Management International Review

, Volume 58, Issue 2, pp 251–280 | Cite as

Interactions Among Factors Driving and Inhibiting the Early Internationalization of Small, Young Technology Enterprises

Research Article
  • 156 Downloads

Abstract

This study traces the early, rapid internationalization of small, young technology enterprises (SYTEs) to the interaction between industry dynamism and resource constraints. The evidence collected in this study shows that industry dynamism drives the speed of the internationalization and resource constraints inhibit it. Niche and strategic alliance strategies are found to mediate or moderate the relationships among resource constraints, industry dynamism and the speed. These mechanisms have important managerial implications.

Keywords

Resource constraints Industry dynamism Niche operation Strategic alliances Early internationalization SYTEs 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by Chinese University of Hong Kong (Grant no. 3132638).

References

  1. Almor, T., Tarba, S., & Margaloit, A. (2014). Maturing, technology-based, born-global companies: Surviving through mergers and acquisitions. Management International Review, 54(4), 421–444.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, B., Covin, J., & Slevin, D. (2009). Understanding the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and strategic learning capability: An empirical investigation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(3), 218–240.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.Google Scholar
  4. Armstrong, D., & Overton, T. (1977). Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.Google Scholar
  5. Battilana, J., & Casciaro, Y. (2012). Change agents, networks, and institutions: A contingency theory of organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 381–398.Google Scholar
  6. Bausch, A., & Krist, M. (2007). The effect of context-related moderators on the internationalization–performance relationship: Evidence from meta-analysis. Management International Review, 47(3), 319–347.Google Scholar
  7. Bilkey, W. J., & Tesar, G. (1977). The export behavior of smaller-sized Wisconsin manufacturing SMEs. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 93–97.Google Scholar
  8. Cavusgil, T. S., & Knight, G. (2015). The born global firm: An entrepreneurial and capabilities perspective on early and rapid internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(1), 3–16.Google Scholar
  9. Chang, S. J., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 178–184.Google Scholar
  10. Chetty, S., & Campbell-Hunt, C. (2003). Explosive international growth and problems of success amongst small to medium-sized firms. International Small Business Journal, 21(1), 5–27.Google Scholar
  11. Chetty, S., & Galkina, T. (2015). Effectuation and networking of internationalizing SMEs. Management International Review, 55(5), 647–676.Google Scholar
  12. Coviello, N. (2015). Re-thinking research on born globals. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(1), 17–26.Google Scholar
  13. Coviello, N., & Cox, M. (2006). The resource dynamics of international new venture networks. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 113–132.Google Scholar
  14. Covin, J. G., & Miller, D. (2014). International entrepreneurial orientation: Conceptual considerations, research themes, measurement issues, and future research directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 11–44.Google Scholar
  15. Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P., & Covin, T. J. (1990). Content and performance of growth-seeking strategies: A comparison of small firms in high- and low-technology industries. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(6), 391–412.Google Scholar
  16. Cui, A., Calantone, R., & Griffith, D. (2011). Strategic change and termination of interfirm partnerships. Strategic Management Journal, 32(4), 402–423.Google Scholar
  17. Cumming, D., Sapienza, H. J., Siege, D. S., & Wright, M. (2009). International entrepreneurship: Managerial and policy implications. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(4), 283–296.Google Scholar
  18. Dai, L., Maksimov, V., Gilbert, B., & Fernhaber, S. (2014). Entrepreneurial orientation and international scope: The differential roles of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(4), 511–524.Google Scholar
  19. Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 52–73.Google Scholar
  20. Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm performance: Tests of contingency and configuration models. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 677–695.Google Scholar
  21. Eriksson, K., Johanson, J., Majkgard, A., & Sharma, D. (1997). Experiential knowledge and cost in the internationalization process. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(2), 337–360.Google Scholar
  22. Fan, T., & Phan, P. (2007). International new venture: Revisiting the influence behind the ‘born global’ firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(7), 1113–1131.Google Scholar
  23. Fernhaber, S. A., McDougall-Covin, P. P., & Shepherd, D. A. (2009). International entrepreneurship: Leveraging internal and external knowledge sources. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(4), 297–320.Google Scholar
  24. Fiegenbaum, A. V., Hart, S., & Schendel, D. (1996). Strategic reference point theory. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 219–235.Google Scholar
  25. Filatotchev, I., Liu, X., Buck, T., & Wright, M. (2009). The export orientation and export performance of high-technology SMEs in emerging markets: The effects of knowledge transfer by returnee entrepreneurs. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(6), 1005–1021.Google Scholar
  26. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.Google Scholar
  27. Freeman, S., Edwards, R., & Schroder, B. (2006). How smaller born-global firms use networks and alliances to overcome constraints to rapid internationalization. Journal of International Marketing, 14(3), 33–63.Google Scholar
  28. Geringer, J. M., & Herbert, L. (1991). Measuring performance of international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(2), 249–263.Google Scholar
  29. Goerzen, A. (2007). Alliance networks and firm performance: The impact of repeated partnerships. Strategic Management Journal, 28(5), 487–509.Google Scholar
  30. Golovko, E., & Valentini, G. (2011). Exploring the complementarity between innovation and export for SMEs’ growth. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(3), 362–380.Google Scholar
  31. Gulati, R., Khanna, T., & Nohria, N. (1994). Unilateral commitments and the importance of process in alliances. Sloan Management Review, 35(3), 61–69.Google Scholar
  32. Hilmersson, M., & Johanson, M. (2016). Speed of SME internationalization and performance. Management International Review, 56(1), 67–94.Google Scholar
  33. Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Kim, H. (1997). International diversification: Effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 767–798.Google Scholar
  34. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23–32.Google Scholar
  35. Jones, M. V., Coviello, N. E., & Tang, Y. (2011). International entrepreneurship research (1989–2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 632–659.Google Scholar
  36. Jong, J., Parker, S., Wennekers, S., & Wu, C. (2015). Entrepreneurial behavior in organizations: Does job design matters? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 981–995.Google Scholar
  37. Karagozoglu, N., & Lindell, M. (1998). Internationalization of small and medium-sized technology-based firms: An exploratory study. Journal of Small Business Management, 36(1), 44–59.Google Scholar
  38. Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2004). Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2), 124–141.Google Scholar
  39. Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2005). A taxonomy of born-global firms. Management International Review, 45(3), 15–35.Google Scholar
  40. Kotha, R., Zheng, Y., & George, G. (2011). Entry into new niches: The effects of firm age and the expansion of technological capabilities on innovative output and impact. Strategic Management Journal, 32(9), 1011–1024.Google Scholar
  41. Li, J., Lam, K., Qian, G., & Fang, Y. (2006). The effects of institutional ownership on corporate governance and performance: An empirical assessment in Hong Kong. Management International Review, 46(3), 259–276.Google Scholar
  42. Li, L., Qian, G., & Qian, Z. (2012). Early internationalization and performance of small high-tech “born globals”. International Marketing Review, 29(5), 536–561.Google Scholar
  43. Li, L., Qian, G., & Qian, Z. (2014). Inconsistencies in international product strategies and performance of high-tech firms. Journal of International Marketing, 22(3), 94–113.Google Scholar
  44. Li, L., Qian, G., & Qian, Z. (2015a). Why do small ‘born globals’ internationalize faster than small non-‘born globals’? Global Strategic Journal, 5(4), 303–320.Google Scholar
  45. Li, L., Qian, G., & Qian, Z. (2015b). Should small, young technology-based firms internalize transactions in their internationalization? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 839–862.Google Scholar
  46. Lu, J. W., & Beamish, P. W. (2001). The internationalization and performance of SMEs. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 565–586.Google Scholar
  47. Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.Google Scholar
  48. Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 429–451.Google Scholar
  49. Luo, Y. (2007). Are joint venture partnerships more opportunistic in a more volatile environment? Strategic Management Journal, 28(1), 39–60.Google Scholar
  50. Mathews, J., & Zander, I. (2007). The international entrepreneurial dynamics of accelerated internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(3), 387–403.Google Scholar
  51. Mudambi, R., & Zahra, S. A. (2007). The survival of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(2), 333–352.Google Scholar
  52. Nakos, G., Brouthers, K., & Dimitratos, P. (2014). International alliances with competitors and non-competitors: The disparate impact on SME international performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(2), 167–182.Google Scholar
  53. Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  54. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  55. Oviatt, B., & McDougall, P. (1994). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 45–64.Google Scholar
  56. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  57. Puig, F., Gonzalez-Loureiro, M., & Ghauri, P. (2014). Internationalization for survival: The case of new ventures. Management International Review, 54(5), 653–673.Google Scholar
  58. Qian, G., Khoury, T. A., Peng, M. W., & Qian, Z. (2010). The performance implications of intra- and inter-regional geographic diversification. Strategic Management Journal, 31(9), 1018–1030.Google Scholar
  59. Qian, G., & Li, L. (2003). Profitability of small- and medium-sized enterprises in high-tech industries: The case of the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 24(9), 881–887.Google Scholar
  60. Qian, G., Li, L., Li, J., & Qian, Z. (2008). Regional diversification and firm performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(2), 197–214.Google Scholar
  61. Qian, G., Li, L., & Rugman, A. M. (2013). Liability of country foreignness and liability of regional foreignness: Their effects on geographic diversification and firm performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(6), 635–647.Google Scholar
  62. Rugman, A. M. (2005). The regional multinationals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Sampson, R. (2007). R&D alliances and firm performance: The impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 364–386.Google Scholar
  64. Sarangee, K., & Echambadi, R. (2014). Firm-specific determinants of product line technology strategies in high-technology markets. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(2), 149–166.Google Scholar
  65. Tallman, S. B., & Li, J. (1996). Effects of international diversity and product diversity on the performance of multinational firms. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 179–196.Google Scholar
  66. Wales, W. J., Patel, P. C., Parida, V., & Kreiser, P. M. (2013). Nonlinear effects of entrepreneurial orientation on small firm performance: The moderating role of resource orchestration capabilities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(2), 93–121.Google Scholar
  67. Welch, C., Nummela, N., & Liesch, P. (2016). The internationalization process model revisited: An agenda for future research. Management International Review, 56(6), 783–804.Google Scholar
  68. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  69. Yang, H., Zheng, Y., & Zhao, X. (2014). Exploration or exploitation? Small firms’ alliance strategies with large firms. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 146–157.Google Scholar
  70. Yu, T., Subramaniam, M., & Cannella, A. (2009). Rivalry deterrence in international markets: Contingencies governing the mutual forbearance hypothesis. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 127–147.Google Scholar
  71. Zahra, S. A., & Bogner, W. C. (1999). Technology and software new ventures’ performance: Exploring the moderating effects of the competitive environment. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2), 135–173.Google Scholar
  72. Zahra, S. A., & Garvis, D. M. (2000). International corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance: The moderating effect of international environmental hostility. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5), 469–492.Google Scholar
  73. Zahra, S. A., Matherne, B. P., & Carleton, J. M. (2003). Technological resource leveraging and the internationalization of new ventures. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 163–186.Google Scholar
  74. Zahra, S. A., Neubaum, D. O., & Huse, H. (1997). The effect of the environment on export performance among telecommunications new ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 22, 25–46.Google Scholar
  75. Zander, I., McDougall-Covin, P., & Rose, E. L. (2015). Born globals and international business: Evolution of a field of research. Journal of International Business Studies, 46, 27–35.Google Scholar
  76. Zhou, L., Barnes, B., & Lu, Y. (2010). Entrepreneurial proclivity, capability upgrading and performance advantage of newness among international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(5), 882–905.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management, Business SchoolThe Chinese University of Hong KongSha TinPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.York UniversityTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Xiamen UniversityXiamenPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations