematic (Miller,
1993; Friedman,2003) Post- colonialism's concern with the
'subaltern' and the suppression of 'subaltern voices' will be
reflected in attempts to 'hear the voices' of the institutionalized
(Miller,1993)."
An Unsuccessful Literature Review
"Foucault's works looked at mental illness, asylums, and the
archaeology of knowledge. Roy Porter’s and Edward Shorter's
histories of psychiatry and psychology show that definitions of
mental illness have differed across time and place. Ernst and

Swartz record that under colonialism, science and medicine
contributed to racial, class, and sexual discrimination. Feminist
writers Chesler and Showalter who have written on psychiatry
will be important for this study. Post-structuralist and post-
modernist approaches to the construction and representation of
identities will be used. Post-colonialism's concern with the
'subaltern' and the suppression of 'subaltern voices' will be
significant."
Research Questions
Your research question[s] is a critical part of your research
proposal - it defines the proposal, it guides your arguments and
inquiry, and it provokes the interests of the reviewer. If your
question does not work well, no matter how strong the rest of
the proposal, the proposal is unlikely to be successful. Because
of this, it is common to spend more time on the researching,
conceptualizing and forming of each individual word of the
research question than on any other part of the proposal.
To write a strong research question you will need time. Step
away from your computer; consider what drew you to your
topic. Questions that clearly demonstrate their relevance to
society, a social group, or scholarly literature and debates are
likely to be given more weight by reviewers: Research questions
need to be clearly “doable.” One of the most common rationales
for rejecting proposals is that the question is simply too
expansive (or expensive) to be carried out by the applicant.
Remember that writing a research question is an iterative
process and such concerns need to be carefully considered in
your research design and budget.
Research Methods
The methods section is very important because it tells our
Research Committee how you plan to tackle your research
problem. It will provide your work plan and describe the
activities necessary for the completion of your project. The
guiding principle for writing the Method section is that it
should contain sufficient information for the reader to
determine whether the methodology is sound. Some even argue

that a good proposal should contain sufficient details for
another qualified researcher to implement the study. You need
to demonstrate your knowledge of alternative methods and make
the case that your approach is the most appropriate and most
valid way to address your research question. Please clearly
identify the approach to be taken and justify the decision taken.
Students should demonstrate an understanding of qualitative and
quantitative research methods and clearly indicate how and
where these are best employed.
Common Mistakes
Here are some of the common mistakes you should look out for
when writing a research proposal:
1. Failure to provide the proper context to frame the research
question.
2. Failure to delimit the boundary conditions for your research.
3. Failure to cite landmark studies.
4. Failure to accurately present the theoretical and empirical
contributions by other researchers.
5. Failure to stay focused on the research question.
6. Failure to develop a coherent and persuasive argument for the
proposed research.
7. Too much detail on minor issues, but not enough detail on
major issues.
8. Too much rambling — going "all over the map" without a
clear sense of direction. (The best proposals move forward with
ease and grace like a seamless river.)
9. Too many citation lapses and incorrect references.
10. Too long or too short- You MUST keep to the word limit.
11. Failure to reference appropriately.
12. Sloppy writing.
Time Schedule and Review
Time schedule - Provide a detailed guide as to how you will
complete the work within the time specified. A PhD normally
takes 3 years (full time) and 5 years (part time)
Review - Once complete, review your proposal and application
and think about the following questions:

· Have I checked the School website and is the proposal in an
area that staff in the school can supervise?
· Is it written clearly and concisely and is there evidence of
critical evaluation?
· Does the proposal demonstrate knowledge and understanding
of the main theoretical and research debates in the field?
· Does the proposal focus on a research area that is significant
and relevant to the field? - will it make a valuable contribution
to knowledge?
· Is there a clear rationale for the study?
· Are the research objectives and research questions arising
from the literature clearly set out?
· Does the proposal indicate an appreciation of the research
process?
· Does the proposal demonstrate an understanding of research
methods and research approaches and is it clear that the
research methods identified are appropriate to the research
question identified?
· Can the proposed programme of research be studied to the
depth required to obtain the degree of PhD?
· Can the proposed programme of research be completed within
the time to be designated for it?
· Have I contacted my referees to confirm that they are willing
to provide a reference?
Journal of World Business 51 (2016) 612–627
The legitimacy of subsidiary issue selling: Balancing positive &
negative
attention from corporate headquarters
Kieran M. Conroya, David G. Collingsb,*
a Queen’s Management School, Queen’s University Belfast,
Riddel Hall, 185 Stranmillis Road, Belfast, Northern Ireland

BT9 5EE, United Kingdom
b Leadership & Talent Institute, DCU Business School, Dublin
City University, Glasnevin, Dublin 9, Ireland
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history:
Received 30 March 2015
Received in revised form 25 March 2016
Accepted 25 March 2016
Available online 31 March 2016
Keywords:
Issue selling
Negative attention
Positive attention
Subsidiary legitimacy
CHQ-subsidiary relations
MNE
A B S T R A C T
We consider how in issue selling, subsidiaries draw on different
forms of legitimacy to attract corporate
headquarters’ (CHQ) positive attention and minimise negative
CHQ attention. Through case study
evidence, we find that directing CHQ attention to subsidiary
issues needs to be executed as a balancing
act through forms of subsidiary legitimacy, namely; the
personal legitimacy of key individuals at the
subsidiary; consequential legitimacy vis-à-vis peer subsidiaries;
and linkage legitimacy in the local
environment. We develop a typology of subsidiary issue-selling
roles and illustrate how negative CHQ
attention results from a failure to legitimise issue selling.

ã 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of World Business
journal homepa ge: www.elsevier.com/locate/jwb
1. Introduction
The multinational enterprise (MNE) is increasingly portrayed as
an internal market system where intense intra-firm competition
between subsidiaries is inevitable (Birkinshaw & Lingblad,
2005;
Chen, Chen, & Ku, 2011; Luo, 2005). The structure of the
corporate
headquarters (CHQ)-subsidiary relationship has evolved from a
focus on formal bureaucratic control to an informal
differentiated
network (Kostova, Marano, & Tallman, 2016; Kunisch, Markus,
&
Ambos, 2014). Subsidiaries are often encouraged to compete for
resources from their CHQ, but arguably the most valuable and
limited of these resources is the way the CHQ’s ‘attention’ is
devolved across the MNE (Ambos, Andersson, & Birkinshaw,
2010;
Bouquet & Birkinshaw, 2008a; Bouquet, Birkinshaw, &
Barsoux,
2016). The fight for CHQ attention has been well documented in
recent studies. These studies have largely focused on how
subsidiaries attract ‘positive’ attention in the form of material
resources from CHQ and how this subsequently contributes to
the
performance of the subsidiary’s role over time (Ambos &
Birkinshaw, 2010; Bouquet, Barsoux, & Orly, 2015). Positive
attention is generally regarded as a forward looking and value
enhancing corporate resource for subsidiaries, and research has

shown that it can be a prerequisite to developing subsidiary
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.M. Conroy),
[email protected]
(D.G. Collings).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2016.03.002
1090-9516/ã 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
bargaining power and autonomy within the MNE (Bouquet &
Birkinshaw, 2009).
Attention in the MNE can be conceptualised as the expression
of
a zero-sum relationship between the CHQ and the subsidiary in
that attention to one subsidiary subsequently means less
attention
to others (Ambos & Birkinshaw, 2010; Birkinshaw, Bouquet, &
Ambos, 2007). Within this ‘attention market’ subsidiaries ulti-
mately attempt to redirect or buffer CHQ’s attention to
emerging
trends or developments in their local environments (Bouquet &
Birkinshaw, 2008a, 2009; Ocasio, 2011). We draw on issue-
selling
arguments as a lens to investigate how subsidiaries direct CHQ
attention to key issues at the subsidiary level. Directing
attention
to critical issues can be a risky endeavour for subsidiaries as it
is
fundamentally an entrepreneurial process where subsidiaries
promote unique and unfamiliar ideas (Dutton & Ashford, 1993;
Dutton & Jackson, 1987). Competition for positive CHQ
attention
may cause the subsidiary to take risks in promoting issues that
are
misaligned with the mandate initially set out by CHQ. The
subsidiary’s behaviour may be misconstrued by CHQ as self-

serving or disingenuous, largely due to CHQ’s limited
knowledge of
these issues a-priori (Bouquet & Birkinshaw, 2008a). Attention
biases such as bounded rationality and ethnocentrism can also
generate suspicion and even hostility from CHQ, particularly if
issues have come from unfamiliar sources (Barner-Rasmussen,
Piekkari, Scott-Kennel, & Welch, 2010; Birkinshaw &
Ridderstrale,
1999; Bouquet et al., 2016). Over time issue selling may result
in
what we term ‘negative’ CHQ attention, which we define as
direct
or indirect interventions from CHQ that destroy value at the
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.jwb.2016.0
3.002&domain=pdf
mailto:
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10909516
www.elsevier.com/locate/jwb
K.M. Conroy, D.G. Collings / Journal of World Business 51
(2016) 612–627 613
subsidiary level. Negative attention may be difficult to
differentiate
from CHQ control or monitoring (Bouquet & Birkinshaw,
2008a)
but it is essentially an undesirable outcome for subsidiaries.
However, to date, the literature on theories of attention within
the
MNE focuses almost exclusively on positive CHQ attention
(Ambos
& Birkinshaw, 2010; Birkinshaw et al., 2007; Ocasio, 2011),

largely
ignoring the ‘darker side’ of negative CHQ attention. Directing
positive CHQ attention can be a double-edged sword, as it risks
attracting negative CHQ attention, which can lead to the
destruction of the subsidiary’s role. This clearly represents a
key
risk for subsidiary managers and heretofore the academic
literature has largely been silent in terms of helping them
understand the dynamic. Considering how subsidiaries balance
this process is a key problem that our study aims to explore.
The current paper argues that successful issue selling is
predicated on a set of legitimating forms specific to the
subsidiary.
Research generally focused on organisational legitimacy has
shown that it can be used for both attracting valuable resources
(Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002; Zott & Huy, 2007) and combating
an
unfavourable image (Suchman, 1995). To date, research has
largely
neglected the role of legitimacy at the subsidiary level as a
means
to understand the subsidiary relationship with CHQ. We argue
that
subsidiaries have to work hard to legitimise key issues, which
portrays them as committed corporate citizens playing by the
rules
of the corporate game. Further, it is essential that these issues
are
sold in a way that ensures their alignment with the corporate
agenda. Our paper addresses this problem by investigating how
subsidiaries use different forms of legitimacy to direct positive
CHQ attention to key issues while simultaneously limiting or
minimising negative CHQ attention.
We identify three specific forms of subsidiary legitimacy and

illuminate how each of these attracts positive CHQ attention.
The
particular forms of subsidiary legitimacy we identify are the
personal legitimacy of key individuals at the subsidiary
(support-
ive attention), consequential legitimacy vis-à-vis peer
subsidiaries
(relative attention) and linkage legitimacy from the subsidiary’s
local environment (visible attention). Our research begins to fill
the
void in terms of empirical work on negative CHQ attention by
illustrating how subsidiaries that do not align their issue-selling
endeavours with these particular forms of legitimacy ultimately
attracted negative attention from CHQ. In so doing, we also
develop
a typology of subsidiary issue-selling roles that explains how
the
level of legitimacy a subsidiary has impacts both the quality and
quantity of attention it receives from CHQ. These concerns are
critical, as positive CHQ attention can be central to maintaining
the
development of a subsidiary’s influential position within the
MNE.
Equally, negative CHQ attention may threaten the subsidiary’s
relationship with key corporate decision makers and ultimately
limit its opportunities in attaining future corporate investment.
Indeed, negative CHQ attention may ultimately destroy value at
the
subsidiary level and potentially to the MNE as a whole. Hence,
these concerns are relevant for both corporate executives and
subsidiary managers in enhancing the efficient management and
allocation of resources across the MNE network.
Drawing on and contributing to two distinct but interrelated
fields of work, namely � subsidiary issue selling (Balogun,
Jarabowski, & Vaara, 2011; Dutton & Ashford, 1993; Ling,

Floyd,
& Baldridge, 2005) and organisational legitimacy—(Bitekine,
2011;
Suchman, 1995; Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002; Zott & Huy, 2007)
we
contribute to the attention oriented perspective on the MNE
(Ambos & Birkinshaw, 2010; Birkinshaw, Brannen, & Tung,
2011;
Bouquet & Birkinshaw, 2008a; Bouquet et al., 2016; Ocasio,
2011)
by exhibiting legitimacy as a key determinant for attracting and
capturing positive CHQ attention, while concomitantly
minimising
negative CHQ attention. The paper is structured as follows; the
next section positions the current study within the literature on
CHQ attention before outlining subsidiary issue selling and
legitimacy in the MNE. The second section details the
qualitative
exploratory methodology of this study. Thirdly, we present the
empirical findings and finally, we discuss the findings and their
theoretical and practical implications.
2. Attention from corporate headquarters
2.1. Positive CHQ attention
Studies that examine attention in the MNE primarily consider
positive CHQ attention, defined as the extent to which CHQ
recognises and gives credit to the subsidiary for its contribution
to
the MNE (Bouquet & Birkinshaw, 2008a). Positive attention is
generally regarded as a valuable resource that is challenging for
subsidiaries to attain, but equally as complex for CHQ to
allocate
(Bouquet & Birkinshaw, 2009). Positive CHQ attention may
unfold

in three ways; ‘supportive’, through the provision of resources
to
support subsidiary development; ‘relative’ vis-à-vis peer
subsidiaries, or ‘visible’ through the explicit recognition of the
subsidiary from CHQ in the media (Bouquet & Birkinshaw,
2008a).
Positive attention allows the subsidiary to stay connected with
headquarters (supportive attention), raise their profile within
the
MNE (relative attention) and with external stakeholders (visible
attention) (Ambos & Birkinshaw, 2010). Supportive attention
may
be demonstrated through CHQ endorsement in the form of
further
investment, monetary bonuses for senior executives or mandate
extension for subsidiaries. Relative attention is the result of a
zero-
sum game in which subsidiaries compete to enhance their
position
internally in the MNE (Bouquet & Birkinshaw, 2008a).
However, we
add that the competition for attention needs to be balanced with
collaborative approaches, such as best practice sharing in order
for
the subsidiary to avoid being perceived as self-serving. We
argue
that visible attention is the recognition a subsidiary gains from
CHQ based on its external connections in the local environment.
Locally distinctive linkages can provide visibility for the
subsidiary
at CHQ that might not have been achievable based solely on the
subsidiary’s merit.
From the CHQ perspective, international attention is considered
a finite and perishable resource, where time and effort should be
effectively invested in external overseas communications,

internal
executive discussions, or global scanning activities in order to
assess opportunities and threats (Bouquet & Birkinshaw, 2009;
Weick & Sutcliffe, 2006). From the subsidiary perspective,
extant
research has foregrounded the importance of a subsidiary’s
structural characteristics, such as the strategic role or mandate,
in attracting positive CHQ attention (Birkinshaw & Hood, 1998;
Delany, 2000; Mudambi, Pedersen, & Andersson, 2014;
O’Donnell,
2000; Reilly & Sharkey Scott, 2014). The significance of the
subsidiary’s strategic location (Cantwell & Mudambi, 2011) or
an
enhanced global network (Andersson, Forsgren, & Holm, 2007)
for
example can add ‘weight’ to the subsidiary’s attention attracting
efforts (Birkinshaw et al., 2007; Bouquet & Birkinshaw, 2008a).
Studies also consider the way subsidiaries may use subtle
relational approaches to attract attention such as profile
building
(Barsoux & Bouquet, 2013), initiative taking (Ambos et al.,
2010;
Schmid, Dzedek, & Lehrer, 2014) or micro-political strategies
(Geppert & Dorrenbacher, 2014), to ‘vocalise’ the subsidiary’s
achievements, depicting it as a valuable contributor the MNE
(Bouquet & Birkinshaw, 2008a).
2.2. Negative CHQ attention
CHQ attention is not always a desirable outcome for subsidiar-
ies. Current literature largely neglects exploring how
subsidiaries
can inadvertently attract unwanted or negative attention from

614 K.M. Conroy, D.G. Collings / Journal of World Business 51
(2016) 612–627
CHQ (Bouquet & Birkinshaw, 2008a). We define negative CHQ
attention as direct or indirect interventions from CHQ that
destroy
value at the subsidiary level. Negative attention has the
potential to
suffocate or even disempower the subsidiary over time (Bouquet
&
Birkinshaw, 2008a; Bouquet et al., 2015) and is generally
characterised by excessive CHQ intervention in subsidiary
activi-
ties. We argue that intervention may occur directly or
indirectly.
‘Direct’ CHQ intervention may result in increased monitoring
(Taggart, 1997), expatriate deployment (Plourde, Parker, &
Schann,
2014) or even mandate removal (Dorrenbacher & Gammelgaard,
2010). Resistance and scepticism towards the subsidiary, which
can lead to the dismissal of future proposals, also represent a
direct
form of negative CHQ attention. These direct forms of negative
attention resemble attempts from CHQ to control the subsidiary,
as
CHQ may believe the subsidiary’s behaviour is subversive and
not
aligned with the overall strategic agenda of the MNE. However,
we
argue that negative CHQ attention can also be ‘indirect’, where
the
CHQ is actively trying to support � not control � the
subsidiary and
may have good intentions in intervening. Bouquet and
Birkinshaw
(2009) observe that as CHQ devotes further attention to
successful

subsidiaries, corporate executives may develop a desire for
additional information and overcommit themselves to certain
issues. For example, CHQ may intervene excessively in
prosperous
early stage projects and request too much information or
undertake too many visits. This may result in CHQ
‘hyperattention’,
and prevent subsidiaries from achieving higher performance
levels
due to a drain on time (Bouquet et al., 2015). Indirect negative
attention can therefore inadvertently destroy value in successful
subsidiaries, even though the CHQ may be attempting to add
value.
Research also confirms that the CHQ’s ability to detect and
interpret the quality of a given subsidiary issue is limited and
largely inadequate (Ambos & Mahnke, 2010; Bouquet & Birkin-
shaw, 2009; Dellestrand, 2011). Attention biases at CHQ in the
form
of bounded rationality and ethnocentrism may be drivers of
negative attention and may cause the CHQ to act with
ignorance,
destroying the potential value of an issue (Birkinshaw et al.,
2007;
Bouquet et al., 2016; Ciabuschi, Forsgren, & Martin, 2011).
Additionally, subsidiaries are naturally subordinate within the
hierarchy of formal power, and the initial benefits of their
issues
are difficult for CHQ to determine a priori (Barsoux & Bouquet,
2013; Mudambi & Navarra, 2004; Taggart, 1997).
Other studies highlight a potential ‘double-edge’ to promoting
the success of an organisation. Managers face a ‘self-promoter’s
paradox’ by attracting unwanted or excessive attention, owing
to
the fact that they may have over promoted the success of the

organisation (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990). This suggests that
subsidiaries, which are over-aggressive in their attempts to
attract
positive attention from CHQ, may inadvertently be perceived as
self-serving or subversive and may attract negative attention.
Negative attention may also be differentiated from isolation or
indifference. Indifference or isolation from CHQ equates to low
levels of attention and can eventually lead to lower performance
levels from the subsidiary over time (Monteiro, Arvidsson, &
Birkinshaw, 2008). Ultimately, the prevailing issue for
subsidiaries
should not merely be about attracting CHQ attention, as many
past
studies have focused on, but rather, the quality and quantity of
attention.
2.3. Subsidiary issue selling
CHQ attention, either positive or negative, should be regarded
as the selective interpretation of key ‘issues’ which originate at
the
subsidiary level (Ambos & Birkinshaw, 2010). Despite this, the
application of issue-selling arguments in advancing the
attention
perspective of the MNE have largely been overlooked (Ansoff,
1980; Ocasio, 2011). Observed through the lens of impression
management, issue selling is an upward influencing technique
where subsidiaries act as ‘sellers’ in an internal market system
(Balogun et al., 2011; Dutton, Ashford, O’Neill, & Lawrence,
2001).
In this way, subsidiary managers conceive of, suggest or trigger
new ideas that executives may neither foresee nor attend to,
allowing lower level managers to shape the overall strategic
agenda of the MNE (Dutton & Ashford, 1993). Issues that are
considered strategic or valuable to the corporate agenda should
capture positive attention, as these constitute events, develop-

ments and opportunities that are viewed as having implications
for
the organisation’s performance (Ansoff, 1980; Dutton &
Jackson,
1987). Successful subsidiaries generally develop the capacity to
evaluate the MNE context before they decide to sell. Contextual
conditions such as CHQ support from previous interactions,
open-
mindedness and relationship quality provide ‘psychological
safety’
for the seller (Dutton, Ashford, Wierba, O’Neill, & Haye, 1997;
Dutton, Ashford, Lawrence, & Miner-Rubino, 2002). In
contrast,
downsizing, uncertainty and fear of negative consequences are
more likely to prevent selling activities (Dutton et al., 1997;
Ling
et al., 2005).
Research on issue selling has advanced our understanding of
how subsidiaries can use a variety of issue-selling ‘moves’
(Dutton
& Ashford 1993; Dutton et al., 2001). For example, ‘packaging’
or
revealing information on an issue to CHQ in a language they
can
understand, or ‘bundling’ with other related issues help ‘frame’
issues positively (Gammelgaard, 2009). An issue that is framed
as
strategic, urgent, threatening or uncertain to resolve is more
likely
to be attended to (Dutton & Ashford, 1993). A high degree of
strategic knowledge regarding the corporate agenda is valuable
in
framing issues in ways that would be perceived positively
(Dutton
et al., 2001). Subsidiaries that possess knowledge of the MNE’s

norms and goals are more likely to sell issues through private
channels (one-to-one meetings) or public mechanisms (staff
meetings, annual strategy events). Choosing whether to ‘go it
alone’ or solicit support may also affect how an issue is
endorsed.
Managers may sell issues both formally, through official tactics
such as scheduled presentations and reports, or informally,
through personal appeals, hallway discussions and behind the
scenes negotiations (Dutton & Ashford, 1993; Ling et al.,
2005).
However, the issue-selling process evolves over time, and
effective
moves at one point in time may become redundant later
(Howard-
Grenville, 2007). Effective issue selling is a temporary process
without a-priori successfully defined moves (Dutton et al.,
1997).
Therefore, repeated interactions assist managers to navigate the
attention market (Bouquet & Birkinshaw, 2009) by
experimenting
with new moves, learning about recent changes at CHQ and
acquiring more relevant capabilities (Howard-Grenville, 2007).
As suggested, directing positive CHQ attention to particular
issues may represent a departure from a subsidiary’s established
mandate, risking attraction of negative CHQ attention. CHQ
attempt to mitigate strategic ambiguity by directing positive
attention disproportionately to issues that are deemed legitimate
and in line with the corporate agenda while, concomitantly
directing negative attention to those issues that are not. We
therefore argue that subsidiaries need to focus on selling issues
that are perceived as legitimate and can do so by drawing on
specific forms of legitimacy at their disposal.
2.4. Legitimacy of subsidiary issue selling

Legitimacy is defined as a social perception of acceptance or
appropriateness indicating that the actions of an organisation
are
proper or apposite within a socially constructed system of
norms,
values and beliefs (Deephouse & Suchman, 2008; Suchman,
1995;
Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002). The ability of the MNE to achieve
and
maintain high levels of legitimacy is critical to accessing key
K.M. Conroy, D.G. Collings / Journal of World Business 51
(2016) 612–627 615
resources and survival (Kostova, Roth, & Dacin, 2008;
Rosenzweig
& Singh, 1991; Tregaskis, 2003; Westney, 1993). The literature
on
organisational legitimacy has documented that legitimacy is
anchored in a wide range of distinct but interrelated forms
(Bitekine, 2011; Suchman, 1995; Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002;
Zott &
Huy, 2007). Clearly identifying which dimensions of the organ-
isation’s activities, procedures, personnel, outcomes and
relation-
ships are being ‘judged’ is key for recognising the most
appropriate
forms of legitimacy in particular circumstances (Bitekine,
2011).
Despite this, we still know very little about how legitimacy is
managed internally at the CHQ-subsidiary interface. Scholars
call
for a more nuanced understanding of how legitimacy is garnered
or
leveraged in social and political interactions within the MNE

(Kostova et al., 2008). We draw insights from organisational
legitimacy (Bitekine, 2011; Kostova & Zaheer, 1999; Suchman,
1995; Zott & Huy, 2007) in arguing that the subsidiary’s
legitimacy
originates from three main sources or contexts in the MNE
(Birkinshaw & Hood, 1998). These contexts are the CHQ-
subsidiary
relationship, peer unit interactions and the local external
environment.
In the context of CHQ-subsidiary relationship, it is important to
examine the personal legitimacy of key individuals at the
subsidiary level, as this is poorly understood. These individuals
may use their legitimacy to attract supportive CHQ attention to
key
issues. According to Suchman (1995), personal legitimacy
involves
drive, conviction, or willingness to develop innovative ideas
and
approaches to interact with CHQ. Further, an individual’s
qualifications and certifications (for example from reputable
business schools) similar to those of senior managers also signal
personal legitimacy (Elsbach & Sutton, 1992). Individuals who
spend more time at corporate offices can use this exposure to
tap
into networks of influence (Barsoux & Bouquet, 2013; Kostova
&
Roth, 2003) and create ties with key executive decision makers
(Reiche, 2011; Taylor, 2007). These avenues provide
opportunities
for individuals to regularly interact with key corporate decision
makers and identify with decision makers’ preferences and
values
(Molloy & Delany,1998; Schotter & Beamish, 2011; Vora,
Kostova, &
Roth, 2007).

Theoretically, the potential for the subsidiary to deploy a
‘cooptation of elite’ individuals across the MNE and use these
individuals to enhance the subsidiary’s position has been
alluded
to (Bouquet & Birkinshaw, 2008b). From the subsidiary
perspec-
tive, this resonates with studies illustrating how CHQ purposely
‘pollinate’ the MNE with expatriates to control subsidiaries (
Harzing, 2002). Personal legitimacy is not solely associated
with
formal authority and may instead be based on high levels of
political and social skill (Harvey & Novicevic, 2004). Valuable
knowledge, capabilities and skills offer the potential to identify
with the logic of CHQ any may enhance the number of
influential
supporters at CHQ (Birkinshaw et al., 2007; Bouquet &
Birkinshaw,
2008b). We argue that key individuals at the subsidiary with
high
levels of personal legitimacy can be used to sell critical issues,
making it easier to direct supportive CHQ attention to these
issues.
Another important source of subsidiary legitimacy originates
from interactions with peer units. Suchman (1995) argues that
consequential legitimacy originates from an organisation’s
achievements, activities, structures and processes relative to its
peers. Subsidiaries are therefore generally judged against the
performance of peer subsidiaries (Becker-Ritterspach and Dör-
renbächer, 2011; Birkinshaw & Lingblad, 2005; Najafi-Tavani,
Giroud, & Andersson, 2013) and research shows that this
behaviour
is based largely on ‘coopetition’ activities i.e. collaboration and
competition between subsidiaries (Luo, 2005). For example, the
subsidiary’s track record in solving problems or fulfilling

specific
requests from CHQ more often than other subsidiaries can be
critical (Ambos et al., 2010; Barsoux & Bouquet, 2013; Rugman
&
Verbeke, 2001). Studies have demonstrated that competition
with
other internal subsidiaries is a central strategic agenda, hence it
is
imperative for the subsidiary to be vigilant and proactive in
‘advocating bases of comparison’ (Molloy & Delany, 1998) or
enhancing their ‘optimal distinctiveness’ (Garcia-Pont, Canales,
&
Noboa, 2009). Similarly, research on legitimacy emphasises
how an
organisation can control its image by communicating coherent
and
consistent stories based on past performance records (Suchman,
1995). Best practice transfer or reverse knowledge transfer
(RKT)
(Ambos, Ambos, & Schlegelmilch, 2006; Rabbiosi, 2011), for
example, can also demonstrate to the CHQ the relative valuable
contribution of the subsidiary (Najafi-Tavani et al., 2013).
Therefore, we argue that the consequential legitimacy generated
from peer interactions can be critical for directing CHQ relative
attention to issues.
The local environment is another important source of
legitimacy for subsidiaries. It is argued that the ‘linkage’
legitimacy
an organisation receives in this regard can be cultivated by
‘piggybacking’ on the reputations or endorsements of key
external
actors or partners (Baum & Oliver, 1991; Chan & Makino,
2007;
Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002). Subsidiaries can foster external
legitimacy in the local context by establishing relationships

with
central actors such as government officials, media, trade unions,
non-governmental organisations (NGOs), suppliers and
customers
(Baum & Oliver, 1991; Becker-Ritterspach and Dörrenbächer,
2011;
Hillman & Wan, 2005; Tregaskis, 2003). However, the way
subsidiaries design their issue selling at CHQ in clarifying the
value of the subsidiary’s connections with host country institu-
tions or partners is poorly understood (Forstenlechner &
Mellahi,
2011; Geppert & Dorrenbacher, 2014). Third party descriptions
of
issues may be viewed as more legitimate than first person
accounts
for example (Inman, McDonald, & Ruch, 2004). If the
subsidiary’s
own voice has lost impact or is perceived as inadequate, issues
may
be sold by building coalitions or seeking representation. Thus,
the
linkage legitimacy a subsidiary draws from the connections in
its
local environment can be critical for directing CHQ visible
attention to key issues.
The challenge of managing positive and negative CHQ attention
through subsidiary legitimacy is therefore one that has been
largely overlooked in extant research and the current study
focused on this key question. Drawing from the literature on
issue
selling and organisational legitimacy, combined with our data
analysis process, we identify specific forms of subsidiary
legitima-
cy, in the form of personal, consequential and linkage. These
forms

of legitimacy may help in managing the quality and quantity of
CHQ attention that a subsidiary receives. The following section
considers the methodological underpinnings of this research.
3. Methods
An exploratory approach was considered appropriate given the
relatively nascent development of current theory and research
on
how subsidiaries use their legitimacy to manage CHQ attention.
Adopting a phenomenological perspective we employed qualita-
tive methods to investigate subsidiary issue selling, with the
subsidiary as the main unit of analysis. The size and the nature
of
the sample facilitates theoretical as opposed to numerical
generalisations, with the former more suited to the goal of this
research, which is to contribute to the development of new
constructs by bringing two relatively distinct fields of research
together in a new context (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013).
This
exploration exercises a case study approach, which is
considered
an appropriate tool for determining the early stage relationship
between key variables (Gilbert et al., 2008). Qualitative case
studies help researchers delve deep into complex matters, which
are not wholly understood (Yin, 1994) and have been proposed
as
Table 1
Case company profiles.
Cases Est. Plants
Globally

Est. in
Ireland
Subsidiary
Employees
Subsidiary Subsidiary ‘Role’ Recent Mandate Extension
HEALTHCO 1920 4 1970s
Greenfield
450 Ostomy & Continence
Care
Manufacturing, R&D,
Marketing
Regional Management Mandate for
Catheters
Facility Expansion (2011)
s65m
250 jobs
MEDCO 1940 250 1990s
Acquisition
2500 Cardio-Vacular
Manufacturing, R&D
Catheters
Customer Innovation Centre
(2011)
CHEMCO 1980 14 1990s

Greenfield
440 Endoscopy
Manufacturing, R&D,
Shared-services
Guide-Wires
200 jobs
Facility extension, R&D,
s20m
(2012)
PHARMCO 2000 350 2000s
Spin-off
400 Ventilators & Monitors
Manufacturing
Capital Equipment Manufacture R&D Collaboration Projects
s25m
(2011)
616 K.M. Conroy, D.G. Collings / Journal of World Business 51
(2016) 612–627
key methodological tools for investigating MNE activity
(Birkin-
shaw et al., 2011; Pauwels & Matthyssens, 2004) and legitimacy
(Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002). In designing the case study
framework, Eisenhardt’s (1989) ‘theoretical sampling’
technique
was used. Cases were selected based on their suitability for
illuminating and extending our understanding of current theory.
The sample comprised four U.S. MNE subsidiaries based in the
medical device industry in the west of Ireland. Table 1

summarises
the profiles of each of these cases.
U.S. MNEs in particular, operating in the medical device sector
have dominated the flow of foreign direct investment (FDI) in
Ireland (Barry, 2007; Collings, McDonnell, Gunnigle, &
Lavelle,
2010). Ireland has the highest concentration of medical device
businesses anywhere in the world outside of the U.S. (Irish
Medical
Device Association Annual Review (IMDA), 2015) and the
western
region is recognised globally as a leading medical device cluster
(Giblin & Ryan, 2012). The main sampling source for
identifying
suitable subsidiaries in this industry was the Industrial Develop-
ment Agency’s (IDA Ireland)1 company database, while further
sampling was carried out through media and company reports. A
search identified 252 medical device MNEs in Ireland, of which
29 were U.S. headquartered and based in the western region.
Ten of
these had received major investment in the last three years, and
within this sample, four subsidiaries were willing to provide
full
access. To ensure that the data reflected genuine events rather
than
a priori judgments, only subsidiaries that had gained an
extension
to their operations in the three years preceding the study were
considered. Due to the success of Ireland as a location in
attracting
higher value added activities over the past several decades
(Begley,
Delany, & O’Gorman, 2005), three of the case subsidiaries are
now
operating under regional management mandates (RMM) for the

EU, which is a distinct type of mandate where local subsidiaries
perform certain delegated CHQ functions for a given region
(Alfoldi, Clegg, & McGaughey, 2012). Our research and data
collection is based on investigating the actions and behaviours
that
preceded the attainment of RMM status from CHQ. At the time
of
this study, these subsidiaries had just been granted RMMs and
questions were targeted towards unearthing specific antecedents
that led to these.
Semi-structured interviews with MNE subsidiary managers
were chosen as the main method of data collection, as they are
flexible enough to facilitate exploration of under-examined
phenomena or constructs (King, 2004). Table 2 details the
profiles
of thirty semi-structured interviewees that were performed in
total, from a time period of December 2011 to December 2012
1 IDA Ireland is the government agency in Ireland that is
responsible for
promoting and attracting FDI activities.
(seven interviews were held first in HEALTHCO,2 followed by
eight
in MEDCO, six in CHEMCO and eight in PHARMCO
respectively).
Four of these interviews were carried out with a corporate
executive from each CHQ in an attempt to triangulate subsidiary
responses. These corporate executives were former managers at
the subsidiary level but at the time of the interviews were
operating out of CHQ. From an interpretive perspective, it was
perceived as important to develop an understanding of the
meaning behind the subsidiary responses, thus ‘probing techni-
ques’ were an important tool for this study (McCracken, 1988).
Probes allow for depth and comprehension of the data obtained,
as
interviewees may use and incorporate words and their under-

standing of ideas in different ways (Berry, 2002; Gray, 2007).
The
interviews were carried out by the first author and were
primarily
conducted face to face at company offices. Two interviews were
carried out over phone. The interviews lasted 90 min on
average.
Interviews were all recorded and transcribed verbatim to ensure
data cleaning (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). Most
respond-
ents were chosen according to ‘purposive sampling’ (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985) and obtained global roles, which added depth to the
subsidiary candidates’ understanding of what CHQ valued. An
interview was also undertaken with a single representative from
IDA Ireland, who was identified by a number of subsidiaries as
a
key mediator in the CHQ-subsidiary relationship.
Interpretation of the qualitative interview data was an iterative
concurrent process of constant comparison between data
analysis
and data collection over time. This recursive interplay between
rich data and emerging conceptual insights, that are related to
existing theories, facilitated the creation of new theoretical
ideas
(Doz, 2011; Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Upon consulting the
literature, this research process was viewed as transitioning
from
an inductive to an ‘abductive’ fashion in that data and existing
theory were juxtaposed in tandem (Edmondson & McManus,
2007; Gioia et al., 2013; Van Maanen, Sorensen, & Mitchell,
2007).
Therefore, instead of sticking rigorously to the theory we
initially
reviewed, we consulted and introduced new theory based on the
formation of the problems we encountered in the data. As Van

Maanen et al. (2007: 1149) suggest good theory comes from
“engagement with problems” in the empirical world “but in the
service of theorizing”. This process signified a constant
dialogue
between the researcher and the emerging theory resulting in
theoretical ideas being continuously refined as the analysis
progressed (Dubois & Gadde, 2002). Our approach here closely
resembles ‘matching’ or ‘fitting’ of data with theory that has
been
applied in other abductive studies (Figueira-de-Lemos & Hadji-
khani, 2014). Questions revolved around the subsidiary’s
sources of
2 Subsidiaries were given pseudonyms to provide anonymity.
Table 2
Profiles of interviewee respondents.
Title Joined Past Experience Education
Case 1: HEALTHCO
Plant Manager 2000 Business Unit/Site Director Operations
Director Degree in Industrial Engineering
Director of Strategic Planning and
Infrastructure
1978 Mechanical Engineer, Plant Manager Degree in
Mechanical Engineering
Financial Controller 1993 Financial Controller Degree in
Accounting and Finance, Chartered Accountant
Research and Technology
Development Manager
2010 Product Development Engineer, R&D Engineer, R&D

Manager
Diploma Industrial Engineering, Degree Product Innovation,
MBA
New Product Development
Manager
2004 Product Development Manager, Senior Product
Development Engineer
Degree Material Science, MBA
Global Marketing Manager 1999 Senior Product Development
Manager, New Product
Development Manager
Degree Mechanical Engineering, Masters Computational Fluid
Mechanics, MBA
Vice President Research and
Development
1997 VP for R&D Degree in Commerce
Case 2: MEDCO
Manufacturing Director 1997 Production Manager N/A
Senior HR Program Manager 2004 HR Analyst and Rewards
Program Manager, HR
Analyst
Degree in Commerce, Masters HR
Senior Engineering Manager N/A N/A N/A
Senior HR Manager 1999 Personnel Officer, Employee
Relations Specialist,

Exploring the Black Box ofCommunity SupervisionJAMES BON.docx

Exploring the Black Box ofCommunity SupervisionJAMES BON.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Exploring the Black Box ofCommunity SupervisionJAMES BON.docx

Similar to Exploring the Black Box ofCommunity SupervisionJAMES BON.docx (15)

More from lmelaine

More from lmelaine (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Exploring the Black Box ofCommunity SupervisionJAMES BON.docx