Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

Manag Int Rev (2010) 50:403412

DOI 10.1007/s11575-010-0040-5
R e s e a r c h Art i c l e

How Do MNC Headquarters Add Value?


Bjrn Ambos Volker Mahnke

Abstract:
This focused issue examines the role of headquarters in modern multinational corporations
(MNCs). We examine how headquarters add value, which roles they play and how existing
theory needs to be modified in light of recent developments.
We argue that headquarters still play an important role in the MNC. Furthermore, we highlight the possibility that the conceptualization of headquarters as a distinct organizational
entity may need to be modified. We also suggest that further studies may benefit from focusing on problems of dual agency and how subsidiary managers deal with multiple parents.

Keywords: Multinational corporations Headquarters-subsidiary relationships Value added


Performance

Received: 01.02.2009 / Revised: 01.10.2009 / Accepted: 01.10.2009 / Published online: 20.07.2010


Gabler-Verlag 2010
Prof.B.Ambos()
Institute for International Business,
Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria
e-mail: bjoern.ambos@wu.ac.at
Prof.V.Mahnke
Department of International Economics and Management,
Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark

404

B. Ambos and V. Mahnke

Introduction
Research on multinational corporations (MNCs) has evolved along various trajectories.
Not only have our conceptualizations of the MNC shifted but our understanding of their
headquarters has changed as well. Departing from more general notions on corporate
strategy and structure (Chandler 1962; Bower 1971), early MNC research primarily took
the whole firm as the unit of analysis. In most of these studies, headquarters simply acted
as the locus of hierarchical decision making and control, while little consideration was
given to the resistance headquarters may face when implementing their decisions (Paterson and Brock 2002).
The formulation of the integration-responsiveness framework marked a significant
turning point in the ensuing debate on MNC headquarter functions (Prahalad and Doz
1987; Bartlett and Ghoshal 1989; Asakawa 2001). In explicating the dual pressures for
local adaptation and global integration, researchers opened the door to a more thorough
investigation of headquarters-subsidiary relationships (Hedlund 1994; Gates and Egelhoff 1986; Bartlett and Ghoshal 1989). Similarly, the re-conceptualization of MNCs as
networks led scholars to take a more active interest in the role of individual subsidiaries as well as their differences within the MNC (Gupta and Govindarajan 1991; White
and Poynter 1984; Jarillo and Martinez 1990). Resulting subsidiary typologies were
instrumental in advancing research by providing contingencies for their management by
headquarters (Gupta and Govindarajan 1991). In a broader framework, these studies also
helped to improve our understanding of the subtle notions of informal control and the
non-hierarchical aspects of multinational management. On the downside, however, the
shift in research emphasis led to a decreasing interest in the role of headquarters. For
some scholars, the advent of sophisticated subsidiary charters and network-like structures
in the MNC marked the end of corporate headquarters altogether. Such scholars proposed
that headquarters would not differ significantly from any other unit in the network (Bartlett and Ghoshal 1989; Doz et al. 2001).
However, regardless of whether such extreme positions are justified in theory, most
contemporary MNCs have headquarters functions in practice. Irrespective of whether
firms establish overseas centers of excellence, or foster subsidiary innovation and knowledge flows, most firms maintain a formal headquarters on their organizational charts and
train managers for headquarters functions, which leads to a legitimate question: What
do MNC headquarters actually do? This issue contributes to this debate by investigating
how MNC headquarters add value. The question we raised in the autumn of 2007, when
the call for papers for this issue appeared, proved to be quite timely. The financial crisis,
inter alia, led many firms and industry observers to evaluate the value added by corporate
parents. Be it its inability to control its sub-units (e.g., Societ General, UBS), whether a
specific subsidiary would be better off without the parent (e.g., in the case of Opel, General Motors German Subsidiary), or whether entrepreneurial talent or scale and scope are
more important attributes of a global parent (a question often raised in the endless discussions whether Porsche would be the better owner of Volkswagen, or other way around).
There are also persistent signs that focusing on network structures and subsidiary mandates may paint a too optimistic picture of an MNC. An examination by Wolf (1997),
published about ten years after Bartlett and Ghoshals (1989) seminal study, found few

How Do MNC Headquarters Add Value?

405

firms that could be labeled pure network or transnational MNCs. Recent results published
by Ambos and Schlegelmilch (2010) suggest that this picture has changed little over the
last decade. Furthermore, the common practice of using median splits or pre-defined samples to create subsidiary typologies raises the question of whether researchers sample on
the dependent variable and come to erroneous conclusions on the magnitude of these
effects all too often. In other words, by concentrating the discussion on centers of excellence, lead units and other value-adding subsidiaries, we risk overestimating the number
of subsidiary initiatives, and lateral and reverse knowledge flows. In more general terms,
when taking aggregate conclusions from this very specialized body of research, we risk
overstating the marginal and ignoring common practice.
It is against this backdrop that we developed the theme for this focused issue. The issue
brings together some of the authors who have most actively explored the concepts and
themes that have risen to the forefront. In this introduction, we provide a short review of
the literature on headquarters (e.g., corporate parents) and how they can add value. We
then introduce the six papers before presenting a discussion of how each paper addresses
the value-added question posed above. We also briefly analyze the similarities and differences across the studies. We conclude by providing a fresh outlook for research on MNC
headquarters.
How Do Headquarters Add Value?
On a very general level, the question of how headquarters add value to MNCs is closely
linked to the concept of parenting advantage (Campbell et al. 1995). In other words, to
justify its position within the organization, an MNCs headquarters, like any other corporate parent, should add value to the operations of its local subsidiaries, value that would
be hard to create otherwise (Porter 1987). According to Campbell et al. (1995), parenting
advantage depends on two crucial questions:
1. Does the parent understand the business of its local subsidiaries?
2. Can the parent contribute to the resource and capability endowment of the local
subsidiaries?
Parents that neither understand the local businesses nor are in a position to contribute to
local operations in any meaningful way are operating in what the authors call alien territory (Campbell et al. 1995). In these situations, parents are unlikely to add value and
interventions by headquarters carry a high risk of value destruction. On similar grounds,
a mere understanding of the local business without possession of the means to improve
local operations is unlikely to produce value for the MNC (Mahnke and Pedersen 2004;
Ambos and Schlegelmilch 2010; Campbell et al. 1995). Therefore, Campbell et al. (1995)
conclude that parenting advantage requires both knowledge of the local context and the
capabilities necessary to add value to the local units.
By building on these general notions of how headquarters can add value to the firm,
it is possible to carve out the specific functions and roles headquarters perform in fulfilling the value-added mission. For example, under the heading of designing the strategic
corporate context, Bower (1971) summarizes the tasks performed by headquarters as

406

B. Ambos and V. Mahnke

fulfilling legal requirements (e.g., preparing annual reports, submitting tax returns, and
ensuring compliance with health, safety or environmental legislation), handling basic
governance functions (e.g., establishing a structure for the company, appointing senior
management, raising capital, handling investor relations, implementing basic control
processes, authorizing major decisions, guarding against risky or fraudulent decisions,
and checking on delegated responsibilities), and, perhaps most importantly, undertaking the budgeting process. However, what are probably the most prevailing insights into
headquarters activities are gained from Alfred Chandlers work. According to Chandler
(1962, 1991), headquarters fulfill two primary functions or charters: An integrative charter and an entrepreneurial charter.
A headquarters integrative function consists of coordinating the MNCs activities
across the individual markets, and further achieving synergies by pooling resources and
centralizing value-added activities. Subsidiaries that are specialized and focused on their
own business lack an overview of the business needs of other units (Egelhoff 2010). By
overseeing subsidiaries and recognizing that investments made in one market might pay
off in another, headquarters can increase the payoffs for the entire firm (Porter 1987).
Headquarters also contributes to the MNC by providing the appropriate organizational
context for its subsidiaries operations. In other words, unless headquarters provides the
structure, process and incentives, subsidiaries have little reason to share their assets even
if they understand and know which other subsidiaries could benefit from such sharing.
Therefore, by establishing the appropriate organizational context, and by designing the
appropriate cross-unit linkages and incentives that will unlock potential synergies across
subsidiaries, headquarters add value to the MNC (Bartlett and Ghoshal 1989).
An entrepreneurial charter describes the headquarters mandate to scout and explore
new business opportunities worldwide, to initiate new ventures across the globe, to stimulate and assist the local subsidiaries in understanding the changing nature of the business
environment, and to help them integrate these changes into their business strategies. With
the arrival of the new millennium, the entrepreneurial role of headquarters that Chandler
(1962) had envisioned became more accentuated (Hedlund 1994; Birkinshaw 1997; Doz
et al. 2001; Mahnke et al. 2007). In a prominent example, Doz et al. (2001) suggest that
modern MNCs (or metanationals) increasingly need to pursue and integrate entrepreneurial initiatives around the world. However, governing entrepreneurial processes becomes
increasingly challenging for headquarters as the local dispersion of idea identification
and selection expands (Mahnke et al. 2007). Consequently, Mahnke and colleagues propose that the ability of headquarters to directly intervene in the matching of innovative
opportunities in one place with markets in other locations may be particular challenging.
Empirically, the question of whether headquarters adds value depends, to some degree,
on whom you ask. A recent survey by Ambos and Schlegelmilch (2010) reveals that most
subsidiary managers award relatively low scores to their parents (see Table1). The findings raise the important question of whether headquarters by and large fail to live up to
expectations, or whether there is a cognitive disconnect between the role of headquarters
and subsidiary managers perceptions (see Asakawa 2001; Chini et al. 2005; Birkinshaw
et al. 2000). In other words, the question is whether we are faced with an objective underperformance or a subjective dissatisfaction on the part of the subsidiary managers.

How Do MNC Headquarters Add Value?

407

Table 1: Perceived value added by (global, divisional and regional) headquarters (Source:
Adopted from Ambos and Schlegelmilch 2010)
Divisional
Regional
Global
Headquarters Headquarters
Headquarters
Improves information flow
3.37
3.33
3.43
Challenges subsidiary to improve
3.23
3.41
3.18
Provides useful guidance and advice
3.18
3.02
2.81
3.05
3.31
2.95
Substantial cost savings
Knowledgeable about the local environment
3.05
3.31
2.05
Fast and efficient decision making
3.04
2.86
2.86
Provides relief from administrative work
2.51
2.67
2.48

The empirical papers in this issue lean towards the second explanation and generally
confirm that headquarters contribute to the overall bottom line of the MNC. By pooling
resources and achieving scale economies (Piekkari et al. 2010), directing attention and
resources to capable subsidiaries (Ambos and Birkinshaw 2010) and leveraging knowledge across the firm (Ciabuschi et al. 2010; Tran et al. 2010), headquarters can, in fact,
add tremendous value to the individual local subsidiary. Therefore, as a prelude to the
papers in this issue, it seems that there is significant value potential on which modern
MNC headquarters capitalize, despite (or because) of the challenges that the environment
poses (Tallman and Koza 2010; Egelhoff 2010).
This Issue
This focused issue presents six papers that delve into different aspects of the role of
headquarters in the modern MNC. Each offers a distinct view of how headquarters add
value.
The first two papers take on the challenge of building a theoretical argument on how
headquarters add value in the modern MNC. William Egelhoffs paper starts with a comparison of classical (hierarchical) MNCs and network structures. Building on information
processing theory, he identifies important differences between hierarchical and network
structures, and he shows how hierarchical structures outperform networks with regards to
three important tasks: (1) Developing and implementing tight coupling within the MNC,
(2) identifying and defining economies of scale and scope, and (3) identifying and incorporating significant innovation into MNC strategy.
The paper by Stephen Tallman and Mitchell Koza takes an evolutionary perspective to
show how environments, strategies, structures and the roles taken on by headquarters have
changed over time. Building on their analysis, they propose a new form of thinking about
contemporary MNCs, which they coin Global Multi-business Firm (GMBF). According
to Tallman and Koza, this type of firm needs to grow through strategic assembly, lead
by animation, manage and enable emergent processes, and control via communication.
Tallman and Koza also lay out the role of headquarters within this structure, which they
view as crucial but limiteda position they characterize as command without control.

408

B. Ambos and V. Mahnke

The four remaining papers in this issue are empirical in nature and test various aspects
of headquarters value added from managing and distributing attention to knowledge management to the design of organizational structures.
Drawing on a sample of 283 subsidiaries, Tina Ambos and Julian Birkinshaw investigate how attention from headquarters affects subsidiary performance. They show that
performance is driven by the interplay between the attention devoted to a subsidiary and
its strategic choice. More specifically, they find that subsidiary performance increases
when headquarters devote attention to subsidiaries that have high levels of autonomy and
sub-unit power, and start independent initiatives.
Francesco Ciabuschi, Oscar Martin Martin and Benjamin Stahl examine the influence of headquarters on knowledge transfer performance. They test their predictions
on a sample of 141 innovation transfer projects. Distinguishing between the efficiency
and effectiveness of knowledge transfer performance, they show that the involvement of
headquarters can have both a positive and a negative impact. The authors find that allocating decision-making rights and providing necessary funds have the greatest positive
impact on transfer performance. Headquarters direct involvement in the transfer process,
however, decreases the transfer efficiency without enhancing its effectiveness.
The role of headquarters within the knowledge transfer process is also the focus of
the paper by Yen Tran, Volker Mahnke and Bjrn Ambos. However, rather than looking
at headquarters enabling role in the transfer process, Tran et al. take a direct look at the
knowledge flows initiated by headquarters in the context of one large fashion company.
The authors show that the quality, quantity and timing of headquarters knowledge have a
direct impact on the sales performance of subsidiaries. As the results indicate, knowledge
sharing is not always beneficial, particularly when it comes to the quantity of knowledge transferred. Too much knowledge can actually hurt performance as will knowledge
shared at the wrong time.
In the final paper of this issue, Rebecca Piekkari, Phillip Nell and Pervez Ghauri provide a dynamic study of organizational design. Their study traces the developments within
Kone, a large Finnish elevator corporation, over 40years. Using information processing
theory, they analyze how and why structures evolved over time. Their analysis leads
to the conclusion that information processing capacities may be system bound rather
than unit bound. More specifically, they find that units within the region fulfill different
headquarters functions and only collectively do they achieve the information processing
capacity necessary to deal with the information processing needs of the organization.
Advancing Research on Value Added by MNC Headquarters
The papers in this issue are an important first step in a more rigorous analysis of the
role of headquarters in the modern MNC. All six papers stress the extent to which headquarters can add value. The tasks identified by Egelhoff are consistent with the roles
and value-added potential of parents proclaimed by Chandler (1991) and Campbell et al.
(1995). The entrepreneurial and integrative function of headquarters also appears to be
the underlying foundation in Tallman and Kozas assessment of headquarters role in the
GMBF. Ambos and Birkinshaw suggest that headquarters attention is a scare resource that

How Do MNC Headquarters Add Value?

409

will create value for the firm when devoted to capable subsidiaries. Ciabuschi et al. make
a similar point in terms of headquarters involvement in the knowledge transfer process of
knowledge-owning subsidiaries. Tran et al. show that the quality, quantity, and timing of
headquarters knowledge have direct and objectively measurable bottom-line effects on
subsidiaries sales performance. Finally, Piekkari et al. show that headquarters functions
and organizational structure will change over time to accommodate the specific information processing needs of the MNC. Taken together, the papers reveal concrete processes
(e.g., allocation of attention, knowledge-sharing, managing control without command,
stimulating entrepreneurship, and designing organizational architecture) through which
MNC headquarters add value. Furthermore, they also contribute through specifying situational contingencies of MNC headquarter value added (e.g., timing of activities, tightly
coupled activities, de-central knowledge and decision rights).
The papers in this issue also complement and support each other beyond the valueadded question. Tallman and Koza, and Egelhoff suggest that theory needs to be modified to capture and understand the value of headquarters in the modern MNC. However,
in contrast to Egelhoff, Tallman and Koza do not think that hierarchy offers a viable
alternative to network-like thinking. As they describe it, the foremost challenge faced
by headquarters will be to command without control. Tallman and Kozas notion finds
empirical support in Ambos and Birkinshaw. Parallels also exist with regards to the positive effects of attention and strategic choice found by Ambos and Birkinshaw, and Ciabuschi et al.s assertion that allocating decision making rights to the subsidiary (high
autonomy) increases performance of knowledge transfers. Egelhoffs thesis that hierarchies are better suited to transfer knowledge within the MNC is supported by Tran et al.
However, Ciabuschi et al.s findings also show that the positive effects of hierarchy and
performance may only work when headquarters are the process owners, rather than the
facilitator, of knowledge flows.
In addition to the insight provided, the papers in this issue also raise a series of stimulating questions for further research. In particular, the propositions put forth by Egelhoff,
and the managerial challenges outlined by Tallman and Koza, will require further examination and testing. Similarly, the extent to which headquarters willingly attends to subsidiaries with high strategic choice, or whether powerful, high-performing subunits set
the boundaries of headquarters actions remain to be tested in further longitudinal studies.
Looking beyond the questions raised in the individual papers included in this issue, we
see two practical and fundamental issues that further studies may wish to tackle.
Most of our conceptualizations and, for that matter, our empirical operationalizations,
treat global headquarters as a single organizational entity (physically located in a country
and city, and usually the place where the CEO resides). Recent empirical evidence suggests that it may be time to abandon this simplified view. Birkinshaw et al. (2006), for
example, indicate that divisional headquarters are increasingly moving vital headquarters
functions abroad. Similarly, Piekkari et al.s paper shows that Kones regional management activities are split across multiple sites. Furthermore, the data presented by Ambos
and Schlegelmilch in Table1 suggests that subsidiary managers often think of multiple
parents. In sum, reconsidering our conceptualizations of what headquarters are, where
they are located, and to whom subsidiary managers refer when being surveyed about

410

B. Ambos and V. Mahnke

their parents might give rise to interesting questions that have not really been tackled in
existing research.
These observations also highlight some technical aspects, such as the definition and
measurement of headquarters-subsidiary relationships. Interestingly, Birkinshaw et al.
(2006) do not measure headquarters relocation as a binary choice but as a percentage
of functions located at different sites. Explicitly acknowledging the multi-site nature of
headquarters in modern MNCs opens another set of research issues in terms of MNC
management. The problem of dual agency is one of such issue. MNCs with regional,
divisional and global headquarters raise interesting questions about how subsidiary managers cope with multiple bosses, and about how divisional and regional headquarters deal
with their intermediary role and the pressures coming from global headquarters and local
subsidiaries. Finally, scholars have yet to really investigate whether subsidiaries confronted with multiple parents receive the same mix of control instruments (socialization,
formalization, centralization), or whether the type and intensity of control differ based on
the type of parent (i.e. division vs. area).
Finally, on a much broader level, research on the value of MNC headquarters may benefit from a more stringent application of management theories. The information processing perspective on organizational design (Galbraith 1973; Tushman and Nadler 1978;
Egelhoff 1982, 1991), which served as the foundation for Egelhoffs and Piekkari et al.s
papers, may be one promising theory. Applying, for example, the information processing
logic in an examination of locally distributed headquarters, as suggested above, could be
one agenda for future empirical research. Another promising avenue would be to apply
the resource-based view reasoning to the specific problem of headquarters and MNCs,
e.g., one could argue that subsidiaries gain competitive advantage from their affiliation
with headquarters to the extent that headquarters constitutes a valuable, rare, hard to
imitate and difficult to substitute resource for the subsidiary in question. Following this
logic, measuring and defining the value added by headquarters to subsidiaries is intimately linked with competitive advantage gained on the subsidiary level (Porter 1987).
Regardless of the route further scholars take, a more thorough grounding in theory will be
necessary to fully understand how and when headquarters add value to MNCs.
In conclusions, the research in this focused issue shows that headquarters still play a
very important role in modern MNCs. This issue also shows that more research on headquarters is desperately needed if we are to fully understand their role in the modern MNC.
We hope that the papers presented in this issue, along with the suggestions made in this
introduction, will spur further research in this important area.
References
Ambos, B., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2010). The new role of regional management. Hampshire:
PalgraveMcMillan.
Ambos, T., & Birkinshaw, J. (2010). Headquarters attention and its effects on subsidiary performance. Management International Review, 50(4).
Asakawa, K. (2001). Organizational tension in international R&D managementthe case of Japanese firms. Research Policy, 30(5), 735757.

How Do MNC Headquarters Add Value?

411

Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across boarders, the transnational solution. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Birkinshaw, J. (1997). Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The characteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 18(3), 207229.
Birkinshaw, J., Holm, U., Thilenius, P., & Arvidsson, N. (2000). Consequences of perception gaps
in the headquarters-subsidiary relationship. International Business Review, 9(3), 321344.
Birkinshaw, J., Braunerhjelm, P., Holm, U., & Terjesen, S. (2006). Why do some multinational
corporations relocate their headquarters overseas? Strategic Management Journal, 27(7),
681700.
Bower, J. L. (1971). Managing the resource allocation process: A study of corporate planning and
investment. Homewood: Irwin-Dorsey.
Campbell, A., Goold, M., & Alexander, M. (1995). Corporate strategy: The quest for parenting
advantage. Harvard Business Review, 95(2), 120132.
Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chandler, A. (1991). The functions of the headquarters unit in the multibusiness firm. Strategic
Management Journal, 12(S2), 150.
Chini, T., Ambos, B., & Wehle, K. (2005). Headquarters-subsidiary trench: Tracing perception gaps
within the multinational corporation. European Management Journal, 23(2), 145153.
Ciabuschi, F., Martin Martin, O., & Stahl, B. (2010). Headquarters influence on knowledge transfer
performance. Management International Review, 50(4 Focused Issue).
Doz, Y., Santos, J. F. P., & Williamson, P. J. (2001). From global to metanational. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Egelhoff, W. (1982). Strategy and structure in MNC: An information processing approach. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(3), 435458.
Egelhoff, W. (1991). Information-processing theory and the multinational enterprise. Journal of
International Business Studies, 22(3), 341367.
Egelhoff, W. (2010). How the parent HQ adds value to the MNC. Management International
Review, 50(4).
Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Reading: Addison Wesley.
Gates, S. R., & Egelhoff, W. (1986). Centralization in headquarters subsidiary relationships. Journal of International Business Studies, 17(summer), 7193.
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (1991). Knowledge flows and the structure of control within
MNCs. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 768792.
Hedlund, G. (1994). A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation. Strategic
Management Journal, 15(S2), 7390.
Jarillo, J. C., & Martinez, J. I. (1990). Different roles for subsidiaries: The case of multinational
corporations in Spain. Strategic Management Journal, 11(7), 501512.
Mahnke, V., & Pedersen, T. (2004). Knowledge flows, governance, and the MNC. Advances in
international business research. Hampshire: PalgraveMcMillan.
Mahnke, V., Venzin, M., & Zahra, S. (2007). Governing entrepreneurial opportunity recognition in
the MNE: Aligning interests and cognition under uncertainty. Journal of Management Studies,
44(November), 12781298.
Paterson, S., & Brock, D. (2002). The development of subsidiary-management research: Review
and theoretical analysis. International Business Review, 11(2), 139163.
Piekkari, R., Nell, P., & Ghauri, P. (2010). The evolution of regional management centresAn
information processing perspective. Management International Review, 50(4).
Porter, M. E. (1987). From competitive advantage to corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review,
65(3), 4359.
Prahalad, C. K., & Doz, Y. (1987). The multinational mission: Balancing local demand and global
vision. New York: Free Press.

412

B. Ambos and V. Mahnke

Tallman, S., & Koza, M. (2010). Keeping the global in mind: The evolution of the headquarters role
in global multi-business firms. Management International Review, 50(4).
Tran, Y., Mahnke, V., & Ambos, B. (2010). The effect of quantity, quality, and timing of headquarters-initiated knowledge flows on subsidiary performance. Management International Review,
50(4).
Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. A. (1978). Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 613624.
White, R., & Poynter, T. (1984). Strategies for foreign-owned subsidiaries in Canada. Business
Quarterly, 48(4), 5969.
Wolf, J. (1997). From Starworks to networks and heterachies? Theoretical rationale and empirical evidence of HRM org. in MNC. Management International Review, 37(1), 145169.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen