Advertisement

The Uppsala model: Networks and micro-foundations

  • Jan-Erik VahlneEmail author
  • Jan Johanson
RETROSPECTIVE
  • 31 Downloads

Abstract

In our award-winning 2009 article, we further developed the model that we originally presented in 1977. We observed that firms form relationships and that those relationships become networks, and thus in the end the business macro environment consists of networks of relationships between firms. Those relationships have far-reaching consequences, especially in terms of opportunity recognition and development. Since 2009, we have applied the Uppsala model to a number of different IB issues, most notably the process of globalization, which we believe is best understood as a driver of the evolution of the multinational business enterprise (MBE). We suggest that our model can still be improved further by recognizing the general psychological characteristics of managers, for instance, what makes them tend to shy away from radical change and to prefer instead an incremental approach? What does this mean for internationalization? Generally, we think that the closer our assumptions are to reality, the better the resulting model.

Keywords

network evolution cognitive and emotional processes radical change JIBS Decade Award 

French

Dans notre article primé en 2009, nous avons développé le modèle que nous avions initialement présenté en 1977. Nous avons observé que les entreprises forment des relations et que ces relations deviennent des réseaux de sorte que, en fin de compte, l’environnement macroéconomique des entreprises est constitué de réseaux de relations entre firmes. Ces relations ont des conséquences d’une grande portée, en particulier en termes d’opportunités de reconnaissance et de développement. Depuis 2009, nous avons appliqué le modèle d’Uppsala à un certain nombre de problématiques liées à l’IB, en particulier sur le processus de mondialisation que nous pensons être mieux compris comme un moteur de l’évolution de l’entreprise multinationale (MBE). Nous suggérons que notre modèle peut encore être amélioré en reconnaissant les caractéristiques psychologiques générales des dirigeants, par exemple, pourquoi ont-ils tendance à éviter les changements radicaux et à préférer plutôt une approche progressive? Qu’est-ce que cela signifie pour l’internationalisation? En général, nous pensons que plus nos hypothèses sont proches de la réalité, meilleur est le modèle qui en résulte.

Spanish

En nuestro galardonado artículo del 2009, desarrollamos aún más el modelo que presentamos originalmente en 1977. Observamos que las empresas forman relaciones y que esas relaciones se convierten en redes, y de este modo, al final el entorno macro empresarial consiste en redes de relaciones entre empresas. Esas relaciones tienen consecuencias de gran alcance, especialmente en términos de reconocimiento de oportunidad y desarrollo. Desde el 2009, hemos aplicado el modelo Uppsala a un número de diferentes aspectos de Negocios Internacionales, más notablemente el proceso de globalización, el cual creemos es entendido mejor como un habilatdor de la evolución del negocio empresarial multinacional. Sugerimos que nuestro módelo puede ser mejorado aún más al reconocer las caracteristicas psicológicas de los gerentes, por ejemplo, ¿qué los hace tender a rehuir de un cambio radical y preferir una aproximación incremental?, ¿qué significa esto para la internacionalización? Generalmente, pensamos que cúanto más cercanos esten nuestras suposiciones de la realidad, mejor será el modelo resultante.

Portuguese

Em nosso premiado artigo de 2009, desenvolvemos ainda mais o modelo que apresentamos originalmente em 1977. Observamos que empresas formam relacionamentos e que tais relacionamentos se tornam redes e, portanto, no final, o macro ambiente de negócios consiste em redes de relacionamentos entre empresas. Esses relacionamentos têm consequências de longo alcance, especialmente em termos de reconhecimento e desenvolvimento de oportunidades. Desde 2009, aplicamos o modelo de Uppsala a várias distintas questões de IB, mais notadamente ao processo de globalização, que acreditamos ser melhor entendido como um direcionador da evolução da empresa multinacional de negócios (MBE). Sugerimos que nosso modelo possa ser aprimorado ainda mais, reconhecendo as características psicológicas gerais de gerentes, por exemplo, o que os faz tender a evitar mudanças radicais e preferir uma abordagem incremental? O que isso significa para a internacionalização? Geralmente, pensamos que quanto mais próximas nossas suposições estão da realidade, melhor o modelo resultante.

Chinese

在我们2009年的获奖文章中, 我们进一步开发了在1977年最初提出的模型。我们观察到, 企业形成关系, 且这些关系成为网络, 因而最终商业的宏观环境由企业之间的关系网络组成。这些关系具有深远的影响, 特别是在机会的识别与开发方面。自2009年以来, 我们已将Uppsala模型应用于许多不同的IB问题, 尤其是全球化的进程, 我们认为最好将其理解为跨国商业企业(MBE)演进的驱动力。我们建议, 我们的模型仍可以通过认识经理人的一般心理特征来进一步改进, 例如, 是什么使得他们倾向于躲开根本性的变化, 而倾向于渐进式的方法?这对国际化意味着什么?一般来讲, 我们认为我们的假设离现实越近, 得到的模型就越好。

Notes

REFERENCES

  1. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. 2011. Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271.Google Scholar
  2. Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. 1976. The future of the multinational enterprise. New York: Holmes & Meier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chetty, S., & Blankenburg Holm, D. 2000. Internationalization of small to medium-sized manufacturing firms: A network approach. International Business Review, 9(1), 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen, W. N., & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorbtive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coviello, N., Kano, L., & Liesch, P. W. 2017. Adapting the Uppsala model to a modern world: Macro-context and micro-foundations. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9), 1151–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coviello, N. E., & Munro, H. 1995. Growing the entrepreneurial firm: Networking for international market development. European Journal of Marketing, 29(7), 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coviello, N. E., & Munro, H. 1997. Network relationships and the internationalization process of small software firms. International Business Review, 6(4), 361–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cyert, R. D., & March, J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Dunning, J. H. 1980. Towards an eclectic theory of international production: Some empirical tests. Journal of International Business Studies, 11(1), 9–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eriksson, K., Johanson, J., Majkgård, A., & Sharma, D. D. 1997. Experiential knowledge and cost in the internationalization process. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(2), 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Figueira-de-Lemos, F., Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. 2011. Risk management in the internationalization process of the firm. Journal of World Business, 46(2), 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forsgren, M. 2002. The concept of learning in the Uppsala internationalization process model. International Business Review, 11(3), 257–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ghauri, P., Hadjikhani, A., & Johanson, J. (Eds.). 2005. Managing opportunity development in business networks. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  14. Hägg, I., & Johanson, J. (Eds.). 1982. Företag i nätverk (Firms in networks). Stockholm: SNS.Google Scholar
  15. Håkansson, H. 1989. Corporate technological behavior: Cooperation and networks. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Håkansson, H., & Östberg, C. 1975. Industrial marketing: An organizational problem? Industrial Marketing Management, 4(2/3), 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Håkansson, L., & Kappen, P. 2017. The ‘casino model’ of internationalization: An alternative Uppsala paradigm. Journal of International Business, 48(9), 1103–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hiatt, S. R., & Carlos, W. C. 2019. From farms to fuel tanks: Stakeholder framing contests and entrepreneurship in the emergent U.S. biodiesel market. Strategic Management Journal, 40(6), 865–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hörnell, E., & Vahlne, J.-E. 1972. Information vid etableringsbeslut (Information for decisions to enter a foreign market). In J. Johanson (Ed.), Exportstrategiska problem (Exportstrategic problems). Stockholm: Askild & Kärnekull.Google Scholar
  20. Huy, Q., & Zott, C. 2019. Exploring the affective underpinnings of dynamic managerial capabilities: How managers’ emotion regulation behaviors mobilize resources for their firms. Strategic Management Journal, 40(1), 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johanson, J. 1966. Svenskt kvalitetsstål på utländska marknader (Swedish special steel in foreign markets). FL thesis, Department of Business Studies, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
  22. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. 1990. The mechanism of internationalization. International Marketing Review, 7(4), 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. 2003. Business relationship learning and commitment in the internationalization process. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. 2006. Commitment and opportunity development in the internationalization process: A note on the Uppsala internationalization process model. Management International Review, 46(2), 1–14.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Johanson, J., & Wiedersheim-Paul, F. 1975. The internationalization of the firm—Four Swedish cases. Journal of Management Studies, 12(3), 305–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kahneman, D. 2003. Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Knight, F. 1921. Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  30. Madhok, A. 2006. How much does ownership really matter? Equity and trust relations in joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(1), 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. 1987. Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science, 33(11), 1404–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. 1985. Of strategies, deliberate and emerging. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 2002. Evolutionary theorizing in economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(2), 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Petersen, B., Pedersen, T., & Sharma, D. D. 2003. The role of knowledge in firms’ internationalization process: Wherefrom and whereto? In A. Blomstermo & D. D. Sharma (Eds.), Learning in the internationalization process of firms (pp. 36–55). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  37. Powell, T. C., Lovallo, D., & Fox, C. R. 2011. Behavioral strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1369–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Raffaeli, R., Glynn, M. A., & Tushman, M. 2019. Frame flexibility: The role of cognitive and emotional framing in innovation adoption by incumbent firms. Strategic Management Journal, 40(7), 1013–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Santangelo, G. D., & Meyer, K. E. 2017. Internationalization as an evolutionary process. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9), 1114–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sarasvathy, S. 2001. Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schweizer, R., Vahlne, J.-E. & Johanson, J. 2010. Internationalization as an entrepreneurial process. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 8(4), 343–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shackle, G. L. S. 1979. Imagination and the nature of choice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Sharma, A., Kumar, V., Yan, J., Borah, S. B., & Adhikary, A. 2019. Understanding the structural characteristics of a firm´s whole buyer-supplier network and its impact on international business performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(3), 365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. United Nations. 2000. World investment report. Geneva: UN.Google Scholar
  45. Vahlne, J.-E., Hamberg, M., & Schweizer, R. 2017. Management under uncertainty—The unavoidable risk-taking. Multinational Business Review, 25(2), 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vahlne, J.-E., & Ivarsson, I. 2014. The globalization of Swedish MNCs—Empirical evidence and theoretical explanation. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(3), 248–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vahlne, J.-E., Ivarsson, I., & Johanson, J. 2011. The tortuous road to globalization for Volvo´s heavy truck business: Extending the scope of the Uppsala model. International Business Review, 20(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vahlne, J.-E., & Johanson, J. 2002. New technology, new business environments and new internationalization processes? In V. Havila, M. Forsgren, & H. Håkansson (Eds.), Critical perspectives on internationalization. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  49. Vahlne, J.-E., & Johanson, J. 2011. Markets as networks: Implications for strategy-making. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(4), 484–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vahlne, J.-E., & Johanson, J. 2013. The Uppsala model on evolution of the multinational business enterprise—From internalization to coordination of networks. International Marketing Review, 30(3), 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vahlne, J.-E., & Johanson, J. 2017. From internationalization to evolution: The Uppsala model at 40 years. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9), 1087–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vahlne, J.-E., Schweizer, R., & Johanson, J. 2012. Overcoming the liability of outsidership—The challenge of HQ of the global firm. Journal of International Management, 18(3), 224–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. van Tulder, R., Verbeke, A., & Jankowska, B. (Eds.). 2019. International business in a VUCA world: The changing role of states and firms. Progress in International Business Research (Vol. 14). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  54. Weick, K. E. 1985. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Yamin, M., & Kurt, Y. 2018. Revisiting the Uppsala internationalization process model: Social network theory and overcoming the liability of outsidership. International Marketing Review, 35(1), 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business, Economics and Law, Centre of International Business StudiesUniversity of GothenburgGöteborgSweden
  2. 2.Department of Business StudiesUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations