MNE ties and new venture internationalization: Exploratory insights from India

Abstract

Who should a new venture ally with in order to enhance its internationalization capabilities? While peer relationships come easily and naturally for most new ventures, interactions with foreign multinational subsidiaries operating in their local environment are complex to build and to sustain. We contribute to the relational perspective of new venture internationalization by specifically contrasting the role of new venture ties with multinational enterprises (MNEs), from those with other peer firms. We draw on a multi-method study, integrating a quantitative study based on a survey of 102 software firms in India and a longitudinal case analysis of the relationship between an international new venture (INV) and an MNE (Microsoft). We find a positive relationship between local MNE ties and internationalization capability, and a negative relationship between ties with other small firms and internationalization capability. Our post-hoc analysis of the case study serves to shed further light on this, highlighting an important caveat to the relational capital story: building ties with MNEs is necessary but not sufficient for new ventures to internationalize; they require managerial action to exploit the knowledge acquired.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Relational capital, or “joint benefits embedded in a relationship between two or more parties,” (Hitt, Bierman, Uhlenbruck, & Shimizu, 2006: 1138), has also been referred to as social capital in the economic sociology literature (Granovetter, 1985, 1995) and sometimes as relational embeddedness (Dhanaraj, Lyles, Steensma, & Tihanyi, 2004; Uzzi, 1997).

  2. 2.

    We clarify that our focus here is on subsidiary-level knowledge rather than that of individual MNE subsidiary managers because we have only firm-level data. But we acknowledge that, as insightfully pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, a more fine-grained picture can be obtained in future research by considering multi-level models that take into account manager-level knowledge within MNE partners. Furthermore, our focus is on foreign MNE subsidiary ties, not ties with Indian MNEs, which our field interviews suggested were relatively rare.

  3. 3.

    The 12-year threshold represents relative youth in an Asian context. This higher age limit compared to US-based studies is justified by the lower availability of early-stage equity funding and the typically longer maturation process for ventures (Kumar et al., 2009). This study’s results remained stable at lower age cut-offs (less than 10 and 8 years).

  4. 4.

    As Keupp and Gassmann (2009: 601) noted, the most common employee cut-offs in international entrepreneurship research are 250 and 500 employees. In this study the former was chosen because of the nascent empirical setting.

  5. 5.

    Ideally every questionnaire would have been completed by multiple respondents but often this is not feasible in smaller Asian firms for business and cultural reasons; hence the follow-up to confirm survey data against interviews.

  6. 6.

    In terms of R&D activity, foreign MNEs tend not to engage with indigenous Indian firms (Krishnan, 2010).

  7. 7.

    As evident from these examples, the general thinking here relates to leading MNE subsidiaries. Cantwell and Mudambi (2011) insightfully observed that some MNE subsidiaries are laggards. This is a distinction that is conceptually and empirically beyond the scope of our study. But we do recognize that this represents a fascinating way forward for future research on the role of MNE ties in international entrepreneurship.

  8. 8.

    We thank the anonymous reviewers for suggesting the latter lines of inquiry.

References

  1. Athreye, S. 2005. The Indian software industry and its evolving service capability. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(3): 393–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J., & Almeida, J. G. 2000. Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 909–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Awate, S., Larsen, M. M., & Mudambi, R. 2012. EMNE catch-up strategies in the wind turbine industry: Is there a trade-off between output and innovation capabilities?. Global Strategy Journal, 2: 205–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bingham, C. B. 2009. Oscillation improvisation: How entrepreneurial firms create success in foreign market entries over time. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3: 321–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Birkinshaw, J., & Pedersen, T. 2008. Strategy and management in MNE subsidiaries. In A. M. Rugman (Ed.). Oxford handbook of international business: 367–388. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. 1993. Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behaviour. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3): 441–470.

  7. Buckley, P. J. 2012. The multinational enterprise as a global factory. In A. Verbeke & H. Merchant (Eds.). Handbook of research on international strategic management: 77–92. New York: Oxford University Press.

  8. Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural holes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  9. Cantwell, J. A., & Mudambi, R. 2011. Physical attraction and the geography of knowledge sourcing in multinational enterprises. Global Strategy Journal, 1: 206–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cao, Q. 2006. Navigating through extreme asymmetry: partnerships between entrepreneurial ventures and established firms. University of Maryland: Unpublished dissertation.

  11. Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94: S95–S121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Coviello, N. E. 2006. Network dynamics of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 37: 713–731.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Coviello, N. E., & Munro, H. 1997. Network relationships and the internationalization process of small software firms. International Business Review, 6: 361–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cumming, D., Sapienza, H. J., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. 2009. International entrepreneurship: Managerial and policy implications. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3: 283–296.

  15. D’Costa, A. P. 2003. Uneven and combined development: Understanding India’s software exports. World Development, 31: 211–226.

  16. Dhanaraj, C., & Beamish, P. W. 2003. A resource based approach to the study of export performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 41: 242–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dhanaraj, C., Lyles, M. A., Steensma, H. K., & Tihanyi, I. 2004. Managing tacit and explicit knowledge transfer in IJVs: The role of relational embeddedness and the impact on performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 35: 428–442.

  18. Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. 2006. Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31: 659–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Diestre, L., & Rajagopalan, N. 2012. Are all “sharks” dangerous? New biotechnology ventures and partner selection in R&D alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 33(10): 1115–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23: 660–679.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Eriksson, K., Johanson, J., Majkgård, A., & Sharma, D. 1997. Experiential knowledge and cost in the internationalization process. Journal of International Business Studies, 28: 337–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fernhaber, S. A., McDougall-Covin, P. P., & Shepherd, D. A. 2009. International entrepreneurship: Leveraging internal and external knowledge sources. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3: 297–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Forsgren, M., Holm, U., & Johanson, J. 2005. Managing the embedded multinational: A business network view. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

  24. Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481–510.

  25. Granovetter, M. 1995. The economic sociology of firms and entrepreneurs. In A. Portes (Ed.). The economic sociology of immigration: 128–165. New York: Russell Sage.

  26. Greve, H. R. 2003. Organizational learning from performance feedback: A behavioral perspective on innovation and change. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  27. Gulati, R. 2007. Managing network resources: Alliances, affiliations and other relational assets. New York: Oxford University Press.

  28. Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. 2002. Cultivating a global mindset. Academy of Management Executive, 16: 116–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. 1997. Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

  30. Hallen, B. L., Katila, R., & Rosenberger, J. D. 2014. Unpacking social defenses: A resource-dependence lens on technology ventures, venture capital, and corporate relationships. Academy of Management Journal, in press.

  31. Hennart J-F. 2009. Down with MNE centric theories! Market entry and expansion as the bundling of MNE and local assets. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9): 1432–1454.

  32. Hitt, M. A., Bierman, L., Uhlenbruck, K., & Shimizu, K. 2006. The importance of resources in the internationalization professional service firms: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 1137–1157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. 2001. Strategic entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 479–491.

  34. Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. 2005. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30: 146–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. 2009. The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40: 1411–1431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kale, P., Singh, H., & Perlmutter, H. 2000. Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 217–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Katila, R., Rosenberger, J. D., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2008. Swimming with sharks: Technology ventures and corporate relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53: 295–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Keupp, M. M., & Gassmann, O. 2009. The past and the future of international entrepreneurship: A review and suggestions for developing the field. Journal of Management, 35: 600–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. 2004. Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35: 124–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Krishnan, R. T. 2010. From jugaad to systematic innovation. Bangalore: Utpreraka Foundation.

  41. Kumar, N., Mohapatra, P. K., & Chandrasekhar, S. 2009. India’s global powerhouses: How they are taking on the world. Boston: HBS Press.

  42. Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Anderson, J. C. 1993. Conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1633–1651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kumaraswamy, A., Mudambi, R., Saranga, H., & Tripathy, A. 2012. Catch-up strategies in the Indian auto components industry: Domestic firms’ responses to market liberalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 43: 368–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kundu, S. K., & Katz, J. 2003. Born-international SMEs: BI-level impacts of resources and intentions. Small Business Economics, 20: 25–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. 1998. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 461–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lorenzen, M., & Mudambi, R. 2013. Clusters, connectivity and catch-up: Bollywood and Bangalore in the global economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 13(3): 501–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lu, J. W., & Beamish, P. W. 2001. The internationalization and performance of SMEs. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 565–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. McEvily, B., & Marcus, A. 2005. Embeddedness and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 1033–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. 1999. Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 1133–1156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. McNaughton, R. B., & Bell, J. D. 1999. Brokering networks of small firms to generate social capital for growth and internationalization. Research in Global Strategic Management, 7: 63–82.

  51. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27: 415–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Mills, J. S. 1848. Principles of political economy with some of their applications to social philosophy. London: Longmans, Green and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Mudambi, R., & Navarra, P. 2004. Is knowledge power? Knowledge flows, subsidiary power and rent-seeking within MNCs. Journal of International Business Studies, 35: 385–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Mudambi, R., Schründer, C. P., & Mongar, A. 2004. How co-operative is co-operative purchasing in smaller firms?: Evidence from UK engineering SMEs. Long Range Planning, 37(1): 85–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Mudambi, R., & Zahra, S. A. 2007. The survival of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 38: 333–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23: 242–266.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Orton, J. D. 1997. From inductive to iterative grounded theory: Zipping the gap between process theory and process data. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13: 419–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. 2005. Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of internationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 29: 537–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Ozcan, P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2009. Origin of alliance portfolios: entrepreneurs, network strategies, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 246–279.

  60. Patibandla, M., & Petersen, B. 2002. Role of transnational corporations in the evolution of a high-tech industry: The case of India’s software industry. World Development, 30(9): 1561–1577.

  61. Phelps, R., Adams, R., & Bessant, J. 2007. Life cycles of growing organizations: A review with implications for knowledge and learning. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9: 1–30.

  62. Portes, A., & Sensenbrenner, J. 1993. Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology, 98: 1320–1350.

  63. Prashantham, S. 2005. Toward a knowledge-based conceptualization of internationalization. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 3: 37–52.

  64. Prashantham, S., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Dancing with gorillas: How small companies can partner effectively with MNCs. California Management Review, 51(1): 6–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Prashantham, S., & Dhanaraj, C. 2010. The dynamic influence of social capital on the international growth of new ventures. Journal of Management Studies, 47: 967–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Prashantham, S., Dhanaraj, C., & Kumar, K. 2014. Ties that bind: Ethnic ties and new venture internationalization. Long Range Planning, in press.

  67. Prashantham, S., & Floyd, S. W. 2012. Routine microprocesses and capability learning in international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 43: 544–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Prashantham, S., & McNaughton, R. B. 2006. Facilitating links between MNC Subsidiaries and SMEs: The Scottish Technology and Collaboration (STAC) initiative. International Business Review, 15: 447–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Prashantham, S., & Young, S. 2011. Post-entry speed of international new ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 35: 275–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

  71. Reuber, A. R., & Fischer, E. 1997. The influence of the management team’s international experience on the internationalization. Journal of International Business, 28: 807–825.

  72. Rindfleisch, A., & Moorman, C. 2001. The acquisition and utilization of information in new product alliances: A strength-of-ties perspective. Journal of Marketing, 65: 1–18.

  73. Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1994. Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of management review, 19: 90–118.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Sapienza, H. J., Autio, E., George, G., & Zahra, S. A. 2006. A capabilities perspective on the effects of new venture internationalization on survival and growth. Academy of Management Review, 31: 914–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Sapienza, H. J., De Clercq, D., & Sandberg, W. R. 2005. Antecedents of international and domestic learning effort. Journal of Business Venturing, 20: 437–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Schulz, M. 2001. The uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational learning and knowledge flows. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4): 661–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Stuart, T. B., & Sorenson, O. 2007. Strategic networks and entrepreneurial ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1: 211–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 36–67.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Vandaie, R., & Zaheer, A. 2014. Surviving bear hugs. Firm capability, large partner alliances, and growth. Strategic Management Journal, 35: 566–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R., & Peng, M. W. 2005. Strategy research in emerging economies: Challenging the conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies, 42: 1–34.

  81. Wright, M., Westhead, P., & Ucbasaran, D. 2007. The internationalization of SMEs and international entrepreneurship: A critique and policy implications. Regional Studies, 41: 1013–29.

  82. Xu, D., & Meyer, K. E. 2005. Linking theory and context: Strategy research in emerging economies after Wright et al. Journal of Management Studies, 50: 1322–1346.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Yang, Q., Mudambi, R., & Meyer, K. E. 2008. Conventional and reverse knowledge flows in multinational corporations. Journal of Management, 34(5): 882–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Yin, R. K. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. J. 2001. Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 587–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Tontti, V. 2002. Social capital, knowledge and the international growth of technology-based new firms. International Business Review, 11: 279–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Yli-Renko, H., & Janakiraman, R. 2008. How customer portfolio affects new product development in technology-based entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Marketing, 72: 131–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of the paper won the Best Paper Runner-up Award at the Strategic Management Society Special India conference in Hyderabad. We appreciate helpful comments on previous drafts from Julian Birkinshaw, Simon Collinson (at an AIM-sponsored paper development workshop), Rod McNaughton, guest editor Anil Nair, and two anonymous reviewers. The first author gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland and an ESRC India Visiting Scholar Grant (RES-072-27-0005).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shameen Prashantham.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 3 Measurement items and validity assessment

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Prashantham, S., Dhanaraj, C. MNE ties and new venture internationalization: Exploratory insights from India. Asia Pac J Manag 32, 901–924 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-014-9391-y

Download citation

Keyword

  • International entrepreneurship
  • New venture internationalization
  • International new venture
  • INV-MNE interactions
  • Relational capital
  • Social capital
  • India