Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 46, Issue 7, pp 733–760 | Cite as

Managerial cognition and internationalization

Article

Abstract

How do the senior decision-makers within a multinational enterprise (MNE) think through and determine an internationalization decision? Despite the cognitive foundations of several key constructs, standard internationalization models do not explicitly incorporate managerial cognition. We argue that the boundedly rational decision-maker is underspecified in international business models and this oversight contributes to weak empirical findings on experience, learning, internationalization strategy and MNE performance. Drawing on these extant models, we identify seven knowledge domains and interdependencies that may make up decision-makers’ mental models. Granted rare access to senior executives and board members engaged in a foreign direct investment decision, we find substantial heterogeneity in the mental models these individuals used to make sense of the opportunity. This variance aligns with differences in individuals’ experience along four dimensions: international breadth, depth, diversity and prior strategic decision-making. We argue these cognitive processes – how individuals exercise judgment about information search parameters, assessment and decision integration, and how decision teams coalesce in their thinking – are crucial microfoundations for modeling heterogeneity in firm-level internationalization strategies and performance.

Keywords

case theoretic approaches internationalization theories and foreign market entry bounded rationality decision-making international experience managerial cognition 

Abstract

Comment les cadres supérieurs d’une firme multinationale (FMN) pensent-ils et déterminent-ils une décision d’internationalisation ? Malgré les bases cognitives de plusieurs construits clés, les modèles standards d'internationalisation n’intègrent pas explicitement la cognition managériale. Nous soutenons que la rationalité limitée des décideurs est trop simplifiée dans les modèles d’affaires internationales et que cette erreur contribue à la faiblesse des résultats empiriques sur l'expérience, l'apprentissage, la stratégie d'internationalisation et la performance des FMN. S’appuyant sur les modèles existants, nous identifions sept domaines de connaissances et leurs interdépendances qui peuvent constituer des modèles mentaux pour les décideurs. Malgré un accès limité aux cadres supérieurs et aux membres des conseils d'administration engagés dans une décision d’investissement direct à l’étranger, nous constatons une forte hétérogénéité dans les modèles mentaux que ces personnes ont utilisés pour justifier l'opportunité d’investir. Cette hétérogénéité s’aligne avec les différences d'expérience des personnes étudiées à quatre niveaux : l’envergure internationale, la profondeur, la diversité et les prises de décision stratégique antérieures. Nous pensons que ces processus cognitifs - comment les individus exercent un jugement sur les paramètres de recherche d'information, d’évaluation et d’intégration de la décision, et comment les équipes de décision unissent leurs réflexions - sont des micro-fondations cruciales pour la modélisation de l’hétérogénéité au niveau de la performance et des stratégies d’internationalisation d’une firme.

Abstract

¿Cómo los altos ejecutivos de una multinacional analizan y determinan una decisión de internacionalización? Aunque existen bases cognitivas para varios constructos clave, los modelos tradicionales de internacionalización no incorporan explícitamente la cognición gerencial. Sostenemos que los límites racionales de los altos ejecutivos no son especificados en los modelos de negocios internacionales, y esta omisión contribuye a debilitar los hallazgos empíricos sobre experiencia, aprendizaje, estrategia de internacionalización y desempeño de las multinacionales. Partiendo de la base de estos modelos existentes, identificamos siete dominios de conocimiento e interdependencias que pueden compensar los modelos mentales de los altos ejecutivos. Basados en el escaso acceso de los altos ejecutivos y miembros de juntas directivas que participan en decisiones sobre inversión extrajera directa, encontramos una heterogeneidad sustancial en los modelos mentales que estos individuos utilizan para dar sentido a las oportunidades. Esta variación se alinea con las diferencias en las experiencias de los individuos en cuatro dimensiones: la amplitud internacionalización, la profundidad, la diversidad y la previa toma de decisiones estratégicas. Sostenemos que estos procesos cognitivos –cómo los individuos ejercen un juicio sobre los parámetros de búsqueda de información, evaluación e integración de decisiones, y cómo los equipos de decisión fusionan su pensamiento- son micro-bases cruciales para el modelado de la heterogeneidad en las estrategias y el desempeño a nivel de la empresa.

Abstract

Como os tomadores de decisão de alto nível dentro de uma empresa multinacional (MNE) analisam e definem uma decisão de internacionalização? Apesar de vários construtos importantes contarem com fundamentos cognitivos, modelos de internacionalização padrão não incorporam de maneira explícita a cognição gerencial. Nós propomos que o tomador de decisão com limitada racionalidade se apresenta subespecificado nos modelos de negócios internacionais, e esse equívoco contribui para achados empíricos fracos a respeito de experiência, aprendizado, estratégia de internacionalização e desempenho de MNE. Com base nesses modelos existentes, identificamos sete domínios de conhecimento e interdependências que podem compor os modelos mentais dos tomadores de decisão. Contando com um raro acesso a altos executivos e membros do conselho envolvidos em uma decisão sobre investimento estrangeiro direto, encontramos uma heterogeneidade substancial nos modelos mentais que esses indivíduos usaram para compreender essa oportunidade. Essa variância se alinha com as diferenças na experiência dos indivíduos ao longo de quatro dimensões: amplitude, profundidade e diversidade internacionais, e decisões estratégicas anteriormente tomadas. Defendemos que esses processos cognitivos - como os indivíduos exercem um juízo sobre os parâmetros de busca de informações, avaliação e integração de decisão, e como as equipes de decisão se integram ao seu pensamento - são micro fundações cruciais para modelar a heterogeneidade das estratégias de internacionalização e do desempenho no nível da firma.

Abstract

跨国企业内的资深决策者如何思考并决定企业的国际化决策?尽管有几个关键构念作为认知基础, 标准的国际化模型并未明确地体现管理认知。我们认为, 有限理性的决策者在国际商务模型中未被详细说明, 而这一疏忽导致了在经验、学习、国际化战略和跨国公司绩效方面实证研究结果较弱。借鉴这些现有模型, 我们找到了可以组成决策者心智模型的七个知识领域及它们的相关性。在与参与了对外直接投资决策的资深管理人员和董事会成员进行了难得的接触后, 我们发现这些个人通常用来理解机会的心智模型有相当的异质性。该差异与这些个人在国际化的宽度、深度、多样性及先前战略决策这四个维度上经历的差异一致。我们认为, 这些认知过程 — 个体如何进行对信息搜索参数、评估及决策整合的判断, 以及决策团队如何合并他们的思路 — 是建立公司层面国际化战略和绩效异质模型非常关键的微观基础。

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the editor, Ulf Andersson and the two anonymous referees for their invaluable insights, and Catherine Casler for her research assistance. We also appreciate the helpful comments from Dave Thomas, Marcus Møller Larsen and seminar participants at Bocconi University and IESE.

References

  1. Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. 2004. Using causal mapping: Individual and group; traditional and new. In M. Pidd (Ed), Systems modelling: Theory and practice: 127–145. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Adner, R., & Helfat, C. E. 2003. Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (10): 1011–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aharoni, Y. 1966. The foreign investment decision process. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aharoni, Y. 2010. Behavioral elements in foreign direct investments. Advances in International Management, 23: 73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aharoni, Y., Tihanyi, L., & Connelly, B. L. 2011. Managerial decision-making in international business: A forty-five-year retrospective. Journal of World Business, 46 (2): 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Allen, L., & Pantzalis, C. 1996. Valuation of the operating flexibility of multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 27 (4): 633–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Axelrod, R. M. 1976. Structure of decisions: The cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Barkema, H. G., & Shvyrkov, O. 2007. Does top management team diversity promote or hamper foreign expansion? Strategic Management Journal, 28 (7): 663–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barkema, H. G., & Vermeulen, F. 1997. What differences in the cultural backgrounds of partners are detrimental for international joint ventures? Journal of International Business Studies, 28 (4): 845–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barkema, H. G., & Vermeulen, F. 1998. International expansion through start-ups or acquisitions: A learning perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (1): 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barnard, C. I. 1938. The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Benito, G. R., Petersen, B., & Welch, L. S. 2009. Towards more realistic conceptualisations of foreign operation modes. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (9): 1455–1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bettman, J. R., & Weitz, B. A. 1983. Attributions in the board room: Causal reasoning in corporate annual reports. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (2): 165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Beugelsdijk, S., & Mudambi, R. 2013. MNEs as border-crossing multi-location enterprises: The role of discontinuities in geographic space. Journal of International Business Studies, 44 (5): 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bingham, C. B., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2011. Rational heuristics: The “simple rules” that strategists learn from process experience. Strategic Management Journal, 32 (13): 1437–1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Birkinshaw, J., Brannen, M. Y., & Tung, R. L. 2011. From a distance and generalizable to up close and grounded: Reclaiming a place for qualitative methods in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (5): 573–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Björkman, I. 1989. Foreign direct investments: an empirical analysis of decision making in seven Finnish firms. PhD Thesis, Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration.Google Scholar
  18. Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Weight versus voice: How foreign subsidiaries gain attention from corporate headquarters. Academy of Management Journal, 51 (3): 577–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brouthers, K. D., & Hennart, J. F. 2007. Boundaries of the firm: Insights from international entry mode research. Journal of Management, 33 (3): 395–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. 1976. The future of the multinational enterprise. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. 2009. The internalisation theory of the multinational enterprise: A review of the progress of a research agenda after 30 years. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (9): 1563–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Buckley, P. J., Devinney, T. M., & Louviere, J. J. 2007. Do managers behave the way theory suggests? A choice-theoretic examination of foreign direct investment location decision-making. Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (7): 1069–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Calof, J., & Beamish, P. 1995. Adapting to foreign markets: Explaining internationalization. International Business Review, 4 (2): 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cantwell, J. 2014. Revisiting international business theory: A capabilities-based theory of the MNE. Journal of International Business Studies, 45 (1): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Carpenter, M. A., & Fredrickson, J. W. 2001. Top management teams, global strategic posture, and the moderating role of uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (3): 533–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Carpenter, M. A., Sanders, W. G., & Gregersen, H. B. 2001. Bundling human capital with organizational context: The impact of international assignment experience on multinational firm performance and CEO pay. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (3): 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Child, J., Ng, S. H., & Wong, C. 2002. Psychic distance and internationalization: Evidence from Hong Kong firms. International Studies of Management and Organization, 32 (1): 36–56.Google Scholar
  28. Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. 1984. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9 (2): 284–295.Google Scholar
  29. Dane, E. 2010. Reconsidering the trade-off between expertise and flexibility: A cognitive entrenchment perspective. Academy of Management Review, 35 (4): 579–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Denzau, A., & North, D. C. 1994. Shared mental models. Kyklos, 47 (1): 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. 2008. Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (2): 374–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F., & Venaik, S. 2003. Managerial beliefs, market contestability and dominant strategic orientation in the electic paradigm. In J. Cantwell, & R. Narula (Eds), International business and the eclectic paradigm: 152–173. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Dow, D., & Karunaratna, A. 2006. Developing a multidimensional instrument to measure psychic distance stimuli. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (5): 578–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Doz, Y. L., Santos, J., & Williamson, P. 2001. From global to metanational: How companies win in the knowledge economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  35. Dunning, J. H. 1988. The eclectic paradigm of international production: A restatement and some possible extensions. Journal of International Business Studies, 19 (1): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Dunning, J. H. 2000. The eclectic paradigm as an envelope for economic and business theories of MNE activity. International Business Review, 9 (2): 163–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dunning, J. H. 2001. The eclectic (OLI) paradigm of international production: Past, present and future. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 8 (2): 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Eden, L., & Miller, S. R. 2004. Distance matters: Liability of foreignness, institutional distance and ownership strategy. Advances in International Management, 16: 187–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Journal, 14 (4): 532–550.Google Scholar
  40. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1): 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Elsbach, K. D., Barr, P. S., & Hargadon, A. B. 2005. Identifying situated cognition in organizations. Organization Science, 16 (4): 422–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Felin, T., Foss, N. J., Heimeriks, K. H., & Madsen, T. L. 2012. Microfoundations of routines and capabilities: Individuals, processes, and structure. Journal of Management Studies, 49 (8): 1351–1374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Felin, T., & Hesterly, W. S. 2007. The knowledge-based view, nested heterogeneity, and new value creation: Philosophical considerations on the locus of knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 32 (1): 195–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. 1996. Strategic leadership. St. Paul, MN: West.Google Scholar
  45. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. 1991. Social cognition, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  46. Gavetti, G. 2005. Cognition and hierarchy: Rethinking the microfoundations of capabilities’ development. Organization Science, 16 (6): 599–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gavetti, G. 2012. Toward a behavioral theory of strategy. Organization Science, 23 (1): 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gavetti, G., Greve, H. R., Levinthal, D. A., & Ocasio, W. 2012. The behavioral theory of the firm: Assessment and prospects. The Academy of Management Annals, 6 (1): 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. 2012. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16 (1): 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
  51. Grégoire, D. A., Barr, P. S., & Shepherd, D. A. 2010. Cognitive processes of opportunity recognition: The role of structural alignment. Organization Science, 21 (2): 413–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Heiner, R. A. 1983. The origin of predictable behavior. American Economic Review, 73 (4): 560–595.Google Scholar
  53. Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. 2014. Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal. advance online publication 1 April. doi:10.1002/smj.2247.Google Scholar
  54. Henisz, W. J., & Delios, A. 2002. Learning about the institutional environment. Advances in Strategic Management, 19: 339–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hennart, J.-F. 1982. A theory of multinational enterprise. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hennart, J.-F. 2011. A theoretical assessment of the empirical literature on the impact of multinationality on performance. Global Strategy Journal, 1 (1/2): 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Hennart, J.-F., & Slangen, A. 2015. Yes, we really do need more entry mode studies! A commentary on Shaver. Journal of International Business Studies, 46 (1): 114–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hiller, N. J., & Hambrick, D. C. 2005. Conceptualizing executive hubris: The role of (hyper-)core self-evaluation in strategic decision-making. Strategic Management Journal, 26 (4): 297–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Hodgkinson, G. P., & Healey, M. P. 2008. Cognition in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 59: 387–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Hodgkinson, G. P., & Johnson, G. 1994. Exploring the mental models of competitive strategists: The case for a processual approach. Journal of Management Studies, 31 (4): 525–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Huber, G. P., & Power, D. J. 1985. Retrospective reports of strategic-level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management Journal, 6 (2): 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hutzschenreuter, T., Pedersen, T., & Volberda, H. W. 2007. The role of path dependency and managerial intentionality: A perspective on international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (7): 1055–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Hymer, S. 1960/1976. The international operations of national firms: A study of direct foreign investment. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  65. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. 1977. The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitment. Journal of International Business Studies, 8 (1): 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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 (9): 1411–1431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Johnson-Laird, P. N. 2013. Mental models and cognitive change. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25 (2): 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kaplan, S. 2008. Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty. Organization Science, 19 (5): 729–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kaplan, S. 2011. Cognition and strategy: Reflections on two decades of progress and a look to the future. Journal of Management Studies, 48 (3): 665–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. G. 1997. Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 75 (4): 41–51.Google Scholar
  71. Kirca, A. H., Hult, G. T. M., Deligonul, S., Perry, M. Z., & Cavusgil, S. T. 2012. A multilevel examination of the drivers of firm multinationality a meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 38 (2): 502–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Kogut, B., & Singh, H. 1988. The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19 (3): 411–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Kostova, T. 1999. Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A contextual perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24 (2): 308–324.Google Scholar
  74. Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. 1999. Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24 (1): 64–81.Google Scholar
  75. Larimo, J. 1995. The foreign direct investment decision process: Case studies of different types of decision processes in Finnish firms. Journal of Business Research, 33 (1): 25–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Lee, S. H., & Makhija, M. 2009. Flexibility in internationalization: Is it valuable during an economic crisis? Strategic Management Journal, 30 (5): 537–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Levinthal, D. 2011. A behavioral approach to strategy – What’s the alternative? Strategic Management Journal, 32 (13): 1517–1523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Mahnke, V., Venzin, M., & Zahra, S. A. 2007. Governing entrepreneurial opportunity recognition in MNEs: Aligning interests and cognition under uncertainty. Journal of Management Studies, 44 (7): 1278–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Maitland, E., & Sammartino, A. 2012. Flexible footprints: Reconfiguring MNCs for new value opportunities. California Management Review, 54 (2): 92–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Maitland, E., & Sammartino, A. 2014. Decision‐making and uncertainty: The role of heuristics and experience in assessing a politically hazardous environment. Strategic Management Journal. advanced online publication 18 July. doi:10.1002/smj.2297.Google Scholar
  81. Malhotra, N., & Hinings, C. R. 2010. An organizational model for understanding internationalization processes. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (2): 330–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Marcel, J. J., Barr, P. S., & Duhaime, I. M. 2011. The influence of executive cognition on competitive dynamics. Strategic Management Journal, 32 (2): 115–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Théorôt, A. 1976. The structure of “unstructured” decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21 (2): 246–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Murtha, T. P., Lenway, S. A., & Bagozzi, R. P. 1998. Global mind‐sets and cognitive shift in a complex multinational corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 19 (2): 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Nachum, L. 2003. Liability of foreignness in global competition? Financial service affiliates in the City of London. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (12): 1187–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. O’Grady, S., & Lane, H. W. 1996. The psychic distance paradox. Journal of International Business Studies, 27 (2): 309–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Papadopoulos, N., & Martín, O. M. 2011. International market selection and segmentation: Perspectives and challenges. International Marketing Review, 28 (2): 132–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Pedersen, T., & Shaver, J. M. 2011. Internationalization revisited: The big step hypothesis. Global Strategy Journal, 1 (3–4): 263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Peirce, C. 1934. In C. Hartshorne, & P. Weiss. (Eds), Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 5, Pragmatism and Pragmaticism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Porac, J., & Thomas, H. 2002. Managing cognition and strategy: Issues, trends and future directions. In A. N. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds), Handbook of strategy and management. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  91. Powell, K. S. 2014. From M-P to MA-P: Multinationality alignment and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 45 (2): 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Powell, T. C., Lovallo, D., & Fox, C. R. 2011. Behavioral strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 32 (13): 1369–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Quiñones, M. A., Ford, J. K., & Teachout, M. S. 1995. The relationship between work experience and job performance: A conceptual and meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 48 (4): 887–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Reeb, D., Sakakibara, M., & Mahmood, I. P. 2012. From the editors: Endogeneity in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 43 (3): 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Rousseau, D. M. 2001. Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the psychological contract. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 74 (4): 511–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Rugman, A. M. 1981. Inside the multinationals: The economics of internal markets. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2003. Extending the theory of the multinational enterprise: Internalization and strategic management perspectives. Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (2): 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Shaver, M. J. 1998. Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategy performance: Does entry mode choice affect FDI survival? Management Science, 44 (4): 571–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Siggelkow, N. 2007. Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1): 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Simon, H. A. 1956. Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63 (2): 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Simon, H. A. 1987. Making management decisions: The role of intuition and emotion. Academy of Management Executive, 1 (1): 57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Slangen, A., & Hennart, J.-F. 2007. Greenfield or acquisition entry: A review of the empirical foreign establishment mode literature. Journal of International Management, 13 (4): 403–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Teece, D. J. 2014. A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 45 (1): 8–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Tesluk, P. E., & Jacobs, R. R. 1998. Toward an integrated model of work experience. Personnel Psychology, 51 (2): 321–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Gioia, D. A. 1993. Strategic sensemaking and organizational performance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (2): 239–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. 2012. Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30 (3): 167–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. 2002. Field research methods. In J. A. C. Baum (Ed), The Blackwell companion to organizations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  108. Verbeke, A., & Brugman, P. 2009. Triple testing the quality of multinationality-performance research: An internalization theory perspective. International Business Review, 18 (3): 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Verbeke, A., & Forootan, M. Z. 2012. How good are multinationality-performance (M-P) empirical studies? Global Strategy Journal, 2 (4): 332–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Walsh, J. P. 1995. Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science, 6 (3): 280–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Weick, K. E. 1979. The social psychology of organizing, 2nd edn. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  112. Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  113. Xu, D., & Shenkar, O. 2002. Institutional distance and the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 27 (4): 608–618.Google Scholar
  114. Yin, R. K. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods, 2nd edn. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  115. Zaheer, S. 1995. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (2): 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations